DSO + Saleae or MSO? (Rigol DS1102E/2072, Agilent DSOX2002A/MSOX2002A, etc) - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2013, 09:07:10 pm
content: Hi,I've been using a Tektronix 2247A for several years. I've been thinking about upgrading for enthuisast-level electricitly/electronics and IT related projects - primarily for experimenting and learning. (I find Arduino projects therapeutic, go figure.)For a while I was thinking about a Rigol DS1102E ($399) plus a Saleae Logic16 ($299). Then I saw the Rigol DS2072 (~$850) and scope creep (figuratively and literally) began to set in. Then I saw the Agilent DSOX2002A ($1258?); with the Logic16 (if we really want it/need it) we're at about $1600. Then there is the Agilent MSOX2002A (only 70MHz) at about $2k or the MSOX2012A (100MHz) at about $2300 - both with 8 logic channels.I know the question coming back to me will be "Well, what are you going to use this stuff for?" If I knew that I could probably answer my own question. What I'm hoping is that someone here who has more skill, knowledge, experience, and wisdom will be able to net out some of the likely migration paths users experience as they learn to increase their abilities to examine and harness analog and digital signals.I don't want to overbuy but I'd also like to avoid having to start over sooner than later; sometimes making a bigger investment last longer is the better approach.Having said all that, my sense is that for various reasons the test equipment market might be on the cusp of some especially good continued innovation. Moore's Law should continue to help price performance and as we see the continued integration of software, firmware, and hardware (including display technology) along with more feedback from users at all experience levels (on blogs and forums, etc.) to the test equipment manufacturers I think we are likely to see lots of cool stuff coming. The ability to visualize and analyse and manage information signals is only going to get better - probably a lot better. If this is correct, it might make sense to go with the 1102E and Logic16 and in 2-3 years when I've maybe figured out how to use half the features and capabiltities there might be a great new wave of entry level and next level products. But if anyone wants to suggest that spending more now to move up the food chain will notably help with ease of use and the ability to learn and apply, or if you think some feature is particularly cool, or if you just think the sheer joy of using some particular product or combination of products is the way to fly, I'm open to any suggestions.Thanks!

author: lgbeno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2013, 09:21:21 pm
content: After watching Dave's video about the Rigol 2000 series, it seems to me the best bang for your buck is that plus a Saleae. The reason that I say that is that it looks like rigol gas all and possibly more analog features than the Agilent. Wrt the digital stuff, you need to keep in mind that the bus decoder options in Agilent are extra and included in Saleae.The only real reason that I can see paying for Mso in a scope would be I'd you need to synchronize capture of analog and digital but I don't know if you'll need this.Logic 8 is probably sufficient too and it will save you 150 bucks unless you debug a lot of large parallel interfaces.

author: grego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2013, 09:32:22 pm
content: I'm kind of with Igbeno for the most part - there are two reasons to go with a MSO - convenience and triggering.In my case I just got a new Instek 2204A which has a full MSO option. Which is another scope to look into. Mind you I want to be able to sync between my analog and CAN bus stuff so I have a "need" for a MSO.Then again I also have a Salae - can't beat the form factor!

author: ben_r_
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2013, 10:11:26 pm
content: And something else to add to your calculations:Agilent sells refurbed in brand new condition with all accessories and full 5 year warranty (basically exactly like buying brand new) MSOs via their eBay store AgilentUsed. I just bought an MSOX2024A for $1850 USD. That model is still listed on eBay. Find the listing and use the Best Offer at $1850 and theyll accept. They will also heavily discount those accessories/add-ons listed in the description section of the listing. Thats the best deal youre going to find on a seriously nice professional entry level digital scope.

author: grego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 12:08:03 am
content: Quote from: ben_r_ on April 13, 2013, 10:11:26 pmAgreed, but the decode options will still set you back about $400 per decode -- so if you want I2C/SPI, RS232 and CAN that's another $1200 right there. Plus $200 to get to 1M memory. So yes, it's a SIGNIFICANT discount on a new agilent but there's still a bunch to buy on top of that price.

author: lgbeno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 12:35:17 am
content: Good call on agilentused on ebay. There is a msox2024A on eBay right now for $2344. That's a 4 channel 200mhz scope with 8 digital channels.Of course no optional decoder software but still pretty sweet!I like how those scopes have the wavegen option too.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 12:48:50 am
content: You could get one of the cheap Saleae clones off ebay, The 8 channel ones are 20 bucks, then if you like it buy the real thing. I picked one up to try it out and it's just not for me, but for twenty bucks no big deal.Search ebay for:logic analyzer usb spiand you will find one. Just ask the ebay vendor for the software link.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 03:54:08 am
content: Unless you buy the Rigol DS2072 or better,don't discard the Tektronix 2247A!You may find situations where you need those "analog-like" features,& if you have a real,live ,analog scope they are there to use.

author: ben_r_
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 05:53:30 am
content: Quote from: grego on April 14, 2013, 12:08:03 amHmmm, well they are buy one get one free till Sept...

author: ben_r_
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 05:54:08 am
content: Quote from: lgbeno on April 14, 2013, 12:35:17 amThey will take $1850 for them. They did for me.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 07:49:48 am
content: Thanks for the replies so far, please keep them coming.One question/comment so far: it seems like the primary benefit of a MSO is to track down the correlation between analog events and digital events - or mabye there are bigger/better reasons for going with a MSO? (There is definitely a premium to be paid for adding the 8-16 digital channels on the MSO units.) No doubt analog and digital channel info synchronized on the same screen would be ideal, but it seems seems like separate PC-based logic analyzers can be comparably powerful to the logic analyzers built into the MSOs (for the digital channels on a standalone basis) for not much $. The Saleae device is nicely packaged and the software looks pretty but after watching Dave's review the software doesn't look super functional. I saw someone made a nice chart comparing lots of similar devices and this particular post seemed to recommend Zeroplus.http://microcontrollershop.com/product_info.php?products_id=3369Although the Zeroplus software doesn't look super elegant (kind of early Windows), it seems pretty feature rich and reasonably use-able. Even with a few add-ons the Zeroplus models look like a good value.http://microcontrollershop.com/product_info.php?products_id=4841The Zeroplus hardware and software options seem to address Dave's primary concern about the Saleae (only very rudimentary triggering); the Zeroplus seems able to do a fair amount of triggering and it supports a boatload of protocols. (I'd probably be good with I2C and handful of others.)If the Zeroplus (or something similar could do the job), then the decision might start to narrow to either the Rigol DS2072 or the Agilent DSOX2002A. Any thoughts on the relative merits of these two?- But all this is just a preliminary notion; any and all suggestions are highly welcome and appreciated! Thanks!!

author: cwalex
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 08:03:30 am
content: Don't forget the logicporthttp://www.pctestinstruments.com/looks like it supports heaps of protocols and has 34channels 500MHz!

author: kripton2035
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 08:14:35 am
content: for me having an msox is not about synchronize analog and digital. it is about having only one display on the desk...if you buy a salae or another usb logic analyzer, then you need a computer to use it = another display...and I find these usb analyzers softwares really not user friendly. so I bought one of the less expensive the logic sniffer that fits my needs at least for now.also in a msox you get a very low level of triggering for the logic channels. that's not the case for usb analysers. they wont find frame errors or so.the price difference is really valuable in term of what you can see about the signals.I just can't afford one now, but I will wait and go for a msox2024 with decoders, certainly a refurbished one.

author: grego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 12:21:18 pm
content: Quote from: kripton2035 on April 14, 2013, 08:14:35 amThis. It's one of the main reasons I decided to buy the Instek 2204A .. I already have a perfectly good (and not cheap) Picoscope 3206A but I don't like HAVING to have a laptop on my bench all the time. Same with the Salae Logic-8 I have. I'm going to keep my Salae because I find it useful when I'm in my office with my "main" computer writing code for a MCU to be able to check a bus (make sure to check Dave's review of the Salae though because it's got good info) but the Picoscope will likely hit ebay soon so I can clear off the bench a bit more. The Instek 2204A screen is huge (8-inch) so its not like I'm squinting at anything with my 42 year old eyes.The thing to note though is that a stand-alone LA (rephrease: a QUALITY stand-alone LA) can do things a MSO can't. Like proper state-analysis for example. But having it all tied together is useful - and one screen > two on a workbench if you ask me.As I mentioned in my case I need to be able to probe model railroad DCC signals (square-wave AC) and read CAN bus messages at the same time -- so having it all together makes it quite useful in my case. YMMV.

author: lgbeno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 01:53:18 pm
content: Quote from: ben_r_ on April 14, 2013, 05:54:08 amThat's awesome, thanks for sharing! I think what makes this a great deal is the fact that it is 200mhz 4 channel and Agilent. Thanks cheaper than rigol and Mso is just icing on the cake...

