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.
Really? Who has? I know people regularly raise the issue of bugs, which is not surprising considering the state Rigol and especially Siglent throw kit on the market. I can't remember anyone raising the question of spec compliance, which shouldn't be an issue for any kit, because the spec is written by the manufacturer who can specify tolerances as wide as he wants to.
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".
"You get what you pay for" is still true, and a reputable brand will in general make sure that if you encounter a bug that it either gets fixed quickly or find another solution. Most of the B-brands don't give a damn about fixing stuff in a timely manner.
Take that Tek OWON rebagde. It's made by OWON but still it will be supported under Tek's support infrastructure, which most likely will exceed the support period OWON grants for the original product. Or look at LeCroy's Siglent rebadge scopes (WaveAce). Like with all LeCroy scopes, they will support them for 7 years after end of production. You really believe Siglent will do that for the SDS1000CFL?
There's a lot more to test equipment than just who makes the device. Well, at least if you use the stuff professionally. I guess for a hobbyist who dabbles with electronics in his living room stuff like support probably doesn't matter much, and for them I guess what the B-brands offer is fine. But that is a pretty small part of the T&M market.
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?
Do you have any evidence that shows that this OWON device isn't mature? As I said, I'm not very familiar with OWON but I believe this AWG was on the market for quite a while before Tek decided to rebadge it. And I do remember that most of the criticism with OWON in this forum is about hardware quality and UI, and not about excessive firmware bugs.
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.
Well, as I said, the just released their new spectrum analyzers (SSA3000X) with some really embarrassing bugs. Last time I looked, the SDS2000 firmware is still immature and buggy, and that after more than two years on the market.
I know of no bugs in my Siglent SDS1102CML, and that is still being sold new.
Yes, the SDS1000CML doesn't have many bugs (I found two or so when I had one). But this scope has been on the market for how many years now? Plus it's one of the models rebadged by LeCroy, and after the WaveAce 100/200 aka SDS1000CL mess they push Siglent hard to fix issues with the gear LeCroy rebadges.
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?
Tek may make a lot of mistakes, but I don't think you'll find anything with a Tek label with similar design flaws:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/project-yaigol-fixing-rigol-scope-design-problems/Actually, you're unlikely to find such idiotic design errors in any big brand kit.
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?
Don't know. On the other hand, is the OWON version really that bad? Does it even contain as many bugs as the various Siglent AWGs for example?
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.
I already told you that there is more to T&M gear than just the device. You're completely ignoring the support part.
Second, even if a big brand rebadges B-brand gear, the chance that this gear will be somewhat mature are still much higher than for B-brand kit that isn't rebadged by some big brand. Simply because the big brand has something the B-brand doesn't, a good reputation and buildup of customer trust. That means a big brand will generally be very protective of their brand image, and make sure that there is little that can tarnish that. One of this is keeping the finger on the B-brand that makes the kit, and make sure that the device works reliably before its allowed to carry the big brand name.
In addition, the big brands do know pretty well how important the software side of a product is. The B-brands still see software as an afterthought and of minor relevance. I guess the fact that software piracy is rampant in China is one of the reason software is seen as worthless. Which does show in the way the Chinese B-brands treat the software side.
Also, Tek isn't new to the whole rebadge thing, they have done it on various occasions for many years. So I'd assume they just didn't pick any cheap crap to carry their label.
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.
Probably. I mean, it's the case with LeCroy and Siglent (you could even run the LeCroy firmware on Siglent devices). On the other side, the OWON original still gives you only OWON support, as buying the Siglent device only gives you Siglent support. In addition, there may well be internal hardware differences (i.e. higher quality parts or other improvements) between the rebadge version and the original.
I.e. you get what you pay for.