Magnova oscilloscope

[Sorama]

I’m pretty sure low cost devices still have a profit margin of magnitude of 4 to 5 the production cost.

Yes, but that's not what an oscilloscope like this is. Low cost might be true of some Fnirsi garbage, but not a scope like this.

Im not talking about that garbage, but devices selling for 5k often cost less than 1k all included.

[KungFuJosh]

Im not talking about that garbage, but devices selling for 5k often cost less than 1k all included.

No doubt, but I'm sure that's not the case here. Even if it was, everybody needs to eat.

[KungFuJosh]

I made a super duper extremely short video of messing around with the Mangova UI:




Thanks,
Josh

[core]

I said that Magnova is still a bit expensive for the following reasons. It is just my point of view, of course.

For a private person, the amount is not at all easy affordable for a single hobby device.
The price of Magnova can easily equal the price of all the devices that a regular hobbyist already has.
The price is 3200+500 = 3700 euros + VAT including the generator. And this price must be spent all at once. It is a luxury device, from this point of view.

How many amateurs really need 0.5% gain accuracy, more than 60dB channel-to channel isolation, very-very low noise for the input stage, 80 dB spurious-free dynamic range and so on.

In general, a combination of Siglent + Rigol can cover the needs of a hobbyist for FFT + Bode + higher resolution screen + HDMI output + in/out reference clock, etc. I have an SDS2000X Plus and a DHO1000 for this purpose. I also have a cheap Uni-T purchased only for Multi-Scope (Support each channel independent display, and independently adjustable time base) and FFT with multi traces and waterfall (both non-existent at Siglent and Rigol).

Magnova could replace all these oscilloscopes at once. But the money must be given all at once, and not over time. Of course, you can sell all the others and complete with the necessary difference in money. But I would not stay with a single oscilloscope because none is 100% sure from all points of view.

It is performant, without a doubt, and has potential for development with additional options in the future.

For a company I would look at it as an alternative to an MXO3. With the current PK1 promotion, the 200Mhz version is a very tough competitor, which already includes several additional options compared to Magnova. More serial protocols, power analysis, incredibly powerful zone trigger, pwm generator.
4000 euros with generator vs 5950 euros. 50% more expensive of course, but for a company that makes money with it this difference can be justified.
And if this promotion ends, it will probably return in the future. Before MXO3 appeared, I didn't see any competitors.

In the end, of course everyone has their own needs and budget. This is actually the most important thing and that's why it's difficult to offer a solution that covers as much as possible.
I think that's exactly what Magnova wants to offer and I hope it succeeds, but the competition doesn't stand still.

[kaspich]

That doesn't make any sense. As it stands, there's nothing in the price range that competes with the Magnova's feature set. It will be even better after the next firmware update.

Essentially, all modern digital scopes work roughly the same way, but Magnova should lose points for the same behavior seen on scopes from brands/models that cost significantly more?

Seriously?

So far, Magnova is very close to MicSig (I know what I am talking about; I have one MicSig in my lab), except for the price.
If we are talking about ''premium segment'' - Magnova isn't? 350 MHz bandwidth for 5K EUR? It's NOT a premium segment?
''German quality'' is not a statement? No?

Magnova pretends to be the scope of the premium segment. Unfortunately, guys who develop it are complete greenies in this niche.

p.s. one more thing that is NOT acceptable to me. Again, maybe I am different. Maybe I am from another planet, but taking into account my experience, I was 100% confident that the basics in Magnova were covered correctly (by basics, I mean all these issues with aliasing/interference, hires mode, etc.). Ok, shit happens. But the thing that is not acceptable - Andre and the dev team lost their ability to comment/answer their uncomfortable topics. 

[Darkover]

For a private person, the amount is not at all easy affordable for a single hobby device.

How many amateurs really need 0.5% gain accuracy, more than 60dB channel-to channel isolation, very-very low noise for the input stage, 80 dB spurious-free dynamic range and so on.

