Author Topic: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2  (Read 17852 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TraderTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 393
  • Country: us
Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« on: July 29, 2021, 04:09:45 pm »
I don't know why the post (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/analog-versus-digital-oscilloscopes/) was closed, but I think this is an interesting topic and there is no need for censorship in a technical forum. A lot of people can learn about the technical differences, advantages, and disadvantages over the years.


Talking about PRICE, a good Analog scope is MUCH better than a good Digital Scope.

Most of the time you just need to see Signals, you don't need fancy options as serial communication or FFT, etc; it is better to use a dedicated logic or spectrum analyzers.

I'm not sure what is the analog scope with the highest bandwidth, but up to 500MHz, a good analog scope will cost between 1/3 or 1/10 of a Rigol MSO5074 or Siglent SDS2104X Plus (hobbyist or officially upgraded) and 1/10 or 1/30 of a Tektronix, Keysight, Rohde & Schwarz, LeCroy, etc.

And, as I said, 99% of the time you just want to see the waves. (good analog scopes also created several excellent features to compensate for the lack of storage.)

PS: Or an "intermediary" Digital Phosphor Oscilloscope (DPO); there are +-1GHz models costing similar to a 100MHz DSO.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2021, 04:39:50 pm by Trader »
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7934
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2021, 04:16:44 pm »
Just as with "real cameras", i.e. film-based, it is hard to find good analog oscilloscopes anymore.  Similarly, I won't give up mine (or my large-format film cameras) in this life.
My basic reply to this question, based on many years with both, is that if you don't know what the problem is, it is better to start with an analog oscilloscope (with sufficient bandwidth).
If you know what's going on, but need to make a measurement, the digital oscilloscope is better.  Similarly, if you need to freeze a waveform, especially a non-periodic waveform, the digital oscilloscope is better.
One technology for which I have no nostalgia is the analog storage oscilloscope.
 
The following users thanked this post: Trader

Offline Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8110
  • Country: fi
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2021, 04:47:09 pm »
All details about some quantization effects are totally unimportant.

The large difference is that basically what is called a "digital oscilloscope" today is a storage oscilloscope, and very good at said storage features.

While analog storage oscilloscopes exist, they are way more limited in this "storage", and most analog scopes beginners buy are not storage oscilloscopes at all.

The big difference here is, a storage oscilloscope can capture and store a waveform, for example, to record one incident, be it a digital communication packet, or a non-repetitive analog phenomenon like someone shouting an obscenity at a microphone, or recording an earthquake. You can record quite long observations, then zoom in and out, scroll it...

Analog oscilloscopes are pretty good to observe repetitive signals, for example to look at how an amplifier works when you can feed the amplifier with a repetitive signal from a Function Generator. Or to look at the triangle wave an fixed-frequency PWM SMPS generates under steady conditions...

But the big difference is, they are different instruments altogether, a digital storage oscilloscope can do so many more things an analog scope is completely unsuitable for. Especially nowadays almost every beginner wants to do something with an Arduino or similar at some point, and needs to look at UART or SPI or just GPIO. Analog scope is nearly useless for this. So you would need two scopes --

except that you won't, because the reverse is only true if very small details are important (and they usually aren't). Even a remotely modern digital storage oscilloscope can replace an analog one in 99.9999% of cases, although maybe it sometimes happens that you do have a really high BW repetitive signal and can't afford to buy an expensive 1GHz digital scope but happen to find a good deal of an used analog top performer. But I doubt it, the best analog scopes have already found their homes.
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki

Offline rdl

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3665
  • Country: us
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2021, 05:00:05 pm »
I have a Tektronix 2247A and a Rigol DS1052E and I use both. But, unless I actually need some feature only on the digital scope, I use the Tektronix just because the screen is 1000x nicer to look at.
 
