Thoughts on MSOS104A vs HDO6104A-MS vs MSO56?

[babryce]

I have to pick a new scope at work, I am currently considering:
MSOS104A
HDO6104A-MS
MSO56 (1 GHz version)

I don't think I will have a chance to use them all before I have to pick. I don't want to cause a flame war or bias anyone with my own research too much.

I'd say analog performance is the most important. I don't expect to need more than 16 digital channels but of course if I did the Tek would win out.

If anyone has used more multiple of these and has some insights it would be welcome. Particularly on the responsiveness with complex measurements on (FFTs, protocols, etc).

Finally I'll dig more but if anyone know if changing trace colors is possible on the scopes, that is also helpful, because Keysight in particular chooses colors for Ch1/2 that I cannot distinguish as someone who is red-green colorblind (at least on the 2000/3000/4000 scopes).

Edit: I perhaps should also consider an RTO2014 with the mixed signal option. These all cost around 25,000 USD.

[Rich@RohdeScopesUSA]

I know you didn’t mention R&S, but our RTO2000 falls in to this category and looks like it might fit your needs perfectly.  Our FFT is super fast (fastest of all the scopes you mentioned), our front-end noise performance is second to none, you can easily change the identification colors of all channels (it even updates the front panel LEDs), we have the fastest update rate for finding infrequent events (1M wfms/sec), the deepest available memory (up to 2Gpts) and the only scope of the three you mentioned that has full bandwidth at all settings (1mV/div and up).

There are lots of people on the forum that have RTOs and can vouch for their responsiveness, performance and low noise, but also don’t hesitate to let me know if you have any questions (or PM me where you’re at and we can get you a demo).

-Rich

[babryce]

I actually just edited it...

[babryce]

How different are the spectrum parts for the RTE vs the RTO. I have an old SMIQ R&S source at home. There is no R&S equipment in my workplace so it might be a harder ask but I certainly am open minded.

[Someone]

You've lumped together a group of similarly priced but radically different scopes, without knowing the specific applications, what other scopes are already in the facility, and why you were considering these its hard to give any advice. The R&S and Tek models you point to are general purpose scopes that are good at many tasks, while the Keysight and Lecroy are focused on analysis of captured data.

The responsivity, knowledge, and assistance provided by the local support for the brands should be a big differentiator as it varies wildly.

[abraxa]

I have to pick a new scope at work [...] I don't think I will have a chance to use them all before I have to pick. [...] These all cost around 25,000 USD.

So the budget is 25k and your deadline is... when? I'm just surprised your company would press you to make such a (potentially costly) decision on the whim, not even giving you time to get a demo or two.

Maybe you can tell us what kind of analysis/fault finding the scope will be used for - some examples would help us giving you more useful feedback. Emphasizing analog performance can mean any use case really, from analog switching analysis over signal integrity over RF to spectrum analysis.

[nctnico]

Lecroy doesn't have peak detect so I wouldn't pick that one. Peak detect is a really useful feature to look at a signal (for example one with bursts) at large time intervals at low samplerates. Without peak detect you'll get a bunch of nonsense on your screen.

[babryce]

You've lumped together a group of similarly priced but radically different scopes, without knowing the specific applications, what other scopes are already in the facility, and why you were considering these its hard to give any advice. The R&S and Tek models you point to are general purpose scopes that are good at many tasks, while the Keysight and Lecroy are focused on analysis of captured data.

I agree they are different. I was actually asked to pick before my first day, before I was even given a first project or had seen what was in the labs. I declined to do that so that I could figure out what piles of active probes and things were around. If anyone wants to compare to another scope that they think is more a direct competitor feel free.

I would like to answer the other questions as well, but I don't think I can with certainty because much of what I will have to remains unclear at this time. I'm certain I will have to track down a lot of EMI issues and have to do precise pulse measurement at some point. Digital stuff I have constrained to < 400 Mbit on differential buses for the foreseeable future.

Feel free to just talk about strengths and weaknesses from your experience with them even if not comparative. Its all helpful. I watched the signal path episodes for ones that existed which of course gives more of a feel than just reading the datasheet/manuals/marketing materials.

[Rich@RohdeScopesUSA]

How different are the spectrum parts for the RTE vs the RTO. I have an old SMIQ R&S source at home. There is no R&S equipment in my workplace so it might be a harder ask but I certainly am open minded.

They are basically identical.  The main differences are in the scopes themselves (like bandwidth, memory depth, etc). 

You mentioned tracking down EMI issues - here are a few resources we have on how to analyze EMI issues that may be helpful:

https://www.rohde-schwarz.com/us/applications/analyze-emi-problems-with-the-r-s-rto-r-s-rte-application-card_56279-46791.html



-Rich

[Keysight DanielBogdanoff]

The S-Series has really good ENOB and analog performance.

The GUI is also pretty intuitive, this might help give you an idea of usability, etc. :



Also, I just played around with one and you can change the channel colors to be whatever RGB value you want (see attached image).

We've also given the FFT some serious work in the last couple years, but I don't have it well documented right now. Best I can do is a grainy pic from the data sheet. But, the peak labels and cursor labels + a bunch of FFT specific measurements make it quite easy to use.
https://literature.cdn.keysight.com/litweb/pdf/5991-3904EN.pdf?id=2447379

I have no idea what this is, but you can see the FFT running:

[GlowingGhoul]

The free market playing out before my very eyes! 

[babryce]

Indeed.

People seem to break the scope market into two very clean groups: general and analysis scopes. Dave said he would not want to use an Infinium S daily/as general use in somewhere in the Tek 5 series thread that I read (where he noted the R&S RTO).

Now I have used things that were clearly high end analysis scopes. I remember using a 40 GSPS single shot Lecroy serial data analyzer in 2007 (?). It certainly wasn't going to be used for everything. It had no 1 Meg impedance settings for instance. However the S-Series does have 1 Meg settings. Is daily usability mostly the update rate for folks? Or how complex it is to setup all the details of a high end scope.

For instance Dave did not like having to pick the record length in his MDO4000 (or maybe it was 3000 video) and liked that Keysight sets it automatically. Having good presets/auto is nice but for almost all of my work I need to know the every setting to know what the trace means.

If anyone wants to articulate why some scopes are not suitable for daily use when on paper they can do everything, I'd be interested to hear the perspective. I can't tell if it is just complexity of the setup or slow update rates or other slowness, etc.

I am getting close to crossing off the Tek offering for lack of maturity. I also cannot find any decode options for certain things I might want in the new few years available. Its good that Keysight lets you change the channel colors on the Infiniium, I hope they will let you do that on the Infinivisions sometime soon (if it was there I never found it).

I don't like LeCroy's 10 GSPS claim on the HDOs, its 2.5 GSPS, interpolation is not a sample. LeCroy's interface which Tek's is starting to look like it pretty mature though, although it does sometimes use up too much screen real estate.

On the LeCroys I am also researching the Waverunner 8000 series (we already have one of these around at least, along with a HDO8000).

[KE5FX]

If anyone wants to articulate why some scopes are not suitable for daily use when on paper they can do everything, I'd be interested to hear the perspective. I can't tell if it is just complexity of the setup or slow update rates or other slowness, etc.

I won't be able to find it now, but in a prior "Which scope should I buy?" thread, there was some discussion of waveform update rate.  I mentioned the ~100K waveforms/sec rate from the MegaZoom ASIC in my MSO6054A as being a reason to consider an Agilent/Keysight model.  Someone then pointed out that the higher-end scopes in the Infinivision Infiniium S lineup -- DSOX4xxx series, maybe? -- could only capture a few hundred waveforms/sec. 

I looked at the data sheet but was unable to find any indication that they were mistaken.  That's a huge deal.  Waveform update rates in the 100K+/sec range are a non-negotiable condition that has to be satisfied before a DSO can claim to replace a lowly analog oscilloscope.

So that would be one case where you need to look very carefully at the specs, and ask pointed questions of the representatives.   A DSO with a lot of dead time between captures may be useful in specific applications, but it will miss important troubleshooting cues if you try to use it as a general-purpose bench scope.  Spending more money on higher-end scope models may not necessarily get you a better scope for your needs.

