low-end scope
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 2 Mar 2010 10:02 On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:56:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:46:33 -0800) it happened John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in ><r4roo5dd2mjre06t8glvpun5dc9hgu9p53(a)4ax.com>: > >>On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:49:54 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>>Jan Panteltje wrote: >>>> On a sunny day (Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:30:11 -0800) it happened John Larkin >>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>> <h5joo5tu7iv486nr7g4pp69r0vpco1cnuc(a)4ax.com>: >>>> >>>>> I've gotten used to small, light, color digital scopes >>>> >>>> Mine has color too: Green. >>> >>> >>>Mine even glows in the dark. Now that's something DSOs can't do :-) >> >>Yeah, but how long can you hold it out at arm's length? >> >>Now whenever I use an analog scope - which is seldom - I get confused >>about which trace is which. I don't miss black+white TV sets, or >>typewriters and carbon paper, or analog VOMs, or slide rules, or 300 >>baud acoustic modems either. >> >>John > >Wow, and that from somebody who swears by writing and drawing on deads trees :-) >And I do not miss the noise of that horrible Tek digital I once had to use for audio. The digitals have pixels and adc quantization, but the difference re: an analog scope is more psychological than real. If you use signal averaging, a digital scope will pull signals out of noise as no analog scope can. I own about 60 oscilloscopes and can take my pick. 99% of the time it's digital. And by our standards "audio" is crude. John
From: John Larkin on 2 Mar 2010 10:04 On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:10:45 -0800 (PST), "miso(a)sushi.com" <miso(a)sushi.com> wrote: >On Mar 1, 4:49�pm, Joerg <inva...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Jan Panteltje wrote: >> > On a sunny day (Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:30:11 -0800) it happened John Larkin >> > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >> > <h5joo5tu7iv486nr7g4pp69r0vpco1c...(a)4ax.com>: >> >> >> I've gotten used to small, light, color digital scopes >> >> > Mine has color too: Green. >> >> Mine even glows in the dark. Now that's something DSOs can't do :-) >> >> -- >> Regards, Joerg >> >> http://www.analogconsultants.com/ >> >> "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. >> Use another domain or send PM. > >The old HP scope cameras had UV lights in the to illuminate the >graticle. I had a few HPs that had electron flood guns, ditto. But I never much liked HP scopes. We demoed one HP digital scope that had, like, 4 buttons on the front panel. Nobody could figure out how to get it to work. John
From: Jan Panteltje on 2 Mar 2010 11:06 On a sunny day (Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:02:41 -0800) it happened John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in <is9qo5tdsopq2i34seqc4h8qq6snfid6u9(a)4ax.com>: >On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:56:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje ><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On a sunny day (Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:46:33 -0800) it happened John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >><r4roo5dd2mjre06t8glvpun5dc9hgu9p53(a)4ax.com>: >> >>>On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:49:54 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Jan Panteltje wrote: >>>>> On a sunny day (Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:30:11 -0800) it happened John Larkin >>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>>> <h5joo5tu7iv486nr7g4pp69r0vpco1cnuc(a)4ax.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> I've gotten used to small, light, color digital scopes >>>>> >>>>> Mine has color too: Green. >>>> >>>> >>>>Mine even glows in the dark. Now that's something DSOs can't do :-) >>> >>>Yeah, but how long can you hold it out at arm's length? >>> >>>Now whenever I use an analog scope - which is seldom - I get confused >>>about which trace is which. I don't miss black+white TV sets, or >>>typewriters and carbon paper, or analog VOMs, or slide rules, or 300 >>>baud acoustic modems either. >>> >>>John >> >>Wow, and that from somebody who swears by writing and drawing on deads trees :-) >>And I do not miss the noise of that horrible Tek digital I once had to use for audio. > >The digitals have pixels and adc quantization, but the difference re: >an analog scope is more psychological than real. If you use signal >averaging, a digital scope will pull signals out of noise as no analog >scope can. That is why I would like some *cheap* spectrum analyser. >I own about 60 oscilloscopes and can take my pick. 99% of the time >it's digital. And by our standards "audio" is crude. > >John 24 bits audio does not seem 'crude' to me. > >
