Tektronix TDS3000 vs. TDS2000

[joble]

Hi,

I'm looking to buy a new scope, but I'm still doubting which...

It has to be used in a wide range of applications: design of switched
supplies, simple analog circuits, and microprocessor circuits.

I've had a demonstration of the 3000 and I like it very much. The 2000
I have not seen yet.

Has anyone experiences with those scopes? Is there a large difference
between a DPO and a DSO scope?

Greets!

 

[TekMan]

joble_5@hotmail.com (joble) wrote in message news:<97db3e03.0409210718.2b861c1f@posting.google.com>...

Hi,

I'm looking to buy a new scope, but I'm still doubting which...

It has to be used in a wide range of applications: design of switched
supplies, simple analog circuits, and microprocessor circuits.

I've had a demonstration of the 3000 and I like it very much. The 2000
I have not seen yet.

Has anyone experiences with those scopes? Is there a large difference
between a DPO and a DSO scope?

Greets!

Well,

differences in screen update rate, standard color LCD, pricing,
noise floor, pricing... and some more

Depends on what you call "large" difference. If compared to a car: Is
there a large difference between a landrover and a porsche car when
you drive fast in narrow curved streets?
possible answer: Not much with the right fastness and curvyness )

<grin>

Andreas

 

[David L. Jones]

joble_5@hotmail.com (joble) wrote in message news:<97db3e03.0409210718.2b861c1f@posting.google.com>...

Hi,

I'm looking to buy a new scope, but I'm still doubting which...

It has to be used in a wide range of applications: design of switched
supplies, simple analog circuits, and microprocessor circuits.

I've had a demonstration of the 3000 and I like it very much. The 2000
I have not seen yet.

Has anyone experiences with those scopes? Is there a large difference
between a DPO and a DSO scope?

Greets!

Most general DSO applications don't really benefit from the DPO
technology, don't waste your money. What you'll most likely find much
more usful and practical in everyday use is a large sample memory. The
2000 and 3000 Tek scopes are both *very poor* in this area with only a
10KB on the 3000 series and a pathetic 2.5KB on the 2000 series. This
is terrible and actually makes the scope next to useless for lots of
digital applications. You need to go to the 5000 series scope to get
more than 10KB.
When you have megabytes of sample memory you can zoom in on packets of
data and this is incredibly useful, you won't turn back once you have
it.

We have a 3000 series Tek and a Agilent 546210A in our lab and the Tek
just gathers dust because the Agilent is a) more user friendly and b)
has 2MB of sample memory which makes the DSO functionality incredibly
useful.

If you buy your DSO based on sample memory legth you can't go wrong.
Forget wanky technology like DPO unless you are 100% certain you have
a specific need for it.

For my money the Agilent 54600 series is the best value, most user
friendly, and most practical medium range DSO on the market. The mixed
signal version with its 16 channel logic analyser is invaluable for
digital work. The sample rate isn't all that high on the 54600 series
though, so it's not that great for high frequency work.

Dave

 

[BFoelsch]

I have a Tek TDS2012 I purchased for home use and will offer the following.

The TDS2012 is basically the digital equivalent of a 100 MHz analog scope,
and Tek markets it as such. Aside from the storage feature (and the FFT
function), there is really no functionality to it that cannot be had from a
GOOD analog scope. The criticism of the sample record length is valid. The
1/4 VGA screen resolution puts visible "stair steps" in many waveforms. An
additional criticicsm is the dynamic range, you are pretty much limited to
observing signals one screen-height in amplitude. The math functions are
performed on the screen data and not the input data, so if you do an A-B on
an off-screen signal you are in for a surprise!

Having said that, however, I would never go back to a comparable analog
scope. The compactness and storage features, combined with the readouts and
preset capabilities are addicting.

To sum up, the TDS 2000 series is, to my mind, fine for fooling around,
fixing radios and televisions, audio and ham radio work, power supplies, and
slow digital stuff, which is the bulk of my use of it. However, it is not
even close to state of the art as far as digital work is concerned.

