new killer scope in town - a true game changer from R&S - RTB2002 & RTB2004

[ElectronMan]

Far from an optimal test setup, but I am quite surprised how long the RTB2004's counter can hang onto a sine-wave.

This is using a 500MHz probe FWIW. Just something I noticed while playing around with an R&S SME-03 sig gen.

[uski]

Has there been any update with the latest firmware regarding the maximum number of protocol decoders enabled at the same time ?

Last I heard was a maximum of two, and RX/TX serial decode counts as two decoder, so basically if you decode one UART, you are using all the decoders.

I was hoping R&S would increase this limit to at least 3, ideally 4-5 !

Thanks

[Hydron]

I seem to recall it not sounding promising due to HW (FPGA) limitations - this has been asked about for over 3 years now. I haven't checked FW 2.3 yet though for more hidden additions - more decodes would be a major bonus!

[RBBVNL9]

Has there been any update with the latest firmware regarding the maximum number of protocol decoders enabled at the same time ?

Last I heard was a maximum of two, and RX/TX serial decode counts as two decoder, so basically if you decode one UART, you are using all the decoders.

Interesting you mention that. It seems I cannot decode SPI and CAN at the same time. When  I activate 'decode' of SPI on Bus B1, a CAN protocol on bus B2 is disabled (?!?). It greys out both in the vertical menu, as in the bottom menu (see screenshot). I made sure they do not overlap in the input channels used (by using the MSO).



If I do something wrong, please tell me.

But if this is indeed yet another limitation with the RTB, then this is too bad. Even my PicoScope 3405D and the much cheaper PicoScope 2000 series models can do multiple protocols at the same time with no problems. For the RTB, serial decoding is a rather expensive option, and still seems to have serious limitations in terms of usage.

Also wondering where/wether R&S provides more specific information on these limitations? I might overlook it, but the only relevant text on this in the manual I am finding is:

You can configure 2 protocol buses and select one of the configured buses for analysis.

The R&S RTx-K1, -K2, -K3, -K5, -K6, -K7 Serial Protocol Triggering and Decoding – Fact Sheet, which applies to the RTB, says:

Trigger and decode on four different interfaces at the same time from analog or digital channel signals.

And does not mention any limitation (!) At the page bottom, it provides an URL for 'further information', but this is a broken link.

[RBBVNL9]

Maybe I should be a bit clearer on my position here. If a company like R&S wants to diversify its various products offerings (in terms of osciloscopes: RTB, RTM, RTA, etc.) then I think that is perfectly legitimate.

However, when you sell software options (RTB-K1, RTB-K2, RTB-K3) for appropriately 600 Euro each, which specifically and only add serial decode options, and issue a data sheet for precisely these software options that literally states “Trigger and decode on four different interfaces at the same time from analog or digital channel signals”, without listing any exceptions, then you are obliged to actually deliver this!

[2N3055]

Has there been any update with the latest firmware regarding the maximum number of protocol decoders enabled at the same time ?

Last I heard was a maximum of two, and RX/TX serial decode counts as two decoder, so basically if you decode one UART, you are using all the decoders.

Interesting you mention that. It seems I cannot decode SPI and CAN at the same time. When  I activate 'decode' of SPI on Bus B1, a CAN protocol on bus B2 is disabled (?!?). It greys out both in the vertical menu, as in the bottom menu (see screenshot). I made sure they do not overlap in the input channels used (by using the MSO).

(Attachment Link)

If I do something wrong, please tell me.

But if this is indeed yet another limitation with the RTB, then this is too bad. Even my PicoScope 3405D and the much cheaper PicoScope 2000 series models can do multiple protocols at the same time with no problems. For the RTB, serial decoding is a rather expensive option, and still seems to have serious limitations in terms of usage.

Also wondering where/wether R&S provides more specific information on these limitations? I might overlook it, but the only relevant text on this in the manual I am finding is:

You can configure 2 protocol buses and select one of the configured buses for analysis.

The R&S RTx-K1, -K2, -K3, -K5, -K6, -K7 Serial Protocol Triggering and Decoding – Fact Sheet, which applies to the RTB, says:

Trigger and decode on four different interfaces at the same time from analog or digital channel signals.

