Tektronix MDO3014 vs Rigol MSO4014 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 06:20:42 am
content: Which one would you spend your hard-earned money on, Rigol MSO4014 for $2594 or Tektronix MDO3014 for $4357? The Tek is $1763 more...Differences:Rigol is hackable, Tek is hackable?Rigol only has FFT, Tek has 3 GHz SA.Rigol has 140 Mpts, Tek has 10 Mpts.Rigol has 4 GSa/s, Tek has 5 GSa/s.Rigol comes with 500 MHz probes, Tek comes with 250 MHz probes.Rigol comes with LA probes, Tek comes with LA probes?Rigol has 1 GSa/s LA, Tek has 500 MSa/s LA.Rigol has software decoding, Tek has hardware decoding?Rigol has no AWG, Tek comes with AWG.Rigol has no DMM, Tek comes with DMM.Rigol has no colored waveforms, Tek has colored waveforms.Rigol has 110,000 wfms/s, Tek has 280,000 wfms/s.Rigol is Chinese, Tek is American.Rigol is 2nd rate, Tek is 1st rate.

author: tec5c
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 06:37:23 am
content: Seriously, another one of these threads?

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 06:44:41 am
content: I guess your hell bent on blowing most of your budget on a scope, when the Rigol ds1054z the best choice to get started and for maybe years to come, as you claim you are starting out. You can use the money elsewhere where it needed like good multimeters and decent solder station which you will need a good one to accomplish anything serious. Instead you choice to blow budget on a scope that overkill for your needs and even for a good while and spend barely anything on a solder station and meters which you need two multimeters minimal, as your going to have to measure current. The solder iron you picked is the worst for getting into electronic, you need temperature control iron, so you don't left traces and damage board and one with good thermal recovery.Just to let you know that scope don't do 675 MHz, plus the mso4014, had a lot of other issues explained in other thread. I owned it and returned it twice. No the scope not most important instrument in an electronics lab, you need other equipment to.Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 01:43:22 amYou can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 01:15:59 am

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 06:47:45 am
content: Quote from: tec5c on November 06, 2015, 06:37:23 amAt this point I don't even know why he bother to ask for advise, when he already pretty much for the most part made up his mind and is going to buy it anyways? Kind of pointless and waste of everyone time. At this point I just think he at the stage of trying to justify the mistake?

author: tec5c
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 07:05:27 am
content: My advice.Take the Rigol back. Don't buy the Tek MDO, fix the Tek 2213 and use that. Spend the money on getting a degree.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 07:23:52 am
content: Quote from: OldSchoolTechCorner on November 06, 2015, 06:44:41 amI don't want a product that will get me started, I want a product that will take me all the way. Buy once, cry once. I don't see any reason to have 20 oscilloscopes, I would much rather pay $3k today than $6k tomorrow.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 07:32:47 am
content: Quote from: tec5c on November 06, 2015, 07:05:27 amYes I'm starting to lean towards getting nothing and just fixing the Tek 2213. This has been one of the most frustrating decisions I've had to make in a long time, normally I can afford 1st rate gear and never even blink an eye at the price, but T&M gear is in a whole other league. Honestly I'm beginning to have second thoughts of starting this as a hobby, it just looks like a big money pit to me now. Going back to school and changing careers to EE is unrealistic at this point in my life, I'm 36 and I already make as much as an EE does, I don't know of any schools that offer night classes.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 07:58:02 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 07:32:47 amIf your hobby is not costing you money get another hobby.There IS ALWAYS a newer, brighter, shinier, better spec'ed model about to be released for you to wish to own and tug on your wallet and it's been this way ........forever.It's unlikely to change too as manufacturers are locked in a "oneupmanship" battle.

author: dadler
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 08:07:08 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 07:32:47 amDon't get discouraged. This forum can lead many of us to become obsessed with test equipment as a hobby unto itself. I seem to have this tendency personally--all the pretty pictures of other people's toys get me thinking... Hehe.Make sure to not lose sight of the true purpose of test equipment: to work on other projects. For now, I bet you would be happy with a Rigol DS1054Z and a specific project goal. In pursuit of completing this project, you may discover that you need other test gear to make progress. Buy it when you need it. Else, you may very well end up with a lot of equipment that goes unused. There are only so many hours in the day, and it takes a long time to fully explore and become completely proficient with complex devices like test equipment.A fully-stocked bench is a beautiful sight, though...

author: deadlylover
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 08:13:15 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 07:23:52 amMate I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but right now you don't even know what you want to do in electronics. Digital scopes will just get cheaper and better as time goes on, so I really think it's a big mistake dropping big money for a scope that isn't necessaryright now.Everyone is telling you to only buy gear as you need it, because we've all been there and done that, nothing is worse than having expensive gear lying around doing nothing. I don't want to sound like a cunt, but have you learnt anything at all from having the MSO4014 on your bench? I'm guessing not reeeaally, be honest. All your valuable education will come from repairs and failed projects that you've tossed in the trash.I only mess around with volt nuttery and audio, so my first pieces of specialised equipment I bought was a used 34401A 6.5digit bench meter and a Panasonic 7722A audio analyser. I even have an 8.5 digit multimeter, but I didn't pull the trigger on it until I knew I needed one and found a deal too good to pass up. I use those instruments all the time, but surprisingly, I only fire up my 1054Z like once a month, and I don't think I'll ever need more scope than that for the things I do.Somebody out there might need a $3k scope to start out with, but all we know for sure is that you definitely do not. It's a lot of money man, you should be happy we're trying to talk you out of it.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 08:35:02 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 06:20:42 amTek is hackable to 500MHz and all options and applications. Look up "MDO3000 hack".Tek has 10Mpts always on all channels.MDO3014 is actually 2.5GSa/s, but always on all channels, it's not shared or interleaved.Tek probes are 250MHz but very nice, with 3.9pF loading, probably more valuable than a 500MHz probe with 10pF loading.Tek LA is indeed 500MSa/s... until you switch in MagniVu which gives 121ps timing (8.2GSa/s) .Tek uses software decoding.Tek AWG is OK but limited in features.Tek DVM, well, I never use it, a worthless feature IMHO.Coloured waveforms, can't get very excited about that.Tek 280kSa/s only in a specific limited mode, usually much less, in the 10s of kSa/s, and with LA on much much less.Tek needs LA probe buying separately.Info on probes herehttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/tektronix-probes-tpp0250-and-tpp0500b-whats-the-difference-teardown-time!/ andhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/mdo3000-hacking/msg765377/#msg765377MDO3000 liberation thread herehttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/mdo3000-hacking/I like the MDO3000, it's a nice scope, but the UI is a dog's dinner, just what were they thinking? You get used to its foibles though pretty rapidly. My favourite feature is the VESA mount, I have it on a gas spring monitor mount, so it takes up no bench space. Without the possibility of liberation, it's difficult to justify the purchase though.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 09:36:25 am
content: Quote from: deadlylover on November 06, 2015, 08:13:15 amI know generally what I want to do. I'm primary interested is computer systems engineering. I want to design motherboards and do stuff like embedded systems design. One example is I want to layout out a COM PCB built around the Nivida Tegra X1. Then I want to build a backplane and server that can hold 96 of these modules with high speed 10 gigabit SerDes networking interconnects to connect them to a central switch built into the backplane. The switch uplinks coming out of the server would be 100 gigabit connection to the top of rack switch.QuoteI've used it to study how buck converters work, but I ran into a problem doing further analysis on the circuit because I don't have differential probes. It has sat lying around since then. It does frustrate me that it's not being used, I know what you mean. I did just get a demo board so I can play with it more.QuoteI appreciate the help so far and constructive criticism, I do try to take to heart what everyone is saying.

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 09:56:50 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 07:23:52 amThen why are you looking at entry level oscilloscopes?(hint: even the high performance ones don't take you all the way)Also, can you point out why 5 GSa is better for you than 4 or 2 GSa?

author: tec5c
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 10:16:01 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 09:36:25 amUmm.... can you even make a LED blink with a micro (NOT Arduino) without looking at sample code?

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 10:22:55 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 06:20:42 amNeither, because none of them I think is worth its money.The Rigol is a pretty basic 4ch scope with some silly specs (i.e. FFT is only a few thousand points which is nothing more than a sad joke) and bugged firmware from a B-brand manufacturer that has a poor track record in fixing the bugs and supporting its products.The Tek is a decent scope with some nice features but the built-in Spectrum Analyzer is pretty poor with some awful specs, and in my opinion not worth the price premium. Plus the MDO3000 has also suffered from its fair share of bugs including freezing, and while Tek was the go-to brand for scopes back in the analog days it's glory days are long gone, with average products and more often than not poor service.Quote from: tec5c on November 06, 2015, 06:37:23 amI agree. These regular "Rigol DS4000 vs whatever" threads get pretty silly. And why is it always a Rigol DS4000, are people's views so limited that they really don't know what else is out there? I mean, there's such a thing called "internet"...Quote from: OldSchoolTechCorner on November 06, 2015, 06:47:45 amWell, that's also the impression that I get.If this is really about finding the right scope then this is probably amongst the worst ways to to that.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 11:00:23 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 09:36:25 amPlease take this as an offence, but seriously? You want to look at fast busses and 10G fabrics and you're considering something basic like a Rigol DS4000???If above is what you want to do then you're looking a serious high end gear, i.e. a modern fast 3+GHz scope (for 10G SERDES, for 100G SERDES its more like 30+GHz) with analysis options and active probes, which will set you back a tad more than a DS4000. For many thing you can probably get away with a modern high bandwidth sampling scope but then you'd still need a fast real-time scope for anything else, so it's not necessarily any cheaper. Anyways, the probing alone will very likely cost you already more than a DS4000 scope.And that is just the scope side, and doesn't even touch all the other tools you will need for such a project, plus the experience in things like how to design a PCB for high speed interconnects.Again, please don't take this personal, but I have some serious doubts that you have any idea what's actually involved in building anything like what you have described.

author: poorchava
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 11:10:15 am
content: I have an MSO2024 at work and if MDO3000 is similar, I wouldn't touch that with a 2 meter pole. The interface us crap and takes too much space on the screen. Protocol decoding is slow to the point it's almost useless.Sent from my HTC One M8s using Tapatalk.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 11:34:54 am
content: Motherboards can have up to 10 layers, small embedded stuff perhaps more, and I've seen networking gear with 20+ layers. Not for the faint of heart.I own a MSO4000, and although it has gotten better over the years, it's still not a professional well refined piece. I would not buy another and would not recommend the 4000 series to anyone in the market.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 12:58:19 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 06, 2015, 10:22:55 amCertainly not remotely justifiable if you pay sticker price for the base scope without any options. I'd say it's in reasonable territory if you are able to get 500MHz and all the options and applications for the same price though.I was a pretty shocked how quickly I discovered my first freeze, within an hour of use (ie, simply changing the trigger type on an LA channel, the scope crashes). The UI is disappointingly sluggish too, there's no excuse for that in a premium brand. While on the subject of the UI, the screen gets cluttered very quickly with somewhat randomly designed menus and information screens, irritatingly obscuring the waveform area to a lesser or greater degree.It is quite well featured once all the options are enabled. As you say the SA is of limited value, especially as unlike the MDO4000, on the MDO3000 either it's a scope or an SA, and not at the same time. Without any doubt, you should not buy the MDO3000 thinking it'll mean you'll never need a proper SA. But if the SA was only going to be largely an ornament on the bench anyway, then it fulfills that role.Although hardware decoding is frequently lauded by Keysight, in practice it is a double edged sword. Sure, you get lightning fast decodes, but things like the "lister" aka event table on other scopes is limited in its display capability, fixed to nine lines or so. In contrast, software decoders are more flexible, but you need to be judicious with switching them on and off. While it might look good to see blindingly fast hardware decodes flash across the screen, in that mode they're of little value, it's not like you can read them. Having used both, somewhat surprisingly perhaps I actually slightly prefer the software approach due to the flexibility.Regarding the waveform update speed, this has been done to death, but just like deep memory you have to ask your self (a) how much is enough and (b) how often would I benefit from greater speed/memory? Both are subject to the law of diminishing returns. In fact I'd say update rate is less important than deep memory, although YMMV. The Tek's quoted 280kSa/s is only available in the FastAcq mode which is of quite limited use in practical general situations as it imposes too many other limitations.Assorted other features include the VGA port and being able to plug in a USB keyboard, useful for those option codes.Once you've accepted the quirks of the MDO3000 and learned its bizarre UI, as a scope somewhat unexpectedly I've found I really quite like it. A 100MHz 4Ch basic DSO for $3,749 + $1,550 for the LA? Nah, I don't think so. A 500MHz fully featured/loaded 4Ch DSO for $3,749 + $627 for the LA? Sounds a lot more reasonable.

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 01:00:59 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 07:32:47 amThen don't do it, as really not a hobby your trying to get into from the sounds of it.Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 09:36:25 amYour definitely way off the mark. Don't buy anything now, as it won't do you any good to accomplishing that goal. Neither a Tektronix MDO3014 vs Rigol MSO4014, or any scope of it's range going to get you to that goal. You need some serious test equipment for that and it's going to be way pass your budget, as the active probes alone will cost you your budget and not including anything else and require way more knowledge then just the hardware side, as your have to study software side and programming as well and definitely not something you get into as a hobby, that a career that take many years to learn and time invested, as a lot involve and will requires years of schooling. Not something you just do on your spare time and generally not for the not for the faint of heart. You need to do way more homework and look into what involve first, which you clearly did not do.Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 03:33:09 amHonestly the PS4 and projector sounds like your best bet and a better investment. You also need a pull down projector screen to go with that. At least you be able to actually use it and enjoy it.

author: joesixpack
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 03:40:02 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 07:32:47 amThen you aren't searching hard enough. I'm taking courses for an EE degree at UND. The University of North Dakota is the only college in the US that has an ABET accredited degree in electrical engineering offered via distance learning. For classes that require lab, you do the lecture portion in the regular semester and can do the labs onsite during a two week stretch during the summer. They also offer enroll anytime math courses.Depending on where you are, most community colleges offer night classes and/or distance classes. It is far cheaper to take night classes at a community college and transfer. Physics and Chemistry are the two most difficult to do via distance learning, but I believe OSU has a chemistry course delivered over the internet with a lab component. It transfers as the standard general chemistry + lab. It is possible.The EE classes won't require you to own any test gear. The digital class I took only required me to buy a "lab kit" which had a powered breadboard and a slew of 74LS00 devices. The cheapest oscilloscope will get you through the program.

author: joesixpack
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 05:06:18 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 06:20:42 amTo answer your question, I purchased the MDO3014 under similar selection criteria, but I didn't come to the forum for validate my decision. I feel that there is a bias here against Tektronix equipment in this forum, unless it meets two criteria: it must be the size of a small car and/or be at least 20 years old. And to be honest, asking for advice on purchasing a $4k scope while you have sub-$30 everything else is like going to a classic car forum and asking what vintage Ferrari you should tell your dad to buy for your drivers license test.More specifically, I wouldn't purchase any equipment from Rigol at that price point. That is just my personal opinion. The difference between Rigol and the first tier T&M manufacturers is just too close at that level. I also looked at the Rohde & Schwarz HMO Series and Keysight X series. I seriously considered the R&S HMO bundle. It was only two channels but had everything.I think the point everyone is trying to get across is that you can blow all of your money on a single piece of equipment awesome test gear, or you can get much better value by spreading the money around, getting more pieces of quality gear. I've spend way more than $5k total and I'm just getting started.My progression was:Phase I: (The I'm thinking of going back to school and getting back into electronics phase)Cheap Chinese 3 output power supplyFluke 87-V50 MHz Cheap Rigol scopeInstek SFG-1003 cheap *function* generator (not arb)Solderless breadboard, parts, hand tools, books$20 soldering iron <-- mistake #1Phase II: (Boy, this is starting to get expensive, but I deserve it phase)Kick ass Weller Wx Series soldering station with two soldering irons, 200W and 120W micro pencilHakko hot airetching supplies, copper clad boards, toner transfer method suppliesAmprobe microscope for SMD solderingFluke 8846A 6.5 digit multimeterPhase III: (oh look, a sale phase)Replaced Chinese power supply with Tektronix power supply (clearance @ $329)Fluke 8808A 5.5 digit multimeterWeller WX1 + SMD soldering tweezers (Damn you special clearance bundle buy the station get your choice of soldering irons free promotion).Phase IV: (The digital/Embedded phase)Saele logic 8 usb logic analyzerMojo FPGAArduino nanoTI MSP430 boardsWifi development boards and chipsMore parts, more partsPhase V: (rationalize that I need a super duper expensive MSO scope for all these embedded projects)MDO3014The Rigol was fine for everything I needed. 50MHz was more than enough.Also, if you don't like the scope you can always sell it. But beware, I would anticipate selling a hacked scope is going to be very problematic. Make sure you absolutely love your MDO3000 before you hack it.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 05:26:50 pm
content: Quote from: joesixpack on November 06, 2015, 05:06:18 pmOptions can easily be removed if required, as easily as applying them in the first place.

author: georges80
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 06:13:03 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 07:32:47 amAnd now we begin to understand your mindset.Buying a bunch of gear and expecting you'll be able to design motherboards (multilayer) is a dream, especially with no experience. If something like not having a diff probe has stopped you analysing a buck driver... seriously, install Linear Tech's ltcspice, load up one of their switcher IC's, put together the schematic and simulate away.Your passion for electronics (and that's what it needs to be, not a 'hobby') should drive you to tinker and build and learn. What have you actually built so far? Let's seem some PCB layouts you've done. What is your skill level that you think some test gear will ease you into high speed digital design?It just appears to me that you're in early mid-life crisis mode and need a hobby and think that a bunch of gear will make up for decades of experience/skill. If you think that this electronics hobby could be a money pit then you really don't have the passion for it - look elsewhere for a hobby - maybe wood whittlingcheers,george.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 06:57:57 pm
content: Quote from: georges80 on November 06, 2015, 06:13:03 pmI never said I wanted to be able to design motherboards on day one. This is a long term goal. Also it's not as complicated as it sounds, the Tegra X1 is a SOC, so you pretty much just have to run memory, power, and networking to the board and your done. The only complicated circuity in the backplane would be power distribution, networking, and maybe ipmi. Furthermore, I would start small, I wouldn't jump straight to 10/100 gigabit ethernet, I would likely start off with 100 megabit ethernet on the first prototype. Then once I have a working prototype I would likely start a kickstarter so I can take the project to the next level, this would likely involve hiring professionals to help me deliver a working product.

author: georges80
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 07:22:33 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 06:57:57 pmTee hee - not as complicated as it sounds... sure believe what you want.Again, WHAT HAVE YOU ACTUALLY MADE SO FAR? SHOW US SOME PCBS YOU'VE DONE THE LAYOUT FOR...cheers,george.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 08:07:03 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 06:57:57 pmIt is exactly as complicated as it sounds. Some of the labs I work in do exactly that, and I can tell you that it's actually even more complicated than it sounds.QuoteIf you believe that designing a PCB is merely distributing some ICs around a board then you're mistaken. That is actually the easy part. The difficult part is to design a PCB that takes into account the resistive, capacitive and inductive loads of traces (vias) and planes plus the timing effects (delay) of via lengths, heat dissipation and a number of other factors.QuoteDoesn't matter much, as the complexity of PCB design remains.QuoteYeah, good luck with that, that's easier said than done, unless you would like to attract some very negative publicity that pretty much has the potential to ruin your life. Your idea of building large scale systems full of Tegra X1 processors is hardly something that can be reasonably funded by Kickstarter, that's a project that requires some serious (and I mean really serious) investments, highly skilled staff, plus someone managing the whole project who has actually done something like that before, knows the market, knows the cost base, and can negotiate with suppliers and customers. I know because that's around the size of projects I'm pretty much spending most of my working life on. That's the kind of stuff large companies like IBM or Facebook invest Millions for a reason.Frankly, I think you're in serious danger of investing lots of money into stuff that's no use to you for projects you most certainly won't be able to pull off anyways, and I do believe you need a serious reality check to get back to Mother Earth.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 08:27:13 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 06, 2015, 08:07:03 pmSo then what do you recommend, before you say 1054Z, that scope from what I hear doesn't has a decent LA, so I'm not interested in this scope. And before you say get a USB LA, I want to be able to time correlate digital events with analog signals, so I'm not interested in those ether. I want a true MSO with 4 analog channels.

author: georges80
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 08:50:45 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 08:27:13 pmAND why do you need this kind of scope? To design WHAT?AND WHAT HAVE YOU DESIGNED BEFORE??? SHOW us some samples.I'm guessing at this point either a) nothing or b) you don't want to respond this this simple question.How about you actually start to design stuff, complete with PCB layout etc. Assemble the unit and then see what you can get away with. Why do you need to correlate your digital signals with analog signals? What does that even mean?Now if you just want to throw money away, then feel free to buy a Tek 3000 series or Keysight 3000 series. It'll look very impressive on your bench, won't help you any in terms of designing something though.Again, you're putting the cart before the horse. Fancy test equipment is absolutely no replacement for knowledge and skill and that fancy test equipment won't help you get that either.cheers,george.

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 08:54:35 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 06:57:57 pmReally? You already put a road block in place with fixing your old Tek 2213 scope? So how do you expect to compete a massive project?You have to first know as much as the people you are hiring and managing, or otherwise project will be doom before it get off the ground. I won't even get into the business side of things of managing a project that scale, as that will be pages long. I work large scale projects and can tell you first hand it not easy and the funding require would be pretty massive. This is one of the reasons why Kickstarter projects rarely take off, or get delayed a couple of years, if project is decent and then you have those that turn into pre-order scams.

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 08:57:14 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 06, 2015, 08:07:03 pmPlus 1

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 09:05:27 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 08:27:13 pmI can't give you a recommendation because you haven't given much information aside from that you have $5k to spend on a "R&D" lab and essentially want to bring a complex large-scale project to Kickstarter. Unfortunately my crystal ball is out of order, so I'd have to guess the relevant parts to come up with a recommendation, something which I'm not going to do.What I can tell you however is that unless you really just want some entry level learner scope then you better remove Rigol from your shopping list because low-end is all they really do (and do pretty badly, aside from bargains like the DS1054z and maybe the DS2000). This is even more true for other Chinese B-brands like Siglent. So just forget them. That means you'd be looking at the big brands, which for scopes are Keysight, LeCroy, Rohde & Schwarz and Tek (although Tek's product line is pretty uninspiring throughout so unless you want a hackable scope I'd just ignore them). With your (for any complex project) tiny budget you'll be pretty much stuck with second hand gear, but even old big brand gear is generally much better than anything Rigol & Co can offer as new so that's not really an issue.As to specs or what scope to buy, that depends on you, really, and before I can give you a recommendation I need more information:1) How much experience do you have in Electronics, how much theoretical, how much practical, what are the type of projects you worked on. Don't need to post pictures, just be as clear (and honest) as possible about what you know/can do and what not.2) What exactly do you want to achieve, realistically (so just forget about your Tegra massive parallel supercomputer, it's not gonna happen!). From what I gather I guess it's microcontrollers, but what type of projects do you want to build? Again, be as specific as possible, and try to keep it realistic.3) Are there other areas you are interested in, i.e. RF?4) What's your long-term goal? Is this meant to be a hobby, do you plan to expand this into a degree/a business (if so what direction)? Or is this more something you'd like to try and see how you're getting on?Choosing test instruments pretty much starts with the user - you. If we know a bit more about you and what you realistically want to do then we can help you. Simples.

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 09:13:03 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 06, 2015, 09:05:27 pmPlus 1 asked him this a few time in the last thread.My magic ward is also out of order, turned out to be like that Tek 2213 project of his.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 11:21:45 pm
content: To the OP -Regarding the Big Picture, some suggestions to keep in mind:• There is a lot of good knowledge, experience, and advice in the EEVblog forums – and in general/almost always it is very well intended (this is a great web site). With respect to designing/making and selling gigabit PCBs, posters seem to be building a consensus that these endeavors will be pretty challenging. But regardless of the advice, the decision is yours and you have to live with results - the upside and the downside are both yours.• The most important thing – just my opinion – is that you should not let anyone take away your dreams and goals. If your professional career path does line up with your passion then you have an ideal situation because your work won’t seem like work; rather, work will be enjoyable (as long as it keeps you sufficiently in the groceries).• A guideline in thinking about your career path is to be sure not to confuse a profession with a hobby. Stay clear on the differences, then if you really believe that a tool will help you advance toward your career goal (and you really believe your career goal is achievable) and you want to invest in the tool and you can afford it, go for it. If the tool is for your hobby, that’s ok too, as along as you can afford it. Just don’t spend the career budget on the hobby budget (which generally has low financial ROI).• Rather than being driven by fear of failure, be driven by the desire to succeed. Just be clear on where you are going, how you plan to get there, and whether you are committed to getting there. Then, after establishing the goal, plan, and commitment/level of desire make sure you can accept the risk(s) involved (whether it’s time, money, or whatever). But start with the goal and then assess the risk; if the first focus is on risk you might see risk everywhere. After you are clear on the goal, plan, and commitment truly assess the risk before hitting the go button. Ask yourself - if I spend X amount of time pursuing a career goal, can I survive losing that time if I don’t make sufficient progress? (set a timeframe for meeting a milestone). If I buy a scope and spend more than the least necessary, can I survive the financial loss? (just figure out the likely re-sale value).• In summary, start with the goal in mind, figure out your best path to achieving the goal, then assess whether the upside of achieving the goal is worth the risk of the downside that would be experienced if you don’t make the goal. In general, if you want the goal bad enough, and you honestly think you can attain the goal, and you are sure you can survive the downside - why not go for it? This is where it becomes your decision.On the Micro Level, a suggestion on selecting your next scope:• Having said the above, I think you know much or all of it and you are really just trying to figure out what scope to buy – both because you like test equipment and because you think it might help you with your goal(s). My experience after about 2.5 years becoming addicted to test equipment and EEVblog indicates that the answers are elusive when it comes to MSOs and Logic Analyzers. At first look (with manuals, spec sheets, articles, screen shots, etc) MSOs can appear very cool because they sit at the intersection of analog and digital. No doubt, in theory they are very, very cool. In practice MSOs can have some limitations and quirks that are hard to fully see and understand until you've actually used the hardware and software. My personal hope and belief is that over the coming years both MSOs and LAs will become much better (in functionality, ease of use, performance, and price), and increasingly popular. Unfortunately, we are still somewhat in the early days especially at the entry level and entry to mid level products. In the meantime (very near term) I understand you are trying to decide whether to keep your Rigol 4000 or return it; if possible I’d work hard to get a hands-on demo of the next MSO you have in mind. Even better than a demo, the actual use of a MSO is likely to surface the reality for a particular model and it's fit for a particular user. Reading about MSOs and getting opinions helps but it's not very definitive. I think Tektronix and Agilent and probably other major manufacturers (and/or some of their distributors) will make arrangements to send you an eval unit if you ask; it's at least worth the inquiry.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2015, 11:41:55 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 06, 2015, 09:05:27 pmMy educational background and career is in IT, I work full time as a Linux engineer. When I was in college I took a class in circuit analysis. I've also taken calculus and non-calculus based physics, general chemistry, statistics, discrete mathematics, and all of the other classes associated with an IT career path. I use to do electronics as a hobby when I was a teenager but I stopped when I became older, when I was a kid I worked through many of the projects in Forrest Mims Getting Started in Electronics. In my circuit analysis class we also worked on many projects, but I can't remember a specific example. Fast forward 15 years and I'm just getting re-started in electronics as a hobby. Normally I would be doing other hobbies, such as playing in my machine shop, but I had to migrate for work and now I'm in a small apartment in a big city, I no longer have a workshop space and all of my tools are in storage. I was thinking I would get back into electronics because it was something that didn't take up a lot of physical space. Anyway, I'm just getting re-started and I haven't built any recent projects that are noteworthy. The only thing I've worked on recently is a homemade buck converter circuit because I'm trying to build a power supply.QuoteMicrocontrollers yes definitely. Interfacing with Linux is another big interest. Designing a 1970s era computer from scratch. Making firmware. Interfacing with analog circuits, DAC/ADCs. Working with PAL/CPLD/FPGAs, What I'm hoping to achieve is to gain more knowledge of computer engineering.QuoteI'm interested in everything insofar as learning how to interface it with computers. Yes I would like to learn the basics of RF. I want to work through every lab in the the Art of Electronics student manual. I would like to be able to build projects for physics experiments, physics is an area of interest to me.QuoteFirst and foremost this is a hobby. I do not plan to get a degree in computer engineering, if I went to that effort I would get a degree in engineering physics because I like doing R&D work. My long term goal is to gain more knowledge of computer engineering so that I can apply that knowledge towards my profession as a Linux engineer. Realistically I don't intend to change careers, but if doing this led to a business I would probably pursue it.Quote

author: joesixpack
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2015, 12:00:41 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 06, 2015, 09:05:27 pmAt the risk of becoming a target...If I were to go around town saying, "someday I'd like to build a house. But right now I want to buy a heavy duty pickup truck. Which should I get, Ford F-250 diesel, or the Dodge?" No one would be asking me to show proof I've got a commercial drivers license or samples of architectural plans. Is the OP going to build a supercomputer in his basement? Probably not. Will he fail and become discouraged? Most likely. Thankfully no one was actively discouraging Steven Wozniak when he built the Apple II (as a lowly high school graduate), or Linus when he decided to write his own operating system.Cut the guy some slack.OP, buy what makes you happy. We are talking $4k here, and not a life altering decision. And take every opportunity to prove these guys wrong.Good luck with the new scope. May it bring many years of happiness and joy.But beware, for there is a dark side. You will spend much more money on test gear and one day you will have a house of old test gear that you will think is valuable, but most normal people will think is just junk.

author: dadler
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 07, 2015, 12:11:14 am
content: I do think people are being a bit harsh. I think they are just frustrated, because there have been *so many* similar threads of late, where nearly the same advice was provided. It doesn't seem to be well-received.Wise folks know how this will almost certainly turn out, and are brutally honest, but it won't be a great tragedy if the guy buys more scope than he needs.The Tek is a better scope than the Rigol. I looked at the Rigols DS4K series, but the cost was just too close to the professional brands that I went with the (now-upgraded-to) MSOX3024T. The free software promotion got me. I too, am just a hobbyist--and this is certainly, in every sense, way more scope than I need for my projects and abilities. But I wanted it, and here we are. I do actually use it, though.

author: FrankD
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2015, 12:49:42 am
content: To OP having an MDO3xxx Tek myself I can add another advantage for having a Tek scope: Probes.Ebay lists a fair number of Tek probes and I managed to build a nice collection of useful probes and a couple of TekBNC probe adapters (widens the selection to the older probes having a Tek probe interface.)The probes can be had for considerably less than the list price.Got a TDP0500 for $760, a P6246 for $130 and a bunch of other se active probes recently. Not cheap but far less than having to buy these new.I don't see many probes for other brands auctioned of Ebay.