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:459b0886.0409262351.7abe7ee@posting.google.com...

joble_5@hotmail.com (joble) wrote in message
news:<97db3e03.0409210718.2b861c1f@posting.google.com>...
Hi,

I'm looking to buy a new scope, but I'm still doubting which...

It has to be used in a wide range of applications: design of switched
supplies, simple analog circuits, and microprocessor circuits.

I've had a demonstration of the 3000 and I like it very much. The 2000
I have not seen yet.

Has anyone experiences with those scopes? Is there a large difference
between a DPO and a DSO scope?

Greets!

Most general DSO applications don't really benefit from the DPO
technology, don't waste your money. What you'll most likely find much
more usful and practical in everyday use is a large sample memory. The
2000 and 3000 Tek scopes are both *very poor* in this area with only a
10KB on the 3000 series and a pathetic 2.5KB on the 2000 series. This
is terrible and actually makes the scope next to useless for lots of
digital applications. You need to go to the 5000 series scope to get
more than 10KB.
When you have megabytes of sample memory you can zoom in on packets of
data and this is incredibly useful, you won't turn back once you have
it.

We have a 3000 series Tek and a Agilent 546210A in our lab and the Tek
just gathers dust because the Agilent is a) more user friendly and b)
has 2MB of sample memory which makes the DSO functionality incredibly
useful.

If you buy your DSO based on sample memory legth you can't go wrong.
Forget wanky technology like DPO unless you are 100% certain you have
a specific need for it.

For my money the Agilent 54600 series is the best value, most user
friendly, and most practical medium range DSO on the market. The mixed
signal version with its 16 channel logic analyser is invaluable for
digital work. The sample rate isn't all that high on the 54600 series
though, so it's not that great for high frequency work.

Dave

 

[Lewin A.R.W. Edwards]

more usful and practical in everyday use is a large sample memory. The
2000 and 3000 Tek scopes are both *very poor* in this area with only a
10KB on the 3000 series and a pathetic 2.5KB on the 2000 series. This
is terrible and actually makes the scope next to useless for lots of

[...]

For my money the Agilent 54600 series is the best value, most user
friendly, and most practical medium range DSO on the market. The mixed

I have a Tek TDS210 (among others) at home and two HP 54645D's at
work, and I love the 54645Ds. It was, and still is, a huge treat for
me to be able to capture an entire RF packet on the analog channel,
along with diagnostic strobes on the digital channels, then zoom right
in until I can measure the bit timing and inspect the signal shaping.

I assumed that deep memory was an innovation all DSOs received in
recent years, and that the reason my TDS210 had such a small buffer is
just because it's old. More fool me!

 

[David L. Jones]

larwe@larwe.com (Lewin A.R.W. Edwards) wrote in message news:<608b6569.0409270852.38262d87@posting.google.com>...

more usful and practical in everyday use is a large sample memory. The
2000 and 3000 Tek scopes are both *very poor* in this area with only a
10KB on the 3000 series and a pathetic 2.5KB on the 2000 series. This
is terrible and actually makes the scope next to useless for lots of

[...]

For my money the Agilent 54600 series is the best value, most user
friendly, and most practical medium range DSO on the market. The mixed

I have a Tek TDS210 (among others) at home and two HP 54645D's at
work, and I love the 54645Ds. It was, and still is, a huge treat for
me to be able to capture an entire RF packet on the analog channel,
along with diagnostic strobes on the digital channels, then zoom right
in until I can measure the bit timing and inspect the signal shaping.

I assumed that deep memory was an innovation all DSOs received in
recent years, and that the reason my TDS210 had such a small buffer is
just because it's old. More fool me!