The following users thanked this post: PD2AM

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7934
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2021, 05:21:05 pm »
To clarify why I like an analog CRO when I don't know what the problem is:  Since the analog scope does not periodically sample the waveform, it will show "fuzziness" or similar when an unexpected high-frequency waveform or noise is superimposed on the "regular" stuff.  The user can expand the timebase to examine what can't be resolved at the slower time/div.  So long as the hf stuff is within the analog bandwidth, it will be visible even if not resolved due to the finite width of the trace on the phosphor face.
With a DSO, if you have an unexpected high-frequency waveform, it may show an alias from periodic sampling that can be confusing.
An example from the past:  the first decent digital oscilloscope we had at work had 100 MHz bandwidth and displayed 10 k points (which was not bad for that time in history).  We were tracing down unexpected noise in a complex system and saw a very clean sinusoidal waveform close to 60 Hz, but which did not synchronize to the line.  Eventually, we discovered that we were seeing a 10 MHz clock waveform alias at a timebase setting appropriate for 60 Hz:  it was the roughly 6 ppm difference in calibration between the external clock and the internal clock of the DSO.  (To check for aliases, change the timebase and see if the apparent frequency, in Hz, changes.  That was the lesson learned from that episode.)
« Last Edit: July 29, 2021, 05:31:47 pm by TimFox »
 
The following users thanked this post: Trader, jeffjmr

Offline Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8110
  • Country: fi
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2021, 05:31:25 pm »
Digital scopes come with intensity grading "emulating" what the analog did, but come with a better digital intensity control. This means, if you have one "weird" occurrence every 50 periodic waveforms, you will see it very dimly on an analog scope, but miss that on cheap early digital scopes. A modern digital scope will show it like the analog one.

But if you have one weird occurrence every 1000 periodic waveforms, good luck finding a signal that dim on analog screen, swamped by the bright trace of "normal" waveforms. A modern digital oscillosscope with well functioning intensity grading can possibly show even that if you turn the intensity knob.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7934
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2021, 05:39:28 pm »
Yes, when you know what you are looking for, the storage capability of the DSO freezing the result is a great advantage.
The "quantization" effects (due to finite ADC resolution) should be negligible, but there are still issues with periodic sampling that need to be understood as well as overcome.  Modern DSOs have gone a long way to reduce problems due to sampling aliases.  If you can set up a trigger that corresponds approximately to your one in a thousand cycles, then the DSO is the only way to catch the result.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2021, 05:42:17 pm by TimFox »
 
The following users thanked this post: jeffjmr

Offline TraderTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 393
  • Country: us
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2021, 05:49:10 pm »
I still believe that the people are comparing $ $ $ $ $ DSOs against $ CROs.

There is no doubt DSO is the way to go, but most of the time a CRO can do all the work costing a fraction.

Yes, microcontrollers use serial communications as UART, SPI, I2C, but this not means the people look at those signals in a MSO, when necessary (rarely), is MUCH better to use a USB Logic Analyzer.

99% of the time a Scope is used only to see Signals, that's it and a good $ $ CRO can do a lot comparing to a $ $ $ DSO, and maybe not so much compared to a $ $ $ $ $ DSO.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2021, 05:54:18 pm by Trader »
 

Offline rstofer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9886
  • Country: us
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2021, 06:36:57 pm »
There is no doubt DSO is the way to go, but most of the time a CRO can do all the work costing a fraction.

No, it can't.  The single shot capture, measurements and decoding are all essential for MCU work and the analog scope doesn't usually have the features or the number of channels.  I'm sure they are out there but I have never seen a 4 channel analog scope.  Want to watch SPI?  Four channels is the way to do it whether it is decoded or not.  You absolutely want to sync on the CS' and watch MISO, MOSI and Clk.  Can you get by with 2 channels and external trigger?  Sure!  But it is tiring...

I have a Tek 485 and a Rigol DS1054Z and I use the Rigol.  Sure, the Tek has more bandwidth when I need it but it provides absolutely NONE of the features of the Rigol.  Other than squiggly lines...

As to cost?  My very used 485 cost about $200 plus shipping, call it $250.  For another $100, I can get a brand new 100 MHz 2 Channel Siglent with all of the modern features (that don't require 4 channels).  With a warranty!  And that isn't even the cheapest equivalent scope around.

https://www.amazon.com/Siglent-Technologies-SDS1202X-Oscilloscope-Channels/dp/B06XZML6RD

There just isn't all that much $ savings in buying a decent analog scope over an entry level digital.  That mythical $50 analog scope in perfect condition is probably a little rare out in the field.

The reason the other thread was closed is that it went off the rails and got personal.
 

Offline TimFox

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7934
  • Country: us
  • Retired, now restoring antique test equipment
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2021, 06:52:51 pm »
I agree with you about single-shot capture and other DSO features, but there are 4-channel analog CROs:  any of the plug-in Tektronix 7000 series units can accept two two-channel vertical plug-ins (I have a 7603 which can hold two vertical and one horizontal plug-in).
« Last Edit: July 29, 2021, 06:54:48 pm by TimFox »
 

Offline David Hess

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 16548
  • Country: us
  • DavidH
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2021, 07:14:13 pm »
Talking about PRICE, a good Analog scope is MUCH better than a good Digital Scope.

That is almost always an apple to oranges comparison.  The analog oscilloscopes involved were almost always priced for a more expensive market than a low end DSO, so the comparison is between an instrument with an inflation adjusted cost of at least $5000 versus a low end DSO costing $1000 or less.  Nobody is interested in an analog oscilloscope that originally cost $200 in 1980.

Digital scopes come with intensity grading "emulating" what the analog did, but come with a better digital intensity control. This means, if you have one "weird" occurrence every 50 periodic waveforms, you will see it very dimly on an analog scope, but miss that on cheap early digital scopes. A modern digital scope will show it like the analog one.

Unfortunately their intensity grading is always or almost always horridly implemented.  It does not duplicate the intensity curve of a CRT, so it cannot be used for tangential measurements, and it does not look nearly as good.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2021, 03:05:28 pm by David Hess »
 
The following users thanked this post: tooki, jeffjmr

Offline Siwastaja

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8110
  • Country: fi
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2021, 07:28:40 pm »
I still believe that the people are comparing $ $ $ $ $ DSOs against $ CROs.

Not really. For exaple Rigol DS1054Z series almost a decade ago totally changed the game IMHO, and others have followed. Yes, the usability kinda sucks and it was buggy, which is always a problem with cheap instruments, but the specs made it (and other similar products) very good replacements for analog scopes even for those special purposes where analog still outperformed cheap digital instruments, and obviously much much more.

For almost a decade, a $400 DSO has been able to store megabytes of waveforms, intensity grading, protocol decoding, etc.

Single-shot events happen on analog levels, for example power supply trouble shooting in microcontroller circuits and similar. Logic analyzers are of no use for such cases. They are specialized for protocol decoding alone, while a modern (even a cheap) DSO is a true multi-purpose instrument.

The key is to understand what these instruments can be used for. Every beginner has some vague idea what a "scope" is used for. If they then listen to bad advice such as Trader's, they think that an analog scope is useful for them, or even better than a cheap DSO. Most often it is not and then they need to buy the DSO anyway to get what they actually needed. Analog scope is a pretty specialized limited use instrument which has its strong points in the right hands, but almost never it is the right solution for a modern beginner of 2000's, especially with limited budget. Maybe it's ok if they are doing audio amplifiers only.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2021, 07:35:43 pm by Siwastaja »
 

Offline bdunham7

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7729
  • Country: us
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2021, 09:02:09 pm »
That is almost always an apple to oranges comparison.

True enough.  If I ever upgrade to a Siglent SDS 2104X+ I will hack it and do a comparison with the 2465B.  I suspect the old Tek will have met its match with only a few minor advantages left.

Quote
Unfortunately their intensity grading is always or almost always horridly implemented.  It neither duplicates the intensity curve of a CRT, so it cannot be used for tangential measurements, and it does not look nearly as good.

Some are bad, some newer ones are better but they definitely have a different brightness/repetition rate curve, with the DSO being a lot flatter.  That means you can't tell as much by how it looks, but you can spot more infrequent signals.  But it is always problematic to judge new technology by how well it replicates old--a decent entry-level DSO these days will have intensity color grading.  With some setup care, the feature is very useful.  Here's a picture of a pulse that repeats at 20MHz but every millionth pulse has some extra amplitude.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2021, 01:29:58 am by bdunham7 »
A 3.5 digit 4.5 digit 5 digit 5.5 digit 6.5 digit 7.5 digit DMM is good enough for most people.
 
The following users thanked this post: Siwastaja, jeffjmr

Offline bdunham7

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7729
  • Country: us
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #13 on: July 29, 2021, 09:23:36 pm »
I don't know why the post (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/analog-versus-digital-oscilloscopes/) was closed, but I think this is an interesting topic and there is no need for censorship in a technical forum. A lot of people can learn about the technical differences, advantages, and disadvantages over the years.

Talking about PRICE, a good Analog scope is MUCH better than a good Digital Scope.

Most of the time you just need to see Signals, you don't need fancy options as serial communication or FFT, etc; it is better to use a dedicated logic or spectrum analyzers.

I'm not sure what is the analog scope with the highest bandwidth, but up to 500MHz, a good analog scope will cost between 1/3 or 1/10 of a Rigol MSO5074 or Siglent SDS2104X Plus (hobbyist or officially upgraded) and 1/10 or 1/30 of a Tektronix, Keysight, Rohde & Schwarz, LeCroy, etc.

And, as I said, 99% of the time you just want to see the waves. (good analog scopes also created several excellent features to compensate for the lack of storage.)

PS: Or an "intermediary" Digital Phosphor Oscilloscope (DPO); there are +-1GHz models costing similar to a 100MHz DSO.

The OP in that post was an idiot and a troll.  There's no requirement to tolerate incoherent babbling in a tech forum, although EEVBlog is fairly tolerant of stupidity--a position I agree with, b/t/w.  This is the least censored forum that I know of.

I'm not sure why you are posting this, but most of what you argue is silly.  There are good 500MHz analog scopes for $100-130?  Where? And if there were, modern entry-level DSOs have a multitude of useful features beyond what those analog scopes have.  You think most DSO users are just looking at a waveform 99% of the time?  I don't. Even if that were true, in order to see a waveform you have to trigger on it--and modern entry-level DSOs have advanced trigger features that you just don't find on earlier analog scopes. 

Oh, and DPO is an advanced version of DSO, it refers to intensity grading.  I"m not sure what you are looking at , but decent name-brand 1GHz DPO scopes are still going for a lot more than an entry level 100MHz DSO if they work.
A 3.5 digit 4.5 digit 5 digit 5.5 digit 6.5 digit 7.5 digit DMM is good enough for most people.
 

Offline james_s

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21611
  • Country: us
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2021, 10:42:15 pm »
I love my Tektronix 465B CRO, it's a beautiful instrument, but I would probably not go out and buy one if I didn't have it already. Once I got a good DSO I found I never really used the analog scope anymore, about the only time I pull it out is if I need XY mode or if I'm just feeling nostalgic and want the warm fuzzy feeling of using one. I do like the way an analog scope operates in real time and all of the controls respond instantly, but the single shot and measurement capabilities of a DSO outweigh this in almost all applications. It's hard to make a price comparison because AFAIK nobody makes analog scopes anymore so what is available is the used market and few people want them anymore because decent DSOs have gotten so cheap. For a while it was easy to get a working analog scope for next to nothing, now a lot of those supplies have dried up and they are harder to come by. They are also bulky and heavy so shipping is expensive and risky.
 

Offline John B

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 795
  • Country: au
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2021, 10:49:15 pm »
CROs seem to have reached collectable status. Every online auction I've seen in years has resulted in competition and greatly inflated prices for what you're getting as a tool.

Single shot capture is a must have nowadays.
 

Offline TraderTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 393
  • Country: us
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2021, 11:29:28 pm »
Every beginner has some vague idea what a "scope" is used for. If they then listen to bad advice such as Trader's, they think that an analog scope is useful for them, or even better than a cheap DSO.

I said: "THERE IS NO DOUBT DSO IS THE WAY TO GO, but most of the time a CRO can do all the work costing a fraction."

Is very improbable a beginner will buy a CRO just because of my comment. And I also said: "comparing $ $ $ $ $ DSOs against $ CROs".

A LOT of people work with electronics and never had an oscilloscope, mostly in poor countries.  I found several times 20MHz to 60MHz CROs for ~$50, and as a hobbyist, I think is a good idea to get a CRO for ~$50 and in the future a DSO for +$350.

This is my opinion, nobody will be hurt for spending that little and this scope will Teach a LOT to that begginer.

ps.: several CROs has very good trigger functions:
 

Offline TraderTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 393
  • Country: us
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2021, 11:41:26 pm »
There are good 500MHz analog scopes for $100-130?  Where?

I"m not sure what you are looking at , but decent name-brand 1GHz DPO scopes are still going for a lot more than an entry level 100MHz DSO if they work.

I didn't say a so low price, you said that.  On AVERAGE a 500Mhz CRO costs 50% of a DPO and 25% to 10% of a DSO.

What means AVERAGE?  This means, if you look at some big or local marketplaces for a couple of months, eventually someone sell a CTO for a bargain. (it's not so easy, but possible)

This is not advice, but I'm very happy with a 100MHz DSO and a 400MHz CRO, if someday I need much more, I'll check the "old" DPOs, of 1GHz for ~$500 instead of a new DSO for +$5,000
 

Offline John B

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 795
  • Country: au
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2021, 11:48:36 pm »
but most of the time a CRO can do all the work costing a fraction.

this scope will Teach a LOT to that begginer.

Compare "teach" and "work", are they the same outcome? There's a lot of interesting things you can learn by setting up experiments with repetitive signals, ie the "teach" aspect, but will a CRO suffice for a typical modern project where you have to deal with transient signals, digital signals, or compare multiple iterations of a signal? This is where a DSO is a tool for doing work.
 

Offline bdunham7

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7729
  • Country: us
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2021, 11:56:29 pm »
On AVERAGE a 500Mhz CRO costs 50% of a DPO and 25% to 10% of a DSO.
What means AVERAGE?  This means, if you look at some big or local marketplaces for a couple of months, eventually someone sell a CTO for a bargain. (it's not so easy, but possible)

Leaving aside your peculiar definition of the word "AVERAGE" (does it mean something different in caps???) what '500MHz CRO' are you referring to?  Can you show us just one?
A 3.5 digit 4.5 digit 5 digit 5.5 digit 6.5 digit 7.5 digit DMM is good enough for most people.
 

Offline TraderTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 393
  • Country: us
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #20 on: July 30, 2021, 12:10:13 am »
I don't know why the post (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/beginners/analog-versus-digital-oscilloscopes/) was closed, but I think this is an interesting topic and there is no need for censorship in a technical forum. A lot of people can learn about the technical differences, advantages, and disadvantages over the years.

The OP in that post was an idiot and a troll.  There's no requirement to tolerate incoherent babbling in a tech forum, although EEVBlog is fairly tolerant of stupidity--a position I agree with, b/t/w.  This is the least censored forum that I know of.

I'm not sure why you are posting this, but most of what you argue is silly.

So, the best way to avoid a post being closed is focus only on the Technical Arguments instead of commenting about other people's posts using terms like: "idiot and a troll", "incoherent babbling", "stupidity", "you argue is silly".

Thank you for explaining and also giving an example.
 

Offline TraderTopic starter

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • !
  • Posts: 393
  • Country: us
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #21 on: July 30, 2021, 12:17:37 am »
On AVERAGE a 500Mhz CRO costs 50% of a DPO and 25% to 10% of a DSO.
What means AVERAGE?  This means, if you look at some big or local marketplaces for a couple of months, eventually someone sell a CTO for a bargain. (it's not so easy, but possible)

Leaving aside your peculiar definition of the word "AVERAGE" (does it mean something different in caps???) what '500MHz CRO' are you referring to?  Can you show us just one?

500 Mhz is just a round number, I know some Teks of 400 Mhz, but I think (my opinion) even a 750 MHz waveform is very acceptable at a Tek 350 Mhz.

 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19281
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #22 on: July 30, 2021, 12:31:38 am »
No, it can't.  The single shot capture, measurements and decoding are all essential for MCU work and the analog scope doesn't usually have the features or the number of channels.  I'm sure they are out there but I have never seen a 4 channel analog scope.  Want to watch SPI?  Four channels is the way to do it whether it is decoded or not.  You absolutely want to sync on the CS' and watch MISO, MOSI and Clk.  Can you get by with 2 channels and external trigger?  Sure!  But it is tiring...

If you need to capture, store and process digital signals, then use a tool designed to work in the digital domain. Logic analysers and protocol analysers can be very cheap, much much cheaper than any new scope.

A scope is an analogue domain tool, and is the best way to see analogue signals, such as the voltages on MISO and the other lines you mention. Once you have ensured those analogue voltages will be correctly interpreted as digital signals, flip to debugging in the digital domain.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 
The following users thanked this post: Trader

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 19281
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #23 on: July 30, 2021, 12:41:07 am »
Single shot capture is a must have nowadays.

It isn't that clearcut. Many analogue waveforms can be made repetitive with suitable design strategies - and can therefore be visualised with analogue domain tools with or without storage.

Most of the things that benefit from single shot capture are digital signals which are best captured, filtered and processed by digital domain tools such as logic analysers and protocol analysers.

I seem to need a digitising scope's single shot capture facility about once every two years. The rest of the time I use digital domain tools.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 
The following users thanked this post: Trader

Offline John B

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 795
  • Country: au
Re: Analog versus digital oscilloscopes 2
« Reply #24 on: July 30, 2021, 01:13:59 am »
My digital domain tools are on my DSO.  :-//
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf