New Tek Scope - MDO4000C - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: cidcorp
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 09, 2015, 05:36:56 am
content: New MDO4000C, 6-in-1 Mixed Domain OscilloscopeFor those interested:http://news.tektronix.com/2015-12-08-Tektronix-Expands-Integrated-Instrument-Portfolio-with-MDO4000C-Mixed-Domain-OscilloscopeMmm... beyond my budget in this lifetime: Starting $7300 USD - Oh but DVM option is free with registration.Chris

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2015, 06:06:20 am
content: Quote from: cidcorp on December 09, 2015, 05:36:56 amNew? Looks more like another rehash of the existing MDO40000. Specs seems to be mostly similar as well.So it's not really a new scope.Quote$7300 for the 200MHz variant?Thanks but no, thanks! :

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2015, 06:12:58 am
content: Did Jony Ive join Tektronix ? Controls' colors look too familiar.

author: Paul Moir
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2015, 06:13:26 am
content: Cheaper than a 465 when it came out. And it didn't even have a multimeter option!

author: Pinkus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2015, 09:13:55 am
content: but it has a real handle

author: kaz911
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 09, 2015, 09:41:07 am
content: big change is Function Gen - and seems like a lot can be done with "software licenses" - they will sell as hotcakes if "old options modules" still work... [edit:] software upgrade of bandwidth is also new I think?

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 07, 2016, 05:53:03 pm
content: Any opinion on this competitive sheetmade by Tektronix guys?

author: MarkL
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 07, 2016, 07:57:57 pm
content: Notably absent is any mention of performance with digital channels on or protocol decode on. I haven't personally tested the "C" version, but it's been the biggest problem with the MDO series since it came out.I do like the 1GHz to the passive probe tip. It's an impressive accomplishment.

author: robert_
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2016, 05:54:54 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 09, 2015, 06:06:20 amNice, another warmup of old technology. Just like that 10kb TDS3000C thats still being sold.Thats around the price of a Lecroy HDO4024. With true 12bit resolution, lots of useful features, touchscreen and less buggy software.Only things Tek can do well is low-capacitance passive probes, and firmware bugs resulting in easy hackability.Oh, and do they finally debounce the rotary encoders properly? Seems they forgot how to do so beginning with the DPO3k. I have to work with one, and it jumps around quite randomly, right out of the box. Actually all of them (DPO/MSO/MDO 3k and 4k series) we have at work do, some more some less.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 08, 2016, 06:30:03 pm
content: Quote from: MarkL on March 07, 2016, 07:57:57 pmUntil you calculate the impedance at 1GHz, the effect of a ground lead and realise what 4pf does to a 1GHz signal. IOW: rather useless for any real world measurements.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2016, 03:40:48 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on December 09, 2015, 06:06:20 amYes, but it meets its specs.You'd pay $7300 for a 200MHz scope that actually meets its specs, wouldn't you?

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2016, 06:06:30 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on March 09, 2016, 03:40:48 amI'd expect any big brand scope to meet its specs, no matter what price. If not it's defective and goes straight back to the manufacturer.And $7300 for a 200MHz scope is still a bad joke, but I guess bad jokes are what we come to expect from Tek.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2016, 09:27:25 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on March 09, 2016, 03:40:48 amI would never ever pay $7300 for a 200MHz scope. The other A brands like Keysight, Lecroy, Yokogawa, etc have much better offerings for that kind of money.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2016, 09:31:43 am
content: Quote from: Paul Moir on December 09, 2015, 06:13:26 amer, yes it did

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2016, 06:57:33 pm
content: The scope looks nice, but what are the new features? I think:-pushable vertical scale knobs-DVM-arbitrary function generator(with NO AM or FM modulation)Still very similar to the MDO4000B.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2016, 07:11:10 pm
content: I really don't get the DVM option on a DSO. How are 8 bit and 3% DC accuracy going to give meaningful readings?

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2016, 07:54:53 pm
content: What is the difference between DVM and standard automatic measurements?? Maybe DVM works with untriggered signals or something?

author: Keysight DanielBogdanoff
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 20, 2016, 06:36:31 am
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on March 19, 2016, 07:54:53 pmNot sure what they are doing with it, but our DVM uses some background channel sampling that's running even when the signal is off on screen. For us, the DVM operates more like a traditional DVM whereas the "standard automatic measurements" usually just use the signal displayed on the screen.The MDO4000C is essentially a re-hash of the MDO4000B but with a DMM, Function Gen, and the RF stuff & MSO as an option instead of standard.Their "competitive comparison" looks like a copy/paste of their other ones. Navigation, memory depth, nothing that we haven't heard before. My favorite is always the update rate topic, with their 340k in FastAcq mode = our 1M claim. Also mysteriously no mention of our touch screen.Do you Tek users ever use FastAcq? Every time I tried to use it I'd change a setting or something and it would turn off.Looks like they also need to update their 4000 X-Series firmware.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2016, 10:16:48 am
content: Quote from: Keysight_DanielBogdanoff on March 20, 2016, 06:36:31 amNo not really, I've yet to find a practical use case for it, as you say a lot of your settings are lost when you activate it, and the deep memory... well there isn't any. You are very restricted on what you can do in Fastacq mode. To me it's as if their marketing dept decided they needed some better wfm/s figures so the techs came up with a hack which gave better figures but at the expense of most of the other features like deep memory.The same goes to a lesser extent with MagniVu, their high resolution LA feature, but more useful as the default LA sample rate is only 500MSa/s which can be a little marginal in some cases with faster microcontrollers (cf. LPC4300 series). Did I mention that the update rate drops to a few tens of Hz when the LA is on whether or not you're running a decode?Regarding wfm/s, personally speaking, once you've got beyond about 100kwfm/s for me it's the law of diminishing returns, but I realise that to Keysight it's a key Keysight marketing facet.But now I've got your ear(!) features I do like about the Tek compared to equivalent Keysight offerings are:o 3.9pF lightweight probes (but definitely not the proprietary interface)o VESA mounto 20Mpt/ch (10Mpt/ch MDO3000) on each channel compared to 4Mpt shared on KS x3000/x4000o Ethernet and high speed USB decode (Ethernet decode only on MDO4000)o Serial decode lister - much more information available on the screen without scrolling aroundo SA occasionally useful but is not a good reason to buy on its own (note: on MDO3000 SA can't be used at same time as scope)For me by far the worst aspect of the Tek is the UI, it's as if they had half a dozen development teams working on it who never spoke to each other. There is little consistency, the two multifunction knobs usually add confusion rather than clarity. I just can't get on with the pan/zoom knob, plus there are few knob push actions, although maybe the 4000C addresses that. The graticule gets filled up with menus and subwindows too easily obscuring your trace, but worst of all it's just so sluggish.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2016, 10:47:57 am
content: Quote from: Howardlong on March 20, 2016, 10:16:48 amI agree. The last thing I look at when buying a scope is waveforms/s because beyond several kwfms/s it becomes an utterly useless number. I think Fastacq is something modern Tektronix scopes inherited from the TDS700 series where you could choose for a fast aqcuisition mode but indeed that mode was very limited.QuoteActually it gets worse on Keysight scopes because the 4Mpts are used as a double buffer and when shared it gets halfed again. So in a practical usage scenario you end up with 1Mpts on a 4Mpts Keysight IF you don't enable the digital channels and or reference traces. The Tektronix wins more than 20 to 1 here!

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2016, 11:26:31 am
content: Quote from: Howardlong on March 20, 2016, 10:16:48 am+1VESA mounts should really be standard on any somewhat compact and not too heavy scope.QuoteYes, the small memory on the DSOX Series is pretty silly these days. Even more so when considering that Keysight does charge top money for these scopes (they are pretty much the most expensive scopes in their class).QuoteNot sure they are of that much use. The highest bandwidth for MDO3k/4kC is 1GHz, and that is only enough for the very slow USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 High Speed modes, and 100Mbps Ethernet. USB 2.0 Super-Speed already requires a 2GHz+ scope.I've seen 100Mbps Ethernet decode on a MDO4104B, and it was dog slow.QuoteIn my opinion, unless you really need a all-in-one device, the built-in SA makes little sense as for the price difference alone you can probably buy a nice standalone SA with much better RF performance.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2016, 11:49:47 am
content: Quote from: Keysight_DanielBogdanoff on March 20, 2016, 06:36:31 amNot surprising. On most scopes, switching a channel off doesn't actually switch the ADC off, it just tells the software to ignore that channel, so I guess the DVM just takes the data from the sampling subsystem.But it still leaves you with the low resolution of an 8bit ADC and the resulting measurement uncertainty.QuoteSo not much different than Keysight's 'ours-vs-theirs' marketing brochures then?I like HPAK (HP/Agilent/Keysight) gear, I really do, but frankly in terms of marketing both Keysight and Tek are pretty much on equal standings of "silly". In my opinion as an angineer, "competitive comparisons" are a stupid idea that, if anything, only makes the pushing vendor look really desperate, it transpires a certain lack of confidence in the own product and a fear of its competition. Even more so when comparisons are made against obsolete competitor's scopes (I'm looking at you, Keysight, plus you didn't even get the scope model designation right), competitor's features are omitted (like in the Tek "competitive comparison" you mentioned), or competitor's scopes are used (willingly or unintendedly) the wrong way.

author: GlowingGhoul
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2016, 02:44:24 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 20, 2016, 11:49:47 amLook who's returned to his LeCroy jihad. Look, the market has spoken loudly, and they don't agree with your conclusions or preferences. Among other reasons, notice Keysight is here, interacting with users and enthusiasts, while LeCroy is not? Even Rigol and Siglent have made it known they are interested in this forum as a feedback mechanism to improve their products, while LeCroy either can't be bothered, or more likely simply doesn't have the resources because of its diminutive size. 10,000 employees vs 500. $4 Billion in annual sales vs $150 million. The company behind expensive TE is as important as the equipment itself.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2016, 03:15:04 pm
content: Quote from: GlowingGhoul on March 20, 2016, 02:44:24 pmIMHO that is a rather shortsighted view. Nowadays it seems companies need to be present on social media to make their brand look good. But how well are they doing otherwise than giving people a warm and fuzzy feeling they are being heard? I rather deal with a manufacturer (I have no experience with Lecroy) who actually listens to my problems and fixes them than a manufacturer spending resources on keeping the herd calm. Regarding Lecroy: I think they have good products for a competitive price and their Wavesurfer 3000 series is definitely interesting if you are looking at an Tektronix MDO4000 series or Keysight 3000/4000 series. You might just end up with the best of both worlds: long memory and a responsive user interface. If you ask me whether to buy an Tektronix MDO3000/4000 or Keysight MSO3000/4000 I will definitely say 'neither' for the reasons explained above.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2016, 03:47:14 pm
content: Quote from: Keysight_DanielBogdanoff on March 20, 2016, 06:36:31 amIt is very similar to Tektronix MSO4000 that was introduced in2008, I think.http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS120577+24-Nov-2008+MW20081124

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2016, 06:29:12 pm
content: Quote from: GlowingGhoul on March 20, 2016, 02:44:24 pmOh look, my personal troll is backAnd I see you still have no real life?QuoteRight, so when did LeCroy go bankrupt? Oh right, they didn't.QuoteYou are, like most of the time, talking nonsenseKeysight is here because they know it's good marketing for some of their cheaper products (and they might convince a few users to buy their PC software for DMMs and AWGs in the course of it).Siglent is here pretty much because they don't do software testing so they have no idea what bugs are in their software, so they use the forum as a testbed for their software, pickup the user feedback, and save a few bucks along. They also use it as a free marketing platform.I haven't seen anyone from Rigol in this forum, and if there is then he's certainly not very active.I also haven't seen anyone from Tek (I know, but still), Rohde & Schwarz (the Product Manager from Hameg once tried to engage with the forum but stopped pretty much due to the overwhelming hostility from the Rigol punters), Fluke, GW Instek, Picotech, Anritsu, Advantest, Aeroflex, Keithley, Yokogawa, and pretty much everyone else in the T&M industry, including LeCroy.The simple reason why these manufacturers are not present in this forum is that they don't care for a community where the hottest topic is a $400 B-brand scope and where the majority of members are hobbyists on a slim budget. It shouldn't be difficult to see manufacturers that primarily operate in the higher end of their segment (like R&S or LeCroy) have no benefit engaging here, and especially LeCroy already has other avenues to support hobbyists (Yahoo LeCroy user group). Even for a company like Keysight, with a broad portfolio of instruments at pretty much all price ranges, there will be limited engagement. Because like it or not, there's limited return for them from a community that's pretty much set on B-brand stuff, sometimes at ridiculous length.QuoteAnd still, it was LeCroy who brought the first deep memory scopes to market, the first ones with powerful FFT and advanced measurements and analysis, the first scope with proper touch interface, the first true 12bit bench scope with fast sample rates and a larger bandwidth, the first with pretty much high waveform update rates (>100k) in their mid-range and high-end X-Stream scopes (which came out 2001), the first 65Ghz real-time scope, and later the first 100GHz real-time scope, amongst various other achievements. They already had advanced maths and FFT in their scopes when the competition were still dabbling with pretty simple functionality.So please remind me, when did Keysight present a 100GHz real-time scope again? Right, they didn't. For real-time they're still stuck at 63GHz (Infiniium Z), and this only if the scope is operated in two channel mode (in four channel mode the bandwidth drops to 33GHz). In contrast, LeCroy offers scopes with up to 20(!) channels up to 100GHz, up to 40 channels at 65GHz and up to 80 channels at 36Ghz:http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/pdf/labmaster-10zi-a-datasheet.pdfThat's the pretty much the Emperor Class of scopes, and there's only LeCroy who can do that. Simple as that.Also, with HPAK, we got upper mid-range and high-end scopes (Infiniium) with low to paltry update rates. The 2014 DSO9k from that "competitive comparison" I linked to (the one where the competitor model stated doesn't match the image) is specified with 250k wfms/s max in sequence mode and some 700 wfms/s in real-time mode where that 2006 WaveRunner Xi they're comparing against pushes >1.25M wfms/s in sequence mode and >8k wfms/s in real-time mode. The latest Keysight high-end scope (Infiniium Z) is specified with 400k wfms/s in segmented mode (the same as the old DSO90kA on my bench at work) while pretty much all LeCroy scopes since that old 2006 WaveRunner Xi go beyond the 1M wfms/s mark there. Not that the waveform rate is a major differentiator in that scope class (it really isn't), it just shows who's leading the pack. Similar in HD scopes, when LeCroy came up with their HDO Series of true 12bit scopes, Agilent came up with a 8bit scope with oversampling (DSO9kH) instead.There are more areas where it shows where innovation really happens.Oh, and as to your number of employees and annual sales argument, you of course ignore completely that LeCroy makes that with scopes alone, because that's pretty much all they do - scopes (they also have a few other products like AWGs but these make just for a very small part of their sales). Keysight's 10k employees and 4B of sales are not just from scopes of course, they are from all the other stuff they make besides scopes, like DVMs, spectrum analyzers, signal analyzers, RF generators, Frequency Counters, Power Meters, PXI equipment and a wide range of other instruments, plus their software business which includes a pretty expensive EDA suite. All which contributes to their sales, big time. I don't know how many people in Keysight work on scopes, but I doubt it's much more than 500, and that for a company that not only makes mid-range and high-end scopes but also their own entry level series (LeCroy just buys their low end gear in from Siglent and Iwatsu so they don't have to invest own resources in the lower end of the market). As far as money is concerned, LeCroy is part of Teledyne which is of a similar size as Keysight (>9k employees) so they won't run out of money anytime soon (and unlike Danaher who bought and now slowly strangulates Tek through their DBS, Teledyne lets LeCroy just do their stuff).Don't get me wrong, HPAK does have good scopes, but you really need to have pretty strong blinkers on to not see which of the two company really pushes scope technology furtherFor DSOs, LeCroy is pretty much what Tek was for analog scopes - they are pretty much driving scope technology.Keysight's strong point is that they have such a wide portfolio, and many business and government customers prefer single sources for their gear. They can serve pretty much the whole T&M market (aside from the ultra high end scope segment). And while they may not have the best performing products, they have good products and you can be sure whatever you buy is unlikely to be a complete sucker (which isn't something you can say about Tek). And that's not a bad place to be.Just to put your simplistic and naive armchair engineer world view into some real-world perspectiveFor scopes, in the ultra high end there is simply LeCroy and no-one else. You don't get there if you're starved off resources or run out of money, as you seem to believe they are. Yes, their entry level scopes (pretty much everything below the WaveSurfer 3000) are pathetic, it shows LeCroy is not really interested in that market, and if that's what you want you're better off buying something else.Also, I guess being pretty much at the top is the reason that LeCroy doesn't need to do "competitive comparisons", as they probably have plenty enough to tell about their own products and its merits so they don't need to talk down their competition. Which in my book is a big plus.Just saying...

author: Helix70
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 03:39:17 am
content: Isn't the LeCroy Wavesurfer Siglent hardware?

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 04:57:30 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 20, 2016, 10:47:57 amIs there a relationship between waveforms/sec and the effectiveness of the mask-based pass/fail feature? I'd think they'd be related, but perhaps I misunderstand the basis of the pass/fail feature.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 05:08:06 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 20, 2016, 11:49:47 amThat depends entirely on whether or not any sort of averaging is used to compute the DVM value. The DVM value doesn't have to be updated all that often (10 per second would probably be more than enough), but at 1Gs/s, that would mean 100M samples per DVM value which, unless my calculations are way off (or my understanding of the effects of oversampling), is good for another 6 bits of resolution. Of course, that presumes that the averaging calculation is making use of the full sampling rate of the scope, which may be a dubious assumption...

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 06:02:23 am
content: Quote from: Helix70 on March 21, 2016, 03:39:17 amThe WaveSurfer 3000 is, yes (otherwise it couldn't reach that price point), other WaveSurfer models aren't. And unlike LeCroy's smaller scopes (WaveAce, WaveJet) which are just rebadged Siglent and Iwatsu scopes, the WaveSurfer 3000 hardware has been developed under LeCroy guidance, and the software (the part where Siglent sucks, their hardware is actually quite good) is made by LeCroy (Siglent doesn't touch it, they just get the binary blob).Siglent sells the WaveSurfer 3000 as Siglent SDS3000 in China, while LeCroy sells in the rest of the world.LeCroy did something similar back in the late '90s with Iwatsu, which made their WaveRunner LT, WaveRunner2 LT and WavePro 900 scopes. Sharing hardware development with a partner and having them manufacturing the scopes allows LeCroy to sell at a lower price. Just compare the pricing of the WaveSurfer 3000 with the Keysight DSOX3000T (which doesn't even have LAN as standard).

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 06:10:59 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on March 21, 2016, 04:57:30 amYou can only mask-test a waveform that you've captured, so yes, the waveform update rate does affects the mask testing performance.Quote from: kcbrown on March 21, 2016, 05:08:06 amYou're absolutely right, a DVM does need a relatively low update rate, and they could very well do some oversampling to increase the resolution beyond the 8bit of the ADC. Not sure they do, though, but then I've never really used the DVM functionality.

author: Keysight DanielBogdanoff
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 06:24:05 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 21, 2016, 06:10:59 amMask test rate REALLY depends on the scope. Just because they have a fast waveform/second update doesn't mean they have fast mask testing. Our mask testing isn't 1M, but it is done in our ASIC so it's still pretty darn fast. Especially if you compare it to some other scopes on the market.

author: Keysight DanielBogdanoff
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 06:26:07 am
content: Also, regarding what vendors are on this forum... It's not really a big "marketing" push and directive; it's me realizing that this is a great community that I personally want to be a part of. That's all it takes for a company to be represented here. Not a marketing process, just one person who is willing to put in the time and effort to actually try to contribute.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 06:39:21 am
content: Quote from: Helix70 on March 21, 2016, 03:39:17 amYep, here's an old thread from about the time they were released:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/siglent's-new-products-sds3000-series-oscilloscopes/Got to have a quick play with one when I visited the factory in Oct 14, you'll find mention and pics in that thread.

author: D3f1ant
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 07:09:42 am
content: While I agree keysights 3000/4000 memory is pretty lame in today's world from specification point of view, I can't say I have actually ever encountered it being a problem. Guess everybody has different requirements or usage scenarios.At least keysight scopes are nice and responsive and have decent acceleration curve when spinning the knobsNext time I deserve an upgrade would have to consider LeCroy tho, although by the time that comes keysight might have lifted its game too. Local keysight support is very good in NZ, not so sure about LeCroy.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 07:20:41 am
content: Quote from: D3f1ant on March 21, 2016, 07:09:42 amI hope I can have just an opportunity to offer something to you for a testdrive.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 10:09:16 am
content: Quote from: Keysight_DanielBogdanoff on March 21, 2016, 06:24:05 amTrue, it does depend on the mask test implementation. However, with a low waveform rate fast mask test just isn't possible.Quote from: Keysight_DanielBogdanoff on March 21, 2016, 06:26:07 amI assumed that you being here is pretty much a personal effort from your side (and it's much appreciated!). But besides you there's also another official Keysight account created by the BenchVue team which seems to be a bit more formal.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 11:49:25 am
content: Regarding mask testing: does anyone ever use that? And how? I'd suspect it would be part of an automated test setup so I can imagine the trigger point of a signal is also tightly controlled so each test is identical. Where does the need for fast mask testing come into play? Just letting it run for a while doesn't seem adequate to me because you might miss a piece of malformed signal anyway.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 12:15:46 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 21, 2016, 11:49:25 amI used to use it occasionally as mask testing can be useful for finding violations in eye diagrams. But that's pretty much about it, and these days I rather use a scope's analysis tool sets for that.I don't use it for glitch finding in signals as described in this thread, though, but then I don't have to because my scopes have better tools available.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 04:16:38 pm
content: Quote from: Keysight_DanielBogdanoff on March 21, 2016, 06:26:07 amBTW the MegaZoom IV ASIC, DSOX2000A and DSOX3000A are now 5 years old, they were introduced in early 2011. Is there a successor coming? I am just curious.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 04:34:48 pm
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on March 21, 2016, 04:16:38 pmWell, at least the DSOX3000A has seen a successor with the DSOX3000T (which essentially is just a shrunken DSOX4000A) at the end of 2014.But yes, the DSOX line-up really needs a serious refresh, not just some polishing.

author: Marchello
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 07:23:33 pm
content: Hi all!Sorry for offtopic.I have Rigol DS2302a, but I was not satisfied with the decoding of serial protocols + 2 channels only.I want new oscilloscope for AC-DC / DC-DC converters and BLDC controllers.need 4 channels, 200 MHz, i2s - spi - rs232 - can - lin decode, FG - may be.I have offer by local dealer exdemo Agilent DSOX3024a + DSOX3APPBNDL for $ 2350 with 1 year warranty.Worth buying?WS3024 from a local dealer costs $ 5637 with WS3K-FG, WS3K-EMB, WS3K-AUTO, include all charges. That very expencive for me.BRMark

