Agilent DSOX3014A vs Tek DPO3014 vs Rigol DS4014 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 03:13:52 am
content: I've been tasked with getting a new scope for work to replace the ancient Tek with no memory. I've narrowed it down to these choices. It seems they are all in the same sort of category and I can't quite decide. I haven't actually played with any of them yet, so I'm just going by the data sheets, what the reps told me, and internet impressions. It sounds like I'd be happy with any of them, now it's just picking the best one.All 100MHz 4 channel:(USD)(1)Agilent DSOX3014A = $3168(2)Tek DPO3014 = $4050 (But I'm told they are lowering their prices any day now to compete with Agilent)(3)Rigol DS4014 = $2214After doing some research and talking to reps, my impressions, at least the good ones, are:Tek has better accuracy/resolution and comes with more memory/features standard than Agilent. Plus it can do math on the whole memory range.Agilent has better waveform/sec rate (by a lot. how important is this really?), nicest interface maybe, and more upgrade paths.(I'm ignoring the arb since I already have one, so it's not really influencing which scope I pick)Rigol seems to kick the hell out of both of them with more standard features, more memory (by a lot! Rigol=140M vs Tek=5M vs Agilent=2M), more Gsamples/sec (not as big a margin, but still some), cheaper addons and upgrades, and it's significantly cheaper. No bandwidth upgrades for the Rigol (at least not legit ones) but for the same money I can buy the higher bandwidth model.I understand Rigol is becoming a serious company with some nice high end stuff, but when a company has a reputation for making cheap Chinese low end stuff, even if it's really good cheap Chinese low end stuff, they don't look nearly as good as the Teks and the Agilent who have made the best stuff for a really long time and are just now dipping into the middle markets. I guess the question isn't whether the Rigol is any good. It probably is. The question is if it is as good or better than the Agilent and Tek, and can I justify it to my boss?It doesn't help that the Rigol 2000 and 4000 series are pretty new and there aren't any good reviews/comparisons yet. The distributor I talked to said that everyone he has sold one to has been happy so far and he hasn't got any back, but that could just be distributor talk. I saw the post here about the noise on a 2000, but that looks pretty anomalous to me.What do you guys think?Dave, when do you think you'll end up doing a Rigol DS4000 series review? Even the 2000 series review would probably he helpful here.*As a funny note, when I was talking to the Tek rep I mentioned Dave's review of the MDO4000 series, and he said he's seen it and started talking about how Dave is super biased.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 03:28:05 am
content: Quote from: Smokey on August 10, 2012, 03:13:52 amFunny thing is, just today Rigol were going to send me a DS4000 by mistake, they were supposed to be sending the DS2000.I told them to send the DS2000 instead.I'm sure Rigol wouldn't mind me quoting them directly here on some correspondence we had:QuoteQuoteReally?Ask him to come on the forum here and explain exactly how my comments were not warranted or in any way biased or wrong.See if he can prove that the MDO4000 is a good general use scope and good value compared to the competition. I'm willing to bet he can't.I gave praise were it was due (the MDO feature), and a threw brickbats where it was due (the ancient slow architecture et.al.Dave.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 03:34:58 am
content: I don't think the Tek can compete here, even when they have recently slashed their prices. It an old slow architecture, and it is starting to show.There is much talk in the T&M industry that Tek are really struggling to find sales now and losing lots of big bids, and that's not surprising at all.So I wouldn't put the Tek in the running here, unless you are a Tek fanboy, and simply must have that name. Or you simply prefer the way the Tek operates or whatever. Both would be a valid personal reason to buy it of course though, everyone's needs and wants are different.Much tougher choice between the Rigol and Agilent I think.Dave.

author: KTP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 03:51:34 am
content: The Rigol does not have more Gsps than the Agilent. They are both 4Gs single channel 2Gs multichannel (although on the Agilent you can still get 4Gs using both channels 1 and 3 (with 2 and 4 off...or vice versa....probably the same for the Rigol?)Is the vast memory on the Rigol usable at the 4Gsps rate?I think the Rigol might be your best deal especially if you don't need the AWG generator. The Agilent would have a higher resale value later though.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 05:57:55 pm
content: Cool. Thanks for the quick feedback. Good call on the sample rate.I've pretty much had Agilent in the lead, really closely followed by the Rigol. I figured I'd give Tek a chance, especially if they are hurting for sales maybe they'd make an awesome deal if I told them I was going to get the Agilent. Maybe throw in some other equipment or something.If I was really mean I'd schedule an onsite demo from all three companies at the same time and make them fight it out live. I can just see the "what they hell aretheydoing here???!!!!!" look on their faces. Tape it and put it on youtube as the ultimate oscilloscope showdown. That's too mean even for me. I actually feel bad for the sales guys sometimes.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 06:52:24 pm
content: high waveform/sec is very important of you need to find glitches or things that don't happen very often

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 07:09:19 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on August 10, 2012, 06:52:24 pmand yet many people dispute wfrms/secit's so important actually

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 08:55:08 pm
content: Quote from: T4P on August 10, 2012, 07:09:19 pmMostly manufacturers that don't offer it..!

