Agilent 33120A vs Agilent DSO-x 2002a signal generator performances ?

[matthieu.e]

Dear,

I have a Agilent 33120A signal generator that I use for audio and radio projects. I plan to buy a new scope a Agilent DSO-x 2002a.
I wonder how compare the performances between the DSO built in generator and the 33120A. I use it in sinus mode most of the time.

Should keep it for performances or sell it to finance the scope ?
Can you give me advices ? Thanks ! 

here the DSO data sheet : http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5990-6618EN.pdf
here the 33120 data sheet : http://rfic.eecs.berkeley.edu/ee42/man/Function%20Generator%2033120A%20data%20sheet.pdf

[HighVoltage]

It is always good to have an extra Function Generator!
And the 33120A is an excellent generator, so I would keep it, if you can afford it.

[Andreas]

Hello,

I think you would get more answers in the "Test equipment" section than in "Metrology"

To your question:
Do you really think you get more money for the 33120A than you have to pay for the option "DSOX2WAVEGEN"
to have the "built in" wave generator (with only 2.5Vpp output voltage)?

With best regards

Andreas

[bitseeker]

I would keep the 33120A instead of paying more for the built-in lower-performance generator, unless you need the bench space or convenience of a combination solution.

[matthieu.e]

Hi,

Thanks for your responses.  Bitseeker, you think the build-in generator have lower performances ?
Andreas, I have the opportunity to buy a DSOX2002a with the generator included for 600E. So I hesitated to sell the 33120A to save money.

To resume I have the opportunity to buy the DSOX2002a with wavegen option for 600E or the Rigol DS1054Z for 400E. I already have the 33120A.
I can't decide if I should buy the DSOX2002a and sell the 33120A or buy the DS1054Z and use it with the 33120A.

Perhaps I should buy the DSOX2002a and keep the 33120A 

 

[bitseeker]

Comparing the specs, the 33120A produces cleaner output. It's to be expected, though, as separate instruments often outperform combination ones. However, as with many tech things, the specs may not matter under real-world conditions. It depends what you're using it for. Some might say if you don't know that you need better spectral purity, lower total harmonic distortion, etc., then you probably don't.

Also, depending on your needs, having a separate function generator gives you an independent control panel for directly adjusting the signal while the scope is busy doing other things, which may be a valuable convenience.

Of course, if you can have both, that's even better. You can use the output of one to modulate the other or mix the signals.

As for which scope to get, again, it depends what fits your use cases and budget best.

[TheSteve]

Buy the DSOX2002A - the Rigol can be hacked to 100 MHz, the Agilent to 200 MHz. Two fewer channels of course. I'd also recommend keeping the 33120A, if it turns out the Wavegen in the scope is good enough for your needs then you can sell it.

[matthieu.e]

Thanks for your advices. I will go with the Aglient ! 

[deepskyridge]

I have a 33120A with the reference option, I feed it with 10mhz from a GPSDO, it's been a great unit.

I would keep it.

Gary

[LabSpokane]

I have the internal generator on my 2024X scope. And I am now shopping for an *external* generator. It's OK, but there's limitations and sharing controls between your function generator and scope is not efficient.