Products > Test Equipment

Let’s Talk About LeCroy Scopes, AKA… the “Wuerstchenhund Holds Court” Thread

<< < (13/28) > >>

JPortici:
haven't had to play with either of them but my two cents..

* Keysight's capacitive touch screen vs WS3k resistive touch screen. Ask for a demo/loaner, you won't want a scope without itthis actually depends on the quality/sensitivity of the touch screen. i'm sure we all remember older android phones and non-android samsungs (brr) :palm:

* Serial decoding is done in hardware, so it's stinkin fast (also we have more supported protocols)that is why i always find myself leaning toward keysight. i'd gladly have that couple more  protocols.. but 4 Mpts memory.. just no.
i'd rather use a picoscope for the serial protocols other scopes lack, which is exactly what we do at work. no fancy scopes but a pico for our serial needs.


* Keysight acquisition modes (normal, peak detect, average, high resolution) vs WS3k with "normal" mode only & "ERES" as a math channeli am sure that there is something simillar to peak detect, wavescan? not really the same thing but if you want to find aberration in a signal..

now. i judged on my experience and having no experience with the specific hardware on trial i'd like to ask to the judge, his honour, and defence lawyer: what's the deal with the loaner? can i small guy ask for a loaner to test for my home lab or is it only reserved for businesses? as i doubt we'll ever need new scopes unless our glorious tek breaks down (but i noticed a channel is probably in need of calibration. fingers crossed)  and even then unless we don't start doing more challenging hardware both of these will be overkill in bandwidth/sample rate.
but one of these will be in my lab. not today or tomorrow but soon.

oh, mr k: why did you go black a little while ago? is it because you want to have the coolest scopes in the market?   8)

Wuerstchenhund:

--- Quote from: Keysight_DanielBogdanoff on September 13, 2016, 09:11:40 pm ---I don't want to derail the thread with a comparison shootout,
--- End quote ---

So that's the commercials break then I guess?  >:D 

No seriously, you're welcome Daniel.  :-+


--- Quote ---but I feel obligated to chip in on a couple points for the Keysight scopes (bear with me)
--- End quote ---

Sure ;)


--- Quote ---
* Keysight's capacitive touch screen vs WS3k resistive touch screen. Ask for a demo/loaner, you won't want a scope without it
--- End quote ---

I fully agree to try it on a loaner, because the difference is negligible. A capacitive touch screen is a big advantage on a tablet or a smartphone where modern operating systems use multitouch operations and gestures, however that isn't true for a scope where touch operation mostly consist of pointing at stuff and drawing a box.

At the moment, there's only one big brand scope which uses multi-touch and gestures, and that is the new LeCroy WaveRunner 8000. And this does have a capacitive touch screen.

Also, resistive touch screens have the advantage that they work well with gloves, which is a big advantage in environments where you're not supposed to touch the UUT with bare hands. There DSOX3kT's capacitive display is useless in these environments because it's capacitive screen doesn't work with gloves.


--- Quote ---
* Serial decoding is done in hardware, so it's stinkin fast (also we have more supported protocols)
--- End quote ---

You are right that the DSOX3k supports a larger number of protocols (the WS3000 does support the most widespread ones like UART/RS232, SPI, I2C, CAN, FlexRay while the DSOX3kT also supports I2S, MIL-1553, ARINC-429, LIN and SENT). Of course if you need one of these additional protocols and can't live with a cheap USB gizmo then the DSOX3000T is the only sensible option - and Keysight really charges a premium for that.


--- Quote ---
* Keysight FFT is hardware accelerated, can be signal gated, and has a peak search in the lister
--- End quote ---

First of all, the DSOX3000T's FFT only does a measly 64kpts while the WaveSurfer 3000 can process up to 1Mpts, that's 16 times the amount of data!

Also, you say "hardware accelerated", which usually means it's done through a dedicated ASIC. That isn't necessarily an advantage, though, because as we've seen especially in high-end scopes which through their high speed ADCs produce much more data than scopes like the DSOX3kT and WS3k, LeCroy's software-based X-Stream architecture handles large amounts of data a lot better than the "hardware accelerated" architectures from other manufacturers including Keysight.


--- Quote ---
* 3 year cal cycle vs 1 year cal cycle
--- End quote ---

I agree, it's an advantage if you need it. There's no technical reason why any modern scopes couldn't work on a 3yr cal cycle (they are all pretty stable these days) so I'd assume others including LeCroy will update to 3yrs as well, which means the days this is an advantage will very likely be numbered.


--- Quote ---
* Keysight acquisition modes (normal, peak detect, average, high resolution) vs WS3k with "normal" mode only & "ERES" as a math channel
--- End quote ---

As you say, on the DSOX (like pretty much any other scope) these are indeed acquisition modes while on LeCroy scopes they are math traces, but having them as acquisition mode is not an advantage, because it means that in any other mode than "normal" you lose all the actual acquisition data (they are destructive). On a LeCroy scope, where waveform-altering functionality is available as math trace, the original sampling data is retained. This has always been LeCroy's core design principle, and is the reason why LeCroy has been and still is the to-go brand for scientists when it comes to scope.