As a private person I have an RTB2004 with all icense. I need it to feel lucky, even if the hardware is a little bit dodgy. On my desktop in the company I have a much smaller HMO2024, so I feel sad every day at work now.
We are not living in the 70th where an ingeneer can play in the company with the good toys. Now company work is 90% writing bullshit paper. If you wish to be a good experienced and skilled engineer you need the big toy at home.

Olaf

[core]

That doesn't make any sense. As it stands, there's nothing in the price range that competes with the Magnova's feature set. It will be even better after the next firmware update.

Essentially, all modern digital scopes work roughly the same way, but Magnova should lose points for the same behavior seen on scopes from brands/models that cost significantly more?

Seriously?

So far, Magnova is very close to MicSig (I know what I am talking about; I have one MicSig in my lab), except for the price.
If we are talking about ''premium segment'' - Magnova isn't? 350 MHz bandwidth for 5K EUR? It's NOT a premium segment?
''German quality'' is not a statement? No?

Magnova pretends to be the scope of the premium segment. Unfortunately, guys who develop it are complete greenies in this niche.

p.s. one more thing that is NOT acceptable to me. Again, maybe I am different. Maybe I am from another planet, but taking into account my experience, I was 100% confident that the basics in Magnova were covered correctly (by basics, I mean all these issues with aliasing/interference, hires mode, etc.). Ok, shit happens. But the thing that is not acceptable - Andre and the dev team lost their ability to comment/answer their uncomfortable topics.

Bandwidth and sampling rate do not say much about the qualities of an oscilloscope.
I also have an MSO5000 with 8Gsps. It can be taken to 350Mhz with known methods. You can get an MHO934 with 4Gsps and it can be taken to 800GHz bandwidth.
And both can be fine for common measurements.

But they cannot be considered competitors for Magnova because of many other features. It depends on what you need.
Of course the price is in a completely different league. And that was known from the start.

There are equipments from companies with very big names in the field, with very high prices, which have various problems. Unfortunately, nowadays products are launched before having an extremely mature firmware. Magnova is quite good in what is already implemented.

Apart from that problem with high frequency signals sampled at low samplerate, which is normally completely unusual in normal use, have you found any other problems that you can't get past? Maybe something constructive will come out of this.

I'm really interested because I would be tempted by this device. A person who is already angry and suspicious of his device can be very critical and notice shortcomings that may be missed at first glance.

If that problem could be solved with a firmware update, would you still be tempted to sell it?

[core]

For a private person, the amount is not at all easy affordable for a single hobby device.

How many amateurs really need 0.5% gain accuracy, more than 60dB channel-to channel isolation, very-very low noise for the input stage, 80 dB spurious-free dynamic range and so on.

As a private person I have an RTB2004 with all icense. I need it to feel lucky, even if the hardware is a little bit dodgy. On my desktop in the company I have a much smaller HMO2024, so I feel sad every day at work now.
We are not living in the 70th where an ingeneer can play in the company with the good toys. Now company work is 90% writing bullshit paper. If you wish to be a good experienced and skilled engineer you need the big toy at home.

Olaf

Oh, it's sad to say this. You basically solve various problems at work with your own equipment.

You should rent your RTB2004 for projects, charged by the day of use, to your employer 
And soon you will be able to buy a Magnova, which you can rent as well.

It's just a joke, but it might be a solution 

[kaspich]

 ...which is normally completely unusual in normal use...

Ok, then my next question is - why does this scope have 320M points deep memory? WHY?
That's because ''modern oscilloscopes'' are logging devices, too.

If you are observing an unknown signal, how can you trust this scope? HOW?
a. ok, first of all, you need to scroll through all time scale settings to be sure that there are no aliasing problems (find the highest component of the spectrum);
b. ok, you noticed that there is a high-frequency signal, for example, 10MHz;
c. question remains - it's a ''usual'' sine wave signal, or modulated? How to determine this?
d. scrolling ''down'' time scale, you can observe 100% modulation, but you have no clue - it's a real modulation or scope problem/bug (yes, I call it a bug). For some settings, you can see a slowly drifting DC offset. It's a real offset, or again - aliasing problems?
e. if a signal of lower frequency was observed/logged/stored, you have a completely unpredictable result if some high-frequency oscillations appear.
f. main question - how to observe complex signals (that contain high and low frequency signals at the same time)? HOW?