The problem is that fast sample memory is expensive. The Tek's have
1GS/s+, and to get a MB of memory at that speed is very expensive so
they just give you a lousy 10KB to keep the price down.
The low end Agilents are only 200MS/s, so for the same price point as
the Tek's you can get 2MB of memory instead of 10KB. Less effecvtive
bandwidth of course, but a lot of people don't need high bandwidth.
I think Agilent got it right on the low end models and Tek went the
wrong direction. Although the Tek 200/2000 series offer a good price
point for basic work. There is competition now though with Goodwill
entering the market.
Of course when you go to the higher end market both companies offer MB
and GS/s, but the prices get real silly.

Dave

 

[Jim Yanik]

"BFoelsch" <BFoelsch@comcast.ditch.this.net> wrote in
news:FJSdnbLnkZFglsXcRVn-rA@giganews.com:

I have a Tek TDS2012 I purchased for home use and will offer the
following.

The TDS2012 is basically the digital equivalent of a 100 MHz analog
scope, and Tek markets it as such. Aside from the storage feature (and
the FFT function), there is really no functionality to it that cannot
be had from a GOOD analog scope. The criticism of the sample record
length is valid. The 1/4 VGA screen resolution puts visible "stair
steps" in many waveforms. An additional criticicsm is the dynamic
range, you are pretty much limited to observing signals one
screen-height in amplitude. The math functions are performed on the
screen data and not the input data, so if you do an A-B on an
off-screen signal you are in for a surprise!

Having said that, however, I would never go back to a comparable
analog scope. The compactness and storage features, combined with the
readouts and preset capabilities are addicting.

To sum up, the TDS 2000 series is, to my mind, fine for fooling
around, fixing radios and televisions, audio and ham radio work, power
supplies, and slow digital stuff, which is the bulk of my use of it.
However, it is not even close to state of the art as far as digital
work is concerned.

And it never was meant to be.It's supposed to be a low cost,low-end scope.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Robert Lacoste]

Why not Lecroy ? They all have >1Gsps speed and huge memories, and more
importantly very good triggering capabilities. I will not exchange my
15-years old Lecroy 9350L for any TDS2000 or 3000... and probably not for
some TDS5000...

Cheers,
Robert

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:459b0886.0409271506.60f0ace@posting.google.com...

larwe@larwe.com (Lewin A.R.W. Edwards) wrote in message
news:<608b6569.0409270852.38262d87@posting.google.com>...
more usful and practical in everyday use is a large sample memory. The
2000 and 3000 Tek scopes are both *very poor* in this area with only a
10KB on the 3000 series and a pathetic 2.5KB on the 2000 series. This
is terrible and actually makes the scope next to useless for lots of

[...]

For my money the Agilent 54600 series is the best value, most user
friendly, and most practical medium range DSO on the market. The mixed

I have a Tek TDS210 (among others) at home and two HP 54645D's at
work, and I love the 54645Ds. It was, and still is, a huge treat for
me to be able to capture an entire RF packet on the analog channel,
along with diagnostic strobes on the digital channels, then zoom right
in until I can measure the bit timing and inspect the signal shaping.

I assumed that deep memory was an innovation all DSOs received in
recent years, and that the reason my TDS210 had such a small buffer is
just because it's old. More fool me!

The problem is that fast sample memory is expensive. The Tek's have
1GS/s+, and to get a MB of memory at that speed is very expensive so
they just give you a lousy 10KB to keep the price down.
The low end Agilents are only 200MS/s, so for the same price point as
the Tek's you can get 2MB of memory instead of 10KB. Less effecvtive
bandwidth of course, but a lot of people don't need high bandwidth.
I think Agilent got it right on the low end models and Tek went the
wrong direction. Although the Tek 200/2000 series offer a good price
point for basic work. There is competition now though with Goodwill
entering the market.
Of course when you go to the higher end market both companies offer MB
and GS/s, but the prices get real silly.

Dave

 

[David L. Jones]

"Robert Lacoste" <see-www-alciom-com-for-email-adress> wrote in message news:<415a76bd$0$15748$7a628cd7@news.club-internet.fr>...

