Hi,Hello.
I am getting ready to buy a scope for general use and have just about settled on the Keysight DSOX1204G.
Is the consensus this is a good choice? Are there hidden problems? Are there better choices in this class?
Yes, there are. The Siglent SDS1204X-E.Hello.
I am getting ready to buy a scope for general use and have just about settled on the Keysight DSOX1204G.
Is the consensus this is a good choice? Are there hidden problems? Are there better choices in this class?
Thanks for this, it is exactly the sort of feedback I was hoping for.Yes, there are. The Siglent SDS1204X-E
In the entry-level, aside from the big brands there are pretty much ony two contenders that are worth considering, which are Rigol and Siglent.Thanks for this, it is exactly the sort of feedback I was hoping for.
One ot the problems in choosing a scope is knowing the difference—without being able to get my hands on them—between the feature list and the usable performance.
As I said above, I can see there are a lot of excellent value brands (e.g.: Rigol, Siglent, Hantek, etc.) but I can’t tell if the performance of the extended features makes them useful. Most reviews don’t help much.
It may sound similar to Agilent (although there's really no danger to mix both names up, for that they would have to call themselves 'Aigilent' or something like that), but Siglent has been around for a while. Originally their products were plagued by software problems, but they improved their processes and later products came to market in much more mature state. Siglent's strength is that it actively listens to user input, and has made many changes and added a lot of new functions just because of user requests.I have to admit that the Siglent name itself put me off, being an obvious reference to “Agilent”, but it did seem to be a decent product. Your endorsement helps a lot. It does seem to have a superior feature set and the price is certainly better.
Like pretty much everything with Keysight, it's a software option that requires an additional (paid-for) license.The function generator doesn’t have to be integrated, though it appears they’ve got some sort of firmware upgrade in addition hardware option for it (I really need to untangle the options).
The WiFi dongle is actually a TP-Link micro dongle that barely extrudes from the USB port. But I agree, WiFi is a bit ackward option, but at least it's there if you need it.Built-in Ethernet is a plus and saves money, WiFi is an interesting option, but it requires a dongle and unless it’s quite small it would seem to be an awkward thing to have on a tight bench which mine is likely to be.
No problem, that's what the forum is there for.I’m investigating this one more carefully now and may well end up with it so I specially appreciate your time to spell it out for me.
Thanks again.
I'm sure you could have got a better scope for the money even when the Tek was new. Tektronix has built up a great reputation back in the old days through their analog scopes, however when technology shifted to digital scopes, Tektronix scopes were best case mediocre but more often than not just awful. In addition, over the years under Danaher, innovation has taken a nose dive as has support quality, and after they became free of Danaher their new scopes (TBS2000, MSO5, MSO6) were still poor, with bug-ridden or even unfinished (TBS2000) firmware and an awkward UI (MSO5, MSO6).Nowadays it almost seems that the cheap china gear (read "Rigol") wins.
After my $9000.00 Tek scope died and I had to pay $3000.00 to have it repaired, the whole equation started to shift in my mind.
I could have bought the equivalent or better scope for the price of repair.
Why would a brand with such overwhelming (and mostly positive) brand recognition, keep changing their name? It seems to me like the opposite of a good business idea, repeated.Yes, HP → Agilent → Keysight.
You seem very knowledgeable about these things. Do you know anything about the Tek TPS2000B? The battery power, small form factor, 4 isolated channels, and ability to easily take power measurements have kept it on my long-term wish list for years. I would be using it for troubleshooting Variable Frequency motor drives and other high power switching devices in the field. I own the Fluke 190-204A/M/S 4ch 200mhz scopemeter which has 4 isolated channels but not the nifty plugins for power calculations. I'm not impressed with it. I wonder if I would be even less impressed with the Tek.I'm sure you could have got a better scope for the money even when the Tek was new. Tektronix has built up a great reputation back in the old days through their analog scopes, however when technology shifted to digital scopes, Tektronix scopes were best case mediocre but more often than not just awful. In addition, over the years under Danaher, innovation has taken a nose dive as has support quality, and after they became free of Danaher their new scopes (TBS2000, MSO5, MSO6) were still poor, with bug-ridden or even unfinished (TBS2000) firmware and an awkward UI (MSO5, MSO6).
Not everything from Tektronix is as poor as their scopes, the RTSAs (Real-Time Spectrum Analyzers) are very good, as are their high-end AWGs.
We buy lots of test equipment, but from Tektronix only AWGs. .
HP spun off their test gear and biotech into Agilent, Agilent spun off the test gear into Keysight.Why would a brand with such overwhelming (and mostly positive) brand recognition, keep changing their name? It seems to me like the opposite of a good business idea, repeated.
