Comparing Agilent InfiniiVision 2000 and 3000 X-Series Oscilloscopes

[ECEdesign]

Probably, but at the end of the day it depends on what exactly you plan to do and your budget.

Since you're considering used, have a look at the R&S RTM1054. At the moment there's a seller on ebay that sells them for roughly the same price as a 2Ch 200MHz DSOX2k would roughly go for.

The R&S scope looks like a great deal for the price, still a bit too high for me though, 1k is about my max for a scope.  I also need a few other things and trying to keep the total around 2k.  I watched some videos of the Rigol with 4 channels and it was so unresponsive I'm not sure its even worth having the extra 2 channels.  Used name brand is likely the way I am leaning towards maybe the 2012 Keysight scope

[Muxr]

I go back and forth on which scope to get.  DS1054Z sure is cheap and good on paper but I hear more and more complaints about them being noisy and hard to use.  I have been considering a used Agilent 2 channel 2000 series scope.  Of course everyone has their opinon but it sounds like I would be much more happy down the road with the Agilent

Probably, but at the end of the day it depends on what exactly you plan to do and your budget.

Since you're considering used, have a look at the R&S RTM1054. At the moment there's a seller on ebay that sells them for roughly the same price as a 2Ch 200MHz DSOX2k would roughly go for.

Been pondering the idea of getting that RTM1054 ever since I first saw that listing. Well I pulled the trigger today, we'll see when it gets here. Really from my research it's a pretty decent scope, waveforms per second is the only major handicap (measly 12500), but when you add up everything else like R&S UI and controls, and other specs, something had to give for that price. I'd rather give up on waveforms/s than any other spec in the end I guess.

[Wuerstchenhund]

Been pondering the idea of getting that RTM1054 ever since I first saw that listing. Well I pulled the trigger today, we'll see when it gets here. Really from my research it's a pretty decent scope, waveforms per second is the only major handicap (measly 12500), but when you add up everything else like R&S UI and controls, and other specs, something had to give for that price. I'd rather give up on waveforms/s than any other spec in the end I guess.

I wouldn't worry too much about the waveform rate to be honest, my old LeCroy WaveRunner scopes had similar update rates and I haven't encountered any situation where this presented a real limitation.

On the plus side, the build quality of the RTM is excellent (a big step up even from Hameg stuf which itself isn't exactly shabby), aside from powerup (where the fan spins up for a few seconds) it's absolutely silent, the UI is very good, it has some really nice search functionality, and decent FFT. The R&S probes are pretty nice, too.

And (as a bonus), how many other DSOs have an Y (brightness) input? 

[Muxr]

Been pondering the idea of getting that RTM1054 ever since I first saw that listing. Well I pulled the trigger today, we'll see when it gets here. Really from my research it's a pretty decent scope, waveforms per second is the only major handicap (measly 12500), but when you add up everything else like R&S UI and controls, and other specs, something had to give for that price. I'd rather give up on waveforms/s than any other spec in the end I guess.

I wouldn't worry too much about the waveform rate to be honest, my old LeCroy WaveRunner scopes had similar update rates and I haven't encountered any situation where this presented a real limitation.

On the plus side, the build quality of the RTM is excellent (a big step up even from Hameg stuf which itself isn't exactly shabby), aside from powerup (where the fan spins up for a few seconds) it's absolutely silent, the UI is very good, it has some really nice search functionality, and decent FFT. The R&S probes are pretty nice, too.

And (as a bonus), how many other DSOs have an Y (brightness) input? 

Yeah the Z brightness in XY mode is neat.

Ditto on the waveforms/s, just something to keep in mind when looking for rare glitches I guess (crank up persistence and give it time).
If anything will probably keep my DS2072A around as well, even though it too isn't exactly great in that aspect either.

For the price I can't really complain about the DS2072A it's been a great scope (for the price), but I never really got 100% comfortable with its UI and controls. After a year and a half I still find myself hunting for that one rarely used feature, and just the general UI sluggishness and lag drove me nuts. Shouldn't hate on it too much though, it's really been a good scope to me. Which is why I am really psyched about getting this RTM 1054!

I made a mistake by checking out some RTO vids, heh. There is always that next thing in T&M!

[Wuerstchenhund]

Yeah the Z brightness in XY mode is neat.

Indeed. When I got mine (from the same seller btw) I was surprised to find that the scope offers true XYZ mode, something I can't remember having seen on any other DSO (but then I don't need it so I might well have just missed it).

