New LeCroy scope - WaveRunner 8000 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2016, 08:39:25 am
content: It seems a few days ago LeCroy came out with a new scope, this time a new WaveRunner model:WaveRunner 8000http://teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/oscilloscopeseries.aspx?mseries=511Datasheet:http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/pdf/waverunner8000-datasheet.pdfThe Press Release can be found here:http://teledynelecroy.com/pressreleases/document.aspx?news_id=1954&capid=107&mid=554The WR8k apparently uses the same chassis as the HDO Series, which actually is a step back from the predecessor WR6zi with its pivot-able swivelling display:The WR8k offers bandwidths from 500MHz to 4GHz (all 4ch models) at 20GSa/s and with 32Mpts/Ch. The 'M' option doubles the sample rate and increases memory to 128M/Ch.The predecessor WR6Zi offered similar bandwidths, sample rates and up to 256M/Ch, so in terms of basic specs the new scope is not just not an upgrade, it's actually a step backwards.The MSO part is finally fully integrated in the scope (the previous models used an external box connected via L-Bus).The WR8k also comes with an updated MAUI user interface that now supports gestures. I can't say I really missed gestures but I'll certainly give it a try when I get a chance.RRP starts at $14k for the 500MHz variant and go to $29k for the 4GHz variant, all for the base models. There is an 16ch 1.25GSa/s MSO option ($3k RRP), plus a wide range of software options available. This puts the high-end WR8000 in the same price range as Keysight's DSOX4kA (upper-midrange, 5GSa/s, 4M memory) and DSOX6000A (lower high end, 20GSa/s and again 4M). The WR8k is probably the reason why Keysight currently offers the MSO option for free for the DSOX4kA.Looks like a very nice scope, but I have to say I'm a bit disappointed that they have given up some of the neat things of the predecessor WR6Zi. Still, the WR8k shows how poor value for money the Keysight DSOX Series really is these days. You're pretty much paying for the name.Let's hope we'll see a thorough review of the WR8k soon (Shariar?).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2016, 01:58:15 pm
content: It seems Lecroy currently has a special sale for many of their oscilloscopes!

author: Keysight DanielBogdanoff
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 12, 2016, 07:07:45 pm
content: I see the WR8k as more in the class of our Infiniium scopes or the 6000 X-Series. The 4000 X-series to me is more of an upgrade for people who want the bigger screen, not as much for the advanced functionality.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2016, 08:31:50 pm
content: Nice looking DSO, but the shared input controls......

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2016, 08:46:44 pm
content: Shared input controls are actually more consistent than having controls for each channel. On scopes with controls for each channel the way math, decoding, bus, etc traces are handled are usually slightly akward because there isn't a dedicated control knob for it.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2016, 09:01:15 pm
content: Quote from: Keysight_DanielBogdanoff on April 12, 2016, 07:07:45 pmI fully agree, the DSOX4k is much closer to the DSOX3k(T), at least spec- and performance-wise.As to the spot the WaveRunner Series sits in, this would be as you said the DSOX6k and the DSO9k. However, even the DSOX6k is already noticably more expensive, by vastly inferior specs.I really wish Keysight would come up with a replacement for the DSOX Series, at least the DSOX3k and up (the DSOX2k is probably fine where it sits, although it should get more sample memory).

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2016, 09:03:28 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on April 12, 2016, 08:31:50 pmThank god.One of the things I really dislike with my WavePro 7300A are the separate vertical controls. It's much more convenient with a single control as I don't have to move my hand just to change another channel.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2016, 09:07:22 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 12, 2016, 09:03:28 pmYeah but you do to toggle to the channel of interest, what's the difference?

author: GlowingGhoul
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2016, 09:45:24 pm
content: NOTE: This message has been deleted by the forum moderator Simon for being against the forum rules and/or at the discretion of the moderator as being in the best interests of the forum community and the nature of the thread.If you believe this to be in error, please contact the moderator involved.An optional additional explanation is:

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2016, 05:08:08 am
content: Quote from: tautech on April 12, 2016, 09:07:22 pmThe difference is that I don't have to move my hand to change channel, because the channel selectors are located closely to the single vertical control.Of course that's just me, and YMMV of course. But my personal all-time favorite of front panel layout is still the 'single knob' layout of the early models of the old HP 54500 Series (i.e. 54510A/B):

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2016, 05:51:10 am
content: Quote from: Someone on April 13, 2016, 04:05:12 amWell, at least you got the pricing rightBTW, the 1GHz WR8104 starts at below $16k btw.Now let's look at the specs:ParameterKeysight DSOX6004 1GHzLeCroy WaveRunner 8104Price$18k$16kSample Rate20GSa/s (half ch), 10GSa/s (4ch)20GSa/s (half ch), 10GSa/s (4ch) (optional: 40GSa/s half-ch, 20Gsa/s 4Ch)Sample Memory4Mpts (half-channel mode at<2GSa/s; 2Mpts in 4ch mode at<2GSa/s; 1MB half-channel mode >2GSa/s; 500k in 4ch mode >2Gsa/s)32Mpts (half-channel, 16Mpts 4Ch), optional ('M') 128Mpts (half-channel, 64Mpts 4ch)FFTup to 1Mptsup to 32Mpts (128Mpts with 'M' option)Update rate>450k wfms/s>1M wfms/sDisplay12.1" SVGA (800x600) Touchscreen12.1" WXGA (1280x800) TouchscreenAWG20MHz 2Ch (option)N/AMSO16Ch (option)16Ch (option)PlatformWindows CEWindows 7 Professional 64bitAnd I'm not even touching the other differences, like available options.Daniel is right when saying that the WR8k is closer to the Infiniium line than the InfiniiVision scopes, at least in performance (the price is closer to the InfiniiVision, though). The entry in the Infiniium Series is the DSO9k, which is a really nice scope but the 1Ghz version already starts at $19k+.The DSO-S is Keysight's "high definition" scope (10bit) and pretty much competes with the LeCroy HDO (12bit).QuoteAs shown above, that is wrong.QuoteSo I guess you think that $18k for a 4Mpts scope which if you make use of all channels and the higher sample rate it offers drops to 500k is a good price then. Fair enough.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2016, 08:46:21 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 13, 2016, 05:51:10 amIf you like your imaginary specifications, nowhere does lecroy claim a 1M wfms/s never have they, its just you. 1us between segmented captures yes, but not waveform update. Compares similarly to the Keysight Infiniium 9000 or S with 4us and 4.5us respectively.This new lecroy offering sits neatly between the Keysight offerings as mentioned above, while coming in cheaper against either. But its comparable on specifications and sits with the market. If we add 4 channel 1GHz models from the higher Keysight series against your table and correct a few things, the new Lecroy offering is cheaper but not leading specifications.ParameterKeysight DSOX6004 1GHzLeCroy WaveRunner 8104Keysight DSOS104AKeysight DSO9104APrice$18k$16k (reported)$21k$19.5kSample Rate20GSa/s (half ch), 10GSa/s (4ch)20GSa/s (half ch), 10GSa/s (4ch) (optional: 40GSa/s half-ch, 20Gsa/s 4Ch)20GSa/s (half ch), 10GSa/s (4ch)20GSa/s (half ch), 10GSa/s (4ch)Sample Memory4Mpts (half-channel mode at<2GSa/s; 2Mpts in 4ch mode at<2GSa/s; 1MB half-channel mode >2GSa/s; 500k in 4ch mode >2Gsa/s)32Mpts (half-channel, 16Mpts 4Ch), optional ('M') 128Mpts (half-channel, 64Mpts 4ch)50Mpts (half-channel, 100Mpts 4Ch), optional 400Mpts (half-channel, 200Mpts 4ch)20Mpts (half-channel, 40Mpts 4Ch), optional 250Mpts (half-channel, 500Mpts 4ch)FFTup to 1Mptsup to 32Mpts (128Mpts with 'M' option)up to 50Mpts (400Mpts with option)full memory depth?Update rate135k wfms/s (>450k wfms/s in special acquisition mode)unknown700 wfms/s1000 wfms/sSegmented Trigger Rearm1us1us4.5us4usDisplay12.1" SVGA (800x600) Touchscreen12.1" WXGA (1280x800) Touchscreen15" XGA (1024x768) Touchscreen15" XGA (1024x768) TouchscreenAWG20MHz 2Ch (option)N/AN/AN/AMSO16Ch (option)16Ch (option)16Ch (option)16Ch (option)PlatformWindows CEWindows 7 Professional 64bitWindows 7 EmbeddedWindows 7 EmbeddedWe'll both agree there are no comparable models from Tek or RigolOptions can often seal the deal or be the entire purpose for buying a specific mid-high end scope, options for both brands are similar with Keysight having a few more protocol compliance packages. The upper end of this new Lecroy 8000 line might be similarly good value if the prices suggested for the top end 4GHz/64Mpts/40GS/s model are true keeping a 20-30% or so discount against the comparable Keysight products.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2016, 11:47:48 am
content: Quote from: Someone on April 13, 2016, 08:46:21 amNo, of course not. And if you close your eyes and stamp with your feet then I'm sure page 17 of the WR8k datasheet will never have existed:http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/pdf/waverunner8000-datasheet.pdf"Maximum Trigger Rate1,000,000 waveforms/second(in Sequence Mode, up to 4 channels)"Imaginary, rightQuoteYes, the max update rate is in segmented mode. So what? It's normal for pretty much any standard DSO to achieve the highest update rate in segmented mode for deep memory scopes that aren't suffering from early sample memory exhaustion.QuoteWhat a surprise, it's no longer leading in specs if you compare it against an even more expensive scope. Who would have though! Thank you, Captain Obvious!Anyways, it shows that in the price range the WR Series sits there isn't much else which offers similar performance/features. Or in your language, to get a comparable Keysight scope you have to spend a lot more money.And as to the DSO9k, it's starting price brings you directly into WavePro 7Zi-A territory, which again is noticeably less expensive than the comparable Keysight. Same with the WaveMaster 8zi and the DSO90k.QuoteRigol, I fully agree.Tek, well there's the DPO7000C, some another rehash of a roughly ten year old scope design. And the 500MHz variant starts at $18k. I didn't look at the options but at least memory specs are better than for the Keysight DSOX6k (well, they could hardly be worse, can they?).QuoteSimilar you say? OK, let's see:DSOX6004 Options:Triggers: - HDTVSerial Decode:- ARINC429- Audiobus (I2S)- CAN/CAN-FD- FlexRay- I2C/SPI- LIN- MIL-STD 1553- SENT- UART/RS232/RS422/RS485- USB 2.0Software:- Jitter- Power Analysis- Real-Time Eye Diagram- Mask/limit- USB 2.0 Signal Quality- HDTV analysis- FPGAWaveRunner 8000 Options:Serial Decode:- 8B/10B * (includes 3.125 Gbps serial trigger)- ARINC429 *- AudioBus (I2S) *- CAN/CAN-FD *- DigRF 3G- DigRF V4- Ethernet- Fibre Channel- FlexRay *- I2C- LIN *- Manchester- MIL-STD-1553- MIPI D-PHY CSI-2- NRZ- PCIe Gen1- SAS- SATA *- SENT- SpaceWire- SPI *- UART/RS232 *- USB 2.0 incl High Speed Mode *Items marked with '*' are also supported for Triggering, and most of them also supported for measure/graph and eye diagrams in Eye Doctor II.Serial Data Compliance options:- BroadR-Reach- Ethernet 10/100/1000BT- DDR2- DDR3- LPDDR2- MIPI D-PHY- MOST 150- MOST 50- USB 2.0General Software options:- Development option (WR8K-XDEV)- Serial Data Analysis II (WR8K-SDAII)- Eye Doctor II (WR8K-EYEDRII)- Serial Data Mask (WR8K-SDM)- Electrical Telecom Pulse Mask (WR8K-ET-PMT)- Spectrum Analyzer Option (WR8K-SPECTRUM)- Power Analyzer (WR8K-PWR)- Disk Drive Measurements (WR8K-DDM2)- Cable De-Embedding (WR8K-CBL-DE-EMBED)Comparable? Yeah, right.If you believe that the list of options is anywhere comparable you really need to get your head examined. And again, the WR is noticably cheaper than the DSOX6k.And that is just the initial set of options, I'm sure will further extend this as they've done for pretty much all their previous scopes.What the list of options doesn't show is that the options in the LeCroy are much more versatile. SDA and Eye Doctor are very powerful packages, plus the options aren't all separated but neatly integrate with each other.QuoteUsually the higher you go the larger gets the price difference. Both Keysight and LeCroy give roughly similar incentives so the difference in list price pretty much translates to the actual sales price large customers pay.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2016, 12:05:45 pm
content: Quote from: WuerstchenhundQuote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 13, 2016, 11:47:48 amSo, we can tell that Siglent SDS1000X and SDS2000 and SDS2000X wfm/s update rate is max 500kwfm/s. Nice.(waveforms speed in Sequence mode inside one sequence what include >42000 waveform)

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2016, 12:24:16 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on April 13, 2016, 12:05:45 pmIf that's what they are really capable of (i.e. you can measure it), then yes you can say that.Why shouldn't you?

author: Keysight DanielBogdanoff
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2016, 03:40:40 pm
content: The big reason we came out with the 6000 X-Series is that we heard a lot of feedback from people asking from more bandwidth in the InfiniiVision form factor. You could easily just pick it up and walk down the hall (6.8kg). It's also the cheapest 6 GHz scope available by a long shot as far as I know. The higher BW models are much more popular than the 1 GHz because there are so many 1 GHz scopes out there.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2016, 04:38:18 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 13, 2016, 12:24:16 pmOf course they are capable of this speed. It is tested/measured many times.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2016, 06:26:45 pm
content: Quote from: Keysight_DanielBogdanoff on April 13, 2016, 03:40:40 pmI'm sure you're right re the price, it is the cheapest 6Ghz scope (I don't have the price at hand but I think the 6GHz one goes for $38k or so). And you're right re portability, the DSOX6k it's a very compact and lightweight high bandwidth scope.The issue I see is that there's not really a lot you can do with it because of its hardware limitations. We buy a lot (really a lot) of test gear, and the vast majority is Keysight. But most of the labs we serve have no use for the DSOX6k. The 6Ghz variant may be cheap but it's hampered by the weak hardware platform and Windows CE, and like no other scope in Keysight's portfolio it shows the weakness of the MegaZoom ASIC architecture. I'm sorry but 4M is way too small in this class, and much more so when the sampling rate has to stay below 2GSa/s to be able to use the full memory (at 2GSa/s and above it only has one quarter, i.e. 1M for half-channel and 500k for quad channel). My guess is that this was done to increase the memory bandwidth to deal with the high amount of data that comes in at 20GSa/s, and it shows that MegaZoom isn't really up to it. And I'm sure I don't have to tell you that such tiny sample memories present a very big limitation in a 20GSa/s scope as the high sample rate is only available at very short time bases and will drop notably with increasing length.Also, the tiny memory and the slow hardware platform only allow comparably simple analysis tools (the Power Analysis and Jitter tools of the DSOX6k are closer to what you find on the LeCroy WaveSurfer 10, and that is a $10k 1GHz mid-range scope, although with more memory), and the closed WindowsCE platform prevents the use of customized analysis tools like MathLab. And unfortunately most areas where a high bandwidth scope is required these shortcomings matter.The DSO9k isn't really an alternative as it's even more expensive than the DSOX6k, and while it offers some very good specs it's really placed above the WaveRunner (it's closer to the WavePro Series from LeCroy). That leaves Keysight with a pretty large gap for a 500Mhz to 4GHz Infiniium scope with competitive specs.What I'd like to see from Keysight would be to replace the whole DSOX Series, which has become somewhat stale anyways, with a new Series of scopes. I leave the entry level out (it's not really my market anyways) but for the lower mid-range (200MHz to 1GHz, 2.5/5GSa/s) I'd like to see a InfiniiVision scope on an embedded platform (WinCE) with at least 10 to 12MB sample memory (which also shouldn't half or get quartered when using certain functions/sample rates), at least an XGA or WXGA display, 1M or 2M FFT, and network and monitor ports (DisplayPort) as standard. Make this in two versions with 6.4" and 10" as a replacement for the DSOX3k and DSOX4k. Have a look at the LeCroy WaveSurfer 3000. I'm sure Keysight could come out with a similar price/performance ratio if they wanted.Above the DSOX4k replacement I'd like to see a Windows scope (Infiniiium) with similar specs and performance data as the WR8K. There is really nothing at the moment in Keysight's portfolio which can fill that gap. And that's a gap where a lot of the scopes we order are located within. Maybe offer a cut-down variant of the 89600B Vector Analysis software as an option, which would be a great option.

author: Keysight DanielBogdanoff
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2016, 07:19:45 pm
content: All good feedback, for sure! The 89600 works with the InfiniiVision scopes, but it would be really cool to have it as an integrated software app.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2016, 12:19:38 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 13, 2016, 11:47:48 amYou still won't believe that there is a world of realtime update, and its completely different to segmented capture. If the Lecroy products offer fast realtime update rates, why do they not advertise or specify it? Why has no-one measured it and shared the results? Probably because it doesn't have a fast realtime update rate. As has been the subject of many lengthy threads on this forum, realtime update rate has some niche uses but that and the similarly fast mask testing are the point of difference (selling feature) in specifications for the Keysight X series scopes. Having that realtime speed in a 4/6GHz scope is quite a unique position.You can make disingenuous comparisons between the Lecroy 8000 and Keysight 6000X series all day long until you are blue in the face, but it forgets that they are targeting different uses/markets/purposes. If you want to make relative comparisons look at the Keysight offerings that have deep memory and Windows 7 operating systems such as the models mentioned to you, they are 20-30% more expensive but otherwise hitting specifications that are almost identical (and small differentiators such as more compliance packages...). As the friendly representative from Keysight has noted, the 1GHz scope market is full of different options, its worth looking carefully at them all to find whats best for the specific uses, the Tek DPO7000C or DPO5000B might even get a look in.You're a Lecroy fanboi, we'll call you out on this, especially while you make up specifications for products and provide weak comparisons to try and proclaim how amazing Lecroy are.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2016, 11:07:09 am
content: Quote from: Someone on April 14, 2016, 12:19:38 amAnd you still show a lack of grasp of some basic facts.Pretty much every deep memory DSO has the fastest update rate in segmented mode. The InfiniiVisions like the DSOX are an exception because the MegaZoom ASIC is designed for a high real-time update rate, on the other hand the small memory hampers its update rate in segmented mode.QuoteWhy should they specify it? The update rate varies a lot depending on time base settings and memory settings (yes, you can set memory on these manually, it's not auto only as in the InfiniiVision Series). That's why pretty much every manufacturer just posts the maximum rate the scope can reach. I didn't hear you complain that Tek or R&S only specify the maximum rate, and to some extent even Keysight does.And as to why they don't advertize it, well I have to guess here but it seems they have plenty of other interesting features they can base their marketing on (you've seen the list). You could ask as well why they don't have these ridiculous "ours-vs-theirs" comparisons as pretty much every other big brand that obviously has not enough to say about their product and therefore needs to bash the competition.QuoteI don't know? Maybe because the waveforum update rate is much more important for entry level scopes which have pretty basic triggers only, and are often used in a similar way as analog scopes (i.e. the user staring at the screen waiting to see a glitch) and less so for a high-end scope.But hey, here's a chance for you to shine! Why don't you get one of these scopes (they might even give you a loaner), do some waveform rate testing and publish the results?QuoteAs I said, there's your chance! Why don't you go ahead and prove that the LeCroy scope (pick one, WRXi, WRXi-A, WR6zi, WP7zi, WM8zi, WR8k) doesn't have a fast waveform update rate, or one that is inferior to the competition?BTW: ever had a look at the Keysight Infiniiums? I guess not. They all have pretty low real-time update rates, and reach their maximum in segmented mode. Funny enough, most of their high end scopes are well below the 1M wfms/s mark even in segmented mode.QuoteYes, it's unique and pretty useless because the limitations of that architecture, but it's obvious you've never used an advanced high bandwidth scope in a demanding test scenario or you'd had known that yourself. You really think I'd use some primitive tool like mask testing for searching for a glitch when on a newer high-end scope I have a wide range of tools available to detect, identify and quantify any type of irregularity in a repetitive and non-repetitive signal?Not that the fast real-time update of the DSOX6k wouldn't be nice, but it comes at significant costs, not just in price but most importantly in features and capabilities. You have to have very low expectations if you think 500k of memory are useful in a 6Ghz scope sampling at 10Gsa/s.But as I said, it's clear you've never come into a situation requiring a scope of this class, so I'm cutting you some slack here.QuoteThat must be one of the most stupid arguments I've heard in a long time, and I heard quite a few. Are you really saying that Keysight scopes are better because a model that is comparable with the WR8K is only 20-30% more expensive? Seriously?QuoteYes, there are quite a few 1Ghz scopes, but as always you're completely missing the point. This isn't about some 1Ghz scope, it's about a lower high-end scope in the 500Mhz to 4Ghz bandwidth bracket and a starting price in the $14k region.QuoteWho is *we*? You mean that certain other poster who just had his post deleted by a moderator for trolling? You're pretty much alone, and the only difference between you and this other poster is that your trolling attempts are more timid. The modus operandi however is the same: make wild statements, provide zero proof, and accuse the "opponent" as fanboi. Based on some of your incredible moronic statements it would probably be fair to label you as "Keysight fanboi", but I have nothing against Keysight, they make a lot of really great kit and offer tremendous service, and the last thing I want is to associate this fine company with a troll.Anyways, it seems you're now alone in your anti-LeCroy jihad.QuoteSays the gasbag who has not provided a single shred of evidence and clearly lacks the grasp of the topic.So unless you can provide some proof or references substantiating your claims I'll now ignore your rants and troll attempts. But I'm not holding my breath re the references, because I know full well that (like a certain other poster that shall be unnamed) you're not up for it because it's all just a lot of hot air.I do contribute to this forum in my free time, and frankly I've already wasted too much time with shallow trolls when I could have a productive discussions with some intelligent adults instead.Have a nice day!

author: quantumvolt
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2016, 12:14:26 pm
content: When everything else fails in this forum - I can always save my day by reading a SausageHound Scope Post. Thanks.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2016, 12:49:40 pm
content: Quote from: quantumvolt on April 14, 2016, 12:14:26 pmThanks!I also do birthday parties, halloween parties and bar mitzvahs

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2016, 09:53:51 pm
content: Back to the fear and uncertainty campaign I see.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 14, 2016, 11:07:09 amYou incorrectly equated realtime capture performance with segmented capture performance (again, and I'll call you out on it every time) and cherry picked numbers that weren't comparable to make it appear like the Lecroy product had superior specifications. All the larger scopes here are Agilent and Tek so I can't measure the performance of a recent Lecroy product, but I'm not the one trying to claim it has any specific waveform update rate, thats you and its on you to provide the evidence for those claims.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 14, 2016, 11:07:09 amHere comes the FUD. I routinely work with multi-gigabit serial transceivers, and look at clock performance with FFT on long memory depths on both more expensive and less expensive scopes, but you're welcome to draw more lies into your wall of FUD. To bulk out that full quote:Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 14, 2016, 11:07:09 amI've found niche uses for the extremely high realtime update rates working on high speed ADCs. When building eye diagrams of transceivers I get bored waiting to capture the data, realtime update speeds can increase my productivity or show otherwise unseen problems, its useful where available.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 14, 2016, 11:07:09 amNowhere did I say they were better, but they compare on specifications, to balance your fixation on comparing the Lecroy 8000 series to the not comparable Keysight 6000X (compare instead to the Infiniium scopes as suggested and presented).Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 14, 2016, 11:07:09 amI've put up the numbers from the manufacturers so that people can compare them, against comparable products. Stop introducing imaginary specifications/performance or disingenuous comparisons and it won't be a problem.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 14, 2016, 11:07:09 amYou post almost exclusively in the Test and Mesurement sub forum, with a focus on promoting particular brands. But do please add more FUD to the thread.

author: D3f1ant
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2016, 03:56:32 am
content: This place starting to read like an Apple forumPity there only the two contendersI would be disappointed if a new product wasn't better than existing product in a similar price category, that's a natural technology progression, granted test equipment seems to have very long update/refresh cycles...compared to phones

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2016, 06:33:06 am
content: I get the impression the waveform update rates are not high on any Windows based oscilloscope so if you are into staring at a screen to find a glitch, a Windows based scope may not need to be the best buy. Fast sequential recording however (combined with deep memory) is a very usefull asset. You can set the trigger on an error/glitch condition and capture a whole bunch of them for analysis.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2016, 07:52:56 am
content: Its possible to have the best of both worlds, Tek include high waveform update rates on their Windows based scopes when in a special mode. Last time I looked into it the data is sent directly to a custom "videocard" from the acquisition system, and here is a look at the current 5000 series where its done in an FPGA:http://debugmo.de/2013/03/whats-inside-tektronix-dpo5034/It offers a very high realtime speed mode, or deep memory modes so the tradeoff is a choice for the user.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2016, 09:04:29 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 15, 2016, 06:33:06 amProbably. But then, even many standalone scopes have comparably low waveform rates, i.e. the R&S RTM (11k wfms/s). On the other side, better Windows scopes have real-time update rates in the 1000's or 10k's of waveforms/s. So we're not exactly talking about single digit figures here.QuoteExactly. Which is exactly why I think the DSOX6k is lacking. 1M or 500k aren't exactly deep memory, and even less so for a scope sampling at 10GSa/s or 20GSa/s.The other point, one that is often ignored, is that due the high frequency and the resulting ultra-short presence a single or very rare glitch, even on a perfect scope with an indefinitely fast sample rate and a perfect real-time display, is still unlikely to be visible long enough to be perceivable by the human eye or to show up bright enough on a persistence display. Staring at waveforms and looking out for glitches and runts may work at frequencies in the kHz or lower MHz range, but at frequencies in the GHz range it's a different story.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2016, 10:08:45 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 15, 2016, 09:04:29 amHave you tried using persistence? It doesn't impact the waveform rate of the Keysight X series scopes and makes it possible to see those singleton events without even turning up the intensity, or use color grading to add more contrast.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2016, 10:21:41 am
content: Quote from: Someone on April 15, 2016, 10:08:45 amSee above (relevant part now highlighted for emphasis).QuoteAgain, see above. What you say is all fine for lower frequencies but I'd get old and grey (OK, older and greyer) if I tried to capture some of the irregularities I know are in the signals I work with with persistence display (and I'd probably just miss them if I didn't know they are there).There's a point where you have to stop treating a DSO like an analog scope from the old days because such methodology isn't good enough. All these analysis tools on an advanced scope aren't there just for checking boxes on a marketing sheet.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2016, 10:38:59 am
content: At full intensity all the traces are displayed at maximum brightness, so you can see them all no matter how fast or infrequent the signals. Even at a normal intensity of 30-40% the single event brightness is clearly discernible from the background/graticule and the brochures from Keysight are full of this material:http://literature.cdn.keysight.com/litweb/pdf/5991-4436EN.pdf

author: LPaul
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2016, 10:51:57 am
content: Quote from: Someone on April 15, 2016, 10:38:59 amDidn't Wuerstchenhund answered this specific point 3 times already?Looking at this scope and the latest R&S, at what point do you justify this class of scopes? Is it only for high speed buses development (usb, pcie, etc.) or are they also used as everyday scopes?Especially compared with the much cheaper 500MHz-1GHz scopes.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2016, 11:08:22 am
content: Quote from: Someone on April 15, 2016, 10:38:59 amYes, I know it sounds great in the brochure, and understandably so as waveform rate is pretty much the only thing the DSOX Series excels (at least the smaller models as the DSOX6k only achieves 45% of the update rate of the smaller models).But unfortunately reality is a bit different than the demo situation (clean, nice, repetitive signal with frequent and very obvious glitch), and in reality a single glitch might well be unnoticeable on the persistence display (i.e. too rare, or just to unpronounced to stand out). And even if it is visible, sometimes a glitch may appear only very rarely, i.e. we had some glitches that didn't show up for hours. You really want to spend your day watching on a persistence screen and wait for glitch to appear on screen? With a better scope (i.e. the newer Infiniiums or , back to the actual topic, scopes like this new WR8K) I just setup the scope, go away and do something else, and then come back later and the scope will present me with every instance the glitch occurred, i.e. the exact time stamp, plus gives me all the parameters of each occurrence, plus a screenshot of each if I want. I could even tell the scope to let me know when a glitch appeared.And all that works with repetitive and non-repetitive signals alike.Good luck doing that with your persistence display.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2016, 11:12:05 am
content: Quote from: LPaul on April 15, 2016, 10:51:57 amWuerstchenhund says he can't see the signal, and that the realtime display won't work with high frequency signals, despite multiple different ways to make the signal clearly visible and it being the advertised feature of these products. The extremely high realtime capture rates are nice for rapidly assessing signal integrity, especially when you're doing something interactive like adjusting equalisation or power supply voltages.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2016, 11:24:03 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 15, 2016, 11:08:22 amIf you've adjusted the display persistence or intensity wrong thats not a problem with the scope, its not only possible to see every capture but its easy with different ways to achieve the same result. At a normal setup its possible to see the single event graduation, or you can exaggerate it if you want. In everyday use with the intensity set for 30% (as I typically leave it at) the intensity of the single events are clearly visible, I have to put in really odd settings to make it harder to see.And you'd prefer to use segmented capture to see these infrequent events? Well these scopes all have segmented modes to do that too!

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2016, 12:36:01 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on April 15, 2016, 11:24:03 amThat has nothing to do with a wrong setup, even at a low saturation level very rare glitches can easily get missed. Even more so if the deviation is minor.QuoteAgain you miss the pointIt.s not much of a problem for lower frequencies, but we're not talking about what you do but frequencies in excess of 1GHz.Also, how do you intend to find glitches in non-repetitive signals with persistence mode?QuoteYeah, at a much lower waveform rate (as you say the DSOX6k's max wfm rate is in real-time mode, it's much slower in segmented mode), and with a miniscule 1MB or 500k of memory (which means sample rate and useable bandwidth drop very quickly at time bases larger than 2ns, and it's memory starved when in segmented mode). Plus the DSOX6k still lacks many of the tools (i.e. WaveScan) found in better scopes that make finding glitches easy.In addition, even in real-time mode it's waveform rate that is still only 45% of the rate the scope this topic is about achieves in the mode that is most relevant for high bandwidth scopes That this scope also offers not just a lot more sample memory but also a wider range of options and still costs less is just a bonus.To say it in your words, you really have to be a Keysight fanboi to spin this into some advantage for the DSOX6k

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2016, 12:53:59 pm
content: Quote from: LPaul on April 15, 2016, 10:51:57 amWelcome to my world!QuoteWell, I guess the first question is if you have use/need for its capabilities, if not then it's a waste of money as a cheaper scope will do. I use them because I work in projects that require the examination of high frequency signals, and because the cost of the scope is small change compared to the moneys involved.But in general, yes, you can use them as everyday scopes. That's pretty much what I do as I'm almost exclusively working with high-end scopes. At work my scope is a 13Ghz Keysight DSO90kA (with some luck soon to be replaced by a new Infiniium V), and I do also use it for simpler stuff with basic passive probes plus probe adapter. It's easier than to walk around the lab and look for a smaller scope just to do some measurements.At home, my main scope is a LeCroy WavePro 7300A 3Ghz scope (although I also have a WaveRunner 64Xi and a HP 54645D), and I also use it for pretty much everything (the WRXi is just sitting on the shelf awaiting reassembly, and the HP is just for cross-checks and nostalgic reasons). Aside from price the only downside really is the noise these scopes make, but there are usually ways to reduce that via newer/better fans which provide similar airflow at lower noise figures (and newer scopes are often much more silent than their predecessors anyways). On the upside, there's very little you can't do, and many of the advanced tools are often very useful for simpler tasks, too. Plus I can write my own signal processing applications (the WavePro gives me access to the raw sample data stream) which is great for a few experiments I'm working on.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2016, 01:06:05 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 15, 2016, 12:36:01 pmIf you can capture the glitch in realtime mode then you will see it on the screen, just for you I tired turning the intensity control to 0% and the traces all became a similar beige but still clearly definable against the background and graticule, and single events were not any harder to see than the rest of the overlapping traces. How are the frequencies of the features important to what is seen? Capturing it is the blind time/dead time/test time maths thats been discussed at length, unless you can trigger on the particular fault or feature you are trying to see but knowing what to trigger for is one of the advertised features of the high realtime update rates.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 15, 2016, 12:36:01 pmI'm not spinning this as an advantage for any specific scope, R&S and Tek also have these characteristics. You're trying to argue this both ways that segmented mode with deep memory is great because you can capture all the frequent glitches, but realtime mode is bad because the glitches are infrequent. Realtime mode is suited to looking for unknown transient characteristics and unusual events in high speed signals, while segmented mode is suited to known events you can define a trigger for.Since you have this fixation on the Keysight 6000 series perhaps you'd like to refer back to the chart with accurate numbers I posted:Quote from: Someone on April 13, 2016, 08:46:21 amWhere you can see all those scopes have similarly fast segmented capture rates, and the Keysight 6000 offers faster triggering in segmented mode than in realtime so you're simply wrong again on that too.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2016, 02:22:19 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on April 15, 2016, 01:06:05 pmIs it possible that you and Wuerstchenhund do not at all talk about same persistence.With this particular thing I can not understand at all what mr W is talking and how frequency is affecting if use persistence.@ WuerstchenhundI have many times turned scope for infinite persistence and after lounge come back and look if there exist some anomaly - glitch or what ever. What kind of "blind point" you have here now.It works with 20GSa/s scope and it works with lower end 2GSa/s Siglent or what ever. And what is difficulty to see these, they are there as long until you reset. Or is it just too simple way?After this unknown anomaly is visible on the display it is more easy to think how to continue analyzing.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2016, 10:54:57 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on April 15, 2016, 02:22:19 pmPersistence is a well defined thing, perhaps Mr W is confused from how Lecroy have implemented realtime on some of their modern scopes:ru.tek.com/dl/48W-26394-0_0.pdfQuote from: Tektronix

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2016, 04:14:47 pm
content: Let's try to bring this to an end because it's going round in circles.Quote from: Someone on April 15, 2016, 01:06:05 pmThat might be true for the type of signals you work with, but some of the signal I deal with suffer from very narrow runts, so small that it's unlikely you'll see them with your eye even on a persistence display because they don't stand out enough. And that is if you even know they are there. If not then you'd probably never find out if all you do is look at persistence mode.It should be obvious that having to rely on the human eye to recognize deviations is a flawed idea. Not saying it never works, and if you see a glitch it's really there, but if you see nothing it doesn't mean there isn't anything.QuoteI said non-repetitive. Especially mult-state signals, if you put them on persistence mode then all you'll get is a wall of traces. It's worthless. for that.QuoteWhere? What setup? What events? My glasball is in repair so it would be helpful if you'd provide a bit more details what you're actually doing if you try to refer to it. Attaching screenshots are allowed, tooQuoteSimply because, like all signal forms, even a glitch is just a combination of sine waves at certain frequencies, and very small glitches usually consist of very high frequencies. Even if the scope has sufficient bandwidth and sample rate, if your wanted signal is a lot lower then looking at the edges at persistence mode might not be visible enough for the human eye, even if the glitch appears very often.That may not be understandable to you but I've seen quite a few engineers get caught out by this on multiple occasions during my career.QuoteNo. My argument is that high real-time update rates are great as long as it doesn't come at the cost of memory and other capabilities. My argument is that the WR8K offers a better price/performance than Keysight's current competitor which is the DSOX6kA.QuoteYes, on the DSOX6k. On a somewhat modern LeCroy (as well as on a modern Keysight Infiniium), you can find known and unknown events without the need for persistence display. It doesn't mean you can't use it, you can if you want to spend time starring at a screen.On the DSOX6k you pretty much have to.QuoteI compare against the DSOX6k because itit's in the same price and market segment as the scope on topic. Actually, price-wise I could as well add the DSOX4k to the list, but that compares even worse than the DSOX6k.I know that you already suggested I should compare against a much more expensive Keysight scope as this will be betterQuoteThat's the re-arm time, which is not the only factor determining the update rate. I'm pretty sure the InfiniiVision scopes don't reach higher waveform rates in segmented mode than in real-time mode due to their architecture, which for the DSOX6k would be ~450k wfms/s.What I'll do is if I have some time next week or so then I can search around the labs if I can get my hold on a DSOX6004 (I think I've seen one or two in one of the racks) and do some quick waveform update rate testing. Provided we still have them, as they weren't exatcly the most favored scopes (and I do know that they don't sell particularly well).However, as you might recall, the waveform update rate was just one thing I mentioned (but for some reason that's the only issue you're fixated on), and frankly the waveform update rate is probably the least relevant of all of them.What weights a lot more is the fact that the sample memory on the DSOX6k is tiny. 4MB max, turning into 2MB per channel in four channel mode. If that wasn't bad enough, this is only true as long as the sample rate is below 2GSa/s (for a 1GHz to 6GHz scope!). If you dare to use a sample rate of 2GSa/s or more then the available memory drops to 1MB in half-channel and 500k in full channel mode. Just to remember, that is a scope sold in 2016 that starts at $18k! It's a bit like Tek's TDS694C (10Gsa/s and 120k max memory) but that was back in 2000. I'd have thought we left the era of low memory scopes long behind, but apparently not.Aside from a wide range of limitations that comes with it, the tiny memory also means that the 6Ghz DSOX6k (which can properly resolve a 6GHz signal in 2ch mode only anyways as in four channel mode the max sample rate is 10Gsa/s so well below Nyquist-Shannon) quickly runs out of sample memory and has to drop the sample rate, which reduces the usable real-time bandwidth further.I'd really like to see how you spin this into an advantage.The other thing is that the DSOX6k, like all InfiniiVision scopes, are built on a simple Windows CE platform. That means limited processing, limited memory (RAM), which in turn means a lot simpler and more basic tool sets. It also means no access to the OS and the ability to install user software. Although I'm sure it means nothing to you, in this class of scopes being able to run MathLab or other software is actually a thing.With the DSOX6k, Keysight pretty much tries to compete with an entry-level platform (InfiniiVision) in the high-end market, which is a bit daft, really, even more so when that's their only option in this segment.Quote from: rf-loop on April 15, 2016, 02:22:19 pmThat is fine (and let's assume for a moment you can actually see the glitch), the difference is:- you come back after lunch, look at your scope, see some glitches on the persistence screen and then only start thinking how to continue analyzing,- I come back from lunch, look at my scope, I get a list with time stamps of every occurrence and the parameter of every glitch that was captured, plus a screenshot for each occurrence. Which means while you think how to analyze further I'm already on my way solving the problemNot that I'm expecting a 2GSa/s Siglent scope (or any entry-level scope) to be capable to do this. But not having to rely on the human eye to identify a glitch is one of the advantages high end scopes have enjoyed for a very long time.Quote from: Someone on April 15, 2016, 10:54:57 pmAs someone who actually knows these scopes and doesn't have to resort to Tek marketing material for information about LeCroy scopes I'm certainly not confused about LeCroy's implementation, thanks.Regarding WaveStream, this is a specific mode in some LeCroy scopes that emulates the behavior of an analog scope, i.e.including phosphor persistence. For example, on the old WaveRunner Xi-A Tek mentions the non-existing persistence is controlled through the intensity control knob in the top right corner (pressing it enables and disables WaveStream):So yes, looks like Tek got it wrong (I guess they got confused because you can't select normal persistence mode in WaveStream which already is a persistence mode), and maybe if they spent less time talking about the competition and invest more time building scopes that aren't old shit then maybe their market share wouldn't be in a constant decline and they wouldn't need to embarrass themselves by having to compare their scope with an older scope of a competitorWaveStream is an additional mode, it doesn't replace the normal real-time and persistence modes that also exist in these scopes. And even in persistence mode you get more tools at hand than with the Keysight DSOX6k:That's a simple square wave with excessive jitter on the trailing edge, as easily recognizeable on what is a standard persistence display found in any modern scope.There's also color grading (that's also in the DSOX6k) but that doesn't give much more information in this case.But there's also 3D persistence in the LeCroy:The 3D image clearly shows that the jitter is linear and squarish in nature, which helps identifying the cause.And you couldn't do that with the DSOX6k.3D persistence is quite a nice tool if you want to examine a signal visually, as often you can immediately identify certain unwanted components, and can give a better view of the behavior of the UUT.BTW, these screenshots are from a 10yr old WRXi I quickly put together for testing. Newer LeCroy scopes like the one on topic have a much wider array of tools available.And you still think the DSOX6k is better value/money than the WR8k?

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2016, 04:45:06 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 16, 2016, 04:14:47 pmBullshit.In persistence mode no need even watch display. Just go to lounge or sleeeping and if scope have sampled it and it is in displayed area it stay there as long as you want. It is enough if it occurs once and how short it ever is if scope can capture it. Some times it feel like you are talking about analog scope.With infinite persistence it stay on the screen as long as you reset persistence. If scope can catch it it stay on the screen.So simple. Exept if your scope do not have this kind of persistence mode. Sad if do not have this simply tool.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2016, 04:49:58 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on April 16, 2016, 04:45:06 pmIMHO you missed the part with the explaination about persistence mode not being useful in all cases. For example imagine a glitch which gets burried in the result of an infinite persistence waveform. After all persistance just puts a lot of acquisitions on top of eachother.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2016, 05:14:30 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on April 16, 2016, 04:45:06 pmMaybe you should have read what I wrote more thoroughly because you missed the point completely.I certainly didn't say that you have to stand there staring at the screen (although I've seen people doing that), I said that in persistence mode not all glitches might be pronounced enough to be actually "seen" and recognized by the operator.What this discussion clearly shows is how stuck some people are into techniques back from the analog days. I'd certainly use persistence mode if that's all what's available, but not when better tools exist. Maybe it should be remembered what class of scopes we're talking about here.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2016, 05:51:36 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 16, 2016, 05:14:30 pmClass of scopes and then you explain: "....unlikely you'll see them with your eye even on a persistence displaybecause they don't stand out enough.Please tell me how it disappear from display if you have infinite persistence on. Perhaps some bug in FW?

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2016, 06:24:58 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on April 16, 2016, 05:51:36 pmFW bug? Disappears from display?I'm sorry but if you can't even crasp the simple fact that on a persistence display a glitch might well be to small to recognize with the human eye or covered up by subsequent traces, or that having to rely on human vision to identify glitches is a pretty error-prone thing in general, then I can't help you.It's a bit disappointing, really, as I'd expect every decent EE to know the limitations of persistence mode, not just its advantages. I shouldn't really have to explain that.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2016, 07:35:16 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 15, 2016, 09:04:29 am

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2016, 12:43:58 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 16, 2016, 04:49:58 pmThere is no debate that high speed realtime captures have different practical applications to triggered captures (with segmented for instance).Quote from: rf-loop on April 16, 2016, 07:35:16 pmAnd we get this:Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 16, 2016, 04:14:47 pmNarrow runts are what you find so hard to find? Here is an Agilent 3024A picking up a <500ps runt that occurs 1 in every 10,000,000 transitions, thats the screen capture result from seeing 1 runt added to the persistence. It stands out as we say in Australia "like dogs balls".Or we could use triggers to find that sort of thing. Realtime is another option that is possible to use and your claims about it is abilities so far have been ridiculous.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2016, 12:56:49 am
content: Quote from: Someone on April 17, 2016, 12:43:58 amWe in NZ use that term too.Dogs balls ^^^^^^

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2016, 01:16:20 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 16, 2016, 04:14:47 pmYou've never explained how you look for an unknown signal characteristic with triggers, please do provide some examples, we'd be interested to have some other ways of doing it for those scopes that don't have the fast realtime update rates.I'm not tying this to any specific scope as you are, on a scope with fast realtime updates it is quick to find the unknown characteristics worthy of more investigation. You keep bringing up the 6000X.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 16, 2016, 04:14:47 pmYou stick to it because it allows you to make these deliberately misleading comparisons, Keysight offer scopes with broadly comparable specifications to this Lecroy model, they are more expensive (20-30%) but share many characteristics. The Keysight X series are radically different and dont share the same characteristics, they arent a good comparison. As noted by an intelligent poster:Quote from: D3f1ant on April 15, 2016, 03:56:32 amNew product to market achieves similar capabilities at lower cost than existing products, its nothing amazing or exciting.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 16, 2016, 04:14:47 pmQuote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 16, 2016, 04:14:47 pmSo Tek and Keysight are telling us lies, and we should believe your made up numbers that come with no backup. Tek are highlighting how the Leycroy offerings do not compete some Tektronix products due to with their slow realtime update rates. But you continue to claim how amazingly fast the realtime speed of Lecroy scopes are despite everything saying they arent.Persistence mode is very useful in realtime capture, and Tektronix say they found it lacking on that Lecroy model. You've said how its an essential feature needed to make realtime capture useful:Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 15, 2016, 09:04:29 amAnd now I've shown you a screen capture of how clear infinite persistence is at showing infrequent glitches. With persistence turned off if you blink you'll miss the glitch, but any setting from the minimum of 100ms upwards to infinite holds the glitch on the screen long enough to see it (overlaid behind the realtime intensity graded display).Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 16, 2016, 04:14:47 pmI have never said that, I will say that it has a much higher realtime capture rate which is applicable to certain circumstances which the other scopes here cannot compare to. They are not comparable for many applications. The value is for the customer to determine against their applications/use.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2016, 01:33:07 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 16, 2016, 04:14:47 pmIts the "thing" that you keep getting wrong, the Lecroy 8000 scope mentioned here claims to achieve 1,000,000 triggers per second in segmented mode, Keysight claim the same number for the 6000 X:Quote from: Keyight SpecificationsThey are the industry leading segmented capture rates, but you've spent most of the thread saying how realtime capture is no good and you'd use segmented mode for capturing infrequent events, which doesnt require the absolute fastest trigger rates.We have no claimed realtime rate for the Lecroy product and several references to other Lecroy products having much slower realtime update ratescomparableto those on the Keysight 9000 series. Key word, comparable.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2016, 01:52:52 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 14, 2016, 11:07:09 amQuote from: Someone on April 15, 2016, 10:54:57 pmAnd then you turn around withQuote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 16, 2016, 04:14:47 pmThats Tektronix taking one of the scopes you listed and trying to see glitches (runt pulses) in realtime modes, they found it was lacking in realtime update rate and the fast mode offered did not have persistence that would keep the glitches on the screen for view. If you think this untrue you should contact Tektronix and accuse them of inaccurate advertising, they take their ethics seriously and I am confident they are providing honest appraisals of the Lecroy scopes capabilities.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 17, 2016, 02:29:36 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 12, 2016, 09:01:15 pmI consider them basically the same scope. One has a bigger screen and a few more bell's'n'whistles.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 17, 2016, 02:34:39 am
content: Quote from: Someone on April 17, 2016, 12:43:58 amThe problem with using trigger to capture stuff like that is you need to know it's there in the first place to trigger on it. So either a chicken and eggs situation, or you get lucky with your trigger. That's why I really like the fast real time updating on the Keysights. And you don't have the dick around with modes like on the Tek's, it's just always there and always works.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2016, 02:50:20 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 17, 2016, 02:34:39 amI think realtime is the first point of call for determining what to do, but Wuerstchenhund has said several times they can trigger on the unknown characteristics and have them delivered as segmented captures, so we just need that expanded on.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 16, 2016, 04:14:47 pm

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 17, 2016, 03:08:57 am
content: Quote from: Someone on April 17, 2016, 02:50:20 amRight there is an oxymoron.It's no different to the old days of analog scopes when you'd turn the brightness up (old school equivalent of increasing the real time update rate) in order to see if there are any glitches. Only once you see them can you trigger on them.Of course you can always just "think" something is there without seeing it and then dick around with the trigger controls to try and get lucky capturing something you believe might be there, but that's getting pretty desperate.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2016, 03:17:23 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 17, 2016, 03:08:57 amYes, this is point of frustration with what Wuerstchenhund has been saying. Wuerstchenhund even excluded using mask triggering to find the unknown characteristics, but hasn't provided any example of how to do this.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2016, 04:00:04 am
content: Just had a try with persistence in zoomed view to look for those tiny details, it continues to accumulate whatever is on the screen so both the overview of the whole "eye" and the edge are accumulating but you cant pan the persistence with the zoom window during acquisition or after stopping. So here we can see a single slow edge while confirming there were no other abnormal events in the eye.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2016, 06:51:28 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 17, 2016, 03:08:57 amYes and no. Old times we rise brightnessorturn analog scopepersistenceon.(but of course nothing to compare todays speed needs, nothing)With old analog scopes we work for narrow long period pulses/glitches etc of course rising up brightness hoping that it is enough. Some times we look in dark or use tube between eyes and scope screen. There was also more advanced CRT example in Tek where "drawing speed" was much more.But, of course also analog scopes have persistence (but of course not in low end models). You can set short or long, even nearly infinite persistence on and once this rare thing is there you see it. These variable peristence and storage analog CRT did not have very fast writing speed, but also there was big differencies due to continuously developed better and better.Of course these are history and today we look these speeds they are like bicycle compared to J-20 WS15But also there was Variable Persistence/Storage CRT models least from Hewlett-Packard and Tektronix.So turning brightness up was not at all only way. Turning Persistence on was other way.I have here still several of them. Just only for nostalgic reasons. Protected from material recycling.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2016, 08:11:17 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 17, 2016, 03:08:57 amActually it is not desperate to set a trigger condition for something that should not happen. In some of my embedded firmware projects I'm using quite a lot of interrupts. To make absolutely sure they are not too long I use infinite persistence to get a feel for how long the processing time normally is and after that I set a trigger for a pulse which is a little bit wider and let the scope run for a while. That way I'm 100% sure I will capture an event that shouldn't happen. I just did such a test yesterday. It is one of those tests where you want to capture a potential one-in-a-million software bug which will be extremely hard to diagnose once a product is in the field.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2016, 03:42:06 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on April 17, 2016, 12:43:58 amYeah, on a ~3.6MHz signalWell done for again completely missing the point I now made several times that missing stuff on persistence is more likely on high frequency signals.Quote from: Someone on April 17, 2016, 01:16:20 amIt's simple, really, instead of telling the scope to look for a specific glitch, runt or whatever you pretty much tell the scope how the signal should look like and let the scope show you any occurrences where it deviates from that ideal.The most simple and common way to do this is mask testing, which is also available in many entry level scopes. Mask testing works fine for truly repetitive signals, and on a somewhat modern highend scope it just doesn't tell me when a deviation appears but also what it is. The scope can build up a histogram with time stamps of each violation, take measurements or create a screenshot of each occurrence.For non-repetitive signals it's a bit more complicated, and depends on what kind of wanted signals you're looking at. If it's a standardized protocol (i.e. USB2) then the easiest way on a LeCroy scope is to use the SDA package to verify signal integrity. It can pretty much work like mask test just for non-repetitive signals (although it can do a lot more). If there's a violation (runt, glitch, excessive jitter, whatever) then the scope will record and report it. SDA also works with non-standard signals although the setup is a bit more complicated there.If your scope doesn't have the SDA option then LeCroy still offers WaveScan/TriggerScan. WaveScan is standard with every of its mid-range and high-end scope with the exception of the WaveSurfer 400. WaveScan can 'learn' how the signal should be, search for any deviations and then do what you want it to do (record, analyze, alarm you).Of course you could also use individual triggers (i.e exclusion triggers) to find specific glitches, but that often takes more time than just using the scope's toolset.QuoteNo, I compare it because it's the same class (500Mhz to 4Ghz) and price range.QuoteWhy not? Because you don't like the outcome?Fine, let's take the next step up, the Infiniium DSO9000A. They are actually great scopes, it's the first proper Infiniium (Windows scope) Agilent came up with, and it still sells very well. OK then, let's see:http://literature.cdn.keysight.com/litweb/pdf/5990-3746EN.pdf?id=1705234[...]Waveform update rate:Segmented mode: Maximum up to 250,000 waveforms/secReal-Time mode: - Typical of 700 waveforms/sec with 1kpts memory- Typical of 230 waveforms/sec with 100 kpts memory- Typical of 130 waveforms/sec with 1 Mpts memory...As I said the waveform update rate isn't very important in these scopes, but it's notable that the DSO9ks waveform rate is much lower than the WR8k. In fact, it's even much lower than the 10 year old WaveRunner Xi I have here, which in segmented mode goes up to 1.25M wfms/s. LeCroy doesn't specify real-time update rates but a while ago I did some measurements on the WRXi and got around 380 wfms/s at 50ns/div with 500k memory. And that WRXi is still an original X-Stream architecture scope (PCI based). It had two successors before that new WR8k, the WRXi-A (first X-Stream II variant) came out at roughly the same time as the DSO9k, and provides higher real-time update rates than the WRXi. And the successor of of the WRXi-A (WR6zi) is even faster, noticably. Now, the WR6zi is replaced with the WR8k, and I find it hard to believe that this new scope wll be any slower than its predecessor (but then, there were cutbacks in memory size and the display, so who knows).Not that this matters a lot, because as I said, unlike what you believe in this scope class waveform rates aren't of high importance.Aside from that, the DSO9kA comes with more sample memory (20M/40M, optional 500M/1G) which is great, an inferior display (XGA 1024x768) which is not great, and a roughly comparable set of options and protocols, all at a roughly $17k+ starting price.QuoteTrue, but the thing is that the more expensive Keysight model (DSO9k) is already slower than the 10+yrs old pre-pre-predecessor of the scope on topic, which isn't exactly stellar. The DSO9k gets bonus points for being a better Infiniium (than its predecessors, which were all pretty poor), it has very decent sample memory (and a nice 1G option), plus it's supported by the 89600A/B VSA software which, if you do signal analysis, is great.But back to the original topic, it means Keysight has nothing even close in the same price bracket which offers any similar bang for the buck.Quotehttp://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/appnotes/wrxi_note3.pdf(careful, that is really old!)"WaveStream combines a rapid screen update ratewith a persistence displayto show a history of the waveshape variation"Made up, eh?But if you prefer to use marketing BS as source be my guest.Also, unlike Tek's DPO mode, WaveStream allows to use maths and measurements as on a normal acquisition.QuoteTek is desperate because pretty much all their scopes except the DPO70kSX are shit. It's pretty embarassing when they have to use a LeCroy scope that came out in 2007(!) and which has already been replaced in 2009/2010 to their own product that came out in 2012. And as shown they couldn't even do this right without either lying or messing up.Seriously, if you take Tek's marketing BS serious then more fool to you.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2016, 09:52:09 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 14, 2016, 11:07:09 amAnd then after thousands of words and pushing you to try and provide an example of how to find unknown characteristics of a signal we get:Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 17, 2016, 03:42:06 pmMask testing! and a Lecroy branded name for an optional package of eye digram and mask testing tools.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 17, 2016, 03:42:06 pmYou've made wild claims about how a persistence display won't be visible for small or high frequency features, as shown its simply not true. The persistence is operating at the display resolution here and will at minimum show a 1px wide feature, which from the examples shown is easily visible. As long as the sample rate (or peak detect) is fast enough to see the characteristic its right there in the persistence no matter what the frequency. Pulling a sub ns glitch from a signal on a 200MHz scope should be obvious that you can find GHz rate glitches, it would be much easier with a higher bandwidth and sample rate.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 17, 2016, 03:42:06 pmYou're picking a comparison to a radically different product when there are comparable products marketed by that same company, who's representative kindly suggested would be better to compare against. But that doesn't suit your narrative, we'll call you out when you go out of your way to make poor comparisons or make up specifications.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2016, 12:03:10 am
content: When you rely on mask triggers for capturing infrequent events the capture speed becomes critical once again:http://cdn.rohde-schwarz.com/pws/dl_downloads/dl_common_library/dl_news_from_rs/202/NEUES_202_english_RTO.pdfsome comparative mask test rate numbers from Agilent/Keysight:http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5990-3269EN.pdf

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2016, 12:53:27 am
content: Quote from: Someone on April 18, 2016, 12:03:10 amThis document explains precisely why high capture rates / waveform update rates are useless for capturing events with 100% certainty. Just punch in the numbers into the equation and you'll see that only a truly infinite number of waveforms/s gives you that 100% certainty. So the math proves that what you need is a trigger toolset which can scan the signal continuously (no blind time!) for anomalies based on a set of rules in order to capture signal anomalies.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2016, 01:08:17 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 18, 2016, 12:53:27 amIf you're scanning/stepping/sequencing through multiple triggers and not running them simultaneously, then you're back to degrading the capture rate. Mask testing is the fastest way to trigger on unknown characteristics when its hardware driven as in the above documents.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2016, 01:36:37 am
content: Quote from: Someone on April 18, 2016, 01:08:17 amWhat you are missing is that until there is something to trigger on (based on a complex set if rules if necessary), nothing gets captured at all so blind time and capture rates are totally out of the picture!

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2016, 01:55:09 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 18, 2016, 01:36:37 amOr we could refer to the Lecroy technical description and comparison:http://teledynelecroy.com/doc/triggerscan-technical-briefIf you're stepping through multiple trigger settings (100 in their example) you're blind at least 99% of the time to any given trigger, which is very comparable to mask testing at hundreds of thousands of waveforms per second. For very high repetition rate signals the trigger sequencing will find glitches faster when:(signal repetition rate)/(number of triggers) > mask testing rateBelow that the mask testing will be faster, this can be similarly compared to realtime update rates where the Lecroy Triggerscan can be quicker at finding the problem (and gives a clean triggered waveform rather than a persistence display). But that assumes that the automatically generated triggers will capture all the same characteristics as mask testing, they'll each have their particular examples where the other wouldn't catch the anomaly, but they're comparable.Why not just post such a simple link days ago? There is no mention of Triggerscan being available on the Lecroy WaveRunner 8000.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2016, 04:53:15 am
content: This special trigger operation principle is by simply - ingenious.Let's hope that this will begin a new era oscilloscopes Trigger functions that can be developed more. Let's hope that this principle will also be something even lower class oscilloscopes.Trying to trig directly to what should not be in the signal. Yes.Of course, in addition to other more conventional methods.But, this make me confused, is this attached image right?(from LeCroy technical brief)Trigger is derived from analog signal to trigger system and not from digitized signal to trigger system.Do it have separate very fast ADC in "trigger scan" engine.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2016, 05:26:38 am
content: The picture is correct. A system (the yellow box) changes the trigger conditions quickly and if the active trigger ever matches then like a regular scope that result is displayed to the screen.Like all good inventions it seems obvious. The hard part is in the software when the scope analyses the "good" reference waveforms and translates that into a list of triggers which represent "bad".

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2016, 05:38:44 am
content: Quote from: Someone on April 18, 2016, 05:26:38 amOk.It must be bit complex analog/digital circuit system there in "trigger scan" box what get digital data from "Read out system" box.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2016, 05:44:16 am
content: Quote from: Someone on April 17, 2016, 09:52:09 pmI'm not sure if you're really this thick or just obtuse by purpose. SDA isn't just mask testing, it's a pretty complex measurement and signal analysis package (hint: SDA = Signal Data Analyzer).QuoteI was talking about high frequency signalsThat means signals beyond 1GHz. Aside from the fact that I didn't say no glitches are visible, trying to disprove this with a lowly 200MHz scope is stupid, really, and pretty much shows that you have no understanding what I'm talking about. Try to read what I wrote about this in this thread again, slowly, and if you still don't get it then I'd recommend getting an EE education.QuoteRidiculous. The DSOX6k is in the price, bandwidth and general performance category as the WR8K, so a comparison is of course legitimate. Plus the DSOX is already more expensive than the WR8k. And as we've seen, the next step up (Infiniium DSO9k), is a lot more expensive.It clearly shows the bang for the buck isn't great with these scopes. Which is what I pretty much said in when I opened this threadQuote from: Someone on April 18, 2016, 01:55:09 amI didn't know you'd be that obtuse. And, my mistake I know, I thought if you wanted to find information about a product you could find them out yourself instead of being spoon-fed, i.e. google exists and LeCroy has quite a few documents describing their technology. I just wasn't prepared for someone who believes "research" is reading a Tek marketing paper to find out stuff about LeCroy scopes. That was new for me.QuoteNo, because these documents are from the WaveRunner Xi Series which is now 11yrs old. Since then TriggerScan has been part of every WaveRunner/WavePro/WaveMaster/LabMaster scope under the "WaveScan" umbrella (WaveSurfers don't have the "TriggerScan" part, and the WS400 doesn't even have WaveScan). And later it has become much more powerful than the old version described in this document.BTW, Keysight has something roughly similar called "InfiniiScan" which pretty much copies what WaveScan can do (and yes, LeCroy had it first), and which is really really slow even on a upper high-end scope like the DSO90k.And of course (well, it's Keysight), it's a paid-for option ($1200 or so for the DSO9k if I remember right).Quote from: rf-loop on April 18, 2016, 04:53:15 amThat will take a while as WaveScan/TriggerScan require a lot of processing power on a very fast architecture. It can't be done with today's embedded platforms that are found in entry level scopes.The cheapest scope that has WaveScan (although not TriggerScan) is the LeCroy WaveSurfer 3000 (which is hardware manufactured by Siglent under LeCroy's control and where the software comes from LeCroy). Performance-wise it sits between the DSOX3000T and DSOX4kA while being notably cheaper even than the DSOX3kT.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2016, 05:52:56 am
content: Quote from: WuerstchenhundYou have explained nothing and then continue to argue how we're all wrong. Please explain your position because we don't believe it. If you can capture the glitch in waveform memory, its visible.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2016, 07:58:08 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 18, 2016, 05:44:16 amYou're conflating different concepts again for your purposes of misdirection. Lecroy still list the two functions under their own names:WaveScan, the offline analysis toolking for searching through captured data (useful for hunting in deep memory).TriggerScan, sequencing of hardware triggers to isolate in a single capture an unusual event.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 18, 2016, 05:44:16 amWhich makes it a big differentiator in the product line, separating their high end models from the mid range.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 18, 2016, 05:44:16 amComparing the bottom product of the high end platform against the top end of a mid range platform is disingenuous, its a ridiculous comparison especially when they are such different products.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 18, 2016, 05:44:16 amGermany has alotmore population than the UK? No its only 20% higher.Lecroy are pushing into the market a well priced new product that is measurably cheaper than comparable products, by 20-30%.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 04:11:56 am
content: Quote from: D3f1ant on April 15, 2016, 03:56:32 amThread reopened. Reminder for everyone to always keep it non-personal.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 05:21:08 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 20, 2016, 04:11:56 amMaybe it should have stayed locked. There's not much more to say about the topic anyways.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 05:27:06 am
content: Welcome backHope it stays open. I think by not using offensive insults against each other but towards the scopes ?Buy anyway fun

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 05:42:40 am
content: Quote from: ez24 on April 20, 2016, 05:27:06 amFun, well, I don't know. There are probably a hundred threads about Rigol scopes and a lot about Keysight scopes, but dare you mention LeCroy it does bring out the (always the same two) trolls.But as I said, pretty much everything has been said, there's no point repeating.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 06:02:31 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 20, 2016, 05:42:40 amWell then say nothing! I am getting fed up with people calling each other trolls, it gives no one the moral high ground and if your calling people trolls while not reporting them it kind of makes you a troll yourself!

