Agilent DSOX3014A vs Tek DPO3014 vs Rigol DS4014

[Smokey]

I've been tasked with getting a new scope for work to replace the ancient Tek with no memory.  I've narrowed it down to these choices.  It seems they are all in the same sort of category and I can't quite decide.  I haven't actually played with any of them yet, so I'm just going by the data sheets, what the reps told me, and internet impressions.  It sounds like I'd be happy with any of them, now it's just picking the best one.
All 100MHz 4 channel:
(USD)
(1)Agilent DSOX3014A = $3168
(2)Tek DPO3014 = $4050 (But I'm told they are lowering their prices any day now to compete with Agilent)
(3)Rigol DS4014 = $2214

After doing some research and talking to reps, my impressions, at least the good ones, are:
Tek has better accuracy/resolution and comes with more memory/features standard than Agilent.  Plus it can do math on the whole memory range.
Agilent has better waveform/sec rate (by a lot.  how important is this really?), nicest interface maybe, and more upgrade paths. 
   (I'm ignoring the arb since I already have one, so it's not really influencing which scope I pick)
Rigol seems to kick the hell out of both of them with more standard features, more memory (by a lot! Rigol=140M vs Tek=5M vs Agilent=2M), more Gsamples/sec (not as big a margin, but still some), cheaper addons and upgrades, and it's significantly cheaper.  No bandwidth upgrades for the Rigol (at least not legit ones) but for the same money I can buy the higher bandwidth model.

I understand Rigol is becoming a serious company with some nice high end stuff, but when a company has a reputation for making cheap Chinese low end stuff, even if it's really good cheap Chinese low end stuff, they don't look nearly as good as the Teks and the Agilent who have made the best stuff for a really long time and are just now dipping into the middle markets.  I guess the question isn't whether the Rigol is any good.  It probably is.  The question is if it is as good or better than the Agilent and Tek, and can I justify it to my boss?
It doesn't help that the Rigol 2000 and 4000 series are pretty new and there aren't any good reviews/comparisons yet.  The distributor I talked to said that everyone he has sold one to has been happy so far and he hasn't got any back, but that could just be distributor talk.  I saw the post here about the noise on a 2000, but that looks pretty anomalous to me.

What do you guys think? 
Dave, when do you think you'll end up doing a Rigol DS4000 series review?  Even the 2000 series review would probably he helpful here. 

*As a funny note, when I was talking to the Tek rep I mentioned Dave's review of the MDO4000 series, and he said he's seen it and started talking about how Dave is super biased. 

[EEVblog]

What do you guys think? 
Dave, when do you think you'll end up doing a Rigol DS4000 series review?  Even the 2000 series review would probably he helpful here. 

Funny thing is, just today Rigol were going to send me a DS4000 by mistake, they were supposed to be sending the DS2000.
I told them to send the DS2000 instead.

I'm sure Rigol wouldn't mind me quoting them directly here on some correspondence we had:

"The DS4 came out a few months earlier (than the 2000). They are very similar in many ways. If you had a DS4022 and a DS2202 (both 2 channels and 200 MHz) the key differences would be a little larger screen, deeper memory, and about 2x the waveforms per second on the DS4. The DS2 does have some lower noise and advanced triggering capabilities that the DS4 doesn't have. Other than that they are very similar in look and feel."

*As a funny note, when I was talking to the Tek rep I mentioned Dave's review of the MDO4000 series, and he said he's seen it and started talking about how Dave is super biased.

Really?
Ask him to come on the forum here and explain exactly how my comments were not warranted or in any way biased or wrong.
See if he can prove that the MDO4000 is a good general use scope and good value compared to the competition. I'm willing to bet he can't.
I gave praise were it was due (the MDO feature), and a threw brickbats where it was due (the ancient slow architecture et.al.

Dave.

[EEVblog]

I don't think the Tek can compete here, even when they have recently slashed their prices. It an old slow architecture, and it is starting to show.
There is much talk in the T&M industry that Tek are really struggling to find sales now and losing lots of big bids, and that's not surprising at all.
So I wouldn't put the Tek in the running here, unless you are a Tek fanboy, and simply must have that name. Or you simply prefer the way the Tek operates or whatever. Both would be a valid personal reason to buy it of course though, everyone's needs and wants are different.

Much tougher choice between the Rigol and Agilent I think.

Dave.

[KTP]

The Rigol does not have more Gsps than the Agilent.  They are both 4Gs single channel 2Gs multichannel (although on the Agilent you can still get 4Gs using both channels 1 and 3 (with 2 and 4 off...or vice versa....probably the same for the Rigol?)

Is the vast memory on the Rigol usable at the 4Gsps rate?

I think the Rigol might be your best deal especially if you don't need the AWG generator.  The Agilent would have a higher resale value later though.

[Smokey]

Cool.  Thanks for the quick feedback.  Good call on the sample rate. 

I've pretty much had Agilent in the lead, really closely followed by the Rigol.  I figured I'd give Tek a chance, especially if they are hurting for sales maybe they'd make an awesome deal if I told them I was going to get the Agilent.  Maybe throw in some other equipment or something.

