Looking for a new 'scope. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: daddario
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2016, 04:50:37 pm
content: Hi!I'm in the market for a new scope, 4ch analog and logic analyser are a must. Memory should definitely be over 1Mpts. Bandwidth isn't all that critical, I can do with 100MHz, but of course the more the merrier. And as always, budget is limited.The Hameg bundle offer has caught most of my attention:http://ee.farnell.com/hameg/hmo3054-hoo10-hoo12-hoo14-ho3516/oscilloscope-kit-hmo-complete/dp/2448547But there are also a few offers on MDO3000 series teks, no 200MHz version with the SA option left, though ) :http://ee.farnell.com/tektronix/mdo3024-free-mdo3afg-free-mdo3bnd/oscilloscope-4-ch-200mhz-2-5gsps/dp/2476130But I'm also open for other options.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2016, 05:07:41 pm
content: I'd look at Lecroy's Wavesurfer 3000. IMHO much better value for money than Hameg/R&S if you want to spend a couple of thousand euro. The GW Instek GDS2000A series could also fit your bill. Their firmware is actually quite good and you could save some money.Oh, and please forget about Tektronix.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2016, 05:58:01 pm
content: There's some runout BW update deals on the SDS2000 range before being replaced by the HW updated SDS2000X series.Little stock left now AFAIK.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2016, 08:21:58 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on March 07, 2016, 05:58:01 pmSorry but getting an SDS2000 (X) is the worse buy ever. I have -more or less- given the SDS2204 I had away because nobody wanted it and the new owner got rid of it quickly as well making me regret I didn't set it on fire and post the video on Youtube. That at least would have gotten some entertainment value out of it.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2016, 08:52:52 pm
content: Quote from: daddario on March 07, 2016, 04:50:37 pmWhat exactly means 'limited' in your case? Also, it would help if you give us some details as to what you want to do with it.QuoteThe HMO3000 is a good scope, although it's getting a bit dated now. You might be able to get a better deal somewhere else as Farnell isn't exactly cheap.I'd contact R&S directly and ask for a quote, maybe you can even get a demo scope for a good price.QuoteWell, the SA on the MDO3000 is pretty poor so that's no loss. Other than that, I'd avoid Tek at all costs. They were the number one in the old analog days but that's pretty much history, their digital scopes mostly vary from 'mediocre' to a bad joke (TDS2000 anyone?). All of the Tek scopes I've seen were slow like wading through molasses in demanding tasks, and their support has taken a nose dive as well.QuoteThe LeCroy WaveSurfer 3000 which nctnico mentioned is a very nice scope, but the 500MHz variant will be more expensive than the HMO. There's also the Keysight DSOX3000T, but it's a very expensive scope and unless you need some of the more rare serial decode options that it offers then the WaveSurfer 3000 is the better choice.Also, forget the SDS2000. Just ignore it. I had one, good hardware but after two years on the market the firmware is still shit and Siglent shows utter incompetence in fixing the mess. It's only OK if you like paying for a scope and playing beta tester for Siglent.I haven't seen the GW Instek GDS2000 in real life and it's UI looks pretty dated and the whole scope a bit dull but apparently it's a decent scope with sensible performance and few bugs, so it might be worth a look.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2016, 09:10:56 pm
content: Actually the Keysight scopes are not that good. My biggest problem with them is the memory being shared. In real use scenarios and with the digital channels enabled you'll have much less than a quarter of the specified memory depth. It is almost criminal to specifcy a scope like that!

author: daddario
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2016, 09:30:29 pm
content: Well, I could get the LeCroy WS 3024 with the gen and UART decode (the latter I forgot to mention, is also fairly important to me) options for 4.1keur, which makes this also a candidate. As a bonus, apparently you can buy a russian front plate for it. Thus when seated between soviet test equipment makes it a perfect anti-theft measure for it.As for the Siglent - not for me. Life has shown that chinese test equipment is always a compromise. And although a lot of gear can be successfully presented by the chinese variety with relatively acceptable performance when on a budget, to me an oscilloscope is not one of those things(barring the entry level stuff, there the "name" brands seem to suck even more).