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 10:00:32 pm
content: QuoteSeems like Tek have been treading water and trying to trade on their past history for quite a while - probably since the Agilent 6000, although at that point Agilent still had a lot of "Tek are the scope guys" type mentality to overcome. Unless they have something really special in the works, and if the new Rigols really deliver, then IMO Tek will be toast outside niche areas soon - it will be Agilent at the mid to high end, Rigol at low to mid, and the cheap & nasty Chinese at the bottom, with Tek nowhere.

author: gregariz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 11:09:03 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on August 10, 2012, 10:00:32 pmThere's no doubt that at the high end, both Tek and Agilent rake their customers who are mostly defence contractors. But what is going on now is the same as whats happened in the general consumer market. Chinese manufacturers have now entered what used to be a small volume niche area, and essentially are competing on unfair terms in both wage and tooling costs. Western manufacturers can't pay wages at Rigol prices. Something probably will give... starting with maybe their value line.

author: KTP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 10, 2012, 11:15:40 pm
content: Quote from: gregariz on August 10, 2012, 11:09:03 pmAnyone have a guestimate on how many Rigols and Hanteks were used in the labs at NASA while constructing the Mars rover Curiousity? I think Agilent will be ok...

author: snoopy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 01:42:00 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 10, 2012, 03:34:58 amYes I thought the Tek DPO3014 was a fairly old model because I remember a mate of mine buying a DPO3052 about 10 years ago for around 13K at the time and one of its surprising drawbacks was a miniscule sample buffer of only about 10K !!Digital phosphur was the in thing and only Tektronix had it at the time but now the competitiopn has caught up with yet more features and performance.regards

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 02:08:27 am
content: The Agilent still competes very well at the low-ish end against Rigol with the 2000X. And they have the education market sown up with their pricing and the educational material built-in and in print.And they have that extra reserve memory, and serial decode on tap waiting to be released if required to compete. But AFAIK, they are still barely able to keep up with demand, so I would not expect to see set lose unless they are under real threat.Tek still compete just fine at the high end of course, but it's hard to know where they are at the low end.I suspect the takeover by the Danaher group did not bode well for future development there, I heard that they put the chainsaw through R&D. Danaher's philosophy is not innovation, it's running a lean mean ship and extracting every cent in the margin.Dave.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 02:14:03 am
content: Here are the relative marketing battles for the 3000X and DPO3000http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5990-6684EN.pdfhttp://www.tek.com/competitive/mso-dpo3000-series-vs-agilent-mso-dso3000-x-series-videoDave.

author: tnt
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 09:49:37 am
content: The Tek video is interesting to show some of the 3000-X limitations. However for most of them it's just because the best way to do the job is different than on the Tek.For the runt pulse, I think that using the segmented memory would allow to get each event. For comparing two digital signal timing relative to each other, I'd use analog channel 1 and 3 to get 4 Gsps.For the measurement the Tek is clearly better, doing the measurements on the stored data rather than the displayed data is definitely the way to go ...As for the Agilent pdf, they're a bit misleading with a 5 Gsps / 2.5 Gsps ... that's only on the 1 GHz model ...

author: snoopy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 10:56:56 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 11, 2012, 02:08:27 amWhen I went ot the last Monsah Uni open day for a gander the science department was full of Rigol's. I suppose 2 or 3 for the price of one Agilent or Tek is a better deal if you are on budget

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 11:16:05 am
content: Quote from: snoopy on August 11, 2012, 10:56:56 amBut then you have to produce the educational material on how to use the scopes.Agilent produce an education manual that can be used directly as material for a course.Depends on what the scopes are being used for I guess.Dave.

author: djsb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 12:22:27 pm
content: So, based on the comparison in the link the the Tek 3054 is better than the Agilent 3054X, is that correct? It's difficult to pick out the relevant details from the video.I suppose I just want reassurance that I've chosen to buy the right scope (the Agilent MSOX3054A).David.

author: JuKu
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 12:38:28 pm
content: Quote from: Smokey on August 10, 2012, 03:13:52 amThis. If you can spend the same money, you would get a 200MHz (or even 300MHz?) Rigol instead of 100MHz Agilent. Depends really on what kind of work you do, but for me, the Agilent would need to be much better in anywhere else to justify the bandwidth penalty.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 12:45:17 pm
content: Quote from: djsb on August 11, 2012, 12:22:27 pm"better" only relates to your own particular requirements.Tek forget to mention that their scope cannot be upgraded in bandwidth, cannot be upgraded to MSO, and cannot be upgraded to an ARB function gen.It also does not do hardware serial decodes, is massively slower in update rate, has no mask testing or segmented memory. Those are 4 massive benefits of the Agilent right there.The runt example they used could be done on the Agilent with segmented memory.So of course Tek only focus on a couple of the things that are better with their scope, but it's obvious they struggled hard to hard them...The Tek is better in it's search capability, no doubt, and has a bit more memory. But the Agilent blows the Tek's memory out of the water with the segmented memory option.You bought the right scope.Dave.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 12:58:24 pm
content: Quote from: JuKu on August 11, 2012, 12:38:28 pmThe Agilent has an MSO option, wavgen option, faster updating, hardware serial decode, and segmented memory options.But the Rigol 4000 has more bandwidth/memory per $$$$Tough call really.For my own use with my own money I'd probably err on the side of the higher bandwidth Rigol for the same price I think.Dave.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 08:52:39 pm
content: Thanks guys. This is exactly the discussion / commentary I was looking for.

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 10:13:30 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 11, 2012, 12:58:24 pmDave, How does the Rigol DS4000 compare to the Agilent 3000X in regard to search parameters and glitch capture?I've looked here at your videos and the onerboladid on the DS4000, but can't recall that particular aspect between the two units (I'm interested in the higher memory value of the Rigol, but I want to be able to search it easily for glitches, rather than just scroll through until I find it, assuming it was captured, thus wondering if the segmented memory option for the Agilent would make it the right unit in my case).

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 11:48:54 pm
content: Quote from: nanofrog on August 11, 2012, 10:13:30 pmHaven't used one, so no idea, sorry.Dave.

author: nanofrog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 11:51:26 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 11, 2012, 11:48:54 pmNo worries. I'll have to keep digging, or possibly try and get both units for a demo (simultaneously if possible).Thanks for the quick reply Dave.

author: kek
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 11, 2012, 11:52:50 pm
content: QuoteThey should send you both!I'm really interested in a new 4 channel scope myself. The Rigol DS1052E has served me well, but would like to upgrade in the next year or two to something with 4 channels and a bigger screen. Any scope maker with a good 4 channel scope would be crazy not to send you an evaluation scope, how many DS1052E scopes have you helped move in the last couple of years?Ken

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 12, 2012, 12:11:49 am
content: Quote from: kek on August 11, 2012, 11:52:50 pmThey might send me both if I ask.The issue is time to review and tear down all this stuff.I already have a big backlog.They were going to send me the 4000, but I asked for the 2000 instead as I think there would be more people interested in that.Dave.

author: snoopy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2012, 02:15:40 am
content: The Rigol 2000 series looks quite impressive according to its datasheet if you just want 2 channels and 200MHz bandwidth max.http://emona.com.au/Datasheets/2%20Oscilloscopes/DS2000.pdfWith a 50,000 waveforms per sec performance on the Rigol 2000 the low end dso market is slowly moving the performance/price goal posts and are encroaching on the big boys domain. Healthy competition can only mean good news for the consumerWhat will we see in 5 years time ??regardsdavo

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2012, 04:13:59 am
content: Checklist :Rigol DS4034 and many more ... lol

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2012, 07:18:47 am
content: It would be cool if you reviewed whichever model is more directly a competitor with the agilent 3000x series scopes since the 3000x series seems to be the general purpose leader in your reviews so far. It sounds like either rigol will give a good idea of their new stuff in that class though. Ill take what Ican get.Could you maybe fast track the scope review? It seems like more people would be interested in that than a spectrum analyzer.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 12, 2012, 08:16:41 am
content: Quote from: snoopy on August 12, 2012, 02:15:40 amHopefully a new design Tek scope!Dave.