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 02:33:48 pm
content: I've been looking at the Itronix 34 logic analyserhttp://www.pctestinstruments.com/For an extra $15 they will provide a trig out so you can trigger a scope in a similar way to the LeCroy Logic Studio.The reviews of it have been very positive, one negative is that it only has 2k of memory per channel but uses real time compression so this is 2k transitions.I'm not sure what advantages a MSO scope option has given that the triggering and decoding are rather more primitive and the number of channels is only 8 on the Agilent 2000 series. At under $400 the Itronix seems to provide a much more sophisticated solution and you can still trigger the scope to look at waveforms (though presumably there is some trigger delay, LeCroy told me that the LogicStudio has 100nsecs of trigger delay).Has anyone used the Itronix? (It has been around for a while now.)

author: grego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 02:47:25 pm
content: Quote from: lgbeno on April 14, 2013, 01:53:18 pmYup - it's a good deal - just remember your decodes, LAN, expanded memory and segmented memory are all extras. So if you want those make sure to budget another $1000-$1500. Still a good deal though.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 04:12:53 pm
content: I'm with you - there are cost considerations and bench space/practical access considerations (and probaby some other considerations). Personally, I really like the idea of being able to see the relationships between analog events and the digital events, so the integration would be a very desirable feature if it's affordable - but it's a balancing act to make the right decision for the particular situation.Sometimes an all in one tool make sense, other times tool diveristy makes sense. I think I'd like the Agilent MSOs but I'm still trying to figure out what the feature set trade-offs are in addition to the price trade-offs.I noticed this comment:"The thing to note though is that a stand-alone LA (rephrease: a QUALITY stand-alone LA) can do things a MSO can't. Like proper state-analysis for example."Just to confirm, does this mean that the type of MSOs we are discussing (such as the $2300 eBay refurbed Agilent) don't do state-analysis, or don't do state-analysis as well as the standalone/PC-based logic analyzers?Thanks

author: grego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 04:20:21 pm
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on April 14, 2013, 04:12:53 pmCorrect from what I've seen. They don't do state-analysis.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 04:22:25 pm
content: Basic LA/MSOs like the MSOs mentioned in this thread and for example the Saleae, USBee and OLS logic analyzers will only do timing mode. The Intronix LogicPort, and other more advanced LAs like the HP/Agilent 16xxx series will also do state mode.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 04:44:12 pm
content: Hi jpb,Good find! The Intronix looks pretty strong. It's a bit more expensive than the entry level standalone LAs but the software screen shots look impressive in terms of the layout and info provided - and their web site testamonials sound compelling.I think there are at least two decisions here: Question 1) Does it make sense to try to save money (or possibly get even more functionality?) by buying a standalone LA plus a DSO vs. getting the integration advantages of a MSO, and Question 2) if one comes out in favor of having two separate tools (for price and/or functionality reasons), which standalone LAs are the likely contenders? I'm hoping we can keep this thread going long enough to figure out Question 1 (but answering Q2 might be needed to really answer Q1). If we get far enough on this maybe it makes sense to start another thread specifically about standalone LAs. Regarding standalone LAs Dave's reviews raised lots of good thoughts and questions, especially about triggering. Maybe our attempts at answering Question 2 can take Dave's "Q&A" a few steps further and we can identify some of the better value LAs. Maybe that might help influence something he reviews.At the end of the day, I think the winner is something that makes sense economically and preserves bench space and allows the user to see the relationships between both the digital and analog events, but it might be that best capabilities will arrive faster in the next generation of MSOs if the user community helps surface what we really like/need in LAs. I sense we are just at the beginning of a nearly forever convergence of digitial and analog technologies. As IT meets many more embedded devices, many of which will be wireless connected devices, plus many forms of sensors, there are going to be lots of reasons to be able to observe and effect both the analog and the digital signals. Or maybe the current generation of MSOs could be upgraded if manufacturers can upgrade software based features. Either way, whether it's the current generation or the next generation, I believe some very cool measuring, learning and productivity ennhancements are going to become available if the manufacturers know what the users value.Quote from: jpb on April 14, 2013, 02:33:48 pm