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 07:35:22 pm
content: Quote from: Marchello on March 21, 2016, 07:23:33 pmDepends on age and condition (if its labelled 'Agilent' then it must be an older scope) but depending on your local situation it might be OK.QuoteThe WS3024 is around $3700 (there was/is a promo which includes all options, and if not LeCroy usually throws them in for good measure). But again, your local situation might cause price differences.

author: Helix70
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 10:39:28 pm
content: Quote from: Marchello on March 21, 2016, 07:23:33 pmI think that is very good buying, considering the DSOX3APPBNDL alone is priced at about that. A bargain actually.

author: Keysight DanielBogdanoff
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 22, 2016, 12:13:46 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 21, 2016, 12:15:46 pmI've seen it used for finding glitches in manufacturing, where they need to have a certain number of passed tests before they ship the product. Then the time/test really starts to matter. It's also useful for getting stats about reliability, etc.

author: don
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2016, 12:47:44 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 20, 2016, 10:47:57 amAnd memory is halved yet again if using run/stop instead of single acquisition mode down to 500k for 4M or 250k for 2M.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2016, 12:52:13 am
content: Quote from: don on March 22, 2016, 12:47:44 amI have already taken that into account. But it probably gets halved again when enabling the digital channels.

author: don
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2016, 01:07:07 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 22, 2016, 12:52:13 amYes, it does get halved with digital too - will get down to 250k/500k as mentioned. Not surprising you forgot as it's a lot of halfing to keep track of.

author: don
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2016, 01:34:55 am
content: Quote from: Marchello on March 21, 2016, 07:23:33 pmIf you want protocol decoding you may be disappointed with dsox3000 memory as if goes way down as mentioned in post above. If memory is not an issue then agilent is a good deal.Tek mdo3000 or lecroy ws3000 are deeper memory options and should be ~4000 new. If you are into hacking, you can get all the decoding options, AFG, SA, MSO, and 500MHz BW on mdo. But you can get the 3GHz SA and one decoding option for free or all the decoding options for free if you time buy right.They are both good scopes. For major features though, Mdo3000 has a better AFG compared to lecroy (50MHz 250MS/s, 128k memory vs 25MHz /125MS/s, 16k), better SA with 3GHz capture BW, and ability to enter long algabraic math expressions . I'm sure ws3000 has its strengths too whether spec based or subjective.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2016, 09:15:10 am
content: Quote from: don on March 22, 2016, 01:34:55 amAlthough often that's mitigated through the use of segmented memory, although admittedly that does add a little complexity to the setup. MDO3000/4000 doesn't have segmented memory, I can't comment on the LeCroy.QuoteThe AFG on the MDO3000 though lacks any modulation functionality, and the BNC is somewhat irritatingly round the back. The SA is OK but on the MDO3000 either it's a scope or an SA, you can't have both at the same time, although realistically there isn't really enough screen real estate for both. The MDO4000 you can have both and they can be made to work together. The SA can appear to be slow, because it doesn't scan like a traditional SA, so you get a screen update all in one go rather than a scan trace. Having said that, the UI appears to lock while the samples are taken which is disconcerting. It is _not_ a replacement for a proper SA, but it can have value on the bench for more rudimentary and casual use. I never used to use the SA, but a project I'm working on needs to be able to view two spans, so having a second SA available for this has been handy.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2016, 10:06:01 am
content: Quote from: Howardlong on March 22, 2016, 09:15:10 amThe WS3k has segmented memory ('sequence mode') for up to 1000 segments.QuoteThat's the same with the WS3k, though, no modulation and connector on the back.Originally the signal generator in the WS3k was just that, a signal generator. A later firmware update has turned it into a full Arbitrary Waveform Generator, though.But let's face it, the built-in AWGs of pretty much any scopes are pretty basic and, unless you get them enabled for free, are not worth the money.QuoteThe SA in the MDO3k/4k is actually a VSA (Vector SA), i.e. a FFT analyzer, not a swept SA as a common standalone SA. It pretty much works as FFT on a modern scope, just with higher bandwidth.A bigger concern for me would be the poor RF performance.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2016, 01:02:00 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 22, 2016, 10:06:01 amDepends what you are using it for. I was using it to minimise sideband images and LO leakage on an L band quadrature mixer, for that it was perfectly adequate, my spec calls for >50dB image and LO rejection, easily achievable on this.By "poor RF performance", what parameters are you using and what are you comparing it to? I'm not saying it's the bee's knees, never have, in fact I've been saying the SA is not a good reason to buy this scope, particularly the MDO3000. I am interested to know what you're comparing it against, and the nature of the scenarios where the performance would cause you a problem. I don't doubt that it's performance lags behind some other solutions, but it would be useful to know where it's considered to be poor.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2016, 02:50:17 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on March 22, 2016, 01:02:00 pmWith "poor" im mean things the high phase noise, the poor spurious response and the poor uncertainty in its frequency reference (10ppm). "Poor" compared to something like the cheap Rigol DSA832 (not exactly a gold standard for an SA) or even some of the old cell phone testers that go for little money these days.Some while ago a customer needed another scope for a project and got a MDO3000 as a rental unit. They are working on transmitter stuff and gave the SA in the MDO3k a run through. He said the MDO's SA wasn't even a match for their R&S CMU200 (which they use for EMC pre-compliance checking only), let alone for even a pretty old entry level SA like the Agilent N1996A (which isn't a great performer either). He also mentioned that the scope was locking up the UI everytime it was busy doing something.I guess if you buy a naked MDO3k and then hack it then there isn't much wrong with it, but if you have to actually pay for the SA bandwidth extension then I doubt its really worth it.But I'm not saying there's nothing nice of the MDO3k. I do envy its numerical keypad, something I really miss on modern scopes back since the old HP54500 'single knob' days.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2016, 03:34:55 pm
content: Without the numerical keypad, yes, it would be painful. The apparent lockups are non to handy either, you have to adjust your workflow to accommodate it, and double check before committing a span or RBW change, it's frustrating.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2016, 04:20:55 pm
content: Agilent / Keysight DSOX3000 and DSOX2000 scopes have AM, FM and FSK modulation. I find it useful. But YOU decide what YOU need. Many people prefer the long acquisition memory of Tek and LeCroy.

author: don
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2016, 06:29:36 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 22, 2016, 02:50:17 pmYou are comparing a secondary function of a low/mid end oscilloscope to a dedicated SA or communications tester. A more fair & reasonable comparison for a scope would be to other scopes at similar price points which is lecroy ws3000 or agilent 3000. MDO3000's SA is significantly better compared to those. True, it can function as a low end dedicated SA in a pinch depending on what one is doing (MDO4000 SA is better than 3000 so even more so) but highly unlikely it would be be bought for that purpose (or even paid for since it's usually included in a bundle, but corporate purchasing doesn't align with logic).Of course a CMU200 will beat it - lol. CMU200's purpose in life is testing, calibrating and compliance testing for mobile communication systems. And it costs > 10x price of mdo3000 depending on options.So for a general purpose debugging scope it's quite handy. Fair to treat the SA as free, just as the add-ons for LeCroy are often considered free or thrown in by LeCroy as you often say when people say ws3000 with options is expensive. Particularly because Tek has multiple promotions per year where it is free. Or if one is into liberating then any time of year will produce 500MHz scope, 3GHz SA, ARB, MSO and protocol debugging for ~$4k.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2016, 07:53:44 pm
content: Quote from: don on March 22, 2016, 06:29:36 pmActually, I'm pretty much comparing one of the main features as marketed by the manufacturer of a entry-level scope (the MDO4K is Tek's lower mid-range) with the secondary function (spectrum analyzer) of an obsolete communications tester and what is pretty much the current bottom-of-the-barrel of B-brand low end SAs (Rigol DSA800).QuoteI disagree, as neither of them is marketed as having a Spectrum Analyzer. Contrary to Tek, who puts a lot of emphasis on the SA part:"...the ultimate 6-in-1 integrated oscilloscope that includes an integrated spectrum analyzer, arbitrary function generator, logic analyzer, protocol analyzer, and digital voltmeter/counter."Therefore I think a comparison of the SA part of the MDO3000 with a bottom-of-the-barrel SA like the Rigol DSA832 or an old comms tester like the CMU200 (both with at the end of the day very modest RF properties) is a valid one.QuoteYes, with the bandwidth extension. Without it (i.e. being limited to the scope's analog bandwidth) I'm not so sure. Certainly the interface is somewhat nicer, as the MDO3k show pretty much shows standard controls as on a normal SA while the FFT interface of a scope is a bit more crude.QuoteWell, again, Tek markets it as a 6-in-1 instrument with a lot of emphasis on the SA, so it's not far fetched that it will be considered over a standalone scope/SA solution by some.QuoteYes, it's a cell phone tester (the SA part is a secondary function), and because of that it doesn't offer particularly great RF performance. It's roughly on par with the Rigol DSA800 Series, and in terms of performance both are pretty much located in the bottom end of SAs.The cost of the CMU200 was somewhere in the region of $120k to $200k depending on options before it was replaced by the successor (CMW500). Today you can buy units in good condition for roughly £500. But I only chose the CMU200 as comparison because its limited RF performance, and considering that Tek wants around $2500 just for the MDO3SA option required to make the SA actually more useful than the FFT function of any other scope it's a legitimate question if other options don't make more sense. $2500 gives you a lot of SA these days.QuoteYou are right, if it's thrown in for free then what the heck, same if you want to hack.For a regular purchase, I'm not so sure. The thing with Tek is that in my opinion they are relative inflexible regarding pricing even for large orders, unless you're an educational facility (in which case they'll essentially throw stuff at you). For a scope with an already quite high list price and little incentives from the vendor I'm not sure getting the MDO3SA option for free does really turn it. Even less so when the list price of alternatives is already noticably lower, plus there's more leeway in the way of additional incentives from the vendor.Plus you'd still be stuck with a scope that locks the UI if it's doing anything demanding. I know that this alone would make a significant part of my engineers throw the scope at the wall.

author: don
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2016, 10:38:12 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 22, 2016, 07:53:44 pmI bet the equipment isn't the reason your engineers want to throw scopes at the walllolYou are one stubborn LeCroy loving & Tek hating dude. You can't even give the MDO3000 a clear *spectrum analysis* performance win over a ws3000 instead choosing to argue spectrum analysis semantics of marketing literature over actual scope performance. And you complain about the silly competitive sheets tek/agilent put out...

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2016, 06:46:17 am
content: Quote from: don on March 22, 2016, 10:38:12 pmWell, frankly it's 2016, even a basic Rigol scope can do stuff like FFT (OK, poorly) without locking up.Unresponsive UIs are a big annoyance, and the tolerance for something that shouldn't be an issue since the '90s is understandably low.QuoteRight, which is why I mostly buy Keysight and R&S gearOf course moving to personal attacks is one way to avoid having to adress actual facts and arguments, although a poor one.Just for the record, I don't "hate" Tek (or any other brand). In fact, I find brand loyality pretty silly. You really think I wouldn't wish for Tek coming up with a good, competitive product that is well supported? The more competition the better, the more choice the better. It's as simple as that.What I do is calling out a product for its flaws, and that is independent on who made it. That also includes LeCroy btw, which I lambast pretty regularly for their utterly sucking entry level offerings, which of course those that accuse me of favoring a certain brand regularly miss (or omit, as it shows the narrative doesn't fit). As mentioned in other threads on occasion, I do buy a lot of test gear, and for that I have to know which products suck and where a product stands against its competitors in terms of price and performance. And I pretty much buy what offers the best performance for the money for a given task. Of course support offerings play into account but that's about it. If the device is made by Keysight, R&S, LeCroy, Tek, Anritsu or whoever else of the big brands (no B-brands though) doesn't really matter.As to Tek, do you really expect me to pat them on the back for coming up with another rehash of a poor scope (MDO4kC) to complement their other poor scopes? What about the other shitty products they come up with (i.e. the OWON sourced AGWs, or their poor standalone SAs)? Should I really give them a 'thumbs up' for coming up with underwhelming products pretty much since they stopped making analog scopes? Seriously?There are many aspects on the MDO3k/4k I like (keypad, VESA mount, front panel layout, even the design of the housing is nice), but that does not make the inherit deficits go away. The fact that in 2016 they still come up with scopes that lock the UI when doing stuff is a joke. I wish this wasn't the case, I'd prefer if they came up with great products which would give me more alternatives, but no Danaher has decided that cost cutting and mediocre products are enough. And for that they deserve the criticism they get.If you can't see that then maybe yourself is a bit too attached emotionally to the Tek brand?The "LeCroy fanboi" argument that is often made against me is pretty silly anyways, as I always tell people to get loaners of all suitable scopes from all providers and give them a spin, and then base the decision on which one likes best. I like to give people options, and I often mention LeCroy pretty much because in the past no-one else did, as the brand simply didn't appear on most people's RADAR. I also do the same for R&S when I feel it's appropriate and their products might be a viable alternative (Keysight rarely needs mentioning, as they are the first that get named). I'd do the same for Tek (or anyone else) if their products (and support) just wouldn't suck so much. Calling this "fanboism" or similar is pretty silly, especially considering that this forum is full of Rigol and Siglent fanbois who go pretty much go to extremes to defend "their" brand.QuoteOh, I give the MDO credit for offering a SA, and I said it many times (also in other threads) that if you need an all-in-one instrument then this is the way to go.But the simple fact remains that none of the other manufacturers make a claim that their scope can be used as SA, so why compare them with the MDO in terms of SA performance? That's silly. The MDO3k/4k SA is marketed specifically as Spectrum Analyzer, not as Spectrum monitor as they could have done. So it's only naturally that something which is marketed (also) as Spectrum Analyzer will be compared with other Spectrum Analyzers.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2016, 02:22:55 am
content: QuoteOh, they look very similar.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2016, 03:41:25 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 23, 2016, 06:46:17 amYou paint comparisons to make Lecroy seem favourable, over and over and over in long winded posts. Even when called out on them you won't bring any evidence or facts and tell everyone else they're ignorant and must prove you wrong, then when proved wrong you move the goalposts. Pretty much the definition of a fanboy.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2016, 04:15:31 am
content: Quote from: don on March 22, 2016, 10:38:12 pmWhilst Wuerstchenhund does write like LeCroy's biggest shareholder, is there anyone young with a good regard for anything from Tek? Sure there are older engineers who still remember the things Tek made in better times, and still have a fondness for them, but young engineers who have only experienced what they have offered in the last 10 years?

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2016, 06:14:41 am
content: Quote from: Someone on March 24, 2016, 03:41:25 amYeah, whatever.No point in dragging this on. I tend to support my arguments with facts and evidence, something you have been avoiding all along. And in the world of grown-ups if you claim that what someone else says is wrong you're expected to support your claim with some evidence. Something you failed to do again and again.I'm happy to stand corrected when I'm proven wrong but so far all you came up with is hot air and a really embarrassing display of ignorance (2007 probe catalog and 2014 scope? I mean, really?). Frankly, if I were you I'd really cut back on my attacks after showing such an ridiculous level of stupidity. You can't make this stuff up, really.Anyways, since you're clearly not able to discuss at an adult level, it seems your only aim is to troll. Your actions and posts speak for themselves, and there's no point in furthering the conversation with a troll.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2016, 06:20:09 am
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on March 24, 2016, 02:22:55 amYes, except for the price

author: G0HZU
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2016, 12:36:34 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on March 24, 2016, 04:15:31 amSadly, I don't qualify as young but at work we do use the high end RTSAs from Tek with good results. I rarely use them but some of my colleagues do when capturing and analysing unconventional wideband waveforms. Note that I think we have special versions of these analysers with enhanced performance in these areas.I find the UI to be a bit odd and clunky so I avoid these instruments but they do perform well for certain tasks. They must be several years old by now and I'm not sure what new versions are available but I think we have analysers across the RSA 3000, 5000 and 6000 range.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2016, 11:20:02 am
content: Quote from: coppice on March 24, 2016, 04:15:31 amI have owned several Tektronix scopes and other equipment over the past decades but currently the only piece of Tektronix equipment I have is a logic analyser (the third Tektronix logic analyser in a row). Most of my current test equipment is made by HP/Agilent/Keysight. Recently I needed a higher end DMM and Keysight's offering was just better due to a TFT screen versus dot-matrix VFD. Nowadays Tektronix seems to be all about milking old products for as long as they can.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2016, 12:33:49 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 24, 2016, 06:20:09 amOf course. But then, the Tektronix version meets its specs and has no bugs in its firmware, so it'sworthdouble the price.Right?

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2016, 12:38:55 pm
content: Quote from: kcbrown on March 27, 2016, 12:33:49 pmYou'd hope so, but unfortunately the answer is no. The firmware is made by OWON, and the Tek variant is not even supported by Tek's own AWG waveform editing software (ArbExpress).

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2016, 07:00:03 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 27, 2016, 12:38:55 pmWow, seriously?So the mantra that if you buy a piece of equipment from one of the major brands, then you'll get something that meets its specs and doesn't have firmware bugs, isn't even true anymore???So much for that. That means that whether or not a piece of equipment meets its specs and is essentially bug-free depends on the piece of equipment. The brand may influence the probability of that, but that's all you can say about it now.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2016, 08:16:57 pm
content: OH, SHIT.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2016, 08:19:24 pm
content: Quote from: kcbrown on March 27, 2016, 07:00:03 pmNo. The mantra is that if you buy entry level gear you can't expect the same functionality as for higher priced equipment. Bummer.What makes you think the OWON rebadge does not meet its spec?And who said big brand gear doesn't have firmware bugs?QuoteWhat is it with you and "meeting specs"? I mean even my crap Siglent SDS2204 met its specs, and that scope was a real POS bug fest.QuoteThe brand gives you a generally idea as to how mature a new device will very likely be. I.e. with Siglent, it very likely will be a bug-fest (just look at the SSA3000X thread, they released another device with embarrassing bugs). With Tek, it's pretty much hit and miss, even with Tek designed devices, as neither firmware quality nor their support aren't particular great and haven't been for quite a while. Still, they are way better than anything Siglent or Rigol offers.Is the Tek rebadged AWG better than the original? I don't know (no idea how OWON compare to Rigol and Siglent re. bugs). But it often helps if there's a big name behind to get a smaller vendor like OWON to fix bugs.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2016, 08:29:04 pm
content: http://www.tek.com/arbitrary-function-generator/afg1000-arbitrary-function-generatorAt leastQuote

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2016, 08:39:16 pm
content: This Keithley - Tektronix 3390http://www.tek.com/arbitrary-waveform-generator/model-3390-50mhz-arbitrary-waveform-function-generatoris very similar to Array 3400E.http://www.array.sh/yq-3400e.htmAnd AGILENT 33220A looks also similar, LOL.I am not sure who is the original designer of these generators.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2016, 11:46:31 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 27, 2016, 08:19:24 pmThat's not what was being discussed in the various oscilloscope threads in which the crappy quality of Siglent, etc., is brought up.QuoteIt might well, actually. But meeting the stated specs is something that, as I recall, people have raised skepticism about with respect to the Chinese brands, and OWON seems to be generally regarded as even worse than Rigol or Siglent.QuoteI was being facetious. Guess that didn't come through.The claim is (loosely paraphrased) that Chinese test gear is buggy crap, and that if one doesn't want buggy crap, one will have to buy gear of a reputable brand, and that one will "get what one pays for". I've not seen anyone placing Tektronix in the same league as Siglent or Rigol, and theydohave a reputation (dated as it may be), so I think it's reasonable to presume that Tektronix is one of the brands being referred to as "reputable".Well, it's more likely that you will pay for what you get than that you will get what you pay for. Sometimes you might get more than you expected to get for your money, but that's comparatively rare. You're more likely to getlessthan what you paid for than to get more.QuoteSee above. My memory may be hazy on the specific subject of meeting specs versus being buggy, however.QuoteSuch as the OWON sourced AWGs being discussed here?QuoteYes.Likely. It's aprobabilitything, not a guarantee.I know of no bugs in my Siglent SDS1102CML, and that is still being sold new.Quote"Way better", eh? Isn't that going to depend on the specific device in question? That's really the point here with this particular example. Here we have a case where the hardware is ostensibly identical between the two units, and the firmware appears to be maintained by the OEM instead of the company whose name brand graces the more expensive version.Are you really sure the Tektronix version is "way better" than the OWON version?My main point here is that the rebranding of Chinese gear by major players introduces a variable in this whole equation. You can no longer definitively say that a product from a major brand will be better than a competing product from a Chinese brand. It's now down to the specific pieces of hardware that are being compared against each other. While there may be a statistical correlation between brand and quality, it is statistical only. And note, too, that I'm not really defending the Chinese manufacturers in all this. I'm fully aware of the tradeoff between firmware quality and cost, and why firmware quality is compromised when the cost is driven low enough.QuoteAnd this raises a potentially important question: can OWON take the fixes they make for Tektronix and include them in their own firmware? If so, then that makes their own version of the instrument potentially a real bargain, because you then get the same functionality and reliability of the Tektronix version for half the price.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2016, 12:18:26 am
content: There has already been this case. LeCroy WaveStation 3162 is rebadged SiglentSDG5162SDG2000X (or similar). Are these instruments also full of bugs? I don't remember.Well, maybe LeCroy guys did a firmware modification...

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2016, 08:01:37 am
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on March 28, 2016, 12:18:26 amIt is and this is the correct image:

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2016, 11:02:15 am
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on March 28, 2016, 12:18:26 amLeCroy WaveAce are rebadged Siglent SDS1000 scopes, and the WaveStation AWGs are rebadged Siglent AWGs, all made by Siglent for LeCroy. All run a special version of the original Siglent firmware, just modified for version numbering and color palette. LeCroy does not do anything to the hardware or software, it's all made by Siglent.The reason they did this is because LeCroy is a high end manufacturer and as such not really interested in the low end market, however they still want to have a certain brand presence there.The first WaveAce scopes (WaveAce 100/200) back in 2010 or so which were rebadged Siglent SDS1000CL scopes pretty much backfired, as the scopes were horribly buggy so that LeCroy had to take many of them back because Siglent couldn't fix the many firmware issues in a timely manner. It put off a lot of customers back then. The newer SDS1000 rebadges are better but still in my opinion not worth the money.If you want such a scope or such an AWG then just buy the Siglent original for half the price or less.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2016, 11:34:44 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on March 27, 2016, 11:46:31 pmReally? Who has? I know people regularly raise the issue of bugs, which is not surprising considering the state Rigol and especially Siglent throw kit on the market. I can't remember anyone raising the question of spec compliance, which shouldn't be an issue for any kit, because the spec is written by the manufacturer who can specify tolerances as wide as he wants to.Quote"You get what you pay for" is still true, and a reputable brand will in general make sure that if you encounter a bug that it either gets fixed quickly or find another solution. Most of the B-brands don't give a damn about fixing stuff in a timely manner.Take that Tek OWON rebagde. It's made by OWON but still it will be supported under Tek's support infrastructure, which most likely will exceed the support period OWON grants for the original product. Or look at LeCroy's Siglent rebadge scopes (WaveAce). Like with all LeCroy scopes, they will support them for 7 years after end of production. You really believe Siglent will do that for the SDS1000CFL?There's a lot more to test equipment than just who makes the device. Well, at least if you use the stuff professionally. I guess for a hobbyist who dabbles with electronics in his living room stuff like support probably doesn't matter much, and for them I guess what the B-brands offer is fine. But that is a pretty small part of the T&M market.QuoteDo you have any evidence that shows that this OWON device isn't mature? As I said, I'm not very familiar with OWON but I believe this AWG was on the market for quite a while before Tek decided to rebadge it. And I do remember that most of the criticism with OWON in this forum is about hardware quality and UI, and not about excessive firmware bugs.QuoteWell, as I said, the just released their new spectrum analyzers (SSA3000X) with some really embarrassing bugs. Last time I looked, the SDS2000 firmware is still immature and buggy, and that after more than two years on the market.QuoteYes, the SDS1000CML doesn't have many bugs (I found two or so when I had one). But this scope has been on the market for how many years now? Plus it's one of the models rebadged by LeCroy, and after the WaveAce 100/200 aka SDS1000CL mess they push Siglent hard to fix issues with the gear LeCroy rebadges.QuoteTek may make a lot of mistakes, but I don't think you'll find anything with a Tek label with similar design flaws:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/project-yaigol-fixing-rigol-scope-design-problems/Actually, you're unlikely to find such idiotic design errors in any big brand kit.QuoteDon't know. On the other hand, is the OWON version really that bad? Does it even contain as many bugs as the various Siglent AWGs for example?QuoteI already told you that there is more to T&M gear than just the device. You're completely ignoring the support part.Second, even if a big brand rebadges B-brand gear, the chance that this gear will be somewhat mature are still much higher than for B-brand kit that isn't rebadged by some big brand. Simply because the big brand has something the B-brand doesn't, a good reputation and buildup of customer trust. That means a big brand will generally be very protective of their brand image, and make sure that there is little that can tarnish that. One of this is keeping the finger on the B-brand that makes the kit, and make sure that the device works reliably before its allowed to carry the big brand name.In addition, the big brands do know pretty well how important the software side of a product is. The B-brands still see software as an afterthought and of minor relevance. I guess the fact that software piracy is rampant in China is one of the reason software is seen as worthless. Which does show in the way the Chinese B-brands treat the software side.Also, Tek isn't new to the whole rebadge thing, they have done it on various occasions for many years. So I'd assume they just didn't pick any cheap crap to carry their label.QuoteProbably. I mean, it's the case with LeCroy and Siglent (you could even run the LeCroy firmware on Siglent devices). On the other side, the OWON original still gives you only OWON support, as buying the Siglent device only gives you Siglent support. In addition, there may well be internal hardware differences (i.e. higher quality parts or other improvements) between the rebadge version and the original.I.e. you get what you pay for.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2016, 12:26:01 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 28, 2016, 11:34:44 amI don't think the problem lies in the value of the software. IMHO the real problem runs much much deeper: appearantly there are not many people in China who can do systems engineering and/ar manage large software projects. They are lightyears behind in the field of software engineering in general. If you look at Siglent it seems each product has their own software development team and every team makes the same mistakes because they don't share knowledge and sourcecode between teams. I see this with my own customers who dare to have Chinese do firmware development as well. It is never right the first time even if they have already written a piece of software which is 99% the same.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2016, 02:38:11 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on March 27, 2016, 11:46:31 pmI think I must have been thinking in terms of multimeters meeting their stated CAT ratings. My memory is quite horrid.I think you can disregard that part of the discussion, since it's not really applicable here.QuoteThat is true, of course. However, as regards the OWON unit, it clearly inherits the benefits of having a name brand sibling. So while I agree with you in general regarding firmware, I don't know that it applies here.That suggests that if you're looking for goodnewtest equipment for cheap, your best bet is to find a Chinese unit that has a name brand sibling.QuoteYou know, I wonder if that is really the case. Yeah, it'll be true of the higher end equipment (hobbyists don't bother with that in general), but the lower end of the market is much more likely to be dominated by hobbyists than by professionals, I'd wager.QuoteYes. However, it's by no means the only thing that will. The age of the model is also an indication, and whether or not it has a major name brand sibling (if it's not a name brand device already) may also give some indication.QuoteI thought it was a bit of each, actually, but regardless, I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that this device was relatively new. I didn't bother to go look, however, so you may well be right here.QuoteI wasn't aware it had been rebadged in that way. That's very interesting, and could well explain the lack of idiotic bugs.QuoteWith Tektronix as one of the inputs into the firmware maintenance process, I suspect its firmware is rather better.What bugs exist in the Siglent SDG1000 series AWGs?QuoteYes, that's intentional. My focus is on the quality of the unit itself. Good support is always something you end up having to pay for.QuoteRight. That's my point.QuoteWell, since meeting the specs isn't a problem, it follows that if there is a hardware difference, it will either affect the overall reliability of the unit, or the published specs of the B-brand version will be worse. I don't know which would be the case here in the OWON versus Tek comparison.QuoteOnce you factor in support, I suppose so. How good is Tek's support these days?In any case, the support angle with respect to the firmware is, under the conditions above, a relatively minor advantage for the general prospective purchaser who is considering, e.g., the OWON unit versus the Tek unit. The reason is that for that support to make any real difference, the bug in question would have to be something that you would findandthat someone with the Tek unit wouldn't find.

author: Helix70
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 31, 2016, 03:04:07 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 28, 2016, 11:02:15 amThis is contradictory, and, well, rubbish. Take it back and try again.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2016, 05:09:57 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 28, 2016, 12:26:01 pmIt might be that this lack of SE experience is the reason for Chinese software being crap, but then I wonder why they just don't buy in the expertise? Just take Siglent, by now they must be aware that pretty much everything they release comes with lots of idiotic bugs. So I wonder, if they do consider software a valuable part, why not bring in someone who sorts that out? They must know that offering buggy stuff isn't good for business.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2016, 05:21:59 am
content: Quote from: Helix70 on March 31, 2016, 03:04:07 amNo, it's not. I know for certain that LeCroy has not much interest in the low end segment, they're not interested in dominating that market, and don't want to invest much money there. Still, showing a certain presence helps brand awareness, so they have Siglent rebadge some low end kit for them.It's pretty much the same reason Keysight has the DSO1000 and Tek that OWON-made AWG. To show presence in a part of the market that isn't important enough to invest own development ressources.That's a pretty common thing, not just in the T&M industry.For LeCroy, getting the name out was even more important, because unlike HPAK and Tek they simply didn't have (and still don't have, although its getting better) the wide brand recognition. LeCroy scopes were pretty much only known by people that work with high end stuff. Just have a look at some of the old threads where someone was looking to buy a new scope. The typical recommendations were pretty much Agilent, Tek, maybe Hameg, plus the B-brands Rigol and Siglent. LeCroy was often not even on the RADAR.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2016, 05:46:36 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on March 31, 2016, 02:38:11 amMaybe, maybe not. The thing with Tek is that their support these days isn't much to write home about, at least in terms of big brands. And I have no idea how good or bad OWON support is.QuoteSure. If you don't need the support you get from a big brand then buying a B-brand device that is also rebaded by a big brand should give you a good instrument at low costs.QuoteFor the lower entry level/bottom-of-the-barrel you're certainly right, it's probably mostly hobbyists and one man shops that buy these scopes. That's at least what I can see (scopes below $5k are a pretty small number compared to more expensive ones).QuoteAge (i.e. in a sense that an older device that is on the market for longer is more mature) generally doesn't play as big a role with big brand gear as it does with B-brand kit. Most reputable brands avoid releasing a product under their name in a bug ridden state.QuoteWell, as I said I don't know OWON, and I, too, can't be arsed to checkbut in general the big brands don't rebagde completely new B-brand gear but only stuff that has been on the market for a while, which means the state in terms of bugs etc is already known.QuoteThe same is true for SDG1000 and SDG5000 (both rebadged as LeCroy WaveStation). btw.QuoteI would hope so. But don't forget we're talking about a Danaher company here, so it's entirely possible that they don't care much for what state the firmware isQuoteI don't know what bugs still exist, but considering that the SDG1000 is also sold as LeCroy rebadge I guess there aren't many left. But that wasn't always the case, when Siglent released the SDG1000 it had a number of annoying and silly bugs, including a hardware design flaw (fixed in later revisions). It seems that when LeCroy rebadged the unit the bugs got fixed pretty quickly.The SDG5000 was also not bug-free when it came out, but again these days I'd guess it should be fine as again it's also sold as a LeCroy rebadge.The new SDG2000X again came out with various bugs, but so far it's not rebadged by anyone so it seems bug fixing takes the typical backburner status.QuoteWell, in my experience it's the least good support of any big brand I know.

author: pxl
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2016, 06:10:34 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 31, 2016, 05:46:36 amAs far as I know it got several new firmwares already, they address the issues frequently. I don't know whether these were minor fixes or rectify serious issues.

author: D3f1ant
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2016, 07:01:12 am
content: You would assume that if a A brand picks a particular B brand to sell as their own that they would have done some due diligence and tested it fairly thoroughly, seems this is not always the case. This rebranding is of more benefit to the B brand. Perception is your getting something good enough to branded a A when you pay for that B, but IMO it just devalues the A brand.Do Keysight or R&S sell anything (besides probes) that they haven't designed and manufactured themselves?

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2016, 07:28:32 am
content: Quote from: D3f1ant on March 31, 2016, 07:01:12 amNot necessarily, but yes, the danger is always there that the B-brand gear might tarnish your big brand. LeCroy made the experience when they rebadged Siglent SDS1000CL scopes as WaveAce 100/200 and customers got pissed off because they were so buggy. It wasn't the first time LeCroy has rebadged stuff, but before then they rebadged Iwatsu kit which was high quality, reliable gear. They learned that B-brands need a lot more supervision the hard way.But there are also advantages in working with a B-brand. For example, LeCroy has worked with Siglent on their WaveSurfer 3000 scope, with Siglent manufacturing the hardware only, and LeCroy developing the software. The result is a very nice scope with lots of features you can't find in any competitor's scope, and at a price much lower than any other similar big brand scope.QuoteSure, the Keysight DSO1000 for example. Or some of their older AWGs and RF test sets. There's probably more.I'm not aware of R&S rebadging anything, aside from what was formerly Hameg (which isn't exactly a B-brand).

author: D3f1ant
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2016, 07:36:31 am
content: On a side note, its a pity so many threads end up like this one. While its sometimes interesting, its way off topic and ending as yet another A brand vs B brand discussion.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2016, 08:29:32 am
content: Quote from: D3f1ant on March 31, 2016, 07:36:31 am+1If only its content was accurate.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 31, 2016, 05:10:19 pm
content: Quote from: D3f1ant on March 31, 2016, 07:36:31 amIn what direction do you believe this thread would have gone if there hadn't been "distractions"? If you believe there is something else to say about another Tek's rehash of a stale product that hasn't already been said go ahead, no-one's stopping you.But it's pretty natural for a forum that threads develop in a slightly different direction, especially when the original topic is as mundane as this one. That's why it's called a forum. But just a thread veneered off slightly doesn't mean it can never go back on topic, provided there's still stuff left to discuss that topic.If you prefer an environment which doesn't stray from the original topic then do a blog.

author: Helix70
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 01, 2016, 03:36:33 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 31, 2016, 05:21:59 amNope. You are just wrong. If a company is not interested in a market, they don't sell a product into it.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2016, 05:02:24 am
content: Quote from: Helix70 on April 01, 2016, 03:36:33 amHaving worked for companies that did exactly that in the past, and on bringing some of such "me, too" products to market, I can ensure you that you're wrong.

author: kcbrown
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2016, 05:18:21 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on March 31, 2016, 05:46:36 amUm, wait. Doesn't this introduce the possibility (unlikely as it may be) that OWON support is better than Tek support?QuoteThat's true, of course. It would be most interesting to see data on number of bugs versus time on the market for various instruments of the same type and rough capability (e.g., oscilloscopes in the 200 MHz range), to see if there's some sort of convergence.QuoteWell, if they don't even care about that, then that introduces the possibility of a bug list more akin to that of a typical Chinese product. And if their support isn't terribly good either, then what exactly are you paying twice the price for? At that point you might well be getting the typical Chinese product at big brand prices, and thuswouldn'tbe getting what you pay for...QuoteI dunno, I don't get that impression at all when reading theSDG2042Xthread. I do agree that the initial bug list was rather striking, but the remaining bug list appears relatively minimal if my reading of that thread is correct.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2016, 08:59:23 am
content: Quote from: kcbrown on April 01, 2016, 05:18:21 amYes, of course. And it's maybe not even that unlikely. Tek support has really declined a lot since the old days.QuoteI agree, that's a very interesting field that needs some research. The only limitation I can see is that today's B-brand and with it cheap test gear hasn't been really around for that long (I think Siglent's first scope came out in 2001 or so?). And because B-brands, although it's getting better now, regularly do a very poor job at recording bugs/problems, getting a reliable data basis will be very difficult.QuoteWith Tek? I honestly don't know.QuotePossibly.The real issue here is that Tek, as it is today, is probably the worst representation of a big brand. Even the kit they develop themselves is mediocre at best, overpriced, and regularly full of issues of its own (i.e. crashes, or the UI locking up when the scope gets busy but Tek considers this a feature), and the support is also below par what you get with other big brands.I would not buy anything from Tek, not even their own kit let alone stuff they rebadge (most of my customers do the same). So if I wanted something like this OWON generator then I most certainly would buy the cheaper OWON original.But that's because it's Tek. If it was Keysight or another reputable big brand which delivers great service and support, then I might be convinced to pay more for the big brand counterpart over the cheaper original. How much depends on how valueable service and support are to me (a lot if its for business use, a lot less if it was just for a simple hobby project).QuoteDon't forget that this generator is pretty new and certainly not yet out in big numbers. I'd give it some time until this thing has been used by a wider user base and in more varying circumstances, and I'm sure we'll see more bugs popping up.

author: pxl
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 01, 2016, 12:25:16 pm
content: One of the main concerns about B brand devices is the erratic quality regarding hw/sw side. Sometimes it is on par with brand devices, sometimes it makes totally unusable for the purpose.Luckily, we have these forums, which greatly can reduce the risk. After that we have all these information (regarding the sdg2000x the build quality is top notch, there are no deal breaker issues in firmware, the specs are pretty good) these are not worst than any of the branded devices by any means (for hobby/small lab users).Of course risks remain to an extent, so as with any of the acknowledged brands.I bought sdg2042x without any doubts, but I would not buy the siglent scopes based on the information I have from these forums.

author: Helix70
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 03:07:41 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 01, 2016, 05:02:24 amPerhaps you didn't care, or the engineers didn't care, but someone at the company cares. Marketing is part of the company too. If no one cares, it is too much effort. Perhaps you need to lift your eyes a bit.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 05:11:58 am
content: Quote from: Helix70 on April 06, 2016, 03:07:41 amMaybe you should follow your own advice, get a involved in the non-engineering parts of very large businesses (something I've been doing for roughly the last two decades), and you'll see that things aren't as black and white as you imagine.

author: Hydrawerk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 04:33:40 pm
content: Is this an original Tektronix design?http://www.tek.com/signal-generator/afg2000-function-generator

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2016, 05:11:04 pm
content: Quote from: Hydrawerk on April 06, 2016, 04:33:40 pmYes, Tektronix has designed the label. The rest is OWON

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 07, 2016, 03:51:53 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on April 06, 2016, 05:11:04 pmThat's not quite right. Tektronix obviously chose the colour and texture of the case, and the pattern of the ventilation holes. That's all pure Tek.