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2015, 12:50:20 am
content: It may seem to be harsh, but it's to get a good point across and keep someone from making a mistake and then regretting it later on. As at one point we all started off as a beginner getting started and has a better understanding on the subject, as yes made this mistake myself in the beginning in buying gear and realizing needed other tools, as pretty sure other did to. You never want to just blow your whole load on one piece of equipment right off the back, especially when you need other equipment as well to better accomplish goal. Then the only way we can give any reasonable advise is to know what he trying to get into and area of interest. Without that it would be bad advise, then he goes off that and need other equipment instead. Don't want to lead a person in the wrong direction ether, as won't be fair. Better to come off as harsh, then give out bad advise.If you dead set on a good decent scope that will last you a while and not have to worry about upgrading any time soon. Get the Tektronix mdo3024, we use these 24/7 with no real issues. I personally tried the Rigol MSO4014 in my own personal lab, not even hard and had to many bugs and the fact I had 1 defective one and one that lockup quite a bit. The Agilent/Keysight DSOX3024A is also worth looking at.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2015, 02:33:19 am
content: Quote from: FrankD on November 07, 2015, 12:49:42 amYou bring up a very good point, thank you. New active differential probes are ridiculously expensive, if I can buy probes used that would substantially lower my overall cost and make the tektronix a lot more attractive. Does tek have any used models that would be a better overall value? It seems like a lot of their older gear is just as expensive as the new gear, I suppose that's good for resale value. The MDO3000 is the only tek that's hackable right?

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2015, 03:17:09 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on November 06, 2015, 11:57:16 pmWhat is the appeal for having a fancy DMM? I've owned at least 10 multimeters, but none of them have ever cost me more than $70. I've never understood why someone would buy a fluke when you can get an equivalent for a fraction of the money. I worked as an electricians apprentice for a short time and 120V is fairly low voltage in my opinion, I've been shocked more times then I can remember, and as long as you don't grab on with both hands or make yourself a path to ground you should be fine. Statistically speaking (i.g. significant figures), is the extra accuracy really worth the extra money?

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2015, 03:32:17 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 07, 2015, 03:17:09 amA UNI-T UT61E, or UNI-T 71 would work to and cheap, if you are just using as a bench meter for low current applications. A fluke meter like the 87v, or 289, or Brymen BM867 BM869 meters are gold standard pretty much and for good reason. They have much better input protection, if your dealing with high currents, or HV is a must. They are well trusted, plus uses better quality precision components, so is more accurate overall and usually stays accurate over time, while cheaper meter drift as components age, lack proper input protection. Plus like the Fluke 289 more counts and data logging capability. A lot more to a meter then you realize.More ways to get electrocuted then just holding on to wires. The ground you stand on outside is ground. So let say your working on a live circuit and with a high current load on it, you disconnect the neutral and accidently touch it while standing on ground, or touching metal, or just assume it a neutral not the hot wire, no big deal? The current will pass right though you as now you are part of the circuit and just completed it and your now the quickest path to ground. So no you don't have to just hold on to hot and neutral wires at the same time to get shock, or electrocuted.As far as handheld meters their a lot more then just the way they design the input protection, it's the creepage distance on the pcb to keep HV from arcing over, to isolation, to just the way design the case with shields and for blast protection for a from arc flash, to plasma getting out of case, as it carries current, if you encounter a flash over situation. So they designed it well for safety, just in case you probe slips, or by mistake and at least it keep arc flash inside the meter and won't pass on to the user holding the meter. Worst you will just have destroyed the meter. It not the voltage that kills you, it's the current that does. In a Commercial environment you dealing with a lot higher current and voltages, then a resident electrician would. Plus most just don't deal with 120v and low current.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2015, 06:40:54 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 07, 2015, 03:17:09 amI've never been able to fathom why, practically speaking, you need absolute accuracy to this level unless you're making T&M. Relative accuracy and reproducible results are much more important to me, the common use case I cite is tracing shorts or bad components on a board, using track resistance to home in. Unless you have a reasoanble amount of accuracy (say, 50,000 count and above), it can be quite hard work.One other scenario is very low current measurement with low burden voltage, for example a microcontroller based design coming in and out of sleep. At low current DMM settings, the microcontroller may well brown out when it comes out of sleep due to the burden voltage. Using a higher current range but with more digits still allows you to make measurements down to 10s of nA in sleep without excessive burden voltage.

author: mrpackethead
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2015, 07:02:41 am
content: Quoteyes, they are. But is there another way of getting around the problem you want to solve? Maybe there is.. Can you use two channels and subtract one from the other?

author: mk_
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2015, 09:04:44 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 06, 2015, 06:20:42 amYes. So buy the cheapest MDO3xxx from TEK with the Logicanalyser - Pods, search the forum, do the hack and be happy.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2015, 09:18:29 am
content: Quote from: joesixpack on November 07, 2015, 12:00:41 amLike most cases where car analogies are used, this one is pretty silly, too. Choosing a suitable scope can be inherently more complex than choosing a heavy duty pickup truck.I'm not asking for proof of anything, all I was asking for is a few more information about his background and what he wants to do with it. Which is kinda important if the recommendation he's given is sensible or not.Of course I could have just said "DS1054z" and be done with it.QuoteGlad you're apparently living in wealth but for some people $4k can be an amount that if not life altering has certainly an impact on their life. But again, we don't know the OP's situation.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2015, 09:26:48 am
content: Quote from: OldSchoolTechCorner on November 07, 2015, 12:50:20 am+1It may conflict with some dreams but I agree it's better to get him back to reality now so that he can have a sensible and enjoying start into EE.QuoteThe DSOX3024A has now been replaced by the DSOX3024T. Another alternative is the LeCroy WaveSurfer 3024 which is noticably cheaper than Keysight and Tek and has quite a few advantages over the others.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2015, 09:34:25 am
content: Quote from: FrankD on November 07, 2015, 12:49:42 amActually this is true for other big brands as well, there are lots of Agilent/Keysight and LeCroy probes available.I bought almost all my LeCroy probes on ebay, as there are often good deals available (i.e. I bought some HPF2500 2.5GHz active probes for below $100). It helps that LeCroy hasn't changed their probe interface since 1995, plus there's more demand for Tek and Agilent/Keysight which means I can choose between a very large choice of probes at much lower prices.Especially for Tek stuff you're paying a lot just for the name.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2015, 11:13:02 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on November 06, 2015, 08:35:02 amAre the Keysight, Rohde & Schwarz, LeCroy hackable? Because to me the only want to get sufficient ROI as a hobbyist is to buy a hackable scope, this would limit me to Rigol or Tektronix.QuoteSo in other words it has a dedicate 10 Mpts per channel?, i.g. 40 Mpts for 4 channels? How does this compare with Rigol's 140 Mpts? Seems like the Rigol blows all the other scopes out of the water, but is the extra memory just a gimmick?QuoteWhy do you say this, tektronix markets this scope as a 5 GSa/s scope? Even tequitment lists this as a 5 GSa/s scope, although if you look closely it lists some of the models as 2.5 GSa/s???http://www.tequipment.net/Tektronix/MDO3014/Mixed-Signal-Oscilloscopes/QuoteActually the Rigol RP3500 500 MHz probe is 13pF! So yes the tek probe is way better because you can actually probe high frequency stuff.QuoteWhat is MagniVu and how do you switch it on? So it's 500 MSa/s with 121ps response timing? Sounds like a marketing gimmick to make it sound better then it actually is, even the Rigol MSO2000A has 1 GSa/s. 500 MSa/s would limit you to a max of 250 MHz bandwidth.QuoteHow does it compare to Rigol's software decoding?QuoteHow useful is the tek pc software arbitrary waveform editor?QuoteI don't have a bench DDM or even a great handheld unit. How accurate is this? Is it just a voltmeter? can it do resistance or amperage?QuoteMaybe it's a marketing gimmick, but it looks cool in the brochure.QuoteNot sure what you are taking about.QuoteSo they don't come with a new unit? How much do they cost?QuoteCan you still use FFT on this scope if you want to time correlate a signal with spectrum?

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 12:17:34 am
content: Agilent X3000, 5000, 6000 and 7000 are hackable but only for options not bandwidth as far as I know. MDO3014 is hackable to 500MHz. 1GHz requires RTB for new innards.MDO3014 is 2.5GSa/s on each channel. There is no interleaving or sharing. That's a straight 2.5GSa/s on each channel. Only the MDO3102/3104 have 5GSa/s. Your link has incorrect data.Tek probe is band limited at the scope to 250MHz. It just doesn't load your circuit anywhere near as much. Do some reactance calcs on what 10pF looks like at VHF.MagniVu is on the LA only, you switch it on at any time and a limited section (ISTR about 10kpts) around the trigger point is shown at 121ps resolution. You can't do decode, but that's not the point, it's there for checking your setup and holds are reasonable. Yes 500MSa/s limits you Nyquist-wise to 250MHz, so that's, for example, the max SPI clock you could decode.As a general point, the SPI decoding on the Tek works at least up to 50MHz clock in my use, the Agilent hardware decode is only spec'd to 25MHz, and in practice breaks about 35MHz.Don't know about comparing to a Rigol DS4000 decode, but compared to an MSO1074Z the Tek is easier to use as the event table is much larger and not limited to the display only.I don't use the AWG editor so can't comment.There is only a DVM, it is not a DMM. You'll have to look up the specs. I can't see the point of it myself other than it is super cheap to implement, I'd far more likely use a DMM if I was going to measure voltage. Using a scope as a DVM might work but it is like trying to pick up peas on a knife, it's the wrong tool for the job.280k waveforms/sec is only available in a specific mode, FastAcq. This brings with it a bunch of other limitations, not least that once you invoke FastAcq it forgets a ton of your other settings. I have yet to see the point of the mode other than to be able to provide a marketing number in the form of waveform updates/sec.I wouldn't get too wound up in waveform update rate, it's the law of diminishing returns once you get beyond about 50k/s. Just how infrequent is that elusive glitch anyway? One in a million? One in a billion? Already you'll be looking at other ways to diagnose it anyway.P6316 is the LA probe, you can buy it separately. Somewhere on the forum I did a teardown, I thought I'd already linked to it. The scope does not come with the probe unless you order it with the scope MSO option, or as a separate purchase with or without the MSO option. The hack opens up the MSO firmware but I'm sorry to break the news that fairies don't come out of the sky with a physical probe for you.There is still FFT as with a normal DSO, it's not something I use very often though.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 01:29:25 am
content: What would you estimate the monetary value of the spectrum analyzer is? Is it as good as a stand alone unit? I noticed in Daves teardown that the SA was fairly simplistic compared to a traditional SA, this makes me think it's inferior. I think the decision for me is going to come down to how valuable the SA and AWG are to justify the extra cost compared to traditional discrete components like the Rigol. The all-in-one tek does appeal to me because I'm very limited on space, but how is the usability of the SA and AWG, did tek make significant compromises to make an all-in-one unit?

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 02:02:40 am
content: Quote from: OldSchoolTechCorner on November 07, 2015, 03:32:17 amThis is why electricians wear rubber soled shoes, and gloves.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 03:11:58 am
content: Interesting...

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 03:12:54 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 08, 2015, 02:02:40 amIn a ideal world yes, but not all do and when dealing with HV is a must. So Fluke and a couple others built meters with safety in mind as well and not just for the safety factor is it worth paying the premium, but the quality of the overall components and R&D that goes into them. So don't assume a $75 dollar meter, is the same quality as a fluke, it's not. Most others cut corners to get it to that price point. It the same like a $100 all in one stereo you buy at Walmart vs a good quality separate component stereo system that cost several thousands that you have to do some homework on to match up and piece together.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 04:35:45 am
content: Tek wants $650 for the LA probe, which would raise the total cost of this scope to $4,357. I've got plenty of money to afford that, however, every time I look at that my head just says no. I feel like it's too much money to justify for a hobby. As far as I can tell it's impossible to find a decent 4 channel MSO for a reasonable price.It's insanity. You could build a scope with a quad core 3.2 GHz processor, Motherboard with 4x PCI Express 3.0 x16 slots, and 128 GB of memory all for less than $1500. All you need to do is to hookup four ADCs to the PCI Express slots and run Linux RTOS.

