Tektronix MSO2024B

Table of contents

image

 

{tabbedtable} Tab LabelTab Content
About This RoadTest

200 MHz, 1 GS/s, 1 Mpoints, 4 analog Channels, 16 digital channels mixed signal oscilloscope provides advanced debug features at an entry-level price. With 20 channels, you can analyze analog and digital signals with a single instrument. Combine that with automated serial and parallel bus analysis, FilterVu low-pass filter and innovative Wave Inspector® controls, the MSO2024B provides the feature-rich tools you need to simplify and speed debug of your complex design. All backed by a 5-year warranty.


We look forward to seeing the reviews from the selected members below:


Product Information

Key Performance Specifications:

200, 100, 70 MHz bandwidth models

2 and 4 analog channel models

16 digital channels (MSO series)

1 GS/s sample rate on all channels

1 megapoint record length on all channels

5,000 wfm/s maximum waveform capture rate

Suite of advanced triggers

 

Key Features:

Wave Inspector® controls provide easy navigation and automated

search of waveform data

FilterVu™ variable low-pass filter allows for removal of unwanted signal

noise while still capturing high-frequency events

29 automated measurements, and FFT analysis for simplified

waveform analysis

TekVPI® probe interface supports active, differential, and current

probes for automatic scaling and units

7 in. (180 mm) wide-screen TFT-LCD color display

Small footprint and lightweight - only 5.3 in. (134 mm) deep and 7 lb.

14 oz. (3.6 kg)

Five-year warranty

 

Connectivity:

USB 2.0 host port on the front panel for quick and easy data storage

USB 2.0 device port on rear panel for easy connection to a PC or direct

printing to a PictBridge®-compatible printer

Optional 10/100 Ethernet port for network connection and video-out

port to export the oscilloscope display to a monitor or projector

 

Optional Serial Triggering and Analysis:

Automated serial triggering, decode, and search options for I2C, SPI,

CAN, LIN, and RS-232/422/485/UART

 

Video:

Terms and Conditions

Tektronix MSO2024B

Terms and Conditions

 

These are the terms and conditions which govern the Tektronix MSO2024B RoadTest. This Contest requires participants to submit an application indicating their previous experience with this type of equipment/component, information on what they would do to test the equipment/component, and the applicant’s desire to post a thorough review of their experience with images, photos, or other supplemental materials.. Participants will be required to meet the Conditions for Participation.  The winners of this RoadTest will receive the item(s) listed below. RoadTest Reviews are due no later than 60 days after the receipt of the item(s). No other prizes are offered.

1. 1 The Principal terms of the Contest:

The following words and phrases are used in these terms and conditions and have the meanings given to them below.

RoadTest: Tektronix MSO2024B (or the Contest)

Key dates:

Applications Close: midnight (GMT) on 18 September 2015

Judging Close: midnight (GMT) on 24 September 2015

Announcement of Winner(s) (estimated): 25 September 2015

RoadTest Item(s):  Tektronix MSO2024B

RoadTest Site: www.element14.com/community/roadTests/1478

Site or element14 Community: www.element14.com

Judges: members of the element14 community team chosen at the Organiser’s discretion.

Judging Criteria: All of the following which will have equal weighting:

1.1 • Demonstrated competence with the technologies including links or descriptions of past projects

1.2 • Qualifications as indicated by current job role and/or schooling/vocational training;

1.3 • A thorough description of how the prize would be tested

1.4 • Likelihood that the Applicant will blog about the prize and provide a review on element14.com

1.5 • Originality;

1.6 • Innovation.

Organiser: Premier Farnell plc (registered in England and Wales under company number 876412) whose registered office is at Farnell House, Forge Lane, Leeds, UK

Conditions for Qualification: in addition to meeting the requirements of these terms, all persons applying to take part in the Contest (each one an Applicant) must:

1.7 • Provide a RoadTest application describing what he/she would do if awarded the Prize including similar previous projects, product experience and qualifications

Minimum number of Prizes: 3

Terms: these terms and conditions which govern the Contest and to which the Organiser reserves the right to make changes from time to time and the latest version of these Terms from time to time will be posted to the Site.

1. 2 Eligibility

2. 3 Applications:

3. 4 Selecting Winners:

4. 5 Liability:

5. 6 General:

1.8 2.1 Save as set out in these Terms, the RoadTest is open to any natural or legal person, firm or company or group of natural persons or unincorporated body.

1.9 2.2 All Applicants must be aged at least 18 at the time of their application.

