R&S to launch MXO5

[egonotto]

Hello,

with R&S ® MXO5-B110 memory option the MXO5 has at least 4 TB memory??

Best regards
egonotto

[nctnico]

Not 4 TB. Say you'd need 2 bytes per sample. For 8 channels that gives 8 * 2 * 1G = 32Gbyte. That is not an excessive amount by today's standards.

[egonotto]

Not 4 TB. Say you'd need 2 bytes per sample. For 8 channels that gives 8 * 2 * 1G = 32Gbyte. That is not an excessive amount by today's standards.

Hello,

Sorry, I should have given a better reason for my question.

In the Specifications of MXO 5 under
Memory segmentation states, among other things, that:

number of segments: 2113
record length: 1 Gpoints
total memory: 2113.000 Gpoints

Best regards
egonotto

[2N3055]

While it is not impossible, not very probable. Most likely a mistake. Or maybe there is streaming to disk. But that would need to be explained. But most likely a typo, because if that was true, it would be on a FIRST page of brochure in very BIG letters  .
Probably copy-paste problem.

[egonotto]

Hello,

but there are ten different entries that are consistent in themselves, with more than 1000 Gpoints. This cannot be a careless mistake. How can such a mistake happen? 

The SSD inside is 256 Gb? perhaps 256 GB
The waveform memory is >= 2x7 GB

Best regards
egonotto

[Swirve]

We're evaluating the MXO5, tek 5 series b and lecroy HDO600B. Is there anyone having input on these three candidates? Pros/cons?

[Martin72]

Hi,

We have a 6000A (6034A) since 2020 here.
It´s completely identical to the 6000B except the display(HDO6000A: 12.1" 1280x800, HDO6000B: 15.6" 1920x1080).
It is our "state of the art" scope which we use for in-depth analysis/development.
As usual in this price range, each feature has to be purchased as an option and we bought the power analysis, spectrum analyzer and serial decoder package.
There are countless other options that turn the scope into a "super scope".
It has 8 simultaneously displayable math channels, 16 different grids, intel i5 processor and min 8GB RAM, it is very fast (adjustable).
I can't think of any real disadvantages, but I can only judge that from our point of view.
I don't know what applications you need the scope for.
If I remember correctly, the user "Sighound36" has a 6000B, he could perhaps also say something about it.
We don't have Tektronix here, so I can't say anything about it, the MXO5 is brand new, so nobody here will be able to tell you anything about it.
Oh well, my recommendation is to buy the scope directly from the manufacturer, you usually get much bigger discounts or options "for free" than through normal dealers.

[nctnico]

We're evaluating the MXO5, tek 5 series b and lecroy HDO600B. Is there anyone having input on these three candidates? Pros/cons?

What is your application? Each oscilloscope has its strong / weak points depending on what you need it for. A particular oscilloscope can be great for one purpose and a total dissaster for another purpose.

[pdenisowski]

, the MXO5 is brand new, so nobody here will be able to tell you anything about it.

Well, I can tell you almost anything you want to know about the MXO5.   Yes, it’s new, but it’s based on the MXO4, which has been out for a while now.

[Martin72]

I´ve forgot to insert "except officials from R&S"...

Yes, it’s new, but it’s based on the MXO4, which has been out for a while now.

That's something I've missed out on here so far, for example.
What exactly distinguishes the MXO5 from the MXO4, a list of facts would be welcome.

[pdenisowski]

What exactly distinguishes the MXO5 from the MXO4, a list of facts would be welcome.

Interface and feature-wise, they are almost the same.  The biggest differentiators are:

• MXO4 BWs are 200, 350, 500, 1000, and 1500 MHz, MXO5 BWs are 350, 500, 1000, and 2000 MHz
• MXO4 is 4 channels only, MXO5 is 4 or 8 channels
• MXO4 has 400 Mpts / channel, MXO5 has 500 Mpts / channel
• MXO4 has only 1 FFT, MXO5 can do 4 simultaneous FFTs
• MXO5 is slightly larger with a bigger display
• MXO5 has a faster processor (for things that are not done in HW/ASIC)

There are some other differences, but those are the biggest ones.

[Martin72]

MXO4 has only 1 FFT, MXO5 can do 4 simultaneous FFTs

Interesting, even Rigols DHO800 could do this, because of the four simultaneous matchchannels.
So I guess, FFT is not done as a math function on MXO series, right?

[nctnico]

What exactly distinguishes the MXO5 from the MXO4, a list of facts would be welcome.

