Agilent DSO/MSO 6000 Series vs 3000 Series

[Electro Fan]

Hi, Can anyone here summarize the key differences between what appears to be an older Agilent 6000 series DS0/MSO vs what appears to be a newer Agilent 3000 series?  Both are referred to as InfiniiVision models, but the 3000 gets a DSO"X" or MSO"X" prefix designation.  The pricing indicates Agilent is pretty proud of the 6000 series, but it isn't clear whether that is because the 6000 has better features and performance vs. the 3000 series, or it's just because the 6000 is an older series that was designed on a platform that had a higher cost basis at the time of it's introduction.  The 6000 highlights it's MegaZoom lll deep memory, but the 3000 series highlights it's MegaZoom IV smart memory technology - and my impression (which is just an impression) is that the 3000 series search and navigate features might be stronger those of the 6000 series.  Other than possibly the display resolution on the 6000 series (more pixels but on a smaller display?), it isn't clear in what respect the 6000 is superior to the 3000.  Any comments/info welcome.  Thanks

[mikeselectricstuff]

There isn't a definitive answer as to which is better - there are pluses and minuses on both sides. I've had an MSO6034A since shortly after it was released, but all I know about the 3000 is what I've read here. I did look to see if there would  be any benefit changing to the new model but quickly concluded there wasn't.
6000 has a higher res display, but smaller. 7000 is basically the same with a bigger display so maybe closer in that respect.
6000 has LAN, VGA out and GPIB as standard.
6000 has everlasting  free trial licenses (just by setting the clock back), and as a mature product there are unlikely to be any firmware updates  to stop this (but at some point they may stop offering the trials). Note however that UART and SPI/I2C are only available on 4-channel models.
6000 has 8Mpts memory (this was optional on early models, then became standard later on - check this if buying second-hand)
6000 MSO connector is on rear - this can actually reduce bench spaghetti.

If you can find a used 6000/7000 with equivalent spec at a similar price to the 3000, the everlasting trials would  probably tip the balance over the newer model in terms of value for money.
If you want the most Agilent scope for your money, used 6/7000s is still undoubtedly it.
   

[JoeyP]

6000 has 8Mpts memory (this was optional on early models, then became standard later on - check this if buying second-hand)

You can get a code from Agilent (for free) to unlock the 8Mpts option even on older units. This can work to your advantage if buying on ebay etc., because you can sometimes find scopes without the option cheaper, then get the free code and upgrade.

I found the VGA output of my 6000 series scope to be much more useful than I originally imagined. I leave a large monitor on the corner of the bench connected all the time. Yields a much larger display than any integrated scope display. Large enough that I can view it from significant distance, thereby eliminating the need to put on my glasses

[free_electron]

the new 4000 series is the direct competitor for the 6000/7000 series. i just got a new msox4000 in at work.

[ben_r_]

the new 4000 series is the direct competitor for the 6000/7000 series. i just got a new msox4000 in at work.

Man and those things are FANCY!

[free_electron]

i know. i've had to mop up plenty of drool of collegues ...

[EEVblog]

the new 4000 series is the direct competitor for the 6000/7000 series. i just got a new msox4000 in at work.

Man and those things are FANCY!

Unfortunately the screen resolution on the 4000 is crippled by the Megazoom IV ASIC.

[Electro Fan]

Thanks for the info.  Anyone know how the navigation and search features compare between the 6000 and 3000?  Thanks again.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Thanks for the info.  Anyone know how the navigation and search features compare between the 6000 and 3000?  Thanks again.

6000 doesn't really have any search/nav features as such, but I can't say it's something I've ever felt the need for - zoom and pan are instant, so manually scanning/zooming around an acquired waveform is very quick, and for more complex stuff, segmented memory and/or careful trigger setup can probably achieve most of what you'd need most of the time.

[mike1305]

3000X provides you a smaller form factor, improved UI, 10X faster update rate, double the sample rate, more options (e.g. WaveGen), smaller screen, BUT half the memory. Just have to ask yourself how much memory you actually need. If 4M isn't enough, I'd be willing to bet 8M isn't enough either. Both are great scopes for signal viewing, e.g. probing new boards for the first time and cruising around your test points looking for glitches.