1.10 2.3 Applicants must not enter the Contest if doing so or taking part may:

1.10.1 2.3.1 cause the Organiser and/or themselves to be in breach of any agreement (including but not limited to any contract of employment) to which they are a party or in breach of any law, regulation or rule having the force of law to which the Organiser or the Applicant may be subject or any policy of the Organiser or the Sponsor;

1.10.2 2.3.2 Require the Organiser to obtain any licence, authorisation or permission to deal with the Applicant; or

1.10.3 2.3.3 Be in breach of any policy or practice of their employer. Some employers prohibit or restrict their employees from taking part in contests such as these or receiving prizes under them and the Organiser respects those policies and practices.

1.10.4 The Organiser reserves the right to disqualify any Application made in breach of these Terms and to reject any Application which it reasonably believes may be or become in breach. The Organiser reserves the right to require evidence in such form as the Organiser may reasonably require of any Applicant’s compliance with any of these Terms and to disqualify any Applicant or Participant who cannot provide such evidence reasonably promptly.

1.11 2.4 Multiple applications are not permitted.

1.12 2.5 Applications may not be submitted by an agent whether acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal or otherwise.

1.13 2.6 The Contest is NOT open to:

1.13.1 2.6.1 Any person or entity who is a resident or national of any country which is subject to sanctions, embargoes or national trade restrictions of the United States of America, the European Union or the United Kingdom;

1.13.2 2.6.2 Any employee, director, member, shareholder (as appropriate) or any of their direct families (parents, siblings, spouse, partner, children) (“Direct Families”) of the Organiser.

1.14 3.1 Each Applicant must fully complete and submit a response by the Application Close.

1.15 3.2 By submitting a response, each Applicant:

1.15.1 3.2.1 Authorises the Organiser to use his or her personal data (as defined in the Data Protection Act 1998) for the purposes of running and promoting the RoadTest;

1.15.2 3.2.2 Authorises the Organizer to copy, reproduce and publish their application should they be accepted as a Participant;

1.15.3 3.2.3 Will be deemed to have read, accepted and agree to be bound by these Terms. Applicants are advised to print and keep safe these Terms;

1.15.4 3.2.4 Authorises the Organiser to copy, reproduce and use the application or subsequent Blogs submitted for the purposes of the Contest and as otherwise contemplated by these Terms. The Organiser will not be responsible for any inaccuracy, error or omission contained in any reproduction or use of the Project Blogs.

1.15.5 3.2.5 Licenses the Organiser to use the intellectual property in the Project (IP) for the purposes of this Contest. As between the Applicant and the Organiser the IP remains owned by the Applicant.

1.15.6 3.2.6 Grants the Organiser the right to use his or her likeness, photographs, logos, trademarks, audio or video recordings without restriction for the purposes of Contest or the promotion of it or the Site;

1.15.7 3.2.7 Agrees to participate positively in all publicity surrounding the Contest;

1.15.8 3.2.8 Agrees to be responsible for all expenses and costs incurred by him or her in preparing for, entering and participating in the Contest (save for any expenses expressly agreed by the Organiser to be borne by it in these Terms);

1.15.9 3.2.9 Confirms that he or she owns all IP used in his or her application or Project or Blogs and indemnifies the Organiser from any claim by a third party that use of any material provided by an Applicant to the Organiser infringes the intellectual property rights of any third party;

1.15.10 3.2.10 Agrees not to act in any way or fail to act in any way or be associated with any cause or group which would have a negative impact on the reputation of the Organiser and/or the Contest.

1.16 3.3 All applications submitted to this Contest must meet the following criteria:

1.16.1 3.3.1 Applications must not include or propose any of the following, the inclusion of which shall render any application null and void:

(a) (a) Applications or designs which relate to socially taboo topics, such as illicit drug use or sexual gratification;

(b) (b) Applications or designs that are or could reasonably be considered to be illegal, immoral, discriminatory or offensive as determined by the Organiser and/or the Judges;

(c) (c) Applications or applications in relation to them which if accepted would infringe or breach any of the policies or terms of access or use of the Site.

1.17 3.4 No proposed Application may contain any of the hazardous substances identified by Article 4 of Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament on the Restrictions on the Use of Substances in Electronic and Electrical Equipment ("the Directive") or the use of such hazardous substances in the in any such Project must not exceed the maximum concentration values set out in the Directive.

1.18 3.5 A proposed Application must not have been entered into any other Contest, unless that Contest has closed and the Application did not win a prize.