Interface and feature-wise, they are almost the same.  The biggest differentiators are:

• MXO4 BWs are 200, 350, 500, 1000, and 1500 MHz, MXO5 BWs are 350, 500, 1000, and 2000 MHz
• MXO4 is 4 channels only, MXO5 is 4 or 8 channels
• MXO4 has 400 Mpts / channel, MXO5 has 500 Mpts / channel
• MXO4 has only 1 FFT, MXO5 can do 4 simultaneous FFTs
• MXO5 is slightly larger with a bigger display
• MXO5 has a faster processor (for things that are not done in HW/ASIC)

There are some other differences, but those are the biggest ones.

BTW: Any news on an MXO3 or is MXO4 going to be the bottom of the line? 

[egonotto]

, the MXO5 is brand new, so nobody here will be able to tell you anything about it.

Well, I can tell you almost anything you want to know about the MXO5.   Yes, it’s new, but it’s based on the MXO4, which has been out for a while now.

Hello,

In the Specifications of MXO 5 under
Memory segmentation states, among other things, that:

number of segments: 2113
record length: 1 Gpoints
total memory: 2113.000 Gpoints

Is that really correct? Then there should be 4 TB of storage.

Best regards
egonotto

[pdenisowski]

In the Specifications of MXO 5 under
Memory segmentation states, among other things, that:

number of segments: 2113
record length: 1 Gpoints
total memory: 2113.000 Gpoints

Is that really correct? Then there should be 4 TB of storage.

Thanks to you and the other posters for mentioning this.  We just updated the spec sheet and will be posting it to the website soon.

[pdenisowski]

BTW: Any news on an MXO3 or is MXO4 going to be the bottom of the line? 

At the MXO4 launch I think we publicly stated that new scope development will be leveraging the MXO architecture and our custom high-performance ASIC (which is what makes a lot of the MXO's performance / unique features possible).

That said, I'm afraid I can't comment specifically on any of our upcoming scope models.  Sorry!

[pdenisowski]

MXO4 has only 1 FFT, MXO5 can do 4 simultaneous FFTs

Interesting, even Rigols DHO800 could do this, because of the four simultaneous matchchannels.

The MXO5 can do 45,000 FFTs / sec on up to four spectrum displays simultaneously, each with different settings (center, span, ref level, etc.)

Note too that unlike most (all?) other scopes, the time and frequency domain settings are independent.  For example, you can change the span, etc. without this changing the (time domain) acquisition settings.

Are you saying the Rigol DHO800 can do something like that?  Sorry if I misunderstood

[Antonio90]

I don't think he meant to compare FFT specs, certainly not with the MXO5.
But just pointing that more than 1 FFT is standard even in bottom of the barrel 'scopes. At least 2 is actually quite handy to have. MXO4 should have 4, but 2 is a bare-minimum.

I don't know much about the MXO5, but have watched quite a few videos about the MXO4 and was talking last week with a friend that has taken a course offered by his company with MXO4 scopes. He is quite impressed with it, and so am I, but these kind of arbitrary limitations beg a bit of questioning, at the very least.

Edit: as per your las post FFT specs and screenshot, I don't think any budget oscilloscope is going to come close anytime soon. That is actually quite impressive.

[KrzysztofB]

I have Tek5B available if you have any questions.
Personally would prefer MXO4/5 but I like it runs on Windows.

[pdenisowski]

So I guess, FFT is not done as a math function on MXO series, right?

Yes, it is a separate function (not under "Math")

[pdenisowski]

I don't think he meant to compare FFT specs, certainly not with the MXO5.
But just pointing that more than 1 FFT is standard even in bottom of the barrel 'scopes. At least 2 is actually quite handy to have. MXO4 should have 4, but 2 is a bare-minimum.

I don't know much about the MXO5, but have watched quite a few videos about the MXO4 and was talking last week with a friend that has taken a course offered by his company with MXO4 scopes. He is quite impressed with it, and so am I, but these kind of arbitrary limitations beg a bit of questioning, at the very least.

Edit: as per your las post FFT specs and screenshot, I don't think any budget oscilloscope is going to come close anytime soon. That is actually quite impressive.

Thanks!  Yes, you're completely right in that FFT has become a "standard" function even in hobbyist / entry level scopes (I refuse to call anyone's product "bottom of the barrel" )

About a decade ago R&S entered the (very crowded and very competitive) scope market, and one of our strengths from the beginning has been FFT / spectrum analysis -- something we're very, very familiar with. 

I'm not going to claim that our scopes do all things better than all other scopes (because that's simply not true), but I do honestly believe that the FFT / spectrum analysis on the MXO series oscilloscopes is the best in the industry.

My personal feeling is that as FFT gets pushed down to hobbyist / entry level scopes, more oscilloscope users will begin to understand and appreciate both how useful FFT is as well as why FFT performance is important.  It's one of those things you don't realize you need until you try it, and then you wonder how you ever got anything done without it

(Edit: our waveform update rate is, objectively measured, also the best in the industry )

[Antonio90]

I don't think he meant to compare FFT specs, certainly not with the MXO5.
But just pointing that more than 1 FFT is standard even in bottom of the barrel 'scopes. At least 2 is actually quite handy to have. MXO4 should have 4, but 2 is a bare-minimum.

I don't know much about the MXO5, but have watched quite a few videos about the MXO4 and was talking last week with a friend that has taken a course offered by his company with MXO4 scopes. He is quite impressed with it, and so am I, but these kind of arbitrary limitations beg a bit of questioning, at the very least.

Edit: as per your las post FFT specs and screenshot, I don't think any budget oscilloscope is going to come close anytime soon. That is actually quite impressive.

Thanks!  Yes, you're completely right in that FFT has become a "standard" function even in hobbyist / entry level scopes (I refuse to call anyone's product "bottom of the barrel" )

About a decade ago R&S entered the (very crowded and very competitive) scope market, and one of our strengths from the beginning has been FFT / spectrum analysis -- something we're very, very familiar with. 

I'm not going to claim that our scopes do all things better than all other scopes (because that's simply not true), but I do honestly believe that the FFT / spectrum analysis on the MXO series oscilloscopes is the best in the industry.

My personal feeling is that as FFT gets pushed down to hobbyist / entry level scopes, more oscilloscope users will begin to understand and appreciate both how useful FFT is as well as why FFT performance is important.  It's one of those things you don't realize you need until you try it, and then you wonder how you ever got anything done without it

(Edit: our waveform update rate is, objectively measured, also the best in the industry )

Maybe I'll get to try one, sometime. It also has a really low noise front-end. I recall MarcoReps doing reference noise measurements directly on the scope with some averaging (or was it Sahriar?).
It is really an awesome oscilloscope. I guess I just don't understand market segmentation, particularly at those levels. Either that or I'm spoiled by "feature overload" and undervalue feature polish and robustness. It's a hallmark of the novice in almost every area.

[shabaz]

I find the spectrum analysis is turned on more often than not when the overhead is so low. It sometimes feels wrong not turning it on.
I was using the MXO 4 today, when working on an isolated amplifier project. Sometimes I won't even need to apply cursors or measurements to the time-domain view, nor tweak the display in the time domain view, because I can readily see the issues in detail in the spectrum view instead, in fact things that I would never have seen otherwise.

The detail becomes mesmerizing sometimes (there's 100 Hz resolution bandwidth set in the display in the attached screenshot, and the update rate is rapid, I can see intermittent signals coming and going (and it is possible to overlay the usual max hold trace and so on of course).

I can imagine the multiple spectrum analyses on the MXO 5 will benefit all sorts of development work, including EMC testing where you could view the radiated and conducted emissions simultaneously. Also as yet unimaginable use-cases as customers get it into their hands over time. I wonder if some customers might just use the MXO 5 as purely a spectrum analyzer for monitoring purposes, if the specs meet their needs. At one lab, there were a load of Keysight spectrum analyzers, one per rack, that were being used for monitoring a specific part of a solution (it was replicating a customer scenario that I wasn't involved in at the time, so I didn't know the detail). An MXO 5 shared across the racks back then could have reduced the cost, plus provided a large operations centre style display over HDMI.

[Martin72]

That said, I'm afraid I can't comment specifically on any of our upcoming scope models.  Sorry!

That's a pity, because it would be really interesting to know whether there will be something "underneath", e.g. as a successor to the RTB2000/3000 series.
I like the MXO4, both from a distance and by sight.
But a little over 9000€ (incl. VAT), that's a bit much for me too (that wouldn't be impossible, but then I'll have to be alone and eat packet soup indefinitely  ).

[nctnico]

That said, I'm afraid I can't comment specifically on any of our upcoming scope models.  Sorry!

That's a pity, because it would be really interesting to know whether there will be something "underneath", e.g. as a successor to the RTB2000/3000 series.
I like the MXO4, both from a distance and by sight.
But a little over 9000€ (incl. VAT), that's a bit much for me too (that wouldn't be impossible, but then I'll have to be alone and eat packet soup indefinitely  ).

Yes and no. Problem is that when you starting adding options like protocol decoding and MSO, you quickly end up in the price range for the bundle with all options including 1.5GHz bandwidth. I don't need the 1.5GHz so a lower end model would suit me better feature and price wise.