New LeCroy scope - WaveRunner 8000

[Someone]

However, as you might recall, the waveform update rate was just one thing I mentioned (but for some reason that's the only issue you're fixated on), and frankly the waveform update rate is probably the least relevant of all of them.

Its the "thing" that you keep getting wrong, the Lecroy 8000 scope mentioned here claims to achieve 1,000,000 triggers per second in segmented mode, Keysight claim the same number for the 6000 X:

Re-arm time =  As fast as 1us (minimum time between trigger events)

They are the industry leading segmented capture rates, but you've spent most of the thread saying how realtime capture is no good and you'd use segmented mode for capturing infrequent events, which doesnt require the absolute fastest trigger rates.

We have no claimed realtime rate for the Lecroy product and several references to other Lecroy products having much slower realtime update rates comparable to those on the Keysight 9000 series. Key word, comparable.

[Someone]

Probably because it doesn't have a fast realtime update rate.

As I said, there's your chance! Why don't you go ahead and prove that the LeCroy scope (pick one, WRXi, WRXi-A, WR6zi, WP7zi, WM8zi, WR8k) doesn't have a fast waveform update rate, or one that is inferior to the competition?

Persistence is a well defined thing, perhaps Mr W is confused from how Lecroy have implemented realtime on some of their modern scopes:
ru.tek.com/dl/48W-26394-0_0.pdf

LeCroy WaveRunner Xi-A Series [negative features include] Persistence not available in WaveStreamTM Fast Viewing mode.

And then you turn around with

WaveStream is an additional mode, it doesn't replace the normal real-time and persistence modes that also exist in these scopes.

Thats Tektronix taking one of the scopes you listed and trying to see glitches (runt pulses) in realtime modes, they found it was lacking in realtime update rate and the fast mode offered did not have persistence that would keep the glitches on the screen for view. If you think this untrue you should contact Tektronix and accuse them of inaccurate advertising, they take their ethics seriously and I am confident they are providing honest appraisals of the Lecroy scopes capabilities.

[EEVblog]

I fully agree, the DSOX4k is much closer to the DSOX3k(T), at least spec- and performance-wise.

I consider them basically the same scope. One has a bigger screen and a few more bell's'n'whistles.

[EEVblog]

Narrow runts are what you find so hard to find? Here is an Agilent 3024A picking up a <500ps runt that occurs 1 in every 10,000,000 transitions, thats the screen capture result from seeing 1 runt added to the persistence. It stands out as we say in Australia "like dogs balls".

Or we could use triggers to find that sort of thing. Realtime is another option that is possible to use and your claims about it is abilities so far have been ridiculous.

The problem with using trigger to capture stuff like that is you need to know it's there in the first place to trigger on it. So either a chicken and eggs situation, or you get lucky with your trigger. That's why I really like the fast real time updating on the Keysights. And you don't have the dick around with modes like on the Tek's, it's just always there and always works.

[Someone]

Narrow runts are what you find so hard to find? Here is an Agilent 3024A picking up a <500ps runt that occurs 1 in every 10,000,000 transitions, thats the screen capture result from seeing 1 runt added to the persistence. It stands out as we say in Australia "like dogs balls".

Or we could use triggers to find that sort of thing. Realtime is another option that is possible to use and your claims about it is abilities so far have been ridiculous.

The problem with using trigger to capture stuff like that is you need to know it's there in the first place to trigger on it. So either a chicken and eggs situation, or you get lucky with your trigger. That's why I really like the fast real time updating on the Keysights. And you don't have the dick around with modes like on the Tek's, it's just always there and always works.

I think realtime is the first point of call for determining what to do, but Wuerstchenhund has said several times they can trigger on the unknown characteristics and have them delivered as segmented captures, so we just need that expanded on.

On a somewhat modern LeCroy (as well as on a modern Keysight Infiniium), you can find known and unknown events without the need for persistence display. It doesn't mean you can't use it, you can if you want to spend time starring at a screen.