Magnova costs 5K EUR, but this is a problem of entry-level scope!
And - total silence from the dev team. For me, it's a red flag. That's the answer to your question about the software upgrade.
About other issues - why to waste (my) time? As one member of this forum said - don't try to modify this unbeatable/unique/perfect device to your needs.

[2N3055]

Let's not be rude to people that actually try to develop and make something in EU. I think they made excellent device, despite personally not having any need for that type of device.

I think the west in general has cultural problems with T&M devices nowadays, especially in hobby space.

Many people here speak of "premium" devices. That is very odd thing to say about oscilloscope.
It was also odd thing to say about telephone too.
Rigol made scope with gold plaque..
West got infected with "luxury" class of devices thinking.

What do I mean by this?

Magnova, for instance is not best scope by and traditional measure. It is competent scope for it's BW. But speaking with people that have it, you always get that they like it because it feels like a luxury product.
Like a luxury car, it is not fastest, it does not have good fuel economy. It has all those actually worse than some cars costing half as much. But it has premium materials, large multimedia screen, it is quiet, comfortable. I makes you feel like you are just gliding. Everything is well designed, it is just beautiful... Makes you feel special when you cruise relaxedly to your destination..

And this is exactly language used by Magnova users.

Luxurious all metal case. There is a reason nobody else use it. It is not necessary for any technical metric or scope performance. And it is expensive to make. Expensive encoders. They are great but also they provide very little real benefit. Classic encoders actually are very rarely source of the problems. And one of those expensive encoders cost as much as whole front panel on some scopes. Specially bonded large screen. Again, nice, but anything "specially" cost specially.

And here we are. Magnova is the new class of the product. A "luxury" scope. It has competent performance, scope parameters considered. But 350 MHz version cost hovers in 500 Mhz-1 GHz BW scopes. That is a hard limit that you cannot "luxure around" etc etc...

But as I said it is new category of product. Every product has their market. There are people that need only basic scope to just cursory look into signal.

Basically, there are people that are willing to pay that kind of money for different mix of "experience" and real performance than you and me.
And I personally would rather get SDS3104xHD for a bit more money than Magnova. Scope wise it is more powerful scope in several aspects. From BW to math, analysis functions etc.
But if you do not need all that, and 350MHz BW is enough for you, and you want that "luxury" feel, than Magnova is scope for you, if you can afford it.

It is not about bad/good. A manufacturer has to optimize product around product philosophy. Magnova is different. Don't hate it for that. Enjoy the fact that there is one more choice. Fact that it is not my choice is not reason for hate. Just go buy something else that is better match for you.

[Darkover]

Oh, it's sad to say this. You basically solve various problems at work with your own equipment.

Oh, I don't think about it when I bought my toys, but I think they are paid by themself, because of more days in homeoffice and lower bill from my petrol station. 

Olaf

[Darkover]

And here we are. Magnova is the new class of the product. A "luxury" scope. It has competent performance, scope parameters considered. But 350 MHz version cost hovers in 500 Mhz-1 GHz BW scopes. That is a hard limit that you

I think there is more truth in it than you might think. 
If you bought an entry level scope from a huge company like R&S or Tek, they will switch off many software and sometimes even hardware features. (RTB2 without 50R WTF!) They do it to push you to the more expensive devices in there lineup. For Magnova they can build in whatever they can do, because software is more or less for free. (eye pattern from R&S? ten grands?) Of course if you need the fastes ADC/Asic you will go to the expensive brand, but a company like Batronix will give you more bells&whistles for the everyday scope.