If I was really mean I'd schedule an onsite demo from all three companies at the same time and make them fight it out live.  I can just see the "what they hell are they doing here???!!!!!" look on their faces.  Tape it and put it on youtube as the ultimate oscilloscope showdown.  That's too mean even for me.  I actually feel bad for the sales guys sometimes. 

[mikeselectricstuff]

high waveform/sec is very important of you need to find glitches or things that don't happen very often

[T4P]

high waveform/sec is very important of you need to find glitches or things that don't happen very often

and yet many people dispute wfrms/sec  it's so important actually

[mikeselectricstuff]

high waveform/sec is very important of you need to find glitches or things that don't happen very often

and yet many people dispute wfrms/sec  it's so important actually

Mostly manufacturers that don't offer it..!

[mikeselectricstuff]

There is much talk in the T&M industry that Tek are really struggling to find sales now and losing lots of big bids, and that's not surprising at all.

Seems like Tek have been treading water and trying to trade on their past history for quite a while - probably since the Agilent 6000, although at that point Agilent still had a lot of "Tek are the scope guys" type mentality to overcome. Unless they have something really special in the works, and if the new Rigols really deliver, then IMO Tek will be toast outside niche areas soon - it will be Agilent at the mid to high end, Rigol at low to mid, and the cheap & nasty Chinese at the bottom, with Tek nowhere.

[gregariz]

There is much talk in the T&M industry that Tek are really struggling to find sales now and losing lots of big bids, and that's not surprising at all.

Seems like Tek have been treading water and trying to trade on their past history for quite a while - probably since the Agilent 6000, although at that point Agilent still had a lot of "Tek are the scope guys" type mentality to overcome. Unless they have something really special in the works, and if the new Rigols really deliver, then IMO Tek will be toast outside niche areas soon - it will be Agilent at the mid to high end, Rigol at low to mid, and the cheap & nasty Chinese at the bottom, with Tek nowhere.

There's no doubt that at the high end, both Tek and Agilent rake their customers who are mostly defence contractors. But what is going on now is the same as whats happened in the general consumer market. Chinese manufacturers have now entered what used to be a small volume niche area, and essentially are competing on unfair terms in both wage and tooling costs. Western manufacturers can't pay wages at Rigol prices. Something probably will give... starting with maybe their value line.

[KTP]

There's no doubt that at the high end, both Tek and Agilent rake their customers who are mostly defence contractors. But what is going on now is the same as whats happened in the general consumer market. Chinese manufacturers have now entered what used to be a small volume niche area, and essentially are competing on unfair terms in both wage and tooling costs. Western manufacturers can't pay wages at Rigol prices. Something probably will give... starting with maybe their value line.

Anyone have a guestimate on how many Rigols and Hanteks were used in the labs at NASA while constructing the Mars rover Curiousity?  I think Agilent will be ok...

[snoopy]

I don't think the Tek can compete here, even when they have recently slashed their prices. It an old slow architecture, and it is starting to show.
There is much talk in the T&M industry that Tek are really struggling to find sales now and losing lots of big bids, and that's not surprising at all.
So I wouldn't put the Tek in the running here, unless you are a Tek fanboy, and simply must have that name. Or you simply prefer the way the Tek operates or whatever. Both would be a valid personal reason to buy it of course though, everyone's needs and wants are different.

Much tougher choice between the Rigol and Agilent I think.

Dave.

Yes I thought the Tek DPO3014 was a fairly old model because I remember a mate of mine buying a DPO3052 about 10 years ago for around 13K at the time and one of its surprising drawbacks was a miniscule sample buffer of only about 10K !!

Digital phosphur was the in thing and only Tektronix had it at the time but now the competitiopn has caught up with yet more features and performance.

regards

[EEVblog]

The Agilent still competes very well at the low-ish end against Rigol with the 2000X. And they have the education market sown up with their pricing and the educational material built-in and in print.
And they have that extra reserve memory, and serial decode on tap waiting to be released if required to compete. But AFAIK, they are still barely able to keep up with demand, so I would not expect to see set lose unless they are under real threat.

Tek still compete just fine at the high end of course, but it's hard to know where they are at the low end.
I suspect the takeover by the Danaher group did not bode well for future development there, I heard that they put the chainsaw through R&D. Danaher's philosophy is not innovation, it's running a lean mean ship and extracting every cent in the margin.

Dave.

[EEVblog]

Here are the relative marketing battles for the 3000X and DPO3000
http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5990-6684EN.pdf
http://www.tek.com/competitive/mso-dpo3000-series-vs-agilent-mso-dso3000-x-series-video

Dave.

[tnt]

The Tek video is interesting to show some of the 3000-X limitations. However for most of them it's just because the best way to do the job is different than on the Tek.

For the runt pulse, I think that using the segmented memory would allow to get each event. For comparing two digital signal timing relative to each other, I'd use analog channel 1 and 3 to get 4 Gsps.

For the measurement the Tek is clearly better, doing the measurements on the stored data rather than the displayed data is definitely the way to go ...

