<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
Rigol scopes addendum:<br>
<br>
Oh, but let me say one other thing:<br>
One negative aspect of the UI I to see is the somewhat minimalism
/ self-imposed space consctraints.<br>
They could have used more encoders for direct acesss of some
things, and a better (more intuitive) arrangement.<br>
For sure.<br>
Still not "useless" to ,e, though :-)<br>
<br>
- Steve<br>
<br>
Am 07.05.2018 um 19:41 schrieb <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:sleepy_dog@gmx.de">sleepy_dog@gmx.de</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:47abe9e4-1769-b168-ff65-ebf81cdee8de@gmx.de"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
Hey,<br>
<br>
Protocol analyzer: Whart, the Owon does not have that? :P :D<br>
I guess you are aware of those chinese ultra cheapo probes that
you can connect to Sigrok and then do all sorts of protocol
analyses? (like, add a UART decoder to a line, and stack a MIDI
decoder onto it...)<br>
<br>
Owon scope, interesting, my perception so far was that they are
regarded *much* less highly than the Rigol ones in all sorts of
regards, but maybe they have improved.<br>
I think Siglent also supposedly improved a lot, with their
"higher end" models anyway.<br>
<br>
I do find the Rigol encoders a bit slow, but calling it
"useless", I don't know, Brian must be a vampire or something
(in some media they have much higher speed of movement than
humans ;)).<br>
And in the 7 or so years that I have some scope or another, I
may have used the "auto set" 2..3 times ;)<br>
But I confess, I used the "measure all" button a lot, which
often has in the big table of measurements that fills half the
screen, at leats one thing I am interested in at that time, so I
don't need to fumble with cursors or poke around in menus.<br>
And for some things I have done, I would have been lost without
the memory sizes of todays scopes.<br>
<br>
I have used Tek DSOs made between 2005 and 2014, old analog
HAMEG ones, and a LeCroy WaveRunner from ~ 2010 with Windows XP
on it which had cost more than my current car costs new ;)<br>
While I can't say what Brian is using that I'm maybe not using
due to lack of knowledge or type of projects,<br>
I can say I like some aspects of the Rigol User Interface better
than of the Tek scopes I have used,<br>
but do acknowledge that the update rate is somewhat slow, so if
you really are really fast, I guess, you won't see well enough
what you are doing - but I think I developed something like
"intuitive physics" for it, lol, I have a feeling for how much
to turn the knobs to get to where, even if I don't see the
relevant screen update immediately but some blink of an eye
later.<br>
<br>
- Steve<br>
<br>
<br>
Tom Wiltshire wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:17BDA4E4-A092-480D-A951-721528067DB4@electricdruid.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Have you ever used one of the Owon scopes, Brian? Similar price
to Rigols, but better than what you’re describing, if the Rigols
are really that bad.
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I’d be interested to hear your view. I’ve been
using one for several years now and find it very suitable for
the stuff I do. It’s fast and plenty accurate enough for my
purposes. The interface is clear and pretty straightforward,
I’d say. One or two of the lesser-used features might be a bit
of a poke-around, but that’s why they put the lesser-used
features there and gave the common stuff it’s own front panel
button.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I’ve never used a Tek scope, but unless it makes
me toast and a nice cup of tea and magically improves my sex
life, it’s going to struggle to justify the huge
price-per-feature increase over cheaper scopes. Seems to me
they’re mostly aiming at a market of people who buy them for
the work lab with someone else’s money. I’m not convinced at
all.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Tom</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">==================<br
class="">
Electric Druid<br class="">
Synth & Stompbox DIY<br class="">
==================</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 7 May 2018, at 01:41, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rsdio@audiobanshee.com" class="">rsdio@audiobanshee.com</a>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="">If you’ll note, I used terms like
“unusable” and “useless” before saying “overall design
quality.” I guess I should have said, “overall
usability design quality” or “overall user experience
design quality.”<br class="">
<br class="">
I am an EE and I have used many different ‘scopes over
the decades. When I’m using a ‘scope, I’m not really
concerned with what it looks like when you take it
apart (*) in a YouTube video, I’m focused on getting a
task done. The Rigol makes it almost impossible to get
work done at a reasonable pace. I’d rather have an
ancient ‘scope with fewer features that work quickly,
than a modern ‘scope that doesn’t know how to provide
precise control over those features. I’m not saying
that the encoders are falling off (physical build
quality), I’m saying that I can’t use them to get work
done efficiently (user experience design quality).<br
class="">
<br class="">
It’s like the firmware inside the Rigol was created by
a team with absolutely no experience in practical
functionality or user experience.<br class="">
<br class="">
Mere editing of things like calibration scaling or DC
offset gets to be hopeless. If all you know how to do
when it comes to using a ‘scope is the automatic
settings, then the encoders won’t really bother you.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Admittedly, some of my clients are not EE graduates,
and they’re not interested in hiring EE graduates, but
they still buy a ‘scope so they can plod along. Folks
who don’t know what they’re missing aren’t really
going to complain about the poor usability of the
Rigol designs. I guarantee you that it’s only popular
because it’s cheap and most folks don’t know any
better.<br class="">
<br class="">
Brian<br class="">
<br class="">
p.s. I am happy that the Tektronix parts have reliable
build quality. If the user experience wasn’t
functional, then I really wouldn’t care how well the
Tektronix was put together. However, when they have
both build quality and appropriate user interface
design, that’s the ultimate.<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
On May 6, 2018, at 3:35 PM, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:sleepy_dog@gmx.de" class="">sleepy_dog@gmx.de</a>
wrote:<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">I have found the
Rigol products to be completely unusable
compared to quality ‘scopes. The encoders are
useless, for all intents and purposes. There’s a
reason these ‘scopes are cheap, and hacking one
to a higher base model does not make up for the
poor overall design quality.<br class="">
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<<<br class="">
<br class="">
Do you have anything concrete about that "poor
overall design quality"?<br class="">
I have seen teardowns and extensive tests done by
several EEs, and they were quite impressed with the
quality, even though there have initially been some
firmware bugs.<br class="">
<br class="">
Apparently many people finding them quite usable,
some of them smaller companies, not just hobbyists.<br
class="">
When I bought my Rigol of the newer generation when
it had just come out, its specs - and they are real
specs - completely dwarfed the back then basic Tek
DSO model, especially its laughable point memory
size (and the "1 elephant tooth per kpoints" they
were asking for extra). For what was it, 1/3 the
price or less? I don't remember exactly.<br class="">
<br class="">
Now take it with as many tablespoons of salt as you
like as I'm no EE, but there are not just a few EEs
who do approve of that product line :-)<br class="">
<br class="">
I'm not sure what exactly is your beef with the
encoders. That they're a bit slow?<br class="">
</blockquote>
<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br
class="">
Synth-diy mailing list<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Synth-diy@synth-diy.org" class="">Synth-diy@synth-diy.org</a><br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy">http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy</a><br
class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>