Does the Arb Gen warrant buying an Agilent 3000 over a 2000?

[JackB]

I'm planning on buying a new oscilloscope soon since I'll soon be losing my student discount.  Dave's reviews certainly swayed me towards the Agilent scopes.  Right now, I'm debating between a 4 channel, 70 MHz Agilent 2000 or a 100 MHz 4 channel Agilent 3000.  The price differential for me is about $1200 usd.  I'm trying to justify the additional cost.  I know the 3000 comes with an arbitrary function generator which can use the waveform the scope triggered on, which I can see as useful.  Some other factors are the fact that you can upgrade it further as well as the possibility for serial decode.

What are your thoughts?

[ejeffrey]

For the ARB? I would say no.  I have used a lot of wavegens with ARB capability and never used the feature. To be fair I have always had access to function generators with relatively complete modulation and sweep capabilities and low speed multi-function DAQ boards that can generate infinitely long low-frequency signals.  An AWG might stand in for some of these other options in a pinch and there are certainly applications where the AWG is the right tool, but based on my experience it isn't a critical feature.  If you really find out you need it you can always buy a stand-alone AWG later with the money you save.

Serial decode would be a bigger selling point for me, and not something easily replaced unless you count a cheap USB logic analyzer.  But of course the $1200 only buys you the privilege of shelling out more money for the serial decoders down the line.

[EEVblog]

Not just for the Arb gen, it's pretty basic.
You can get a kick arse Rigol 4000 dual channel ARB for less than the difference.
You'd get the 3000 is you mainly want the increased waveform update speed.
If you want serial decode, then the Agilent 3000 is ok, but expensive for just that purpose.
For the $1200 difference you could get a Rigol ARB gen and a USB logic analyser.

Dave.

[JackB]

You both bring up good points, ejeffrey and Dave!  Thanks for your input!

The 4000 Rigol waveform gens are pretty sweet!  I guess looking at the differences between the 2000 and 3000, there is waveform update rate and the amount of waveform memory.  Would either of those justify the additional cost?  I know it depends on what I will use it for, which is most likely embedded designs, buck/PWM designs and the sort. 

I guess another thing to think about is whether I spend more for the 3000 or instead get a 200 MHz 2000 Agilent for less cost still.  I'd just be losing out on the waveform update rate and increased memory.

Any thoughts?

[ToBeFrank]

I've owned both. I sold the 2000 to get the 3000. The one thing I constantly ran into with the 2000 was the paltry 100kpts memory. It just wasn't enough. IMO, I wouldn't get the 2000 if the 3000 is within reach. The 2000 is just too crippled, and I think you'll eventually be wishing you had bought the 3000.

[ejeffrey]

I guess it depends on what kind of stuff you are doing.  I have always found the 2000X series update rate plenty fast.  Your mileage may vary.  I have hit the memory limit on the 2000X and I think it is the weakest point on the scope.  Still, for a basic scope is has a great bang/buck, especially (IMHO) the 4 channel version.

[JackB]

I thought I'd let people know what decision I made, in case someone runs into this situation in the future. 

I decided to go with the Agilent 3000.  I did it because I got a rather large student discount and I want this to be a long term scope.  I don't want to have to buy a better one in a year or two when I am no longer a student.  The arb gen, as Dave said, is rather a novelty since for only $750 usd, a person can get a Rigol dual output arb gen with better features.  What put me over the edge was seeing the rather paltry waveform memory of the 2000 Agilent.  Well, the fact that I accepted a job offer and that this is my graduation present to myself helps too, haha!

Now if you're reading this saying, "well I'm not a student, so what do I do?", I say go and buy a Rigol 4000 scope.  The specs are similar to an Agilent 3000 (you can get into a memory / waveform fight but the Agilent is a good scope, period).  If you want to keep your money with companies who push innovation, buy the Agilent 2000 and sell it in the future if you need a better scope.  The Agilent will hold its value (probably better than a Rigol) and hopefully in the future, a better spec-ed scope will be cheaper.

Well that's my $0.02.  Now I just need to wait... Grrrr, I want it now!

[vvanders]

FYI you can usually talk down the Agilent dealers from list a fair bit, I just picked up a DSOX-3014A for $3k this week and could probably have talked him a bit lower. Not sure what the student discount gets you. The 2M memory + serial upgrade in the future is what sold me on the 3000 series over the 2000. The ARB was a nice addition.

[T4P]

Yes it's compact at all but still a lack of ext. modulation and no internal modulation puts me away from the DSOX3000's WaveGen and DSOX2000 lacks the Arb gen ...
But anyway, the X2014 costs more than a DS4014 where i am located
Besides, having a arb gen that weighs 3.2kg  and is that big is a bragging factor!
I bet Dave can carry around his arb gen and act all smug besides it's the crème de la crème of the DG4000 

Just kidding with you, dave. Bring on the reviews! 

[Hypernova]

Yes it's compact at all but still a lack of ext. modulation and no internal modulation puts me away from the DSOX3000's WaveGen and DSOX2000 lacks the Arb gen ...

With the new FW released this month there's now AM/FM/FSK modulation with another sine/tri/square wave. As far as development goes that should cover most cases.

And having the arb gen inside the scope also means you can copy waveforms from your 4 inputs and replicate that with the arb gen with only a few button presses.