Rigol DS4000 next gen

[Gunb]

I've just read the German elektroniknet.de news about measurement equipment and noticed that
Rigol seems to offer the next generation of the DS4000 series as MSOs now.

http://www.elektroniknet.de/messen-testen/oszilloskope/artikel/96631/

Expect that the pricing will be similar to their bus options, so not cheap, but interesting to see their efforts.

[Hydrawerk]

DS4000 series is quite expensive, I am not sure if many hobbyists will buy that.

[EEVblog]

DS4000 series is quite expensive, I am not sure if many hobbyists will buy that.

It's not designed for, marketed at, nor priced for hobbyists.

[Hydrawerk]

OK, but do many professionals buy Rigols? Is Rigol able to run 8 hours a day in an industrial company? (I've written somewhere before that I really wonder who will ever buy the expensive DS6000 series...)

[Gunb]

DS4000 series is quite expensive, I am not sure if many hobbyists will buy that.

It's not more expensive than other scopes with the included features, rather cheaper. I've bought it 1.5 years ago for hobby purposes.

[EEVblog]

OK, but do many professionals buy Rigols? Is Rigol able to run 8 hours a day in an industrial company?

Yes, and yes.

[quarros]

DS4000 series is quite expensive, I am not sure if many hobbyists will buy that.

It's not more expensive than other scopes with the included features, rather cheaper. I've bought it 1.5 years ago for hobby purposes.

It is relative... everything depends on your income, or on the possibility that it may enables you to make more money with it. Witch is justifies the cost.

[Gunb]

OK, but do many professionals buy Rigols?

Why not?

Is Rigol able to run 8 hours a day in an industrial company?

Why not? Work day after day with Agilent at work, but can't see any case where I could not use a Rigol. Of course, if you prefer special features, it might be a reason
to decide for a special manufacturer but that's an individual issue, not caused by quality. Rigol has recently left the low price region and compete with Agilent, Tek and
all the other mid price manufacturers.

(I've written somewhere before that I really wonder who will ever buy the expensive DS6000 series...)

We're not talking about the DS6000 series in this thread.

[Gunb]

It is relative... everything depends on your income, or on the possibility that it may enables you to make more money with it. Witch is justifies the cost.

Absolutely right.

[marmad]

I've just read the German elektroniknet.de news about measurement equipment and noticed that
Rigol seems to offer the next generation of the DS4000 series as MSOs now.

As posted elsewhere, we've found evidence that Rigol is going to be introducing AWG / MSO versions of the DS2000 too, and I imagine they will also either make an AWG version (or add-on module) for the DS4000 series as well. I'm curious what their roll-out timetable for all these things is.

[AndyC_772]

OK, but do many professionals buy Rigols? Is Rigol able to run 8 hours a day in an industrial company? (I've written somewhere before that I really wonder who will ever buy the expensive DS6000 series...)

I'm sitting here at my desk looking at a DS4054 right now. Having used it regularly for a few weeks now, there's nothing about it which makes me feel that it won't be up to the job, or that it's "cheap" compared to its competition (other than in terms of actual selling price).

As for the 6000 series, I'm sure the Chinese will buy them, and probably won't be disappointed either.

[olsenn]

Rigol has recently left the low price region and compete with Agilent, Tek and
all the other mid price manufacturers.

Somewhat disappointingly, I have to agree with this. Like another posted mentioned earlier, Rigol was doing what the Japanese did for cars back in the day; they provided a higher quality, more reliable product for less money, which completely changed the market. However, more recently, they decided to stop doing this and instead focus on becoming level with the others. Where they had the potential to sell products that were better in every way for less money, they are instead now selling products which are better in some ways, worse in others, and cost the same. I'd say they still have the edge, but it is much less clear cut than it used to be.

[marmad]

Somewhat disappointingly, I have to agree with this. Like another posted mentioned earlier, Rigol was doing what the Japanese did for cars back in the day; they provided a higher quality, more reliable product for less money, which completely changed the market.

First of all, your analogy is off in some respects. When I was a kid, we used to laugh at Japanese products because, although cheap, they were badly made (this is the place where most Chinese T&M equipment makers are - or were until very recently). Then the Japanese reached the point of producing a reasonably equivalent product which was still cheaper (that is the point where Rigol was when they developed the DS1000 series - perhaps where Owon is now). Then the Japanese started producing products that were better-made - or just as well-made, but with more features - and selling at less or equivalent prices. That is where, IMO, Rigol is right now.

However, more recently, they decided to stop doing this and instead focus on becoming level with the others. Where they had the potential to sell products that were better in every way for less money, they are instead now selling products which are better in some ways, worse in others, and cost the same. I'd say they still have the edge, but it is much less clear cut than it used to be.

I don't know how you can possibly reach that conclusion.

Where I live the Rigol DS2072 sells for € 710 base price.
The Agilent  DSOX2002A sells for € 1010 base price.

Comparison of features:
The Rigol has a real vertical sensitivity down to 500 µV/div.
The Agilent has a real vertical sensitivity down to 4mV/div.

The Rigol has 7MB/channel (28MB/channel optional) and an extra 100MB segment memory standard.
The Agilent has 100kB/channel (1MB/channel optional) and no extra segment memory (and the segment feature is optional).

The Rigol has standard triggers: Edge, Pulse, Pattern, Video, Runt, Slope, Setup/Hold, RS232/UART, I²C, SPI   (Single optional package: Windows, Nth Edge, HDTV, Delay, TimeOut, Duration, and USB)
The Agilent has standard triggers: Edge, Pulse, Pattern, Video   (Multiple optional packages [with decodes]: RS232/UART - or - I²C/SPI - or - CAN/LIN)

The Rigol has Parallel decoding standard   (Single optional package: RS232/UART, I2C, and SPI)
The Agilent has no decoding standard   (Multiple optional packages [with triggers]: RS232/UART - or - I²C/SPI - or - CAN/LIN)

The Rigol has high resolution mode (12 bits) when timebase >=5 µs/div.
The Agilent has high resolution mode (12 bits) when timebase >= 20 µs/div.

The Rigol has Mask Testing standard.
The Agilent has Mask Testing optional.

The Rigol has 350MHz 10:1 probes and LAN connection standard.
The Agilent has 150MHz 10:1 probes (LAN connection optional).

Obviously the Agilent has more expandability, longer warranty, better support, and (I'm assuming) better interfacing software, but I think there's no question the Rigol is considerably more powerful out of the box - for 30% less money (at least where I'm located).

[jpb]

The Rigol has Parallel decoding standard   (Single optional package: RS232/UART, I2C, and SPI)
The Agilent has no decoding standard   (Multiple optional packages [with triggers]: RS232/UART - or - I²C/SPI - or - CAN/LIN)

The Rigol 2000 series is limited to 2 channels so parallel decoding would be somewhat limited in its functionality! (Of course this will change when they introduce a digital input option).

[marmad]

The Rigol 2000 series is limited to 2 channels so parallel decoding would be somewhat limited in its functionality! (Of course this will change when they introduce a digital input option).

I was only listing features - not debating their merits. But in any case, the Rigol's Parallel decoding will decode one clocked (or two unclocked) data lines based on the bit number you assign it - which, while it might not be useful in many circumstances, is better then nothing - which is what you get standard on the Agilent.

[Hydrawerk]

Agilent DSOX2002A works with PC USB keyboard. Not sure if it's very useful, but it's at least very cool. The scope acts as a server, so it can be remote controlled via web browser, but you must buy the optional LAN module. 
But there seems to be no USB remote control PC software. On the other hand, you can make your own according to the Programmer's Guide.

[Gunb]

Don't need a USB keyboard for a scope, and don't like it.

I've got the DG1022, the DSA815-TG and the DS4012, for all are programming guides available, the scope and the analyzer have got a LAN interface & werserver per default (no option).
Not really an argument for Agilent.

[marmad]

Agilent DSOX2002A works with PC USB keyboard. Not sure if it's very useful, but it's at least very cool. The scope acts as a server, so it can be remote controlled via web browser, but you must buy the optional LAN module. 
But there seems to be no USB remote control PC software. On the other hand, you can make your own according to the Programmer's Guide.

Although I've never used it, I would imagine Agilent's interface software is nice. That is one area, IMO, where Rigol (and other Chinese manufacturers) are lagging WAY behind - all of the software I've gotten with Chinese gear (as well as what I've seen online) has been terrible.