Thanks for the added details but I still don't see the logic in it. I'm not arguing with you; maybe I'm arguing with HP. I'm not sure.HP spun off their test gear and biotech into Agilent, Agilent spun off the test gear into Keysight.
It was to specialize.
Good question.Why would a brand with such overwhelming (and mostly positive) brand recognition, keep changing their name?
As Yaakov said this was because HP had spun off the T&M and Biotech divisions, and later Agilent spun off the T&M Division. HP (for good or worse) saw its main business in computers, and later Agilent saw it's main business in Biotech, so the T&M Division had to move each time.Why would a brand with such overwhelming (and mostly positive) brand recognition, keep changing their name? It seems to me like the opposite of a good business idea, repeated.
Well, the TPS2000B is pretty much just the isolated and battery powered version of the old TDS2000B which by now is almost an antique. You get a measly 2.5kpts of sample memory, which also means your sample rate will drop fast at longer time bases. The built-in functions are very basic and the optional features like Power Measurements can't hold a candle to any modern scope.You seem very knowledgeable about these things. Do you know anything about the Tek TPS2000B? The battery power, small form factor, 4 isolated channels, and ability to easily take power measurements have kept it on my long-term wish list for years. I would be using it for troubleshooting Variable Frequency motor drives and other high power switching devices in the field. I own the Fluke 190-204A/M/S 4ch 200mhz scopemeter which has 4 isolated channels but not the nifty plugins for power calculations. I'm not impressed with it. I wonder if I would be even less impressed with the Tek.
Probably because most Datsuns rusted faster than the drove, so to get rid of the reputation of making rust buckets they had to change the name.Good question.
I never could figure out why Datsun became Nissan in the U.S.
All of those Samsung divisions are still part of Samsung. Keysight is NOT part of Agilent and Agilent is NOT part of HP. They were spun off as completely separate companies. Since they are different companies, they are legally required to have different names.Thanks for the added details but I still don't see the logic in it. I'm not arguing with you; maybe I'm arguing with HP. I'm not sure.
Consider a company like Samsung. They make everything from drill ships to RAM chips, and they do it all under one name: Samsung. They have a pretty good reputation and I would wager that they could start selling Samsung cars in the USA tomorrow and people would probably buy them without much hesitation because of the name. Now how much sense would it make for them to take their cell phones which already have a huge share of the market under the ubiquitous Samsung name, and "spin them off" under a different name that will take take consumers years to once again grow fond of (twice)?
You must forgive me; I've just come out of a very confusing relationship. The company I used to work for was owned by another company who was owned by a holdings company who owned several hundreds of other companies, which were effectively one giant multi-monopoly under hundreds of names. Under that company I saw splits, mergers, 3-way splits and 3-way mergers, etc., mostly confined to weird marriages and divorces of the companies owned by the holdings company. The very company I worked for, created two new companies out of thin air and then later that same year, merged them together. That's the kind of shenanigans I had in mind when reading the words "spin off." I didn't understand it when I worked there and I don't understand it now. I hadn't even considered that normal companies sometimes sell off a division of their company, which is no longer is part of the company.All of those Samsung divisions are still part of Samsung. Keysight is NOT part of Agilent and Agilent is NOT part of HP. They were spun off as completely separate companies. Since they are different companies, they are legally required to have different names.
But even leaving the legal issues aside, why would the parent let the company that was spun off keep the same name?
If you built up a company, say Strantorix, into a highly reputable brand and then decided to spin off a division (for whatever reason) so that that division was no longer a part of your organization, meaning that you no longer had any control over what they do or how they do it, would you allow them to keep using the Strantorix name even knowing that a few years from now they could start putting out crappy stuff or get involved with shady business practices and that would sully the Stantorix name even though none of your remaining business divisions had anything to do with it?
Acquisitions and mergers may or may not be voluntary acts, spin offs are. The good reason to spin off a division is to free that part of a business to focus on something that might vary form the core competencies of the larger company. It’s generally not a sale, investors in the main company get tax free distributions of stock from the new company. Generally, both the main and the new company see improved performance after the spin off.You must forgive me; I've just come out of a very confusing relationship.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
E | Anyone know where I can buy a 5 bit ADC? | Analog & Mixed-Signal Design | 5 | |
(Total beginner)How to wire a cabin lock and esp32, shopping list? | General Electronics Chat | 11 | ||
Wendy's shopping list. | Marketplace | 41 | ||
D | Shopping advice - power supplies | Power Electronics | 10 | |
Plug & Play or Go Shopping? | General Electronics Chat | 22 |
by Jake Hertz
by Aaron Carman
by Robert Keim
by Jake Hertz