Re: [midatlanticretro] oscilloscopes
- On Sep 24, 2013, at 12:23 PM, Dave McGuire <Mcguire@...> wrote:
>Decent guide! A few things I'd maybe add:
> This is still a work in progress, but I've finally started typing up
> my oscilloscope info and recommendations in a more formal way. I get
> asked for such recommendations a few times per month, and I always find
> myself typing up the same stuff, so I figured now I can just point 'em
> to a URL.
> Topics covered are general information about oscilloscopes, the
> differences between analog and digital oscilloscopes, and some specific
> recommendations on what to look for and what to avoid.
> Questions and comments are welcome.
- For me, digital scopes have one key advantage: if you need to capture an event that occurs ONCE, an analog scope (a non-storage one, anyway) is really hard to use. Some discussion of storage tubes for the non-digitizing scopes might be useful.
- I have a 2245. It's not bad. It's not great, either, but for everything I'm using it for (slow digital and audio analog), it's fine. It's fine for when you need to verify that a waveform looks like it should; I definitely wouldn't use it for anything requiring precision voltage or time, because it's not particularly accurate for that (it also hasn't been calibrated in forever, which almost certainly has something to do with that). Still, for a cheap analog scope with cursors that will give you good APPROXIMATE readings as long as you know what you're getting into, it's a great instrument for the price.
I'm kicking myself for giving away a few 7000-series mainframes a while back, plus a bunch of plugins. They both had really dim CRTs, but I imagine I could probably have gotten replacements for them. Alas! They were storage, even!
It wouldn't hurt to have a discussion of why you would want to pick digital over analog or vice versa. i see strong use cases for both, and I think it's great to have both. Some people seem to think they're exclusive for some reason. Sadly, I can't really afford a decent digital one right now, though I might consider a Rigol at some point.
Very nice write up.
I have one comment on your bandwidth section. Sometimes it's the high frequency information that you need, even though you are looking at "lower" frequency signal. Other times it's the relationship between two "lower" frequency signals. I use a 100MHZ Tektronix 465 and there have been plenty of times when I wish I had a little more bandwidth. I could always make do with the 100MHZ, but in those cases more bandwidth would not have hurt.
---In email@example.com, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:This is still a work in progress, but I've finally started typing up
my oscilloscope info and recommendations in a more formal way. I get
asked for such recommendations a few times per month, and I always find
myself typing up the same stuff, so I figured now I can just point 'em
to a URL.
Topics covered are general information about oscilloscopes, the
differences between analog and digital oscilloscopes, and some specific
recommendations on what to look for and what to avoid.
Questions and comments are welcome.
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA