agilent 3000 or 7000 series? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: pmurdock
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 09:13:31 pm
content: Ok.. so debating between a new 3000 series scope or a 7000 series scope.It sounds like the only real benefit of the 7000 series is 8 megapoints and a larger screen BUT with a reduction in waveforms per second (100,000)So my thoughts are with the new segmented memory on the 3000 is there really a benefit to 8 mpts.?Cheers

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 09:17:29 pm
content: Even with 100,000 wfrms that's still a shitload!But really depends on what you needMORE memory and larger screen or A WHOLE MORE WFRMSBut i'll say if you don't need the screen or twice the memoryGo for the x3000

author: 0xdeadbeef
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 10:24:47 pm
content: Had no possibility to test a 7000B and I don't care about that wfs/s fetishism, but apart from display and memory, the 7000A is inferior in many ways compared to a DSOX3000. E.g. you have neither control over the sample rate or memory used and it's not even displayed - the DSOX3000 at least always displays sample rate. Also the accuracy of automatic measurements on the 7000A is crappy and manual measurements are also very limited precision wise. Again the DSOX3000 seems to perform better, especially in manual mode. Plus the DSOX3000 offers several auto measurement that the 7000A simply lacks.Furthermore, IMHO the 7000A has no way to quickly switch between manual/auto mode, while on DSOX3000 you can at least configure the "Quick Action" key (less than ideal, but better than nothing).Last but not least, the 7000A has only 2GSa/s for all models <500MHz, while the DSOX3000 has 4GSa/s (2ch/interleaved) for all models.IMHO, the DSOX3000 is much more attractive and when you buy the 4MPts memory upgrade, the 7000 has only twice the memory and a bigger screen for a much higher price.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 12:25:24 am
content: Quote from: DaveXRT on July 05, 2012, 09:17:29 pmThat would be my conclusion too.Also, the 3000X is the new "platform", so likely to get more improvements in firmware and capabilities etc.Plus of course the useful function gen option.Dave.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 12:34:16 am
content: Hold it !! the 7000A is obsolete. There is the B version.....4Gs/s at 500 MHz.8Mpoints on all machinesSegmented memory on all machines

author: jahonen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 06:24:26 am
content: 6000-series Agilent shows the sample rate in horizontal menu, I guess same goes for 7000:Another difference between 7000 and 3000x is that 7000 has XGA resolution (1024x768) on screen, 3000x has somewhat lower.And regarding the waveform update rate, just a while ago, I tried to measure the ethernet clock indirectly (without disturbing the PHY oscillator) by feeding other scope channel from a signal generator and measuring the ethernet line signal on another. While triggering on the signal generator I tried to adjust the 62.5 MHz signal from the generator so that ethernet eye pattern stays standstill regarding to signal generator signal. That means that the signal generator frequency is exactly half that the 100BASE-T ethernet symbol rate (125 Msym/s). The symbol rate could be then read from signal generator frequency setting. That proved to be difficult using a Tektronix TDS3000-series scope. It worked much better on 5000-series Agilent I used after that, the display responsiveness was much better, and when doing this kind of stuff, all visual cues are very important and can be only realized by high waveform update rate (of course analog scope would have done it also very well).Regards,Janne

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 09:25:54 am
content: An advantage of the 7000 is that you can get a crapload of trial licenses and set the clock far enough back to forget about expiry (and even then you can just set the lcock back and reinstall the same ones.)As it's an old model, there are unlikely to be any significant FW updates worth doing, which might mess this up. Updates over the last couple of years have only been for very minor thinngs like support for obscure probes.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 03:12:57 pm
content: The 7000 series dates from mod 2008' so it's been around for 4 years. The firmware for the 7000 updated regularly. The A can run the B scopeware.There are three files. One is the scopeware ( the actual data collection engine Called the system file ) , one is the gui system called the graphics file that is different for the the 6000 and 7000. And there is the third that does remote operations. There is also help and language files.I have the MSO7104a . Works like a charm.Fast update rate is important if you are fishing for glitches. A scope that is blind 99% of the time is useless for that. The chances it captures one are nil. Update rate has nothing to do with screen. It is how fast the scope can re- arm and trigger after the previous trigger has occurred. Scopes that do everything in software slow down after an acquisition because theyhave to process everything before they can do the next acquisition. Especially when decoders are turned on this has tremendous impact. Agilent does all that stuff in hardware. Zero delay.Oh, and pleas call the 3000 by its correct name... 3000X...There is a true 3000 series (was, discontinued just prior to 3000x ) and you do NOT want that one...Deciding between a true 3000 and a 7000 would be easy ...http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/product.jspx?ct=AGILENT_COLLECTION&id=1000003120%3aepsg%3apgr&pageMode=OV&cc=US&lc=eng&cmpid=

author: pmurdock
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2012, 05:19:43 pm
content: I wonder if a new design is headed for the 7000 series and i should just hold on for a little bit to see what agilent does with their higher end scopes.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2012, 06:17:06 pm
content: They just releaseed the 7000B so it's here to stay for another 10 years or so...The newest machines are the 9000 family and the 90000x family ( waaaay out of our budget .. )

author: labnet
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2012, 12:15:15 am
content: I went for a hands on for the 3000x and was really dissapointed. We have an Insitek 2064 (terrible scope), Philips Combiscope (Nice analog with limited digital), and a Yokogawa DL1640 and a DL1740. The DL series are like 12+ year old designs and still work better than the 3000X in some areas.My main gripe is, when the timebase was slow (eg> 100ms/div), the 3000X does not auto revert to roll mode but rather live updates the second half of the screen, then goes dead until it gets to the 5th x division than suddenly refreshes the first half of the display (wtf!).To do roll mode is three button presses, BUT then you are limited to in the div/sec you can use and you can't use Zoom Mode while in Roll mode. (again wtf!) and if you want to get out of roll mode its another three button pushes. Arrrgghh.The old Yokgawa transitions from cro mode to roll mode and allows dual zoom windows live in any mode.Maybee the demo unit had old firmware. Can anyone confirm that is hos the 3000x works still?

