New Tek Scope - MDO4000C

[Wuerstchenhund]

Although often that's mitigated through the use of segmented memory, although admittedly that does add a little complexity to the setup. MDO3000/4000 doesn't have segmented memory, I can't comment on the LeCroy.

The WS3k has segmented memory ('sequence mode') for up to 1000 segments.

The AFG on the MDO3000 though lacks any modulation functionality, and the BNC is somewhat irritatingly round the back.

That's the same with the WS3k, though, no modulation and connector on the back.

Originally the signal generator in the WS3k was just that, a signal generator. A later firmware update has turned it into a full Arbitrary Waveform Generator, though.

But let's face it, the built-in AWGs of pretty much any scopes are pretty basic and, unless you get them enabled for free, are not worth the money.

The SA is OK but on the MDO3000 either it's a scope or an SA, you can't have both at the same time, although realistically there isn't really enough screen real estate for both. The MDO4000 you can have both and they can be made to work together. The SA can appear to be slow, because it doesn't scan like a traditional SA, so you get a screen update all in one go rather than a scan trace.

The SA in the MDO3k/4k is actually a VSA (Vector SA), i.e. a FFT analyzer, not a swept SA as a common standalone SA. It pretty much works as FFT on a modern scope, just with higher bandwidth.

A bigger concern for me would be the poor RF performance.

[Howardlong]

The SA in the MDO3k/4k is actually a VSA (Vector SA), i.e. a FFT analyzer, not a swept SA as a common standalone SA. It pretty much works as FFT on a modern scope, just with higher bandwidth.

A bigger concern for me would be the poor RF performance.

Depends what you are using it for. I was using it to minimise sideband images and LO leakage on an L band quadrature mixer, for that it was perfectly adequate, my spec calls for >50dB image and LO rejection, easily achievable on this.

By "poor RF performance", what parameters are you using and what are you comparing it to? I'm not saying it's the bee's knees, never have, in fact I've been saying the SA is not a good reason to buy this scope, particularly the MDO3000. I am interested to know what you're comparing it against, and the nature of the scenarios where the performance would cause you a problem. I don't doubt that it's performance lags behind some other solutions, but it would be useful to know where it's considered to be poor.

[Wuerstchenhund]

By "poor RF performance", what parameters are you using and what are you comparing it to? I'm not saying it's the bee's knees, never have, in fact I've been saying the SA is not a good reason to buy this scope, particularly the MDO3000. I am interested to know what you're comparing it against, and the nature of the scenarios where the performance would cause you a problem. I don't doubt that it's performance lags behind some other solutions, but it would be useful to know where it's considered to be poor.

With "poor" im mean things the high phase noise, the poor spurious response and the poor uncertainty in its frequency reference (10ppm). "Poor" compared to something like the cheap Rigol DSA832 (not exactly a gold standard for an SA) or even some of the old cell phone testers that go for little money these days.

Some while ago a customer needed another scope for a project and got a MDO3000 as a rental unit. They are working on transmitter stuff and gave the SA in the MDO3k a run through. He said the MDO's SA wasn't even a match for their R&S CMU200 (which they use for EMC pre-compliance checking only), let alone for even a pretty old entry level SA like the Agilent N1996A (which isn't a great performer either). He also mentioned that the scope was locking up the UI everytime it was busy doing something.

I guess if you buy a naked MDO3k and then hack it then there isn't much wrong with it, but if you have to actually pay for the SA bandwidth extension then I doubt its really worth it.

But I'm not saying there's nothing nice of the MDO3k. I do envy its numerical keypad, something I really miss on modern scopes back since the old HP54500 'single knob' days.

[Howardlong]

Without the numerical keypad, yes, it would be painful. The apparent lockups are non to handy either, you have to adjust your workflow to accommodate it, and double check before committing a span or RBW change, it's frustrating.

[Hydrawerk]

Agilent / Keysight DSOX3000 and DSOX2000 scopes have AM, FM and FSK modulation. I find it useful. But YOU decide what YOU need. Many people prefer the long acquisition memory of Tek and LeCroy.

[don]

By "poor RF performance", what parameters are you using and what are you comparing it to? I'm not saying it's the bee's knees, never have, in fact I've been saying the SA is not a good reason to buy this scope, particularly the MDO3000. I am interested to know what you're comparing it against, and the nature of the scenarios where the performance would cause you a problem. I don't doubt that it's performance lags behind some other solutions, but it would be useful to know where it's considered to be poor.

With "poor" im mean things the high phase noise, the poor spurious response and the poor uncertainty in its frequency reference (10ppm). "Poor" compared to something like the cheap Rigol DSA832 (not exactly a gold standard for an SA) or even some of the old cell phone testers that go for little money these days.

Some while ago a customer needed another scope for a project and got a MDO3000 as a rental unit. They are working on transmitter stuff and gave the SA in the MDO3k a run through. He said the MDO's SA wasn't even a match for their R&S CMU200 (which they use for EMC pre-compliance checking only), let alone for even a pretty old entry level SA like the Agilent N1996A (which isn't a great performer either). He also mentioned that the scope was locking up the UI everytime it was busy doing something.

I guess if you buy a naked MDO3k and then hack it then there isn't much wrong with it, but if you have to actually pay for the SA bandwidth extension then I doubt its really worth it.

But I'm not saying there's nothing nice of the MDO3k. I do envy its numerical keypad, something I really miss on modern scopes back since the old HP54500 'single knob' days.

You are comparing a secondary function of a low/mid end oscilloscope to a dedicated SA or communications tester.  A more fair & reasonable comparison for a scope would be to other scopes at similar price points which is lecroy ws3000 or agilent 3000.  MDO3000's SA is significantly better compared to those. True, it can function as a low end dedicated SA in a pinch depending on what one is doing  (MDO4000 SA is better than 3000 so even more so) but highly unlikely it would be be bought for that purpose (or even paid for since it's usually included in a bundle, but corporate purchasing doesn't align with logic).

Of course a CMU200 will beat it - lol.  CMU200's purpose in life is testing, calibrating and compliance testing for mobile communication systems.  And it costs > 10x price of mdo3000 depending on options.

So for a general purpose debugging scope it's quite handy.  Fair to treat the SA as free, just as the add-ons for LeCroy are often considered free or thrown in by LeCroy as you often say when people say ws3000 with options is expensive.  Particularly because Tek has multiple promotions per year where it is free.  Or if one is into liberating then any time of year will produce 500MHz scope, 3GHz SA, ARB, MSO and protocol debugging for ~$4k. 

[Wuerstchenhund]

You are comparing a secondary function of a low/mid end oscilloscope to a dedicated SA or communications tester. 

Actually, I'm pretty much comparing one of the main features as marketed by the manufacturer of a entry-level scope (the MDO4K is Tek's lower mid-range) with the secondary function (spectrum analyzer) of an obsolete communications tester and what is pretty much the current bottom-of-the-barrel of B-brand low end SAs (Rigol DSA800).

A more fair & reasonable comparison for a scope would be to other scopes at similar price points which is lecroy ws3000 or agilent 3000.

I disagree, as neither of them is marketed as having a Spectrum Analyzer. Contrary to Tek, who puts a lot of emphasis on the SA part:

"...the ultimate 6-in-1 integrated oscilloscope that includes an integrated spectrum analyzer, arbitrary function generator, logic analyzer, protocol analyzer, and digital voltmeter/counter."

Therefore I think a comparison of the SA part of the MDO3000 with a bottom-of-the-barrel SA like the Rigol DSA832 or an old comms tester like the CMU200 (both with at the end of the day very modest RF properties) is a valid one.

MDO3000's SA is significantly better compared to those.

Yes, with the bandwidth extension. Without it (i.e. being limited to the scope's analog bandwidth) I'm not so sure. Certainly the interface is somewhat nicer, as the MDO3k show pretty much shows standard controls as on a normal SA while the FFT interface of a scope is a bit more crude.

True, it can function as a low end dedicated SA in a pinch depending on what one is doing  (MDO4000 SA is better than 3000 so even more so) but highly unlikely it would be be bought for that purpose (or even paid for since it's usually included in a bundle, but corporate purchasing doesn't align with logic).

Well, again, Tek markets it as a 6-in-1 instrument with a lot of emphasis on the SA, so it's  not far fetched that it will be considered over a standalone scope/SA solution by some.

Of course a CMU200 will beat it - lol.  CMU200's purpose in life is testing, calibrating and compliance testing for mobile communication systems.  And it costs > 10x price of mdo3000 depending on options.

Yes, it's a cell phone tester (the SA part is a secondary function), and because of that it doesn't offer particularly great RF performance. It's roughly on par with the Rigol DSA800 Series, and in terms of performance both are pretty much located in the bottom end of SAs.