[EEVblog]

I think realtime is the first point of call for determining what to do, but Wuerstchenhund has said several times they can trigger on the unknown characteristics

Right there is an oxymoron.

It's no different to the old days of analog scopes when you'd turn the brightness up (old school equivalent of increasing the real time update rate) in order to see if there are any glitches. Only once you see them can you trigger on them.
Of course you can always just "think" something is there without seeing it and then dick around with the trigger controls to try and get lucky capturing something you believe might be there, but that's getting pretty desperate.

[Someone]

I think realtime is the first point of call for determining what to do, but Wuerstchenhund has said several times they can trigger on the unknown characteristics

Right there is an oxymoron.

It's no different to the old days of analog scopes when you'd turn the brightness up (old school equivalent of increasing the real time update rate) in order to see if there are any glitches. Only once you see them can you trigger on them.
Of course you can always just "think" something is there without seeing it and then dick around with the trigger controls to try and get lucky capturing something you believe might be there, but that's getting pretty desperate.

Yes, this is point of frustration with what Wuerstchenhund has been saying. Wuerstchenhund even excluded using mask triggering to find the unknown characteristics, but hasn't provided any example of how to do this.

[Someone]

Just had a try with persistence in zoomed view to look for those tiny details, it continues to accumulate whatever is on the screen so both the overview of the whole "eye" and the edge are accumulating but you cant pan the persistence with the zoom window during acquisition or after stopping. So here we can see a single slow edge while confirming there were no other abnormal events in the eye.

[rf-loop]

I think realtime is the first point of call for determining what to do, but Wuerstchenhund has said several times they can trigger on the unknown characteristics

Right there is an oxymoron.

It's no different to the old days of analog scopes when you'd turn the brightness up (old school equivalent of increasing the real time update rate) in order to see if there are any glitches. Only once you see them can you trigger on them.
Of course you can always just "think" something is there without seeing it and then dick around with the trigger controls to try and get lucky capturing something you believe might be there, but that's getting pretty desperate.

Yes and no. Old times we rise brightness orturn analog scope persistence on.
(but of course nothing to compare todays speed needs, nothing)


With old analog scopes we work for narrow long period pulses/glitches etc of course rising up brightness hoping that it is enough. Some times we look in dark or use tube between eyes and scope screen. There was also more advanced CRT example in Tek where "drawing speed" was much more.

But, of course also analog scopes have persistence (but of course not in low end models). You can set short or long, even nearly infinite persistence on and once this rare thing is there you see it. These variable peristence and storage analog CRT  did not have very fast writing speed, but also there was big differencies due to continuously developed better and better.
 
Of course these are history and today we look these speeds they are like bicycle compared to J-20 WS15

But also there was Variable Persistence/Storage CRT models least from Hewlett-Packard  and Tektronix.

So turning brightness up was not at all only way. Turning Persistence on was other way.

I have here still several of them. Just only for nostalgic reasons. Protected from material recycling.

[nctnico]

I think realtime is the first point of call for determining what to do, but Wuerstchenhund has said several times they can trigger on the unknown characteristics

Right there is an oxymoron.

It's no different to the old days of analog scopes when you'd turn the brightness up (old school equivalent of increasing the real time update rate) in order to see if there are any glitches. Only once you see them can you trigger on them.
Of course you can always just "think" something is there without seeing it and then dick around with the trigger controls to try and get lucky capturing something you believe might be there, but that's getting pretty desperate.

Actually it is not desperate to set a trigger condition for something that should not happen. In some of my embedded firmware projects I'm using quite a lot of interrupts. To make absolutely sure they are not too long I use infinite persistence to get a feel for how long the processing time normally is and after that I set a trigger for a pulse which is a little bit wider and let the scope run for a while. That way I'm 100% sure I will capture an event that shouldn't happen. I just did such a test yesterday. It is one of those tests where you want to capture a potential one-in-a-million software bug which will be extremely hard to diagnose once a product is in the field.