As for the Agilent pdf, they're a bit misleading with a 5 Gsps / 2.5 Gsps ... that's only on the 1 GHz model ...

[snoopy]

The Agilent still competes very well at the low-ish end against Rigol with the 2000X. And they have the education market sown up with their pricing and the educational material built-in and in print.
And they have that extra reserve memory, and serial decode on tap waiting to be released if required to compete. But AFAIK, they are still barely able to keep up with demand, so I would not expect to see set lose unless they are under real threat.

Tek still compete just fine at the high end of course, but it's hard to know where they are at the low end.
I suspect the takeover by the Danaher group did not bode well for future development there, I heard that they put the chainsaw through R&D. Danaher's philosophy is not innovation, it's running a lean mean ship and extracting every cent in the margin.

Dave.

When I went ot the last Monsah Uni open day for a gander the science department was full of Rigol's. I suppose 2 or 3 for the price of one Agilent or Tek is a better deal if you are on budget

[EEVblog]

When I went ot the last Monsah Uni open day for a gander the science department was full of Rigol's. I suppose 2 or 3 for the price of one Agilent or Tek is a better deal if you are on budget

But then you have to produce the educational material on how to use the scopes.
Agilent produce an education manual that can be used directly as material for a course.
Depends on what the scopes are being used for I guess.

Dave.

[djsb]

So, based on the comparison in the link the the Tek 3054 is better than the Agilent 3054X, is that correct? It's difficult to pick out the relevant details from the video.
I suppose I just want reassurance that I've chosen to buy the right scope (the Agilent MSOX3054A).

David.

[JuKu]

No bandwidth upgrades for the Rigol (at least not legit ones) but for the same money I can buy the higher bandwidth model.

This. If you can spend the same money, you would get a 200MHz (or even 300MHz?) Rigol instead of 100MHz Agilent. Depends really on what kind of work you do, but for me, the Agilent would need to be much better in anywhere else to justify the bandwidth penalty.

[EEVblog]

So, based on the comparison in the link the the Tek 3054 is better than the Agilent 3054X, is that correct? It's difficult to pick out the relevant details from the video.
I suppose I just want reassurance that I've chosen to buy the right scope (the Agilent MSOX3054A).

"better" only relates to your own particular requirements.
Tek forget to mention that their scope cannot be upgraded in bandwidth, cannot be upgraded to MSO, and cannot be upgraded to an ARB function gen.
It also does not do hardware serial decodes, is massively slower in update rate, has no mask testing or segmented memory. Those are 4 massive benefits of the Agilent right there.
The runt example they used could be done on the Agilent with segmented memory.

So of course Tek only focus on a couple of the things that are better with their scope, but it's obvious they struggled hard to hard them...
The Tek is better in it's search capability, no doubt, and has a bit more memory. But the Agilent blows the Tek's memory out of the water with the segmented memory option.

You bought the right scope.

Dave.

[EEVblog]

This. If you can spend the same money, you would get a 200MHz (or even 300MHz?) Rigol instead of 100MHz Agilent. Depends really on what kind of work you do, but for me, the Agilent would need to be much better in anywhere else to justify the bandwidth penalty.

The Agilent has an MSO option, wavgen option, faster updating, hardware serial decode, and segmented memory options.
But the Rigol 4000 has more bandwidth/memory per $$$$

Tough call really.
For my own use with my own money I'd probably err on the side of the higher bandwidth Rigol for the same price I think.

Dave.

[Smokey]

Thanks guys.  This is exactly the discussion / commentary I was looking for. 

[nanofrog]

This. If you can spend the same money, you would get a 200MHz (or even 300MHz?) Rigol instead of 100MHz Agilent. Depends really on what kind of work you do, but for me, the Agilent would need to be much better in anywhere else to justify the bandwidth penalty.

The Agilent has an MSO option, wavgen option, faster updating, hardware serial decode, and segmented memory options.
But the Rigol 4000 has more bandwidth/memory per $$$$

Tough call really.
For my own use with my own money I'd probably err on the side of the higher bandwidth Rigol for the same price I think.

Dave.

Dave, How does the Rigol DS4000 compare to the Agilent 3000X in regard to search parameters and glitch capture?

I've looked here at your videos and the one rbola did on the DS4000, but can't recall that particular aspect between the two units (I'm interested in the higher memory value of the Rigol, but I want to be able to search it easily for glitches, rather than just scroll through until I find it, assuming it was captured, thus wondering if the segmented memory option for the Agilent would make it the right unit in my case).

[EEVblog]

Dave, How does the Rigol DS4000 compare to the Agilent 3000X in regard to search parameters and glitch capture?

Haven't used one, so no idea, sorry.

Dave.

[nanofrog]

Dave, How does the Rigol DS4000 compare to the Agilent 3000X in regard to search parameters and glitch capture?

Haven't used one, so no idea, sorry.

Dave.

No worries. I'll have to keep digging, or possibly try and get both units for a demo (simultaneously if possible).

Thanks for the quick reply Dave.