[grego]

I just scored a MSO6012 for $1300 so I'm pretty happy.  I'd prefer a 6014 but eh, for the price I couldn't say no.

[Electro Fan]

I just scored a MSO6012 for $1300 so I'm pretty happy.  I'd prefer a 6014 but eh, for the price I couldn't say no.

Congrats!
Where did you find such a nice deal?
Any chance you can tell us about the LA?

[grego]

Remember on the 2-channel the LA doesn't do decodes.  You need the 4 channel for decodes.  2-channel you can pull up digital signals, trigger, etc - just no decode.

Mike has a 6034A - not sure if it's the MSO or DSO model - so would have a lot more info on that than I would.

[JimmyMz]

I just scored a MSO6012 for $1300 so I'm pretty happy.  I'd prefer a 6014 but eh, for the price I couldn't say no.

Sold the GW Instek too?

[CarlG]

You can also take a look at this post; I guess you can sort out what's relevant for 6k series. I can only see the battery option motivating the 6000A series is still produced, otherwise the 7000B is the choice (between them).

The X3k series has push function on knobs which 6k series doesn't.

If you don't need FPGA dynamic probe option, the display resolution is the only thing that talks for 6k in favor of X3k. However, I think the X3k (and X4k? I don't remember...) display resolution is a big downgrade compared to 6k/7k. May have to do with the display update rate?

[grego]

I just scored a MSO6012 for $1300 so I'm pretty happy.  I'd prefer a 6014 but eh, for the price I couldn't say no.

Sold the GW Instek too?

Nope - that was returned to Instek due to published specifications being flat-out wrong.

[Hydrawerk]

I am not sure if it is so great to have 1024×728 screen on a 8bit ADC oscilloscope.

[JoeyP]

I am not sure if it is so great to have 1024×728 screen on a 8bit ADC oscilloscope.

It definitely is great to have (at least) 1024x768. I wouldn't accept anything less. Consider that you often will want to stack traces vertically (so each trace might get 364 vertical pixels or less, given border etc). In the case of MSO 6K, a mixed signal analyzer, you need room for logic traces as well. You very quickly get to a point that the analog traces have less than 256 vertical pixels available even for a display 768 pixels high.

[Electro Fan]

I am not sure if it is so great to have 1024×728 screen on a 8bit ADC oscilloscope.

It definitely is great to have (at least) 1024x768. I wouldn't accept anything less. Consider that you often will want to stack traces vertically (so each trace might get 364 vertical pixels or less, given border etc). In the case of MSO 6K, a mixed signal analyzer, you need room for logic traces as well. You very quickly get to a point that the analog traces have less than 256 vertical pixels available even for a display 768 pixels high.

Three questions, please/thanks:

1. Among users of MSOs what percent of the time do you use the scope display vs. a PC display?

2. On the Agilent 3000 and 6000 what is the maximum external display resolution supported by the VGA output (is it the same resolution as the scope display or can either the 3000 or 6000 "VGA" adpater support higher resolutions than what is supported by the scope display)?

3. Do the signals from the VGA port render on an external PC display as fast as they render on the scope display, or is their some lag?

Thanks

[ejeffrey]

Three questions, please/thanks:

1. Among users of MSOs what percent of the time do you use the scope display vs. a PC display?

Depends on what you are doing.  We have a 7000 series DSO (we actually just bought the MSO upgrade but haven't used it yet) in the lab and use the VGA output 100% of the time.  The scope is in the rack, and we need to be able to see the screen from the lab bench next to the rack. Lots of people never use them, although I imagine that MSO users are more likely to want it.

2. On the Agilent 3000 and 6000 what is the maximum external display resolution supported by the VGA output (is it the same resolution as the scope display or can either the 3000 or 6000 "VGA" adpater support higher resolutions than what is supported by the scope display)?

The same.  1024x768 on the 6000 and 7000 series, 800x600 on the 2000/3000/4000 series.  As I understand this is a limitation of the megazoom architecture.  Because the ASIC writes directly to the framebuffer without going through the CPU, it is limited to the native resolution.

3. Do the signals from the VGA port render on an external PC display as fast as they render on the scope display, or is their some lag?

