Hantek - Tekway - DSO hack - get 200MHz bw for free

[bobblehat]

No I don't need the bandwidth, I was just curious and wanted to check that this scope is hackable in the same way that the Voltcraft DSO-3062C was.

Perhaps when I get brave, I will whip the case off and have a look inside.

Thanks again for your help.

[f15h]

I am experiecing irregularieties when capturing data with 2.5 and 5 MSPS Samplerate and exporting them to CSV

HW: 1007x555583e8
SW: 2.06.3(121027.0)

I use the following settings to get 2.5MSPS
2 Ch.
Timebase: 8ms
500kpts Memory

Probe CH1 is connected to the 1khz Signal-Out

When using the internal measurement functions 1khz Frequency is correctly detected - but when exporting the data to CSV a "zerocross"-measurement shows 3206 Samples per Periode, which translates to 3.206 MSPS

The same problem occures with 1Ch, 8ms, 1MPTS Memory and 5MSPS - there I measure approx. 6.375 MSPS

The problem doesnt show up for example with shor memory 4kpts, 2CH, 25KSPS - there I measure exactly 25 Samples for each Periode.

[mightyzen]

Just got a Voltcraft DSO-1062D. It appears to be another rebadged Tekway DST-1062B with 10070x555583eb hardware and 2.06.3(121012.0) software.

Does the 555583eb indicate a new FPGA release for the DSO-1062D, namely 83EB? If so, does anyone know how it compares to the 83E8 and 83E9 FPGA configs?

And: would it be possible to use the 83EB on the Voltcraft 3062C and/or the regular Hanteks?

[tinhead]

Just got a Voltcraft DSO-1062D. It appears to be another rebadged Tekway DST-1062B with 10070x555583eb hardware and 2.06.3(121012.0) software.

Does the 555583eb indicate a new FPGA release for the DSO-1062D, namely 83EB? If so, does anyone know how it compares to the 83E8 and 83E9 FPGA configs?

And: would it be possible to use the 83EB on the Voltcraft 3062C and/or the regular Hanteks?

yes, there is 83EA and 83EB out there. Afaik they should both improve jitter (bug nr. 6 in the bug list),
what exactly behind i don't know. However they reducing (as far i know for 83EB) the sampe rate in
long mem mode - see attached.

EDIT: Official answer is -> there are different DACs in sample/hold, therefore FPGA has been changed.
Well, i do have here DSO with different DAC and it's using E9 design, so maybe even another one change?
Maybe someone having 83EA and/or 83EB could shot some pictures of mainboard?

EDIT: some of the things i said here are wrong, the firmware - at the time of testing - was cheating about the enabled memory
depth, therefor i got higher values than they really are (none of the FPGA designs allows 400MS/s or 500MS/s when both
channels and long memory enabled). Still, it make sense to change to 83E9 design if someone have 83E8, however it does
not make sense to downgrade to 83E9 if someone have already 83EA/83EB/83EC/83ED (or later) version installed.

I living the attached picture for historical reason, but as said, none of the designs can sample with 400MS/s or 500MS/s
while dual channels and long memory enabled. The maximal sample rate in long memory mode with dual channel
enabled is - and this depends on model, 200MS/s or 250MS/s.

[mightyzen]

So, reading from your chart, I conclude the 83E9 is the best choice at the moment and there is no need to update the 3062C to the 83EB firmware.

Anyhow, is there a download link for the 83EB firmware if one would like to experiment? It is not in the fpga archive is it?

[Crenwick]

Hello Tinhead,

Do you have some news for the MSO extention ?  Did you received the firmware ?

What's the status ?

Bernard

[tinhead]

So, reading from your chart, I conclude the 83E9 is the best choice at the moment and there is no need to update the 3062C to the 83EB firmware.

Anyhow, is there a download link for the 83EB firmware if one would like to experiment? It is not in the fpga archive is it?

see my edits above. I've asked some ppl having EB to update to E9, they didn't got any problems. I do have E9 with
diferent DAC (as in original E9 hardware) and both EB and E9 are working for me (however i have to recalibrate
with EB - and yes it's slower sampling).

I'm happy that i got official answer, but somehow it does not make sense - ok, maybe DSOs with EA and EB designs have again different DACs than my E9 (with already different DA as in previous E9 hardware versions).

Maybe someone having 83EA and/or 83EB could shot some pictures of mainboard?


previous E9 hardware (DAC) - the DAC is LTC2601 <- ignore that one "tricky ic" above DAC, this is repair PCB.



current E9 hardware (DAC) - the DAC is on bottom side, it is DAC8551

[tinhead]

Hello Tinhead,

Do you have some news for the MSO extention ?  Did you received the firmware ?

What's the status ?

Bernard

yes, please don't kill me, sending update mail in a second ...

[mightyzen]

I'm happy that i got official answer, but somehow it does not make sense - ok, maybe DSOs with EA and EB designs have again different DACs than my E9 (with already different DA as in previous E9 hardware versions).