Ditto on the waveforms/s, just something to keep in mind when looking for rare glitches I guess (crank up persistence and give it time).

I usually just use proper triggers to capture glitches, which is pretty easy plus I don't have to sit there and wait for a rare event to show up on persistence.

If anything will probably keep my DS2072A around as well, even though it too isn't exactly great in that aspect either.

Well, I'd guess your Rigol will see little use as the RTM can do pretty much the same just a bit better.

For the price I can't really complain about the DS2072A it's been a great scope (for the price), but I never really got 100% comfortable with its UI and controls. After a year and a half I still find myself hunting for that one rarely used feature, and just the general UI sluggishness and lag drove me nuts. Shouldn't hate on it too much though, it's really been a good scope to me. Which is why I am really psyched about getting this RTM 1054!

The Rigol DS2000 is certainly not a bad scope, especially when considering the price. Plus it's probably the most mature Rigol scope of all. But yes, it is obviously built to a low cost, and the easiest things to cut cost is software.

The RTM UI is pretty good, it's fluid, and the XGA display (1024x768) is very nice in such a compact scope, too. There are also many details which show the thought that went into the product design, i.e. the dimmable front panel LEDs.

I made a mistake by checking out some RTO vids, heh. There is always that next thing in T&M!

Yes, the RTO Series is cool (and they even offer an OCXO as option). But from what I've seen so far the UI isn't that great, it can do a lot but it's not very intuitive and in some areas not really well thought out. And R&S really is pretty pricey, and for the money they want for an RTO you can find better alternatives from other vendors.

[Hydrawerk]

And (as a bonus), how many other DSOs have an Y (brightness) input? 

Do you mean this?
https://youtu.be/zkaYzYXZ4dI

[Muxr]

You can also do this:


edit: Also I think that HP only has a binary Z axis, either on or off, which is why they called it blanking in that video I assume. The RTM1054 should support Z axis intensity, for grayscale ability like (the analog scope) in the video I posted.

Also I believe there are some headless instruments, like spectrum analyzers that require XYZ support to function on the scope. Basically you use the scope as your screen for the instrument.

[Wuerstchenhund]

And (as a bonus), how many other DSOs have an Y (brightness) input? 

Do you mean this?
https://youtu.be/zkaYzYXZ4dI

Yes, although as Muxr stated the HP only does blanking while a true Z input as the one in the example he provided allows brightness modulation.

The RTM1054 should support Z axis intensity, for grayscale ability like (the analog scope) in the video I posted.

Yes, at least according to the manual (never tried it). Would be interesting to try something like that in your example on the RTM.

Also I believe there are some headless instruments, like spectrum analyzers that require XYZ support to function on the scope. Basically you use the scope as your screen for the instrument.

That's true, but most of them were pretty mediocre so I'm not sure they are still worth bothering with. But hey, at least the LCD screen of the RTM should provide a much better and sharper picture than an old analog scope 

[Muxr]

Yup will have to play with XWZ mode as well  . Sadly I don't own an SA, so it's nice to have that option. Partly because they are kind of bulky and expensive and I wouldn't use them often to be a worthwhile investment. Also they mostly don't cover audio frequencies, which is what I would probably use it for mostly. That and I also own a Keithley 2015, which can measure THD at least.

Curious about the FFT on the RTM1054. The sluggishness and weird UI made the one on DS2072A next to useless.

[nctnico]

I also looked at the RTM1054 but since I needed decoding and didn't want to go on another hacking expedition I choose to buy a different oscilloscope. Pity because I would have liked to play around with an R&S scope for a change.

[Muxr]

I also looked at the RTM1054 but since I needed decoding and didn't want to go on another hacking expedition I choose to buy a different oscilloscope. Pity because I would have liked to play around with an R&S scope for a change.

Yeah I read your quest about getting quotes for decoding. It is pretty expensive $1k per option pretty much? I can live without it though. I usually just use the Saleae for that. And maybe one day I get bored and decide to try and hack it.

But it is a bit annoying, because they have this awesome capability on the scope itself, and even though the scope depreciates in value for us individual enthusiasts to have access to, the software feature unlocks don't scale with the depreciation of the equipment, so the price disparity is a bit ridiculous.

[Wuerstchenhund]

Curious about the FFT on the RTM1054. The sluggishness and weird UI made the one on DS2072A next to useless.