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 11:56:48 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 08, 2015, 04:35:45 amBecause your looking at it completely wrong, as me and a few others pointed out already. This is not a hobby like flying model planes, or ham radio. These are actually tools to help aid you in building, designing and troubleshooting products. They are not made for entertainment purposes and to be used as toy'sIt not as easy as just drop in a quad core CPU, and use PCI express slots and install a high speed ADC card for each channel in a machine using a embedded OS and call it a day and expect them to drop the cost. The scope would be unnessacry huge, when it don't have to be and people are trying to get away from that and go to a small form factor that fit on your bench that can be light and portable. That scope won't work for many other reasons I won't get into as way beyond the scope of this thread, as a lot more goes into designing them and the A/D conversion Digitizers card you would have to design and analog front end section, so you would increase your overall cost if anything unnecessary. Plus they already done it on the ultra high end of the market. Yes price is high and do believe a far bit of margin, but not as much as you more likely assuming, as a lot more involve that you don't see, or know anything about. I believe they make their money on the extras like the probes and ETC.I now believe your just here to troll and never intended to buy a scope in the first place.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 12:26:30 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 08, 2015, 04:35:45 amPlease, feel free to go right ahead.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 12:41:52 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 07, 2015, 11:13:02 pmFor LeCroy and R&S the answer is 'no'. Although you can get the options for older LeCroys (9300, LC Series) for a few bucks, and for later models if you ask around in the Yaho LeCroy group.QuoteNo, it's always 10Mpts:http://uk.tek.com/sites/tek.com/files/media/media/resources/MDO3000-Oscilloscope-Datasheet-5.pdfQuoteYes, because the Rigol has no search functionality, and can't even use the memory for FFT (for which it is limited to 4kpts which is useless).QuoteNo, they don't. Only the 1GHz variants do 5GSa/s.Read the spec sheet.QuoteNo, you can't. The passive probes are pretty useless for almost everything high frequency (i.e. say over 300MHz), no matter what the MHz rating is. You might get away with a passive low-Z probe ($$$), otherwise you're looking at passive probes ($$$).

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 12:46:12 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 08, 2015, 04:35:45 amDon't underestimate an ASIC, Agilent MegaZoom for example, would probably still run circles around that quad core above.

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 01:39:17 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on November 08, 2015, 12:46:12 pmYep, you have a custom ASIC, dedicated for that purpose and not wasting CPU cycles and resources, so pretty efficient overall, but not faster, it just designed with a certain purpose in mind. Now most are using a FPGA, as IC can be programmed, so manufacturers can now correct mistakes with firmware updates and patches, where a ASIC can no longer be altered once created.Now with high end scopes they do use the PC based board and CPU, as usually performs better, will also up the overall cost not reduced it and size will be a big factor.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 01:49:12 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 08, 2015, 04:35:45 amYeah, right, show me where you get all that for $1500. You'd probably pay close to $1000 for the 128GB RAM alone, plus since these will very likely be Registered modules you'd need a mainboard for XEON E5 processors which will set you back at least another $500 or so, plus a $1000 or more for a quadcore XEON E5.Quote from: dr.diesel on November 08, 2015, 12:46:12 pmI doubt that, considering that the first DSO that achieved >1M wfms/s (LeCroy WaveRunner Xi) used a paltry Celeron-M 1.3GHz with 512MB RAM.The reason Keysight stuck with its MegaZoom ASIC is because it makes sense for low end scopes which pretty much use some slow microcontrollers and therefore don't have much computing power. However, MegaZoom has already painted Keysight somewhat in a corner due to the small memory it can handle.LeCroy uses PC technology for pretty much all their upper mid-range and all high end scopes (X-Stream), simply because it's much more flexible and generally performs better than ASIC based designs.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 02:03:47 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 08, 2015, 01:29:25 amNo, it isn't, not even close.As to the value, considering that you can buy something like a R&S CRTU-RU or CMU200, or an Agilent E7495A/B (or several other instruments) for pretty little money, I'd say it's not worth much unless you need a all-in-one unit.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 04:52:06 pm
content: Quote from: OldSchoolTechCorner on November 08, 2015, 11:56:48 amSo I went to the effort to create 360 real posts just so I could troll you on this one thread? haha.If I never intended to buy a scope why do I have an MSO4014 and MSO2072A sitting in my apartment right now?

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 04:56:32 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on November 08, 2015, 02:35:23 pmNo I ment ram... you can pickup 128GB of DDR4 PC4-17000 ram for $1000. DDR4 is capable of 2133MT/s. The cost for the CPU and motherboard is only $500.DSO is short for DigitalStorageOscilloscope.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 07:32:15 pm
content: The technology is the technology, the parts are the parts, the costs are the costs, and we get what we get in the market for MSOs.Setting aside Siglent (there is a thread for that, just kidding, Siglent is fine) it seems that after the Rigol's attempts at MSOs (1000, 2000, 4000 series) the next stop has been the Agilent (Keysight) 2000 and 3000 series and the Tek 3000 series.* The Agilent 2000 seems to be getting pretty long in the tooth, so by the time you get to their new 3000T series or the Tek 3000 series and you add in the typical (hardware and software) accessories needed (some of which come in special deals, bundles, etc.) you are pushing $4k if not $5k.It seems there is a gap between the ~$1k Rigols and the $4-$5k Keysight/Teks that Rigol has tried to fill with their 4000. The Rigol 4000 hasn't quite hit the mark in various respects and it is ready for a refresh by a successor model.So, after all the attempts thus far it seems there is room for improvement. I believe we will see continued improvement because of both user desire and business need driven by ever more mixed use purposes, and therefore the market for mixed use tools is only going to grow. I think the MSO market is going to be a race driven by demand and hopefully fueled by Rigol. I believe Rigol will continue to be aggressive in trying to get their functionality and performance better dialed-in - and in response Keysight, Tek, and LeCroy are going to have to figure out how to squeeze out some better price/performance.*One possible area for improved price/performance is with Tektronix. They have tried to compete with Keysight in the 3000 series with their MDO. The Tek 3000 MDO seems to be positioned pretty squarely against the Keysight 3000T MSO, and yet the Tek MDO manages to compete on price. The MDO with it's spectrum analyzer is a fine idea and it has some very good potential, but if you removed the $1k or so of cost or price of the spectrum analyzer the remaining MSO would be that much more attractive from the standpoint of price. I don't want to get into a Tek can't make anything post the analog era battle; I'm must saying that we should be on the cusp of better MSOs at a better price than we have previously been seeing. And I think anyone rooting for better price performance should be rooting for Rigol to stay aggressive because without Rigol in the mix Keysight and Tektronix don't seem to be in a hurry to bring the prices down - they will just keep adding features and performance to keep the price up - which might be acceptable for a big part of the market - but it doesn't help further open the market to enthusiasts, pros at home, schools, students, and other potential new customers. What will bring us better MSO price/performance are a) the mixed use forces at work within IoT, b) Rigol pushing Keysight, Tektronix, and LeCroy and maybe c) some noise and clarity that EEVblog can help focus and articulate.EF

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 08:21:47 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on November 08, 2015, 02:35:23 pmCould well be, although the size of an SSD (or even if its an SSD or a hard drive) is pretty irrelevant for scope applications.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 08:27:25 pm
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on November 08, 2015, 07:32:15 pmIMHO Siglent and Rigol with their just-not-there-yet products are not pushing Keysight, Tektronix or Lecroy at all. Just look at the gap between the low end $400 scopes and more serious scopes starting at $4000 from KTL.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 08:39:29 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 08, 2015, 08:27:25 pmThere is a big gap. One of the questions is - which company wants the $400-$4k market? Seems like open territory.Given the popularity of the DS1000 and DS2000 series I think there is a market in the under $1k market. Given what Rigol has done with the MSO2072A - which has lots of room for improvement but which I believe is "improvable", I think some company will have the technological ability and the market opportunity to make very good MSOs in the "gap".

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 09:11:41 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 08, 2015, 04:56:32 pmYeah, something like this:http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ct4k32g4rfd4213And as I said, stuff like this is usually Registered RAM, that means it won't work in your standard Core I3/i5/i7 mainboard.16GB modules are currently the largest you can get as Unregistered DIMMs, so for 128GB you'd need eight memory slots. And it's not that these modules are much cheaper anyways:http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/ct16g4dfd8213QuoteGreat, 2133MT/s is roughly 17GB/s. And that's the theoretical limit, the real-world throughput is much lower and depends on a wide range of factors, plus there are other issues like latency. The cost for the CPU and motherboard is only $500.So which mainboard would that be exactly, and what processor?The other question is why you'd want 128GB RAM in a scope anyways. My guess is you believe that it could be used as sample memory, but reality is that RAM is pretty much useless for that, not just because its's pretty slow (17GB/s would be 17GSa/s only even in a perfect, unrealistic phantasy scenario like the ones you seem to come up with regularly) but also because of a wide range of other factors, plus as we've seen above it's very expensive.If you wanted to build your own scope then something like GDDR5 (graphics card RAM) which is not only faster (throughput of >240GB/s is pretty common with GDDR5) but also cheaper than DDR4 would be a much better starting point for sample memory.Didn't you state earlier you work in the computer industry? If so then it's a bit surprising that you're not aware of such things, which is pretty basic computer technology stuff.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 09:34:41 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on November 08, 2015, 09:23:00 pmYes, in theory, plus all the other issues (i.e. latency, concurrent access etc) are still an issue.There's a reason why no PC-powered real-time scope uses RAM as sample memory, which they would if it was that simple (which it isn't).QuoteFor a start, Rigol doesn't do PC-based scopes but use some embedded micrcontroller architecture, so their design isn't relevant to the suggestion of using 128GB of DDR4 as sample memory. Plus I'm sure that even their design still uses separate RAM and sample memory.But yes, LPDDR2/3 is dirt cheap, and perfectly adequate for what Rigol uses it.

author: FrankD
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2015, 09:39:09 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on November 08, 2015, 05:45:57 pmWhy not using it as a digitizer?

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 03:38:02 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 08, 2015, 09:34:41 pmPlus 1

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 03:55:12 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 08, 2015, 09:11:41 pmThe cost for the CPU and motherboard is only $500.So which mainboard would that be exactly, and what processor?The other question is why you'd want 128GB RAM in a scope anyways. My guess is you believe that it could be used as sample memory, but reality is that RAM is pretty much useless for that, not just because its's pretty slow (17GB/s would be 17GSa/s only even in a perfect, unrealistic phantasy scenario like the ones you seem to come up with regularly) but also because of a wide range of other factors, plus as we've seen above it's very expensive.If you wanted to build your own scope then something like GDDR5 (graphics card RAM) which is not only faster (throughput of >240GB/s is pretty common with GDDR5) but also cheaper than DDR4 would be a much better starting point for sample memory.Didn't you state earlier you work in the computer industry? If so then it's a bit surprising that you're not aware of such things, which is pretty basic computer technology stuff.Another plus 1

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 04:34:02 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 08, 2015, 01:49:12 pmPull the other one, there is a lot more than a PC sitting inside the GS/s scopes even your teardown shows the computer is a small part of the system:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/lecroy-waverunner-2-lt264m-review-and-(partial)-teardown/To collect points at GS/s and draw the results at 100,000's or 1,000,000's of waveforms/s needs fifos and very fast aggregating hardware from FPGAs or ASICs. A few thousand clock cycles of a CPU is not enough to ingest and display a trace.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 04:46:33 am
content: Quote from: OldSchoolTechCorner on November 09, 2015, 03:55:12 am17 GSa/s is fast enough to capture 8.5 GHz, is that not fast enough for you? The MSO4014 et. al. are only 500 MHz. I don't know why you would want 128 GB, I'm just saying that you could and you could do it for cheap... you can pickup 16 GB of DDR4 for $100.That's fine, if you want to use GDDR5 to illustrate my example you can get 8GB of GDDR5 for about $100. So if that's the case, why then is Tektronix charging $5000 for 10MB of memory?http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117563

author: eas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 05:07:20 am
content: QuoteBecause you are asking the wrong questions.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 06:49:11 am
content: Quote from: eas on November 09, 2015, 05:07:20 amI'm willing to bet if you did a breakdown of the BOM costs that the actual device would costs less than $2000.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 06:58:25 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 09, 2015, 06:49:11 amOf course you will win, it will be much less than 2K, probably less than 1K.

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 07:04:04 am
content: Because the engineers totally worked for free with their free design software and hardware tools, free certification and production, not to forget the totally unnecessary sales apparatus and advertisement or post purchase service. BOM cost yeah right. I don't understand the point you're making.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 07:09:28 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 09, 2015, 06:49:11 amIf you think you can extrapolate street price from BOM cost by adding 10% then that's not going to work. While some industries have become commoditised to the nth degree with very slim margins, and PCs are a very good example of this, that does not apply to everything, much of it down to amortising R&D costs over much smaller volumes.In addition the supply channel for T&M equipment is very different, again mostly down to volume.The PC market place is probably three orders of magnitude greater than that for scopes. It wasn't always that way, when PC volumes were much lower than today, the supply channel make up and margins were very similar.If you want a PC with acquisition, then you can always buy a Picoscope. For 500MHz bandwidth, that's $3k but you'll need to supply a PC and there's no LA, but perhaps more importantly there are no knobs.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 08:16:43 am
content: It seems that part of this debate has been about how much memory of what type is required to build a DSO or MSO with some such performance and functionality.As much as it is interesting to discuss why a PC is or is not like an oscilloscope, here is a why is an oscilloscope the way it is question:So..... on a related front, why does the Rigol MSO2072A have such limited decoding capabilities (it only decodes what is on the screen)? Maybe someone at Rigol didn't get around to using the memory they have when the LA functions were designed into the scope? Or maybe 56Mpts is not enough memory? Or maybe it's the wrong type of memory?The point being, Rigol includes what seems to be a significant amount of "Deep Memory" in a ~$1k scope, so what's keeping the MSO2072A from being able to decode data sets larger than one screenwidth? Memory, or something else?Using the Rigol MSO2072A as a baseline, how much more recurring cost (Total Factory Cost) per unit should it cost for the MSO2072A to add some (TBD) decent amount of decoding capacity and maybe some decent search functions? Assuming a cost that is half of the sell price, should it cost Rigol another $100 or another $500 or another $1000 per MSO to reasonably enhance their decoding capacity and add a reasonable search function? Obviously, some of the cost is in software development (and I realize there is SG&A on top of COGS) - but I'm talking about how much more hardware cost per scope you guys think is needed to give the software/firmware team enough memory and/or other hardware resources to get the job done in a decent fashion?

