New Tek Scope - MDO4000C

[tautech]

There has already been this case. LeCroy WaveStation 3162 is rebadged Siglent SDG5162 (or similar). Are these instruments also full of bugs? I don't remember.
Well, maybe LeCroy guys did a firmware modification...

It is and this is the correct image:

[Wuerstchenhund]

There has already been this case. LeCroy WaveStation 3162 is rebadged Siglent SDG5162 (or similar). Are these instruments also full of bugs? I don't remember.
Well, maybe LeCroy guys did a firmware modification...

LeCroy WaveAce are rebadged Siglent SDS1000 scopes, and the WaveStation AWGs are rebadged Siglent AWGs, all made by Siglent for LeCroy. All run a special version of the original Siglent firmware, just modified for version numbering and color palette. LeCroy does not do anything to the hardware or software, it's all made by Siglent.

The reason they did this is because LeCroy is a high end manufacturer and as such not really interested in the low end market, however they still want to have a certain brand presence there.

The first WaveAce scopes (WaveAce 100/200) back in 2010 or so which were rebadged Siglent SDS1000CL scopes pretty much backfired, as the scopes were horribly buggy so that LeCroy had to take many of them back because Siglent couldn't fix the many firmware issues in a timely manner. It put off a lot of customers back then. The newer SDS1000 rebadges are better but still in my opinion not worth the money.

If you want such a scope or such an AWG then just buy the Siglent original for half the price or less.

[Wuerstchenhund]

What makes you think the OWON rebadge does not meet its spec?

It might well, actually.  But meeting the stated specs is something that, as I recall, people have raised skepticism about with respect to the Chinese brands, and OWON seems to be generally regarded as even worse than Rigol or Siglent.

Really? Who has? I know people regularly raise the issue of bugs, which is not surprising considering the state Rigol and especially Siglent throw kit on the market. I can't remember anyone raising the question of spec compliance, which shouldn't be an issue for any kit, because the spec is written by the manufacturer who can specify tolerances as wide as he wants to.

And who said big brand gear doesn't have firmware bugs?

I was being facetious.  Guess that didn't come through.

The claim is (loosely paraphrased) that Chinese test gear is buggy crap, and that if one doesn't want buggy crap, one will have to buy gear of a reputable brand, and that one will "get what one pays for".  I've not seen anyone placing Tektronix in the same league as Siglent or Rigol, and they do have a reputation (dated as it may be), so I think it's reasonable to presume that Tektronix is one of the brands being referred to as "reputable".

"You get what you pay for" is still true, and a reputable brand will in general make sure that if you encounter a bug that it either gets fixed quickly or find another solution. Most of the B-brands don't give a damn about fixing stuff in a timely manner.

Take that Tek OWON rebagde. It's made by OWON but still it will be supported under Tek's support infrastructure, which most likely will exceed the support period OWON grants for the original product. Or look at LeCroy's Siglent rebadge scopes (WaveAce). Like with all LeCroy scopes, they will support them for 7 years after end of production. You really believe Siglent will do that for the SDS1000CFL?

There's a lot more to test equipment than just who makes the device. Well, at least if you use the stuff professionally. I guess for a hobbyist who dabbles with electronics in his living room stuff like support probably doesn't matter much, and for them I guess what the B-brands offer is fine. But that is a pretty small part of the T&M market.

The brand may influence the probability of that, but that's all you can say about it now.

The brand gives you a generally idea as to how mature a new device will very likely be.

Such as the OWON sourced AWGs being discussed here?   

Do you have any evidence that shows that this OWON device isn't mature? As I said, I'm not very familiar with OWON but I believe this AWG was on the market for quite a while before Tek decided to rebadge it. And I do remember that most of the criticism with OWON in this forum is about hardware quality and UI, and not about excessive firmware bugs.

I.e. with Siglent, it very likely will be a bug-fest (just look at the SSA3000X thread, they released another device with embarrassing bugs).

Yes.  Likely.  It's a probability thing, not a guarantee.