Also, the DSOX3kT, like pretty much any non-LeCroy scope (aside from some newer Siglents apparently, but god knows how good their implementation is), only offers the standard simple boxcar filter for its high resolution mode. ERES is a bit more sophisticated as it uses a linear phase FIR filter which avoids the various disadvantages of boxcar filtering (i.e. appearance of ringing) or the complete lack of controls over the filtering process.

Of course, things like ERES or using waveform-altering functionality as math traces while retaining the original sample data is much more processing and memory intensive, but the WS3000 seems to perform very well against simpler scopes like the DSOX3kT, despite having to process more data.

BTW, Averaging is available on the WS3k as well of course, again as a math trace so the original sample data is always retained.

Regarding Peak Detect (PD), you're right. The WS3k, like most LeCroy scopes, doesn't have Peak Detect acquisition mode.


--- Quote from: TAMHAN on September 13, 2016, 11:45:55 pm ---This is very odd now.  LeCroy already had Peak Detect in the 9354AM
--- End quote ---

They pretty much dropped PD in 1998 (the 9384C was one of the few scopes which had PD, and also the last one).


--- Quote from: tautech on September 14, 2016, 12:44:19 am ---I too find it very odd that a WS3000 does not have Peak Detect.  :scared:
One can only imagine that it's been left out of the incorporated features on purpose, if indeed it is missing.
--- End quote ---

It is on purpose. PD was a crutch to overcome the very small sample memories of older digital scopes, allowing to sample at full sample rate for an extended amount of time by storing only the minima and maxima of a sampled group and thereby extending the time length that can be acquired. As it is an acquisition mode, it is destructive (i.e. you lose the original sample data). You also lose timing information (you know in which sample period the data points were acquired, but you don't know where in that period, i.e. at the beginning or the end).

These days, scopes come with reasonably large sample memories, which means even in normal mode you can run the scope at full sample rate for longer timbases. Also, modern scopes tend to come with a much larger sample rate to BW ratio (the 750Mhz WS3074 samples at 4GSa/s, the 1Ghz DSOX3104T at 5GSa/s), which means there is lots of room for the sample rate to drop without losing any details. With its 10Mpts memory, even the 750MHz WS3 can aquire a 5ms period at sufficient sample rate (2GSa/s). And the lower the analog bandwidth the further the sample rate can be dropped without losing detail.

Modern mid-range and higher scopes also have sophisticated trigger and analysis tools so that the scope can capture the important event at high sample rate instead of having to capture a longer sequence via PD. Of course most entry-level scopes lack such functionality, and PD can then help there.

Bottom line is that PD is not offered because it's destructive and because LeCroy scopes like the WS3000 have suitable alternative ways (i.e. WaveScan) of capturing events at high time resolution.

I know that some people will probably disagree (I remember some discussions with nctnico about PD), but despite using mostly Keysight scopes at work which all have PD, I can't remember when the last time was when I used it (I vaguely remember one time in the early 2000's with some Tek scope). That of course doesn't mean much, and I'd be interested to hear about specific scenarios where people believe PD is still required - bearing in mind we're talking about a mid-range scope here, not some simple $400 Rigol box.


--- Quote from: Keysight_DanielBogdanoff on September 13, 2016, 09:11:40 pm ---
* Keysight DVM and hardware frequency counter & totalizer vs N/A
--- End quote ---

That's incorrect. The WS3000 does have hardware frequency counter, and it has the DVM (which was a free addition a few months after release, and a free upgrade for all existing scopes)


--- Quote ---
* Keysight 1 knob set per channel vs multiplexed channel knobs
--- End quote ---

Yes. If that's really an advantage it's up to your individual preference. My WavePro 7300A has individual controls, and I'd wish it was multiplexed because it allowed me to change channel settings without having to move my hand.

I'd rather have the space spent on a larger and higher resolution screen ;)


--- Quote ---
* and of course waveform update rate and zone trigger...  :horse:
--- End quote ---

You're right with the waveform update rate of course (which is amazingly high for an entry-level scope). It's a nice marketing feature, but it's advantage in real-life is pretty limited, especially when compared to other scopes with decent trigger/analysis tools. Plus it comes at the price of very limited sample memory, which is a pretty big disadvantage.

But zone trigger, really? The WS3000 comes with WaveScan which can do zonal triggering and a lot more. The DSOX3kT doesn't even have anything similar, because that is only available for the Infiniium Series (InfiniiScan). And off course like pretty much everything at Keysight, it's a paid-for option ;). And having InfiniiScan on my work DSO91304A and WaveScan on my WavePro 7300A at home, I have to say that InfiniiScan can't even do half of what WaveScan can do. Plus WaveScan is free (comes with all LeCroy mid-range and high-end scopes, and when it came out it was a free upgrade for existing scopes). Go figure.

