John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 22:11:47 -0700, John Larkin
><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:38:52 -0700,
>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:47:27 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:17:22 -0700,
>>>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:23:19 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:17:56 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
>>>>>><zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:q90kr5pda1mtti9pea5c7tqmao0u9qvfpi@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> Rigol is like
>>>>>>>> someone who used to leave their front door unlocked, until someone
>>>>>>>> wandered in and stole something, so now they have to lock it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think it's more like Rigol sells houses, and you bought a two-bedroom house
>>>>>>>(although you're aware they also sell three-bedroom houses)... and one day you
>>>>>>>notice (or Dave Jones metnions that) there's another door in your home.
>>>>>>>There's no lock on that door, no sign on it saying, "keep out!," etc. Your
>>>>>>>ne'er-do-well liberal democrat son moves back home after flunking out of his
>>>>>>>liberal studies program at the local college and you get to thinking... having
>>>>>>>that kid spend his nights in his own room rather than sleeping on the couch in
>>>>>>>the living room every night would be nice... I wonder what's behind that door?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not entirely the same. It costs money to build rooms, but it costs
>>>>>>nothing to enable IP. Both have market value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But why didn't they do the 50 and even 20 MHz bandwidth limits
>>>>>>digitally? They have 1G samples/second to work with. There are some
>>>>>>saturation issues that might be best handled with analog limiting, but
>>>>>>this *is* a cheap scope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps the cost of the supporting hardware and algorithm development did
>>>>>not look attractive in comparison to the varactor method.
>>>>
>>>>The 1052 already has user-programmable lowpass/highpass/bandpass
>>>>digital filtering. Pretty cool.
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>Postprocessing is not the same as input channel bandwidth limiting.
>>>Check out the schematics of Tek analog 'scopes with input channel
>>>bandwidth limiting.
>>
>>Well, they hardly had the option to do digital filtering.
>>
>>John
>
>But I wonder what various digital scopes do at slower sweep speeds.
>Clock the ADC slower? Throw away samples? Interpolate? Filter?
The only way to find out is to input a signal that causes aliasing.
With high samplerates, short memories and limited hardware the only
way is to simply discard samples.
--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reply by John Larkin●April 7, 20102010-04-07
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 22:11:47 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:38:52 -0700,
>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:47:27 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:17:22 -0700,
>>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:23:19 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:17:56 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
>>>>><zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:q90kr5pda1mtti9pea5c7tqmao0u9qvfpi@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> Rigol is like
>>>>>>> someone who used to leave their front door unlocked, until someone
>>>>>>> wandered in and stole something, so now they have to lock it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think it's more like Rigol sells houses, and you bought a two-bedroom house
>>>>>>(although you're aware they also sell three-bedroom houses)... and one day you
>>>>>>notice (or Dave Jones metnions that) there's another door in your home.
>>>>>>There's no lock on that door, no sign on it saying, "keep out!," etc. Your
>>>>>>ne'er-do-well liberal democrat son moves back home after flunking out of his
>>>>>>liberal studies program at the local college and you get to thinking... having
>>>>>>that kid spend his nights in his own room rather than sleeping on the couch in
>>>>>>the living room every night would be nice... I wonder what's behind that door?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>:-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Not entirely the same. It costs money to build rooms, but it costs
>>>>>nothing to enable IP. Both have market value.
>>>>>
>>>>>But why didn't they do the 50 and even 20 MHz bandwidth limits
>>>>>digitally? They have 1G samples/second to work with. There are some
>>>>>saturation issues that might be best handled with analog limiting, but
>>>>>this *is* a cheap scope.
>>>>>
>>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps the cost of the supporting hardware and algorithm development did
>>>>not look attractive in comparison to the varactor method.
>>>
>>>The 1052 already has user-programmable lowpass/highpass/bandpass
>>>digital filtering. Pretty cool.
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>Postprocessing is not the same as input channel bandwidth limiting.
>>Check out the schematics of Tek analog 'scopes with input channel
>>bandwidth limiting.
>
>Well, they hardly had the option to do digital filtering.
>
>John
But I wonder what various digital scopes do at slower sweep speeds.
Clock the ADC slower? Throw away samples? Interpolate? Filter?
John
Reply by John Larkin●April 7, 20102010-04-07
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:38:52 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:47:27 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:17:22 -0700,
>>"JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:23:19 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:17:56 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
>>>><zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:q90kr5pda1mtti9pea5c7tqmao0u9qvfpi@4ax.com...
>>>>>> Rigol is like
>>>>>> someone who used to leave their front door unlocked, until someone
>>>>>> wandered in and stole something, so now they have to lock it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think it's more like Rigol sells houses, and you bought a two-bedroom house
>>>>>(although you're aware they also sell three-bedroom houses)... and one day you
>>>>>notice (or Dave Jones metnions that) there's another door in your home.
>>>>>There's no lock on that door, no sign on it saying, "keep out!," etc. Your
>>>>>ne'er-do-well liberal democrat son moves back home after flunking out of his
>>>>>liberal studies program at the local college and you get to thinking... having
>>>>>that kid spend his nights in his own room rather than sleeping on the couch in
>>>>>the living room every night would be nice... I wonder what's behind that door?
>>>>>
>>>>>:-)
>>>>
>>>>Not entirely the same. It costs money to build rooms, but it costs
>>>>nothing to enable IP. Both have market value.
>>>>
>>>>But why didn't they do the 50 and even 20 MHz bandwidth limits
>>>>digitally? They have 1G samples/second to work with. There are some
>>>>saturation issues that might be best handled with analog limiting, but
>>>>this *is* a cheap scope.
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>
>>>Perhaps the cost of the supporting hardware and algorithm development did
>>>not look attractive in comparison to the varactor method.
>>
>>The 1052 already has user-programmable lowpass/highpass/bandpass
>>digital filtering. Pretty cool.
>>
>>John
>>
>Postprocessing is not the same as input channel bandwidth limiting.
>Check out the schematics of Tek analog 'scopes with input channel
>bandwidth limiting.
Well, they hardly had the option to do digital filtering.
John
Reply by krw...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz●April 7, 20102010-04-07
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:45:42 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:42:38 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:37:04 -0500, "George Jefferson" <George@Jefferson.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>><krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
>>>news:o70lr5529ba6b1k3kj0r6o5h6ed609dmoi@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 18:53:51 -0500, "George Jefferson"
>>>> <George@Jefferson.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
>>>>>message
>>>>>news:q90kr5pda1mtti9pea5c7tqmao0u9qvfpi@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:42:48 +1000, "David L. Jones"
>>>>>> <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 20:23:54 +1100, "David L. Jones"
>>>>>>>> <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For those who thought Rigol may bin the scopes to get 50MHz and
>>>>>>>>> 100MHz models, and that they aren't actually identical hardware and
>>>>>>>>> firmware, I've been informed that Rigol have finally admitted this
>>>>>>>>> to an irate customer who contacted them about the issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Partial Quote from Rigol :
>>>>>>>>> "The firmware of the instruments is made
>>>>>>>>> to enable capability based on the version purchased just like any
>>>>>>>>> software licensed product you would buy."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Betcha they would never have admitted that before it was all exposed
>>>>>>>>> a few weeks ago.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dave.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Too bad that, with all this ranting, this thread is missing a couple
>>>>>>>> of interesting technical issues re: the varicap bandwidth limiter and
>>>>>>>> the compromises it forces.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I find that funny considering it was you who started the ranting and
>>>>>>>also
>>>>>>>continued it ad nauseam.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not so. I pointed out a possible legal issue, and brought the
>>>>>> interesting but unresolved issue of how one amortizes and prices
>>>>>> things, like firmware, that have no incremental cost to manufacture.
>>>>>> Most perple here seem to feel that it's a ripoff to charge for such
>>>>>> things, and a minority feel, as I do, that Rigol did nothing wrong and
>>>>>> provides very good price:performance for both models. Rigol is like
>>>>>> someone who used to leave their front door unlocked, until someone
>>>>>> wandered in and stole something, so now they have to lock it.
>>>>>
>>>>>They did nothing wrong. They had identical products(or all intents and
>>>>>purposes) but slapped two different labels on them and charged different
>>>>>prices for generating revenue.
>>>>>
>>>>>DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US? You think that's ethical.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising
>>>>
>>>> Nothing "false" about giving people more than they paid for, even if you
>>>> don't
>>>> tell them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>LOL! Good one!
>>>
>>>Your a liberal right? Only a liberal could come up with something like that!
>>
>>No, I wouldn't own a liberal if they were free. You're stupid, right?
>>
>>>Your not dense but an outright imbecile. In no way intelligent way can one
>>>justify that what Rigol did was give more product for what they paid for.
>>>What your claiming is that Rigol gave people a 50Mhz scope that was actually
>>>a 100Mhz but didn't tell them.
>>
>>They didn't "give" their customers anything. They *sold* them a 50MHz scope
>>advertised as a 50MHz scope. It may (or not) perform better than advertised,
>>but that's not fraud by any stretch of a sane person's mind. You're stupid,
>>right?
>>
>>>It would be like if you went to buy a used car but they gave you a Ferrari
>>>except it doesn't look like a Ferrari, doesn't perform like a Ferrari,
>>>doesn't get the chicks and is nothing like a Ferrari except that both are
>>>classified as vehicles. Yet in your world you believe that person got more
>>>than they paid for.
>>
>>I didn't pay for a Ferrari, I wouldn't expect a Ferrari. You're proving my
>>point, here. You're stupid, right?
>>
>>>Either you are the car salesman, from WeFuckYouInEveryWholeOnEverySale
>>>Autos, or your the buyer that buys from them.
>>
>>You're stupid, right?
>
>His nym was well chosen from a shit-com character many years ago.
At first I thought it was another of Nymbecile's. It fits.
> It was either the one with the junk yard or the dry cleaning business.
>
>
>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in =
message=20
>news:k89lr5d4qateqpdvgiqkc9qlna9erq32a4@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:49:41 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>> <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 18:23:24 -0700, John Larkin
>>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 18:53:51 -0500, "George Jefferson"
>>>><George@Jefferson.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in=20
>>>>>message
>>>>>news:q90kr5pda1mtti9pea5c7tqmao0u9qvfpi@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:42:48 +1000, "David L. Jones"
>>>>>> <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 20:23:54 +1100, "David L. Jones"
>>>>>>>> <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For those who thought Rigol may bin the scopes to get 50MHz and
>>>>>>>>> 100MHz models, and that they aren't actually identical hardware=
and
>>>>>>>>> firmware, I've been informed that Rigol have finally admitted =
this
>>>>>>>>> to an irate customer who contacted them about the issue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Partial Quote from Rigol :
>>>>>>>>> "The firmware of the instruments is made
>>>>>>>>> to enable capability based on the version purchased just like =
any
>>>>>>>>> software licensed product you would buy."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Betcha they would never have admitted that before it was all=20
>>>>>>>>> exposed
>>>>>>>>> a few weeks ago.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dave.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Too bad that, with all this ranting, this thread is missing a =
couple
>>>>>>>> of interesting technical issues re: the varicap bandwidth =
limiter=20
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> the compromises it forces.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I find that funny considering it was you who started the ranting =
and=20
>>>>>>>also
>>>>>>>continued it ad nauseam.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not so. I pointed out a possible legal issue, and brought the
>>>>>> interesting but unresolved issue of how one amortizes and prices
>>>>>> things, like firmware, that have no incremental cost to =
manufacture.
>>>>>> Most perple here seem to feel that it's a ripoff to charge for =
such
>>>>>> things, and a minority feel, as I do, that Rigol did nothing wrong=
and
>>>>>> provides very good price:performance for both models. Rigol is =
like
>>>>>> someone who used to leave their front door unlocked, until someone
>>>>>> wandered in and stole something, so now they have to lock it.
>>>>>
>>>>>They did nothing wrong. They had identical products(or all intents =
and
>>>>>purposes) but slapped two different labels on them and charged =
different
>>>>>prices for generating revenue.
>>>>>
>>>>>DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US? You think that's ethical.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising
>>>>
>>>>What did Riogol do that was false advertising? As far as I know, both
>>>>scopes deliver more bandwidth than promised and both are excellent
>>>>values. Their features blow away the low-end Tek scopes that cost 2x
>>>>or 3x as much.
>>>>
>>>>I sell versions of products that differ only in enabled features. So
>>>>does practically anybody who sells products whose performance depends
>>>>on firmware and other IP that was expensive to develop.
>>>
>>>As do we. Our upper end base unit does have a couple of bucks worth =
of
>>>op-amps that the less expensive model doesn't have but the mobile =
units=20
>>>are
>>>identical except for the firmware. There are more protections to =
prevent
>>>upgrading than Riogol used, however.
>>>
>>>This was mentioned before, but I worked on the crypto stuff that IBM =
used=20
>>>in
>>>their mainframes to enable processors based on customer payments. If =
they
>>>needed more compute power for year-end statement processing (or =
whatever)
>>>they'd pay for more CPUs and the key to use those computers, for the =
time=20
>>>of
>>>the payment, was sent to the crypto unit to unlock the processors. A=20
>>>complete
>>>complement of processors was shipped in every box and only the =
software
>>>configuration determined how many the customer could use (two to ten).=
As=20
>>>a
>>>bonus, if one processor fell over another would pick up where it left =
off=20
>>>with
>>>no additional payment required. I guess that was fraud, too.
>>>
>>
>> I think the cut here is that amateurs, who penny-pinch on gear, are
>> outraged by Rigol's actions, and professionals, who design and buy and
>> sell electronic instruments, think they are being perfectly ethical
>> and reasonable.
>>
>> The amateurs mostly don't need a 100 MHz scope anyhow, and should be
>> (and aren't) grateful that Rigol sells the 1052 for around $500. I
>> bought the 50 MHz version to use in my office because that's fine for
>> most uses.
>>
>
>More justification. It's simple.. you do, as you have said in another =
post=20
>exactly what rigol does. Hence you can't say or even believe they are =
wrong=20
>because then you would be wrong.
>
>Your right though in that "professionals" like yourself are scum. You do=
=20
>this type of behavior because you believe that since everyone else does =
it=20
>then it must make it ok. You have no principles or morals. Rather than =
go=20
>out of business because you refuse to screw over your customers you =
choose=20
>to be a bitch to the mighty dollar.
>
>So I suppose your firmware has some code like:
>
>double Performance_factor =3D 0.1;
>
>switch (upgrade)
>{
> case expensive :
> Performance_factor =3D 0.3;
> break;
> case RealExpensive :
> Performance_factor =3D 0.5;
> break;
> case=20
>So_Expensive_That_The_Costs_Will_Be_Passed_Down_To_The_Poor_Working_Imbe=
>:
> Performance_factor =3D 0.52;
> break;
>}
>
>SetBandwidth(Performance_factor*10^9);
>
>
>and you'll call that having to set the upgrade type as "programming" =
which=20
>requires a professional as yourself which is quite expensive.
>
>
>I'm sure you get a hard on every time the last case statement is called.
>
>You and your buddies that do this shit(krw and Joseph) have made it =
clear=20
>why you have stood up for rigol from the very first post and tried to=20
>justify it from every angle.
>
>Of course it is impossible to make you understand your follies when so =
much=20
>decay exists already. Just keep it up and we'll let evolution take care =
of=20
>the problem.
>
So from the way you are discussing this you would call Tektronix scumbags=
as=20
well; I could have deeper memory for my old used Tek TDS 544A if i knew =
the=20
software command that enabled it. Thus, Tektronix, because they also =
have=20
done this are scumbags. There are about a million engineers that will =
call=20
you all kinds of dirty names for the mere suggestion. Grow up and earn =
some=20
money by creating useful products.
Reply by David L. Jones●April 6, 20102010-04-06
John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 08:30:16 +1100, "David L. Jones"
> <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> George Herold wrote:
>>> On Mar 31, 11:53 am, John Larkin
>>> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:14:03 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <ggher...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 30, 8:29 pm, "David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> For those with a Rigol DS1052E oscilloscope, you can now turn it
>>>>>> into a 100MHz DS1102E with just a serial cable:
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnhXfVYWYXE
>>>>
>>>>>> Dave.
>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ================================================
>>>>>> Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog &
>>>>>> Podcast:http://www.eevblog.com
>>>>
>>>>> Excellent, I just ordered a Rigol DS1052E! The best news is that
>>>>> even without the mod the 50 MHz is closer to 70 MHz as is....
>>>>> (just scaling your measured 5ns rise/fall time.)
>>>>
>>>>> George H.
>>>>
>>>> It has very clean transient response as shipped, at the 50 (or 70)
>>>> MHz bandwidth. The hacked version is ratty looking. I wouldn't do
>>>> the hack even if it was morally and legally fine.
>>>>
>>>> This is a very nice little scope, superb for the price. It has
>>>> loads of more features than a comparable Tek at around 1/3 the
>>>> price.
>>>>
>>>> Why Jones would choose to hurt Rigel is a mystery to me.
>>>>
>>>> John- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> Oh I don't plan on hacking it. I just figured that there might be a
>>> tick up in sales of the 50MHz version and I should get mine before
>>> they sell out. And yeah the pulse response looked nice. (I also
>>> like that it's a bit faster than the spec.) I'm not sure about the
>>> rattiness of the 100MHz response.. after all the 100MHz TEK pulse
>>> looked ratty too and it might have been that Dave was hitting it
>>> with a raggy pulse to begin with. (Sorry Dave, I don't mean to dis
>>> your bench test skills.)
>>>
>>> I think Dave likes Rigol and I'm not sure his hack will hurt sales.
>>> I would guess it's only a small fraction of users that would want
>>> the hack anyway. I would bet.. though I don't know how to prove
>>> it.. that Dave has been good for Rigol sales. (He is certainly
>>> responsible for my purchase of one.)
>>
>> I know for a fact that my (positive) review and pushing of the Rigol
>> scope on my blog and other places has directly resulted in at least
>> several hundred sales (people email me and thank me for it almost
>> daily). My review of the Rigol has been viewed over 15,000 times, so
>> I'd be surprised if I'm not responsible for sales in the thousands,
>> directly or indirectly. I'm probably Rigol's biggest independent
>> public supporter.
>
>
> Didn't you also do a blog about Rigol "overclocking" their ADCs?
Yes I did.
Once again, it wasn't new information exposed by me, and it wasn't a
negative blog. It was an informational blog clarifying an interesting
design/build aspect of this scope, and actually had a positive spin. I used
words like "great value for money", "excellent quality", "smart", "clever",
and "professional" etc.
FYI, I actually approached the GM of Rigol USA about it before I did the
blog, asking them to clarify and present their side of it. They did not
respond. But you'd know all that if you actually watched the video.
I know the GM reads this forum, and has even contributed in the past, and I
have had previous correspondance with him about my postive review of the
scope which they liked.
> You've made a minor career out of trashing their scopes.
That's laughable. I have been one the biggest supporters of their scopes,
and am almost certainly directly responsible for more sales of them than any
other individual.
Your viewpoint is so myopic it's truly amazing.
Keep digging that hole by all means, but be careful, because as Phil said,
you might pop up in China.
> I like my 1052 so far.
Good for you, so do I. And so do the probably thousands who have bought one
based on my promotion and recommendation of it over the last year and a bit.
Dave.
--
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message=20
>>news:o70lr5529ba6b1k3kj0r6o5h6ed609dmoi@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 18:53:51 -0500, "George Jefferson"=20
>>> <George@Jefferson.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in=20
>>>>message
>>>>news:q90kr5pda1mtti9pea5c7tqmao0u9qvfpi@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:42:48 +1000, "David L. Jones"
>>>>> <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 20:23:54 +1100, "David L. Jones"
>>>>>>> <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For those who thought Rigol may bin the scopes to get 50MHz and
>>>>>>>> 100MHz models, and that they aren't actually identical hardware =
and
>>>>>>>> firmware, I've been informed that Rigol have finally admitted =
this
>>>>>>>> to an irate customer who contacted them about the issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Partial Quote from Rigol :
>>>>>>>> "The firmware of the instruments is made
>>>>>>>> to enable capability based on the version purchased just like =
any
>>>>>>>> software licensed product you would buy."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Betcha they would never have admitted that before it was all =
exposed
>>>>>>>> a few weeks ago.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dave.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Too bad that, with all this ranting, this thread is missing a =
couple
>>>>>>> of interesting technical issues re: the varicap bandwidth limiter=
and
>>>>>>> the compromises it forces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I find that funny considering it was you who started the ranting =
and=20
>>>>>>also
>>>>>>continued it ad nauseam.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not so. I pointed out a possible legal issue, and brought the
>>>>> interesting but unresolved issue of how one amortizes and prices
>>>>> things, like firmware, that have no incremental cost to =
manufacture.
>>>>> Most perple here seem to feel that it's a ripoff to charge for such
>>>>> things, and a minority feel, as I do, that Rigol did nothing wrong =
and
>>>>> provides very good price:performance for both models. Rigol is like
>>>>> someone who used to leave their front door unlocked, until someone
>>>>> wandered in and stole something, so now they have to lock it.
>>>>
>>>>They did nothing wrong. They had identical products(or all intents =
and
>>>>purposes) but slapped two different labels on them and charged =
different
>>>>prices for generating revenue.
>>>>
>>>>DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US? You think that's ethical.
>>>>
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising
>>>
>>> Nothing "false" about giving people more than they paid for, even if =
you=20
>>> don't
>>> tell them.
>>>
>>
>>LOL! Good one!
>>
>>Your a liberal right? Only a liberal could come up with something like =
that!
>
>No, I wouldn't own a liberal if they were free. You're stupid, right? =20
>
>>Your not dense but an outright imbecile. In no way intelligent way can =
one=20
>>justify that what Rigol did was give more product for what they paid =
for.=20
>>What your claiming is that Rigol gave people a 50Mhz scope that was =
actually=20
>>a 100Mhz but didn't tell them.
>
>They didn't "give" their customers anything. They *sold* them a 50MHz =
scope
>advertised as a 50MHz scope. It may (or not) perform better than =
advertised,
>but that's not fraud by any stretch of a sane person's mind. You're =
stupid,
>right?
>
>>It would be like if you went to buy a used car but they gave you a =
Ferrari=20
>>except it doesn't look like a Ferrari, doesn't perform like a Ferrari,=20
>>doesn't get the chicks and is nothing like a Ferrari except that both =
are=20
>>classified as vehicles. Yet in your world you believe that person got =
more=20
>>than they paid for.
>
>I didn't pay for a Ferrari, I wouldn't expect a Ferrari. You're proving=
my
>point, here. You're stupid, right?
>
>>Either you are the car salesman, from WeFuckYouInEveryWholeOnEverySale=20
>>Autos, or your the buyer that buys from them.
>
>You're stupid, right?=20
His nym was well chosen from a shit-com character many years ago. It was=
=20
either the one with the junk yard or the dry cleaning business.
Reply by JosephKK●April 6, 20102010-04-06
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:47:27 -0700, John Larkin =
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:17:56 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
>>><zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in =
message=20
>>>>news:q90kr5pda1mtti9pea5c7tqmao0u9qvfpi@4ax.com...
>>>>> Rigol is like
>>>>> someone who used to leave their front door unlocked, until someone
>>>>> wandered in and stole something, so now they have to lock it.
>>>>
>>>>I think it's more like Rigol sells houses, and you bought a =
two-bedroom house=20
>>>>(although you're aware they also sell three-bedroom houses)... and =
one day you=20
>>>>notice (or Dave Jones metnions that) there's another door in your =
home.=20
>>>>There's no lock on that door, no sign on it saying, "keep out!," etc.=
Your=20
>>>>ne'er-do-well liberal democrat son moves back home after flunking out=
of his=20
>>>>liberal studies program at the local college and you get to =
thinking... having=20
>>>>that kid spend his nights in his own room rather than sleeping on the=
couch in=20
>>>>the living room every night would be nice... I wonder what's behind =
that door?
>>>>
>>>>:-)
>>>
>>>Not entirely the same. It costs money to build rooms, but it costs
>>>nothing to enable IP. Both have market value.
>>>
>>>But why didn't they do the 50 and even 20 MHz bandwidth limits
>>>digitally? They have 1G samples/second to work with. There are some
>>>saturation issues that might be best handled with analog limiting, but
>>>this *is* a cheap scope.
>>>
>>>John
>>
>>Perhaps the cost of the supporting hardware and algorithm development =
did=20
>>not look attractive in comparison to the varactor method.
>
>The 1052 already has user-programmable lowpass/highpass/bandpass
>digital filtering. Pretty cool.
>
>John
>
Postprocessing is not the same as input channel bandwidth limiting. =20
Check out the schematics of Tek analog 'scopes with input channel=20
bandwidth limiting.
Reply by JosephKK●April 6, 20102010-04-06
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:05:18 +0800, "Andrew" <anbyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message=20
>news:l1dlr5l8r4opslaecuhtbhtmn3sd9o8ien@4ax.com...
>On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 10:05:09 +0800, "Andrew" <anbyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"JosephKK" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:ci4lr5p8s2pak1fn1g696jbmlgkacm831b@4ax.com...
>>On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 21:46:48 +0800, "Andrew" <anbyvbel@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Greegor" <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:58f64e6b-2884-4b4c-bbea-60f45949dfba@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com=
...