And does not mention any limitation (!) At the page bottom, it provides an URL for 'further information', but this is a broken link.

They do. It's called datasheet. And is being discussed for years now.
Problem is in users. People keep buying cheapest R&S scope (RTB2000 is their entry level scope in power of 10 range), and expect it to have same features as expensive mid range scopes from R&S.
They don't and never will have. They have product range, and progressive featuresets as price progresses.
Expectations are users problem.

If you want entry level scope from premium manufacturer, buy RTB2000 . You will get limited features, good quality, nice design. And high price. Not best price/performance, but best luxury factor, you're paying for reputation. basically.
If you want more features, you either have to go with 2 tier manufacturers, who will give more features for less money, but will have different tradeoffs. Your choice.

You cannot buy R&S scope and expect it to have feature parity with 2 tier manufacturer for the same money.  They are catering to different market, and have different priorities..

That is, for instance, why thousands of professionals use Picoscope for decoding... It is best capability for money, and all on the PC that has big screen and easy transfer to other programs.
It has its own problems though. No protocol triggering for instance. But when you're capturing data in bulk it makes no difference anyways.

R&S scopes look gorgeous. You can expect R&S will have decent support. What features they have are working well (they debug if there are problems and fix).
But RTB2000 is a Fiat 500 of their range. Don't get confused with Ferrari badge.  It is not LaFerrari. It is small 1 liter car with all visual cues and equipment to make it look as Ferrari in design. You might get same navigation screen too.. But none of the powerful stuff.. But you will travel in style, and to 90% of people that is 100% of the car they need.

You want something different, buy something different, and something that explicitly state capabilities you need. So you know you will get it. Not expect..

[uski]

Obviously R&S tries to get the most money possible, and there are marketing ways to do that including intentionally crippling the features of the "cheap" units. Doesn't take a PhD in marketing to understand this.

But as users we should not defend that. And there are always users who seem to do exactly that.
I don't know why, maybe to look cool, maybe to look interesting and superior, but I will never understand this type of reply.

I mean, what's next, ask to pay more for less features ?

And don't get me started on the bandwidth upgrade options costing thousands... for hardware which is already there anyway. No idea how we accept this bullsh*t.

[RBBVNL9]

@2N3055:

They do. It's called datasheet.

So we seem to be in agreement, that it is the datasheet that tells us what the instrument should be (at minimal) capable of.

Like I wrote before, it is stated in the datasheets that apply to the RTB-K1, RTB-K2, RTB-K3 software options (which are the specific software options for the RTB scope) that

"Trigger and decode on four different interfaces at the same time from analog or digital channel signals."

And this data sheet does not list any reservation, any limitation or whatever.

If the datasheet unconditionally specifies it, then we cannot wave this away as an unreasonable expectation of the buyer of the instrument!

Again (and I am now repeating myself): I find it totally legitimate that R&S differentiates between their various offerings, like the RTB, RTM, RTA. But they do need, at minimum, to comply with the datasheets they publish for specific models.

[2N3055]

Obviously R&S tries to get the most money possible, and there are marketing ways to do that including intentionally crippling the features of the "cheap" units. Doesn't take a PhD in marketing to understand this.

But as users we should not defend that. And there are always users who seem to do exactly that.
I don't know why, maybe to look cool, maybe to look interesting and superior, but I will never understand this type of reply.

I mean, what's next, ask to pay more for less features ?

And don't get me started on the bandwidth upgrade options costing thousands... for hardware which is already there anyway. No idea how we accept this bullsh*t.

Bandwidth and options are pricing policy. They have a right to do so.  And plenty of reasons in a whole scope of industry. Hobby users are very egocentric and don't understand whole ecosystem. Industrial practices a hard to change...

OTOH, you had choice before buying. Now you can only bitch about it. And they can laugh at it because they already took your money. Sticks and stones....

Only way to protest is NOT to buy product you have complaint about.  If you still buy it and then simply bitch about it on some forum, they don't care.
They achieved their objective: they took from you maximum money for minimum goods. Maximum profit. Brilliant for them, really..
As long as people are, well, stupid about it, in that way, they don't have any incentive to change...

