Has the user interface responsiveness improved over the DS1054Z? I owned a DS1054Z and really liked it... aside from the sluggish UI, which made me sell it for a Siglent.
No one can give you a reliable answer at the moment, because hardly anyone has the new model.
Thanks. Sorry I was not at my computer - indeed then all anybody needs to do is flash their 800 series to 900 series firmwares. To then get the CAN bus decoding. So i don't see this as an issue in that case... sorry for any confusion here. (at least I am fine with that then, not so sure what the other guy was turning his nose up about).
this Rigol DHO800 hackable seems very interesting indeed.
this Rigol DHO800 hackable seems very interesting indeed.
Not to single out this particular member, as the same is being repeated by others as "fact". However, perhaps a reminder is due that it is by no means *certain* yet that this (DHO800->900) can be done, at least not without negative effects.
I predict the chances are very good that it can be done.
Dave's unboxing video has a few seconds of him twisting the knob and saying "It's responsive!"
(and it can zoom out!)
(and it can zoom out!)
Ehh....Wow ?
I predict the chances are very good that it can be done.
You mean, you're guessing / wishing.
Meaningful prediction requires data. There's a difference.
Someone asks if the UI has become better/faster than the old rigol and you say "yes" - Based on a scene in a video ?
Not your serious or...
Not gunna be pretty with such limited memory when all channels are active.
Long story short, it is generally accepted that the sampling should be at least 10 times higher than the signal of interest.
I am not able to read every single post regarding the new Rigols but let me share my thoughts on the bandwidth. I see a bit obsession with the sampling rate and the bandwidth. The Nyquist theorem (Shannon-Kotelnikov for folks growing up behind the iron curtain) is valid only in situations when the signal is restored using the sinc filter. Good that scopes have it by default. However, we also need to consider that the frequency response of the filter is not "brick-wall". The input stage will pass frequencies way above the corner frequency with just reducing the magnitude and increasing the group delay. The content after the fs/2 will be aliased. This happens always. The key is to keep levels of this aliased content below the resolution (simply said).
For the standard low-pass filter, we can already see the phase distortion kicking-in one decade below the cut-off. Oscilloscopes frequently use tricks such as equivalent sampling. This works, of course, only for repetitive signals that are stable over time.
Long story short, it is generally accepted that the sampling should be at least 10 times higher than the signal of interest. What I am trying to say is take it easy when you make your statements on sampling and the bandwidth. I just look at my old Infinium scope that is 500MHz/1GSa/s. There use to be even 1GHz scopes with only 100Msa/s, etc (Lecroy). Sometimes it really makes sense to have high bandwidth AFE even for relatively slow sampling ADC (1.25G/4 in case of DHOxxx). Especially if you work with single tone signals (but that's what spectrum analyzer is for).
PS: I am willing to discuss any error I made in my conclusions. I am just a human
PS: I am willing to discuss any error I made in my conclusions. I am just a human
5MPts / channel with all channels on isn't too shabby.
5MPts / channel with all channels on isn't too shabby.5yr old SDS1104X-E offers 7Mpts with all channels active or 14 with just 2 active.
..
so that all makes sense. but what i am seeing here is also that there is this camp of people making the 10x generalization (broadly across purposes). and theres the people quoting the nyquist 2x upper aliasing limit (for some sine wave or whatever). then i suppose the 6x is meant to be a sorta 'in-between' those 2 extremes perhaps?..
Long story short, it is generally accepted that the sampling should be at least 10 times higher than the signal of interest.Again, this statement has been generally un-accepted a long time ago. It stems from a time where sin x/x was hard to implement in a DSO and people thought a DSO should mimic an analog scope as much as possible. Nowadays users have a choice between less bandwidth + soft roll-off or maximum bandwidth nearly up to Nyquist with a sharp filter. And for sure the latter will have some aliasing but don't forget the probing solution typically has a filtering effect as well.
I am not able to read every single post regarding the new Rigols but let me share my thoughts on the bandwidth. I see a bit obsession with the sampling rate and the bandwidth. The Nyquist theorem (Shannon-Kotelnikov for folks growing up behind the iron curtain) is valid only in situations when the signal is restored using the sinc filter. Good that scopes have it by default. However, we also need to consider that the frequency response of the filter is not "brick-wall". The input stage will pass frequencies way above the corner frequency with just reducing the magnitude and increasing the group delay. The content after the fs/2 will be aliased. This happens always. The key is to keep levels of this aliased content below the resolution (simply said).
For the standard low-pass filter, we can already see the phase distortion kicking-in one decade below the cut-off. Oscilloscopes frequently use tricks such as equivalent sampling. This works, of course, only for repetitive signals that are stable over time.
Long story short, it is generally accepted that the sampling should be at least 10 times higher than the signal of interest. What I am trying to say is take it easy when you make your statements on sampling and the bandwidth. I just look at my old Infinium scope that is 500MHz/1GSa/s. There use to be even 1GHz scopes with only 100Msa/s, etc (Lecroy). Sometimes it really makes sense to have high bandwidth AFE even for relatively slow sampling ADC (1.25G/4 in case of DHOxxx). Especially if you work with single tone signals (but that's what spectrum analyzer is for).
PS: I am willing to discuss any error I made in my conclusions. I am just a human
ETS means that sampling was made at higher equivalent rate so it is not 100MSp/s sampling anymore.. So Nyquist (Shannon) criteria holds.
Downsampling signals with digital down converting IS domain of SA or SDR....
You can use it on scope as a deliberate technique. I think Performa01 did show some examples here on forum..
But scope should be able to handle it's own BW in full.
250MHz BW with 312,5MSp/s is just no...
DSO800 is officially 100MHz BW and that is fine.. DHO900 claims 250 MHz BW... That is either a big problem or they enable AA filtering to 100MHz, but they need to explain and document that.
250MHz BW with 312,5MSp/s is just no...
Simply the claimed 250MHz BW and the 312.5MSa/s is on first glance a suspicious combo, and as 2N3055 wrote above we need some more detailed clarification in that regard.
Long story short, it is generally accepted that the sampling should be at least 10 times higher than the signal of interest.Again, this statement has been generally un-accepted a long time ago. It stems from a time where sin x/x was hard to implement in a DSO and people thought a DSO should mimic an analog scope as much as possible. Nowadays users have a choice between less bandwidth + soft roll-off or maximum bandwidth nearly up to Nyquist with a sharp filter. And for sure the latter will have some aliasing but don't forget the probing solution typically has a filtering effect as well.Let's talk about the scope only. Probing is a completely different story that is likely less understood (I have the joy to work with IsoVu, occasionally).
What do you exactly mean that the user has a choice? How is the sharp filter implemented? What is generally believed to be sharp enough?
I have bit problems believing that scopes have a brick-wall filter as a part of the front-end. However, I have never analyzed any. What happens in software is irrelevant.
..
I wish the specs of the centaurus chipset were avaible.
So it seems like a good comparison for the DHO800 would be the SDS1104X-U, and I'd have to say that if I was looking to purchase a scope and my budget was $400, this DHO800 would be a real contender.