Olaf

[KungFuJosh]

And here we are. Magnova is the new class of the product. A "luxury" scope. It has competent performance, scope parameters considered. But 350 MHz version cost hovers in 500 Mhz-1 GHz BW scopes. That is a hard limit that you cannot "luxure around" etc etc...

I agree with most of what you say, however, bandwidth isn't everything. Bandwidth is only really a cost factor when comparing the same scope line with different bandwidth models. Bandwidth also only comes in to play depending on a user's bw needs.

Other things for me that are not luxuries, but requirements:
large screen
excellent update rate
proper shading on channels
excellent & reliable encoders
external reference input


My choice for scope after the SDS2000X HD was the Magnova vs. the SDS3000X HD. In every aspect of my requirements, the Magnova wins.

I need a bigger screen with better quality. It's not optional. My eyes are a pain in the butt sometimes, and I've had no issues with the Magnova.

The update rate and channel shading / grading is no competition either. The SDS3000X HD pales in comparison. Even the SDS5000X HD series is worse in this regard. The shading/grading issue Siglent can fix, but they don't seem to think it's a priority.

I like good encoders. I like to use them in my workflow, and I appreciate them working with excellent precision consistently. This isn't a luxury, though it might feel like it compared to other TE with junk knobs and poor UI handling of those junk knobs.

Finally, I require external reference input. Is it a luxury? Maybe, but it annoys me not having it. Nothing less than the more expensive SDS5000X HD has it in the Siglent HD range.

So, as always, it comes down to user preference for what is needed for workflow. Things are only luxuries if they go beyond necessity. That might be true of the metal case, but it's also functional as a heatsink, and helps with the Magnova's excellent thermal performance. You also have to consider how many high-end scopes that were made with plastic shells became unusable because of their plastic shells deteriorating.

For Magnova they can build in whatever they can do, because software is more or less for free. (eye pattern from R&S? ten grands?) Of course if you need the fastes ADC/Asic you will go to the expensive brand, but a company like Batronix will give you more bells&whistles for the everyday scope.

Software / options are free to Magnova users, but you can be sure it costs Batronix money to develop those things.

Thanks,
Josh

[kaspich]

Other things for me that are not luxuries, but requirements:
large screen
excellent update rate
proper shading on channels
excellent & reliable encoders
external reference input




Thanks,
Josh

screen = ok, agree. But, if necessary, an external display can be connected (actual for MXO3, for example)
update rate = nothing special in 2026
encoders = agree, but knobs, for example, are... nothing special (cheap plastics).


Btw, here is one more innovation (sure, not bug or disadvantage).
Input: 10MHz, sine wave.

Yes, I understand why this happened, but again, a clear indication of ADC overload should be added. Ups, this will work only with conjunction with ''burst'' packs for low samplerate settings...
On the other hand, for low sample rate settings, why isn't Hi-Res added automatically?
Or, all this is done for never-ending touchscreen performance testing? One more extra feature?

[shabaz]

And I personally would rather get SDS3104xHD for a bit more money than Magnova. Scope wise it is more powerful scope in several aspects. From BW to math, analysis functions etc.

Although oscilloscope manufacturers could better explain the importance of these things in literature/videos sometimes, especially for users who think they are into analog rather than fast digital edges, users should also take self responsibility for educating themselves.
Modern scopes have great processing capability that allow new analyses, and computations and presentations to be done differently, revealing deeper signal behaviour provided the user is willing to learn how to make use of the capabilities. Audio amplifier and power supply designs can easily misbehave in the hundreds of MHz. Many people still do not realise they may benefit from modern hardware/software performance and features, GigSample/sec rates and higher BW.

The metal case can be impractical. Unless one has total faith in the anodizing, the logic probe case possibly needs wrapping in sticky tape before going near large PCBs.

[kaspich]

And I personally would rather get SDS3104xHD for a bit more money than Magnova. Scope wise it is more powerful scope in several aspects. From BW to math, analysis functions etc.

