-
I smell a 'hotkeys' feature where you can define a couple of dedicated touch buttons to activate a specific function.Auto trigger level does exist on the Magnova:
Correct! But that's where the only disadvantage of the Magnova's user interface comes into play. if you want to press the this button you have to "activate" the trigger function first because there is no dedicated function button for it. Then select the channel again to manipulate the vertical scaling...
You press the button and it triggers somewhere half the amplitude.
In the end there are a few buttons you want to have direct access to on a DSO. MicSig has several trigger related buttons on their touchscreen only models for that reason.
-
Alternate trigger can be useful every now and then. One of the reasons I keep my GW Instek scope around. It is a rare feature though. One of the downsides is that the traces are not related as they are acquired one by one instead of simultaneously. An interesting option would be to be able to split the screen and have two (or more) grids each with their own time base and trigger source.Hello and Happy New Year to everyone !
I have got a suggestion on the subject of triggers:
The, let's say "very thin" Magnova manual does not give any explanation for the use of triggers - just a list. So I looked at the manuals of other oscilloscope manufacturers and also at Dave's videos on the EEVblog and came across video #685 (https://youtu.be/y5aAjd9YPok).
Not that I have often missed these trigger options so far, but if they are standard elsewhere (even on cheaper devices), I wonder whether it would not be useful or desirable for the Magnova as well.
1. Triggers can usually be coupled AC or DC, although AC coupling is the usual option. This is apparently not possible with the Magnova. The trigger coupling is always "DC", i.e. a selected voltage value. This means that the trigger is lost if I switch between signals with different DC offsets.
2. There is no "alternate" or "OR" trigger (the latter only via pattern trigger). This means that you cannot trigger signals with a runtime difference that would allow the signals to be compared at the same trigger position.
3. Would an alternate timebase be desirable?
Does anyone have an opinion on this?
Regards Thomas
Gents
Besides the discussion about the price (which also applies to myself), does anybody have an opinion on the trigger issues?
Regards Thomas
About trigger levels: A feature I like on the R&S RTM3004 is that pushing the trigger level knob executes an auto-level for the trigger.
A second/alternate time base would of course be the ultimate solution. But I think that would be quite complex to implement...
-
People here tend to compare with the Siglent 2000hd
Sds2204x HD: 200MHz for 2713€
Bmo200: 200MHz for 4461€
If you compare the BMO200 with an SDS824X HD, it's even more expensive...
So where do you start?
What criteria do you use to determine...
200Mhz 12 Bit?
Here you go(prices without VAT):
Rigol DHO4204 2769€
Siglent SDS22204X HD 2713€
Batronix BMO200 3749€
LeCroy WS4024HD 8592€
R&S MXO44 BASC 8600€
Tektronix MSO44B 9099€
The BMO200 is in the stable midfield and not that expensive anymore...
And below and above that, there are umpteen other 12-bit 200Mhz scopes.
I also don't think that Batronix wants to compete with the manufacturers of mass-produced products from the Far East with their scopes.
They can't “win” there.
As I have already mentioned several times, the target group is different.
-
People here tend to compare with the Siglent 2000hd
Sds2204x HD: 200MHz for 2713€
Bmo200: 200MHz for 4461€
If you compare the BMO200 with an SDS824X HD, it's even more expensive...
So where do you start?
What criteria do you use to determine...
200Mhz 12 Bit?
Here you go(prices without VAT):
Rigol DHO4204 2769€
Siglent SDS22204X HD 2713€
Batronix BMO200 3749€
LeCroy WS4024HD 8592€
R&S MXO44 BASC 8600€
Tektronix MSO44B 9099€
The BMO200 is in the stable midfield and not that expensive anymore...
And below and above that, there are umpteen other 12-bit 200Mhz scopes.
I also don't think that Batronix wants to compete with the manufacturers of mass-produced products from the Far East with their scopes.
They can't “win” there.
As I have already mentioned several times, the target group is different.
You have to compare apples to apples.
Branches like Lecroy, R&S, Tek are on a different level in the market and these particular models you mention are not comparable with the Magnova. -
You have to compare apples to apples.
Branches like Lecroy, R&S, Tek are on a different level in the market and these particular models you mention are not comparable with the Magnova.
In what way are they not comparable? -
You have to compare apples to apples.
Branches like Lecroy, R&S, Tek are on a different level in the market and these particular models you mention are not comparable with the Magnova.
In what way are they not comparable?
are they in your opinion?
It would imply that every company that has now has Lecroy, R&S, Tek will no longer buy these brands but only Magnova as they are not only cheaper, but as functional as the well known brands?
what about the track record of the manufacturer?
specific decoders and trigger possibilities?
memory depth?
wfms/s ?
...
-
Branches like Lecroy, R&S, Tek are on a different level in the market and these particular models you mention are not comparable with the Magnova.
Hm?
And why, in your opinion, should the Magnova only be compared with siglent?
They have also been established on the market for quite some time. If it were up to them, the Magnova could only be compared with itself.
So that argument doesn't work.
Of course you can compare manufacturers with each other as long as it is the same product type.
It just doesn't fit into the argument that the Magnova is expensive.
Resolution, bandwidth, number of channels, DSO or MSO.
You can compare these independently of the manufacturer.
12-bit, 200 MHz, 4 channels, MSO.
So, then we have a number of different devices from different manufacturers.
Then it starts: what do I need, how much can I spend?
And then you refine it further.
If you set the maximum price first, say you can spend €3000, then the selection is narrowed down quite a bit...
But that has nothing to do with the fact that other manufacturers are on a “different level” - you just can't afford them.
-
Talking from a customer point of view I think the best comparison criterion is the price. So what do the individual devices in the same price range offer more or less (or better or worse) than the competition.
Alternatively, you can compare devices with the same rough performance values (bandwidth, sample rate, wfm/s, vertical resolution) and see what the same performance costs elsewhere, or what one or the other can do more or less. In this comparison, the Magnova will lose to some East Asian devices, whether Batronix wants to compare itself with them or not. Against the premium brands, on the other hand, the Magnova could "win" in the same price range (if there are any devices in that price range from the „premium“ competition). But that would also have to be looked at more closely. With R&S, for example, I would not take the MXO4, but the RTB or RTM series. The basic models offer more functions than the Magnova (present state) But the software upgrades are massively more expensive... -
are they in your opinion?
It would imply that every company that has now has Lecroy, R&S, Tek will no longer buy these brands but only Magnova as they are not only cheaper, but as functional as the well known brands?
what about the track record of the manufacturer?
specific decoders and trigger possibilities?
memory depth?
wfms/s ?
...
That's a nonsensical argument. Batronix is a well established, and highly respected company. Brand names aren't a part of the comparison, since mojo isn't a measurable factor. Since we're mentioning R&S in this list, do you really think a consumer is going to get better support from R&S than Batronix? If yes, you haven't been paying attention.
Martin's comparison was comparing 200MHz, 12bit scopes with 4 channels. As he said, to compare beyond that, you need to pick specific needs. Magnova is in its infancy, and can already compare on many features, and I think it's safe to assume more in the future.
If you want an honest comparison, make a spreadsheet. Then start comparing the option upgrade pricing. -
Brand names aren't a part of the comparison, since mojo isn't a measurable factor.
While brand names and 'mojo' are not part of a technical performance comparison, they will affect purchasing decisions and market pricing, which is where this discussion started out. Heck, why have people been buying Tek scopes over the past couple of decades, at Tek's asking prices, if not for the brand name?
But I am confused what @Sorama is driving at. On the one hand he seems to argue that the Magnova scopes should be sold cheaper to establish a competitive market price, in view of their tech specs and brand recognition. On the other hand he is complaining that Batronix did reduce the price recently. So which one is it? Make up you mind, mate! -
We have 2 R&S devices, so I know what their support is worth (or not).
Their recent change of support politics is one of the reasons why we went looking at other brands, like Magnova.
They lost me as a (professional) customer. -
Brand names aren't a part of the comparison, since mojo isn't a measurable factor.