1.19 4.1 Winners will be selected by the Organiser on the basis of the quality of his or her Application and its adherence to these Terms.

1.20 4.2 The total number of Winners selected will be at least the minimum number set out in condition 1 above but the actual number is at the sole discretion of the Organizer.

1.21 4.3 The Organiser will use all reasonable efforts to announce the Participants within 10 business days the Applications Close.

1.22 4.4 The winner(s) will be selected by the Organiser in their absolute discretion based on the Judging Criteria. Winners must meet all eligibility requirements of these Terms. There shall be such number of winners as the Organiser shall determine.

1.23 4.5 The Organiser’s decision is final and without right of appeal. No correspondence will be entered into. The Organiser reserves the right not to select a winner if, in their sole discretion, they do not consider any of the applications to merit the Prize.

1.24 4.6 The Organiser will use all reasonable efforts to complete judging by Judging and Voting Close and to notify the winner(s) via a blog posted on the Contest Site by the Announcement of Winner Date.

1.25 4.7 Winners agree to take part in all publicity which the Organiser or the Sponsor wishes to use to promote the RoadTest, the Products featured or other Contests with which the Organiser may be connected from time to time.

1.26 4.8 Details of the Winners will also be published in the media.

1.27 5.1 The Organiser hereby excludes all and any Liability arising out of the Contest or the acceptance, use, quality, condition, suitability or performance of any Prize, even where that Liability may arise from the Organiser’s negligence.

1.28 5.2 Nothing in these Terms will affect any Liability of the Organiser for death or personal injury arising from its negligence, for breach of Part II of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (in the event that any entrant is entitled to claim rights under the Consumer Protection Act 1987) or for any matter in relation to which it would be illegal for the Organiser to exclude or to attempt to exclude its Liability.

1.29 5.3 Subject to 10.2, neither the Organiser, any parent company nor any subsidiary of the Organiser or such parent company or any of their directors, officers and employees (together referred to in these terms and the ‘Associates’) makes any guarantee, warranty or representation of any kind, express or implied, with respect to this Contest or the Prizes potentially available under it. Neither the Organiser nor any of its Associates shall be responsible for any Liability that may arise out of or in connection with person’s participation in this Contest, the claiming, redemption or value of any prizes under it, the use or enjoyment of such prizes or any events or circumstances arising out of or in connection with any of them. Any implied warranties of condition, merchantability or suitability or fitness for purpose of any of them are hereby expressly excluded. Wherever used in these Terms, ‘Liability’ shall mean any and all costs, expenses, claims, damages, actions, proceedings, demands, losses and other liabilities (including legal fees and costs on a full indemnity basis) arising directly or indirectly out of or in connection with the matter concerned.

1.30 6.1 The RoadTest is organised and sponsored by the Organiser. The Organiser reserves the right to delegate all or any of its powers, rights and obligations arising in relation to the RoadTest to any Associate and certain such rights and powers are assumed by the Organiser on behalf of itself and each Associate. Reference to “Organiser” shall be deemed to include reference to each Associate.

1.31 6.2 The RoadTest may be terminated at any time if there are, in the sole opinion of the Organiser, an insufficient number of entries, or if the Applications are not of an appropriate standard for a Contest of this nature. The Organiser has the right to cancel or suspend the RoadTest at any time due to circumstances outside its reasonable control.

1.32 6.3 The Organiser shall have the sole discretion to disqualify (without correspondence or right of appeal) any Applicant it considers to be adversely affecting the process or the operation of the RoadTest or to be in breach of these Terms or to be acting in a disruptive manner or with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any other Applicant or Participant.

1.33 6.4 The Organiser has the right to amend or add to these Terms from time to time. Revised Terms and Conditions will be posted on the RoadTest Site and it is a condition of entry to the RoadTest that Applicants and Winners agree to comply with these Terms and, if appropriate, such Terms as amended from time to time.

1.34 6.5 Headings are for convenience only and do not affect the interpretation or construction of these Terms and Conditions.

1.35 6.6 These Terms and the operation of the RoadTest shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English Law and any claim or matter arising under these Terms shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.

1.36 the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.

Comment List
Anonymous
Parents
  • Im currently reviewing the PSoC4 board right now, and I have reviewed an STM board a long time ago. It sucks that most of the time these road tests with usefull gear are such a limited quantity. Usually when I road test a board it's so much work becuase you have to set up the tools and learn a development environment even if you know C well its hard to do a dev kit justice unless you've worked with the mcu before. Im really trying to do the PSoC4 justice but its time consuming due to the code and new software tools.