The cost of the CMU200 was somewhere in the region of $120k to $200k depending on options before it was replaced by the successor (CMW500). Today you can buy units in good condition for roughly £500. But I only chose the CMU200 as comparison because its limited RF performance, and considering that Tek wants around $2500 just for the MDO3SA option required to make the SA actually more useful than the FFT function of any other scope it's a legitimate question if other options don't make more sense. $2500 gives you a lot of SA these days.

So for a general purpose debugging scope it's quite handy.  Fair to treat the SA as free, just as the add-ons for LeCroy are often considered free or thrown in by LeCroy as you often say when people say ws3000 with options is expensive.  Particularly because Tek has multiple promotions per year where it is free.  Or if one is into liberating then any time of year will produce 500MHz scope, 3GHz SA, ARB, MSO and protocol debugging for ~$4k.

You are right, if it's thrown in for free then what the heck, same if you want to hack.

For a regular purchase, I'm not so sure. The thing with Tek is that in my opinion they are relative inflexible regarding pricing even for large orders, unless you're an educational facility (in which case they'll essentially throw stuff at you). For a scope with an already quite high list price and little incentives from the vendor I'm not sure getting the MDO3SA option for free does really turn it. Even less so when the list price of alternatives is already noticably lower, plus there's more leeway in the way of additional incentives from the vendor.

Plus you'd still be stuck with a scope that locks the UI if it's doing anything demanding. I know that this alone would make a significant part of my engineers throw the scope at the wall.

[don]

/lots of words cut/

Plus you'd still be stuck with a scope that locks the UI if it's doing anything demanding. I know that this alone would make a significant part of my engineers throw the scope at the wall.

I bet the equipment isn't the reason your engineers want to throw scopes at the wall lol

You are one stubborn LeCroy loving & Tek hating dude.  You can't even give the MDO3000 a clear *spectrum analysis* performance win over a ws3000 instead choosing to argue spectrum analysis semantics of marketing literature over actual scope performance.  And you complain about the silly competitive sheets tek/agilent put out...

[Wuerstchenhund]

/lots of words cut/

Plus you'd still be stuck with a scope that locks the UI if it's doing anything demanding. I know that this alone would make a significant part of my engineers throw the scope at the wall.

I bet the equipment isn't the reason your engineers want to throw scopes at the wall lol

Well, frankly it's 2016, even a basic Rigol scope can do stuff like FFT (OK, poorly) without locking up.

Unresponsive UIs are a big annoyance, and the tolerance for something that shouldn't be an issue since the '90s is understandably low.

You are one stubborn LeCroy loving & Tek hating dude.

Right, which is why I mostly buy Keysight and R&S gear 

Of course moving to personal attacks is one way to avoid having to adress actual facts and arguments, although a poor one. 

Just for the record, I don't "hate" Tek (or any other brand). In fact, I find brand loyality pretty silly. You really think I wouldn't wish for Tek coming up with a good, competitive product that is well supported? The more competition the better, the more choice the better. It's as simple as that.

What I do is calling out a product for its flaws, and that is independent on who made it. That also includes LeCroy btw, which I lambast pretty regularly for their utterly sucking entry level offerings, which of course those that accuse me of favoring a certain brand regularly miss (or omit, as it shows the narrative doesn't fit). As mentioned in other threads on occasion, I do buy a lot of test gear, and for that I have to know which products suck and where a product stands against its competitors in terms of price and performance. And I pretty much buy what offers the best performance for the money for a given task. Of course support offerings play into account but that's about it. If the device is made by Keysight, R&S, LeCroy, Tek, Anritsu or whoever else of the big brands (no B-brands though) doesn't really matter.

As to Tek, do you really expect me to pat them on the back for coming up with another rehash of a poor scope (MDO4kC) to complement their other poor scopes? What about the other shitty products they come up with (i.e. the OWON sourced AGWs, or their poor standalone SAs)? Should I really give them a 'thumbs up' for coming up with underwhelming products pretty much since they stopped making analog scopes? Seriously?

There are many aspects on the MDO3k/4k I like (keypad, VESA mount, front panel layout, even the design of the housing is nice), but that does not make the inherit deficits go away. The fact that in 2016 they still come up with scopes that lock the UI when doing stuff is a joke. I wish this wasn't the case, I'd prefer if they came up with great products which would give me more alternatives, but no Danaher has decided that cost cutting and mediocre products are enough. And for that they deserve the criticism they get.

