Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: The Phantom on 8 Apr 2010 15:14 On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 17:06:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Thu, 8 Apr 2010 08:57:53 -0700 (PDT)) it happened brent ><bulegoge(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote in ><fb2980a4-6e02-48db-b20d-57eefa8df2a6(a)v8g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>: > >>On Apr 8, 10:01�am, John Larkin >beep BAD SYNTAX > >>> I can't think of much. Maybe clean X-Y plots; the digitals are sloppy >>> in X-Y mode. >>> >>> ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Hills.JPG >>> >>> John >> >>When I am looking at video signals with higher power RF signals on the >>board I will take an analog scope any day. > >I agree, for video an analog scope is great. >In fact the *ONLY* reason for digital is storage, >and even then good analog storage scope once existed. I can think of a particular aspect of digital storage that, AFAIK, analog storage can't do. With digital storage, one can examine the signal BEFORE the trigger point. Has there ever been an analog storage scope that could do that? >Storage is important when you look at one time events, long data sequences, >or events with a very low duty cycle that on an analog scope would show with >a too low intensity. >Those are, as far as I know, The ONLY advantages of digitising. >Maybe the FFT thing, and some other processing of data can be added as advantage >but that is actually no longer a scope. >Larking is a scope buyer, he seems to just buy and buy scopes, >not a real scope wizard. >I have re-scaled him to 3 on a 0-10 scale. > >
From: Jan Panteltje on 8 Apr 2010 15:16 On a sunny day (8 Apr 2010 14:14:01 -0500) it happened The Phantom <phantom(a)aol.com> wrote in <kfasr5d3tpamudee5m5luu966l64oq6gl0(a)4ax.com>: >On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 17:06:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> >wrote: > >>On a sunny day (Thu, 8 Apr 2010 08:57:53 -0700 (PDT)) it happened brent >><bulegoge(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote in >><fb2980a4-6e02-48db-b20d-57eefa8df2a6(a)v8g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>: >> >>>On Apr 8, 10:01�am, John Larkin >>beep BAD SYNTAX >> >>>> I can't think of much. Maybe clean X-Y plots; the digitals are sloppy >>>> in X-Y mode. >>>> >>>> ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Hills.JPG >>>> >>>> John >>> >>>When I am looking at video signals with higher power RF signals on the >>>board I will take an analog scope any day. >> >>I agree, for video an analog scope is great. >>In fact the *ONLY* reason for digital is storage, >>and even then good analog storage scope once existed. > >I can think of a particular aspect of digital storage that, AFAIK, analog >storage can't do. With digital storage, one can examine the signal BEFORE the >trigger point. Has there ever been an analog storage scope that could do that? Yes, delay line.
From: The Phantom on 8 Apr 2010 15:18 On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 15:58:46 +1000, "David L. Jones" <altzone(a)gmail.com> wrote: >John Larkin wrote: >> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:34:32 -0700, >> "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:45:57 -0700, John Larkin >>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 21:28:29 -0700, >>>> "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 09:58:53 +0800, "Andrew" <anbyvbel(a)yahoo.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote >>>>>> in message news:kj2lr598g79va9rjpir1e1jaa0bvg90ji6(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you don't like Rigol scopes, buy Tek or Agilent or LeCroy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, the low-end Agilent is actually a Rigol. They rebrand >>>>>>> it and sell it for about twice the price of the Rigol. How do >>>>>>> you like that for rip-off-ness? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Wow, you just deprived Agilent of their hard earned cash, since a >>>>>> lot of people will buy Rigol instead. >>>>>> You should have kept this information to yourself. >>>>> >>>>> Bwahahahaha. That tidbit is kind of common knowledge around here >>>>> (s.e.d). >>>>> >>>>> For some real interesting times go really hunting for fast analog >>>>> scopes, they are available, though not inexpensive. 500 MHz is >>>>> still reasonably available, for about the price of a modest car. >>>> >>>> Tek 7103s and 7104s, 1 GHz analog scopes with microchannel plate >>>> CRTs, are fairly cheap on the used market. >>>> >>>> An 11801 sampler with a 12 GHz head can be had for under $2K. Nice >>>> scopes. >>>> >>>> John >>> >>> John, i am talking about brand _new_ analog 'scopes. Probably with >>> microchannel faceplates as well. All the old groovy Tektronix >>> patents >>> have expired. >> >> The only new analog scopes I know of are minor brands, >> B&K/Instek/Kenwood sort of stuff. All the name-brand scopes are >> digital now. LeCroy used to sell the 470 MHz Iwatsu scope, but I think >> they gave that up. The Iwatsu SS-7840H is around $10K. And not even >> color. It looks to me like digital scopes are less expensive at pretty >> much every performance point. > >Yup, economy of scale and other factors. > >Iwatsu still do a 1GHz analog storage scope at $28K: >http://www.tequipment.net/IwatsuTS-81000.html This one is very nifty, but looking at the block diagram in the downloadable "technology" pdf file, it appears that the only way to watch more than one channel at a time is in alternate or chopped mode. Also, unlike digital storage, one can't look at events before the trigger point. > >The 400MHz analog is $7500: >http://www.tequipment.net/IwatsuSS-7840.html >and the 470MHz at $12K+: >http://www.tequipment.net/IwatsuSS-7847A.html >Ouch! > >Hameg do a 200MHz analog at $2500: >http://www.hameg.com/335.0.html?L=0 >The Instek 200MHz one is $1800 > >Dave.
From: Jan Panteltje on 8 Apr 2010 15:22 On a sunny day (Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:16:54 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote in <hpla38$uvi$1(a)news.albasani.net>: >On a sunny day (8 Apr 2010 14:14:01 -0500) it happened The Phantom ><phantom(a)aol.com> wrote in <kfasr5d3tpamudee5m5luu966l64oq6gl0(a)4ax.com>: > >>On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 17:06:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> >>wrote: >> >>>On a sunny day (Thu, 8 Apr 2010 08:57:53 -0700 (PDT)) it happened brent >>><bulegoge(a)columbus.rr.com> wrote in >>><fb2980a4-6e02-48db-b20d-57eefa8df2a6(a)v8g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>: >>> >>>>On Apr 8, 10:01�am, John Larkin >>>beep BAD SYNTAX >>> >>>>> I can't think of much. Maybe clean X-Y plots; the digitals are sloppy >>>>> in X-Y mode. >>>>> >>>>> ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Hills.JPG >>>>> >>>>> John >>>> >>>>When I am looking at video signals with higher power RF signals on the >>>>board I will take an analog scope any day. >>> >>>I agree, for video an analog scope is great. >>>In fact the *ONLY* reason for digital is storage, >>>and even then good analog storage scope once existed. >> >>I can think of a particular aspect of digital storage that, AFAIK, analog >>storage can't do. With digital storage, one can examine the signal BEFORE the >>trigger point. Has there ever been an analog storage scope that could do that? > >Yes, delay line. PS if you like analog scopes for video, maybe you will like this: http://panteltje.com/panteltje/scope_tv/index.html The Z input!
From: krw on 8 Apr 2010 18:31
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 22:44:21 +1000, Ross Vumbaca <rossv1(a)au.com.optushome> wrote: >Hi, > >On 8/04/2010 10:43, David L. Jones wrote: > >> Me neither. >> Although the low end digitals like the Rigols are no match for an analog >> scope for some jobs. So unless you've got a high end digital, it's still >> useful to have that analog scope around. > >When might an analogue scope be better than a low end digital? When the low end digital scope aliases like hell. |