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 08:41:16 am
content: Quote from: Someone on November 09, 2015, 04:34:02 amOk, for a start, I suggest you have another look at the link you posted because that was about a WaveRunner2 LT264M:The WaveRunner LT is a scope based on a 80MHz PowerPC platform running VxWorks, and as you can see in the review its update rates are a far cry from reaching 1M wfms/s.The scope I'm talking about is a WaveRunner Xi, though:It not onlylooksdifferent than the scope in my review, it's a completely different scope inside as well. The WRXi is a x86-based scope running Windows XP Pro, and as default came with a 1.3GHz Celeron-M. Like all LeCroy Windows based scopes it's an X-Stream scope, and the point of X-Stream is that instead of using ASICs it uses the x86 CPU and runs the code in the very fast L2 cache.The only proprietary hardware is in the ADC hybrids (and the external sample memory on older scopes like the WRLT, LC or 9300), and in the trigger section. Then there are a few FPGAs used for interconnection.The WRXi consists of only three boards, Front End (analog parts), the acquisition board, and the bog-standard industrial Socket479 mainboard. There are no ASICs on the Front End board, and aside from the ADC hybrids plus peripherals there are no ASICs on the Acquisition board. There's an FPGA on the acquisition board, though, but that's for interconnection to the board's PCI bus only.LeCroy uses the same technology in all their Windows scopes right up to the 100GHz LabMaster.BTW: even the older LeCroy scopes like the 9300 Series or the WaveRunner2 LT from my review didn't rely on ASICs for waveform processing but use an industry-standard general purpose CPU and graphics chip instead. The reason were mostly down to costs and flexibility (which made them the most advanced scopes of their time), plus there's always a risk that an ASIC turns into a costly dead end.QuoteFew thousand clock cycles? Seriously, this aren't the 1980s, and even the measly cheap Celeron-M in the does more than 5 billion instructions per second and more than 100M floating point instructions per second (and that is without taking advantage of CPU extensions like SSE2).That's plenty enough.BTW, Agilent stuck to ASICs in their Windows scopes from the same era (54800), which gave them something in the 2k (yes, 2000) waveforms/s range. Go figure.

author: hs3
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 08:42:41 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 08, 2015, 04:35:45 amI guess that's not too far from how the big manufacturers build their high end scopes if we don't get too hung up on the small detail of the ADCs and the processing.If I don't remember incorrectly Keysight Infiniiums for example use just DDR2 memory for their sample memory. They just parallel enough of it so they can run at low enough frequency but still get lots of bandwidth.Trade off with large amount of memory is of course that you don't have immediate access to all of it for very fast processing if compared to something like the lower end Keysights that have their small sample memory built in to their ASIC.Offering more sample memory wouldn't necessary increase the manufacturing cost in any significant way in these higher end scopes but actually using large amount of memory can make them sluggish so more memory would make them even slower in situations where all that memory is used.Part of keeping the standard sample memory sizes smaller is probably also marketing. They don't want large sample memory sizes to become the norm so that they can still sell those as high priced options for those who need it enough to be willing to pay the extra price to enable the full memory already built in on the boardOf course if you just want to sample a large amount of data for post processing on a PC for example then it doesn't really matter if it makes the scope slow. I guess one way to take advantage of the large sample memory in Rigols could be to use them to capture their memory full and then transfer that to a PC for post processing. That's something where the large memory could be an advantage and something you simply couldn't do with small sample memory assuming you need all those samples.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 08:50:15 am
content: Quote from: Neganur on November 09, 2015, 07:04:04 amTektronix has been making front ends for the last 69 years, if they haven't got it figured out by now they're doing something wrong. What R&D costs are you talking about?

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 09:05:06 am
content: Quote from: hs3 on November 09, 2015, 08:42:41 amApart from that it takes 90 seconds to download the deep waveform memory (DS1054Z, one channel, 24Mpts)which is pretty long when you have to repeat this many times.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 09:07:59 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 09, 2015, 04:46:33 amNo, because I understand that the RAM performance figures you continue to bang about are theoretical only, plus (unlike you it seems) am well aware that the sustained throughput is a far cry from what you imagine it is.BTW, and not that it really matters, though, no, 17GSa/s isn't that much, even my 3GHz WavePro can do 20GSa/s, and that scope is 7yrs old. The modern equivalent does 40 or 80GSa/s.QuoteBecause someone has to take the memory ICs and design some ADCs and lots of other things around it, design the PCB, write the software, create the housing, ensure compliance with a ton of different product safety standards and regulations, support costs, costs for manuals, costs for marketing, and so on. Plus there's a small charge because it uses the 'Tektronix' name.If you're happy with a bunch of memory ICs for $100 then go ahead and buy them instead. Let us know how you get on measuring stuff with themSeriously, I really suggest you go and start learning at least a few basics about how computers work, and what goes into designing a complex product and bringing it to market. Simply because it has become strikingly obvious that you know basically nothing about any of these topics, and it's really no help when you continue to go making stuff up as you go along.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 09:21:21 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 09, 2015, 09:07:59 amI agree.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 09, 2015, 09:07:59 amYou really enjoy it to make other people look like morons, aren't you?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 10:20:25 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 09, 2015, 08:41:16 amyou're just as bad as the OP, come back when you understand the orders of magnitude throughput differences between realtime sampling scopes and mass market CPUs.GS/s divided by GHz processing = 1 sample arriving per clockGHz processing divided by Mwfm/s = 1000 clocks per waveformASICs and FPGAs solve this with huge parallel and deeply pipelined streaming systems, in smaller power budgets. Its not possible for CPUs to have any meaningful realtime interaction with scopes capturing 4 channels at GS/s (or 10's of GS/s).

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 10:31:07 am
content: Quote from: Karel on November 09, 2015, 09:21:21 amNo, but I do believe in being open, direct and honest with each other.Plus I doubt anyone needs me to look like morons, they are usually pretty capable of achieving that all by themselvesHis questions are starting to become more akin to a five year old insisting that his world view is right. The display of naivity and excessive imagination may be cute in kids, but in a technical discussion in a public forum aimed at adults it simply isn't. There's nothing wrong with not knowing stuff and asking, but if someone who clearly doesn't apprecate the complexity of things involved continuously bangs on that generic PC RAM sitting on a standard PC mainboard can serve as sample memory or insists that because 8Gb of GDDR5 cost around $100 and therefore a scope like the Tek MDO3k can't possibly be worth much more then it becomes silly (and that is also where the 'starts to look like a moron' part comes in). That should be the time to reflect on the simple fact that, if things were so easy as imagined, why no-one is doing it, and considering that all the engineers at Keysight, Tek, LeCroy and whoever builds scopes maybe know something he doesn't. But instead we still get the "but I can buy 4GB DDR4 for $80" rant, which begs the question why he's even asking if he's not willing to learn.I'm not sure if he's a troll as someone else suggested, or if he's just incredibly thick (I've met such people in real life, they do exist). Anyways, I join other in saying "go build it then and come back and let us know how it went".I'm looking forward to buy his $1500 8.5GHz scope with 128GB DDR4 sample memory soon. At that price I'd probably take three

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 11:38:48 am
content: Quote from: Someone on November 09, 2015, 10:20:25 amIt doesn't work that way, and really, I don't even know where to start. For example, you seem to assume for some reason that all the sampled data goes to the CPU all the time. That would be true for nbritton's suggested scope 'design', but isn't the case in those LeCroy scopes. In fact, only the data that is in the segment in view goes to the CPU in the first place. That's the same with ASICs like MegaZoom btw, which only take the data for the viewed segment. That already noticably reduces the amount of data that needs to be processed. Plus the data is then decimated which reduces the amount of data even more.The second thing is that "GHz" is a pretty useless marker for CPU performance, which very much depends on architecture and various other factors.QuoteInstead of arguing back and forth, I suggest you have a look at the Service Manual for the LeCroy WaveRunner 6000, which is available via the LeCroy Yahoo group and which contains a pretty detailed "Theory of Operation" section with block diagrams and descriptions of the various components and what they do.The WRXi's Service Manual is not available publicly, but I can assure you it works exactly the same as the other X-Stream scopes like the WR6000, just with faster hardware. BTW, that WR6000 still manages to deliver up to 125000 wfms/s, based on an antique low-end Pentium4 CPU.So I suggest you read the description of LeCroy's scope design and point out to me the specific ASIC(s) that are responsible for waveform processing.Or, for a start, could you please point out for me the ASIC(s) that do the waveform processing in scopes like the LeCroy WaveRunner LT I reviewed? The manual can be found here:http://www.ko4bb.com/manuals/20.133.40.13/LeCroy_LTXXX_WaveRunner1_Digital_Storage_Oscilloscope_Service_Manual.pdfTheory of Operation starts at page 17.I'm waiting patiently to learn where I erred.However, just a word of warning, though, before you call LeCroy to tell them that they are all wrong and that their scopes can't possibly achieve what they do without ASICs doing the waveform processing you might want to hold in a bit and consider that they could be onto something, especialy since LeCroy hold various patents for the X-Stream technology in their scopes.Just saying....

author: hs3
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 01:47:28 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 09, 2015, 10:31:07 amPersonally I didn't interpret that as him defining the exact architecture or saying that the sample memory should be in the motherboard slots. I took that more as an general example of having the amount of memory somewhere in the design like in the ADC boards that connect to the motherboard over pci-e for example. Well it's entirely possible that I missed it or skipped over something but it was just how I read it.And if designing high speed sample memory system that uses parallelism to achieve the high bandwidth I guess it wouldn't be that terrible idea to use the common memory type available at the time of creating the design and so likely available for several years to come. So maybe DDR4 if you started working on the design now. Unless of course there are some features in that memory type that make it a bad choice for the application. Something older like DDR2 might be easier to route etc. when you have lots of modules in parallel or there might be existing IP for the older technology so if it provides good enough performance why not still re-use the "old" stuff.Anyone knows what type memories are used in the scopes these days? Are they using some special memory technologies or just the generic stuff?

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 02:05:07 pm
content: Quote from: hs3 on November 09, 2015, 01:47:28 pmI don't know, for me that pretty much read as taking a standard mobo, putting in a quadcore processor and 128GB RAM and using that RAM as sample memory.Using standard memory ICs in custom designs is exactly what is done already.QuoteYou're right of course, and again that's what is already being done. But the main point in probably any DSO design is that the sample memory is fed directly from the ADCs and not (as the mobo+RAM idea suggests) going through various interfaces and PCI-e to the CPU and then to RAM. Sample memory needs to be high speed, low latency memory which can achieve its performance sustained.QuoteI can't see why DDR4 memory couldn't be used, however with suitable high bandwidth memory like GDDR5 so readily available at low prices it would only increase costs.QuoteIt seems Rigol is just using LPDDR2/3, and I'd expect other low end scopes to use similar types of memory. Scope made by the big brands usually use ADC hybrids which contain the sample memory as well, but they usually keep details about the innards secret.

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 02:18:19 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on November 09, 2015, 10:20:25 amBut the OP didn't mention using ASICs, or FPGAs, or a custom design. The way I took it is the OP meant a regular quad-core CPU and standard motherboard out of a PC.

author: hs3
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 02:30:37 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 09, 2015, 02:05:07 pmYes I'm not sure what the relative bandwidths are between these memory types or their prices. Somehow I just thought I saw a while ago that DDR4 cost was already close to DDR3 in PC memory and maybe these memory types might have been easier to design in and maybe more common type if future supply is considered.But GDDR5 for example could make more sense.QuoteQuick search suggests that Tektronix is using DDR2 in their windows scope:http://debugmo.de/2013/03/whats-inside-tektronix-dpo5034/For Agilent there were some mentions about a memory controller IC called Hedwig that apparently uses DDR2 memory too. This seems to be used in the Infiniiums.Any ideas about LeCroy? In the recent tear down one lower end model used SDR SDRAM I think.Does someone else have any other data points for some other scope models and manufacturers?

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 03:31:51 pm
content: Quote from: hs3 on November 09, 2015, 02:30:37 pmI guess at the end of the day it just comes down to cost (at the time of design and the projected costs for that type of memory over the production phase).QuoteQuoteOlder LeCroy scopes (9300, LC, WRLT) used proprietary memory modules (HMM, Hybrid Memory Modules) containing what they called 'Monolythic Access Memory' (MAM), some form of SRAM. The number of modules varied with the size of sample memory that was ordered (i.e. sample memory could be upgraded by plugging in additional modules).Starting with the WR2LT and the WavePro 900 the memory went into the ADC hybrid, still being SRAM. Now the scopes always came with the full sample memory, with parts of it locked out through software options to enable smaller configs.Not sure what they use today, LeCroy isn't overly open with details as to what goes into their high end ADC hybrids (these days the memory is probably part of the ADC die), plus the faster ADCs (used to be 20GSa/s or faster, don't know if that's still the limit or what the current limit is) fall under US export control anyways.QuoteThat wasn't sample memory, that was RAM. The WR2LT I reviewed uses SDRAM, the older WRLT (which I also reviewed) uses EDO RAM (but can use FPM memory as well).QuoteI guess the other entry level scopes (i.e. Siglent) use the same memory as Rigol. Didn't Dave do a teardown of a Siglent SDS1000X recently?

author: hs3
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 04:13:55 pm
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 09, 2015, 03:31:51 pmThank you for the correction. I must have remembered it wrong then.This LeCroy seems to have Micron D9LHT marked memory in it so DDR2 again:But it's only 2.5 GS/s 12 bit scope so no need for huge amount of parallel memory.

author: eas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 06:52:33 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 09, 2015, 06:49:11 amYes? So? As I already said once, you are asking the wrong questions. I was confident in that statement when I made it. I'm even more confident in it now.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 08:22:11 pm
content: Quote from: eas on November 09, 2015, 06:52:33 pmI can't read minds, what in the world are you talking about? I'm bored with this thread, it has totally diverged from the thread topic. All I wanted to know is if you would get a Tektronix MDO3014 at $4,357 or a Rigol MSO4014 at $2594.

author: joesixpack
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 10:09:41 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 09, 2015, 08:22:11 pmWould do? I purchased the MDO3014. Not sure where you are getting your prices from. If you want to purchase the MDO3014, I would ask for quotes from several authorized sellers. There was a refurbished 2 channel MDO3012 on eBay sold by tektronix not too long ago, might still be there. As someone else stated, you can ask for a 30 day evaluation before purchasing.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2015, 10:52:02 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 09, 2015, 08:22:11 pmAs mentioned, without knowing your buying criteria better it's hard to advise - but here's a try:Seems like between the two scopes you currently have in inventory (Rigol 4000 and Rigol 2000) you should be getting a flavor for what you like and don't like about them. What have you found in using them so far? Are you thinking about keeping one, or the other, or both?On the other hand, if neither of the scopes you have are tripping your trigger and another $1800 now is not a big deal in your budget I don't think anyone here is going to tell you that you will like the Tek MDO less than the Rigol 4000.Or, if the extra $1800 might cause budget remorse, live with one of the Rigols. The longer you live with a Rigol the more you might appreciate whatever comes next. Or it might turn out that the Rigol does everything you need.One thing I don't think makes a lot of sense is to keep Rigol 4000 and the Rigol 2000; before you do that I'd go for the Tek MDO and get it over with. (On the other hand, sometimes it's nice to have more than one scope, or 20 - so this advice to start with one scope is subject to debate.) For the price difference between keeping the two Rigols vs. the MDO you could get past the woulda could shoulda questions and the time you save by not wondering longer about woulda could shoulda might go into something productive enough to cover the extra cost for the MDO.This is like advising some folks on what to wear - it's hard to know what they want to hear or need to hear - but I think you will look good with any of these scopes.These are just SWAGuestimates, but given the 20 scope phenomenon around here there is maybe a 5% or less chance you will quit using whatever first scope you buy and bailout on scopes; there might be a 10-20% chance you will happily use the first scope you buy forever and never wonder about another scope; there is probably a better than 20% chance that even if you love your first scope you will think about adding another, and there is a still better chance you are headed for more than one scope no matter where you start. My best advice is that if $1800 is not a measurable part of your budget or savings, get the MDO. If there is any chance you are going to wonder where the $1800 went go for the Rigol 4000; but if after having the two of them (4000 and 2000) at home for a few weeks you can't tell them apart, keep the 2000 and send the 4000 back. Seriously, how much can you lose on the 2000? You got a great deal; if after living with the 2000 you need more scope the depreciation on the 2000 might not be much different than the drop in price on the current $4k-5k scopes. And if you can't get enough for it to justify selling it when you want to move up, well, that's how we all got to our 2nd scope.

author: eas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2015, 07:14:25 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 09, 2015, 08:22:11 pmWhether or not you can read minds is irrelevant.I kept my comments brief because you aren't worth the time to write more. You aren't worth the time to write more, because you've already squandered the time of others who have been much more generous with you.But, once again, in framing and restating your original question , you've repeated your mistake. You are asking pretty much all the wrong questions.If you put aside, for the time being, the question of what is wrong with those in this thread who are/were trying to help you, what other questions might you ask?

author: hendorog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2015, 10:18:32 pm
content: Quote from: eas on November 10, 2015, 07:14:25 pmAny chance you will put us out of our misery and explain what the right questions are?