From: John Larkin on 2 Mar 2010 11:17 On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:06:26 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On a sunny day (Tue, 02 Mar 2010 07:02:41 -0800) it happened John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in ><is9qo5tdsopq2i34seqc4h8qq6snfid6u9(a)4ax.com>: > >>On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:56:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje >><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>On a sunny day (Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:46:33 -0800) it happened John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>><r4roo5dd2mjre06t8glvpun5dc9hgu9p53(a)4ax.com>: >>> >>>>On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:49:54 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>Jan Panteltje wrote: >>>>>> On a sunny day (Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:30:11 -0800) it happened John Larkin >>>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>>>> <h5joo5tu7iv486nr7g4pp69r0vpco1cnuc(a)4ax.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I've gotten used to small, light, color digital scopes >>>>>> >>>>>> Mine has color too: Green. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Mine even glows in the dark. Now that's something DSOs can't do :-) >>>> >>>>Yeah, but how long can you hold it out at arm's length? >>>> >>>>Now whenever I use an analog scope - which is seldom - I get confused >>>>about which trace is which. I don't miss black+white TV sets, or >>>>typewriters and carbon paper, or analog VOMs, or slide rules, or 300 >>>>baud acoustic modems either. >>>> >>>>John >>> >>>Wow, and that from somebody who swears by writing and drawing on deads trees :-) >>>And I do not miss the noise of that horrible Tek digital I once had to use for audio. >> >>The digitals have pixels and adc quantization, but the difference re: >>an analog scope is more psychological than real. If you use signal >>averaging, a digital scope will pull signals out of noise as no analog >>scope can. > >That is why I would like some *cheap* spectrum analyser. > > >>I own about 60 oscilloscopes and can take my pick. 99% of the time >>it's digital. And by our standards "audio" is crude. >> >>John > >24 bits audio does not seem 'crude' to me. It is in the sense that no audio signal has anything like the s/n to justify a 24-bit ADC or DAC, even if a real 24-bit part existed. And the idea of even 12 bit linearity is silly when you are using microphones, power amps, loudspeakers, and signal trains that deliberately add distortion. But if I have 1 PPM of hum or DC offset in my NMR coil drivers, or 100 PPM pos/neg asymmetry, users *will* complain. And how does an analog scope work better than a digital scope when testing a 24-bit DAC? John
From: GregS on 2 Mar 2010 11:44
In article <is9qo5tdsopq2i34seqc4h8qq6snfid6u9(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:56:23 GMT, Jan Panteltje ><pNaonStpealmtje(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On a sunny day (Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:46:33 -0800) it happened John Larkin >><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >><r4roo5dd2mjre06t8glvpun5dc9hgu9p53(a)4ax.com>: >> >>>On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:49:54 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Jan Panteltje wrote: >>>>> On a sunny day (Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:30:11 -0800) it happened John Larkin >>>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>>>> <h5joo5tu7iv486nr7g4pp69r0vpco1cnuc(a)4ax.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> I've gotten used to small, light, color digital scopes >>>>> >>>>> Mine has color too: Green. >>>> >>>> >>>>Mine even glows in the dark. Now that's something DSOs can't do :-) >>> >>>Yeah, but how long can you hold it out at arm's length? >>> >>>Now whenever I use an analog scope - which is seldom - I get confused >>>about which trace is which. I don't miss black+white TV sets, or >>>typewriters and carbon paper, or analog VOMs, or slide rules, or 300 >>>baud acoustic modems either. >>> >>>John >> >>Wow, and that from somebody who swears by writing and drawing on deads trees > :-) >>And I do not miss the noise of that horrible Tek digital I once had to use for > audio. > >The digitals have pixels and adc quantization, but the difference re: >an analog scope is more psychological than real. If you use signal >averaging, a digital scope will pull signals out of noise as no analog >scope can. > >I own about 60 oscilloscopes and can take my pick. 99% of the time >it's digital. And by our standards "audio" is crude. > >John > I have one crt analog/digital that I would absolutely hate to be without. Hameg was one of the remaining makers of combinations. You need a at least 10 bit vertical resolution, 12 would be great. greg |