Since we're talking features, how about LabNotebook? It's a tool to create test reports and document testing directly on the scope. As with WaveScan, it comes standard with every LeCroy mid-range and high-end scope, and that includes the WS3000. What does the DSOX offer to make documenting test series easier? Exactly, pretty much nothing.


Lastly, lets have a quick look at pricing ;)

The 100MHz 2ch DSOX3012T starts at $3500 while the 200Mhz 2ch WS3022 starts at $3.300 (it's price went up, actually, it used to start at $3k) - LeCroy gives you 2x the BW and 2.5x the memory for $300 less (or comparing similar BW, the 200MHz DSOX3022T is already at $4170 - that's $870 more which could be spent on probes and other tools instead)

Let's have a look at the 500MHz variants:
WS3054: $7500 vs Keysight DSOX3054T: $11704 - that's $4200 difference! You could even buy the 750Mhz WS3074 ($9200) and save $2500 which can buy you probes and other stuff.

Actually, the 500Mhz DSXO3054T is even more expensive than the 1Ghz WaveSurfer 10 which is $10k - double the BW, up to 16Mpts/Ch, and even more serial decode options than the DSOX3kT has for $1700 less.

Just for completeness, Keysight wants a whooping $14525 for the 1GHz DSOX3104T  :-DD  Which puts it quite close to the WaveRunner 8000 - a sophisticated high end scope with 20/40GSa/s, up to 128Mpts/Ch, multi-touch, and large-capacitative touch display (the 500Mhz 4ch variant starts at $14k, the 1Ghz variant is probably around $16k).

I'm not sure that the separate vertical controls, PD, the excessive update rate and a few more serial decode options are worth the large price premium, even less so when it comes at the cost of tiny sample memory, smaller screen, and lack of other functionality.  :-//

Wuerstchenhund:

--- Quote from: JPortici on September 14, 2016, 06:54:59 am ---that is why i always find myself leaning toward keysight. i'd gladly have that couple more  protocols.. but 4 Mpts memory.. just no.
--- End quote ---

Well, if you look at the prices, at least if you're in for a higher BW scope (500Mhz and up) then same/less money gives you more protocols, more BW and more features from other brands.

Keysight is really squeezing it.


--- Quote ---now. i judged on my experience and having no experience with the specific hardware on trial i'd like to ask to the judge, his honour, and defence lawyer: what's the deal with the loaner? can i small guy ask for a loaner to test for my home lab or is it only reserved for businesses?
--- End quote ---

In general it's available to anyone. If you're spending several grands on a scope then doing a test drive is not just adviseable, it's crucial IMHO. Of course some sales droids can get a bit iffy when a consumer calls, not a business, but if they are uncooperative just hang up and try again until you get a sales droid that is more flexible. At the end of the day, they have incentives to sell, and most don't care if it's for business or hobby if it's an easy sale.

Also, never forget to negotiate. No-one pays list price except the lazy. You can usually get options and probes thrown in as well.


--- Quote ---oh, mr k
--- End quote ---

Who's Mr K?

nctnico:
Even with long memory I use peak detect often at low sweep rates to make sure I don't miss a narrow pulse c.q. see a trace which has all the expected elements and nothing missing or malformed due to aliasing. It is true that timing information is lost but when looking at (for example) video signals it is nice to see the hsync and vsync pulses are all there. To me having no peak detect is a show stopper.

Wuerstchenhund:
 
--- Quote from: nctnico on September 14, 2016, 09:44:36 am ---Even with long memory I use peak detect often at low sweep rates to make sure I don't miss a narrow pulse c.q. see a trace which has all the expected elements and nothing missing or malformed due to aliasing. It is true that timing information is lost but when looking at (for example) video signals it is nice to see the hsync and vsync pulses are all there. To me having no peak detect is a show stopper.

--- End quote ---

I understand. Well, on a LeCroy scope I would rather use WaveScan for that.

Your scenario is actually not too unsimilar to a pet project of mine, where one element relies on a set of (unevenly spaced) sync pulses. To find out if pulses are missing or out of spec I just throw WaveScan at it and let it run for a while, it then tells me any pulses were missing/out of spec, and if so presents me with a nice histogram showing when exactly that happened. If I wanted I could even set it up to do specific measurements on malformed pulses, or just let it do some screen shots everytime a deviation occurs, or do a range of other stuff.

It's pretty handy, and helped me to identify a problem where the sync generating unit producted malformed pulses in varying periods. It also helped me finding the source of a problem where the sync providing element occasionally threw out malformed pulses. With WaveScan and the statistics function I found out that the timing depended on the operating mode of that unit, i.e. power load, and that it was a flaw in the PSU which caused it.

Granted, on a entry-level scope which doesn't have any advanced functionality, PD is probably the best (only?) way to do that.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod