Is Rigol DS1054Z still a good option in 2019?

[ebastler]

"These go to eleven!"
-- Nigel Tufnel, Spinal Tap

[Fungus]

Look more closely:

The Rigol's grid uses a cinematic 16:9 aspect ratio while the others are still using a "last-century" 4:3 aspect ratio.

[ebastler]

The Rigol's grid uses a cinematic 16:9 aspect ratio while Siglent is still using a "last-century" 4:3 ratio.

It's surprising on how many levels such a short comment can be wrong. 

You are comparing Rigol's new model with Siglent's old one there. The 4:3 ratio you state is clearly incorrect. And I can't see why 16:9 -- or the even narrower observation slit which the DHO800 and 900 leave for actual trace display -- would be considered an advantage per se. Displaying four curves in parallel, let alone 16 logic traces on the DHO900,  is really cramming the usable screen area; this was one of the reasons I excluded these models from consideration.

[Fungus]

I guess it was too subtle.

(Note: I did change it to say "the others" while you were posting that because I figured the "Siglent" trigger-word was too much... )

[Fungus]

You are comparing Rigol's new model with Siglent's old one there.

Calm down.

I'm comparing the models that were mentioned in this thread using screenshots from the video that was posted for me to answer to, nothing more.

[ebastler]

I am calm enough, thanks. My main point is that the cinemascope display ratio is not actually desirable on a scope.

It seems pretty clear that these displays are used because they are widely available and cheap. But for displaying multiple traces on top of each other they are actually a bad choice -- especially when combined with wide bands of status displays and controls at the top and bottom of the screen, which reduce vertical screen real estate even more. 

[Fungus]

I am calm enough, thanks. My main point is that the cinemascope display ratio is not actually desirable on a scope.

We're not talking about the display, we're talking about the number of horizontal grid squares.

Here's the post: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/is-rigol-ds1054z-still-a-good-option-in-2019/msg5290006/#msg5290006

[2N3055]

I am calm enough, thanks. My main point is that the cinemascope display ratio is not actually desirable on a scope.

It seems pretty clear that these displays are used because they are widely available and cheap. But for displaying multiple traces on top of each other they are actually a bad choice -- especially when combined with wide bands of status displays and controls at the top and bottom of the screen, which reduce vertical screen real estate even more.

Many a times I wished for portrait type of display... 
So I can have MSO display, and measurements and decodes....

Cinematic displays are horrible on a PC too unless they are large enough size.

[ebastler]

We're not talking about the display, we're talking about the number of horizontal grid squares.

Here's the post: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/is-rigol-ds1054z-still-a-good-option-in-2019/msg5290006/#msg5290006

I am aware, and had replied to that with the "goes to eleven" comment. The number of grid squares on the screen is pretty irrelevant in my opinion. I do like 10, since it makes it trivially easy to tell the total time of the displayed sweep.

You brought up the "16:9" topic. The fact that Rigol's grid boxes are squashed is a direct consequence of the widescreen display, and the even wider/lower display area for the traces, of course. They just squashed 8x10 divisions into the available space; on the DHO800 they are even more compressed than on the DHO1000. Again, I don't think the proportions of the grid matter much, but the limited overall vertical space does. 

[Aldo22]

I mean display division horizontal x vertical grid
SDS1204x have 14x8
DS1054Z have 12x8
and DHO804 have only 10x8
Is it not too few?

The winnner is...... HANTEK!
It has 15x8! 

[ebastler]

The winnner is...... HANTEK!
It has 15x8! 

They might even have 15.3!   Hantek are following the other school of thought apparently: The grid must be square; let's use whatever odd fraction of grid squares fits on the screen...

[Fungus]

You brought up the "16:9" topic.

It was a joke. I have no idea why they made them that shape.

The fact that Rigol's grid boxes are squashed is a direct consequence of the widescreen display

No it isn't. They could easily have used square boxes and got 12 or 14 of them.

It has 15x8! 

Oh, come on....

No matter what else it should be an even number so there's a line in the center.

[Aldo22]

No matter what else it should be an even number so there's a line in the center.

There is a line in the center.
The two outer squares are halved. It's Hantek 

[rsjsouza]

Look more closely:

The Rigol's grid uses a cinematic 16:9 aspect ratio while the others are still using a "last-century" 4:3 aspect ratio.

Ugh... rectangular graticule. 

One of the things that turns me completely off on the DSOX3000 series from Keysight and makes me much more favourable to the DSOX4000 series (although my budget is quite short for either families)

[Wolfgang]

DS1054Z is OK for bench use without remote apps. All DS1000s have a USB bug that makes mass data transfer impossible.
The new DHOs are nice, however, so maybe that one is better.

[baldurn]

One axis is time, the other voltage. Completely unrelated, hence the need for the grid to have same distance does not exist. I agree that it is prettier.

Also cursors exist and therefore the grid isn't very important for actual measurements.

[KungFuJosh]

The Rigol's grid uses a cinematic 16:9 aspect ratio while the others are still using a "last-century" 4:3 aspect ratio.

Geez, man. Get it right! 16:9 was set in 1984 = last century (20th). 4:3 standard for film was 2 centuries ago (19th). 😉

[themadhippy]

4:3 standard for film was 2 centuries ago (19th).

and heres me thinking 1.85:1 was the standard aspect ratio for "widescreen" film or 2.35:1 for cinescope.

[DaneLaw]

The Rigol's grid uses a cinematic 16:9 aspect ratio while the others are still using a "last-century" 4:3 aspect ratio.

Give me 4:3 any day of the week on a scope (if everything else is equal) or a minimum of 16:10 as the Cinematic TV aspect of 16:9 makes very little sense on a scope.
You can counter it by making the 16:9 screen extra big, but the differences are significant when I compare the screen on these latest 7" 16:9 Rigol products to an 8" screen in 4:3
It's a tad over 8cm vertical on these 7" 16:9 (83mm) and around 12cm on 8" 4:3. The horizontal gain is obviously less, and around 1 to ½ cm in the 8" 4:3 favor.

Even though it's just a 1" inch difference, the vertical gain is almost +50% bigger on the 8" in 4:3 vs 7" in 16:9.. That's quite a bit on that precious vertical axis, not least with Rigol's scope UI that seems to be eating more than 33% of the vertical ratio in UI secondaries, and not valid for waveform display - most other scopes seem to be between 15 to 20%.

[Martin72]

The "more" on the screen is only noticeable in direct comparison, otherwise not, it never bothered me, on the contrary.
As already mentioned, it makes counting the capture time easier, even if only marginally.

[Bud]

So how much more information one can see on a screen that fits 7 periods of a signal vs on a screen that fits 5 periods   

[Fungus]

Ugh... rectangular graticule. 

There's absolutely no mathematical relation between the two axis, so... meh.

Maybe better to have more detail horizontally.

Whatever: It's obviously the way things are going so you might as well get used to it.

[Fungus]

So how much more information one can see on a screen that fits 7 periods of a signal vs on a screen that fits 5 periods   

I demand longer books! I can read so much more before I have to turn the page!

[Martin72]

So how much more information one can see on a screen that fits 7 periods of a signal vs on a screen that fits 5 periods   

There is something like a horizontal time setting, you could use that, every scope has it.

[ebastler]

It seems to me that we are all in violent agreement that the number of horizontal divisions doesn't matter much at all? But of course it can't hurt to repeat. "Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone."