R&S to launch MXO5

[Martin72]

When I buy a scope for work, I also buy the options I need - it doesn't hurt me to pay for them.
For at home...Well....

[nctnico]

When I buy a scope for work, I also buy the options I need - it doesn't hurt me to pay for them.

You just get a lower bonus at the end of the year 

But likely your employer likes to see an ROI on the expense.

[Martin72]

Well, to be honest, I only needed the options for development, so I only needed to equip 2 scopes with them.
When I submitted the investment request for 2 Lecroys, which said 42% discount, I was still the hero - even though they still cost 26000... Everything is relative.

[Swirve]

Thanks for the input. As I guessed no one really have hands on experience in comparing the three scopes. Actually I do have the MXO5 on my bench and have started evaluating it, looking very promising so far! We do have a couple of HDO6140A, and if the only difference to 6000B is the bigger screen this doesn't give much.. But me being new in the company I haven't had time to play with the lecroy scopes. Also borrowed the power-rail probe, which together with the excellent spectrum is a great tool to evaluate noise on power rails.

[egonotto]

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.

Hello,

If I understand the new spec sheet correctly, 4 GB is available for segmented memory. So exactly the same as the RTA4000.

Or does that apply to each channel?

Best regards
egonotto

[pdenisowski]

Just an FYI: the MXO5C (compact) was launched today

https://www.rohde-schwarz.com/products/test-and-measurement/oscilloscopes/rs-mxo-5c-oscilloscope_334265.html

Same scope, just smaller form factor.  Also available in 4 or 8 channel models

[shabaz]

Nice status display on that front panel!
This instrument would be great for permanent testbeds too, monitoring signals from one or more racks, to an attached monitor. At one workplace we ended up using a dedicated spectrum analyzer per rack, just for monitoring purposes. Nice that there's the potential with such types of test beds, to use the multiple spectrum capability of the MXO 5 to share it across several racks (if the signals are within the bandwidth of course).

[moerm]

Front-up: I'll never buy that scope, not because it's not good (it probably is), but because it's way out of the hobby league - and I know that and while I understand that humans, once triggered, just love to discuss about "things in another galaxy" I also know that all the matters, facts, and "facts" discussed here are of no, none, nada practical concern to (certainly not only) me.

If this was a discussion in real life I'd probably jokingly complain to the R&S guy "what? Only 500 Mpts/ch? Come back again once you have a scope with >= 50 Gpts/ch!"

What I see here basically is just a MXO4.2. Some more of this, some more of that, a faster processor, yada,yada, but at the end of the day I just see a scope that makes better use of R&S' ASIC. That's nothing to sneeze at, but it also is not like we finally could fly to the next star, like "a new era".

And I'm amazed yet again how happily (almost) everyone accepts the usual BS. Example: If an ADC does 12 bits that doesn't mean that you actually get 12 bits because at the end of the day measuring, as opposed to guesstimating, means ENOB, and that is more like 9 bits - if you are very lucky and using a low sampling rate. Yes, averaging helps if some conditions are met, e.g. the thing you measure is repetitive. But still 12 bits is the limits.
Beyond that one finds oneself in BS territory, or in polite marketing lingo in math/statistics territory. Allow me to introduce you the 5 cats in my neighborhood. I know their precise size: 34.567 cm. OK, granted, not even a single one of them actually is 34.567 cm long, one, a kitten, easily and cozily fits in my hand while it's (likely) father is well over 50 cm long. Of bloody course we all like precision, accuracy, and high resolution, but let us not forget what it's all about: measuring that is, obtaining quantitative information about something physical!

See also: the miracle of 6.5, 7.5, and 8.5 multimeters with single or even 2 digit ppM measurement certainty (and, of bloody course, hardly any of them actually is beyond x.3 digits. In fact, some of the "very best of the best" actually are very close to x.0 digits ...).

I'll end with (surprise!) kudos to R&S because AFAIK they stopped at 5 3/4 digits. I may be wrong but my guess is that some of their engineers back then said "Nope. We don't take part in the BS-your-customers game!".

Btw. does R&S also sell the MXO5 in six-packs? I'm asking because buying a scope for 60 k€ + VAT isn't worth to leave the house *g

[shabaz]

...And I'm amazed yet again how happily (almost) everyone accepts the usual BS. Example: If an ADC does 12 bits that doesn't mean that you actually get 12 bits...

What makes you think people don't know that? No-one normal cares about a number '12', they care about actually using 'scopes in real-life scenarios, to see the benefit (or lack of) for real applications. There's a whole thread concerning that with a different (lower-cost) 12-bit 'scope.

Those who want to wait around for 12 to mean what you want it to mean, can knock themselves out, meanwhile, the normal world will still try out the instruments, and if there is no improvement, or if performance is worse, or is sluggish in response, then people won't buy it - that's what forums are good at, sharing the feedback.

You actually have zero useful feedback in that long comment; everyone knows the 12 doesn't indicate ENOB. You also didn't get the architecture right; it's not just a faster processor; it's doubled-up silicon, there are two multi-core processors.

[jjoonathan]

The real scandal is how many scopes they keep releasing that aren't the MXO6, which is the one I want. At this rate, they are going to release the MXO7 and MXO8, then loop back to do a prequel trilogy with MXO1, 2, and 3, and then they will start into the low profile version of each of those, and then an 8 channel version of each of those, and then a dedicated logic analyzer RF hybrid thing, and by now it's 2050 and we all have flying cars, and the thread is called "Which entry level 16 bit oscilloscope should I buy," and then the MXO6 comes out.

[pdenisowski]

The real scandal is how many scopes they keep releasing that aren't the MXO6, which is the one I want. At this rate, they are going to release the MXO7 and MXO8, then loop back to do a prequel trilogy with MXO1, 2, and 3, and then they will start into the low profile version of each of those, and then an 8 channel version of each of those, and then a dedicated logic analyzer RF hybrid thing, and by now it's 2050 and we all have flying cars, and the thread is called "Which entry level 16 bit oscilloscope should I buy," and then the MXO6 comes out.

(laughs)  Point taken. Our current "6" series scope is the RTO6, which is no slouch:

https://www.rohde-schwarz.com/us/products/test-and-measurement/oscilloscopes/rs-rto6-oscilloscope_63493-1079745.html

I hope you don't mind me using the "prequel trilogy" comment internally - most of our scope team would absolutely love that reference

[jjoonathan]

Ha, go for it! The RTO6 is a beauty, but I believe it uses the "Ooma" ADCs. These are some of the best 8b converters to ever be put in a scope -- spurious is excellent, they can beat certain 10b converters at high frequency ENOB, and the R&S "HD Mode" does an atypically good job of trading speed for bit depth -- but I already have a RTO scope on my desk, so if I am spending this much on an upgrade I am looking for a new analog front end as well. That's why I am eagerly awaiting the MXO6. Of course, at this price tier my timing and choices are partly driven by external requirements, so who knows how it will actually come down, but I can at least lust over the brochures 

[ddrl46]

While reading over the specifications of the scopes in the MXO series I noticed that the trigger sensitivity specification seems to be rather optimistic in comparison with other oscilloscopes. Or has Rohde & Schwarz perhaps changed their interpretation of trigger sensitivity since the RTB / RTA series?

[nctnico]

I'd say it is very overly optimistic because there will be more noise than 0.0001 division for sure. I think somebody took the minimum hysteresis setting and forgot about noise.