Well, as I said, the just released their new spectrum analyzers (SSA3000X) with some really embarrassing bugs. Last time I looked, the SDS2000 firmware is still immature and buggy, and that after more than two years on the market.

I know of no bugs in my Siglent SDS1102CML, and that is still being sold new.

Yes, the SDS1000CML doesn't have many bugs (I found two or so when I had one). But this scope has been on the market for how many years now? Plus it's one of the models rebadged by LeCroy, and after the WaveAce 100/200 aka SDS1000CL mess they push Siglent hard to fix issues with the gear LeCroy rebadges.

With Tek, it's pretty much hit and miss, even with Tek designed devices, as neither firmware quality nor their support aren't particular great and haven't been for quite a while. Still, they are way better than anything Siglent or Rigol offers.

"Way better", eh?   Isn't that going to depend on the specific device in question? 

Tek may make a lot of mistakes, but I don't think you'll find anything with a Tek label with similar design flaws:

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/project-yaigol-fixing-rigol-scope-design-problems/

Actually, you're unlikely to find such idiotic design errors in any big brand kit.

That's really the point here with this particular example.  Here we have a case where the hardware is ostensibly identical between the two units, and the firmware appears to be maintained by the OEM instead of the company whose name brand graces the more expensive version.

Are you really sure the Tektronix version is "way better" than the OWON version?

Don't know. On the other hand, is the OWON version really that bad? Does it even contain as many bugs as the various Siglent AWGs for example?

My main point here is that the rebranding of Chinese gear by major players introduces a variable in this whole equation.  You can no longer definitively say that a product from a major brand will be better than a competing product from a Chinese brand.  It's now down to the specific pieces of hardware that are being compared against each other.  While there may be a statistical correlation between brand and quality, it is statistical only.  And note, too, that I'm not really defending the Chinese manufacturers in all this.  I'm fully aware of the tradeoff between firmware quality and cost, and why firmware quality is compromised when the cost is driven low enough.

I already told you that there is more to T&M gear than just the device. You're completely ignoring the support part.

Second, even if a big brand rebadges B-brand gear, the chance that this gear will be somewhat mature are still much higher than for B-brand kit that isn't rebadged by some big brand. Simply because the big brand has something the B-brand doesn't, a good reputation and buildup of customer trust. That means a big brand will generally be very protective of their brand image, and make sure that there is little that can tarnish that. One of this is keeping the finger on the B-brand that makes the kit, and make sure that the device works reliably before its allowed to carry the big brand name.

In addition, the big brands do know pretty well how important the software side of a product is. The B-brands still see software as an afterthought and of minor relevance. I guess the fact that software piracy is rampant in China is one of the reason software is seen as worthless. Which does show in the way the Chinese B-brands treat the software side.

Also, Tek isn't new to the whole rebadge thing, they have done it on various occasions for many years. So I'd assume they just didn't pick any cheap crap to carry their label.

And this raises a potentially important question: can OWON take the fixes they make for Tektronix and include them in their own firmware?  If so, then that makes their own version of the instrument potentially a real bargain, because you then get the same functionality and reliability of the Tektronix version for half the price.

Probably. I mean, it's the case with LeCroy and Siglent (you could even run the LeCroy firmware on Siglent devices). On the other side, the OWON original still gives you only OWON support, as buying the Siglent device only gives you Siglent support. In addition, there may well be internal hardware differences (i.e. higher quality parts or other improvements) between the rebadge version and the original.

I.e. you get what you pay for.

[nctnico]

In addition, the big brands do know pretty well how important the software side of a product is. The B-brands still see software as an afterthought and of minor relevance. I guess the fact that software piracy is rampant in China is one of the reason software is seen as worthless. Which does show in the way the Chinese B-brands treat the software side.

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

[kcbrown]

It might well, actually.  But meeting the stated specs is something that, as I recall, people have raised skepticism about with respect to the Chinese brands, and OWON seems to be generally regarded as even worse than Rigol or Siglent.