     

    I wish more people got to review gear, I use gear everyday for something or another. Im sure all of use do, theres always so much stuff to fix!! Wether it be a childs toy and a project or even other test gear lol!! To me gear reviews would be easy to do justice to in a much shorter amount of time just read the manual pick out some special features roll the camera and start touble shooting some stuff where you get to show off its glitter. I really hope I get picked for this road test I always sign up for gear and it just seems like such a long shot. Its to bad running a vBlog is so much work I mean these guys like Dave Jones, Ben Heck, Mikes Electric stuff, and MJ Morton are always getting free high end stuff to review. The sad truth though is once you get in to doing that making videos becomes your job and now you have all this fancy gear and no time to do fun things with it!

  • Mike from Mikeselectricstuff never got anything "high end" for free, which is a big shame. I guess being a great engineer with one of the most interesting vblogs just isn't good enough as some other wannabes pushing buttons and poking sticks at 1-20 k$ worth of gear.

    This is hard truth for all engineers, no matter how good you are, some other showoff will always have it better.

  • You are right. I think, if I remember correctly, this is intentional. He mentioned somewhere (AmpHour maybe) that he doesn't want to turn into a full time video blogger and get the pressure from both the viewers and T&M manufacturers marketing departments.

     

    I think you can see that in the quality of the videos. Much more detailed, much more in depth, often knowledgeable. I think only Shahriar from the Signal Path blog has similar quality.

     

    Not just quick mail opening or a teardown with just the cover off, without even checking part numbers or how each section operates. Don't get me wrong, I still like Dave's videos in general and I think hosting the forum is even more important and valuable, but he has to make a living out of YouTube, so no (recently) fundamental Fridays, breadboarding circuits and detailed teardowns with experiments. I suppose the majority of the audience considers these boring and therefore not generating enough views, while requiring more effort from Dave.

  • All the bloggers/vloggers you guys mention are excellent, but let's not undersell the in-depth reviews and on-going support and practical guides/source code/projects developed (mostly open source) by the reviewers on Element 14 either. Video blogs are great, but so is text, code, graphs and other technical material produced by the likes of and others - check it out : )

    It is not unusual for some reviews to run for half a dozen blog posts (depends on the subject-matter, not everything may need this), not for the sake of

    filling space, but for the information and practical experiments that can help

    users just as much as an hour-long video can. I think users planning to purchase equipment do make use of them - I still refer back to particular posts if I'm considering ordering gear for myself or for the lab, as well as consulting the device tech specs/datasheets/etc.

Comment
  • All the bloggers/vloggers you guys mention are excellent, but let's not undersell the in-depth reviews and on-going support and practical guides/source code/projects developed (mostly open source) by the reviewers on Element 14 either. Video blogs are great, but so is text, code, graphs and other technical material produced by the likes of and others - check it out : )

    It is not unusual for some reviews to run for half a dozen blog posts (depends on the subject-matter, not everything may need this), not for the sake of

    filling space, but for the information and practical experiments that can help

    users just as much as an hour-long video can. I think users planning to purchase equipment do make use of them - I still refer back to particular posts if I'm considering ordering gear for myself or for the lab, as well as consulting the device tech specs/datasheets/etc.

Children
  • Oh, sure. I like a lot of information on BeagleBone Black, in particular, here (I use it for my CNC machine with LinuxCNC), useful blog posts on PRU and other very detailed stuff, interfacing with other ICs etc.

     

    That actually proves my point image Rarely a full time videoblogger will go into such great lengths to experiment with a particular platform, reveal various quirks and evaluate interesting peripherals - too much effort, not much audience. Also, video blogging on its own is quite time consuming, recording, editing, rendering and uploading. Also, one needs quality equipment, cameras with macro, microphones, lighting - I would rather spend all that cash on an oscilloscope image and stay with not-so-attractive text blogging.

  • This is pretty much exactly what I was trying to say. I only choose to enroll in a roadtest if it is a product, that I need and will make good use of in the future, or if it is a platform im interested in really trying out! When reviewing a platform there is so much to write about! If your really interested in the platform/dev kit it can be a very time consuming road test because there is so much to share especially if you happen to be like me and are very enthusiastic about that platform (for me this is PSoC, I really believe it could easily be an Arduino killer)

     

    Unfortunately I don't have the kind of money to drop on test gear that some people do, or a company would. I bet there are alot of hobbyist and embedded electronics consultants just starting out, that could make great use of the gear they apply for on here. My only point was it is really a shame things like scopes, and bench DMMs are given out in such limited quantity for road testing. It is much easier to do a good review on gear in a much quicker fashion than it is to do a quality road test on a dev kit. Im sure if somehow they did a roadtest with 50 scopes even just a 50mhz version each review would be pretty good im sure alot would over lap but im also sure that there would also be alot of little gems in each review unique to its own.