Although oscilloscope manufacturers could better explain the importance of these things in literature/videos sometimes, especially for users who think they are into analog rather than fast digital edges, users should also take self responsibility for educating themselves.
Modern scopes have great processing capability that allow new analyses, and computations and presentations to be done differently, revealing deeper signal behaviour provided the user is willing to learn how to make use of the capabilities. Audio amplifier and power supply designs can easily misbehave in the hundreds of MHz. Many people still do not realise they may benefit from modern hardware/software performance and features, GigSample/sec rates and higher BW.

The metal case can be impractical. Unless one has total faith in the anodizing, the logic probe case possibly needs wrapping in sticky tape before going near large PCBs.

computations and presentations from incorrectly captured signal
But I am more than happy to see here a lot of well-educated people, real specialists in modern scopes
Thanks for the aliasing videos; that was something new for me.

[KungFuJosh]

screen = ok, agree. But, if necessary, an external display can be connected (actual for MXO3, for example)

True, depending on the scope. But I don't want to rely on an external screen. I also have a 32" screen externally connected to the Magnova.

update rate = nothing special in 2026

That's (unfortunately) not true. We've compared this with other scopes, and there's little that compares even close to, or above this price point. Please share an example of other scopes with higher update rates.

encoders = agree, but knobs, for example, are... nothing special (cheap plastics).

lol so what? The knobs feel nice, and you wouldn't want them to weigh 10 pounds and be tedious to turn. Light plastic knobs are easier to manipulate and isolated from the metal electronics. Those are both good things. I don't know what they cost, but as a guy that builds a lot of products with a variety of knobs, I don't think they're cheap. I don't care if they cost them 1 penny, they feel fine. I just don't think that's the case. In any case, the quality of the encoders is paramount.

Btw, here is one more innovation (sure, not bug or disadvantage).
Input: 10MHz, sine wave.

Yes, I understand why this happened, but again, a clear indication of ADC overload should be added. Ups, this will work only with conjunction with ''burst'' packs for low samplerate settings...
On the other hand, for low sample rate settings, why isn't Hi-Res added automatically?
Or, all this is done for never-ending touchscreen performance testing? One more extra feature?

Now you're making feature requests. Nothing wrong with that! Present your case, and there's a chance you may see some of those features added.

Personally though, I don't want things like Hi-Res automatically added. I need to be in control of my test setup, otherwise the setup may not be valid for comparison if I didn't note that something like Hi-Res was automatically turned on (it's bad enough when I forget something I did  ). I wouldn't want it turned off automatically either. Every user's needs/workflow is different, and anything that automatically changes a test setup that dramatically without user control is a potential issue.

Thanks,
Josh

[shabaz]

computations and presentations from incorrectly captured signal
But I am more than happy to see here a lot of well-educated people, real specialists in modern scopes
Thanks for the aliasing videos; that was something new for me.

I don't know the specific issue (too little time to read all the thread) but as a general response, one needs to learn how to drive any instrument, but particularly ones that are inherently highly configurable, because no manufacturer can entirely predict how their product will be put to use. Some may want the instrument set to a low sample rate for their work. The users ought to become the experts, and in some ways, often relevant to their roles, come to know the instrument better than the manufacturer.
If anyone is new to sampled data (I don't know you, so this comment is general too), one can experiment with (say) Python or Matlab, or to an extent even audio software and a sound card as a beginner, but first it's worth reading up on the subject, from a book, for more thoroughness. I don't have any book recommendations since it's a while since I did my degree.

You have to consider what you're subjecting the instrument to, and your strategy, before the knob-twiddling commences. For instance, if you're going in somewhat blind, then it's obviously wise to start at a high volts/div setting and work your way down through observation.

I've seen rows of instruments busted (oscilloscopes and spectrum analyzers) because people plugged something in, wondered why they were not getting the result they expected, and then blindly plugging into the next nearest instrument.

If there's a setting or something you feel you need to do frequently but may forget how to do so, then make use of the presets, or write scripts, so that you don't slip up on any part of the configuration.

I saw something about knob-twiddling delay, but I think it's to be expected that instruments often have architectures that take longer to flush or wait for all data to egress before reconfiguration.