Really? Who has? I know people regularly raise the issue of bugs, which is not surprising considering the state Rigol and especially Siglent throw kit on the market. I can't remember anyone raising the question of spec compliance, which shouldn't be an issue for any kit, because the spec is written by the manufacturer who can specify tolerances as wide as he wants to.

I think I must have been thinking in terms of multimeters meeting their stated CAT ratings.  My memory is quite horrid.   

I think you can disregard that part of the discussion, since it's not really applicable here.

The claim is (loosely paraphrased) that Chinese test gear is buggy crap, and that if one doesn't want buggy crap, one will have to buy gear of a reputable brand, and that one will "get what one pays for".  I've not seen anyone placing Tektronix in the same league as Siglent or Rigol, and they do have a reputation (dated as it may be), so I think it's reasonable to presume that Tektronix is one of the brands being referred to as "reputable".

"You get what you pay for" is still true, and a reputable brand will in general make sure that if you encounter a bug that it either gets fixed quickly or find another solution. Most of the B-brands don't give a damn about fixing stuff in a timely manner.

Take that Tek OWON rebagde. It's made by OWON but still it will be supported under Tek's support infrastructure, which most likely will exceed the support period OWON grants for the original product. Or look at LeCroy's Siglent rebadge scopes (WaveAce). Like with all LeCroy scopes, they will support them for 7 years after end of production. You really believe Siglent will do that for the SDS1000CFL?

That is true, of course.  However, as regards the OWON unit, it clearly inherits the benefits of having a name brand sibling.  So while I agree with you in general regarding firmware, I don't know that it applies here.

That suggests that if you're looking for good new test equipment for cheap, your best bet is to find a Chinese unit that has a name brand sibling.

There's a lot more to test equipment than just who makes the device. Well, at least if you use the stuff professionally. I guess for a hobbyist who dabbles with electronics in his living room stuff like support probably doesn't matter much, and for them I guess what the B-brands offer is fine. But that is a pretty small part of the T&M market.

You know, I wonder if that is really the case.  Yeah, it'll be true of the higher end equipment (hobbyists don't bother with that in general), but the lower end of the market is much more likely to be dominated by hobbyists than by professionals, I'd wager.

The brand gives you a generally idea as to how mature a new device will very likely be.

Yes.  However, it's by no means the only thing that will.  The age of the model is also an indication, and whether or not it has a major name brand sibling (if it's not a name brand device already) may also give some indication.

Do you have any evidence that shows that this OWON device isn't mature? As I said, I'm not very familiar with OWON but I believe this AWG was on the market for quite a while before Tek decided to rebadge it. And I do remember that most of the criticism with OWON in this forum is about hardware quality and UI, and not about excessive firmware bugs.

I thought it was a bit of each, actually, but regardless, I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that this device was relatively new.  I didn't bother to go look, however, so you may well be right here.

I know of no bugs in my Siglent SDS1102CML, and that is still being sold new.

Yes, the SDS1000CML doesn't have many bugs (I found two or so when I had one). But this scope has been on the market for how many years now? Plus it's one of the models rebadged by LeCroy, and after the WaveAce 100/200 aka SDS1000CL mess they push Siglent hard to fix issues with the gear LeCroy rebadges.

I wasn't aware it had been rebadged in that way.  That's very interesting, and could well explain the lack of idiotic bugs.

That's really the point here with this particular example.  Here we have a case where the hardware is ostensibly identical between the two units, and the firmware appears to be maintained by the OEM instead of the company whose name brand graces the more expensive version.

Are you really sure the Tektronix version is "way better" than the OWON version?

Don't know. On the other hand, is the OWON version really that bad? Does it even contain as many bugs as the various Siglent AWGs for example?

With Tektronix as one of the inputs into the firmware maintenance process, I suspect its firmware is rather better.

What bugs exist in the Siglent SDG1000 series AWGs?