[jeremy]

I’ve used a MSOS as a daily scope (can’t remember the model, but it was the 4GHz one). There are a ton of features in the software, and it’s an extremely nice unit, but you’d want to do a heck of a lot of analysis to justify the cost of it. I wish I could, I miss that scope You would need to use the touchscreen a lot though (or a mouse), so if you’re a knob fiddler that might be an issue.

Also iirc you can pair two channels for a true differential measurement which was pretty neat.

[Neganur]

[...] Someone then pointed out that the higher-end scopes in the Infinivision lineup -- DSOX4xxx series, maybe? -- could only capture a few hundred waveforms/sec.[...]

the 4k X-series definitely has 1M wfms/s, it's a banner spec right on the first product page.

And if they were referring to segmented memory capture ("[...]segmented memory successfully capturing 1,000 events in 3.27274 seconds[...]" then I think they are nuts because analogue scopes can't even do that kind of acquisition.

[Someone]

If anyone wants to articulate why some scopes are not suitable for daily use when on paper they can do everything, I'd be interested to hear the perspective. I can't tell if it is just complexity of the setup or slow update rates or other slowness, etc.

The larger scopes with a windows backend running all the samples through the PC infrastructure (Lecroy and MSOS) are inherently limited in their sample throughput, this can be a problem when your tasks require low dead time, serial triggering (which is not in a hardware path for these), mask testing/triggering, or averaging repetitive signals. For many applications there are ways this can be worked around with complex triggers, or capturing deep memory and processing after the fact, which is where those scopes are designed for such as accumulating measurements/trends/histograms or eye diagrams from long captures, and then going back through and doing another analysis on that same data (you can buy the Keysight software as a standalone to do the analysis on a computer for instance). You do things differently than you would on a analog or realtime scope which can be limiting for some applications, and opening new possibilities for others.

The traditional reasons to avoid large format scopes of signal noise from unnecessary bandwidth and clunky UIs are dropping away, but the lack of buttons and knobs can still get in the way of some people feeling at home on a scope which is where the R&S has really stood out from this group.

[KE5FX]

[...] Someone then pointed out that the higher-end scopes in the Infinivision lineup -- DSOX4xxx series, maybe? -- could only capture a few hundred waveforms/sec.[...]

the 4k X-series definitely has 1M wfms/s, it's a banner spec right on the first product page.

And if they were referring to segmented memory capture ("[...]segmented memory successfully capturing 1,000 events in 3.27274 seconds[...]" then I think they are nuts because analogue scopes can't even do that kind of acquisition.

Correct, it wasn't the X-series.  The DSO/MSO-S-series Infiniium platform is what the earlier thread was referring to, based on Tek's 5-series comparison sheet.

These are $20K - $100K scopes, according to Shahriar's review.  I would be irritated if I sprung for one of these under the assumption that it was an overall upgrade to my earlier 6000-series Infinivision model.  But I'm sure they'd say that the Infiniiums are simply optimized for specific purposes.

[Neganur]

But I'm sure they'd say that the Infiniiums are simply optimized for specific purposes.

yeah not sure what to say about that. Different models from the same manufacturer are simply...built to serve different purposes, not all Tek are equal, nor Lecroy 
Perhaps the new x-6000 is a better replacement for the old DSO6000 if you want wfms/s, rather than the Infiniium.

[KE5FX]

Perhaps the new x-6000 is a better replacement for the old DSO6000 if you want wfms/s, rather than the Infiniium.

Sure, but the point is, they don't tell you this.  You have to somehow magically know to ask.

[babryce]

I'm still pondering if I need high update rates critically or not. I might not. Given the manufactures only really advertise the max rates, do folks know the rates as a function of what you are measuring well.

For instance; keysight makes a claim about the RTO2000's rates here: https://community.keysight.com/community/keysight-blogs/oscilloscopes/blog/2016/12/07/keysight-s-series-oscilloscopes-vs-the-rto2000-part-2

I don't have the time to borrow them all and test them even if I wanted to.

The RTO/RTE decode bundle is good value, and it has better decode abilities than x-series stuff which is the only ones with similar update rates. Outside of update rate I haven't heard much on what might make one of the let's call them OS driven scopes less usable for daily work.

[KE5FX]

I'm still pondering if I need high update rates critically or not. I might not. Given the manufactures only really advertise the max rates, do folks know the rates as a function of what you are measuring well.

