NEW Keysight HD3

[EEVblog]

comparing prices... R&S MXO4 is 15% to 20% less expensive than the new Keysight HD3 in Euros and seems to be superior in specs.

How is it "superior in specs"? The HD3 is a 14 bit scope and has half the noise.
If that's not important to you, then ok, but ADC bits is a pretty basic top level spec, and it really stands out when you do those competition comparison tables the manufacturers love to do.
The MXO4 has faster updating as a banner spec, but I'm willing to bet the HD3 will beat it overall operationally.

[EEVblog]

in class ... Keysight slides compare HD3 against Tek MSO 4B and R&S MXO4 who are the leaders in the 4 class.   The "fastest update rate" seems to be just a false claim as R&S MXO4 does 4.5 M wfms/s.   Maybe Keysight will correct before intro. 

In the promotional comparison tables I've seen, the HD3 is shown as 1.6M vs the MXO4's 4M, but they use the words "*Uncompromised" for the Keysight and "*Conditionally" for the MXO4, which does sound correct in my testing of the MXO4 IIRC.

[pdenisowski]

In the promotional comparison tables I've seen, the HD3 is shown as 1.6M vs the MXO4's 4M, but they use the words "*Uncompromised" for the Keysight and "*Conditionally" for the MXO4, which does sound correct in my testing of the MXO4 IIRC.

I’m very curious as to what “uncompromised” and “conditionally” mean.  Are they claiming their waveform update rate is unaffected by other settings? 

And MXO is 4.5 million, for the record.

[EEVblog]

I’m very curious as to what “uncompromised” and “conditionally” mean.

New marketing wank words

Are they claiming their waveform update rate is unaffected by other settings?

Yes, as expected, just like the Megazoom IV scopes.

[maxwell3e10]

https://youtu.be/UmFTR4v7M1Y?t=333

This indicates 825 kHz update rate with all 4 channels on for MXO4

[maxwell3e10]

Just for the record, world's first 14-bit scope:

[electr_peter]

Just for the record, world's first 14-bit scope:

14-bit when moon and stars align - only 100MSa/s and 20MHz BW (while in 8-bit mode 1GSa/S and 200MHz BW). With such logic, one can consider first 14-bit (and 16-bit, and 24-bit) scopes were PC sound cards. Or even DMMs with data logging.

[hpw]

Just for your information as digital generated (none coherent) & dither signal as on 10...16Bits.

It shows up very clearly, better FFT Windows algorithm should be given (as currently seen), as the bell rises even on 14 bit and heavy on 16 bit even using BH7 FFT Window.

[maxwell3e10]

Just for the record, world's first 14-bit scope:

14-bit when moon and stars align - only 100MSa/s and 20MHz BW (while in 8-bit mode 1GSa/S and 200MHz BW). With such logic, one can consider first 14-bit (and 16-bit, and 24-bit) scopes were PC sound cards. Or even DMMs with data logging.

I would consider a scope is something with different voltage and timescale settings and a display. The first 12-bit scope or any digital scope was Nicolet 1090 from 1973 with a 1 MS/s rate. The first 16-bit scope as far as I know was Yokogawa DL708 from late 1990s with a 100kS/sec rate, I still use it sometimes.

[Someone]

In the promotional comparison tables I've seen, the HD3 is shown as 1.6M vs the MXO4's 4M, but they use the words "*Uncompromised" for the Keysight and "*Conditionally" for the MXO4, which does sound correct in my testing of the MXO4 IIRC.

I’m very curious as to what “uncompromised” and “conditionally” mean.  Are they claiming their waveform update rate is unaffected by other settings? 

And MXO is 4.5 million, for the record.

Well, it means almost nothing as there are various conditions under which it has been literally compromised:

[egonotto]

Just for the record, world's first 14-bit scope:

Hello,

no, Picoscope 5000 series were there earlier and Red Pitaya and Analog Discovery have also been around for a while

Best regards
egonotto

[maxwell3e10]

In the promotional comparison tables I've seen, the HD3 is shown as 1.6M vs the MXO4's 4M, but they use the words "*Uncompromised" for the Keysight and "*Conditionally" for the MXO4, which does sound correct in my testing of the MXO4 IIRC.

I’m very curious as to what “uncompromised” and “conditionally” mean.  Are they claiming their waveform update rate is unaffected by other settings? 

And MXO is 4.5 million, for the record.

Well, it means almost nothing as there are various conditions under which it has been literally compromised:

I would not say that a reduction of waveform update rate with the timebase setting is a compromise, it is just conservation of time. The percentage of time in data acquisition (which MXO4 displays) is a better metric.  On the other hand, if the waveform update rate drops for more than 1 channel active, it is a serious compromise.

[jusaca]

I would not say that a reduction of waveform update rate with the timebase setting is a compromise, it is just conservation of time. The percentage of time in data acquisition (which MXO4 displays) is a better metric.  On the other hand, if the waveform update rate drops for more than 1 channel active, it is a serious compromise.

Exactly. When time base is 1ms/div the complete capture takes 10ms. So more than 100 waveforms/s would be rather magical.
I think a value of the "dead time" in percent or rearm time or something like that is a better approach for comparison.

[Someone]

Well, it means almost nothing as there are various conditions under which it has been literally compromised:
[IMG]

I would not say that a reduction of waveform update rate with the timebase setting is a compromise, it is just conservation of time. The percentage of time in data acquisition (which MXO4 displays) is a better metric.  On the other hand, if the waveform update rate drops for more than 1 channel active, it is a serious compromise.

Look closely and see if the change is predictable/explainable. I think it isn't in those plots and it would be fair to say the 3000X had a compromised update rate compared to the 2000X (other brands with more "controls" over the parameter affecting would likely have been able to avoid/uncompromise that).

Compromises that are baked in and not left for the user to trade off are still compromises.

[Someone]

I would not say that a reduction of waveform update rate with the timebase setting is a compromise, it is just conservation of time. The percentage of time in data acquisition (which MXO4 displays) is a better metric.  On the other hand, if the waveform update rate drops for more than 1 channel active, it is a serious compromise.

Exactly. When time base is 1ms/div the complete capture takes 10ms. So more than 100 waveforms/s would be rather magical.
I think a value of the "dead time" in percent or rearm time or something like that is a better approach for comparison.

Indeed you could transform that same dataset into a different metric such as % blind time. Up to you.