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2012, 01:12:39 am
content: Quote from: labnet on August 01, 2012, 12:15:15 amWith the trigger position in the middle of the screen how it is supposed to know what to display in the first half before it has been triggered? If you want it to behave more like a dumb analog scope move the trigger position to the left edge.

author: labnet
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2012, 01:22:56 am
content: It was set to continuous run with no triggering, so it should have been doing continuous screen updates. The company demoing the instrument said it was a limitation of the scope and didn't suggest moving the trigger point to the left.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2012, 02:16:28 am
content: Quote from: labnet on August 01, 2012, 01:22:56 amThere isn't any continuous run mode, there is auto trigger mode so it is still triggered and can't display any pre-trigger samples before the trigger occurs.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2012, 02:29:28 am
content: Quote from: jahonen on July 06, 2012, 06:24:26 amIts really battling with that field rate display of a modulated envelope!The expanded field group display isn't that great,either.A 545B used to do this fairly well with a 64MHz vision carrier back in the '60s!

author: KTP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 01, 2012, 02:52:13 am
content: If you look at Tesla500's Yokogawa DLM2024 review there were good parts but some really bad parts. He was mostly comparing against an Agilent 6000 though.

author: jahonen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 02, 2012, 03:41:59 pm
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on August 01, 2012, 02:29:28 amCan you post a similar PNG screenshot from a 545B scope so we can compare themI believe that RF is in the UHF range, exceeding the scope indicated bandwidth by significant margin. That static image is really not very good representative overall, it lacks the time aspect which affects perceived quality of the image for this kind of stuff, so it looks much better when viewed live. Also, that generator does not produce broadcast quality video anyway so it lacks several features from the video signal, like pre-equalizing pulses near the vertical sync portion and "tooths" in the sync portion itself, which you can clearly see from that shot.Regards,Janne

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2012, 05:37:12 am
content: Quote from: jahonen on August 02, 2012, 03:41:59 pmIf the RF is in the UHF region,no wonder it's freaking out a bit,as you would be well down on sensitivity,& what I saw as poor results,are probably just the effects of noise,etc.What I saw as a major failing in the field group is explained by the non standard video waveform.Sorry I don't have a picture of the 545B,as it was just "playing around" at the time,& not a standard check,so the Boss didn't take kindly to us wasting Polaroid film!At 64MHz,the 545B was at approximately twice its rated bandwidth,so its display wasn't perfect,either.A 7000 series Tektronix did a better job,but again no picture available.Unfortunately,I no longer work at a TV Transmitter,so I don't have access to video modulated RF.If I can find a source, (old VCR,perhaps),plus work out where my digital camera is hiding,I'll have a look at a producing a picture using the Tektronix 7613.

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 03, 2012, 04:55:54 pm
content: Quote from: pmurdock on July 05, 2012, 09:13:31 pmI would strongly recommend demo-ing both units from an Agilent distributor and having a real good play with them. I had my heart set on a Tek MSO4000 series when the budget became available for a new scope, so I tried one on demo. Extremely disappointed in many ways.I tried a MSO7104B and an MSOX3054A from Aspen Electronics here in the UK. (Only really considered the Agilent brand as a result of Dave's various excellent reviews and for me the Agilents blew the Tek out of the water.) While each have their little niggles, they are bothexcellentscopes. The 8Mpt memory on the 7000 is very useful, and the screen size and resolution is fantastic. But the colour rendering and depth on the 3000 is much better, as is the waveform update rate. I couldn't decide between them so bought both with all the options, but I find I use the 3000 a lot more.There are a few screenshots of both scopes at the bottom of this page:http://www.abeltronics.co.uk/amptesting.php?z=Nova_DXP3600I could go on, but as I said, I'd strongly recommend trying both yourself.

author: labnet
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2012, 11:55:45 pm
content: Hi Lewis.A few posts ago I mentioned I was dissapointed in the 3000x demo, mainly because I am used to how our old Yokogawa scopes (DL1640 and DL1740) work.Could you bear with me while I describe how I use these scopes, and then tell me if the 3000 or 7000 can do something equivilent.Often when debugging cicuits, I will start out with 100ms/div. The DL scopes auto change from scanning to side scrolling at about 50ms/div. I then setup a zoom window to look at the detail of what I am analyzing. The main trace (in the upper half on screen) gives me an overview in real time, while the zoom trace gives the detail I need. On the DL, the main scrolling window and zoom window all update in real time (using 1M samples), and if I increase the hoizontal time base, the unit auto switches to scanning mode update.The 3000 stays in scanning mode at slow time bases, and I think this means the zoom window will only update when the scan passes the zoom location.(correct me if I am wrong) Eg at 100ms/div, lets says the zoom was x100, it would only update once per second. (The DL because of side scrolling updates the zoom continuously)If you switch the 3000 into side scroll mode (which is a pain that it cannot do it automatically) then in my demo the zoom was disabled (why??).Also when the trigger point is set to 50% hor. tb., and mode auto triggered (which means run even if no trigger dected), only the second half of the display updates in real time. From the comments I received it seems you have to put the trigger to 0% hor.tb. if you want to see the entire update in real time? Does the 7000 behave like this as well?