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 05:06:33 pm
content: Hi alm,There is a bunch of good info about the Intronix LA on their web site. Any chance you would be up for taking a look-see to tell us how you think it compares to the HP/Agilent 16xxx LA functionality?My guess is that anything that has the HP/Agilent logo is going to cost more, but how do they compare on functionality? (and and maybe performance too)Intronix offers a free download/demo.Quote from: alm on April 14, 2013, 04:22:25 pm

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 05:18:17 pm
content: Looks like this was a previous good thread about the Intronix Logicport:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/intronix-logicport-34-channel-logic-analyzer-teardown/Mostly pretty positive comments on the product. One poster commented that not much seems to have changed in the LA landscape over the last several years. Perhaps that is going to chang if MSOs become increasingly popular.Another poster made an interesting comment about absolute vs. relative timing that I think touches on the notion of how valuable it might be (or might not be) to see the analog events in relation to the digital events.Lots of good stuff on this EEVblog site!

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2013, 05:45:00 pm
content: Thanks for the link to the thread. People who have it seem pretty positive about it, the only negative perhaps being the small amount of memory which is offset by its ability to compress the data which also speeds up the transfer to the pc.Here is quite a good review of it:http://www.circuitpop.com/logicport1.htmlThe reviewer is also very positive and again it is only the small memory that makes him occasionally use another tool for looking at long data streams.I came across it via a review of the LeCroy Logic Studio, the reviewer was disappointed with the Logic Studio but recommended the itronix. He also said there was an "undocumented trig out" so I e-mailed them and they said they could add a trig out for $15. I guess you'd need to calibrate the trig delay but it would be possible to do complex triggers and look at the analogue waveform via the scope (or even via the pc if the data is down loaded - this is the approach LeCroy do with their Logic Studio).

author: ben_r_
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2013, 02:51:42 pm
content: Quote from: grego on April 14, 2013, 02:47:25 pmThey will actually heavily discount those items as well so you can get them for half that price range youre thinking. I was able to get the VGA/LAN adapter for $150 when I bought my MSOX2024A for $1850. The software add-ons are buy one get one free until Sept, so the segmented memory and memory upgrade are only $307 for both (since youd have to buy the more expensive of the two). Decodes are also buy one get one free.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2013, 03:32:43 pm
content: Quote from: ben_r_ on April 15, 2013, 02:51:42 pmOk, these are good dealscompared to the list price- but let's not get carried away here. MSO/FG/VGA/etc modules arestilloverpriced and, IMO, often less useful than a standalone equivalent (e.g. the LogicPort, which I have - or a standalone AWG). I understand the marketing reasons for all of these expensive little modules - and I have nothing against them in principle (if you're helping fund better and cheaper DSOs for me - more power to you), but nonetheless that doesn't necessarily make them a great deal.Also, I haven't really understood the expressed desire of people (as mentioned earlier in this thread) to avoid having a second screen (i.e. a computer) on/near their workbench. Is it about space? And how do you manage without one? My workbench has never been without a work computer for well over twenty years - interfacing to my burners, simulators, emulators, analyzers, special-duty add-in PC cards I've bought or designed, etc, etc. I long ago fitted it out with wireless keyboards and mice and multiple screens to control and view it from a few locations - as well as LAN and long USB cable connects all around; it's as vital a piece of test equipment as anything else I have.

author: ben_r_
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2013, 03:49:53 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on April 15, 2013, 03:32:43 pmYea I see your point. I just went with both. Ive got a Saleae Logic16 too and have computers ALL over the place including a wall mounted unit on the bench (to keep it all off of the bench). Sometimes I do just like to have it all in one package though, depending on what Im doing or how Im feeling that day. Sometimes I want everyone off the bench and just want to point and click my way through the day. Different strokes for different folks for different days

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2013, 04:10:28 pm
content: Quote from: ben_r_ on April 15, 2013, 03:49:53 pmWell, sure, if money's no object - I'll take an MSO/AWG too!Of course, there are moments when I wish I had one - there are certain cases when they would certainly save time (e.g. not having to rig up some complicated DSO + LA triggering, etc) but I still think - given their price - they're a bit of a luxury (although that might not be the case much longer).