My main point here is that the rebranding of Chinese gear by major players introduces a variable in this whole equation.  You can no longer definitively say that a product from a major brand will be better than a competing product from a Chinese brand.  It's now down to the specific pieces of hardware that are being compared against each other.  While there may be a statistical correlation between brand and quality, it is statistical only.  And note, too, that I'm not really defending the Chinese manufacturers in all this.  I'm fully aware of the tradeoff between firmware quality and cost, and why firmware quality is compromised when the cost is driven low enough.

I already told you that there is more to T&M gear than just the device. You're completely ignoring the support part.

Yes, that's intentional.  My focus is on the quality of the unit itself.  Good support is always something you end up having to pay for.

Second, even if a big brand rebadges B-brand gear, the chance that this gear will be somewhat mature are still much higher than for B-brand kit that isn't rebadged by some big brand.

Right.  That's my point.

And this raises a potentially important question: can OWON take the fixes they make for Tektronix and include them in their own firmware?  If so, then that makes their own version of the instrument potentially a real bargain, because you then get the same functionality and reliability of the Tektronix version for half the price.

Probably. I mean, it's the case with LeCroy and Siglent (you could even run the LeCroy firmware on Siglent devices). On the other side, the OWON original still gives you only OWON support, as buying the Siglent device only gives you Siglent support. In addition, there may well be internal hardware differences (i.e. higher quality parts or other improvements) between the rebadge version and the original.

Well, since meeting the specs isn't a problem, it follows that if there is a hardware difference, it will either affect the overall reliability of the unit, or the published specs of the B-brand version will be worse.  I don't know which would be the case here in the OWON versus Tek comparison.

I.e. you get what you pay for.

Once you factor in support, I suppose so.  How good is Tek's support these days?

In any case, the support angle with respect to the firmware is, under the conditions above, a relatively minor advantage for the general prospective purchaser who is considering, e.g., the OWON unit versus the Tek unit.  The reason is that for that support to make any real difference, the bug in question would have to be something that you would find and that someone with the Tek unit wouldn't find.

[Helix70]

The reason they did this is because LeCroy is a high end manufacturer and as such not really interested in the low end market, however they still want to have a certain brand presence there.

This is contradictory, and, well, rubbish. Take it back and try again.

[Wuerstchenhund]

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

It might be that this lack of SE experience is the reason for Chinese software being crap, but then I wonder why they just don't buy in the expertise? Just take Siglent, by now they must be aware that pretty much everything they release comes with lots of idiotic bugs. So I wonder, if they do consider software a valuable part, why not bring in someone who sorts that out? They must know that offering buggy stuff isn't good for business.

[Wuerstchenhund]

The reason they did this is because LeCroy is a high end manufacturer and as such not really interested in the low end market, however they still want to have a certain brand presence there.

This is contradictory, and, well, rubbish. Take it back and try again.

No, it's not. I know for certain that LeCroy has not much interest in the low end segment, they're not interested in dominating that market, and don't want to invest much money there. Still, showing a certain presence helps brand awareness, so they have Siglent rebadge some low end kit for them.

It's pretty much the same reason Keysight has the DSO1000 and Tek that OWON-made AWG. To show presence in a part of the market that isn't important enough to invest own development ressources.

That's a pretty common thing, not just in the T&M industry.

For LeCroy, getting the name out was even more important, because unlike HPAK and Tek they simply didn't have (and still don't have, although its getting better) the wide brand recognition. LeCroy scopes were pretty much only known by people that work with high end stuff. Just have a look at some of the old threads where someone was looking to buy a new scope. The typical recommendations were pretty much Agilent, Tek, maybe Hameg, plus the B-brands Rigol and Siglent. LeCroy was often not even on the RADAR.

[Wuerstchenhund]

The claim is (loosely paraphrased) that Chinese test gear is buggy crap, and that if one doesn't want buggy crap, one will have to buy gear of a reputable brand, and that one will "get what one pays for".  I've not seen anyone placing Tektronix in the same league as Siglent or Rigol, and they do have a reputation (dated as it may be), so I think it's reasonable to presume that Tektronix is one of the brands being referred to as "reputable".