FFT on the RTM is surprisingly fast, and it uses 64kpts which is a lot better than the measly 4kpts max or so found on Rigol scopes (and pretty much on par with the Keysight DSOX3000A/T).

I also looked at the RTM1054 but since I needed decoding and didn't want to go on another hacking expedition I choose to buy a different oscilloscope. Pity because I would have liked to play around with an R&S scope for a change.

Yeah I read your quest about getting quotes for decoding. It is pretty expensive $1k per option pretty much? I can live without it though. I usually just use the Saleae for that. And maybe one day I get bored and decide to try and hack it.

But it is a bit annoying, because they have this awesome capability on the scope itself, and even though the scope depreciates in value for us individual enthusiasts to have access to, the software feature unlocks don't scale with the depreciation of the equipment, so the price disparity is a bit ridiculous.

R&S has a well deserved reputation not just for building great gear but also for being very expensive, and unfortunately that shows. They are generally pretty friendly towards hobbyist and often with some luck one might get features unlocked for an old device if it's for personal use, but as you say they don't drop the prices for options of old gear, which is silly because hardly anyone would pay $5k for a few decoding options for a $2k 2nd hand scope. R&S is missing the trick here.

But then, a solution was found for the Rigols, so I can't imagine why a similar solution couldn't be found for old R&S gear 

[TheSteve]

Hah, you guys are doing a good job comparing scopes but there is a very little 2000 and 3000 X-Series info - maybe start a new thread?

[Wuerstchenhund]

Hah, you guys are doing a good job comparing scopes but there is a very little 2000 and 3000 X-Series info - maybe start a new thread?

What info are you looking for that hasn't been mentioned in this and other threads and Keysight_DanielBogdanoff's posts?

DSOX2k and DSOX3KA aren't exactly new scopes (and the later DSOX3kT is just a slightly upgraded DSOX3kA), and there are several threads about them already, some going back to 2012 (when DSOX2k and DSOX3k came to market). Aside from the DSOX3kT update there hasn't really been much changes to these scopes since then, but what has changed is the competitive landscape (there are some alternatives available today which in many areas are better)

[ECEdesign]

but what has changed is the competitive landscape (there are some alternatives available today which in many areas are better)

Which scopes would these be?  I think im pretty set on a DSOx2012 or if I find a good deal DSOX2022/DSOX2014. 

I saw a Tektronix TDS-2024B pretty cheap.  The bandwidth was a little higher but the Agilent's screen is awesome. 

[nctnico]

I went for a GwInstek GDS2204E as a second (spare) oscilloscope. If you can spend a little bit more then Lecroy's Wavesufer 3000 is definitely worth looking at. If I had not come across a good deal on a used Agilent DSO7104 I probably would have at gotten a Wavesurfer 3000 on loan for evaluation.

[Wuerstchenhund]

but what has changed is the competitive landscape (there are some alternatives available today which in many areas are better)

Which scopes would these be?  I think im pretty set on a DSOx2012 or if I find a good deal DSOX2022/DSOX2014.

For example there's the Rigol DS2000 (if you want a 2ch scope) as a good and by now pretty mature alternative. There's also the R&S HMO1202 which has recently been in one of Dave's tear-down videos. The GW Instek GDS2000E that nctnico mentioned might also be worth a look although I personally have no experience with this brand. The DSOX2k is a good scope but at the end of the day it's a entry-level scope with not that great specifications, and that isn't that hard to beat.

As far as the DSOX3k is concerned, the LeCroy WaveSurfer 3000 Series that nctnico mentioned is a very attractive alternative which is better in most of the relevant areas (i.e. sample memory, functionality, screen size/resolution, ports) while being noticeably cheaper than the DSOX3000 (i.e. some $2k cheaper for the 500MHz variant), and it doesn't look bad even in comparison to the (even more expensive) DSOX4000 Series.
 

I saw a Tektronix TDS-2024B pretty cheap.  The bandwidth was a little higher but the Agilent's screen is awesome.

Well, the TDS2000B is a pretty antique design with measly specs that is pretty much only bought by those that have no other choice than spending money with Tek. Tek is pretty much riding on the reputation from the old analog days when they were still a leading T&M brand and not the shadow they are today.

[ECEdesign]

For example there's the Rigol DS2000 (if you want a 2ch scope) as a good and by now pretty mature alternative. There's also the R&S HMO1202 which has recently been in one of Dave's tear-down videos. The GW Instek GDS2000E that nctnico mentioned might also be worth a look although I personally have no experience with this brand. The DSOX2k is a good scope but at the end of the day it's a entry-level scope with not that great specifications, and that isn't that hard to beat.