[Wuerstchenhund]

Narrow runts are what you find so hard to find? Here is an Agilent 3024A picking up a <500ps runt that occurs 1 in every 10,000,000 transitions, thats the screen capture result from seeing 1 runt added to the persistence. It stands out as we say in Australia "like dogs balls".

Yeah, on a ~3.6MHz signal    Well done for again completely missing the point I now made several times that missing stuff on persistence is more likely on high frequency signals. 

You've never explained how you look for an unknown signal characteristic with triggers, please do provide some examples, we'd be interested to have some other ways of doing it for those scopes that don't have the fast realtime update rates.

It's simple, really, instead of telling the scope to look for a specific glitch, runt or whatever you pretty much tell the scope how the signal should look like and let the scope show you any occurrences where it deviates from that ideal.

The most simple and common way to do this is mask testing, which is also available in many entry level scopes. Mask testing works fine for truly repetitive signals, and on a somewhat modern highend scope it just doesn't tell me when a deviation appears but also what it is. The scope can build up a histogram with time stamps of each violation, take measurements or create a screenshot of each occurrence.

For non-repetitive signals it's a bit more complicated, and depends on what kind of wanted signals you're looking at. If it's a standardized protocol (i.e. USB2) then the easiest way on a LeCroy scope is to use the SDA package to verify signal integrity. It can pretty much work like mask test just for non-repetitive signals (although it can do a lot more). If there's a violation (runt, glitch, excessive jitter, whatever) then the scope will record and report it. SDA also works with non-standard signals although the setup is a bit more complicated there.

If your scope doesn't have the SDA option then LeCroy still offers WaveScan/TriggerScan. WaveScan is standard with every of its mid-range and high-end scope with the exception of the WaveSurfer 400. WaveScan can 'learn' how the signal should be, search for any deviations and then do what you want it to do (record, analyze, alarm you).

Of course you could also use individual triggers (i.e exclusion triggers) to find specific glitches, but that often takes more time than just using the scope's toolset.

Since you have this fixation on the Keysight 6000 series

I compare against the DSOX6k because itit's in the same price and market segment as the scope on topic. Actually, price-wise I could as well add the DSOX4k to the list, but that compares even worse than the DSOX6k.

I know that you already suggested I should compare against a much more expensive Keysight scope as this will be better

You stick to it because it allows you to make these deliberately misleading comparisons,

No, I compare it because it's the same class (500Mhz to 4Ghz) and price range.

Keysight offer scopes with broadly comparable specifications to this Lecroy model, they are more expensive (20-30%) but share many characteristics. The Keysight X series are radically different and dont share the same characteristics, they arent a good comparison.

Why not? Because you don't like the outcome?

Fine, let's take the next step up, the Infiniium DSO9000A. They are actually great scopes, it's the first proper Infiniium (Windows scope) Agilent came up with, and it still sells very well. OK then, let's see:

http://literature.cdn.keysight.com/litweb/pdf/5990-3746EN.pdf?id=1705234

[...]
Waveform update rate:

Segmented mode:   Maximum up to 250,000 waveforms/sec
Real-Time mode:      - Typical of 700 waveforms/sec with 1kpts memory
                                - Typical of 230 waveforms/sec with 100 kpts memory
                                - Typical of 130 waveforms/sec with 1 Mpts memory
...


As I said the waveform update rate isn't very important in these scopes, but it's notable that the DSO9ks waveform rate is much lower than the WR8k. In fact, it's even much lower than the 10 year old WaveRunner Xi I have here, which in segmented mode goes up to 1.25M wfms/s. LeCroy doesn't specify real-time update rates but a while ago I did some measurements on the WRXi and got around 380 wfms/s at 50ns/div with 500k memory. And that WRXi is still an original X-Stream architecture scope (PCI based). It had two successors before that new WR8k, the WRXi-A (first X-Stream II variant) came out at roughly the same time as the DSO9k, and provides higher real-time update rates than the WRXi. And the successor of of the WRXi-A (WR6zi) is even faster, noticably. Now, the WR6zi is replaced with the WR8k, and I find it hard to believe that this new scope wll be any slower than its predecessor (but then, there were cutbacks in memory size and the display, so who knows).