author: daddario
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2016, 06:23:03 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 07, 2016, 08:52:52 pmWell, around the 4k mark would be bearable. For the most part I design electronics often containing power switching parts, so the extra bandwidth will mostly come in handy catching any oscillations there, as pulses themselves are generally over several microseconds and more. The high channel count and logic analyser are obligatory for reverse en... err, I mean, getting to know compatible equipment operating in the same time domain that often lack documentation.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2016, 01:26:44 pm
content: Also note its worth keeping an eye out for used scopes, A lot of decent scopes from the last 10 years could meet your requirements.For example i got a Agilent MSO6034A for under 2 grand quite a few years ago. Its 300MHz bandwidth with 16 logic channels and 8Mbit of sample memory. These scopes also boot quickly as they don't have WinCE on them. These days you might be able to pick up a 1Ghz version of it for that money if you get lucky.One thing you might also want to watch out for is that a lot of scopes slow down when you use 1Mbit or more of memory while some scopes don't (MSO6000 can run full speed at max memory depth while most rigol scopes slow down to a crawl for example)

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2016, 04:49:54 pm
content: If the OP is open to optimising value with liberation methods...o The Tek MDO3000 can be liberated up to 500MHz plus 3GHz SA with all apps and options including MSO (you have to buy the P6316 LA cable though) using a Python script to generate a one off key.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/mdo3000-hacking/o The Keysight X2000/X3000A (NOT X3000T) can be liberated either by running older adjusted firmware from a USB stick or for newer firmware by Telnetting into it (needs a LAN card) and running a short script at scope boot time. Note that due to hardware restrictions, there are max bandwidths of 200MHz and 500MHz depending on unit. LA cables are very easy to source on eBay if you have the DSO variation.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/dsox2000-and-3000-series-licence-have-anyone-tried-to-hack-that-scope/o Agilent/Keysight 5000, 6000 (NOT X6000) and 7000 can have options but not bandwidth liberatedhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/agilent-mso-500060007000-anyone-hacked-these-scopes/Of these, probably the best value in terms of features after unshackling IMHO is the MDO3000, but I really hate the UI, it's slow and ergonomically takes quite some getting used to, everything's a fight. It feels like it was designed by a monkey with a typewriter, I can only shudder at what the spaghetti code behind it is like. As a result it's the last scope I turn to.For ease of use the 6000/7000 are hard to beat, lightning fast UI and super responsive. The X3000A is close but silly things like sometimes missing front panel adjustments such as timebase changes betrays the underlying Windows CE beneath the hood. It's minor though compared to the sluggishness of the MDO3000. The more modern MDO3000 and X3000A have a few extra features over the older 6000/7000 such as more trigger options like runt pulses, and there are more decoders including dual busses. With the X3000A and 7000B, pretty much all knobs have a push function.FWIW, the order of scopes I choose on the bench nowadays is 7000B - x3000 - MDO3000

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2016, 05:09:42 pm
content: Quote from: Berni on March 15, 2016, 01:26:44 pmWhile I generally agree that 2nd hand can be a great option I would not recommend the MSO6k any more. Don't get me wrong, back in the days (which for the DSO/MSO6k Series means 11 years ago) they were good scopes, and because of being VxWorks based they do boot quickly (although it's not true that WinCE scopes take longer to boot, besides that boot time is pretty irrelevant for a scope anyways). But the tiny 6.3" screen makes working with the digital channels a challenge, the hardware is quite slow and FFT borderline useless with only 1000 points (which is fixed). Plus no segmented mode, no history, no statistics. And if I remember right no proper search functionality for the sample memory.Unless you can get one really cheap (which they generally aren't, just because of the 'Agilent' logo they still go for lots of money) I'd rather opt for a more modern scope.QuoteDepends on what you mean with "slow down". A large memory setting together with a low sample rate will make any scope "slow", simply because it takes a certain amount of time to fill the memory. But that's a given based on simple maths, not a fault of the scope.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2016, 06:09:49 pm
content: 6000 has segmented memory and statistics.

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2016, 06:42:54 pm
content: Quote from: Berni on March 15, 2016, 01:26:44 pmThat's usually an operator error, not a problem with the 'scope.Quote from: Berni on March 15, 2016, 01:26:44 pmWrong! (see above)Try choosing a buffer size that matches your timebase (or just set buffer size to "auto" if you don't know what you're doing...)

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2016, 06:49:03 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on March 15, 2016, 06:09:49 pmThanks for the correction! My bad, it's been a long time since I've last seen one.I just had a look on ebay, the last MSO6104s that soid went for >$5k. That's*a lot*for such a simple scope.

author: valgamaa
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2016, 07:11:39 pm
content: Looking at your country flag, I would strongly suggest that you talk with the local R+S office (if their offerings are to your liking). They are a good bunch and put a lot of thought, care and effort into putting together a package for me on an RTM2000-series 'scope that was excellent.They also sell demo equipment a couple of times a year with a fixed discount that is quite generous, but of course supplies are limited.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2016, 07:51:52 pm
content: Quote from: valgamaa on March 15, 2016, 07:11:39 pmI can second the recommendation for the RTM2000, as long as you can get it noticeably cheaper than a comparable WaveSurfer 3000. The RTMs are good scopes but feature-wise they are a bit more modest (i.e. only some 12k wfms/s update rate and 128k FFT vs 130k wfms/s and 1M FFT with the WS3k).The recommendation to ask the manufacturer is a very good one, and I'd expand that to all vendors that have suitable offerings.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2016, 08:05:26 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on March 15, 2016, 04:49:54 pmI tend to disagree. There are quite a few things to complain about the Keysight 7000 series. I have a DSO7104A and even though it is a very nice scope to use I do see the disadvantages so it would be far from my first choice if I where to buy a scope today. The fact that today's Asian scopes start to do things better than such an expensive scope clearly show the architecture of the DS7000 series is just too old for today's standards.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2016, 08:32:49 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on March 15, 2016, 04:49:54 pmSo in short: the Tek MDO3000 is a pain to use, slow like molasses and has a horrible UI (all points I agree) but still worth buying because you can hack it?Unless you really need a mediocre spectrum analyzer in a scope then Tek is pretty much the worst choice of all big brands.For the DSO7k it's essentially the same as for the already mentioned DSO6k - they were good scopes 10 years ago but in many areas it shows they are scopes from yesteryear.The DSOX3000A is also a good upper low end scope but it's limited re. its sample memory and capabilities, and some of its limitations are also in its successor (DSOX3kT) since they are rooted in its architecture. Considering that Keysight is also really squeezing it with the DSOX, you pretty much pay through the nose for the logo. Which is also true for most 2nd hand DSO7ks btw.Also, hacking might be somewhat(!) OK if you're a hobbyists hacking obsolete gear, but depending where you are it's still a legal grey area at best or pretty much illegal, and the OP didn't create the impression that he's interested in going the shady way. Therefore I would not put such a huge weight on the ability to hack it.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2016, 09:30:05 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 15, 2016, 08:05:26 pmInteresting, different strokes I guess. On the China side I do have a Rigol MSO1074Z-S that I use mostly in the field as it's super compact, and it's certainly well featured for such a price, but the menus and muxed vertical controls get in the way of my workflow, and the screen is, well, compact. The 7104B I have is just so intuitive to use and the responsiveness is unmatched. Possibly features like all push knobs and additional buttons make a difference over the 7000A, I don't know. What I do know is that in practical terms it's pretty infrequently that I find need to use the additional features in the x3000 or mdo3000.If I'm allowed a gripe about the 7000, it's that the form factor is just a bit too big on a go-to scope. A 10" rather than the 12" installed for that xga screen would be about spot on. What Agilent got right way back to the 54622 etc from 15 years ago was the UI, in terms of ergonomics and responsiveness, which has thankfully largely carried forward to this day. Unlike the mentality of UI designers on major operating systems, to their credit Agilent realised that when it's working well already there's got to be a really good reason to fix it.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2016, 09:45:10 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 15, 2016, 08:32:49 pmAll understood, but I would say that I almost certainly wouldn't have bought most of the scopes I use if they weren't open to modification. I am pretty sure that's part of Rigol's marketing, but definitely not of Tek etc!I do agree regarding lack of deep memory on the Agilents, although obscurely the 6000/7000 have twice the memory of the newer x3000. The MDO3000 has 10Mpoints/channel whereas the memory is shared on the Agilents, although to offset that segmented memory is offered on the Agilents but not Tek.I was offering it as a suggestion to the OP, they can of course take it or leave it.