As far as the DSOX3k is concerned, the LeCroy WaveSurfer 3000 Series that nctnico mentioned is a very attractive alternative which is better in most of the relevant areas (i.e. sample memory, functionality, screen size/resolution, ports) while being noticeably cheaper than the DSOX3000 (i.e. some $2k cheaper for the 500MHz variant), and it doesn't look bad even in comparison to the (even more expensive) DSOX4000 Series.

I have been looking at the new HMO1202, the education price is around 1100.  Bit more than I wanted to pay but it is a new scope.  I have seen keysight dsox2012 for around 900.  They seem like pretty comparable scopes but the memory is higher on the HMO1202.  From what I can tell the Keysight is super responsive due to their ASIC.  We also learn in the labs on Keysight 2000 series scopes.  I love the big screen.

Im not really looking for an MSO, I plan on using a Saleae 8 for that.  Just something to analyze analog signals and that ill be happy with for a bit in the future (when have a real job and can buy a nice new scope)

[Wuerstchenhund]

I have been looking at the new HMO1202, the education price is around 1100.  Bit more than I wanted to pay but it is a new scope.  I have seen keysight dsox2012 for around 900.  They seem like pretty comparable scopes but the memory is higher on the HMO1202.  From what I can tell the Keysight is super responsive due to their ASIC.  We also learn in the labs on Keysight 2000 series scopes.  I love the big screen.

Im not really looking for an MSO, I plan on using a Saleae 8 for that.  Just something to analyze analog signals and that ill be happy with for a bit in the future (when have a real job and can buy a nice new scope)

As I said, the DSOX2k isn't a bad scope, and just because there are some other scopes available that have some advantages over it doesn't mean it's not a good buy. The truth is that at the lower end of the market there isn't really a world of difference between available scopes, they all are pretty much similar with similar specs and performance figures (it's a different story for the upper low-end/lower mid-range like the DSOX3k, though).

The new HMO is a very good scope but since you don't need MSO then the additional $300 wouldn't really be worth it. Buying the cheaper DSOX2k now and saving for a much better scope later on sounds like indeed the better option.

[ECEdesign]

Thanks for the help on choosing my scope!   

[Faith]

Sorry for resurrecting this old thread again, but I figured it would be the best one to reply to since Daniel from Keysight has wonderfully provided us with a summary comparison between the 2000, 3000 & 4000 X-Series.

So my question is this; ordinarily there would be a US$2,274.00 price difference between the MSOX3024T & MSOX4024A.

But now with the "Free DSO to MSO Upgrade" promotion the difference is down to US$972.00 (when comparing the DSOX3024T & DSOX4024A prices).

And since I also require LAN (which is a US$404.00 module on the 3000T but standard on the 4000A) that brings the difference down to US$568.00.

So is there actually any practical disadvantage of purchasing the 4000A versus the 3000T seeing how the 4000A is actually a slightly older model? I do very much like the larger screen.

The price of the software licenses are the same as long as you purchase the Application Bundle (which I intend on doing).

Other than that, is there anything else I should take note of? Is this even a good time to upgrade given the age of the MegaZoom IV?

From what I can tell the only feature missing from the 4000A which the 3000T has is the 8-Digit Frequency Counter.

[nctnico]

Look at Lecroy's Wavesurfer 3000! The MSOX3000 and MSOX4000 don't have enough memory for the price. What the specs don't say is that the 4Mpts becomes 1Mpts per channel (or even less with the MSO enabled). The 4MPts is the total memory and it is shared between channels and MSO AND it is also used for double buffering. I have an 8Mpts DSO7000A series and I keep running out of memory for some measurements.  All in all the warm & fuzzy fealing of having a Keysight scope will wear off quickly.

[Wuerstchenhund]

Other than that, is there anything else I should take note of? Is this even a good time to upgrade given the age of the MegaZoom IV?

I have to concur with nctnico here. The DSOX aren't bad scopes but at the end of the day you're paying through the nose for an aging entry-level platform with tiny sample memory which was pretty much designed for max waveform rates at the cost of anything else.