My 3062C has its DAC on the bottom of the board. I did not make that many photos of the bottom, as it did not seem that interesting at the time. This is the best I have of the DAC. Can you make something of it?

PS: page 100 and counting

[nadona]

First of all, thank you tinhead for all your awesome works. Now I own 200MHz for the price of 60MHz.
I have a question. How do I know my scope is successfully upgraded to 200MHz other than boot up logo of DSO5202B?

[tinhead]

My 3062C has its DAC on the bottom of the board. I did not make that many photos of the bottom, as it did not seem that interesting at the time. This is the best I have of the DAC. Can you make something of it?

yes, this is DAC8551 (D81 marking code). With a good angle, and good eyes (haha) you can see it through the small
enclosure holes.

[bobblehat]

Looking through the holes in the enclosure, I can see that the bottom side DAC footprint on my Voltcraft DSO-1062D is unpopulated. So probably no help really!

Interesting that MasterFX's DSO-1062D was loaded with e8 configuration!?

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/hantek-tekway-dso-hack-get-200mhz-bw-for-free/msg169434/#msg169434


HW:10070x555583eb
SW:2.06.3(121012.0)

[tinhead]

yeah, the "DAC difference" statement didn't make much sense, but on the other side
as long FPGA desigs are interchangeable and hacks are working who really cares about "the rest".

[leverler6]

o my, the 5102 on ebay @ USD436, is this worth a grab?

[Spawn]

If you look further there is also one for USD389 

[mightyzen]

One issue that I did not find in the bug list, is the resolution of the trigger frequency display. I have a signal of 21.58Hz, it displays 21.0000Hz in the bottom. If it is not possible to measure it better than with 1Hz resolution, display at least 21Hz instead of 21.0000Hz. 

[leverler6]

hmmm didnt see any of that, what should i search under?

If you look further there is also one for USD389 

[tinhead]

hmmm didnt see any of that, what should i search under?

If you look further there is also one for USD389 

ebay item 140872766162

[tinhead]

One issue that I did not find in the bug list, is the resolution of the trigger frequency display. I have a signal of 21.58Hz, it displays 21.0000Hz in the bottom. If it is not possible to measure it better than with 1Hz resolution, display at least 21Hz instead of 21.0000Hz. 

well, it's hard to say if this is really bug. The counter have 1Hz resolution, and i double checked the firmware so yes
there is way to set timeout for counter but i don't found anything resolution related. All i can see is 32bit long
data read directly from FPGA, and if i read it manually the smallest value is 1Hz.

Of course it's crazy, for high-unknon frequencies the counter is very good indicator to prevent user from
aliasing mistakes, but for lower freqiencies it's simply not good enough.
Sure, we can here use the measure, which does have 10mHz resolution, but yeah it would be nice to have the
counter as well with 10mHz resolution.

On the other side, there is up to 30ppm jitter so the couner would be not work very "stable". Sure, they could create a nice
reciprocal counter, and then change the menu/dispplay , and add maybe better oscillator (e.g. Crystek CCHD-575-25-100),
but then honestly the DSO would costs lot of more money. So i don't know how much space is there in FPGA, i can ask
to implement bette rcounter, but i can't promise anything.

[leverler6]

aargh ... this vendor does not ship to my country ...

hmmm didnt see any of that, what should i search under?

If you look further there is also one for USD389 

ebay item 140872766162

[mightyzen]

So i don't know how much space is there in FPGA, i can ask to implement better counter, but i can't promise anything.

Better counter would be nice. But what irritates me is the .0000 giving the false sense of accuracy. So if they would just implement:

Code: [Select]

if( freq < 1000 )
  printf("%dHz", freq);
else if( freq < 1000000 )
  printf("%d.%03dkHz", freq / 1000, freq % 1000);
else
  printf("%d.%03dMHz", freq / 1000000, (freq / 1000) % 1000);

You have patched dso.exe before ... 

[ElektroQuark]

Just bought a Voltcraft DSO-1062D. Lets see when it arrives...

[TRIO_Smartcal]

We've dropped our prices for the Tekway/Hantek.   Anybody wanting to get a 60MHz to try upgrading to 200MHz, then try here.....

http://triosmartcal.com.au/2668-tekway-dst1102b-digital-oscilloscope-with-wide-screen-hd-display.html


.......or if you don't wish to blow your warranty then here's the 100 MHz and 200 MHz versions


100 MHz     http://triosmartcal.com.au/1961-tekway-dst1102b-digital-oscilloscope-with-wide-screen-hd-display.html

200 MHz     http://triosmartcal.com.au/2669-tekway-dst1102b-digital-oscilloscope-with-wide-screen-hd-display.html

[tinhead]

1500 replies and (nearly huhu, made it) 250000 views ... Dave, where is my DMM ? 

[Polossatik]

A Rigol?