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2013, 03:28:11 am
content: Hi marmad,Very cool to learn that you are a Logicport user! Given that really nice review you did on the 2072 I'm thinking that if you have a Logicport it must be a good device.As for one or two tools (separate or integrated) I could make a case for either way. Space is a consideration but not the primary driver for me. I still think the major reason to have an integrated solution is to be able to more easily visualize, measure, and understand correlations between events, but as you say it might be more of a luxury than a necessity.A little off topic from LAs, any chance you could recap the top trade-offs you see between the 2072 and the Agilent DSOX2002A?Thanks!

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2013, 09:35:33 pm
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on April 16, 2013, 03:28:11 amSure. It really comes down to the following - one is a more powerful DSO right out of the box (Rigol) - and the other has more expandability, longer warranty, better support, and (I'm assuming) better interfacing software (Agilent). So it just boils down to which of those is more important for you. But I think the Rigol is without question more bang for the (original) buck.The Rigol has a real vertical sensitivity down to 500 µV/div.The Agilent has a real vertical sensitivity down to 4mV/div.The Rigol has 7MB/channel (28MB/channel optional) and an extra 128MB segment memory standard.The Agilent has 100kB/channel (1MB/channel optional) and no extra segment memory (and the segment feature is optional).The Rigol has standard triggers: Edge, Pulse, Pattern, Video, Runt, Slope, Setup/Hold, RS232/UART, I²C, SPI (Optional package: Windows, Nth Edge, HDTV, Delay, TimeOut, Duration, and USB)The Agilent has standard triggers: Edge, Pulse, Pattern, Video (Optional packages [with decodes]: RS232/UART -or- I²C/SPI -or- CAN/LIN)The Rigol has Parallel decoding standard (Optional package: RS232/UART, I2C, and SPI)The Agilent has no decoding standard (Optional packages [with triggers]: RS232/UART -or- I²C/SPI -or- CAN/LIN)The Rigol has high resolution mode (12 bits) when timebase >=5 µs/div.The Agilent has high resolution mode (12 bits) when timebase >= 20 µs/div.The Rigol has Mask Testing standard.The Agilent has Mask Testing optional.The Rigol has 350MHz 10:1 probes with all models and LAN connection standard.The Agilent has 150MHz 10:1 probes with the 70 and 100 MHz models (LAN connection optional).

author: grego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2013, 09:44:26 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on April 16, 2013, 09:35:33 pmI know the OP didn't ask but since I just got one I'll throw the Instek 2000A series into the hat here too:The Instek has sensitivity down to 1mVThe Instek has 2Mpt/channel (single), 1Mpt standardThe Instek has all the same triggering as the Rigol as far as I can seeThe Instek has no decoding standard but is a true MSO with options for 8 or 16 channel LA modules - buy the module and all the decodes come with it (no additional license)The Instek does NOT have hi-res which is a shame. I asked for it to be added to a future firmware release.The Instek has mask testing standard (they call it GO/NO-GO)The Instek has probes based on what bandwidth you buy - my 200Mhz model came with 250Mhz probes (10:1)The Instek has LAN as an additional module (not standard)The Instek is 80k wfm/s (vs 50k for the Rigol and Agilent) - best case scenario mind youThe Instek is price competitive with the Rigol 2000 series and cheaper than the 4000 series (although the 4000 series is a 4GS/s and the Instek is 2GS/s same as the 2000 and Agilent). If you need 4 channels the Instek (I think) is the clear winner for the price conscious buyer. Also if you are in the US at least they have a local US sales/service center in California and so far they have been awesome in keeping me up to date and answering all my questions. I am not saying the Instek is better/worse than either of the other two -- to be honest I don't think you can go wrong with any of them at this point. It's all a matter of what you are looking for and how much you want to spend.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2013, 10:16:45 pm
content: Quote from: grego on April 16, 2013, 09:44:26 pmNo problem - but if you're going to compare against what I posted - get it rightQuoteThe Instek has 500kB/channel (1MB/channel only in single-shot mode) and no extra segment memory (I don't know if you can get more as an option).QuoteOh no noAccording to the manual:The Instek has standard triggers: Edge, Pulse, Video, Runt, Slope, Delay, Timeout (I don't know what optional ones are available)

