New DSO for work - any opinions welcome

[Wuerstchenhund]

Indeed, having a VESA mount is the best feature of the MDO3000! Here it is in my setup with a quick release on an articulated gas spring monitor arm.

http://youtu.be/IbPh7-DGkC8?t=50s

VESA mount has been standard with all "suitcase"-style LeCroy scopes (WaveRunner, WaveSurfer) starting with the WaveSurfer 400 Series in 2004, with the exception of the WaveSurfer 3000 unfortunately (which doesn't have it, probably because of price and space constraints).

I have a customer which has their WaveRunner MXi-B scopes on VESA mounts between benches so the scope can used in one or the other (or one bench can use two scopes if required). It's really a neat setup.

It would be nice if more scopes had VESA mounts.

[uncle_bob]

I do agree that having same/same is a valuable thing to have. So that begs the question, how many people here bought their scopes based on needs, and how many bought what they could afford, hoping the need would come and justify the purchase?

A different answer might be true when buying for work with their money, or buying for one self, with your own money!

Hi

Ok, I can answer that one at least.

Here at home, I buy have been buying scopes since I was a kid (as in 14 years old). I have not stopped buying them since then. Need has less to do with it than "boy that's neat and better than what I have". It also helps a lot when they turn up for free or nearly free.

At work, they are fairly rigid in production. Everybody gets almost the same gear and it all swaps around. When they decide to change it is a *massive* undertaking. Most of the lab techs are (if they have a scope) set up like production.

Oddly enough, a lot of the engineers simply do not have a scope at all. There are a couple of shared units from various generations and manufacturers. Each of them is unique. Each of them has a "minder". All of them are a bit interesting to get running if you have never seen their menu system before. Yes, you can guess what happens in terms of probes with all sorts of stuff running around .... a very big mess. Even more so when you take a look at what the "real" probes bought new from the manufacturer cost on most of this.

The upshot is that people spend more time debugging without a scope than they would if they could just grab *something* and figure out that the I2C died after that fine new code from Bob fired up ...

Yes that's a business argument and not a technical approach to it.

Bob (the guy who nuked that driver ...)

[Wuerstchenhund]

I do agree that having same/same is a valuable thing to have. So that begs the question, how many people here bought their scopes based on needs, and how many bought what they could afford, hoping the need would come and justify the purchase?

A different answer might be true when buying for work with their money, or buying for one self, with your own money!

I pretty much buy on need for what I need now and what I'll most likely need in the near future, but I wouldn't spend any money on features just because there's a slim chance in hell that I might use it at some point in time. Fortunately by buying what I need I usually get so much extra functionality that I rarely need to worry about that.

Obviously budget plays a part, but for me the main driver is the need. For private purchases, if I have more budget than what is required for buying something according to my needs then I will just save the rest if paying more doesn't give me a distinctive advantage. If the bugdet doesn't reach far enough, well, then I either look for cheaper ways of solving the problem or failing that I just save a bit longer until I can get the right tool.

For business it's a bit different, as often you can't just wait and save more money if the budget is too small. In that case that means then back to the drawing board to see if there's a cheaper solution that is satisfactory, if increasing the budget is viable or if the task has to be halted until the financing issues are resolved (which is rare fortunately).

I think buying based on the available budget only is unwise. The requirements are what should dictate what product are considered, the budget is only the limit how much one can spend. If the requirements can be satisfied for less money than the budget allows then there's no reason to spend more.

[TAMHAN]

I think buying based on the available budget only is unwise. The requirements are what should dictate what product are considered, the budget is only the limit how much one can spend. If the requirements can be satisfied for less money than the budget allows then there's no reason to spend more.

I smell a person who never heard of the term Coutlage. I own my firm, so I always laugh when a rep offers me a coutlage in order to make me blow through "the entire budget"

[nctnico]

I think buying based on the available budget only is unwise.

Sometimes budgets needs to be spend completely. I worked in a research environment for a while and December was always a buying frenzy to get rid of unspend money.

[Muxr]

I think buying based on the available budget only is unwise.

Sometimes budgets needs to be spend completely. I worked in a research environment for a while and December was always a buying frenzy to get rid of unspend money.

Aye government departments can be like that. If they don't spend this years budget their next year's budget shrinks.