[nctnico]

It is relative... everything depends on your income, or on the possibility that it may enables you to make more money with it. Witch is justifies the cost.

I use my oscilloscopes to make money so I really care about getting the most bang-for-your buck and reliability. I have two older Tektronix high-end scopes from the 90's which cost me less than $1000 each through Ebay. If one breaks I just switch to the other so reliability is covered. If I look around to upgrade then the additional money doesn't buy me much extra features (*) unless I'm going to spend more than $15k. The most interesting feature would be saving screendumps to a USB stick instead of a diskette.

* I have a seperate high-end logic analyser with high speed sampling and deep memory which does SPI and I2C decoding. With a little bit of programming I can add any decoding method I want.

[Gunb]

A real argument that speaks for a few recent Agilents is measuring in the sample memory instead of the display memory. They use the real time gap between two samples depending on the sample rate for the horizontal resolution instead of measuring in the display memory as many scopes do. Last is always depending on the current used timebase, often the fraction consists of 2 digits only. Not with Agilent, they can measure in the range of ns even if the timebase is set to seconds/DIV since they measure directly in the sample memory.

This can be done with the Rigol, too by using the trigger but not with most cursor or automatic functions.

[marmad]

A real argument that speaks for a few recent Agilents is measuring in the sample memory instead of the display memory.

Which Agilents are you referring to?

[Hydrawerk]

I think that most Agilent scopes use the display memory for measurements. http://www.home.agilent.com/owc_discussions/thread.jspa?threadID=33426&tstart=120
Not a big problem IMHO.

[marmad]

If I look around to upgrade then the additional money doesn't buy me much extra features (*) unless I'm going to spend more than $15k. The most interesting feature would be saving screendumps to a USB stick instead of a diskette.

It depends how you define 'extra features', but I think you're exaggerating here. I would imagine for much less money than $15k you could probably get a scope of the same BW as your 90's Tektronix - but 2x the sampling speed, 100-200x more memory, 2x more triggers, 10-20% more display, etc.  Of course, I'm not suggesting you need to upgrade - you sound like you got a good deal on your scopes - but I think that $15k figure is a bit out-of-date. The quality and features you get in a DSO per $1 changed quite dramatically with the introduction of Agilent's X- series - and it has been sliding downward ever since.

[nctnico]

@marmad:
The amount of memory in a scope is of limited use. At some point the user interface gets too clumsy too handle it. OTOH it is handy for decoding buses.

Let me sum up what the TDS744A I have can do: 640x480 color display (in my case 6.5" color TFT), 4 channels 500MHz, 500k record length, 2Gs/s, trigger (with the usual ac/dc/lf reject/hf reject/noise suppression) on edges, pulse width and logic combinations,  400kWfms/s, dual channel math (+, -, / and *), FFT, integration, differentiation, peak-detect, infinite/variable persistance, high-resolution, segmented memory (skipping 'blank' parts of a signal), 25 measurements (including frequency, period, peak-peak, RMS), external VGA connector. All in all it packs a neat bag of tricks despite its getting close to 20 years old. DSOs where already a mature product back then.

Its not difficult to find a scope with similar specs but the aim is to find something significantly better. In my opinion a significant improvement would be a display which has way more pixels in height (the height is a limiting factor when displaying multiple traces with some amount of detail). A faster user interface and more bandwidth would also be nice.

When looking for a big display the number of choices get real small and prices go up rapidly. Many oscilloscopes (including the Tektronix DPO2014B I bought for a specific project recently) have extremely small displays with only 240 pixels in height. Even the Rigol DS4000 and DS6000 series have an 800x480 display. In the past decade the major improvement of oscilloscopes has been the overlap with a logic analyser. For that you need as much pixels in height as possible (*). Why the displays didn't scale up is beyond me.

*My logic analyser has an 800x600 display which is reasonable.

[Gunb]

A real argument that speaks for a few recent Agilents is measuring in the sample memory instead of the display memory.

Which Agilents are you referring to?

I was thinking of the DSO6034A which I've besides other scopes in my office. When I was writing the comment yesterday I was at home, checking this just a moment ago reveals that there are many digits of the fractional part but only the first two are used. Uaaah, so no advantage for Agilent anymore regarding this, seems to use the display buffer for cursor measurement, too.