Market doesn't work if people make non market decisions.

And to be clear, I'm not talking about R&S specifically here. I'm talking about every single participant on the market. R&S, Tektronix, Keysight, Rigol, Siglent, Micsig, Brymen.. etc.. whatever..

That is why Chinese B brands try to give you more, to bridge the gap of "noname brand with no reputation". And western brands with great reputation, are trying to squeeze "brand" by selling less and pretending it is more because "famous brand"....  It's up to user to see through these  games and make rational decision what instrument is technically correct for their use, taking into account price, support, specs, accessories, software, capabilities....

As for pricing, I really took an offense with R&S, that as an EU company, at beginning, for a limited time, made special price for RTB2000 in USA that was really attractive (if I remember 2100 USD for a full bandwidth and options RTB2004), and never since made anything even close in EU. That was a douche move. And I don't even want to buy RTB2000 series (I would at least need 3000/4000 series for my work), but I simply found that offensive. They could have sold 20 pieces in EU, as a symbolic gesture, at a parity price  in EU, but no.. They don't care for EU customers as much as those in USA.... That's the message... And guess what, that is true..
When I was deliberating whether to buy RTM3000 or Keysight MSOX300T, person that was most helpful, brilliant and altogether great man was Rich from USA R&S branch here on forum.  Thanks again to him, for all the great work he does.
But R&S as a company... meh... I'm sure they provide great support to big accounts, and government etc..  But as a company they are mostly oriented to that market. Small bussines, hobby, and such, not so much. And I honestly think it's not because they are asses or evil, but I think they DON'T understand that market well...

Regards,

[2N3055]

@2N3055:

They do. It's called datasheet.

So we seem to be in agreement, that it is the datasheet that tells us what the instrument should be (at minimal) capable of.

Like I wrote before, it is stated in the datasheets that apply to the RTB-K1, RTB-K2, RTB-K3 software options (which are the specific software options for the RTB scope) that

"Trigger and decode on four different interfaces at the same time from analog or digital channel signals."

And this data sheet does not list any reservation, any limitation or whatever.

If the datasheet unconditionally specifies it, then we cannot wave this away as an unreasonable expectation of the buyer of the instrument!

Again (and I am now repeating myself): I find it totally legitimate that R&S differentiates between their various offerings, like the RTB, RTM, RTA. But they do need, at minimum, to comply with the datasheets they publish for specific models.

I agree with you in general. But, as I said before, apart form datasheets, all other documents in big companies are being written (or at least edited) by lawyers nowadays, not engineers. Engineers contribute to it by giving base data, and then marketing and sales and legal departments make up phrases that are "technically correct" but sound better that they are.

I'm looking at datasheet now (Version 12.00, March 2020).  I can't find sentence you're quoting. What I can see is: "number of bus signals 2" with comment " If a bidirectional bus is used (e.g. UART RX/TX or SPI MOSI/MISO), two bus decoders are occupied".

It is right there...

I dug a bit more, and found a brochure called "R&S®RTx-K1, -K2, -K3, -K5, -K6, -K7  SERIAL PROTOCOL TRIGGERING AND DECODING, For R&S®RTB2000, R&S®RTM3000 and R&S®RTA4000 oscilloscopes"
In that one  they mention : "Decoding of up to four serial buses: Trigger and decode on four different interfaces at the same time from analog or digital channel signals"

But they say "Up to", for a family of products 2000/3000/4000. Expensive 4000 series does 4 decodes.... They didn't lie. That is a brochure for a product family.

In datasheet for RTB2000 they correctly state, that you practically have 1 decoder to use, unless you do 2 I2C buses or some other unidirectional serial bus..

But that's fine, really.. It is entry level scope after all.  But 15000 USD retail RTM3000 also have only 1 bidir decode, and even more expensive RTA4000 series have 2 bidir decoders (yes those 4 are single direction, so only 2 UART decodes)

Keysight 3000T for instance has 2 decoders, full bidir...  So that would be equivalent of 4 in R&S RTA4000...

But all that is clearly written in datasheets. Those are tech specs. Brochures and other marketing materials are not to be trusted and are marketing bullshit mostly, designed to confuse customer and painting a rosy picture..