>>>
>>>> The usual presumption for different prices is that
>>>> different COSTS are involved.
>>>
>>>Wrong.
>>>Supply - demand + goverment intervention.
>>>Nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>>=3D Dreamer. You should use less wild and crazy drugs though, too much
>>=3D wild hallucination.
>>
>>
>>Haven't you noticed "government intervention part" mentioned above?
>>
>>Point being "cost" does not make any difference. After the product is
>>manufactured "cost" is a lost money anyway. All you can do is to =
attempt to
>>sell for as much compensation as you can.
>>
>>"Cost" affects the decision to manufacture or not to manufacture the
>>particular products.
>>
>>=3D Show me a true Adam Smith style market. There hasn't been one in =
the
>>=3D USA for over a century and a half.
>>
>>There has not been one ever, AFAIK. However it does not matter.
>
>
>=3D=3D Bog, have you never heard of per unit costs? Part of which is =
called=20
>BOM?
>
>See above, i can repeat it one more time.
>
>"Cost" affects the decision to manufacture or not to manufacture the=20
>particular products."
>
>Price is the result of negiotiation between the seller and the buyer, =
ant=20
>not the pure function of cost.
>You will sell with a huge profit if you can or with a huge loss if it is=
the=20
>only way to recover at least some of the cost.
You are too damn scattershot to follow. A proper direct answer was =
required,=20
you gave many other things instead. Go away until you can give a =
straight answer.
Reply by Nico Coesel●April 6, 20102010-04-06
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:08:34 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
>wrote:
>
>>John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 14:30:50 -0400, Phil Hobbs
>>><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 4/5/2010 2:23 PM, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:17:56 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
>>>>> <zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "John Larkin"<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:q90kr5pda1mtti9pea5c7tqmao0u9qvfpi@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> Rigol is like
>>>>>>> someone who used to leave their front door unlocked, until someone
>>>>>>> wandered in and stole something, so now they have to lock it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it's more like Rigol sells houses, and you bought a two-bedroom house
>>>>>> (although you're aware they also sell three-bedroom houses)... and one day you
>>>>>> notice (or Dave Jones metnions that) there's another door in your home.
>>>>>> There's no lock on that door, no sign on it saying, "keep out!," etc. Your
>>>>>> ne'er-do-well liberal democrat son moves back home after flunking out of his
>>>>>> liberal studies program at the local college and you get to thinking... having
>>>>>> that kid spend his nights in his own room rather than sleeping on the couch in
>>>>>> the living room every night would be nice... I wonder what's behind that door?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Not entirely the same. It costs money to build rooms, but it costs
>>>>> nothing to enable IP. Both have market value.
>>>>>
>>>>> But why didn't they do the 50 and even 20 MHz bandwidth limits
>>>>> digitally? They have 1G samples/second to work with. There are some
>>>>> saturation issues that might be best handled with analog limiting, but
>>>>> this *is* a cheap scope.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>One possible reason is that with an analogue bandwidth limit, signals
>>>>that would be aliased get attenuated before sampling.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But it's a 1 GHz sample rate. If it's analog limited to 100 MHz, they
>>>can do most anything with it. Decimating won't create aliases, will
>>>it?
>>
>>That depends on the steepness of the input filtering. It will need to
>>roll-off more than 48dB not to have any aliasing products at fs/2. I
>>doubt they decimate. 2GB/s is a lot to handle by the low cost FPGA
>>they use (Altera Cyclone IIRC). I strongly doubt digital realtime
>>filtering is feasible.
>
>Whatever aliases the 100 MHz version has, the 50 MHz mode won't be
>much better. My 1052 amazed me by having user-programmable
>lowpass/highpass/bandpass filtering. If the FPGA can move 1 Gs/s data,
>it shouldn't be hard to implement a simple FIR filter to knock 100 MHz
>response down to 50. The filter wouldn't be realtime in the sense that
>only display data needs to be filtered, and I suspect displays aren't
>updated all that often.
Good question. The samplerate is probably variable which may lead to
several aliasing issues. I doubt they took care of that. Even a simple
FIR filter would require massive FPGA real estate. I suppose the
filtering options are performed during post-processing. IIRC correct
the memory bandwidth is also an issue. At the highest samplerate the
record length is limited to a few KB.
--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------