Not that this matters a lot, because as I said, unlike what you believe in this scope class waveform rates aren't of high importance.

Aside from that, the DSO9kA comes with more sample memory (20M/40M, optional 500M/1G) which is great, an inferior display (XGA 1024x768) which is not great, and a roughly comparable set of options and protocols, all at a roughly $17k+ starting price.

As noted by an intelligent poster:

I would be disappointed if a new product wasn't better than existing product in a similar price category, that's a natural technology progression, granted test equipment seems to have very long update/refresh cycles...compared to phones

New product to market achieves similar capabilities at lower cost than existing products, its nothing amazing or exciting.

True, but the thing is that the more expensive Keysight model (DSO9k) is already slower than the 10+yrs old pre-pre-predecessor of the scope on topic, which isn't exactly stellar. The DSO9k gets bonus points for being a better Infiniium (than its predecessors, which were all pretty poor), it has very decent sample memory (and a nice 1G option), plus it's supported by the 89600A/B VSA software which, if you do signal analysis, is great.

But back to the original topic, it means Keysight has nothing even close in the same price bracket which offers any similar bang for the buck.

That's the re-arm time, which is not the only factor determining the update rate. I'm pretty sure the InfiniiVision scopes don't reach higher waveform rates in segmented mode than in real-time mode due to their architecture, which for the DSOX6k would be ~450k wfms/s.

looks like Tek got it wrong (I guess they got confused because you can't select normal persistence mode in WaveStream which already is a persistence mode  ), and maybe if they spent less time talking about the competition and invest more time building scopes that aren't old shit then maybe their market share wouldn't be in a constant decline and they wouldn't need to embarrass themselves by having to compare their scope with an older scope of a competitor

So Tek and Keysight are telling us lies, and we should believe your made up numbers that come with no backup.

http://cdn.teledynelecroy.com/files/appnotes/wrxi_note3.pdf
(careful, that is really old!)

"WaveStream combines a rapid screen update rate with a persistence display to show a history of the waveshape variation"

Made up, eh?    But if you prefer to use marketing BS as source be my guest.

Also, unlike Tek's DPO mode, WaveStream allows to use maths and measurements as on a normal acquisition.

Tek are highlighting how the Leycroy offerings do not compete some Tektronix products due to with their slow realtime update rates. But you continue to claim how amazingly fast the realtime speed of Lecroy scopes are despite everything saying they arent.

Tek is desperate because pretty much all their scopes except the DPO70kSX are shit. It's pretty embarassing when they have to use a LeCroy scope that came out in 2007(!) and which has already been replaced in 2009/2010 to their own product that came out in 2012. And as shown they couldn't even do this right without either lying or messing up.

Seriously, if you take Tek's marketing BS serious then more fool to you. 

[Someone]

You really think I'd use some primitive tool like mask testing for searching for a glitch when on a newer high-end scope I have a wide range of tools available to detect, identify and quantify any type of irregularity in a repetitive and non-repetitive signal?

And then after thousands of words and pushing you to try and provide an example of how to find unknown characteristics of a signal we get:

It's simple, really, instead of telling the scope to look for a specific glitch, runt or whatever you pretty much tell the scope how the signal should look like and let the scope show you any occurrences where it deviates from that ideal.

The most simple and common way to do this is mask testing, which is also available in many entry level scopes. Mask testing works fine for truly repetitive signals, and on a somewhat modern highend scope it just doesn't tell me when a deviation appears but also what it is. The scope can build up a histogram with time stamps of each violation, take measurements or create a screenshot of each occurrence.

For non-repetitive signals it's a bit more complicated, and depends on what kind of wanted signals you're looking at. If it's a standardized protocol (i.e. USB2) then the easiest way on a LeCroy scope is to use the SDA package to verify signal integrity. It can pretty much work like mask test just for non-repetitive signals (although it can do a lot more). If there's a violation (runt, glitch, excessive jitter, whatever) then the scope will record and report it. SDA also works with non-standard signals although the setup is a bit more complicated there.

Mask testing! and a Lecroy branded name for an optional package of eye digram and mask testing tools.

Narrow runts are what you find so hard to find? Here is an Agilent 3024A picking up a <500ps runt that occurs 1 in every 10,000,000 transitions, thats the screen capture result from seeing 1 runt added to the persistence. It stands out as we say in Australia "like dogs balls".

Yeah, on a ~3.6MHz signal    Well done for again completely missing the point I now made several times that missing stuff on persistence is more likely on high frequency signals.

You've made wild claims about how a persistence display won't be visible for small or high frequency features, as shown its simply not true. The persistence is operating at the display resolution here and will at minimum show a 1px wide feature, which from the examples shown is easily visible. As long as the sample rate (or peak detect) is fast enough to see the characteristic its right there in the persistence no matter what the frequency. Pulling a sub ns glitch from a signal on a 200MHz scope should be obvious that you can find GHz rate glitches, it would be much easier with a higher bandwidth and sample rate.

Since you have this fixation on the Keysight 6000 series

I compare against the DSOX6k because itit's in the same price and market segment as the scope on topic. Actually, price-wise I could as well add the DSOX4k to the list, but that compares even worse than the DSOX6k.

You're picking a comparison to a radically different product when there are comparable products marketed by that same company, who's representative kindly suggested would be better to compare against. But that doesn't suit your narrative, we'll call you out when you go out of your way to make poor comparisons or make up specifications.

[Someone]

When you rely on mask triggers for capturing infrequent events the capture speed becomes critical once again:
http://cdn.rohde-schwarz.com/pws/dl_downloads/dl_common_library/dl_news_from_rs/202/NEUES_202_english_RTO.pdf
some comparative mask test rate numbers from Agilent/Keysight:
http://cp.literature.agilent.com/litweb/pdf/5990-3269EN.pdf

[nctnico]

When you rely on mask triggers for capturing infrequent events the capture speed becomes critical once again:
http://cdn.rohde-schwarz.com/pws/dl_downloads/dl_common_library/dl_news_from_rs/202/NEUES_202_english_RTO.pdf

This document explains precisely why high capture rates / waveform update rates are useless for capturing events with 100% certainty. Just punch in the numbers into the equation and you'll see that only a truly infinite number of waveforms/s gives you that 100% certainty. So the math proves that what you need is a trigger toolset which can scan the signal continuously (no blind time!) for anomalies based on a set of rules in order to capture signal anomalies.

[Someone]

When you rely on mask triggers for capturing infrequent events the capture speed becomes critical once again:
http://cdn.rohde-schwarz.com/pws/dl_downloads/dl_common_library/dl_news_from_rs/202/NEUES_202_english_RTO.pdf

This document explains precisely why high capture rates / waveform update rates are useless for capturing events with 100% certainty. Just punch in the numbers into the equation and you'll see that only a truly infinite number of waveforms/s gives you that 100% certainty. So the math proves that what you need is a trigger toolset which can scan the signal continuously (no blind time!) for anomalies based on a set of rules in order to capture signal anomalies.

If you're scanning/stepping/sequencing through multiple triggers and not running them simultaneously, then you're back to degrading the capture rate. Mask testing is the fastest way to trigger on unknown characteristics when its hardware driven as in the above documents.

[nctnico]

When you rely on mask triggers for capturing infrequent events the capture speed becomes critical once again:
http://cdn.rohde-schwarz.com/pws/dl_downloads/dl_common_library/dl_news_from_rs/202/NEUES_202_english_RTO.pdf

This document explains precisely why high capture rates / waveform update rates are useless for capturing events with 100% certainty. Just punch in the numbers into the equation and you'll see that only a truly infinite number of waveforms/s gives you that 100% certainty. So the math proves that what you need is a trigger toolset which can scan the signal continuously (no blind time!) for anomalies based on a set of rules in order to capture signal anomalies.

If you're scanning/stepping/sequencing through multiple triggers and not running them simultaneously, then you're back to degrading the capture rate. Mask testing is the fastest way to trigger on unknown characteristics when its hardware driven as in the above documents.

What you are missing is that until there is something to trigger on (based on a complex set if rules if necessary), nothing gets captured at all so blind time and capture rates are totally out of the picture!

[Someone]

When you rely on mask triggers for capturing infrequent events the capture speed becomes critical once again:
http://cdn.rohde-schwarz.com/pws/dl_downloads/dl_common_library/dl_news_from_rs/202/NEUES_202_english_RTO.pdf

This document explains precisely why high capture rates / waveform update rates are useless for capturing events with 100% certainty. Just punch in the numbers into the equation and you'll see that only a truly infinite number of waveforms/s gives you that 100% certainty. So the math proves that what you need is a trigger toolset which can scan the signal continuously (no blind time!) for anomalies based on a set of rules in order to capture signal anomalies.

If you're scanning/stepping/sequencing through multiple triggers and not running them simultaneously, then you're back to degrading the capture rate. Mask testing is the fastest way to trigger on unknown characteristics when its hardware driven as in the above documents.

What you are missing is that until there is something to trigger on (based on a complex set if rules if necessary), nothing gets captured at all so blind time and capture rates are totally out of the picture!

Or we could refer to the Lecroy technical description and comparison:
http://teledynelecroy.com/doc/triggerscan-technical-brief

If you're stepping through multiple trigger settings (100 in their example) you're blind at least 99% of the time to any given trigger, which is very comparable to mask testing at hundreds of thousands of waveforms per second. For very high repetition rate signals the trigger sequencing will find glitches faster when:
(signal repetition rate)/(number of triggers) > mask testing rate
Below that the mask testing will be faster, this can be similarly compared to realtime update rates where the Lecroy Triggerscan can be quicker at finding the problem (and gives a clean triggered waveform rather than a persistence display). But that assumes that the automatically generated triggers will capture all the same characteristics as mask testing, they'll each have their particular examples where the other wouldn't catch the anomaly, but they're comparable.

Why not just post such a simple link days ago? There is no mention of Triggerscan being available on the Lecroy WaveRunner 8000.

[rf-loop]

This special trigger operation principle is by simply  - ingenious.

Let's hope that this will begin a new era oscilloscopes Trigger functions that can be developed more. Let's hope that this principle will also be something even lower class oscilloscopes.
Trying to trig directly to what should not be in the signal. Yes.
Of course, in addition to other more conventional methods.


But, this make me confused, is this attached image right?
(from LeCroy technical brief)
Trigger is derived from analog signal to trigger system and not from digitized signal to trigger system.
Do it have separate very fast ADC in "trigger scan" engine.

[Someone]

The picture is correct. A system (the yellow box) changes the trigger conditions quickly and if the active trigger ever matches then like a regular scope that result is displayed to the screen.

Like all good inventions it seems obvious. The hard part is in the software when the scope analyses the "good" reference waveforms and translates that into a list of triggers which represent "bad".

[rf-loop]

The picture is correct. A system (the yellow box) changes the trigger conditions quickly and if the active trigger ever matches then like a regular scope that result is displayed to the screen.

Like all good inventions it seems obvious. The hard part is in the software when the scope analyses the "good" reference waveforms and translates that into a list of triggers which represent "bad".