author: pxl
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2016, 06:57:37 am
content: Quote from: valgamaa on March 15, 2016, 07:11:39 pmApart from that (if he get a good offer at all), it seems there is a huge gap between the brand scopes and the chinese ones regarding price and generation. So in this category one need to live with strong compromises in feature set (branded scopes) or in quality (firmware, construction, usability with Rigol/Siglent).(and to insult the injury, there could be serious problems in feature set with Rigol/Siglent and issues with quality with branded ones)

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2016, 07:31:36 am
content: Yeah the MSO6000 series is pretty dated these days, but what it does it does do well. It all depends on what the use case is. You do not get hugely advanced math and a fairly basic FFT, no fancy data analysis on protocol decode, 'only' 100k waveform updates etc. But on the other hand its very good at being a scope due to its speed and reliability. But as you noticed you have to keep an eye out for a bargain to get a good deal.Fancy modern features are nice to have but they are often only rarely used. I also have a Agilent MSO9000 here but my MSO6000 still gets a lot of use. The big scope blasts it out of the water in pretty much every feature 4GHz 20GS/s 1000Mpt of memory, math and data analysis tools out the wazooo with fancy graphing, giant FFTs etc. But it is simply not as good at actually being a scope. Despite having a SSD in it it still takes much longer to boot, the interface is not as great as the front panel does not have a button for every feature but instead relies on menus, the UI is slow, the waveform update rate is low etc. As a result it only gets used when one of those fancy pants features are actually required (Usually that feature is just the high bandwidth tho).There is no perfect scope out there, they all have upsides and downsides (Even in a money is no option scenario)By the way you probably don't want to go for 1GHz scopes right away since probing becomes quite tricky past 300 to 500 MHz. At those frequencies you have to start investing in expensive active probes in order to not mess up your signal under test.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2016, 09:14:18 am
content: Quote from: pxl on March 16, 2016, 06:57:37 amI used to think that too but then I tried (and kept) a GW Instek scope. GW Instek seems to fill the void between the buggy/unuseable features bottom-of-the-barrel scopes and the higher end (edit: A brand) gear starting at a couple of thousand dollars/euros.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2016, 09:35:44 am
content: Quote from: pxl on March 16, 2016, 06:57:37 amNot sure why you believe there is a compromise in features sets with big brand scopes as pretty much everything from the B-brands right up to the $9k Rigol DSO6k is very basic, with very simple features and a low performance processing behind it.The only points where the B-brands score are sample memory size (which is cheap so they put in lots of memory, unfortunately only the right tools to make proper use of it!) and price.But that's pretty much it!