author: grego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2013, 10:25:04 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on April 16, 2013, 10:16:45 pmI'd say the same to you - the Instek has segmented memory standard.The Instek has 1M/ADC - so if I'm using channels 1 & 3 I get 1M, if I'm using 1&2 only 500k.And triggering:Edge, Pulse Width, Video, Pulse Runt, Rise & Fall, Alternate,tme out, Event-Delay(1~65535 events), Time-Delay(10nS~10S), Logic*, Bus* (*with DS2-08LA or DS2-16LA option)Bus = I2C, SPI, RS232, RS485, etc -- CAN too shortly.So yeah, pretty complete there.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2013, 10:40:03 pm
content: Quote from: grego on April 16, 2013, 10:25:04 pmYou better read the posts betterI never said it didn't have the segmented memory standard - I said it didn't haveextra segment memoryand it doesn't. The Rigol DS2000 has 128MB of dedicated segment memory. Also, Electro Fan was asking me about 2-channel scopes here - not 4-channel, so being able to use 1M with 2-channels of a 4-channel scope is totally irrelevant here.QuoteThis is copied from the Instek manual:Standard Triggers: Edge, Delay, Pulse width, Video, Pulse and Runt, Rise and Fall, Timeout - which is what I wrote before, only I shortened Pulse Width to Pulse - and Pulse & Runt to Runt.Edit:You included the Delay Trigger twice - and Alternate trigger, although a nice feature to have, is not in reality a trigger type. But I'll admit, though the Instek doesn't have the same standard triggers as the Rigol, it has a very healthy assortment - especially compared to the weak group from Agilent

author: grego
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2013, 10:51:10 pm
content: Quote from: marmad on April 16, 2013, 10:40:03 pmThat list came off the spec sheet - six of one, half dozen of another.Yup - no argument there on the memory if that's something you need there's a winner hands down.As I said before I don't think anyone can go wrong with any of these devices - and they all kind of fit in different price ranges which is nice (The Rigol 2000 in the < $1200, the Instek in the $1000-$2000'ish (unless you go for the 300Mhz model which the Rigol doesn't have <grin>), and the Agilent in the (retail, not a refurb) realistic $1800+ market (once you add in a couple of options you're over $1800 easy).If you need MSO then there are only two options out there for you - the Instek and the Agilent. If you need deep memory there's only one option (Rigol). I just ordered the MSO module for my Instek so I can't speak from direct experience with it yet but will be able to shortly.Not that it matters but the Instek also has a 5Mhz function generator option. Yes, the new Rigol has a 25Mhz but that's just vapor right now until it hits the market. And the Agilent has a 20Mhz option.

author: marmad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2013, 10:56:42 pm
content: BTW, it was just discovered a little while ago today that Rigol switched the Runt trigger in the newest firmware from the options package to standard. I have to assume that has something to do with the release of the GDS-2000AQuote from: grego on April 16, 2013, 10:51:10 pmTrue, but the firmware has all been written for the 25MHz AWG (not function generator) and included in the latest release - so I imagine it might not be vapor for too long. You don't write firmware before you have hardwareMight be a good time to wait if someone is interested in having an AWG built-in to the DSO.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2013, 05:25:53 am
content: Hi marmad and grego,marmad - thanks very much for your reply to my request on comparing the 2072 and the Agilent 2002A; it was very helpful.grego - thanks also for your fine advocacy of the Instek.You guys add a lot of value (including some good entertainment) hereI hope you both will continue to keep the rest of us in clover with your product comparisons - your posts are very informative, helpful, and definitely appreciated.Back on logic analyzers, I've become pretty enamoured with the Intronix LogicPort (although the more I research LAs the more of them I discover and the more I learn about their features). The Intronix seems to have a strong following and their product appears to provide very good functionality along with reasonably good ease of use. Sometimes products that are easy to use but don't do much and sometimes products that do a lot are difficult to use; Intronix looks like they have done a fine job in getting a great balance. The only feature that seems like it might be light is the memory, but even that I'm not sure about. One other thing is that the UI looks like it could be beautified (it looks kind of like "early windows" instead of "modern Mac"), but I'd take the very good features, ease of use, and maybe more memory over beautification.Here are a couple good videos I found on the Intronix LA:- Anyone see any triggers or other features that are missing?Seems like Rigol ought to add this type of LA functionality to their DS2072 and call it a MS2072Maybe Rigol and Intronix should partner on something along those lines