"You get what you pay for" is still true, and a reputable brand will in general make sure that if you encounter a bug that it either gets fixed quickly or find another solution. Most of the B-brands don't give a damn about fixing stuff in a timely manner.

Take that Tek OWON rebagde. It's made by OWON but still it will be supported under Tek's support infrastructure, which most likely will exceed the support period OWON grants for the original product. Or look at LeCroy's Siglent rebadge scopes (WaveAce). Like with all LeCroy scopes, they will support them for 7 years after end of production. You really believe Siglent will do that for the SDS1000CFL?

That is true, of course.  However, as regards the OWON unit, it clearly inherits the benefits of having a name brand sibling.  So while I agree with you in general regarding firmware, I don't know that it applies here.

Maybe, maybe not. The thing with Tek is that their support these days isn't much to write home about, at least in terms of big brands. And I have no idea how good or bad OWON support is.

That suggests that if you're looking for good new test equipment for cheap, your best bet is to find a Chinese unit that has a name brand sibling.

Sure. If you don't need the support you get from a big brand then buying a B-brand device that is also rebaded by a big brand should give you a good instrument at low costs.

There's a lot more to test equipment than just who makes the device. Well, at least if you use the stuff professionally. I guess for a hobbyist who dabbles with electronics in his living room stuff like support probably doesn't matter much, and for them I guess what the B-brands offer is fine. But that is a pretty small part of the T&M market.

You know, I wonder if that is really the case.  Yeah, it'll be true of the higher end equipment (hobbyists don't bother with that in general), but the lower end of the market is much more likely to be dominated by hobbyists than by professionals, I'd wager.

For the lower entry level/bottom-of-the-barrel you're certainly right, it's probably mostly hobbyists and one man shops that buy these scopes. That's at least what I can see (scopes below $5k are a pretty small number compared to more expensive ones).

The brand gives you a generally idea as to how mature a new device will very likely be.

Yes.  However, it's by no means the only thing that will.  The age of the model is also an indication, and whether or not it has a major name brand sibling (if it's not a name brand device already) may also give some indication.

Age (i.e. in a sense that an older device that is on the market for longer is more mature) generally doesn't play as big a role with big brand gear as it does with B-brand kit. Most reputable brands avoid releasing a product under their name in a bug ridden state.

Do you have any evidence that shows that this OWON device isn't mature? As I said, I'm not very familiar with OWON but I believe this AWG was on the market for quite a while before Tek decided to rebadge it. And I do remember that most of the criticism with OWON in this forum is about hardware quality and UI, and not about excessive firmware bugs.

I thought it was a bit of each, actually, but regardless, I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that this device was relatively new.  I didn't bother to go look, however, so you may well be right here.

Well, as I said I don't know OWON, and I, too, can't be arsed to check  but in general the big brands don't rebagde completely new B-brand gear but only stuff that has been on the market for a while, which means the state in terms of bugs etc is already known.

I know of no bugs in my Siglent SDS1102CML, and that is still being sold new.

Yes, the SDS1000CML doesn't have many bugs (I found two or so when I had one). But this scope has been on the market for how many years now? Plus it's one of the models rebadged by LeCroy, and after the WaveAce 100/200 aka SDS1000CL mess they push Siglent hard to fix issues with the gear LeCroy rebadges.

I wasn't aware it had been rebadged in that way.  That's very interesting, and could well explain the lack of idiotic bugs.

The same is true for SDG1000 and SDG5000 (both rebadged as LeCroy WaveStation). btw.

That's really the point here with this particular example.  Here we have a case where the hardware is ostensibly identical between the two units, and the firmware appears to be maintained by the OEM instead of the company whose name brand graces the more expensive version.

Are you really sure the Tektronix version is "way better" than the OWON version?

Don't know. On the other hand, is the OWON version really that bad? Does it even contain as many bugs as the various Siglent AWGs for example?

With Tektronix as one of the inputs into the firmware maintenance process, I suspect its firmware is rather better.