Really, have a look at the LeCroy WaveSurfer 3000. It's a lower mid-range scope which comes with a few advantages over the DSOX3000T, for example (copied from an older posting of mine):

• The WaveSurfer comes with 4GSa/s and 10Mpts (the slighly lower sample rate is irrelevant for scopes with <1GHz BW, however the larger memory is a real-life advantage)
• The Wavesurfer comes with a larger screen with higher resolution (10.1" 1024x600 vs 8.4" 800x480 with the DSOX3kT)
• FFT with the WaveSurfer is up to 1Mpts while on the DSOX3kT FFT uses 64kpts only (which is pretty poor in this price class)
• The WaveSurfer allows automatic and manual sample memory/sample rate management while the DSOX3kT is automatic only
• WaveSurfer 3000 has many features that can be found in LeCroy's high-end scopes, i.e. WaveScan and LabNotebook
• The DSOX3kT has nothing comparable to WaveScan, which is a very versatile tool to find rare glitches and other issues and which works 'live' as well as on sampled data.
• The DSOX3kT also doesn't offer anything comparable to LabNotebook, which is a documentation tool and pretty neat if you have to document your measurements in some standardized format.
• The WaveSurfer 3000 uses the same probe interface (ProBus) all midrange and high-end scope from LeCroy use since the mid '90s, which means there's a wide range of suitable active probes out there, including a lot of second-hand ones which often sell for reasonable prices because they don't carry the "Tektronix" or "Agilent" label
• Integrated AWG: 25MHz 125MSa/s 14bit with 16kpts on the WaveSurfer, 20MHz 100MSa/s 10bit with 8kpts on the DSOX3kT (both not great, but still)
• LAN is standard on the WaveSurfer 3000 while it's a $400+ option on the already very expensive DSO3kT
• Not that important, but the WaveSurfer has four (2x front, 2x rear) USB host ports (Keysight two, one front one rear)
• Plus the WaveSurfer 3000 is noticably cheaper than the DSOX3kT

Most of the points remain valid against the DSOX4kA as well.

Also, LeCroy fully supports all its scopes for 7 years after a model goes end-of-sale, and on a "best effort" basis beyond that (they still repair 9300 scopes from the '90s, although getting spares is becoming increasingly difficult). LeCroy also provides software support much longer than anyone else, while Agilent/Keysight often ends software updates while a product is still within mainstream support. LeCroy also doesn't artificially limit probe compatibility between its scope models as Keysight does.

The only case where I'd chose the DSOX over the WaveSurfer would be when one of the serial decode options that aren't (yet) available for the WaveSurfer are required, i.e. MIL-1553 or I2S. As to options, LeCroy often has promos where all options are included, and if you make sure to highlight your interest in a Keysight scope then they most certainly will throw in the options for free.

In any case, if you're going to spend several grands on a scope I strongly recommend to contact the vendors and ask for a loaner which you can take for a spin around the block. Features only go so far if you for some reason can't get on with a scope, so it's important to 'test-drive' them before spending all that money.

[Hydrawerk]

https://www.picotech.com/oscilloscope/6000/picoscope-6000-specifications

10 mV/div to 4 V/div at x1 zoom (1 M? input)

Well, many scopes have 1mV/div or 4mV/div resolution.

Maximum sampling rate (single-shot)
1 channel in use   5 GS/s
2 channels in use  2.5 GS/s
3 or 4 ch. in use      1.25 GS/s

[Faith]

Thank you everyone for your replies and recommendations

The main reason for considering Keysight is because I am already familiar with the 2000A. And you know how it is, some of us don't like to change what we are used to or familiar with

I did take a brief look at Teledyne LeCroy and more specifically their WaveSurfer 3000 but if I recall correctly it does not have a built-in Arbitary Function Generator. This is one feature I would certainly like as it would mean that there is less equipment occupying my limited bench space.

In fact I did rule out quite a few brands based on this requirement alone. I was originally quite keen on a number of offerings by Rohde & Schwarz but ruled them out for the same reason.

I guess one option is to just stick with the MSOX2024A (with its rather sad memory depth) which I have access to every now and then (as it isn't mine) until such time Keysight upgrades their product range with a new MegaZoom. I've always loved their user interface and it has grown on me quite well.

Ahh. Choices, choices. I didn't feel like the memory depth would have been a big issue (especially when using channel one and three on the four channel version) but I can see how it could potentially become a problem in the future. I do recall Dave mentioning in one of his reviews that he quite likes the idea of having memory managed automatically, and coming from a 2000A it was easy for me to agree with him (whether that is justified or not is a separate matter altogether, haha).