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 06:08:42 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 20, 2016, 05:42:40 amLook the discussion was healthy, there are many that can learn from it despite it being at some times heated when it doesn't need to be at all.Wuerstchenhund, you're an opinionated guy, that's not bad it's just you, but when somebody ( I was gunna type Someone) whom you call trolls questions you there no need to be aggressive, we're here to learn and for you to share your knowledge is appreciated.Please carry on.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 06:27:32 am
content: Quote from: tautech on April 20, 2016, 06:08:42 amI have no problem being questioned, in fact I appreciate it as it might be an opportunity to learn. What I expect however is a logical, conclusive and well supported argument. Something that should be no problem for any engineer.What I have a problem with it being attacked as "fanboi" and other things by two certain individuals because I dared to make a reasoned comparison between two scopes. "We're call you out" and other crap isn't what can reasonably be called a logical, conclusive and well supported argument. When one of the same two individual s then shows himself of being unable to do at least some basic research via Google and to make some really silly mistakes (like using a competitor's marketing spreadsheet as source) while continuing his attack, all while avoiding directly addressing any response so the discussion revolves in circles, then you know this isn't a person who knows much about the topic or who doesn't know but wants to learn, hell it's not even a person who wants to have a grown-up discussion.If the whole purpose is to stirr up dissent then you know it's a troll.But yes, I should have just reported them. Mea culpa.QuoteI'll do, but I'm not going to respond to any other troll attempts other than reporting them, and I certainly won't waste more time responding to posts made by two certain individuals.Anyways, I think this thread is dead anyways, and any technical side-topic should probably be discussed in a separate thread.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 06:46:39 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 20, 2016, 06:27:32 amSo far you've inaccurately compared Realtime waveform capture rate with segmented capture rate (several times). Your response:Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 14, 2016, 11:07:09 amDismiss realtime capture rate (over and over) without providing examples of alternatives.Then you gave us all a "lesson" on how persistence and intensity weren't different (they are completely separate controls on most scopes):Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 15, 2016, 09:04:29 amDespite examples showing this to be false you've continued on your claim that we have no idea what we're talking about but you won't show us.And to continue the misdirection you've lumped together a group of radically different tools:Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 18, 2016, 05:44:16 amWaveScan and InfiniiScan hunt through captures in memory, while TriggerScan rapidly changes the trigger conditions to quickly find abnormal events in repetitive signals.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 07:03:24 am
content: I want hear more about Trigger Scan technology. It is innovative and interesting - technically.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 07:11:43 am
content: Quote from: rf-loop on April 20, 2016, 07:03:24 amUnfortunately one thing LeCroy really sucks in is documentation (which is often poor and rarely updated), so I'm not sure there is a lot of info out there about it other than taking a scope that has it and playing around with it.The same is true for many of their videos.The only thing I can say is that it's pretty old, WaveScan/TriggerScan came out I think in early 2004 as a free feature upgrade for all LeCroy X-Stream (Windows) scopes including older scopes (WR6k/WP7k/WM8k which came out around 2001) through the normal X-Stream software update process.Another new feature that came in at around the same time was LabNotebook, which is useful if you need to document the measurements you take:http://teledynelecroy.com/features/featureoverview.aspx?modelid=2109&capid=102&mid=556The X-Stream only scope that didn't get WaveScan/TriggerScan and (if I remember right) LabNotebook is the WaveSurfer 400 (the very first WaveSurfer scope), which wasn't powerful enough and in general was a very basic scope.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 07:24:27 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 20, 2016, 05:42:40 amCalling people trolls is the kind of attitude that got this thread locked in the first place.If you can't play nice then you won't be welcome here.I was kind enough to re-open this thread and your first post back is to call people trolls?People say the exact same thing about you BTW.Give me a good reason why I shouldn't lock it again?

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 07:32:30 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 20, 2016, 07:24:27 amYou may want to have a closer look at the sequence of posts to recognize who started the fight.QuoteYes, I called a certain two people trolls, one of which had his post cancelled because of - trolling.So 'troll' is now a forbidden word then?QuoteFine, and if I'm found to be trolling then you should block me, which would be the right thing to do with trolls.Anyways, if you don't want me here just say the word, if you believe my contribution isn't of value then that's OK and I'll spend this part of my free time elsewhere. Your turf, your call.I'd still recommend you think about how you deal with such issues. Of course you provide the platform and that is appreciated, however it's knowledgeable people here who provide the real value, and leaving trolls a pretty much free reign certainly doesn't encourage productive participation.QuoteAs I said, your turf, your call. Do what you have to do.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 07:50:54 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 20, 2016, 07:32:30 amOn a forum that has approx 800 posts a day, moderators are not going to look into "who started what".Nor does it matter,youperpetuated it instead doing the right thing and ignoring it and/or reporting it. You are just as much to blame if not more.QuoteHow about you stop that please?Especially after a thread has gotten heated, reported, locked and then unlocked.You are being deliberately antagonistic.QuoteNot on it's own, but people who are continually antagonistic toward other users and start throwing troll around all the time and taking everything personally will ultimately not last on this forum.IIRC there have been many reports about your posts over the years, it does not look good. Try not to let that continue please, don't give people reason to report you.QuoteKnowledgeable technical contributors here are given a lot of slack.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 08:05:53 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 20, 2016, 07:24:27 amThis topic was about to touch some interesting topics when it comes to advanced triggering. What I wanted to post a few days ago is this:What I see in this thread is that there is a focus on seeing things on an oscilloscope and let the operator decide what is right or wrong. But the thing is that in some cases that just can't be done because of dead time, re-arm time, update rate limitations, etc. So what is needed are better tools which look at the waveform and only show a signal which doesn't conform the set parameters. That is not so far fetched and even low end scopes offer things like triggering on pulse widths, runts, protocols, etc but you can take that several steps further by describing a signal as a set of rules which are evaluated by a programmable statemachine. High end logic analysers have similar features. In these you can literally program the trigger engine using input patterns, timers, counters in several different states in order to capture a very specific event based on very specific condition. And it doesn't slow down or have blind time. It is like a sliding mask test which goes over a signal without blind time. The only difference is that you won't see something if the anomalie doesn't occur. The machine does the work for you.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 08:17:48 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 20, 2016, 07:50:54 amUnderstandable, but in some instances you have to, even if just to make sure you tell off the right target. That's part of moderation.QuoteI'm not. However it shows why I said you should look at the actual sequence of events, not just at the last few posts. One specific individual has actually quite a track record of following and attacking me.QuoteAs I said, if someone reports me as "troll" and, after looking at the facts, you find this report is justified then you should tell me or block me. It's the only right thing to do.However, I'd expect you to, after looking at the facts, if you believe the report wasn't justified that you tell off the reporter and don't count this against me.It should really work both ways.I'm direct and open, which might not be to everyone's taste, and I on occasion I fight my place, but most certainly I don't attack anyone for no reason or participate in a discussion just to stir up dissent (i.e. the definition of 'trolling'). That much I can say. There are cases where I disagree with other members, but except for two who shall not be named that disagreement stays on a technical level and is based on discussing technical arguments, and I still get along well with the discussion partners after the discussion ended (and often even agree with them on other issues).QuoteMaybe, but this is true for some people who do engage in trolling as well unfortunately.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 08:26:29 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 20, 2016, 08:17:48 amShit man, you've used that word again^^^^^I used to think you were doing that to me, I just sucked it up, you should too.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 08:27:55 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on April 20, 2016, 08:05:53 amThat's probably best discussed in a separate thread, even if this thread hadn't derailed.In my experience a lot of the capabilities of modern scopes are often wasted because people pretty much treat it like an analog scope, i.e. a device to *look* at something (a waveform, a glitch). Not just here, I see that often even with otherwise experienced engineers. Of course it's difficult keeping track of advances in test equipment if T&M isn't your field of work, and making use of all the advanced capabilities becomes difficult if you have to change between various scope models and manufacturers often.The machine should really do the work for you.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 12:59:48 pm
content: If you susepct someone is trolling just report them. We can then keep an eye on things as they unfold, it stops the rot sooner and is easier to follow. If you get to the point of calling someone a troll then maybe it's time to report them. A report does not mean we take immediate action but wmay jusy monitor things. It's easier than trying to patch things up.Coming out looking to be right all the time never works, agree to dissagree. Some people are not worth arguing with. It takes 2 to tango - or should that be troll. Our most famous scrap with a member will only be remembered for the banning of that member who was continually antagonized by the same other member and responded every time like clock work, but the provoking member also got banned as well, but then who remembers who that even was.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 01:10:38 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on April 20, 2016, 12:59:48 pmYou're absolutely right, and in hindsight I can see that it was a mistake not just report it immediately.QuoteThat is certainly true.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 01:54:57 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 20, 2016, 01:10:38 pmAlthough a good technical argument is fine, go at it, so long as you can keep it strictly technical.It's fine to take it personally of course (mumble to self "I'm going to prove this SOB wrong!"), that's what drives half the good technical debates on forums, but the moment you show publicly that you are taking it personally and start attacking the other person, that is the instant everyone loses.

author: Performa01
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 02:05:48 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 20, 2016, 01:54:57 pmAs a non native speaker, I wonder what this might stand for...

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 02:33:17 pm
content: Quote from: Performa01 on April 20, 2016, 02:05:48 pmSOB = short form for male descendant of a female dog

author: Performa01
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 20, 2016, 02:46:09 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 20, 2016, 02:33:17 pmGot it! Thanks for clarification!Nowthat'swhat I call a technical debate where I could learn something useful!