And it is obvious that R&S doesn't need to make more decoders available (even if the could add them, maybe resources are limited), because it is obvious that current number of decoders is sufficient.
And we know for sure they are sufficient, because people keep buying it despite nominaly very limited decoding. Once they stop buying, and quote low number of decoding channels, they might make a change.
Until then, there will be no change.

Same is with Keysight 3000T (and 4000/6000 Infiniivision series). Everybody and their mother are bitching about  how they have very short memory (2-4 MS compared with 200-500MS with even very cheap scopes today). And that is being a story now for more than 5 years..  And there is no new Infiniivision II with Megazoom 5 and 500 MS (or even 50MS) of memory in sight.
Why? Because they are best selling scopes on the market still in its current form, and obviously people don't need more memory... When sales start dropping and people say it is because of very short memory, then, you will see, how Keysight will very quickly introduce new series. like a rabbit from a hat. Of course they are working on next step, maybe even have developed product ready for production..
But why use an ace when you're winning the game anyways..

[RBBVNL9]

Dear 2N3055, thanks for the reply.

Brochures and other marketing materials are not to be trusted and are marketing bullshit mostly, designed to confuse customer and painting a rosy picture..

I see what you read, but I don’t think that we, as buyers of such instrument, should too easily be willing to accept this line of reasoning, that any other document than one called a “data sheet” does not bring any obligation. Also information in documents that are called “fact sheets”, or for that matter “brochures”, should be something people could rely on, have trust in. Their language should not be factually incorrect or deceiving.

Going back to the verbatim language we were discussing in the ‘fact sheet’ document “Decoding of up to four serial buses: Trigger and decode on four different interfaces at the same time from analog or digital channel signals”. I really believe one should reasonably be able this as “if you want to decode four buses at the same time, then this software you can buy from us allows you to do this”. And not like “we mentioned four, but it may also three, or two…”. Heck, this way I would also need to accept zero as an answer! Note also this is a very specific document, only about these separate software licenses to decode buses. 

If it would have read “You may be able to decode up to four different interfaces”, or “depending on your oscilloscope model or the protocol in question, you can decode up to four different interfaces at once”, then I think it would have been ok.

I have one more example. The RTB2000 Product Brochure, Version 06.000 has the following text (emphasis added):

Waveform and pattern generator: The integrated R&S RTB-B6 waveform and pattern generator (up to 50 Mbit/s) is useful for educational purposes and for implementing prototype hardware. Apart from the common sine, square/pulse, ramp and noise waveforms, it outputs arbitrary waveforms and 4-bit signal patterns. Waveforms and patterns can be imported as CSV files or copied from oscilloscope waveforms. Before playing signals back, the user can preview them to quickly check signal correctness. Predefined patterns for e.g. I2C, SPI, UART and CAN/LIN can be used.

Well, in fact, you cannot import patterns as CSV files (and if I’m wrong here, someone let me know!). Is that OK?

[2N3055]

Dear 2N3055, thanks for the reply.

Brochures and other marketing materials are not to be trusted and are marketing bullshit mostly, designed to confuse customer and painting a rosy picture..

I see what you read, but I don’t think that we, as buyers of such instrument, should too easily be willing to accept this line of reasoning, that any other document than one called a “data sheet” does not bring any obligation. Also information in documents that are called “fact sheets”, or for that matter “brochures”, should be something people could rely on, have trust in. Their language should not be factually incorrect or deceiving.

Going back to the verbatim language we were discussing in the ‘fact sheet’ document “Decoding of up to four serial buses: Trigger and decode on four different interfaces at the same time from analog or digital channel signals”. I really believe one should reasonably be able this as “if you want to decode four buses at the same time, then this software you can buy from us allows you to do this”. And not like “we mentioned four, but it may also three, or two…”. Heck, this way I would also need to accept zero as an answer! Note also this is a very specific document, only about these separate software licenses to decode buses. 

If it would have read “You may be able to decode up to four different interfaces”, or “depending on your oscilloscope model or the protocol in question, you can decode up to four different interfaces at once”, then I think it would have been ok.

I have one more example. The RTB2000 Product Brochure, Version 06.000 has the following text (emphasis added):

Waveform and pattern generator: The integrated R&S RTB-B6 waveform and pattern generator (up to 50 Mbit/s) is useful for educational purposes and for implementing prototype hardware. Apart from the common sine, square/pulse, ramp and noise waveforms, it outputs arbitrary waveforms and 4-bit signal patterns. Waveforms and patterns can be imported as CSV files or copied from oscilloscope waveforms. Before playing signals back, the user can preview them to quickly check signal correctness. Predefined patterns for e.g. I2C, SPI, UART and CAN/LIN can be used.

Well, in fact, you cannot import patterns as CSV files (and if I’m wrong here, someone let me know!). Is that OK?

Again, no mention of *.csv , only *.scp in Datasheet or manual. Which are actual reference document.

To put it bluntly I agree 100% that many manufacturers are simply shit. Unethical, greedy corporations that are there not to do good, be decent and do their job, but to make money at maximum profit point. That is not conspiracy theory, it is literally curriculum in management schools. They pretend but they don't really care.

I was very verbose so I apologize for not being clear. We absolutely need to be very critical to manufacturers that play any kind of games like that and purposely design devices to imply functionality they don't possess. 

What I wanted to say to you is that all those documents that have false, implied, future possible but not here (not that we promise we'll do it, but it could be done if want to) are NOT datasheets. By law only datasheet (or specification sheet) is document that needs to accurately present true capabilities at the date of sale. Because that is the one that serves as specification in sales contract what you are actually buying at the time.

And they will diligently make sure datasheet and manual are correct. Which they are. So you cannot sue them.

Fact that they are writing all other marketing in a manner that used car salesmen would consider unethical is just a show of company moral standards.. "our new BMW 3 series has up to 300 HP..." they don't specify which one.. R&S apparently outsourced (or hired) marketing manager that thinks scopes are Iphones or cars... 

I don't like it. I like it less than you. That is why I bough Keysight scope, instead of RTM3000 that i really liked at first glance..  I made my vote, in only way they understand.. They lost my 8000-9000 € and all the money in future for maintenance, accessories, other devices.. I'm also very vocal about it. There are others that are having second thoughts..

I know they laugh at loss of my business, I'm not important to that big corporation.. But how about 100 of me or 1000 of me, where is the point where it becomes important?

So to summarize it, if you like R&S, and it has all the features you need and you're willing to pay for it, go for it. It's a premium feel product, and fancy looks and name, and it will make your lab look fancy. And it will serve you well within it's specs.

If you need instrument to have more than certain number of decodes, or this or that, and current R&S (or any other manufacturer) product doesn't have that capability, you need to chose something else. It won't appear magically if you wish for it hard enough. If anything, A brand manufacturers are LESS likely to add features and functions later (and free). If they add something, they want you to pay for it...

Keysight started selling their DSOX1204 series (latest 1000 series 4ch) with all serial protocols for free, only after Siglent and Rigol had them for free and nobody would buy Keysight in that range because it was too expensive. It is still more expensive compared to similar Chinese offerings, but not by factor of 3..

[RBBVNL9]

@2N3055: After this conversation, I see we are not that far apart, really.

In my view, there are three components to this:

1. A business component. Satisfied customers are more loyal: they come back and encourage others to buy from you as well. This should be at least one reason for an instrument maker not to make false promises or use misleading language in any of their documents.

2. An ethical/moral component. (No elaboration needed here, I hope.)

3. A legal component. While you write 'By law only datasheet (or specification sheet) is document that needs to accurately present true capabilities at the date of sale.', I would not take such a narrow interpretation for granted. One-sided commitments or statements may have a legally binding significance. Such things will certainly depend on applicable law (the country in question). Moreover, they will depend on the applicable regime - don't be surprised how many expensive measurement instruments are bought by private consumers, which in many countries enjoy specific protection or rights. While I personally do not like to resort directly to this legal component, and I rather leave interpretation to legal professionals, things may not be as negative as you think.

best regards,

[tautech]

Keysight started selling their DSOX1204 series (latest 1000 series 4ch) with all serial protocols for free, only after Siglent and then later Rigol had them for free and nobody would buy Keysight in that range because it was too expensive. It is still more expensive compared to similar Chinese offerings, but not by factor of 3..