  • I agree with you Shabaz!

     

    What I expect from a post that present a product, especially on Element14 - that makes the difference respect the traditional newspapers and on-line papers review - is just the availability of material. Frankly I have always considered a video almost essential but a compendium to written stuff, downloadable references and images. What I think about a review is that it should be a sort of getting-started and user manual. A unofficial one but with a well tested and honest vision of the product pros and cons. Sure something beyond the simple unboxing and first impression review as I have read alot.

     

    Enrico

  • robert gast wrote:

     

    ...

    Unfortunately I don't have the kind of money to drop on test gear that some people do, or a company would....

     

    You don't have to spend the money. There's always the art of being able to deal with a humble setup.

     

    http://www.element14.com/community/message/158215/l/re-home-labs-of-electronics-engineers#158215

     

    I think it's key to know the limitations and precision of your gear - not to have high precision gear.

     

    (maybe more time is spent by high-spec gear owners around the world on checking the high precision of that gear than on doing high precision measurements in circuits that require itimage )

  • This could be ture lol! I acually have a 40,000 cnt dmm, and ended up getting a voltage standard in order to calibrate it. In this case im talking more about speed and functionality.

  • Cool thread though thanks for the link! I wouldnt exactly call those set ups cheap. I would love an SMU. Ill tell you what drives my quest for better gear, it so I can develop kits like micro ohm meters, and smu's, to sell on tindie or something for much cheaper than the cost of a keithly or Tek. But in order to develop stuff like that one needs some decent gear. A solid scope, a decent DMM with a decent count and calibration, and a fairly accurate voltage/current standard along with alot of precision resistors and low noise opamps. Basically with a few good tools you can make even more tools image

  • True!

     

    The precision test tools certainly have great value. And who doesn't like to look at the specs and dream?

    For a scope I have less strict expectations (requirements?) on precision, because I don't use that as a high precision tool. I find it important to  be able to have a good look at the signal (and I certainly like my scope to have the right bandwidth - and low voltage and noise - for the signal that I'm measuring). And it should be reasonably accurate and have good trigger capabilities.

    In my lab, I don't consider the scope as a precision measurement instruments. But as one of my best and most valuable tools on the desk (a brain tool).

    You can only imagine what kind of change the first oscilloscopes brought to electronics science and electronics engineers: being able to really see what the theory says.

  • Robert,

     

    I am trying to see the point of view of Element14; I appreciate the fact that they choose the proposals for road-testing based on the submitted idea of the users. Then they should fight the problem with the honesty of some users; I do like you: I make a proposal just when I am almost sure that - if selected - I have time to make the test. And IMO the better choice is always to make a project with the testing product. So it is possible to really see what the product do in a real application. If the testing product is not something that I will build it has no sense to test, just to play with. Unfortunately I see that not all think so; Take a look to the last road-tests: how many testers have published something and how many have published nothing... There are users that just take the stuff and disappear. To be honest I also consider non-tested the posts without images and videos; almost with nothing, just few lines explaining the emotion opening the box image

     

    Enrico

  • Yes I noticed that, opening the box feeling. When I did my stm32 f0 test I did it because it was a cheap board A and B because I hadnt used an arm mcu at the time only parallax stuff. I had no idea what I was doing... but I at least went through the trouble to test different tool chains and get an example working. they gave out 40 of these boards in 2012 and i think most of the submitted reviews were just an unboxing.

  • Without mention the users that take the stuff and nothing more, simply disappear ... Then the unboxing effect has sense too, just gives a first idea of the general aspect, how the producer take care of the image and other important aspects... If this is the first step of a complex discussion. In my first (and last image ) review of the Panasonic NFC TAG I have proposed to insert this test inside a real project I am working on that involves also the NFC connection. But as the product information are very poor it was not possible for lack of documentation and other material. But I have anyway explained this and done a complete check with the available samples. Anyway hoping that the reader can be informed on what should expect from this product. Just this board was delivered in 10 units and at the actual date I see only my review in the list.

     

    Enrico