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2016, 09:59:25 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 16, 2016, 09:35:44 amId say the difference is the quality of the features. Any more advanced features in cheep chinese scopes might have a slight bug here or there.One compromise you can draw is the architecture. Some scopes try to do everything inside a ASIC while others implement a lot of the functionality in software. Doing things in an ASIC makes it very fast and high performance, but might be limited in terms of features as complex functionality might start eating tons of silicon space. For example doing protocol decode in hardware allows for very high performance, quick triggering on data and fast response on the screen, but as a result it might support fewer protocols.Doing things in the ASIC is what holds back Keysight scopes in terms of memory size and certain features, but as a result it makes the scopes lightning fast no matter what you tell it to do. In contrast the flagship Keysight scopes only do acquisition in an ASIC (Well a lot of it is just FPGAs) and then do all the display and processing in software since that lets them easily implement the complex features and those scopes are low volume so it doesn't justify the cost of developing a ASIC.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2016, 10:10:14 am
content: Quote from: Berni on March 16, 2016, 09:59:25 amExcept for things like FFT. A Keysight DSO7000 for example becomes dog slow when you enable FFT. With the newer FPGAs which are combined with fast ARM cores (like the Xilinx Zync series) we are likely so see more scopes which perform complex operations faster and better than the current generation of oscilloscopes which rely on an ASIC/FPGA and a slow general purpose processor.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2016, 11:10:25 am
content: Quote from: Berni on March 16, 2016, 09:59:25 amI've yet to see any advanced features in a B-brand scope. Can you name one?QuoteASIC doesn't necessarily equals 'fast'. In fact, some of the fastest scopes (LeCroy X-Stream) don't use proprietary ASICs but a standard x86 processor which does all the processing.And a lot of ASIC-based scopes are dog slow, like the Agilent Infiniium 54800 Series. Or most Tek scopes.QuoteOnly in Keysight marketing. In reality, the HPAK MegaZoom ASIC is designed for a very high waveform update rate but that's it. Everything else is actually quite slow and therefore has been limited on these scopes (like FFT).QuoteThat's not true. Even the very expensive DSO90k and the shiny new Infiniium Z I use at work are full of ASICs that do pretty much all the processing. Which is the only way Keysight (or any other manufacturer) can implement any features without violating one of LeCroy's X-Stream patents.Most of the software features on these scopes would not work if they weren't supported by ASICs.

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2016, 11:55:25 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 16, 2016, 11:10:25 amThese infiniium scopes do use ASIC help in a few areas, but the final rendering is done on the CPU since the scope software can be installed on a regular PC and it has similar waveform rendering performance when moving trough saved waveform files. They do a bit of a cheat for rendering deep memory in that they start to skip samples when zooming out far. They don't seam to get any horrible aliasing but the detail in the intensity gradation does fade away. Its also visible trough that when the scope is in run mode or you constantly move trough a saved waveform the CPU utilization on one core gets pinned to 100% (And a bit of GPU load as OpenGL is used for graphics). As a result these scopes only have a waveform update rate in the 1000s

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2016, 12:44:59 pm
content: Quote from: Berni on March 16, 2016, 11:55:25 amYes, the rendering. All waveform processing however is done in ASICs.

author: hs3
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2016, 02:38:47 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 16, 2016, 12:44:59 pmI have a feeling that there might have been slightly different views on what different posters have considered waveform processing to include here. This might be causing the "disagreement" here.Any chance you could offer some examples of what waveform processing functionality the LeCroy scopes do on the CPU but the Infiniiums do in ASICs? I think that could help getting on the same page with this when everyone knows what is exactly meant with "waveform processing" here.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2016, 02:48:40 pm
content: Quote from: hs3 on March 16, 2016, 02:38:47 pmFFT and pretty much any kind of waveform maths (addition, subtraction, decimation, high-res/ERES). This is also the case for other things (i.e. memory search), all which runs on ASICs (which on modern scopes are usually just a large FPA with custom IP in it).Having said that, newer Infiniiums do offload some tasks to the CPU, i.e. most measurements. But there's a limit to what they can do as doing stuff fast means having to use the CPU's L1/L2 cache, and this is where it will fall foul of LeCroy's patents.Of course on the Windows-based Infiniiums you can use still MathLab or other software and do any processing on the CPU if you want.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2016, 10:19:06 pm
content: Quote from: Berni on March 16, 2016, 07:31:36 amI was going to edit out specific parts of that post, but felt the whole post pretty much sums up my opinions as it is. The 6000/7000 certainly aren't the newest, but for 99% of what I do the MSOX7104B I use is perfect for the job. No, it won't directly trigger on runt pulses or other relatively esoteric use cases for example, but if I were to ask how many times I've needed to check for runt pulses in recent years, well, I can't remember ever needing to recently. Yes, back in the microprocessor days, but not so much nowadays for what I do. I have other scopes with more features to use, but I just love the UI, and exactly as berni says, as a scope it works very well.

