I was in the market for an oscilloscope, but I didn't want to spend much. I found out about Rigol and their line of $300-400 scopes, and was getting ready to buy one. Then I found a post on how to make your DS1052E, which costs about $400 into a DS1102E, which costs about $700 with a simple firmware modification! I bought the scope right after, and I received it in the mail today. It's pretty nice by default, but doubling the bandwidth is always a plus.
The DS1052E has a 50Mhz maximum frequency, but it has exactly the same hardware (as far as the reverse-engineering folks can tell) as the DS1102E, which has a 100Mhz maximum. This guide will show you how to make the switch very easily using Linux. You can do it in Windows too, but it's a bit more involved, and Linux makes it really really easy.
I've attached the Rigol user guide for both units, in case you don't have one.
WARNING: It's entirely likely that this completely voids your warranty. Make sure you know what you're doing - you can brick your scope if you screw anything up.
The DS1052E has a 50Mhz maximum frequency, but it has exactly the same hardware (as far as the reverse-engineering folks can tell) as the DS1102E, which has a 100Mhz maximum. This guide will show you how to make the switch very easily using Linux. You can do it in Windows too, but it's a bit more involved, and Linux makes it really really easy.
I've attached the Rigol user guide for both units, in case you don't have one.
WARNING: It's entirely likely that this completely voids your warranty. Make sure you know what you're doing - you can brick your scope if you screw anything up.
Remove these ads by
Signing UpStep 1: Spec Comparison
Here are the specs of the 2 scope models. Our test to see if we've succeeded is by looking at the Time Base Range minimum setting - the DS1052E has a 5ns/div setting, where the DS1102E has a 2ns/div setting - a much more accurate view for sure!
Visit Our Store »
Go Pro Today »
How do you like that unit in general? Does the quality feel lacking or is it sufficiently well made? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the device.
Overall its a very nice scope. Big, glowing buttons, easy to navigate interface, and long list of features.
One problem: I'm coming from using university-level HP Analog oscilloscopes, so I was a bit spoiled with the near instant Auto-Scale times. The Rigol takes about 2-3 seconds to lock onto a signal, which once again wasn't a deal-breaker for me, just something I missed when switching from analog to DSO.
I suggest playing with it first if it is within your budget. Like many other tools, you get what you pay for. I wish I had ~10k to buy an HP/Agilent, but I don't so I had to go for this.
My 2 cents.
I really like that it's so low-profile - it's not deep like most of the scopes I've seen. It's about the size of a small shoebox. I think it's a great scope for a beginner, but if one had more stringent requirements, they should look elsewhere and spend more.
Thanks for reading!
lol wut? It's light compared to my old analog scope! For something like this, lighter is better.
Linux always makes things easier :) And free too.
I totally, 100% disagree with this. Linux makes a few techy things easier, but most things that people want to do with their computers are much much harder.
Run Windows as your main OS, because it works well, is easy to use, and is actually compatible with the hardware it was shipped with, and then run Linux in a virtual machine for the few times you need it. It will work reasonably well with the virtual hardware, while it's pretty much guaranteed not to work with your real hardware.
But otherwise, yeah I'm a huge advocate of Linux. Thanks!
Ray the old guy
i'll add a trackback to this for Linux users,
aldo IMHO I think it might be a bit safer to use a windows pc for this stuff...
and it's not that a win pc is very hard to come by :)
I don't see what would be any safer in Windows - the USB driver in Linux is absolutely fine :). It seems like since there's so many more steps in Windows there'd be more to screw up. Here, it's just 2 commands - no software to download and install, etc. But, whatever floats your boat!
Thanks for writing up those instructions - I couldn't have done this without them.
How did you check than indeed the scope is measuring correct an input rectangular signal of saying 80MHz?
Meaning that you have the right rising and falling edges?
thank you, keep working!
I'll see if I can make a function generator for square at 80-100mhz. Thanks for the idea!
However you need at least two different scopes (or two firmware loaded on the same hardware), else you will not be able to compare the results.
Rigol looks a nice scope. I'm playing with scopes since about 20 years (I've started with vacuum tubes scopes, now I'm using a Tektronix MSO4104, which btw is worse than old and real scopes), and can tell that the analog bandwidth is everything in a digital scope. With other words, is unlikely two different bandwith scopes have the same hardware in the input stage (high impedance amplifier and D2A converter) and just a different firmware. That is a stupid way of thinking for the scope designer. Usually even the hardware is the same, the cip used for D2A conversion is much slower on lower bandwidth scope.
That's why, if I'll be in your place I'll be very circumspect about the real effect obtained.
Remember the Chevy Nova? You could get a lot of the same V8 engines offered in the Corvette, but at a much lower cost. Sure, you're not making as much per engine, but you're opening yourself up to a whole new market. At this point, most electronics hobbyists either don't have a scope or are buying used equipment since new scopes cost a fortune. This is one of the first decent and cheap new scopes. Also, since doing this modification voids the warranty, that reduces their cost even more.
So, I'm just saying, it's not necessarily bad business (or a "stupid way of thinking for the scope designer") to neuter a good product.
But, I'm an old designer involved in mixed, analog and RF design, and the way you're describing (which could be correct in those weird times) it hasn't any logic for me .
You have to prove that your modified scope works as expected. Find a way and please do it for yourself, not for me.
Is not enough to show a nice screen, borrow (from your school lab) a real signal generator, a real scope and test your modified scope. Show the differences of the rising and falling edges (measured between 10% and 90% amplitude as the standard require) within your scope and the reference scope.
best wishes,
Once I pick one up for at home I'll be doing this upgrade.
I'm very happy with this tool, it's well finished, with specifications as a Tektronic DS101x equivalent serie -i don't remember the exact model-.
I think it's a good investment: low price and good quality.
I only find a problem: the fan is a little noisy, not annoying but... well but it's really easy to change.
The upgrade shouldn't avoid the specificatiosn because the ADC, and other componens are overrated to such frecuency. In fact, there's a picture of Rigol website with the same rigol DS1052E labelled with 100mhz !!!!
http://www.rigolna.com/products/digital-oscilloscopes/ds1000e/
Check the "view large image" and you'll see the model with the 100Mhz in the upper label over the screen. Hahaha
Since I don't keep the unit powered on all the time, the fan hasn't annoyed me yet, but it is loud. If it ever gets on my nerves, I might be tempted to change it, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
Glad to know someone else likes this scope!