author: firewalker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2012, 08:53:02 am
content: I am guessing Tek would love to poke you with a razor sharp probe!Alexander.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2012, 09:04:01 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on August 12, 2012, 08:16:41 amBy which time Agilent will have something new. Unless Tek are already a long way into development of something good, they will be dead in the low to midrange scope market soon. There's only so much they can cut prices on their current creaky old product line.

author: KTP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2012, 11:19:53 am
content: Does the Tek or Rigol have similar software development support for external control of their scopes as Agilent? We have already started work on the software that will turn a 2000x/3000x into a bode plotter for filters and a RLC meter. I am very impressed with the amount of work Agilent has done documenting the VISA libraries, including example code in C#.Just another factor to consider if someone is choosing between these three scopes.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2012, 05:48:11 pm
content: Ktp, that is too funny. Making automated measurements to do bode plots is exactly the first application I need to do. If you search the web for dedicated bode hardware, its like 12k usd for a box that just dumps out bode plots.Edit to add:How long does it take to dump the agilent memory to a pc?Are you getting good results from the agilent taking automated measurements? Does anyone know if the rigol uses the full memory for calculations like the tek?When I asked the rigol guys about remote pc control they said it wasn't a problem and I didn't need anything extra to do it, but I still haven't played with one yet to confirm.

author: KTP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 12, 2012, 11:11:14 pm
content: Quote from: Smokey on August 12, 2012, 05:48:11 pmWe really just started, so I can't answer all of this right now. The first thing my wife wants is a full written spec (uhg, software engineers...can't they just start hacking it like we do?).Just from playing around though, I found it quite fast to do things like change the waveform frequency. You can almost make it look like a regular sweep function generator...it is that fast. Memory dump to pc is fast also, but don't have a specific time measurement yet.I will let you know more as we progress. I want to make it super easy to use for beginners, but have all the features for advanced users.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2012, 09:36:42 pm
content: Well I just had a really interesting on site demo of the Tek scope. (Thanks Tek guy, if you happen to read this.) The guy had a pretty good sales pitch.Some of the cool new stuff and info:1) The Tek 3000s were introduced in 2008, so it's not really that old. The previous generation that the 3000 replaced is about 15 years old now.2) The newer 3000 series tek scopes are software bandwidth upgradable all the way to 500mhz. The older ones were not calibrated for anything other than the set bandwidth, but the newer ones, starting with SN C02 are factory calibrated for all bandwidths and just require a software upgrade. No sending it back required. They just started doing that, probably to compete with the Agilent's upgradability. There is no upgrade path from DSO to MSO for these models though. He confirmed a very small percentage of people actually ever upgrade anything. That is at least an option now though. I guess if you have an older serial number you can still send it back and have them upgrade it with the new calibration.3) The decode expansion modules, which are those stupid physical hardware key token things to plug into the side by the top, can be stored digitally in the scope so you don't have to have them physically in there to use them and potentially get them stolen if you are in that sort of environment. The hardware token thing is deactivated when you load them on the scope though, so you can't install the same token in a bunch of scopes. Not that there is much he could do about it, but I did complain that the modules are ridiculously priced for the cheaper units, being over 25% of the price of the whole scope, per expansion module.4) He said that they recently did a detailed side by side comparison with the Agilent 3000x series and a bunch of that info will be coming out soon.5) He made a point of Tek having some big company syndrome when it comes to advertizing and they are just now starting to learn how to use things like youtube to help advertize their stuff to the middle and lower markets. So I guess we should be expecting to see more stuff like that.6) The scope comes with a lite version of labview to help automate stuff. That could be super useful if you had labview experience and wanted to set something up quickly.Some impressions, understanding that I still haven't played with an Agilent or Rigol yet, so this is just my impression of the Tek having played with it for about 30 minutes.1) I didn't have any of the digital mixed signal stuff going on during the demo and I didn't see much lag in the interface. It seemed pretty responsive, even on a long timebase at full memory. Could the digital+MDO stuff have been causing the lag?2) As far as usability of the interface, I thought it was fine. There are a lot of deep menus, but there are also a lot of features. Nothing was too outrageously placed, menu or button wise. Things that were non-intuitive like having to turn a knob instead of push a button to set something was pretty well noted what you had to do on the screen menus. The panel buttons were fine as far as amount of them, placement, and feel. Nothing that would drive me crazy on a daily basis. Using anything this complicated is going to take some getting used to but I didn't see anything that would be long term a deal breaker.3) I'm not sure how much I like the wide screen non-square boxes, but it didn't seem like something that would drive me crazy.4) The triggering looked pretty nice. Lots of options for setting up ranges and conditions. I could see that being useful.5) Having the measurements use the full memory instead of just the screen data (I think he said like 1000 points on the Agilent) would be nice. It seems that once you have all that data in a digital format, which these scopes do anyway, it would just be a software thing to do math over the full memory. I wonder what Agilent was thinking restricting themselves like that, and why they don't write some new code and patch in those features since it's something their competitor is rightfully advertizing as an advantage.So to sum it up, first of all I'm not a Tek fanboy. This is also the first scope in this class that I have physically played with. I'll hopefully get the others here soon. On a purely technical basis, I didn't see too much wrong with the Tek in the brief time I played with it, and I do like the fact that the memory/sample rate isn't split between the channels and the math is over the whole memory. I may request a demo unit to keep for a while if I'm still undecided after seeing the Agilent and Rigol, but I don't think I'd regret going with the Tek and using it on a daily basis. If I consider the equivalent upgrades to the Agilent to bring it up to about the Tek specs (500USD for the memory upgrade to 4meg, and 400USD for the lan/VGA module) and ignore the wavegen, the Tek list price of 4050USD isn't too outrageously priced. I haven't got their actual quote yet, but it should be better than that.When I mentioned EEVBlog, he only rolled his eyes a little. He did say he knew of it and that he was impressed at Dave's ability to review things like the zipper on the case the scope came in and make it sound interesting. I had to chuckle.Just some more info for everyone.

author: KTP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2012, 09:46:44 pm
content: Can you give a couple of examples of when you might find it useful to do math functions over the entire memory and not the displayed data? Just curious because I have not thought about this being much of an issue.

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2012, 10:09:27 pm
content: If I was using the built in frequency measurement, or peak-peak measurement, or some measurement of a stable repetitive signal like a sine wave, the more periods of the signal you do the calculations on, the more accurate the measurement will be. Say I only wanted one period of the sine wave on the screen so I could see the quality of the signal, but I also wanted accurate frequency and peak-peak measurements, it sounds like it would only do the measurements on the one period on screen vs the average of a bunch of periods that are technically in the scope's memory. It sounds like that as you scroll through the memory of a capture, the agilent's measurement results change as the screen image changes.The std deviation and min and max and all the other statistics that these scopes show these days should take care of displaying the variation from period to period that the scope used to get the average measurement value.I could be wrong though, it has happened before.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2012, 10:20:46 pm
content: QuoteI wonder if like the older scopes, these modules are still just eeproms, with the license name in ASCII. If so give me that any day over real security!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 13, 2012, 11:42:59 pm
content: Quote from: Smokey on August 13, 2012, 09:36:42 pmWhilst that is true, I think it was still based on the same processor and architecture platform as the previous model. Can anyone confirm?QuoteAgilent have told me a similar thing in terms of bandwidth, few people actually take up the option.I can imagine the LA upgrade to be a bit more popular, as it gives you different capability, not just more performance.QuoteYes, the more stuff u turned on, the slower it got.Although the MDO is the 4000 architecture, not the 3000.QuotePerhaps it's an architecture thing.Agilent use the ASIC to push the waveform direct to the screen (and possibly do the measurements I think), so it might require changing the ASIC instead of the processor software?QuoteOnce again, I didn't get a single Tek person post a response in any way to my review of the MDO4000 or the 2000 teardown. Only a personal email to mention that I got some nit-picky things wrong like it takes 4 modules instead of two etc.Why is that I wonder?It's because they know I'm right and they didn't have a response. The MDO4000 was as slow as a wet week.If they thought their regular scopes were hot stuff, they would be sending them to me for review. But they haven't, they only sent their new MDO scope. And they forget that I praised them for it, the MDO part was excellent, I told people to rush and out buy one if they needed MDO capability. But as an everyday use scope it kinda sucks, and I said so. They didn't like that, but deep down they know I'm right.Dave.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 13, 2012, 11:47:30 pm
content: Quote from: Smokey on August 13, 2012, 09:36:42 pmI think there is some confusion here. The 2/3000X capture and display is always the 'full memory'. You have the option of making measurements on the display or the (mega)zoomed window.The Agilent megazoom could be criticized for splitting the display vertically between the capture and zoomed window which makes both cramped and low res. If it had the option of only displaying the zoom then it would be capturing more than it displays (which is probably what the Tek can do).

author: Hypernova
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 14, 2012, 05:07:53 am
content: Having used Tek's MSO3000's at my last job I have nothing good to say about them. The moment you try to do anything with 5Mpt the thing freezes like it's in Antarctica. God help you should you turn on the digital channels and have a sleeping bag ready should you have the Math active too.The most retarded thing is the way the digital channel work. Turn them on and you can't use Rolling display, you are stuck with normal view, good luck trying to sample digital channels over long periods.For the same BW 3000X's are faster with more features, and did I mention that due to the wavgen integration you can copy acquired wfm from your input and recreate it with the arb gen?

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2012, 05:30:26 am
content: Plus the DPO3 is very slow compared to the X3000, so the agilent wins in this aspect by far boundsI don't see how nobody mentioned this that the X3000 has 1Million Plus waveforms/sec waveform acquisition rateThat alone makes me buy a Rigol or Agilent instead of a TekThe rigol has 110kwfrms/sec and that alone makes me buy the DS4014 instead, and it's being much cheaper on top of that

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 14, 2012, 05:46:53 am
content: Quote from: T4P on August 14, 2012, 05:30:26 amIt's not just the waveform update rate (which changes a lot depending upon timebase), but the Tek slows down a lot when you try and do other things, just like Hypernova said. I found that on the Tek 4000, and also on the older Tek 3000 I've used.Dave.

author: tnt
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2012, 06:30:18 am
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on August 13, 2012, 10:20:46 pmAhaha, "Real security", right ... good one

author: KTP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 14, 2012, 02:45:06 pm
content: The Agilent AWG does update fairly fast over USB, as I tested this morning.I wrote a simple program to sweep a RC filter (10K resistor, 100pF capacitor) with a 2vpp sine wave from 1Khz to 1Mhz in 100 steps per decade. I also added a 10uS 3V pulse at the start of the sweep to allow me a trigger point (I am sure there is some better way to do this). At any rate it looks neatCorner frequency should calculate to about 160khz, but the 100pF cap is surely getting some loading from the 10x probe!

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2012, 04:59:34 pm
content: So a Tek rep contacted me about how the demo went. I pointed them to this thread. I wonder if they will actually read it.

author: H.O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 23, 2012, 10:23:36 am
content: Hi everyone,New forum member here though I've been following Daves video blogs since the beginning.I've had a Rigol DS4014 for a couple of months now. I'm not in a position to do a full review of it and I don't have any hands on experience with the "rival" Teks or Agilent units discussed here so I can't comment on hands on differences either. However I can give you my overall impressions for what it's worth.My use of the scope is for general purpose stuff in my home "lab". I tend to fool around a bit with motor controllers, quadrature encoders and such and wanted a 4 channel model. I originally gravitated towards the Rigol DS2000 series but was a bit bummed since there's no 4 channel model available. That forced me into raising my budget (this is payed for with my own money so price IS unfortunately a factor) and turning towards the DS4000 series. I did briefly concider the Agilent3000 series but to me the Rigol looked better on paper - at a lower price.Basically there are two things so far that I don't particullarily like:I have not been able to get the PC-software for it to work. This isn't something I'll likely use and I've only played with it for any hour or so. I'm sure it's something I'm doing wrong and I need to RTFM properly. What I did find a bit strange though is that you have to download third party software from National Instruments in order to install the Rigol software, this was somewhat cumbersome since the file that Rigol points you to in the documentation doesn't exist on the NI site, I had to ask support for a direct link.The second and more annoying thing for is the fan. Inrbola'svideo review he says that he doesn't find the fan very noisy. On that point I have to disagree, I actually find it quite annoying. I can't give you a number but compared to any of my 4 desktop PCs around the house and my Tek2465B scope the Rigol is MUCH louder.Apart from those two things it's been a pleasure to use. The screen is bright and clear (much better than on my old GWInstek 806C) and the userinterface is intuitive and responsive.I ordered mine without any options, I definitely could use both the RS232 and SPI decoding module but I concider them too expensive for me at this point.Like I said, not much of a review, just a couple of observations after having it for a while. If you have any questions ot if there's anything in specific you want me to test I'd be happy to do that if I have the equipment to do it./Henrik.

author: jimjam
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2014, 02:32:13 am
content: Hi H.O. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on Rigol DS4014 now that you've been using it for a while. Thanks

author: jlmoon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2014, 02:23:22 pm
content: QuoteI love my Rigol DS2202! For the money you can't beat it, I plan to acquire a Agilent 3000 series in the not so distance future so I will have both high input sensitivity (Rigol 500mV/div) and Speed with 4 channels Agilent X3000 series. All you could ask for unless you just want to spend gazillions of dollars.