Rigol MSO 5000 overshoot, or not overshoot?

[kehall]

This looks like a HF compensation issue.

Sorry but it is NOT a compensation issue, despite how it looks. This poll and thread is about a hardware problem with the Rigol MSO5xxx scope - where overshoots are present on some or more channels, or not, same, different probes etc, and cannot be adjusted away. Some users have replaced an lfcal.hex file on the scope and it's been fixed, some have returned and have replacement mainboards and fixed. Some have had no problems at all (the majority by the poll so far).

I am just trying to gauge how many people have the same problem, or not as the case may be as Rigol seemingly have an issue with factory calibration.

[Pulsepowerguy]

It is odd that some of these suffer form this and others do not, both of our 5000 do not have this issue, neither do the 7000 or 8000's.

Have you voted in the poll?

I would vote, but my scope's channel 2 has an undershoot problem (as I posted earlier). This occurs with direct (BNC) coupling as well.

[Fungus]

Sorry but it is NOT a compensation issue, despite how it looks. This poll and thread is about a hardware problem with the Rigol MSO5xxx scope

(Says the guy who though vertical scale/offset was done in software...)

If it's a new 'scope, if it only happens on one channel, if it happens identically with all four probes, if it can't be calibrated away, if it happens on signals other than the calibration test signal, then it might be faulty component in the input circuitry or some bad soldering. Ask for a replacement. 

[2N3055]

This is exactly how it looks when HF compensation on a probe is not set correctly.

You MUST verify scope input with a 50 ohm terminator on the input run by pulse coming from 50 OHm pulse gen. And do that on several frequencies...
And have all of the signal on the screen... If that shows this distortion, return the broken device..

[kehall]

I would vote, but my scope's channel 2 has an undershoot problem (as I posted earlier). This occurs with direct (BNC) coupling as well.

I looked at your image too, it looks like a different issue as your ch2 is as you say almost a continuous slope, slow response, whereas this poll is covering a very definite 'fast' overshoot. I do agree though, these scopes seem to have a little 'spotty' QA coming out of the factory - there's clearly very good examples out there and a few bad ones - I put it down to lack of training or rushing without due care in cases like this.