author: don
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2016, 02:56:12 am
content: Quote from: Howardlong on March 16, 2016, 10:19:06 pmYep, whatever works for you. Latest / greatest is not applicable at all. I predominately use tek scopes because they work best for me. Home has an mdo3000, work has an essentially unlimited (hundreds) supply of agilent, tek and lecroy scopes. But I gravitate to teks because of features I use that are much faster (what?! impossible!) compared to other scopes. I spend a lot of time grabbing waveforms and cursoring around measuring voltage / time. So for me the ease of cursoring/measuring on tek 3000/4000 is the best I've seen. Even just the knobs on mdo3000/4000. I like the two dedicated large smooth knobs vs. tiny and indented. Or even worse a mouse or buttons. Forget touch for cursors. And cursors race across entire screen width and record length at the same rate with a single finger; essentially moving at a higher rate when out of zoomed region allowing one to rotate knob at the same rate yet cover the same linear distance across the screen whether zoomed or not. This while grabbing realtime gated measurements up to full record length in realtime. Some scopes only gate on the screen or zoomed in region, or make you set the gating though a menu or using with a mouse. May seem trivial, but when I'm zooming / cursoring around a long capture for 10's of minutes or longer it makes a big difference for speed & usability and trumps other features.The other important one is the essentially unlimited algebraic math function length -- speaking of, I haven't found any other scopes in the mdo price category that let you enter unlimited math expression.I also like the excellent roll mode at what I believe is the highest sample rate I have encountered on any scope (ie 25M or 50Ms/s I believe). I can monitor in roll mode and then decode I2C or spi for example. Rolls in peak detect with intensity grading. And measurement gating works in realtime during roll as one would expect but isn't always there on other scopes.The "slow as molasses" often referenced here is really only in certain situations and I've learned to avoid them. Otherwise it's as fast any other scopes I've used except the agilents. But the apparent lock ups can be frustrating until you learn.I hated the 4000 series UI and avoided for years until I actually used it and then it grew on me. I can essentially operate from muscle memory.And for the hobbyist having the ability to liberate it to 500MHz with an AFG, MSO, and an excellent spectrum analyzer (excellent compared to FFT of other scopes in this price range -- and up to 3GHz) is pretty compelling. But generally you can buy when they have the free SA and other bundles if preferring not to liberate. Tons of inexpensive probes available second hand too fully compatible with different tek interfaces

author: ebastler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2016, 06:38:10 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 16, 2016, 11:10:25 amThat's probably a question of defining "advanced feature", isn't it?Once it appears in a B-brand scope, it is not "advanced" anymore?

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2016, 09:50:06 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on March 17, 2016, 06:38:10 amYes, I suspect that goalpost has moved several times now.Air conditioning, airbags and anti-lock brakes used to be 'advanced' features' in cars, too.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2016, 10:53:46 am
content: Quote from: ebastler on March 17, 2016, 06:38:10 amIt doesn't really matter if it's in a B-brand scope or not (and my above comment was not entirely correct as you can find some advanced features like Power Analysis in more expensive B-brand scopes like the Siglent SDS2000, although the actual usefulness of that implementation is another story). The point is that a function is hardly "advanced" if it's found in pretty much any bottom-of-the-barrel scope.And of course the definition as to what makes "advanced" functionality changes over time (i.e. being able to do basic FFT isn't anything special these days, however it was back in the early '90s). Hell, I even remember a time when cursor readouts where considered "advanced"

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2016, 11:37:43 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 17, 2016, 10:53:46 amThe cynic in me says that nowadays "advanced" = "does what it says, to specification, without surprises, without bugfixes".

author: don
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2016, 01:38:40 pm
content: Advanced scope features are really just features not found in other scopes or features implemented in a way that offer benefit compared to other scopes. At the root it's cost driven so generally are found in the bigger players. Whether it's investment in technology, engineers, industrial designers or even long product cycles to allow implementation at the expense of having scope on the market sooner than later.Many "advanced" features from years ago have never been refined by some manufacturers and instead are just tolerable even on the high end scopes. Some implementations are downright poor regardless of the scope class or brand. Sometimes even non-functional albeit mostly with new entrants. But they still sell because the tool works good enough or has other features that are more important. But poorly implemented features will linger and push people away that depend on the feature.So a scope may be "better" because it has more "advanced" features and costs more. But has no relevance on how well the tool performs for all applications. A lot of people lose sight that scopes are tools and how well it performs depends on how it will be used instead of just the badge.