You know the identical hardware is being used ever so slightly differently in those two models, right?
Sorry if that all sounds a bit like ... it is a bit of that, but also a bit of my desire to see facts and good explanations instead of the typical internet opinions and assumptions. There is too much latter all over the place.
Aren't you making the same baseless claim, and really adding nothing of what you want to the discussion?
If referring that first part you quoted above, then with that particular part I was not expecting Fungus to prove his previous sentence, I was pointing out the mistake that he is showing
only relying on identical hardware -idea, leaving out the different usage. Thus, some of the assumptions, based only on the identical hardware, may not necessarily be valid. (On my claim of different usage: If the hardware is identical, it must be used differently; this is pure logical deduction, otherwise the models would behave exactly the same way with bandwidth as is, and no bandwidth hacks would be needed. I think Fungus knows all that, but just didn't consider it in this context.) (Lets see if I can modify the earlier message to clarify a bit... Done.)
Also, indeed I am not trying to add any Rigol facts to discussion, I'm merely pointing that if there is an argument going, the parties should try to provide more info (not necessarily instantly), especially if the other side has some measurements or other provable facts (potentially) showing otherwise.
Otherwise things end easily like in my mind: one side refers to earlier measurements showing a potential difference, another side replies with "nonsense, identical hardware", and I get to think "what kind of answer is that, the 'identical hardware' doesn't even consider different usage of the hardware, which could explain something, and even if different usage was considered and somehow ending with idea that the scopes should behave exactly the same, the different measurement results (contradiction of another assumption) should still be explained somehow, even if found out to be just user error."
I'm not at all interested in the 1054 vs 1104 debate. Who cares? All that matters is the absolute performance of the instrument, so we don't need to compare the 1104 unicorn, almost nobody has one anyway.
You might not be interested on it (and maybe not many others, either), but since it is out there and fungus replied, I tried to point on the weaknesses on Fungus' arguments, in the hopes that something more solid might appear. If nothing happens, no big deal.
Also note that David Hess' question is not a comparison between 1104 and 1054, but comparison between hacked 1054 and both unhacked models. Getting results just from the unhacked 1054 would already be an improvement to the situation. And he has noted the possibility of that (minor) deficiency on that "absolute performance" of the hacked 1054, so that question should then be of interest to you, too, though not necessarily a major interest.