[MarkL]

...
If we purchase one high end scope, it will be common use, if we go for the 2000X series, I may be able to get a couple, but that is why I am calling for opinions, to see what the strong likes and dislikes are, and whether the diminishing returns are worth it in our environment, which is primarily embedded/digital domain and protection (power), but we do have power supplies, cap chargers, battery chargers, switchers, EMC immunity and emmisions compliance, oscillators, SR radios etc etc that sometimes throws a curve ball that needs debugging in the time domain.

This is why the UART and SPI decoding/triggering are a requirement, and the MSO option would get plenty of use. We don't have an arb sig gen at all, so that could also fill a hole.
...

Be aware that the 2000X series has a non-obvious limitation: "Serial trigger and decode application will not run simultaneously with digital channels".  So, you can't do serial debugging through the MSO channels, or even with them on.  If you wanted to debug a 4-wire SPI, you'd have to burn all your analog channels to do it.  That quote is from the datasheet in the fine print but many people don't discover it until it's too late.  The 2000X also doesn't have the autoprobe interface, which can be a problem if you have any special probing needs down the road.

If you want Keysight, I would look at the 3000T series.  I haven't found the 4Mpts(max) to be limiting.  And it maintains UI responsiveness at any memory depth.

For very long captures the signal is most often digital.  So, once you verify signal integrity in the analog domain and you need more points than is offered by whatever scope, you could use a dedicated digital capture device like a Saleae.  Then your capture depth is limited by your PC's memory, which can be Gpts.

[tautech]

...
If we purchase one high end scope, it will be common use, if we go for the 2000X series, I may be able to get a couple, but that is why I am calling for opinions, to see what the strong likes and dislikes are, and whether the diminishing returns are worth it in our environment, which is primarily embedded/digital domain and protection (power), but we do have power supplies, cap chargers, battery chargers, switchers, EMC immunity and emmisions compliance, oscillators, SR radios etc etc that sometimes throws a curve ball that needs debugging in the time domain.

This is why the UART and SPI decoding/triggering are a requirement, and the MSO option would get plenty of use. We don't have an arb sig gen at all, so that could also fill a hole.
...

Be aware that the 2000X series has a non-obvious limitation: "Serial trigger and decode application will not run simultaneously with digital channels".  So, you can't do serial debugging through the MSO channels, or even with them on.  If you wanted to debug a 4-wire SPI, you'd have to burn all your analog channels to do it.  That quote is from the datasheet in the fine print but many people don't discover it until it's too late.  The 2000X also doesn't have the autoprobe interface, which can be a problem if you have any special probing needs down the road.

Hmm, we must be thinking of two different 2kX series. 

[Howardlong]

...
If we purchase one high end scope, it will be common use, if we go for the 2000X series, I may be able to get a couple, but that is why I am calling for opinions, to see what the strong likes and dislikes are, and whether the diminishing returns are worth it in our environment, which is primarily embedded/digital domain and protection (power), but we do have power supplies, cap chargers, battery chargers, switchers, EMC immunity and emmisions compliance, oscillators, SR radios etc etc that sometimes throws a curve ball that needs debugging in the time domain.

This is why the UART and SPI decoding/triggering are a requirement, and the MSO option would get plenty of use. We don't have an arb sig gen at all, so that could also fill a hole.
...

Be aware that the 2000X series has a non-obvious limitation: "Serial trigger and decode application will not run simultaneously with digital channels".  So, you can't do serial debugging through the MSO channels, or even with them on.  If you wanted to debug a 4-wire SPI, you'd have to burn all your analog channels to do it.  That quote is from the datasheet in the fine print but many people don't discover it until it's too late.  The 2000X also doesn't have the autoprobe interface, which can be a problem if you have any special probing needs down the road.

Hmm, we must be thinking of two different 2kX series. 

Think it might be the Keysight X2000A series, not the Siglent 2000X series that is being referred to. 

That is a pretty crap restriction though.

[MarkL]

Hmm, we must be thinking of two different 2.kX series. 

Think it might be the Keysight X2000A series, not the Siglent 2000X series that is being referred to. 

That is a pretty crap restriction though.

Sorry if I missed a context switch.  I don't think I saw the OP refer to anything but the Keysight 2k scopes.  And yeah, it is more properly the "MSO-X 2000A series" and not the 2000X as I called it.

[Wuerstchenhund]

I think buying based on the available budget only is unwise.

Sometimes budgets needs to be spend completely. I worked in a research environment for a while and December was always a buying frenzy to get rid of unspend money.

That is certainly true, but in these cases the original question is moot anyways as the amount to be spent is essentially mandated from the top. Same if the manufacturer is mandated (which thankfully is more rare).

I was talking about situations where the choice is yours (or mine).

I smell a person who never heard of the term Coutlage. I own my firm, so I always laugh when a rep offers me a coutlage in order to make me blow through "the entire budget"

I know the game very well (I buy shitloads of T&M gear for work) but the last thing I'd tell a sales droid is how big my budget really is.

[Electro Fan]

I think buying based on the available budget only is unwise. The requirements are what should dictate what product are considered, the budget is only the limit how much one can spend. If the requirements can be satisfied for less money than the budget allows then there's no reason to spend more.

I smell a person who never heard of the term Coutlage. I own my firm, so I always laugh when a rep offers me a coutlage in order to make me blow through "the entire budget"

Ok, I'll bite - what is "coutlage"?

[nanofrog]

Indeed, having a VESA mount is the best feature of the MDO3000! Here it is in my setup with a quick release on an articulated gas spring monitor arm.

http://youtu.be/IbPh7-DGkC8?t=50s

That is nice! 

Mine don't have the VESA mounts, but damn if you aren't giving me ideas (L bracket w/ very aggressive double sided tape mounted to a monitor arm certainly come to mind).   

[Howardlong]

Indeed, having a VESA mount is the best feature of the MDO3000! Here it is in my setup with a quick release on an articulated gas spring monitor arm.

http://youtu.be/IbPh7-DGkC8?t=50s

That is nice! 

Mine don't have the VESA mounts, but damn if you aren't giving me ideas (L bracket w/ very aggressive double sided tape mounted to a monitor arm certainly come to mind).   

I'd be interested in anything anyone comes up with as a more generic solution for this that doesn't mean drilling holes in an expensive bit of TE. I've looked at quite a few options already myself, such as laptop mounts, but nothing reasonable seems forthcoming. I am sure there's a market for an adjustable universal VESA mount attachment for lunchbox scopes and other TE that would hold the underside with an adjustable slide out lip at the front, and something similar to clamp the sides and/or top.

[nanofrog]

I'd be interested in anything anyone comes up with as a more generic solution for this that doesn't mean drilling holes in an expensive bit of TE. I've looked at quite a few options already myself, such as laptop mounts, but nothing reasonable seems forthcoming. I am sure there's a market for an adjustable universal VESA mount attachment for lunchbox scopes and other TE that would hold the underside with an adjustable slide out lip at the front, and something similar to clamp the sides and/or top.

I was thinking more along the lines of Velcro hook & loop tape, so only holes in the bracket (I'll experiment to see if it needs a lip or not). The user could potentially swap out gear, such as an SA as an added bonus. 

[Helix70]

...
If we purchase one high end scope, it will be common use, if we go for the 2000X series, I may be able to get a couple, but that is why I am calling for opinions, to see what the strong likes and dislikes are, and whether the diminishing returns are worth it in our environment, which is primarily embedded/digital domain and protection (power), but we do have power supplies, cap chargers, battery chargers, switchers, EMC immunity and emmisions compliance, oscillators, SR radios etc etc that sometimes throws a curve ball that needs debugging in the time domain.

This is why the UART and SPI decoding/triggering are a requirement, and the MSO option would get plenty of use. We don't have an arb sig gen at all, so that could also fill a hole.
...

Be aware that the 2000X series has a non-obvious limitation: "Serial trigger and decode application will not run simultaneously with digital channels".  So, you can't do serial debugging through the MSO channels, or even with them on.  If you wanted to debug a 4-wire SPI, you'd have to burn all your analog channels to do it.  That quote is from the datasheet in the fine print but many people don't discover it until it's too late.  The 2000X also doesn't have the autoprobe interface, which can be a problem if you have any special probing needs down the road.

Hmm, we must be thinking of two different 2kX series. 

Think it might be the Keysight X2000A series, not the Siglent 2000X series that is being referred to. 

That is a pretty crap restriction though.

I mean the Keysight.