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2015, 11:26:45 pm
content: Quote from: hendorog on November 10, 2015, 10:18:32 pm+1eas, go for it, give us the questions, please.

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2015, 11:52:48 pm
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on November 10, 2015, 11:26:45 pmYou have to read this thread below to understand fully why people are frustrated with the OP.https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/$5000-electronics-lab-challenge/

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 12:07:07 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 09, 2015, 08:22:11 pmI'd buy neither. The MDO3014 is just old and slow and the Rigol is too buggy. In this price range I'd look at a Lecroy Wavesurfer 3000 or a (used) Agilet/Keysight >=3000 series.

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 02:02:14 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 11, 2015, 12:07:07 amAfter reading this and seeing other threads the Lecroy Wavesurfer 3000 seem like a good choice to the point I am considering one now.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 04:43:08 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 09, 2015, 11:38:48 amThe LT you attempted to link to the data sheet for uses a big FIFO to store the data ahead of the CPU, the thread:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/lecroy-waverunner-lt-224-review-and-(partial)-teardown/15/In fact goes into depth about the slow rate which the scopes can get data through to the screen (triggering in a burst to hold in the FIFO is their banner specification)Perhaps its time for a rewind.Quote from: dr.diesel on November 08, 2015, 12:46:12 pmDr.Diesel points out that a fast CPU is not going to do the same throughput as an ASIC.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 08, 2015, 01:49:12 pmYou jump in with the claim that a GHz CPU can push Mwfm/s (unverified).Quote from: Someone on November 09, 2015, 10:20:25 amDespite correcting you again, you go off and rant. Lecroy quotes peak triggers per second rates, which are an important specification (particularly in particle physics where Lecroy have significant market share/dominance) but if the CPU is the only display driver they cannot realise the same waveform display speeds of hardware based products. Lecroy has used various "tricks" to increase the display update rates of their scopes, usually by degrading the display quality or accuracy during running/calculating/operating and then computing a prettier/cleaner/correct view as it has the time to do so.This is going back and trying to explain to the OP why an oscilloscope is much more than a normal computer system.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 06:00:11 am
content: Quote from: OldSchoolTechCorner on November 10, 2015, 11:52:48 pmDon't be mad at me for that thread, ez24 is the one who suggested creating it...https://www.eevblog.com/forum/buysellwanted/wtb-starting-new-lab-need-everything/msg793352/#msg793352

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 07:53:07 am
content: Quote from: Someone on November 11, 2015, 04:43:08 amI never said that off the shelf computer hardware should be used for high end scopes, you guys incorrectly inferred this. I was referring only to entry level scopes, i.e. scopes that have less than 1 GHz bandwidth. I tacitly stated this when I specified DDR4 memory. You can most certainly use a normal computer system for a 500 MHz scope:https://www.picotech.com/oscilloscope/6000/picoscope-6000-overview

author: hs3
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 08:44:03 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 11, 2015, 07:53:07 amIt does seem like the high bandwidth high end scopes are actually built like this. They have their sampling system (similar to the PicoScope hardware) that they then connect to "off the shelf computer hardware". Only that they use PCI-e instead of USB3 and have everything including the PC and display built in to the same case.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 08:57:10 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 11, 2015, 07:53:07 amThe "entry level" scopes with 4 channels and 1GS/s are not able to be hosted directly on a general purpose computer, there are no general purpose external busses with that sustained bandwidth and trying to sustain that on an internal bus is challenging. Just as getting video data to a display is a specialised task that needs specific hardware (sending for instance a pair of 4k RGB displays over displayport) getting similarly high bandwidth data into a computer needs specific hardware to do it, and thats hardware that isn't driven down in price by a wide consumer need.The picoscope is a great product, but its just this specialised hardware built into a small box so you can connect it to a computer. If its a good solution for you then buy one and enjoy! Note that you're limited by the internal memory depth of the picoscope.

author: hs3
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 09:14:29 am
content: QuoteIt seems that PicoScope offers continuous streaming within the USB3 bus capabilities. >150 MS/s was mentioned.And the internal memory for full speed sampling was 2 gigasamples which seems to be quite competitive amount.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 09:18:10 am
content: Quote from: Someone on November 11, 2015, 04:43:08 amYes, that 200MSa/s scope which came out in 1998 uses a FIFO to buffer the data that goes over the slow VESA Localbus interface to the PowerPC CPU. Big deal.I'm still waiting for you to point out the ASIC that does the waveform processing similar to Agilent's MegaZoom (and no, the FIFO does no waveform processing)....QuoteWell, here's the datasheet:http://www.atecorp.com/ATECorp/media/pdfs/data-sheets/LeCroy-Waverunner-Xi_Series_Brochure.pdf"Trigger Rate (Maximum) 1,250,000 waveforms/second"BTW, you know how HP/Agilent/Keysight were (and still are) constantly banging on about their great MegaZoom ASIC? You'd think LeCroy would do the same if the actually used an ASIC for waveform processing, but no.QuoteWrong. Aside that the focus of LeCroy at particle physics was somewhere in the '80s and that their later products are pretty much focussed on traditional engineering, for a digital scope the trigger rate*is*the waveform update rate.Oh, and btw, the CPU isn't the display driver, which in LeCroy scopes is a separate GPU.QuoteI'm sure you have some credible reference to that claim? Because I say that's absolute nonsense.In fact, one of the reason LeCroy's scopes were (and still are) so favored in science is that their core philosophy is that the scope shall not omit any signal details and that every data point that is sampled for the displayed time slice must be displayed, and this is still true for their mid-range and high-end scopes. Which is also the reason why interpolation is to be enabled by the user and not enabled automatically depending on the timebase settings as on other brands's scopes.But again, I'm sure you have some proof for the claim that they have to "degrade the display quality or accuracy" as you certainly wouldn't pull that out from your backside, would you?QuoteYeah, right. You're not 'correcting' me, you're pretty much pulling stuff out of thin air with no proof while carfully avoiding the main question. There's no point in debating about things that exist in your imagination.So again, lets make this short and painless:I saythat the WRXi manages >1M wfms/s without having to use an ASIC for waveform processing, and relies on the CPU for all waveform calculations.Since you believe I'm wrong, please point to me to the specific ASIC that in your opinion does the Waveform processing on a LeCroy X-Stream scope(they all work the same anyways, and the WR6000's manual is available in the Yahoo LeCroy group, and contains a detailed Theory of Operation section with block diagrams and descriptions of what each component does, including the FPGAs used for buffering and interfacing). The information is all there.Here's your chance, prove me wrong. As the saying goes, step up or shut up.Your call...

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 09:33:37 am
content: Quote from: hs3 on November 11, 2015, 08:44:03 amLeCroy scopes are essentially built like that, yes, but the amounts of data a modern high end scope produces at sample rates of up to 40+GSa/s are still too much to stream sustained directly into RAM. That's why they use windowing/segmenting, buffering and (in X-Stream II) proprietary lossless compression techniques to reduce the amount of data that goes to the processor, which does the waveform calculations in its L2 cache. LeCroy calls that technology 'X-Stream'.Scopes from other brands use ASICs to do the waveform processing and use Windows merely as an user interface. At least for their high-end scopes they're not necessarily using ASICs purely by choice (as contrary to common belief, they might even deliver inferior performance to a non-ASIC solution), the reason is that LeCroy has pretty wide-ranging patents on its X-Stream technology, and you simply can't push that amount of data a modern mid-range or high-end scope produces through the busses of a modern day PC as is, and most ways to reduce that amount of data would very likely violate one or more of LeCroy's patents.

author: hs3
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 09:47:20 am
content: Quote from: Someone on November 11, 2015, 08:57:10 amFirst for clarification when we say external bus do we mean PCIe for example and internal bus is the internal chipset / CPU bus?This just got me thinking and looks like current PCIe x16 bandwidth is 15.75 GB/s. 1 GS/s at 8 bits would be 1 GB/s of data. 4 channels 4 GB/s.Anyone knows what kind bandwidth could be sustained from PCIe to motherboard memory slots for sampling purposes on current PC hardware in practice?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 10:48:35 am
content: Quote from: hs3 on November 11, 2015, 09:47:20 amSustained 12Gbit/s links are quite reliable on high end hardware, trying to do several of them starts to be challenging.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 11, 2015, 09:18:10 amA multiport FIFO thats self clocking with a GS/s ADC isn't an ASIC? You can't get data direct from the ADC's to CPUs fast enough.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 11, 2015, 09:18:10 amTrigger rate, nothing more, is there any evidence or demonstration where those sorts of sustained trigger rates can be seen on the screen in realtime? The other data sheets for Lecroy scopes note that specification is for segmented type captures only. You're taking a specific feature which other manufacturers proudly tout and confusing it with something else entirely, the Lecroy scopes are not known for their display throughput and a CPU is not the tool for high throughput.https://www.testworld.com/wp-content/uploads/LeCroy-Wavepro7k-Series_Brochure.pdfThis data sheet shows the high speed FIFOs sitting in front of the CPU (cache and all) to hold the acquisition data while the slower CPU can process it, as the simple maths discusses it simply does not have a high enough clock rate to be able to move all the incoming samples through it, so they can't get to the display.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 11, 2015, 09:18:10 amHow about Lecroy themselves, talking about their current technology:http://teledynelecroy.com/doc/xstream-ii-technical-briefWhere they discuss how the scopes place something on the screen as a preview, while computing the accurate representation for final display later. Its a great feature and as they say improves the usability of deep memory, but its not getting the extreme throughput of dedicated hardware.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 11, 2015, 09:18:10 amThe waverunner Xi is only claiming a trigger rate, not a display update rate. The CPU is a bottleneck in the display update rate compared to competitors using FPGAs and ASICs. For instance their "WaveStream Fast Viewing Mode" claims just 8000 waveforms/second.Is update rate an important specification? There have been endless threads on this forum about it, like with other features of a scope some minimum level is needed and beyond that it is only relevant in special cases. Lecroy make nice scopes and I've used several of them over long periods, but for most work I prefer other brands with their different mix of features, other people will disagree.But please pull your head in and stop claiming that Lecroy have magically pushed a million waveforms per second through a CPU, they really haven't.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 11:17:08 am
content: Quote from: hs3 on November 11, 2015, 09:47:20 amThat amount of data would be pushing the limits quickly. A general purpose CPU like the Core i7 has a peak memory bandwidth around 25GB/s. A better option would be to push the data directly into a GPU with CUDA and do the processing in there.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 11:27:51 am
content: Quote from: hs3 on November 11, 2015, 09:47:20 amYes, With 'external' I mean buses that connect to non-core components, althought with modern CPUs the separation is not always clear (plus modern processors don't have a CPU bus as such).QuoteSince PCIe is not really a bus but a point-to-point connection it can pretty much sustain its bandwidth as long as both endpoints can keep up. That is a big advantage over older interfaces like PCI or VLBus which were shared buses which had to share its sustained bandwidth with all devices on the bus. So yes, 4GSa/s would be easily possible with PCIe, even 16GSa/s won't pose much of a problem (for the interface!) since you're not limited to 16 lanes, i.e. you easily could go to 20).However, modern high end scopes use sample rates of 40GSa/s to 240GSa/s, and that is still a lot more than all the PCIe lanes of a modern high end chipset/CPU can sustain.Plus there's the question of what you want to do with all the data at the other end.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 12:22:59 pm
content: Quote from: Someone link=topic=57949.msg798098#msg798098Again, I repeat: I'm still waiting for you to point outthe ASIC that does the waveform processing similar to Agilent's MegaZoom(and no, the FIFO does no waveform processing)....I highlighted the relevant bit for you which you clearly missed (or avoided).Stop woffling around and answer the actual question for once in a whileQuoteThe same there is for any other scope. Every event that ends up being sampled and lies within the timeslice that is displayed appears on the screen, in as much real-time as it is possible with a display that is refreshed 60 times per second (like on pretty much any other DSO).I hope you don't want to suggest that LeCroy scopes omit events that it captures during the aquisition cycle? Because such a scope would be pretty useless. But if you believe that is the case then I'm awaiting your demonstration (pick any LeCroy scope you want as long as its not one of the "rebadges" a la LiteRunner, WaveAce and WaveJet, and as long as its a 9300 Series or newer).QuoteYou mean like other scopes that only achieve their specified waveform rate in specific modes and drop down noticably when used in different settings?There is a reason the waveform update rate is specified as "max". Even Keysight isn't bold enough to claim that its scopes achives that in all settings and modes.But again, you're still not asnwering the original question.QuoteRight, so what? I said that the waveform processing is not done by an ASIC. Again, where is your proof that I'm wrong? Saying "it isn't so" is not proof btw.QuoteEither you're not reading very well or you're not understanding what they're saying:"The X-Stream II optimizations for responsiveness are tied to the capability to both preview results of processing and to abort processing.The way these two work together is that whenever a change is made to a scope setting, the software simultaneously begins calculating new results and also a preview result based on rescaling of the picture on the screen. If the preview finishes before the processing, the user sees the preview followed by the updated result of the processing when it finally finishes. If the processing finishes first, the user sees the result of the processing only. If, during calculation of the processing, the user modifies a setting, the processing is aborted and restarted using the new changes and the user only sees the preview result. The result of this behavior is important when the user is trying to set up the oscilloscope or is making rapid changes to the settings based on measurement observations. It is really helpful when the processing is complex and time consuming and the waveforms are long. Using traditional processing methods available in other oscilloscopes, the user must wait for the processing to complete before seeing the display result and making another setting change."Again, I highlighted the relevant part for your understanding. The preview they are talking about is used when the user makes changes while the scope is still in a processing cycle (processing btw which includes math, FFT, signal analysis which even on high-end hardware can take some time). That means the screen would not update until the processing has finished.What LeCroy does is that when an user makes a change duirng an incomplete processing operation that they upscale the current image until the processing cycle has completed.On older Teks for example if you run any processing heavy stuff the waveform screen (and often even the whole user interface) locks up until the processing cycle is finished, which is pretty annoying. The preview is how LeCroy gets around that.That's a bit different from "various "tricks" to increase the display update rates of their scopes" as you claimed.But all this aside,you didn't even pick out the right documentbecause the brief in the link actually describesX-Stream II, which is the later, improved version ofX-Stream. The WRXi however is an original X-Stream scope, as X-Stream II was not introduced until the WRXi-A/WSXs-B/WP7zi, and between these architectures are several key differences. One of them is that the original X-Stream doesn't do "previews".QuoteAgain, for DSOs the trigger rate *is* the waveform update rate, period. The trigger rate determines the blind time, and every event that is outside the blind time is captured, everything that is captured is stored in sample memory, and everything that is in sample memory and within the displayed time span is displayed. If you believe otherwise, prove it!QuoteAgain, where is your proof?QuoteYes, because WaveStream is nothing more than a nod to the folks that prefer an analog-like display. It's a mode that has some advantages and some disadvantages. Nothing more.And nowhere does it say claim the scope reaches the >1.25M wfms/s in WaveStream mode.QuoteI don't know. Does this matter? Especially since you still haven't shown me the ASIC in a LeCroy X-Stream scope does the waveform processing similar to Agilent's MegaZoom.Stop theSeriously! Enough with the woffling and the diversion tactics.Proveme wrong, the information is out there so it should be a piece of cake to identify the ASIC that does all the waveform processing in an X-Stream scope.For the last time: Step up or shut up!