Correction added. 

[tautech]

@2N3055: After this conversation, I see we are not that far apart, really.

In my view, there are three components to this:

1. A business component. Satisfied customers are more loyal: they come back and encourage others to buy from you as well. This should be at least one reason for an instrument maker not to make false promises or use misleading language in any of their documents.

2. An ethical/moral component. (No elaboration needed here, I hope.)

3. A legal component. While you write 'By law only datasheet (or specification sheet) is document that needs to accurately present true capabilities at the date of sale.', I would not take such a narrow interpretation for granted. One-sided commitments or statements may have a legally binding significance. Such things will certainly depend on applicable law (the country in question). Moreover, they will depend on the applicable regime - don't be surprised how many expensive measurement instruments are bought by private consumers, which in many countries enjoy specific protection or rights. While I personally do not like to resort directly to this legal component, and I rather leave interpretation to legal professionals, things may not be as negative as you think.

best regards,

Why not ? 
A datasheet accurately states the specifications of what an instrument can do and it's not some dreamed up 'hope it can' document. Specifications are proven by tests with better specified equipment, it has to be better to provide a degree of accuracy that can be challenged and reproven with tests.

[Weston]

When upgrading to the new firmware I inspected my scope more closely than normal and discovered that there is an unconnected grey wire floating around in the back of the enclosure.

I chatted with Hydron a bit about this and he said it was probably the wire coming from the AC line trigger optocoupler, which goes to a waggo connector that could have conceivably gotten loose. Setting the scope in AC line trigger mode shows it is not reliably triggering, so it seems like that is the case.

I am a bit confused how this happened. I guess I could have missed it when I first got the scope, but I peered in the back at least a little bit. And I have not subjected the scope to any mechanical shocks that could have dislodged the wire 

The unshielded end of the wire is not touching anything right now, but I would prefer to have this fixed sooner than later.

@Rich, is there anything I can do to resolve this myself? It seems like an easy fix, but the calibration sticker on the bottom is stopping me from opening up the scope. Is there any warranty implications to removing the sticker?

[Joel_l]

I just looked at mine, seems it would be easy to do by removing the rear cover. If your unit is out of warranty and you are comfortable taking the cover off, I don't think it is difficult.
Right behind the grill in your picture is where it plugs in. You should see a white connector.

[RBBVNL9]

Why not ? 

I think this forum is not the right place to have legal discussions. But this calls for an answer.

The law is a system based on constitutions, treaties, rules of law, and jurisdiction. It developed over a very long course of time and somewhat developed differently across nations.

Society decided that not just anybody can provide meaning to the law. Also not us, engineers, using our ‘engineering logic’. In most countries, one needs a license to practice law, often known as being administered to the bar. To obtain such a license, one needs to meet a number of requirements, and that usually includes a law degree, based on years of study. Thinking of the discussion above: during such a study, one might spend considerable effort on even examining ancient Roman law, which holds important principles for today’s private and contract law (in ancient Rome, oscilloscopes did not yet exist, but perhaps there were measurements instruments on sale?).

@Tautech: I see you work for a company. Almost any company of some size will have a legal advisor, legal department, or an in-house councel. You should turn to them to have your question answered.

I also observe that when lawyers or other legal professionals are mentioned in this forum or similar places, it is often in a negative connotation. I think that is regrettable. In my daily work, I have engaged often with legal professionals, in several dozen legal cases, and most often, these are constructive, professional and very hard-working individuals, and quite often, very, very intelligent. If working in a company, these people play an important role for the company to behave right, instead of wrong. Similarly, the whole legal system serves an important purpose. People may laugh at this, but may only realise this fun is misplaced once they would find themselves in a situation where no proper legal system is in place.

[nctnico]

I also observe that when lawyers or other legal professionals are mentioned in this forum or similar places, it is often in a negative connotation. I think that is regrettable. In my daily work, I have engaged often with legal professionals, in several dozen legal cases, and most often, these are constructive, professional and very hard-working individuals, and quite often, very, very intelligent. If working in a company, these people play an important role for the company to behave right, instead of wrong.

Not just that; I've seen people / businesses tripping over their own mistakes because they where too stubborn or ignorant to obtain solid legal advice.

[tautech]

@Tautech: I see you work for a company.

Yes, mine.

You previously stated datasheet specification can't be trusted for which I call BS on.
Have you the equipment to prove such ?
If an instrument doesn't meet a manufacturers specification which BTW are usually conservative then the instrument is faulty not the datasheet is a lie.

To go down this road is outside the capability of most as we generally don't have other equipment to test instruments to their full capability....or with properly calibrated traceable test instruments to categorically prove that an instruments specification is wrong !

[JxR]

Has there been any update with the latest firmware regarding the maximum number of protocol decoders enabled at the same time ?

Last I heard was a maximum of two, and RX/TX serial decode counts as two decoder, so basically if you decode one UART, you are using all the decoders.

Interesting you mention that. It seems I cannot decode SPI and CAN at the same time. When  I activate 'decode' of SPI on Bus B1, a CAN protocol on bus B2 is disabled (?!?). It greys out both in the vertical menu, as in the bottom menu (see screenshot). I made sure they do not overlap in the input channels used (by using the MSO).

Since it wasn't explicitly stated if you overcame this problem: You need to set the SPI to only decode MOSI and set MISO to None in the protocol configuration, if you want to do a CAN decode on B2.  Doing both MOSI and MISO on B1 is bringing you to the two decode limit.

To you and other new purchasers:
As I'm sure you are already aware reading datasheets, and then rereading again and again is essential before a purchase.  Never ever buy anything assuming or hoping a feature will be added in the future.  You will just set yourself up for disappointment (which I myself have made the mistake of).

The RTB2000 was a great 'entry level' scope 3.5 years ago.  I like many others here got it at the intro price, and at the time it was a great deal (~$2200 or so fully loaded).  Now the B-Market has caught up with a vengeance since the RTB2000 was first released.  As much as I like the RTB2000 still, I doubt I would have still purchased it today if I was in the market for a new scope.  It is still a great scope, just much harder to justify even at sale prices imho.

That said, the support I have received from R&S and Rich have both been phenomenal over the years.  My RTB2004 had a fault almost a year ago (under warranty), and they just mailed me a brand new calibrated unit.  Even gave me a loaner for an extended amount of time that I was free to use even after the replacement came in.  I had a power supply that had one of the channels die, and they not only replaced the unit, but ended up upgraded me to a higher end model.  R&S has taken care of me when I have had issues and that is certainly worth something.  Rich is still here regularly communicating with us after all these years, when he could have ghosted a long time ago.

[RBBVNL9]

Since it wasn't explicitly stated if you overcame this problem: You need to set the SPI to only decode MOSI and set MISO to None in the protocol configuration, if you want to do a CAN decode on B2.  Doing both MOSI and MISO on B1 is bringing you to the two decode limit.
 

Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I now understand it matters whether one decodes ISP or UART bidirectionally or not. (Would be kind of useful if this were mentioned in the user manual, though.)

Also, your analysis of the RTB attractiveness is interesting.

Personally, I still like my RTB as such very much, let there be no doubt about this, and would likely buy it again today if I was shopping in this category. My personal experiences with R&S service were not as positive as yours, it took them months to replace a faulty probe delivered with the instrument (reported elsewhere in the forum). In hindsight, this was due to multiple communication problems between departments (in different countries) within the company.

In terms of overall functionality and performance, I am very happy. It’s a great device, and some additional functions offered in recent firmware releases should be applauded.

Is it perfect? No, there are some things left to be desired:

• Bug fixes. One example is that the Label List import function does not work properly, even the CAN label example file provided in the RTB manual does not work (hexadecimals values are mistaken for decimal values).
• Several previous bugs were corrected by firmware updates, but often rather late. The firmware blocker when loading an 'SCP' took several years to arrive…
• Device crashes. I must admit this seems to happen less often after the last firmware update, but again, took several years to iron most out, and there are still some.
• Functions advertised in, for instance, the RTB brochure or the fact sheets on the sold options that are not actually in the device. Example is importing patterns as CSV files.