While brand names and 'mojo' are not part of a technical performance comparison, they will affect purchasing decisions and market pricing, which is where this discussion started out. Heck, why have people been buying Tek scopes over the past couple of decades, at Tek's asking prices, if not for the brand name?
But I am confused what @Sorama is driving at. On the one hand he seems to argue that the Magnova scopes should be sold cheaper to establish a competitive market price, in view of their tech specs and brand recognition. On the other hand he is complaining that Batronix did reduce the price recently. So which one is it? Make up you mind, mate!
Like you said, brand names do play a major role in purchasing decisions, probably even more than pure technical specs.
About my mind (which I made up a long time ago, don’t worry):
Like I said, forum members tend to compare the Magnova with the Siglent 2000x HD range in terms of technical specs.
That’s why I asked other members here if they can show me another specific scope ( whatever brand it is) that is technically comparable.
Still, no one came up with an answer.Next I would ask you to compare the prices of these scopes with the price of the Magnova.
I don’t care whether they turn out to be more expensive or less expensive.
But if in the end the Siglent 2000HD would be a correct alternative, then all of you have to admit that the price of the Magnova might be problem.
I think that’s one of the reasons there is a price reduction as from now.
But I admit I don’t like this change, because only a few weeks ago it was a completely different story as saying there is an introduction price for a very limited time and then suddenly the (almost) same price is valid for any non commercial entity.
And yes, all of us think/hope that when you buy something in a particular (higher) price class , it is a better device.
That for sure is the driver behind Lecroy, Tek, R&S, Keysight because those who are familiar with the BOM of theses devices, know how big the uplift is.
The same goes for cars and some other categories.
Secondly, if some of those who bought one yet want to sell his Magnova, he will loose quite a lot of money as one can buy a new one for the same money.
For the record, I am not bashing Batronix, they are our favorite distributor and that will remain so.
We even bought the Magnova specifically (although having a quote for a Siglent) because ( apart from a specific technical feature) we want to support Batronix in making this a success as we know very, VERY well how hard/costly it is to manufacture something new and bring it to the market where a lot of well known brands already have a big market share.
Been there done that. -
Correct! But that's where the only disadvantage of the Magnova's user interface comes into play. if you want to press the this button you have to "activate" the trigger function first because there is no dedicated function button for it. Then select the channel again to manipulate the vertical scaling...
I smell a 'hotkeys' feature where you can define a couple of dedicated touch buttons to activate a specific function. In the end there are a few buttons you want to have direct access to on a DSO. MicSig has several trigger related buttons on their touchscreen only models for that reason.
Yeah I'm acutally quite unsure about how I feel about having no physical buttons. Just a quick push on the timebase offset, and BAM trigger point is back to the middle of the screen. A quick click on the vertical position, and BAM signal is again centered around the middle. And so on. Without having been able to test the magnova yet, I just feel that a lot of tasks will be quite annoying and cumbersome with a touch-only interface... -
Correct! But that's where the only disadvantage of the Magnova's user interface comes into play. if you want to press the this button you have to "activate" the trigger function first because there is no dedicated function button for it. Then select the channel again to manipulate the vertical scaling...
I smell a 'hotkeys' feature where you can define a couple of dedicated touch buttons to activate a specific function. In the end there are a few buttons you want to have direct access to on a DSO. MicSig has several trigger related buttons on their touchscreen only models for that reason.
Yeah I'm acutally quite unsure about how I feel about having no physical buttons. Just a quick push on the timebase offset, and BAM trigger point is back to the middle of the screen. A quick click on the vertical position, and BAM signal is again centered around the middle. And so on. Without having been able to test the magnova yet, I just feel that a lot of tasks will be quite annoying and cumbersome with a touch-only interface...
I actually like the user interface very much because it's pretty intuitive - and the touchscreen is really responsive. But yes, in some situations you might have to "touch" twice instead of pressing a hardware button once. I could get used to the idea of a „hotkey feature“ in this regard 😀
In the current case, I only noticed it because I was investigating this AC/DC trigger issue, which by the way doesn't seem to be technically changeable in the Magnova because there is no separate trigger path and triggering is done after the ADC. -
IMHO you can't put it like this. In the end every oscilloscope is unique in one way or another. So each one is more or less suitable for a particular use case.Brand names aren't a part of the comparison, since mojo isn't a measurable factor.
While brand names and 'mojo' are not part of a technical performance comparison, they will affect purchasing decisions and market pricing, which is where this discussion started out. Heck, why have people been buying Tek scopes over the past couple of decades, at Tek's asking prices, if not for the brand name?
But I am confused what @Sorama is driving at. On the one hand he seems to argue that the Magnova scopes should be sold cheaper to establish a competitive market price, in view of their tech specs and brand recognition. On the other hand he is complaining that Batronix did reduce the price recently. So which one is it? Make up you mind, mate!
Like you said, brand names do play a major role in purchasing decisions, probably even more than pure technical specs.
About my mind (which I made up a long time ago, don’t worry):
Like I said, forum members tend to compare the Magnova with the Siglent 2000x HD range in terms of technical specs.
That’s why I asked other members here if they can show me another specific scope ( whatever brand it is) that is technically comparable.
Still, no one came up with an answer.Next I would ask you to compare the prices of these scopes with the price of the Magnova.
I don’t care whether they turn out to be more expensive or less expensive.
But if in the end the Siglent 2000HD would be a correct alternative, then all of you have to admit that the price of the Magnova might be problem.
-
Even without physical buttons this is achievable by adding button fields on the touchscreen when specific features or settings are activated.
Like I mentioned in the very beginning of this topic, I do feel the UI should be polished.
Still no color of the values representing the channel.
Every time I have to look/search for what channel is this value or setting.
Sometimes there is twice the ‘wheel’ for setting the same thing.
Waste of screen space and definitely confusing.
Text size of some settings should be bigger, difficult to read from a distance.
… -
I don’t care whether they turn out to be more expensive or less expensive.
But if in the end the Siglent 2000HD would be a correct alternative, then all of you have to admit that the price of the Magnova might be problem.
For the sake of argument let's say it is the exact equivalent feature set of the 2000X HD. So what? They're still not the same thing. The Magnova screen alone is a reason you might want to spend more if that's a feature you desire. I own the 2000X HD, and it's a wonderful scope. But I sure as hell would prefer it had a larger full HD screen.QuoteI think that’s one of the reasons there is a price reduction as from now.
But I admit I don’t like this change, because only a few weeks ago it was a completely different story as saying there is an introduction price for a very limited time and then suddenly the (almost) same price is valid for any non commercial entity.
So, would you prefer to have waited on your purchase, and spent 200 euros more?QuoteAnd yes, all of us think/hope that when you buy something in a particular (higher) price class , it is a better device.
Better than what? How? The scope has one of the best screens available anywhere. If the screen is the most important thing to a buyer, then the Magnova wins against most significantly higher priced scopes including the ugly AF HD3. -
Hello,
a competitor is the Micsig MHO3, which is not only cheaper, but also better in some features. E.g. 3 Gpts/s against 1.6 Gpts/s, two times 360 Mpts against 320 Mpts, 1920x1200 against 1920x1080 resolution.
Best regards
egonotto
-
that particular scope (I know you have one), was on the whish list too, but math functions are limited.
which one do you like the most: the micsig or your 3000hd ? -
that particular scope (I know you have one), was on the whish list too, but math functions are limited.
which one do you like the most: the micsig or your 3000hd ?
Hello,
yes, the math functions in the MHO3 are quite poor. Perhaps a small compensation for this is that data can be transferred very quickly from the internal memory to the PC via LAN (FTP). I achieve 100 MB/s .
I'm more of a collector and I'm glad that I have the MHO3 and the SDS3000X HD.
To get a rating, you would need a specific task. I don't have one.
Best regards
egonotto
-
Hello,
a competitor is the Micsig MHO3, which is not only cheaper, but also better in some features. E.g. 3 Gpts/s against 1.6 Gpts/s, two times 360 Mpts against 320 Mpts, 1920x1200 against 1920x1080 resolution.
This is in fact due to the construction of a comparable device, whereby the lower price can be quickly explained by the somewhat meager specs.