author: joesixpack
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 06:12:59 pm
content: So basically, he has to prove that a scope he doesn't own, probably wouldn't buy, and isn't made anymore has very specific components, just to prove you wrong? All in a thread requesting comparisons and advice between two currently manufactured scopes?I know you love R&S scopes, but seriously.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 06:24:11 pm
content: Quote from: joesixpack on November 11, 2015, 06:12:59 pmNo, he just has to look at the functional description of a scope that he doesn't own and probably wouldn't buy but which he claims must have a specific component, and to point out to me that specific component he claims the scope must possess to be able to do what it does. Not exactly rocket science. I'd expect an EE graduate to be able to do that (or not, if in fact the component doesn't exist in this scope).QuoteWell, it's him who claims I'm wrong, so it's up to him to substantiate that claim, isn't it? That's pretty much all I was ever asking.QuoteNo, all in a thread started by a guy who doesn't know what he wants, buys some scopes anyways and afterward comes here to get rid of his self-doubts while ignoring every piece of advice given to him, and who actually has driven himself the discussion towards the PC technology in scopes.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 10:00:25 pm
content: Quote from: joesixpack on November 11, 2015, 06:12:59 pmIts ok, Wuerstchenhund is off on the usual epic tangents that they introduce and has completely missed the point.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 11, 2015, 12:22:59 pmHere is the original quote in full so you can avoid confusion:Quote from: Someone on November 09, 2015, 04:34:02 amI did not say that the Lecroy scopes use ASICs or FPGAs to display the data, but that they are required to get 100,000 or 1,000,000 waveforms/s to the display. A CPU cannot move that data through to the display sustained in realtime.Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 11, 2015, 12:22:59 pmYou keep holding onto this point which is completely wrong, the trigger rate is disconnected to the display rate in many scopes as in the Lecroy examples above, they may be related to memory depths or numbers of channels in use, they vary with the signal you feed the scope, they aren't fixed numbers, but they aren't equivalent or identical. A peak capture rate that is held in segmented memory is a completely different workflow to watching waveforms in realtime by eye or accumulating histogram or eye data.Coming back to the beginning: A modern oscilloscope is a lot more than just a computer, it has architectures and components not used in general computing. There are a diversity of architectures on the market each with their own strengths and weaknesses and there is no single architecture that matches all requirements. An oscilloscope built with only commodity computer memory would be a comedic beast indeed.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 10:25:43 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on November 11, 2015, 10:00:25 pmThis is a very common misconception. For a human it is enough to have about 5 screen updates per second. So what is needed is for the acquisition hardware to create an image which represents those many waveforms in one image and put that onto the screen. Every scope does this because the eyes of a human aren't fast enough. Actually you don't want very fast display updates because the previous information would be lost without the user ever seeing it (assuming the user never looks away or blinks his/her eyes).

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2015, 11:16:06 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 11, 2015, 10:25:43 pmThe display persistence is how you keep the visual image on the screen long enough, but the scope has to be able to get the triggered acquisitions to the display otherwise the information in them are lost unless you stop acquisition and then go through them (as in segmented memory terminating on conditions/triggers/manually).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 12:59:48 am
content: Quote from: Someone on November 11, 2015, 11:16:06 pmNope. Just keep a record in a short memory (a display on a modern scope is 2000 pixels wide at most and 256 pixels high -remember 8 bit ADC-) about which value got hit how many times and send that to the CPU to create a pretty picture from it. The latter isn't realtime and doesn't need to be realtime.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 01:04:31 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 12, 2015, 12:59:48 amAs I suggested, some sort of hardware aggregating the acquisitions for display.

author: bson
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 01:07:27 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 08, 2015, 04:56:32 pmYou won't get anything like 2133MT/s in a system with such heavy bus contention. Two ADC boards each with two channels, operating at 5GS/s each and even a single socket CPU are going to fight over the bus like crazy. DDR4 imposes a 4-7CK penalty for breaking memory bank barriers, and if even the two ADC acquisition boards are going to interleave one another this means constant bank changes. This is a case where DDR4 can actually be slower than DDR3.There's no viable design here with a main CPU plus two acquisition boards operating at >5GB/s each contending for the memory bus. You need multiple memory buses. The most obvious "fix" is for each acquisition board to have a dual-port memory: one port for acquisition (rolling write, high precedence), the second for CPU-controlled transfers to main memory (random access, low precedence). Board CSRs can be used to track the current acquisition head and tail (if they differ, for a partial fill) and to control the acquisition size and other parameters. Stick a DSP on the acquisition board for sinc filtering, decimation, FFT, etc, and you have a starting point. All of this can go on an FPGA/ASIC. Now you have a VERY substantial software project, and of course the purpose of most non-trivial hardware these days is to run software. You might be 2-5% done - the real costs have only begun.

author: nbritton
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 04:23:21 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 11, 2015, 12:07:07 amI don't get you guys at all. You want me to exchange a 600 MHz scope that cost me $2594 for a 200 MHz scope that will cost me $5537 (Agilent MSOX3014A) or $3572 (LeCroy WaveSurfer 3024). I'm sorry to ask, but are you insane, or are Rigols really that bad, or do you have something against Chinese scopes? Given the popularity of other Rigol models I'm starting to doubt they are as bad as some of you are making them out to be; Dave glowing recommends the DS1000Z and I think even the DS2000A, so I'm doubting they are really that bad.

author: OldSchoolTechCorner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 05:18:00 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 12, 2015, 04:23:21 amIt has nothing to do with being biased against Chinese scopes, as for home lab I'll take a risk and try it out, if I believe it's a good value for the money. The Rigol's unfortunately on the higher end are not good value, just to many issues and two similar to their low-end scopes. Like I stated in other thread I actually own that scope for about three weeks and was quite buggy and had a defective one. Beside the overheating issues and it locking up at random. The first one channel two when completely out at random after only owning it for about a week, so return it and tried a second one, figure first one might just have been a bad one. Still had lock up issues at random and very loud fan when using it. Then when using the math functions, turning off the source channels also turns off the math function. The delayed sweep causes very strange random behavior and would sometimes lock up and lose controls panel all together for a few seconds. When attempting to display the trailing end of a burst of pulses. Turning on the delayed sweep causes the trigger point to randomly vary and it gets worse when the trigger mode is changed from auto to normal. Just a few of the bugs, their more. At that point return it due to the issues mostly due to it locking up and needed something more reliable that could be trusted. Their a lot more to a scope then stated bandwidth. Just because it a 500mhz scope doesn't mean it a good value. Plus been using scopes since first DSO's came around to market, so don't need the deep memory as know how to set up proper trigger and rather have a scope with better hardware overall.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 05:41:17 am
content: Quote from: OldSchoolTechCorner on November 12, 2015, 05:18:00 amOne more thing that I strongly agree with you about.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 06:13:47 am
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 12, 2015, 04:23:21 amNo, Rigols aren't that bad, but they aren't quite Agilent either. Here's what happened (a recap on on how we got here):You asked some questions about various scopes. That took some folks in the direction of recommending scopes. You also asked questions and offered some ideas regarding how computer architectures are similar or not vs. scope architectures. That took some folks in the direction of discussing memory, ASICs, bus bandwidth, and various other architectural issues.In the meantime you stocked upon on a Rigol 2000 and 4000 but asked if you should increase the budget and go for a Tektronix MDO3000 instead. That caused some people to weigh-in on Rigol vs. Tektronix, and it opened the door to discussions of Agilents and LeCroys.Setting aside the architectual discussions, you received feedback that some people would prefer Agilents or LeCroys even though they might be more expensive than the Tek MDO. This is in part because it's your money and not OPM (Other People's Money). However, it is also because a fair number of folks here don't really like Rigols (even though those are mostly people who don't have a Rigol or who have a budget for more expensive scopes). And when it comes to Tektronix the crowd seems to have developed a "how can you consider a digital Tek scope?" stance. It's kind of harsh IMO, but if you ask around here it's like Tek fell off a cliff when digital arrived. There are people here who love Tek analog scopes but it's hard to find people who will defend a Tek digital scope. There are some Tek digital advocates but once you get past the Rigol 4000 budget and you want a DSO or MSO most folks here will push Agilent/Keysight pretty strongly. Then there is LeCroy. It is the best scope manufacturer if you ask Wuerstchenhund.In general, just see what people own - 80-90% of the time it's what they are going to recommend. Occasionally someone will have a bad experience - and then they will talk up what they bought next. If you want an "objective" suggestion, check with Howardlong: he seems to own one or two of everything, he's one of my heroes. Seriously, there are a lot of smart experienced people here and they are consistently well intended - but they generally recommend what they use because they like what they use and if they didn't they'd try something else if they could.In summary, there are the Rigol fans who will defend the 1000 series and the 2000 series, there are the Agilent fans who will defend Agilents for everything north of a Rigol 2000, there are the brave Tek digital fans, and then there is Wuerstchenhund. (And there is a good size group of analog fans led by the Tek fans; talk about heroes, check out Bernice/Rupunzell and Martin! - but that's off topic here.)So, while everyone is entitled to their opinion there are some trends if not a consensus around here - and there are a few exceptions here and there - but I think you have pretty well sampled the water.You can ask as much as you want, but until you come up with some new questions you will likely continue to get the answers you are getting. If you read what people are posting and read between the lines I think you will see there is some pretty good reasoning here - but it's your budget, and your scope(s)..... 1 going on 20 - so enjoy the journey.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 06:28:19 am
content: Quote from: Electro Fan on November 12, 2015, 06:13:47 amThere are also CLOSED minds, those not willing/able or impartial to really examine all that is offered in the marketplace and acknowledge that even before any new unit one may buy is out of warranty the market will have changed dramatically with still further choices.In this way we have never been more spoilt for choice.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 06:40:53 am
content: Quote from: Someone on November 11, 2015, 10:00:25 pmOf course the scope has ASICS (for example the ADC hybrids) and FPGAs (mostly as buffer), but none of them do any waveform processing. This *is* done by the CPU in X-Stream scopes, which manages fine because it only has to process the data that ends up on the display.QuoteThey are. For all intents and purposes, the Trigger rate and the waveform update rate *are* the same on any common DSO, like it or not. The trigger rate tells you how often a scope can trigger, acquire, process and rearm (dead time) per seconds. The waveform update rate tells you how often the scope can update the waveform on the screen per second. Every event that is captured during acquisition phase is recorded in sample memory, and every data point in sample memory that lies within the displayed time slice is displayed on the screen.If the waveform update rate was lower than the trigger rate then this means that either sampled information that was captured during the acquisition phase would have been omitted. A scope that omits data that was acquired is pretty much worthless, and I am not aware of a single scope model from any manufacturer that does that. But since you say trigger and waveform update rate are not the same, I'm sure you can name some scopes that do ignore some acquired data and where the trigger and waveform update rate are different.Also, you might want to inform Keysight that they are doing waveform measurements totally wrong:http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5989-7885EN.pdf"Measuring a scope’s update rate is not that difficult. Most scopes provide a trigger output signal—typically used to synchronize other instruments to the scope’s triggering. You can measure a scope’s update rate by measuring the average frequency of this output trigger signal using an external counter. "If you're at it, maybe tell R&S that they don't know what they are talking about, too:http://cdn.rohde-schwarz.com/pws/dl_downloads/dl_application/application_notes/1er02/1ER02_1e.pdf"Measurement of the blind time of my oscilloscopeThere are various ways to evaluate the actual waveform acquisition rate, and thecorresponding blind time of a digital oscilloscope. Since the waveform acquisition ratecan vary with instrument setup, the evaluation must be performed for the currentmeasurement conditions.Some oscilloscopes offer an acquisition counter, others have a direct acquisition rateperformance display. Another possibility is to monitor the trigger out of theoscilloscope. Every rising edge represents a new acquisition. "QuoteHey, now *that's* something we can agree on