Although these are things I can live with (and for several I developed some work-arounds, and shared them in this forum), they would take little effort for the company to take up and provide overall a more satisfying user experience.

Of course, there are always other desires, but I cannot complain when they are not materialized (although I can always hope…)

[uski]

The RTB2000 was a great 'entry level' scope 3.5 years ago.  I like many others here got it at the intro price, and at the time it was a great deal (~$2200 or so fully loaded).  Now the B-Market has caught up with a vengeance since the RTB2000 was first released.  As much as I like the RTB2000 still, I doubt I would have still purchased it today if I was in the market for a new scope.  It is still a great scope, just much harder to justify even at sale prices imho.

This is where R&S could start releasing some feature upgrades, to keep the attractiveness. Additional serial decodes like I mentioned could be a possibility.

Or significantly reducing the price for the bandwidth "upgrades" which is an outrageous concept anyway (ever heard about a car with an software limitation of the horsepower, which offered paid upgrades to remove that limitation ?), at least for hobbyists. Not 20% off. Divide it by 10.

I do have some experience with "B series", specifically a Rigol DSA832. Not a scope, I know, but it speaks about the company. Not super happy with the quality of the firmware. Lots of crashes, some weird annoying bugs, and missing features which made usability for some use cases much harder than what it should/could have been.
I also have experience with a R&S CMU200. Felt much better. So I hope that R&S made a better job than the B-series with the recent products, which would help justifying the price. But seeing the reply above, not sure the R&S software is bug free....

[RBBVNL9]

But seeing the reply above, not sure the R&S software is bug free....

To avoid misinterpretation: with my RTB, I certainly do not experience a lot of crashes. With earlier firmware I (very) occasionally had crashes (some of which I learned to avoid because I know what triggered them). With the current (2.300) firmware, I'm not sure I had any crashes, but its only out recently, so too early to tell for me whether they now addressed them all.

Over time, quite a few 'other' bugs were addressed in firmware updates, for which quite detailed change logs are issued. But the process has been rather long (several years to iron out several bugs), and there are some bugs that remain.

I cannot compare this to recent scopes of other brands in terms of crashes or bugs because I do not have experience with them.

(Well, I have a Tek 453, a Tek 2465A, and a trusty HAMEG HM 203-5, and hey, none of them ever crashed, but I would not take them as comparison points for this discussion  ;-))) 

[2N3055]

But seeing the reply above, not sure the R&S software is bug free....

To avoid misinterpretation: with my RTB, I certainly do not experience a lot of crashes. With earlier firmware I (very) occasionally had crashes (some of which I learned to avoid because I know what triggered them). With the current (2.300) firmware, I'm not sure I had any crashes, but its only out recently, so too early to tell for me whether they now addressed them all.

Over time, quite a few 'other' bugs were addressed in firmware updates, for which quite detailed change logs are issued. But the process has been rather long (several years to iron out several bugs), and there are some bugs that remain.

I cannot compare this to recent scopes of other brands in terms of crashes or bugs because I do not have experience with them.

(Well, I have a Tek 453, a Tek 2465A, and a trusty HAMEG HM 203-5, and hey, none of them ever crashed, but I would not take them as comparison points for this discussion  ;-))) 

Well, problem is, that in that regard, you paid premium price to A brand, and you got B grade instrument and B grade support.
And you would buy it again. I wouldn't. I would feel cheated.

Fact is, I agree with JxR. Today, in that range, for much less money you have Siglent SDS2000X Plus series, that so far had better track record in being less buggy, faster fixes, very powerful, and much lower price... So if I'm supposed to buy something, and than wait for few years for them to fully debug it, I would at least can say, well I didn't pay much so it paid off.

From premium A brand, high price should mean better quality and it should work from the day one with only minor problems. I bought Keysight 3000T 2 years ago. Expensive. Worth every penny. Not a single problem, since day one. I made a comment here on EEVBlog about how it seems illogical that you can measure pulse count on analog channels but not digital. Few months later that measurement was in the new firmware.. That is premium brand. R&S 2000/3000/4000 was amatuer hour..... No better than Rigol or Siglent. So why pay premium prices for the mediocre product?

It should not be like cars, where you have same Toyota sold as Lexus for twice the price...