Ok.
It must be bit complex analog/digital circuit system there in "trigger scan" box what get digital data from "Read out system" box.

[Wuerstchenhund]

It's simple, really, instead of telling the scope to look for a specific glitch, runt or whatever you pretty much tell the scope how the signal should look like and let the scope show you any occurrences where it deviates from that ideal.

The most simple and common way to do this is mask testing, which is also available in many entry level scopes. Mask testing works fine for truly repetitive signals, and on a somewhat modern highend scope it just doesn't tell me when a deviation appears but also what it is. The scope can build up a histogram with time stamps of each violation, take measurements or create a screenshot of each occurrence.

For non-repetitive signals it's a bit more complicated, and depends on what kind of wanted signals you're looking at. If it's a standardized protocol (i.e. USB2) then the easiest way on a LeCroy scope is to use the SDA package to verify signal integrity. It can pretty much work like mask test just for non-repetitive signals (although it can do a lot more). If there's a violation (runt, glitch, excessive jitter, whatever) then the scope will record and report it. SDA also works with non-standard signals although the setup is a bit more complicated there.

Mask testing! and a Lecroy branded name for an optional package of eye digram and mask testing tools.

  I'm not sure if you're really this thick or just obtuse by purpose. SDA isn't just mask testing, it's a pretty complex measurement and signal analysis package (hint: SDA = Signal Data Analyzer).

Narrow runts are what you find so hard to find? Here is an Agilent 3024A picking up a <500ps runt that occurs 1 in every 10,000,000 transitions, thats the screen capture result from seeing 1 runt added to the persistence. It stands out as we say in Australia "like dogs balls".

Yeah, on a ~3.6MHz signal    Well done for again completely missing the point I now made several times that missing stuff on persistence is more likely on high frequency signals.

You've made wild claims about how a persistence display won't be visible for small or high frequency features, as shown its simply not true.

I was talking about high frequency signals That means signals beyond 1GHz. Aside from the fact that I didn't say no glitches are visible, trying to disprove this with a lowly 200MHz scope is stupid, really, and pretty much shows that you have no understanding what I'm talking about. Try to read what I wrote about this in this thread again, slowly, and if you still don't get it then I'd recommend getting an EE education.

Since you have this fixation on the Keysight 6000 series

I compare against the DSOX6k because itit's in the same price and market segment as the scope on topic. Actually, price-wise I could as well add the DSOX4k to the list, but that compares even worse than the DSOX6k.

You're picking a comparison to a radically different product when there are comparable products marketed by that same company, who's representative kindly suggested would be better to compare against. But that doesn't suit your narrative, we'll call you out when you go out of your way to make poor comparisons or make up specifications.

Ridiculous. The DSOX6k is in the price, bandwidth and general performance category as the WR8K, so a comparison is of course legitimate. Plus the DSOX is already more expensive than the WR8k. And as we've seen, the next step up (Infiniium DSO9k), is a lot more expensive.

It clearly shows the bang for the buck isn't great with these scopes. Which is what I pretty much said in when I opened this thread 

Why not just post such a simple link days ago?

I didn't know you'd be that obtuse. And, my mistake I know, I thought if you wanted to find information about a product you could find them out yourself instead of being spoon-fed, i.e. google exists and LeCroy has quite a few documents describing their technology. I just wasn't prepared for someone who believes "research" is reading a Tek marketing paper to find out stuff about LeCroy scopes. That was new for me. 

There is no mention of Triggerscan being available on the Lecroy WaveRunner 8000.

No, because these documents are from the WaveRunner Xi Series which is now 11yrs old. Since then TriggerScan has been part of every WaveRunner/WavePro/WaveMaster/LabMaster scope under the "WaveScan" umbrella (WaveSurfers don't have the "TriggerScan" part, and the WS400 doesn't even have WaveScan). And later it has become much more powerful than the old version described in this document.

BTW, Keysight has something roughly similar called "InfiniiScan" which pretty much copies what WaveScan can do (and yes, LeCroy had it first), and which is really really slow even on a upper high-end scope like the DSO90k.

And of course (well, it's Keysight), it's a paid-for option ($1200 or so for the DSO9k if I remember right).

This special trigger operation principle is by simply  - ingenious.

Let's hope that this will begin a new era oscilloscopes Trigger functions that can be developed more. Let's hope that this principle will also be something even lower class oscilloscopes.
Trying to trig directly to what should not be in the signal. Yes.
Of course, in addition to other more conventional methods.

That will take a while as WaveScan/TriggerScan require a lot of processing power on a very fast architecture. It can't be done with today's embedded platforms that are found in entry level scopes.

The cheapest scope that has WaveScan (although not TriggerScan) is the LeCroy WaveSurfer 3000 (which is hardware manufactured by Siglent under LeCroy's control and where the software comes from LeCroy). Performance-wise it sits between the DSOX3000T and DSOX4kA while being notably cheaper even than the DSOX3kT.

[Someone]

You've made wild claims about how a persistence display won't be visible for small or high frequency features, as shown its simply not true.

I was talking about high frequency signals That means signals beyond 1GHz. Aside from the fact that I didn't say no glitches are visible, trying to disprove this with a lowly 200MHz scope is stupid, really, and pretty much shows that you have no understanding what I'm talking about. Try to read what I wrote about this in this thread again, slowly, and if you still don't get it then I'd recommend getting an EE education.

You have explained nothing and then continue to argue how we're all wrong. Please explain your position because we don't believe it. If you can capture the glitch in waveform memory, its visible.

[Someone]

No, because these documents are from the WaveRunner Xi Series which is now 11yrs old. Since then TriggerScan has been part of every WaveRunner/WavePro/WaveMaster/LabMaster scope under the "WaveScan" umbrella (WaveSurfers don't have the "TriggerScan" part, and the WS400 doesn't even have WaveScan). And later it has become much more powerful than the old version described in this document.
...
The cheapest scope that has WaveScan (although not TriggerScan) is the LeCroy WaveSurfer 3000 (which is hardware manufactured by Siglent under LeCroy's control and where the software comes from LeCroy). Performance-wise it sits between the DSOX3000T and DSOX4kA while being notably cheaper even than the DSOX3kT.

You're conflating different concepts again for your purposes of misdirection. Lecroy still list the two functions under their own names:
WaveScan, the offline analysis toolking for searching through captured data (useful for hunting in deep memory).
TriggerScan, sequencing of hardware triggers to isolate in a single capture an unusual event.

TriggerScan has been part of every WaveRunner/WavePro/WaveMaster/LabMaster scope under the "WaveScan" umbrella (WaveSurfers don't have the "TriggerScan" part)

Which makes it a big differentiator in the product line, separating their high end models from the mid range.

Ridiculous. The DSOX6k is in the price, bandwidth and general performance category as the WR8K, so a comparison is of course legitimate. Plus the DSOX is already more expensive than the WR8k. And as we've seen, the next step up (Infiniium DSO9k), is a lot more expensive.

Comparing the bottom product of the high end platform against the top end of a mid range platform is disingenuous, its a ridiculous comparison especially when they are such different products.

the next step up (Infiniium DSO9k), is a lot more expensive.

Germany has a lot more population than the UK? No its only 20% higher.

Lecroy are pushing into the market a well priced new product that is measurably cheaper than comparable products, by 20-30%.

[EEVblog]

This place starting to read like an Apple forum  Pity there only the two contenders 

Thread reopened. Reminder for everyone to always keep it non-personal.

[Wuerstchenhund]

Thread reopened. Reminder for everyone to always keep it non-personal.

Maybe it should have stayed locked. There's not much more to say about the topic anyways.