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 09:27:38 am
content: Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on November 12, 2015, 06:40:53 amI do love it when you bring in these references which just destroy all your arguments, that's Lecroy going into detail about how one of their scopes has a high throughput architecture by using an ASIC to display the data! Lecroy have other scopes (most of them) that have extremely high peak trigger frequencies but only for segmented capture, when operating in a realtime mode the display rate drops into the 100's or 1000's per second as measured by yourself and others.I can have scopes from various manufacturers running in segmented modes where the stop condition is based not on filling the buffer count but on a signal trigger or external trigger, in most scopes not all the captured data will reach the screen until it stops, it will show something while its acquiring but it will not be showing all the data. This is normal, Lecroy was the first manufacturer where I came across segmented captures (who has patents on it?) but the trigger rate and display rate are radically different in these situations, its also these situations that create the banner specifications for peak trigger rates.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 12:22:56 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on November 12, 2015, 09:27:38 amAnd I love it when you can't even read.Quoteare you talking about? Did you evenreadthe document you linked to?Let me give you some hint: 'LeCroy' != 'R&S'LeCroy is an American manufacturer of scopes and other test equipment.R&S (which is short for 'Rohde & Schwarz') is a German manufacturer of test equipment, communication systems and a wide range of other stuff.Remarkably, that's not the first time that you're completely oblivious as to what the documents at the links you quote actually say.Your arguments came across a lot more credible if you dropped the arrogance and started to actually read the stuff you're linking to. And where it comes from.QuoteYes, but these scopes all predate the X-Stream generation, and are out of production for at least 12 years or longer!Look, I'd love to talk about LeCroy scopes, but it would help that before you make some claims that you at least familiarize yourself with their product generations, and while you're at it, you could also have a closer look at the architectural and performance differences. That would also save you from pulling up irrelevant linksI don't want to drag this on any furtheras frankly replying to someone who knows clearly nothing about the products he talks about and can't even get manufacturer names right is becoming a bit tiresome, so I'll just summarize the main points one last time and then leave it at that.1.) The scope I was talking about (WaveRunner Xi) is an X-Stream (Windows) scope that came out in 2006 and which was replaced in late 2008. The scopes that I reviewed and of which you pulled out the links were non-X-Stream (VxWorks) scopes made at 1999 and 2003 respectively, and yes, they were pretty slow when it comes to update rates. But that is irrelevant to a WRXi made in 2006. Apple vs oranges.2.) The WRXi was the first scope with >1M waveforms/s. That's not so special now, in 2006 it was pretty much exceptional. The ASIC based Agilent counterpartsof that erawere stuck at some 2k waveforms max, plus some paltry sample memory unless you dropped the sample rate to 2GSa/s.3.) The original argument by the OP was to use an x86 processor as he believed it to be faster than what current scopes can do, to which Dr Diesel replied that he believes that an ASIC like the Agilent MegaZoom would run circles around that. My point was that this isn't necessarily the case, because not only was the first >1M wfms/s scope one that relied on the CPU for all its waveform processing, the contemporary (i.e. 2006 era) scopes from Agilent & Tek which all were based on waveform processing ASICs were also*a lot*slower than the WRXi in pretty much anything.Based on what happened back then, I don't believe that a modern x64 CPU couldn't compete with a dedicated waveform processing ASIC like MegaZoom, especially when considering that CPUs have very likely seen a much larger performance improvements since 2006 than special purpose ASICs like MegaZoom.That's it.At the end of the day, this wasn't a very complicated argument. I tried to make a very simple point, and had you actually paid a bit more attention instead of lecturing and read and understood what you linked to then you might have even realized this and it wouldn't have dragged on for so long needlessly.Anyways, all that's to say is said, so I'm not going any further into this.Have a nice day

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 12:34:19 pm
content: Quote from: nbritton on November 12, 2015, 04:23:21 amJust read the reviews on the Rigol scopes. A lot of the listed features like FFT and decoding are poorly implemented and there are irritating bugs as well. Even compared to an A-brand second hand scope the Rigol is a poor choice price wise.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 03:11:13 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 12, 2015, 12:34:19 pmWell, not so fast. Rigol is an excellent low-cost choice for the beginner or hobbyist, not only due to its aggregate set of features but also for its hackability for higher bandwidth and decoding options. I got their middle ground model (DS4014) only because the price was really low and right on my budget - and yes, I did an extensive search around for everything second hand, including LeCroy (given Wuerst's comprehensive info around), Tek (despite the bad rap it gets here), HPAK (HP/Agilent/Keysight) and Siglent (given tautech and RfLoop's comments as well). However, as discussed exhaustively here in this forum, the closer you get to $3k, Rigol quickly lags behind.Also, if the DS4014 starts lagging on something I need I can always sell it and buy something else. That brings me to another point I tend to use for everything in my life: only purchase things that you can afford to lose. Don't buy a $5k oscilloscope if you need to declare bankruptcy if it gets crushed the next day.So, as Electro fan nicely summarized, you will see all sorts of crowds around. Don't let the hugely diverse set of opinions cause you "analysis paralysis", which I think you may be experiencing (especially with the $5k lab thread you opened). Listen to opinions and go with your gut knowing that you don't need to marry whatever you buy.

author: H.O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 04:41:46 pm
content: Yes, and which reviews of which "Rigol scopes" and when where Thos Review done?Apparently the "LeCroy scopes" have hade a fair share of bugs and issues as well (I'm refering toFreeElectronsprevious post) and apparently much of have been fixed according toWuerstchenhund- which is great of course. Even though Rigols scopes share both hardware and firmware across models they are actually not all the same. And as with the "LeCroy scopes" they DO now and then receive new firmware which actually does tend to fix stuff. So, reading an old review* and claiming "Rigol scopes" are buggy would be as fair as reading FreeElectrons "review" and claiming "LeCroy" scopes are buggy.*I'm not saying the review being referenced IS old, I don't know. But usually, when it comes to these scopes, bugs that has been fixed long ago are brought up as "issues" over and over again.I'm not saying or claiming "Rigol scopes" are better then "[insert favourite brand here] scopes". I'm saying that for a fair comparison between any two models you really need to compare them in their current state - not in the state they were 3 years ago.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 07:01:54 pm
content: Quote from: H.O on November 12, 2015, 04:41:46 pmBelieve me, there is a*big*difference between the bugs a big brand instrument comes with and the bugs you find in Chinese B-brands like Rigol or Siglent.How Chinese B-brands work is they build the hardware, cobble together some software, and basically throw it on the market as soon as most of the advertised functions work to at least some extend. Once the product is out there they might fix some of the bugs, but most firmware updates that fix some bugs also introduce some new ones, and many of the bugs will never be fixed. Just look at the lengths of threads for Rigol DS1000z, DS2000 and DS4000, or (as an example with what a buyer can end up with things are really bad) the Siglent SDS2000 thread. Awful.I have yet to see any big brand vendor throwing a scope on the market with as anything even close as many bugs as Rigol or *shudder* Siglent. It doesn't matter if its Keysight, LeCroy, R&S, there might be differences in performance, handling or features but when it comes to bringing a product to market they pretty much all make sure that the product works and that all advertised features work as expected . I'd say even Tek is much better than that, and they had their fair share of firmware problems themselves.LeCroy has a unified software package for their mid-range and high-end scopes running Windows (X-Stream), and aside from bug fixes these updates contain changes and improvements that users asked for (there's a feature request tool in the software) or that LeCroy came up with themselves, plus support for new scope models. The bugs that are fixed are mostly minor bugs for one of the various advanced options, and in many cases only affect certain configurations, and there's rarely a show stopper amongst them which makes the scope unusable for a certain task. As FreeElectrons said there were some nasty bugs with the first X-Stream scopes when they came out in 2001/2002 but at that time these were pretty much the first scopes of their kind and all issues were fixed in a very short time frame (of course, you'd have to actually install the updates to benefit from the bug fixes). Keysight is pretty much in the same ballpark, there have been some really silly bugs in their firmware but none of them meant that the scope became unusable or unpredictable, and updates came pretty quick.Then there's support. Chinese B-brand scopes usually come with three years warranty but that's it, beyond that you're pretty much on your own. There's no extended support, no guranteed spare part availability, you can't even be sure that there even will be another firmware update. And good luck getting your scope calibrated in a certified lab. Big brand scopes are supported for a long time beyond their end of production (7yrs with LeCroy, Keysight depends but 4-6yrs are normal), you get updates, you can get spares, and you can even buy additional warranty (LeCroy) or service agreements (Keysight) so that if your scope fails you're not left with nothing.Seriously, when reading through the Rigol and Siglent threads my neck hair stands up everytime I imagine what if I had to live with only half of the bugs these scopes were thrown on the market with. It's insane. On the other side, that's why they are so cheap.That doesn't mean Rigol and Siglent scopes (aside from the SDS2000) are unusable. Their bottom-of-the-barrel scopes are good enough for beginners or simpler tasks, and they are incredible value for money. However, that quickly changes when spending more than a few hundred bucks, as their larger models are little more than their bottom-of-the-barrel scopes with larger bandwidth. Outside the ultra low end they simply can't compete against the big brands.As the saying goes, you get what you pay for. the only exception to this rule is the low end stuff offered by some big brands (Keysight DSO1000, LeCroy WaveAce/WaveStation) which is simply rebadged Chinese B-brand gear. I wouldn't bother with that, if you go Chinese get the "Original" and at least save some money.

author: H.O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2015, 08:57:50 pm
content: Look, I'm not arguing with you because A) I'm sure you're right and B) even if I thought you weren't there would be no way winning you over.All I'm saying is that reading threads on this forum which are several years old and leaning on them when saying that "Rigol scopes" (implying all of them) are buggy. Lets take the issue with the decoders not working on waveforms in segmented memory. That, of course, should've worked out of the box - it didn't, it took them a while (to long no doubt) but they fixed it. As with your early X-stream there's not only bug fixes in the update and as with your X-stream scopes you obviously need to install the updates to benefit from them.It's exactly as you say, they bring them to the market early and for those brave enough to buy them early you take the risk of running into issues but I've got a 4 channel 500MHz 4GS/s scope (yes "hacked" from 100MHz) bought brand spanking new in 2012 with 3 years warranty, I payed $2300 that's a lot of scope for the money IMO - and it does actually work. I'm sure it has some limitations, and I'm sure all of them individually and a as whole would make you shake your head until it fell off and you wouldn't touch it with a stick but for me as a home lab/hobbyist user it actually works quite alright, it has never hanged, lost any knobs, blue screened, busted into smoke or anything like that.Is Rigol the best company ever and do they make the best scopes in the world? Of course they aren't and of course the don't - I'm not saying that but I do think that that $2300 for the scope sitting on my bench is quite a good deal and actually something I can't see the A-brands coming close to.The thread started as MDO3014 vs Rigol DS4014 and has turned into the usual pretty much anything and everything is better than anything chinese.Of course we have the thread with the DS6000 which turned out to not have ETS implemented even though it was in the manual - yes that sucks.

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2015, 11:22:15 am
content: Quote from: H.O on November 12, 2015, 08:57:50 pmYou don't need to win me over (it's not really my scope category anyways), and who am I (or anyone else) to tell you that you can't be possibly happy with a Rigol scope.All I wanted to say is that there are far more differences between B-brand and big brand than some specs and the price tag. At the end of the day it's up to you to decide how much each property is worth to you.QuoteThe threads may be several years old now but you just have to read through the last few pages to see what the current status is, and for example for the DS1054z it seems there are still bugs that need fixing, or that there are still a lot unresolved issues in the SDS2000.QuoteYes, but for most part the time between a bug is found and reported to LeCroy and when the update becomes available is usually pretty much measured in weeks, and in a few cases even days. Fixing minor bugs that don't impact functionality can take longer, but usually the fix can be found in the next release (which comes out 3 to 4 times a year).It's not really comparable to Rigol where for example ETS is still not working on the DS6000 (a scope that came out around late 2010/early 2011!). And that scope costs around the same or even more than a comparable LeCroy/Keysight. Other bugs may get fixed quicker, but the thing is until it gets fixed you can't even be sure that there ever will be a fix.QuoteYou're right. But the fact that you were able to hack it into a 500MHz scope distorts the picture quite a bit in its favor. That's fine if you can live with hacking, but not everyone can or wants that, either for support or legal reasons, and for them it's still a 100MHz scope. And for a 100MHz scope $2500 isn't that cheap.QuoteAs I said, who am I (or anyone else for that matter) to tell you that you can't possibly be happy with your Rigol. It works for you, and that's most important. But I think a large part of that is because you seemed to have pretty realistic expectations in the first place about what you get, which isn't the norm when people shop for scopes. They see the price tag of big brands and then the price tag of Rigol/Siglent, and assume that the Chinese stuff is cheaper because it is made in China, which is only part of the savings. The other parts are using cheaper hardware (i.e. slower processing), skimping on (software) quality and pretty much absence of any real form of support.QuoteWell, to be fair, I'm not sure what the point of that thread was anyways as if someone wants to know about which scope to chose then usually this is discussedbeforethe scope is bought, not afterwards (which somewhat defeats the purpose a bit). Many of the OP's erratic 'requirements' would have required a much more advanced scope than what you can buy from the Chinese B-brands anyways, plus he seemed to believe that the performance of the Rigol is pretty much equivalent or better than what the big brands offer in this class, so the advice against Rigol wasn't really unjustified.

author: H.O
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2015, 12:06:33 pm
content: QuoteOf course it's in its favour but the fact remains I got a 500MHz 4 channel 4GS/s scope on my bench and I payed $2300 for it.At the time I got though (2012) it was indeed a 100MHz 4 channel 4GS/s scope but even so there wasn't anything even remotely comparable price wise and to be honest I'm not sure what that would be today either (?). 4 channels, 4GS/s, plenty of memory (doesn't have to be 100s of megs and yes, I know you think its useless on the Rigol anyway), VGA (which I don't really need), USB and LAN for $2300 VAT included.Then some clever people figured out how to enable the decoders and later also the bandwidth. I totaly understand those who don't want to "hack" it though but for me it's my scope, I payed for it, I'll do what I want with it - simple as that. Do I expect support on functions I didn't pay for - no I don't.QuoteThanks, I take that as a compliment. If you expect to pay 1/2 to 1/3 or even less compared to "A-brands" and expect to get the same level of everthing (hardware, software, service, support) then you're not being realistic, that's for sure. I didn't expect that, I got what I payed for (more than what I payed for actually) and something I could never afford with an A-brand - simple as that.Like I said in my previous post, the ETS not working on the DS6000 is sort of pathetic. I would've liked to see if they had intentions of fixing it and how long it would take but the fellow buying it returned it - which I fully understand since it was the primary feature he was after. That shouldn't stop them from fixing it though.There's a WavePro 7300A 3GHz comming up at a local auction. I'll keep an eye on it....