If you can't see that then maybe yourself is a bit too attached emotionally to the Tek brand?

The "LeCroy fanboi" argument that is often made against me is pretty silly anyways, as I always tell people to get loaners of all suitable scopes from all providers and give them a spin, and then base the decision on which one likes best. I like to give people options, and I often mention LeCroy pretty much because in the past no-one else did, as the brand simply didn't appear on most people's RADAR. I also do the same for R&S when I feel it's appropriate and their products might be a viable alternative (Keysight rarely needs mentioning, as they are the first that get named). I'd do the same for Tek (or anyone else) if their products (and support) just wouldn't suck so much. Calling this "fanboism" or similar is pretty silly, especially considering that this forum is full of Rigol and Siglent fanbois who go pretty much go to extremes to defend "their" brand.

You can't even give the MDO3000 a clear *spectrum analysis* performance win over a ws3000 instead choosing to argue spectrum analysis semantics of marketing literature over actual scope performance.  And you complain about the silly competitive sheets tek/agilent put out...

Oh, I give the MDO credit for offering a SA, and I said it many times (also in other threads) that if you need an all-in-one instrument then this is the way to go.

But the simple fact remains that none of the other manufacturers  make a claim that their scope can be used as SA, so why compare them with the MDO in terms of SA performance? That's silly. The MDO3k/4k SA is marketed specifically as Spectrum Analyzer, not as Spectrum monitor as they could have done. So it's only naturally that something which is marketed (also) as Spectrum Analyzer will be compared with other Spectrum Analyzers.

[Hydrawerk]

As to Tek, do you really expect me to pat them on the back for coming up with another rehash of a poor scope (MDO4kC) to complement their other poor scopes? What about the other shitty products they come up with (i.e. the OWON sourced AGWs,

Oh, they look very similar.

[Someone]

You are one stubborn LeCroy loving & Tek hating dude.

[typical Wuerstchenhund waffle]

What I do is calling out a product for its flaws, and that is independent on who made it.

You paint comparisons to make Lecroy seem favourable, over and over and over in long winded posts. Even when called out on them you won't bring any evidence or facts and tell everyone else they're ignorant and must prove you wrong, then when proved wrong you move the goalposts. Pretty much the definition of a fanboy.

[coppice]

You are one stubborn LeCroy loving & Tek hating dude.

Whilst Wuerstchenhund does write like LeCroy's biggest shareholder, is there anyone young with a good regard for anything from Tek? Sure there are older engineers who still remember the things Tek made in better times, and still have a fondness for them, but young engineers who have only experienced what they have offered in the last 10 years?

[Wuerstchenhund]

You are one stubborn LeCroy loving & Tek hating dude.

[typical Wuerstchenhund waffle]

What I do is calling out a product for its flaws, and that is independent on who made it.

You paint comparisons to make Lecroy seem favourable, over and over and over in long winded posts. Even when called out on them you won't bring any evidence or facts and tell everyone else they're ignorant and must prove you wrong, then when proved wrong you move the goalposts. Pretty much the definition of a fanboy.

Yeah, whatever.    No point in dragging this on. I tend to support my arguments with facts and evidence, something you have been avoiding all along. And in the world of grown-ups if you claim that what someone else says is wrong you're expected to support your claim with some evidence. Something you failed to do again and again.

I'm happy to stand corrected when I'm proven wrong but so far all you came up with is hot air and a really embarrassing display of ignorance (2007 probe catalog and 2014 scope? I mean, really? ). Frankly, if I were you I'd really cut back on my attacks after showing such an ridiculous level of stupidity. You can't make this stuff up, really. 

Anyways, since you're clearly not able to discuss at an adult level, it seems your only aim is to troll. Your actions and posts speak for themselves, and there's no point in furthering the conversation with a troll.

[Wuerstchenhund]

As to Tek, do you really expect me to pat them on the back for coming up with another rehash of a poor scope (MDO4kC) to complement their other poor scopes? What about the other shitty products they come up with (i.e. the OWON sourced AGWs,

Oh, they look very similar.

Yes, except for the price 

[G0HZU]

You are one stubborn LeCroy loving & Tek hating dude.

Whilst Wuerstchenhund does write like LeCroy's biggest shareholder, is there anyone young with a good regard for anything from Tek? Sure there are older engineers who still remember the things Tek made in better times, and still have a fondness for them, but young engineers who have only experienced what they have offered in the last 10 years?

Sadly, I don't qualify as young but at work we do use the high end RTSAs from Tek with good results. I rarely use them but some of my colleagues do when capturing and analysing unconventional wideband waveforms. Note that I think we have special versions of these analysers with enhanced performance in these areas.

I find the UI to be a bit odd and clunky so I avoid these instruments but they do perform well for certain tasks. They must be several years old by now and I'm not sure what new versions are available but I think we have analysers across the RSA 3000, 5000 and 6000 range.

[nctnico]

You are one stubborn LeCroy loving & Tek hating dude.

Whilst Wuerstchenhund does write like LeCroy's biggest shareholder, is there anyone young with a good regard for anything from Tek? Sure there are older engineers who still remember the things Tek made in better times, and still have a fondness for them, but young engineers who have only experienced what they have offered in the last 10 years?

I have owned several Tektronix scopes and other equipment over the past decades but currently the only piece of Tektronix equipment I have is a logic analyser (the third Tektronix logic analyser in a row). Most of my current test equipment is made by HP/Agilent/Keysight. Recently I needed a higher end DMM and Keysight's offering was just better due to a TFT screen versus dot-matrix VFD. Nowadays Tektronix seems to be all about milking old products for as long as they can.

[kcbrown]

As to Tek, do you really expect me to pat them on the back for coming up with another rehash of a poor scope (MDO4kC) to complement their other poor scopes? What about the other shitty products they come up with (i.e. the OWON sourced AGWs,

Oh, they look very similar.

Yes, except for the price 

Of course.  But then, the Tektronix version meets its specs and has no bugs in its firmware, so it's worth double the price.

Right?

[Wuerstchenhund]

As to Tek, do you really expect me to pat them on the back for coming up with another rehash of a poor scope (MDO4kC) to complement their other poor scopes? What about the other shitty products they come up with (i.e. the OWON sourced AGWs,

Oh, they look very similar.

Yes, except for the price 

Of course.  But then, the Tektronix version meets its specs and has no bugs in its firmware, so it's worth double the price.

Right?

You'd hope so, but unfortunately the answer is no. The firmware is made by OWON, and the Tek variant is not even supported by Tek's own AWG waveform editing software (ArbExpress).

[kcbrown]

Of course.  But then, the Tektronix version meets its specs and has no bugs in its firmware, so it's worth double the price.

Right?

You'd hope so, but unfortunately the answer is no. The firmware is made by OWON, and the Tek variant is not even supported by Tek's own AWG waveform editing software (ArbExpress).

Wow, seriously?   

So the mantra that if you buy a piece of equipment from one of the major brands, then you'll get something that meets its specs and doesn't have firmware bugs, isn't even true anymore???

   

So much for that.   That means that whether or not a piece of equipment meets its specs and is essentially bug-free depends on the piece of equipment.  The brand may influence the probability of that, but that's all you can say about it now.

[Hydrawerk]

OH, SHIT. 

[Wuerstchenhund]

Of course.  But then, the Tektronix version meets its specs and has no bugs in its firmware, so it's worth double the price.

Right?

You'd hope so, but unfortunately the answer is no. The firmware is made by OWON, and the Tek variant is not even supported by Tek's own AWG waveform editing software (ArbExpress).

Wow, seriously?   

So the mantra that if you buy a piece of equipment from one of the major brands, then you'll get something that meets its specs and doesn't have firmware bugs, isn't even true anymore???

No. The mantra is that if you buy entry level gear you can't expect the same functionality as for higher priced equipment. Bummer.

What makes you think the OWON rebadge does not meet its spec?

And who said big brand gear doesn't have firmware bugs?

So much for that.   That means that whether or not a piece of equipment meets its specs and is essentially bug-free depends on the piece of equipment.

What is it with you and "meeting specs"? I mean even my crap Siglent SDS2204 met its specs, and that scope was a real POS bug fest.

The brand may influence the probability of that, but that's all you can say about it now.

The brand gives you a generally idea as to how mature a new device will very likely be. I.e. with Siglent, it very likely will be a bug-fest (just look at the SSA3000X thread, they released another device with embarrassing bugs). With Tek, it's pretty much hit and miss, even with Tek designed devices, as neither firmware quality nor their support aren't particular great and haven't been for quite a while. Still, they are way better than anything Siglent or Rigol offers.

Is the Tek rebadged AWG better than the original? I don't know (no idea how OWON compare to Rigol and Siglent re. bugs). But it often helps if there's a big name behind to get a smaller vendor like OWON to fix bugs.