Why not Lecroy ? They all have >1Gsps speed and huge memories, and more
importantly very good triggering capabilities. I will not exchange my
15-years old Lecroy 9350L for any TDS2000 or 3000... and probably not for
some TDS5000...

Cheers,
Robert

Many people avoid Lecroy for two reasons
1) Their high price
2) Their poor useability and non-intuitiveness.

We have many Lecroy scopes at our company, from the older models
through to the new WaveRunner series. All of them sit gathering dust
on the shelf except for very specialised applications that require the
high bandwidth or deep memory. For general day to day use, no one
touches them.
It's always fun to watch someone attempt to drive one and give up in
disgust!
Yes you get used to them over time, but the initial hurdle is a pain.

They are incredibly powerful scopes though.

Dave

 

[Dombo]

On 27 Sep 2004 00:51:56 -0700, David L. Jones wrote:

joble_5@hotmail.com (joble) wrote in message news:<97db3e03.0409210718.2b861c1f@posting.google.com>...
Hi,

I'm looking to buy a new scope, but I'm still doubting which...

It has to be used in a wide range of applications: design of switched
supplies, simple analog circuits, and microprocessor circuits.

I've had a demonstration of the 3000 and I like it very much. The 2000
I have not seen yet.

Has anyone experiences with those scopes? Is there a large difference
between a DPO and a DSO scope?

Greets!

Most general DSO applications don't really benefit from the DPO
technology, don't waste your money. What you'll most likely find much
more usful and practical in everyday use is a large sample memory. The
2000 and 3000 Tek scopes are both *very poor* in this area with only a
10KB on the 3000 series and a pathetic 2.5KB on the 2000 series. This
is terrible and actually makes the scope next to useless for lots of
digital applications. You need to go to the 5000 series scope to get
more than 10KB.
When you have megabytes of sample memory you can zoom in on packets of
data and this is incredibly useful, you won't turn back once you have
it.

We have a 3000 series Tek and a Agilent 546210A in our lab and the Tek
just gathers dust because the Agilent is a) more user friendly and b)
has 2MB of sample memory which makes the DSO functionality incredibly
useful.

If you buy your DSO based on sample memory legth you can't go wrong.
Forget wanky technology like DPO unless you are 100% certain you have
a specific need for it.

For my money the Agilent 54600 series is the best value, most user
friendly, and most practical medium range DSO on the market. The mixed
signal version with its 16 channel logic analyser is invaluable for
digital work. The sample rate isn't all that high on the 54600 series
though, so it's not that great for high frequency work.

Dave

Have a good look at the LeCroy WaveSurfer series, large memory, BIG screen
and good userinterface.

-Ben

 

[Dombo]

On 29 Sep 2004 15:10:51 -0700, David L. Jones wrote:

"Robert Lacoste" <see-www-alciom-com-for-email-adress> wrote in message news:<415a76bd$0$15748$7a628cd7@news.club-internet.fr>...
Why not Lecroy ? They all have >1Gsps speed and huge memories, and more
importantly very good triggering capabilities. I will not exchange my
15-years old Lecroy 9350L for any TDS2000 or 3000... and probably not for
some TDS5000...

Cheers,
Robert

Many people avoid Lecroy for two reasons
1) Their high price
2) Their poor useability and non-intuitiveness.

We have many Lecroy scopes at our company, from the older models
through to the new WaveRunner series. All of them sit gathering dust
on the shelf except for very specialised applications that require the
high bandwidth or deep memory. For general day to day use, no one
touches them.
It's always fun to watch someone attempt to drive one and give up in
disgust!
Yes you get used to them over time, but the initial hurdle is a pain.

They are incredibly powerful scopes though.

Dave

My experience is completly different, LeCroy scopes are very intuitive to
use. If you need long memory (which is not available at TDS2xxx/TDS3xxx) go
and look at LeCroy.

-Ben