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2013, 07:23:20 am
content: Another LA (LOG Storm):http://www.byteparadigm.com/products/log-storm/

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2013, 03:32:19 pm
content: The thing that is impressive about the Intronix is that it has been around for 7 years I think so there has been plenty of time for any faults or bad points to be highlighted yet all the reviews by users that I've seen have been very positive. The memory is the only thing that people would like more of for doing things like looking at long USB data streams. One user said that having more memory would simplify the triggering for his application but I'm not sure what that means as even 2k is a very long trigger string. Perhaps he was thinking that the trigger could be almost arbitrary with lots of memory as the user can scroll to the required point without having to specifically trigger on a particular data word.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2013, 11:22:06 pm
content: I'm with you jpb. The more I look at LAs the more Intronix stands out as a very good product; when you factor in the features and the price it is hard to find a better overall value.When you download their software you can see that they have pretty steadily been making enhancements; it looked like a couple releases or more per year. It just feels like the "product manager" behind their product is working hard to provide thoughtful and usable features and the company is steadily improving and refining the product. Kind of reminds me of the Porsche or Mercedes Benz approach. The product might not look a lot different year to year but it was good back then and it gets better year by year.At the end of the day, it's about $400 which isn't a huge amount and for that you get a solid package of hardware and software. If I had to pull the trigger (I guess that's a pun when talking about LAs), I could easily go with Intronix. The only question is whether now is the time to jump on a DSO + a LA or whether the DSOs are going to morph into really nice MSOs in another product rev or two.Back on Intronix, they seem to have a pretty low risk proposition:Our products are warranted free from defects in material and workmanship to the original owner for a period of 1 year, and include a 30 day money-back guarantee. If you are not happy with one of our products for any reason, simply return it in good condition within 30 days for a refund less shipping costs.Quote from: jpb on April 17, 2013, 03:32:19 pmjpb, I was re-visiting your earlier post:I came across it via a review of the LeCroy Logic Studio, the reviewer was disappointed with the Logic Studio but recommended the itronix. He also said there was an "undocumented trig out" so I e-mailed them and they said they could add a trig out for $15. I guess you'd need to calibrate the trig delay but it would be possible to do complex triggers and look at the analogue waveform via the scope (or even via the pc if the data is down loaded - this is the approach LeCroy do with their Logic Studio).- Can you tell us more about what you have in mind for uses? What projects you would use with the LA, the trig out, and analogue waveforms in concert with the digital signals? What protocols you would use most often? Any idea on roughly how often you might use the LA? Thx, EF

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 27, 2013, 09:53:37 pm
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on April 17, 2013, 11:22:06 pmSorry, just seen this.I am very vague about what I will use it for at present because I'm in the process of setting up a home lab with a major purpose being self education (I have a degree in electronic engineering and used to work on microwave integrated circuits but I've very little practical experience on things liked embedded systems). I guess I'm aiming at getting the most flexible solution possible. Having the trig out I can see might be very useful if you know something odd is happening under certain conditions for which you need the complex triggering facility of the LA but you want to look at the waveshape or perhaps some related analogue signal (maybe the power rails or some input to a d2a) - it would be very handy to be able to trigger the scope from the LA.To some extent I've already decided against an MSO solution because I've already bought my scope (a WaveJet) but this decision was based on the fact that it was a bargain (350MHz 4 channel for about the list price of the 4 500MHz probes that came with it). But even before I bought it, it seemed to me that the MSO route was rather expensive for the functionality. Perhaps worth it for professional engineers where the cost of the Agilent 3000 series is trivial compared to the charge-rate of an engineers time. But for someone like me setting up my own lab the budget is much more limited.