For instance; keysight makes a claim about the RTO2000's rates here: https://community.keysight.com/community/keysight-blogs/oscilloscopes/blog/2016/12/07/keysight-s-series-oscilloscopes-vs-the-rto2000-part-2

I don't have the time to borrow them all and test them even if I wanted to.

The RTO/RTE decode bundle is good value, and it has better decode abilities than x-series stuff which is the only ones with similar update rates. Outside of update rate I haven't heard much on what might make one of the let's call them OS driven scopes less usable for daily work.

They all have high-level OSes.  That's a red herring.  The DSO-X models run Windows CE, one of the less well-regarded solutions when (pseudo-)realtime performance is being discussed.  But their peak waveform update rate is around 10x faster than the previous 6000-series generation.  The latter scopes run VxWorks, which was the contemporary gold standard in the RTOS business.

I'm projecting my own preferences here, which always seems to happen in these threads.   In reality I'm sure the S-series will serve well in any task you'll ever throw at it.  I just find it frustrating that unnecessary compromises like this are still being made.  It's 2018.  Everybody knows how to build fast scopes.  Pro tip to the tier-1 vendors out there: the Chinese know, too.

[babryce]

Of course they have OSes. I simply meant OS exposed to the user sort of scopes vs just an embedded "closed" as Tek put it on the 5 series OS. Sorry I'm trying to give some short hand.

You are correct though there is no real reason that one box could not do all. If I wanted to rant about scopes I'd complain about the cost of decode options. But people like my employer are willing to pay for the cost because it speed up my work.

I personally only buy used test gear for home because its 1/3 of the price of new and rarely has anything wrong with it.

[Someone]

I'm still pondering if I need high update rates critically or not. I might not. Given the manufactures only really advertise the max rates, do folks know the rates as a function of what you are measuring well.

For instance; keysight makes a claim about the RTO2000's rates here: https://community.keysight.com/community/keysight-blogs/oscilloscopes/blog/2016/12/07/keysight-s-series-oscilloscopes-vs-the-rto2000-part-2

Thats a fairly narrow example, showing that the mask testing isn't hardware driven in the RTO, similar drops in acquisition rates would be seen using serial triggers on scopes which do that in software too. There is a reason we always recommend you evaluate a scope in person for the specific applications you have, they're very diverse in their capabilities and no one scope offers it all on one device.

Of course they have OSes. I simply meant OS exposed to the user sort of scopes vs just an embedded "closed" as Tek put it on the 5 series OS. Sorry I'm trying to give some short hand.

You chose the wrong way to split them, most scopes are now processing the data in an FPGA or ASIC, except for the high end of the market which is still sticking to dumping it all to (wide and deep) memory and then processing on a commodity CPU.

[babryce]

To me it seems like the S-Series does a lot of the processing on the ASIC. It only has a single lane PCI-E I think to the CPU. At least the commentary on the signal path thought this was the case. I do recall the older LeCroy's I used doing all the calculations on the regular CPU. On paper at least the S-Series still has the best ASIC in terms of sample rates/resolution and it has an good time base in it by the looks of it as standard.

[Keysight DanielBogdanoff]

The InfiniiVision 6000 X-Series vs. the Infiniium S-Series is essentially where our two main scope lines (and R&D teams) converge. The S-Series is much more of an analysis machine, with all of the Infiniium apps, deep memory, advanced FFT GUI, etc.

The 6000 X-Series is basically for people that want an InfiniiVision oscilloscope that goes up to higher bandwidth and don't want to deal with Windows, specialty analysis applications, etc. It's great scope for more general purpose debugging and has some cool stuff (voice control, multi-touch display, fast update rate, RTE, jitter). It's also a darn cheap and very small 6 GHz scope compared to what else is available. The joke around here is that, since it's 6-inches deep, you get a GHz per inch. 

Overall, I'd recommend the Infiniium, but the 6000X is a great scope for the price - especially if you aren't looking for advanced, windows-based analysis.

I don't think anyone would argue that a Windows based scope (like the S) is quicker to use, because the baked-in UI scopes like the 6000X are designed specifically to be easy to use. Lot's of front panel buttons, etc. But, once you're used to the Infiniium UI it's still pretty quick.