[Helix70]

...
If we purchase one high end scope, it will be common use, if we go for the 2000X series, I may be able to get a couple, but that is why I am calling for opinions, to see what the strong likes and dislikes are, and whether the diminishing returns are worth it in our environment, which is primarily embedded/digital domain and protection (power), but we do have power supplies, cap chargers, battery chargers, switchers, EMC immunity and emmisions compliance, oscillators, SR radios etc etc that sometimes throws a curve ball that needs debugging in the time domain.

This is why the UART and SPI decoding/triggering are a requirement, and the MSO option would get plenty of use. We don't have an arb sig gen at all, so that could also fill a hole.
...

Be aware that the 2000X series has a non-obvious limitation: "Serial trigger and decode application will not run simultaneously with digital channels".  So, you can't do serial debugging through the MSO channels, or even with them on.  If you wanted to debug a 4-wire SPI, you'd have to burn all your analog channels to do it.  That quote is from the datasheet in the fine print but many people don't discover it until it's too late.  The 2000X also doesn't have the autoprobe interface, which can be a problem if you have any special probing needs down the road.

If you want Keysight, I would look at the 3000T series.  I haven't found the 4Mpts(max) to be limiting.  And it maintains UI responsiveness at any memory depth.

For very long captures the signal is most often digital.  So, once you verify signal integrity in the analog domain and you need more points than is offered by whatever scope, you could use a dedicated digital capture device like a Saleae.  Then your capture depth is limited by your PC's memory, which can be Gpts.

Thanks for the tip. Seems like there are just a few too many gotchas in the MSO-X2000 series. Pity, it is close in most respects, but I guess that is by design.

[Howardlong]

I'd be interested in anything anyone comes up with as a more generic solution for this that doesn't mean drilling holes in an expensive bit of TE. I've looked at quite a few options already myself, such as laptop mounts, but nothing reasonable seems forthcoming. I am sure there's a market for an adjustable universal VESA mount attachment for lunchbox scopes and other TE that would hold the underside with an adjustable slide out lip at the front, and something similar to clamp the sides and/or top.

I was thinking more along the lines of Velcro hook & loop tape, so only holes in the bracket (I'll experiment to see if it needs a lip or not). The user could potentially swap out gear, such as an SA as an added bonus. 

I revisited this last night. I cut some unclad fibre glass PCB (I've had it in stock doing nothing for 15 years!) for the base an back along the whole length of the MSOX3000. These two pieces were joined with some 2mm thick 40mm/20mm aluminium corner stock along the length using a dozen M4 12mm screws with washers. The back was also screwed to a quick release vesa mount. I then added a lip to the front with a further length of 1.5mm thick 25mm/10mm aluminium corner stock. By luck if fits like a glove, but as is common with these kinds of projects when I do them, I forgot about the cable entries for the network and power, so had to hack appropriate openings in the back. Still, it works very well, definitely a keeper.

[nanofrog]

I revisited this last night. I cut some unclad fibre glass PCB (I've had it in stock doing nothing for 15 years!) for the base an back along the whole length of the MSOX3000. These two pieces were joined with some 2mm thick 40mm/20mm aluminium corner stock along the length using a dozen M4 12mm screws with washers. The back was also screwed to a quick release vesa mount. I then added a lip to the front with a further length of 1.5mm thick 25mm/10mm aluminium corner stock. By luck if fits like a glove, but as is common with these kinds of projects when I do them, I forgot about the cable entries for the network and power, so had to hack appropriate openings in the back. Still, it works very well, definitely a keeper.

Perhaps a photo? 

[artag]

I've bought expandable, extensible systems before in the expectation that I could spend some money now and more later as needs develop. These were hardware expansions like the HP16500 series - it will take up to 5 logic analyser or scope modules.

I wouldn't do that again. By the time the need arose / budget was available, it was no longer state of the art and I was better served by a newer model.

I've found the same goes for computers : if you buy more than you need, by the time you need it it will be obsolete and the replacement cheap.

I'd say buy what you need and leave it as late as possible. Assume that payback is short : good equipment is worthwhile but on the basis of lack of frustration / trust in results rather than longevity or buying for the future.

Secondhand is very worthwhile, especially for the better brands. Older equipment is a big saving if you don't need leading edge, and you'll feel happier if you have to move on to another model. The main disadvantages are bulk and power rather than performance.

[Wuerstchenhund]

I've bought expandable, extensible systems before in the expectation that I could spend some money now and more later as needs develop. These were hardware expansions like the HP16500 series - it will take up to 5 logic analyser or scope modules.

I wouldn't do that again. By the time the need arose / budget was available, it was no longer state of the art and I was better served by a newer model.

That's not surprising. Modular instruments are not meant to be longer lasting or cheaper to upgrade years down the line. They are modular to allow a single instrument to fulfill different roles now. Such instruments are usually bought with the required modules right from the start.

The same is true for pretty much any upgrade facility on modern instruments. Software options are usually bought together with the scope, it's pretty rare that someone buys them years later for an older scope. And bandwidth upgrades are only really interesting where a lower bandwidth scope plus the upgrade is cheaper than the higher bandwidth scope. Even for businesses a bandwidth upgrade years later is rarely attractive, and even less so for home users.

I'd say buy what you need and leave it as late as possible. Assume that payback is short : good equipment is worthwhile but on the basis of lack of frustration / trust in results rather than longevity or buying for the future.

I'd say but what you need now and what you very likely need in the near future, but don't spend money for options and functions you're unlikely to use now or later.

Secondhand is very worthwhile, especially for the better brands. Older equipment is a big saving if you don't need leading edge, and you'll feel happier if you have to move on to another model. The main disadvantages are bulk and power rather than performance.

I agree, except I'd say that used equipment is an even bigger saving if you do need leading edge. Depreciation with high end gear is ridiculous, and if you're not under hurry and have some patience then there often are incredible deals to be found on the 2nd hand market.

[Howardlong]

I revisited this last night. I cut some unclad fibre glass PCB (I've had it in stock doing nothing for 15 years!) for the base an back along the whole length of the MSOX3000. These two pieces were joined with some 2mm thick 40mm/20mm aluminium corner stock along the length using a dozen M4 12mm screws with washers. The back was also screwed to a quick release vesa mount. I then added a lip to the front with a further length of 1.5mm thick 25mm/10mm aluminium corner stock. By luck if fits like a glove, but as is common with these kinds of projects when I do them, I forgot about the cable entries for the network and power, so had to hack appropriate openings in the back. Still, it works very well, definitely a keeper.

Perhaps a photo? 

What I have discovered is that you need to have the primary VESA mount primarily vertical. Trying to use it horizontal on a universal mount I found is restrictive in terms of movement.

This is a quick release on an ariticulated gas spring arm.

Now, no sniggering at the back.

[nanofrog]

What I have discovered is that you need to have the primary VESA mount primarily vertical. Trying to use it horizontal on a universal mount I found is restrictive in terms of movement.

This is a quick release on an articulated gas spring arm.

It wouldn't work in my situation, but thanks for the tip about mounting the arm horizontally. 

You made something that works for what you need, and appears it will do so very well. 

All-in, that's a very nice setup IMHO. 

BTW, I'm not seeing a 2nd VESA mount on that arm. So how did you extend it to fit the Tek MDO on top?

[Howardlong]

What I have discovered is that you need to have the primary VESA mount primarily vertical. Trying to use it horizontal on a universal mount I found is restrictive in terms of movement.

This is a quick release on an articulated gas spring arm.

It wouldn't work in my situation, but thanks for the tip about mounting the arm horizontally. 

You made something that works for what you need, and appears it will do so very well. 

All-in, that's a very nice setup IMHO. 

BTW, I'm not seeing a 2nd VESA mount on that arm. So how did you extend it to fit the Tek MDO on top?

Single clamp pole, two articulated gas spring arms about 8" above each other on the pole. The gas arms give you about 18" vertical movement, you can have the scopes on top of each other or side by side, or even both off the bench altogether. Very versatile.

Edit: here you go: http://www.amazon.co.uk/GSA12D-PS-Spring-Mount-Monitor-Stand/dp/B00W5NGZ54/ref=sr_1_40?ie=UTF8&qid=1455663743&sr=8-40&keywords=dual+monitor+arms

[nanofrog]

Single clamp pole, two articulated gas spring arms about 8" above each other on the pole. The gas arms give you about 18" vertical movement, you can have the scopes on top of each other or side by side, or even both off the bench altogether. Very versatile.

I didn't see a second arm, so presumed you didn't use one.  So in the words of Homer Simpson, DOH!