[Hydrawerk]

http://www.tek.com/arbitrary-function-generator/afg1000-arbitrary-function-generator
At least

Standard 5 year warranty
Supported by TekSmartLab™
Better user experience guaranteed by Tektronix quality and service.

[Hydrawerk]

This Keithley - Tektronix 3390 http://www.tek.com/arbitrary-waveform-generator/model-3390-50mhz-arbitrary-waveform-function-generator
is very similar to Array 3400E.
http://www.array.sh/yq-3400e.htm
And AGILENT 33220A looks also similar, LOL.
I am not sure who is the original designer of these generators. 

[kcbrown]

Wow, seriously?   

So the mantra that if you buy a piece of equipment from one of the major brands, then you'll get something that meets its specs and doesn't have firmware bugs, isn't even true anymore???

No. The mantra is that if you buy entry level gear you can't expect the same functionality as for higher priced equipment. Bummer.

That's not what was being discussed in the various oscilloscope threads in which the crappy quality of Siglent, etc., is brought up.

What makes you think the OWON rebadge does not meet its spec?

It might well, actually.  But meeting the stated specs is something that, as I recall, people have raised skepticism about with respect to the Chinese brands, and OWON seems to be generally regarded as even worse than Rigol or Siglent.

And who said big brand gear doesn't have firmware bugs?

I was being facetious.  Guess that didn't come through.

The claim is (loosely paraphrased) that Chinese test gear is buggy crap, and that if one doesn't want buggy crap, one will have to buy gear of a reputable brand, and that one will "get what one pays for".  I've not seen anyone placing Tektronix in the same league as Siglent or Rigol, and they do have a reputation (dated as it may be), so I think it's reasonable to presume that Tektronix is one of the brands being referred to as "reputable".

Well, it's more likely that you will pay for what you get than that you will get what you pay for.  Sometimes you might get more than you expected to get for your money, but that's comparatively rare.  You're more likely to get less than what you paid for than to get more.

So much for that.   That means that whether or not a piece of equipment meets its specs and is essentially bug-free depends on the piece of equipment.

What is it with you and "meeting specs"? I mean even my crap Siglent SDS2204 met its specs, and that scope was a real POS bug fest.

See above.  My memory may be hazy on the specific subject of meeting specs versus being buggy, however.

The brand may influence the probability of that, but that's all you can say about it now.

The brand gives you a generally idea as to how mature a new device will very likely be.

Such as the OWON sourced AWGs being discussed here?   

I.e. with Siglent, it very likely will be a bug-fest (just look at the SSA3000X thread, they released another device with embarrassing bugs).

Yes.  Likely.  It's a probability thing, not a guarantee.

I know of no bugs in my Siglent SDS1102CML, and that is still being sold new.

With Tek, it's pretty much hit and miss, even with Tek designed devices, as neither firmware quality nor their support aren't particular great and haven't been for quite a while. Still, they are way better than anything Siglent or Rigol offers.

"Way better", eh?   Isn't that going to depend on the specific device in question?  That's really the point here with this particular example.  Here we have a case where the hardware is ostensibly identical between the two units, and the firmware appears to be maintained by the OEM instead of the company whose name brand graces the more expensive version.

Are you really sure the Tektronix version is "way better" than the OWON version?


My main point here is that the rebranding of Chinese gear by major players introduces a variable in this whole equation.  You can no longer definitively say that a product from a major brand will be better than a competing product from a Chinese brand.  It's now down to the specific pieces of hardware that are being compared against each other.  While there may be a statistical correlation between brand and quality, it is statistical only.  And note, too, that I'm not really defending the Chinese manufacturers in all this.  I'm fully aware of the tradeoff between firmware quality and cost, and why firmware quality is compromised when the cost is driven low enough.

Is the Tek rebadged AWG better than the original? I don't know (no idea how OWON compare to Rigol and Siglent re. bugs). But it often helps if there's a big name behind to get a smaller vendor like OWON to fix bugs.

And this raises a potentially important question: can OWON take the fixes they make for Tektronix and include them in their own firmware?  If so, then that makes their own version of the instrument potentially a real bargain, because you then get the same functionality and reliability of the Tektronix version for half the price.

[Hydrawerk]

There has already been this case. LeCroy WaveStation 3162 is rebadged Siglent SDG5162 SDG2000X (or similar). Are these instruments also full of bugs? I don't remember.
Well, maybe LeCroy guys did a firmware modification...