Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 8 Apr 2010 18:33 On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 07:01:52 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >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? >> >>Regards, >> >>Ross.. > >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 Aren't you the one who showed a scope aliasing a signal such that it reversed time, a couple of years back?
From: krw on 8 Apr 2010 18:36 On 8 Apr 2010 14:14:01 -0500, The Phantom <phantom(a)aol.com> wrote: >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? Sure. Have you ever heard of delay lines? Also, delaying timebases were commonly used to look "before" the trigger event. There are applications where I'd still like a calibrated delayed timebase. >>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: whygee on 8 Apr 2010 20:16 krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>> 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. I have already got into troubles because of this effect, since then I only trust my old analog Tek. yg -- http://ygdes.com / http://yasep.org
From: Ross Vumbaca on 8 Apr 2010 21:45 On 8/04/2010 23:05, Phil Allison wrote: > Anyone dumb enough to ask simply cannot comprehend any answer that can be > posted. I'm a student, and we don't use analogue scopes at Uni, so I don't know much about them. Most comparison websites do not list actual examples of when an analogue scope is better and suggest that digital scopes are a replacement for practically all applications. Ross..
From: JosephKK on 8 Apr 2010 22:52
On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 17:36:30 -0500, "krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On 8 Apr 2010 14:14:01 -0500, The Phantom <phantom(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>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? > >Sure. Have you ever heard of delay lines? Also, delaying timebases were >commonly used to look "before" the trigger event. There are applications >where I'd still like a calibrated delayed timebase. You are right. I have done things (been able to see things) with delayed sweep that i still cannot duplicate with a digital scope. And that is with a mere 100 MHz bandwidth. Digital scope manufacturers, you now have a well defined target to accomplish. > >>>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. >>> >>> |