I would hope so. But don't forget we're talking about a Danaher company here, so it's entirely possible that they don't care much for what state the firmware is 

What bugs exist in the Siglent SDG1000 series AWGs?

I don't know what bugs still exist, but considering that the SDG1000 is also sold as LeCroy rebadge I guess there aren't many left. But that wasn't always the case, when Siglent released the SDG1000 it had a number of annoying and silly bugs, including a hardware design flaw (fixed in later revisions). It seems that when LeCroy rebadged the unit the bugs got fixed pretty quickly.

The SDG5000 was also not bug-free when it came out, but again these days I'd guess it should be fine as again it's also sold as a LeCroy rebadge.

The new SDG2000X again came out with various bugs, but so far it's not rebadged by anyone so it seems bug fixing takes the typical backburner status.

How good is Tek's support these days?

Well, in my experience it's the least good support of any big brand I know.

[pxl]

The new SDG2000X again came out with various bugs, but so far it's not rebadged by anyone so it seems bug fixing takes the typical backburner status.

As far as I know it got several new firmwares already, they address the issues frequently. I don't know whether these were minor fixes or rectify serious issues.

[D3f1ant]

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

[Wuerstchenhund]

You would assume that if a A brand picks a particular B brand to sell as their own that they would have done some due diligence and tested it fairly thoroughly, seems this is not always the case. This rebranding is of more benefit to the B brand. Perception is your getting something good enough to branded a A when you pay for that B, but IMO it just devalues the A brand.

Not necessarily, but yes, the danger is always there that the B-brand gear might tarnish your big brand. LeCroy made the experience when they rebadged Siglent SDS1000CL scopes as WaveAce 100/200 and customers got pissed off because they were so buggy. It wasn't the first time LeCroy has rebadged stuff, but before then they rebadged Iwatsu kit which was high quality, reliable gear. They learned that B-brands need a lot more supervision the hard way.

But there are also advantages in working with a B-brand. For example, LeCroy has worked with Siglent on their WaveSurfer 3000 scope, with Siglent manufacturing the hardware only, and LeCroy developing the software. The result is a very nice scope with lots of features you can't find in any competitor's scope, and at a price much lower than any other similar big brand scope.

Do Keysight or R&S sell anything (besides probes) that they haven't designed and manufactured themselves?

Sure, the Keysight DSO1000 for example. Or some of their older AWGs and RF test sets. There's probably more.

I'm not aware of R&S rebadging anything, aside from what was formerly Hameg (which isn't exactly a B-brand).

[D3f1ant]

On a side note, its a pity so many threads end up like this one. While its sometimes interesting, its way off topic and ending as yet another A brand vs B brand discussion.

[tautech]

On a side note, its a pity so many threads end up like this one. While its sometimes interesting, its way off topic and ending as yet another A brand vs B brand discussion.

+1
If only its content was accurate.

[Wuerstchenhund]

On a side note, its a pity so many threads end up like this one. While its sometimes interesting, its way off topic and ending as yet another A brand vs B brand discussion.

In what direction do you believe this thread would have gone if there hadn't been "distractions"? If you believe there is something else to say about another Tek's rehash of a stale product that hasn't already been said go ahead, no-one's stopping you. 

But it's pretty natural for a forum that threads develop in a slightly different direction, especially when the original topic is as mundane as this one. That's why it's called a forum. But just a thread veneered off slightly doesn't mean it can never go back on topic, provided there's still stuff left to discuss that topic.

If you prefer an environment which doesn't stray from the original topic then do a blog.

[Helix70]

The reason they did this is because LeCroy is a high end manufacturer and as such not really interested in the low end market, however they still want to have a certain brand presence there.

This is contradictory, and, well, rubbish. Take it back and try again.

No, it's not. I know for certain that LeCroy has not much interest in the low end segment, they're not interested in dominating that market, and don't want to invest much money there. Still, showing a certain presence helps brand awareness, so they have Siglent rebadge some low end kit for them.

It's pretty much the same reason Keysight has the DSO1000 and Tek that OWON-made AWG. To show presence in a part of the market that isn't important enough to invest own development ressources.

That's a pretty common thing, not just in the T&M industry.

For LeCroy, getting the name out was even more important, because unlike HPAK and Tek they simply didn't have (and still don't have, although its getting better) the wide brand recognition. LeCroy scopes were pretty much only known by people that work with high end stuff. Just have a look at some of the old threads where someone was looking to buy a new scope. The typical recommendations were pretty much Agilent, Tek, maybe Hameg, plus the B-brands Rigol and Siglent. LeCroy was often not even on the RADAR.

Nope. You are just wrong. If a company is not interested in a market, they don't sell a product into it.

[Wuerstchenhund]

Nope. You are just wrong. If a company is not interested in a market, they don't sell a product into it.

Having worked for companies that did exactly that in the past, and on bringing some of such "me, too" products to market, I can ensure you that you're wrong.

[kcbrown]

That is true, of course.  However, as regards the OWON unit, it clearly inherits the benefits of having a name brand sibling.  So while I agree with you in general regarding firmware, I don't know that it applies here.

Maybe, maybe not. The thing with Tek is that their support these days isn't much to write home about, at least in terms of big brands. And I have no idea how good or bad OWON support is.

Um, wait.  Doesn't this introduce the possibility (unlikely as it may be) that OWON support is better than Tek support?   

Yes.  However, it's by no means the only thing that will.  The age of the model is also an indication, and whether or not it has a major name brand sibling (if it's not a name brand device already) may also give some indication.

Age (i.e. in a sense that an older device that is on the market for longer is more mature) generally doesn't play as big a role with big brand gear as it does with B-brand kit. Most reputable brands avoid releasing a product under their name in a bug ridden state.

That's true, of course.  It would be most interesting to see data on number of bugs versus time on the market for various instruments of the same type and rough capability (e.g., oscilloscopes in the 200 MHz range), to see if there's some sort of convergence.

With Tektronix as one of the inputs into the firmware maintenance process, I suspect its firmware is rather better.

I would hope so. But don't forget we're talking about a Danaher company here, so it's entirely possible that they don't care much for what state the firmware is 

Well, if they don't even care about that, then that introduces the possibility of a bug list more akin to that of a typical Chinese product.  And if their support isn't terribly good either, then what exactly are you paying twice the price for?  At that point you might well be getting the typical Chinese product at big brand prices, and thus wouldn't be getting what you pay for...

The new SDG2000X again came out with various bugs, but so far it's not rebadged by anyone so it seems bug fixing takes the typical backburner status.

I dunno, I don't get that impression at all when reading the SDG2042X thread.   I do agree that the initial bug list was rather striking, but the remaining bug list appears relatively minimal if my reading of that thread is correct.

[Wuerstchenhund]

Maybe, maybe not. The thing with Tek is that their support these days isn't much to write home about, at least in terms of big brands. And I have no idea how good or bad OWON support is.

Um, wait.  Doesn't this introduce the possibility (unlikely as it may be) that OWON support is better than Tek support?   

Yes, of course. And it's maybe not even that unlikely. Tek support has really declined a lot since the old days.

Age (i.e. in a sense that an older device that is on the market for longer is more mature) generally doesn't play as big a role with big brand gear as it does with B-brand kit. Most reputable brands avoid releasing a product under their name in a bug ridden state.

That's true, of course.  It would be most interesting to see data on number of bugs versus time on the market for various instruments of the same type and rough capability (e.g., oscilloscopes in the 200 MHz range), to see if there's some sort of convergence.

I agree, that's a very interesting field that needs some research. The only limitation I can see is that today's B-brand and with it cheap test gear hasn't been really around for that long (I think Siglent's first scope came out in 2001 or so?). And because B-brands, although it's getting better now, regularly do a very poor job at recording bugs/problems, getting a reliable data basis will be very difficult.

With Tektronix as one of the inputs into the firmware maintenance process, I suspect its firmware is rather better.

I would hope so. But don't forget we're talking about a Danaher company here, so it's entirely possible that they don't care much for what state the firmware is 

Well, if they don't even care about that, then that introduces the possibility of a bug list more akin to that of a typical Chinese product.  And if their support isn't terribly good either, then what exactly are you paying twice the price for?

With Tek? I honestly don't know.

At that point you might well be getting the typical Chinese product at big brand prices, and thus wouldn't be getting what you pay for...

Possibly.

The real issue here is that Tek, as it is today, is probably the worst representation of a big brand. Even the kit they develop themselves is mediocre at best, overpriced, and regularly full of issues of its own (i.e. crashes, or the UI locking up when the scope gets busy but Tek considers this a feature), and the support is also below par what you get with other big brands.

I would not buy anything from Tek, not even their own kit let alone stuff they rebadge (most of my customers do the same). So if I wanted something like this OWON generator then I most certainly would buy the cheaper OWON original.

But that's because it's Tek. If it was Keysight or another reputable big brand which delivers great service and support, then I might be convinced to pay more for the big brand counterpart over the cheaper original. How much depends on how valueable service and support are to me (a lot if its for business use, a lot less if it was just for a simple hobby project).

The new SDG2000X again came out with various bugs, but so far it's not rebadged by anyone so it seems bug fixing takes the typical backburner status.

I dunno, I don't get that impression at all when reading the SDG2042X thread.   I do agree that the initial bug list was rather striking, but the remaining bug list appears relatively minimal if my reading of that thread is correct.

Don't forget that this generator is pretty new and certainly not yet out in big numbers. I'd give it some time until this thing has been used by a wider user base and in more varying circumstances, and I'm sure we'll see more bugs popping up.

[pxl]

One of the main concerns about B brand devices is the erratic quality regarding hw/sw side. Sometimes it is on par with brand devices, sometimes it makes totally unusable for the purpose.

Luckily, we have these forums, which greatly can reduce the risk. After that we have all these information (regarding the sdg2000x the build quality is top notch, there are no deal breaker issues in firmware, the specs are pretty good) these are not worst than any of the branded devices by any means (for hobby/small lab users).

Of course risks remain to an extent, so as with any of the acknowledged brands.

I bought sdg2042x without any doubts, but I would not buy the siglent scopes based on the information I have from these forums.

[Helix70]

Nope. You are just wrong. If a company is not interested in a market, they don't sell a product into it.

Having worked for companies that did exactly that in the past, and on bringing some of such "me, too" products to market, I can ensure you that you're wrong.

Perhaps you didn't care, or the engineers didn't care, but someone at the company cares. Marketing is part of the company too. If no one cares, it is too much effort. Perhaps you need to lift your eyes a bit.

[Wuerstchenhund]

Nope. You are just wrong. If a company is not interested in a market, they don't sell a product into it.

Having worked for companies that did exactly that in the past, and on bringing some of such "me, too" products to market, I can ensure you that you're wrong.

Perhaps you didn't care, or the engineers didn't care, but someone at the company cares. Marketing is part of the company too. If no one cares, it is too much effort. Perhaps you need to lift your eyes a bit.

Maybe you should follow your own advice, get a involved in the non-engineering parts of very large businesses (something I've been doing for roughly the last two decades), and you'll see that things aren't as black and white as you imagine.

[Hydrawerk]

Is this an original Tektronix design? http://www.tek.com/signal-generator/afg2000-function-generator

[Wuerstchenhund]

Is this an original Tektronix design? http://www.tek.com/signal-generator/afg2000-function-generator

Yes, Tektronix has designed the label. The rest is OWON 

[coppice]

Is this an original Tektronix design? http://www.tek.com/signal-generator/afg2000-function-generator

Yes, Tektronix has designed the label. The rest is OWON 

That's not quite right. Tektronix obviously chose the colour and texture of the case, and the pattern of the ventilation holes. That's all pure Tek.