Just as fast.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I am not sure if it is so great to have 1024×728 screen on a 8bit ADC oscilloscope.

It definitely is great to have (at least) 1024x768. I wouldn't accept anything less. Consider that you often will want to stack traces vertically (so each trace might get 364 vertical pixels or less, given border etc). In the case of MSO 6K, a mixed signal analyzer, you need room for logic traces as well. You very quickly get to a point that the analog traces have less than 256 vertical pixels available even for a display 768 pixels high.

One very subtle but useful thing they have got right on the  5/6/7000, and I would hope on the newer ones, is they deal intelligently with overlapping traces. When you use the Y position knob, that trace is pulled to the 'front' of any traces that cross it, so even with many traces onscreen, do don't often lose detail due to overlapping. The intensity grading tends to add a slight drop-shadow type effect which stops traces merging into each other.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Three questions, please/thanks:

1. Among users of MSOs what percent of the time do you use the scope display vs. a PC display?

This will vary from user to user. I only use the external when I need to  see the  display from a distance, e.g. testing a proximity sensor etc.
If the bench was set up to have a big monitor permanently sat above the scope it might get more use - at the moment I just switch over one of the 4 monitors on my PC

3. Do the signals from the VGA port render on an external PC display as fast as they render on the scope display, or is their some lag?

On the 6000 the output is simultaneous. The 3000 VGA add-on has memory so may be doing some framerate conversion, so there might be a small delay, but doubt it would be more then one frame time (~16mS)
 

[ben_r_]

Three questions, please/thanks:

1. Among users of MSOs what percent of the time do you use the scope display vs. a PC display?

2. On the Agilent 3000 and 6000 what is the maximum external display resolution supported by the VGA output (is it the same resolution as the scope display or can either the 3000 or 6000 "VGA" adpater support higher resolutions than what is supported by the scope display)?

3. Do the signals from the VGA port render on an external PC display as fast as they render on the scope display, or is their some lag?

Thanks

1) I dont really evey use it as my scope is on the bench right in front of me.

2) On the X-2000 series (and I believe its the same on the X-3000 series) the resolution outputted from the VGA out is the same as the screen res. Sadly.

3) When I have used the VGA it seemed to be to update instantly to a low end VGA computer monitor.

[JoeyP]

1. Among users of MSOs what percent of the time do you use the scope display vs. a PC display?

If by "PC display", you mean an external display connected to the scope, then I use it a lot. Much more than I thought I would. I kind of thought of the video output as a gimmick when I first bought the scope, but have found it very nice to have a large very visible display on the corner of the bench instead of having to squint at the display on the scope. I need reading glasses to see even the largest integral scope display, but the large display that I keep on the corner of the bench is far enough away that I don't need glasses to view it. I find that very helpful when I'm looking through a microscope (typically without glasses) to connect to a test point, then look up to view the resulting signal with both hands busy.

2. On the Agilent 3000 and 6000 what is the maximum external display resolution supported by the VGA output (is it the same resolution as the scope display or can either the 3000 or 6000 "VGA" adpater support higher resolutions than what is supported by the scope display)?

Identical. I use a 1440x900 native resolution display, and surprisingly, it does a very good job of converting the 1024x768 signal. There is virtually no visible artifact from the conversion.

3. Do the signals from the VGA port render on an external PC display as fast as they render on the scope display, or is their some lag?

No lag whatsoever.

[Electro Fan]

2) On the X-2000 series (and I believe its the same on the X-3000 series) the resolution outputted from the VGA out is the same as the screen res. Sadly.

Seems like on the next gen of scopes Agilent (and other manufacturers) should enable users to to drive higher resolutions with external displays.  By leveraging external adapter and display technology it shouldn't cost all that much to support a range of considerably higher resolutions.  Users could add whatever screen size they prefer to accomodate lots of signals for LA applications; or just provide better viewing for even a few signals for user's with lesser/older eye sight, or for multiple users in teaching environments or collaborative environments.

In the meantime, it appears that either an Agilent 6000 or 3000 series scope would be excellent   (If anyone has any more "compares and contrasts" between the 6000 and 3000, please let us know.  Thx)