[kaspich]

screen = ok, agree. But, if necessary, an external display can be connected (actual for MXO3, for example)

True, depending on the scope. But I don't want to rely on an external screen. I also have a 32" screen externally connected to the Magnova.

update rate = nothing special in 2026

That's (unfortunately) not true. We've compared this with other scopes, and there's little that compares even close to, or above this price point. Please share an example of other scopes with higher update rates.

encoders = agree, but knobs, for example, are... nothing special (cheap plastics).

lol so what? The knobs feel nice, and you wouldn't want them to weigh 10 pounds and be tedious to turn. Light plastic knobs are easier to manipulate and isolated from the metal electronics. Those are both good things. I don't know what they cost, but as a guy that builds a lot of products with a variety of knobs, I don't think they're cheap. I don't care if they cost them 1 penny, they feel fine. I just don't think that's the case. In any case, the quality of the encoders is paramount.

Btw, here is one more innovation (sure, not bug or disadvantage).
Input: 10MHz, sine wave.

Yes, I understand why this happened, but again, a clear indication of ADC overload should be added. Ups, this will work only with conjunction with ''burst'' packs for low samplerate settings...
On the other hand, for low sample rate settings, why isn't Hi-Res added automatically?
Or, all this is done for never-ending touchscreen performance testing? One more extra feature?

Now you're making feature requests. Nothing wrong with that! Present your case, and there's a chance you may see some of those features added.

Personally though, I don't want things like Hi-Res automatically added. I need to be in control of my test setup, otherwise the setup may not be valid for comparison if I didn't note that something like Hi-Res was automatically turned on (it's bad enough when I forget something I did  ). I wouldn't want it turned off automatically either. Every user's needs/workflow is different, and anything that automatically changes a test setup that dramatically without user control is a potential issue.

Thanks,
Josh

I'll start from the bottom.
You are calling this a ''feature''. Actually, it's a BUG. ADC is overloaded, but zero information about this. Or, maybe it's a feature for modern scopes; it needs to be asked for educated people.
About knobs - just plastic. For me, something special could be plastic (as a core) + a rubber/rubberish ring, for example. These knobs cost cents.
Encoders. Are these optical encoders? I assume, no.  Just regular encoders with a steel shaft. Sorry, nothing extraordinary, the same as for my old Agilent. So, again and again, encoders are mentioned as one of the mega benefits for the scope that costs 5K EUR? Seriously?
About wfps - I'll write a short post later, but - it's all about the sweetspot. In sweetspot - yes, this scope is pretty responsive, but, for example, 1wfps in Normal mode...
About hires n shit - sorry, nothing to add. Your workflow differs, that's it. But this doesn't justify incorrect performance (or, again - features in modern scopes, confirmed by educated people).

[2N3055]

And here we are. Magnova is the new class of the product. A "luxury" scope. It has competent performance, scope parameters considered. But 350 MHz version cost hovers in 500 Mhz-1 GHz BW scopes. That is a hard limit that you cannot "luxure around" etc etc...

I agree with most of what you say, however, bandwidth isn't everything. Bandwidth is only really a cost factor when comparing the same scope line with different bandwidth models. Bandwidth also only comes in to play depending on a user's bw needs.

Other things for me that are not luxuries, but requirements:
large screen
excellent update rate
proper shading on channels
excellent & reliable encoders
external reference input


My choice for scope after the SDS2000X HD was the Magnova vs. the SDS3000X HD. In every aspect of my requirements, the Magnova wins.

I need a bigger screen with better quality. It's not optional. My eyes are a pain in the butt sometimes, and I've had no issues with the Magnova.

The update rate and channel shading / grading is no competition either. The SDS3000X HD pales in comparison. Even the SDS5000X HD series is worse in this regard. The shading/grading issue Siglent can fix, but they don't seem to think it's a priority.