For example, the DC gain accuracy, the timebase accuracy and the channel-to-channel isolation are significantly worse and correspondingly more in line with the status of a low-cost scope.
Math and FFT also fall by comparison, but on the plus side, almost all the interesting decoders are included.
The screen may have a slightly higher resolution, but it is smaller at 14“ compared to 15.6”.
Measured against this, the price difference can still be considered too small.QuoteI'm more of a collector and I'm glad that I have the MHO3 and the SDS3000X HD.
I had already thought that about you.
If I had enough space, I would have kept most of my scopes too, so it remains with two, the BMO350 and the SDS3104X HD.
-
Hi,
Version 1.3.1 of the Magnova Firmware Package is now available, incorporating several requested enhancements and optimizations.
Additionally, a new accessory - the Batronix BMO-FS footswitch - is now available. It solves the classic problem of needing a "third hand" when measuring. While using both hands to hold the probes, you can conveniently set the oscilloscope to run, stop, or make a single recording. Learn more about it at: https://www.batronix.com/shop/accessory/BMO-FS.html
List of changes from version 1.2.1 to 1.3.1:
New functionality:
• Added Single-N mode.
• Added cursor support on Math/Reference channels.
• Math channels can now be referenced in formulas.
• Made the sound volume adjustable.
• Added support for the Magnova foot switch.
• Added configurable hotkeys for keyboard usage.
• Added the functionality to set the FFT RBW in the FFT dialog by the time scale.
• Added adjustable font size for the grid labels.
Optimizations:
• The FFT RBW display has been moved to the control selection area and is now always visible.
• Peaks in the Peak Table and marker in the Marker Table can be touched to center on them.
• Trend charts reset only when absolutely necessary or on Clear.
• Added SCPI commands for X/Y.
• The math vertical settings are much less restricted now.
• The rotary knob button function can now also be activated using the right mouse button.
• Clarified the level setting for UART.
Bugfixes:
• Fixed crash when canceling an update.
• Fixed new math channels not being displayed correctly.
• Fixed static network configuration
Best regards,
Andre -
Additionally, a new accessory - the Batronix BMO-FS footswitch - is now available. It solves the classic problem of needing a "third hand" when measuring.
Arrived today, thanks to the Batronix team.
It makes a very solid impression.
I will take it to work tomorrow, along with the new firmware (downloading from the internet would be an absolute no-go there), where my BMO350 will be put through its paces, so to speak.
If time permits, I will make a short clip of how it works – with the footswitch on the desk and my hand as the control, I wouldn't want to impose on anyone's feet....
-
Nice part...
After updating the firmware, it works right away.
To activate the mode, you have to press the switch once, then it stops.
It takes a little getting used to:
You have to hold down the switch to stay in the Run mode, releasing it causes the stop mode.
It would be desirable to have a 1:1 function of the Run/Stop button, i.e. press once for stop, press again for run.
Regarding the firmware again:
I would still like to see a boot logo, and a shutdown message when you press the off button for a few seconds would also be helpful.
When I updated the firmware today, the scope shut down after the update, so you have to turn it back on again.
An automatic reboot after the upgrade would be good.
-
Nice part...
After updating the firmware, it works right away.
To activate the mode, you have to press the switch once, then it stops.
It takes a little getting used to:
You have to hold down the switch to stay in the Run mode, releasing it causes the stop mode.
It would be desirable to have a 1:1 function of the Run/Stop button, i.e. press once for stop, press again for run.
Hi Martin,
You can select the behaviour in the settings menu:
• Run while holding the foot switch – The oscilloscope remains in Run mode as long as the footswitch is pressed, and switches to Stop mode when released.
• Run/Stop Toggle – Each press toggles the oscilloscope between Run and Stop.
• Single – A single or N single measurements are triggered by pressing the footswitch.I would still like to see a boot logo, and a shutdown message when you press the off button for a few seconds would also be helpful.
When I updated the firmware today, the scope shut down after the update, so you have to turn it back on again. An automatic reboot after the upgrade would be good.
Thank you very much for your suggestions, we will continue to improve it.