I like good encoders. I like to use them in my workflow, and I appreciate them working with excellent precision consistently. This isn't a luxury, though it might feel like it compared to other TE with junk knobs and poor UI handling of those junk knobs.

Finally, I require external reference input. Is it a luxury? Maybe, but it annoys me not having it. Nothing less than the more expensive SDS5000X HD has it in the Siglent HD range.

So, as always, it comes down to user preference for what is needed for workflow. Things are only luxuries if they go beyond necessity. That might be true of the metal case, but it's also functional as a heatsink, and helps with the Magnova's excellent thermal performance. You also have to consider how many high-end scopes that were made with plastic shells became unusable because of their plastic shells deteriorating.

For Magnova they can build in whatever they can do, because software is more or less for free. (eye pattern from R&S? ten grands?) Of course if you need the fastes ADC/Asic you will go to the expensive brand, but a company like Batronix will give you more bells&whistles for the everyday scope.

Software / options are free to Magnova users, but you can be sure it costs Batronix money to develop those things.

Thanks,
Josh

Josh,

this is exactly my point. Good encoder is one that doesn't skip clicks, and lasts long time. What you call "good" is "feel good". There is a difference. Screen that is 10" big is not small, but granted 15" is much easier on your eyes. External reference on a scope that has no analysis options that can benefit from it has no practical use for any except very special cases. That is the reason why many scopes do not have it. It can be nice to your sense of neatness to see all those zeros, but no practical reason for it. SDS5000XHD has it because it is needed for synchronized multiphase measurements on power. And 7000A has it for it's eye/jitter and other advanced analysis options where you might need to synch with external VNA or generator.

And I do disagree on BW. BW is hard requirement, one that cannot be worked around if you need it. I will argue with you that even 100-200 MHz is good enough for many uses.
Until you need more. And when you do, then there is no replacement for it.

But as I said, it might be great choice for you. It might be epicly greatest choice for you.
Bought with your own money and your choice of priorities. It ticks all the boxes. Great, I am happy it makes you happy.

But with SDS3104xHD you can do so many things you will never be able to do with Magnova.
If you don't need those things, you chose well according to your priorities.
But those priorities are mostly look and feel. Nothing wrong with that, mind you.
Far be it from me to judge it. Just making distinction.
Because lots of people have this misunderstanding that certain level of money guarantees ALL parameters will be superb. They won't. Different devices will have money spent on different focus. Trick is to choose device that has focus where you need it and is wanting where you don't care.

[KungFuJosh]

Because lots of people have this misunderstanding that certain level of money guarantees ALL parameters will be superb. They won't. Different devices will have money spent on different focus. Trick is to choose device that has focus where you need it and is wanting where you don't care.

Again, I agree with you. It all comes down to user needs, and this does tick all the boxes for me, whatever the reasons might be.

I don't think I really need even 100MHz, but I do enjoying have the higher frequencies for fun stuff. But there's certainly no requirement for me to have it, as my real use for the scope is in the audio domain. Some stuff higher than that for troubleshooting other electronics, but nothing super high frequency.

I agree that bandwidth is a hard requirement, but I don't need anything higher. I wouldn't choose a smaller screen scope with lower update rates, and no ref in, for the off chance that I might someday need higher bandwidth. I thoroughly enjoy using this scope, and if the need for a higher bandwidth comes in, I'll buy a 2nd scope. Hmmm, how many scopes do you have at this point?

It always comes down to a user choosing the scope that best meets their needs evaluating the pros and cons of each device in their budget. As we've both said, there is no one perfect device for all users.

Thanks,
Josh

[2N3055]

Hmmm, how many scopes do you have at this point?

Way too many.... I have a problem.. I know...

[Grandchuck]

Which one is your all around favorite?  For general use.

[S13]

Regarding the aliasing "issue" of the Magnova, it seems the Keysight/Agilent is truly unique in this area!



So cant blame the Magnova too much

[KungFuJosh]

Hmmm, how many scopes do you have at this point?

Way too many.... I have a problem.. I know...

Not a problem, you're winning the TEAS game.