General > General Technical Chat

Why do you think there aren't more "good" USB oscilloscopes?

<< < (15/17) > >>

David Aurora:

--- Quote from: Infraviolet on February 17, 2023, 08:15:07 pm ---David Aurora, I know that picoscope USB oscilloscope software is available as a linux version.

As for why not more high quality ones made,  perhaps it is a mattter of the analog parts of the scope being the priciest, and so all the computer stuff built in to modrn scopes is cheap by comparison. To make a profit they might have to still sell a USB scope for just as much as a full scope, and that might well put off a lot of buyers?

--- End quote ---

I'm not on Linux, so  :-//

Likely Linux users have had the same issues as Mac users though in that they claimed it worked on that platform, but when you actually buy it and plug it in you find out the old version doesn't work anymore and the new version was beta with half the features you need missing/broken. The stable release of 7 just dropped in the past few weeks though so that may no longer be an issue, I'll find out when my test device arrives.

As for the other point, I don't think a USB variant needs to be cheaper than the standalone version. You can get full DSOs for less than many Picoscope models, I don't think people look at them as the cheaper option. It's not about price, it's about convenience/portability/extended functionality in software. Which, if done well, creates its own value. Another example being what Dave said earlier in the thread, Analog Discovery 2 boxes absolutely aren't worth their price for the hardware, the value is in the software.

I get that I'm in the minority of people who want a USB scope, but I think part of the unpopularity of them is the clear misunderstanding you see in threads like this about where they fit in the grand scheme of things. I doubt anyone with a clue about electronics is looking for a USB scope to be their primary scope, or expecting one for $100, or wishing they had real knobs, or whatever. They supplement real test gear rather than replace it.

My current life is a tech fixing audio gear and my previous life was as a recording engineer/producer, and in this world I've seen these exact same arguments hashed out for decades now with the same misunderstanding. Does a $500 USB audio interface replace a million dollar recording facility? Absolutely not. Is it the best tool for the job when you're fucked for time and need to edit drums on a plane between sessions? 100%.

EEVblog:

--- Quote from: David Aurora on February 17, 2023, 11:30:44 pm ---My current life is a tech fixing audio gear and my previous life was as a recording engineer/producer, and in this world I've seen these exact same arguments hashed out for decades now with the same misunderstanding. Does a $500 USB audio interface replace a million dollar recording facility? Absolutely not. Is it the best tool for the job when you're fucked for time and need to edit drums on a plane between sessions? 100%.
--- End quote ---

I have a top of the range National Instruments USB scope, yet I would greatly pefere to use a bottom of the range Rigol/Siglent on the bench because of the convenience.
And there is somethign about having a scope right next to your work on the bench so you don't have the glance up at monitor. Same argument for handheld vs bench multimeter for bench use, handheld wins almost every time, you can bring the meter right physically close to the work.

JPortici:

--- Quote from: David Aurora on February 17, 2023, 11:30:44 pm ---
--- Quote from: Infraviolet on February 17, 2023, 08:15:07 pm ---David Aurora, I know that picoscope USB oscilloscope software is available as a linux version.

As for why not more high quality ones made,  perhaps it is a mattter of the analog parts of the scope being the priciest, and so all the computer stuff built in to modrn scopes is cheap by comparison. To make a profit they might have to still sell a USB scope for just as much as a full scope, and that might well put off a lot of buyers?

--- End quote ---

I'm not on Linux, so  :-//

Likely Linux users have had the same issues as Mac users though in that they claimed it worked on that platform, but when you actually buy it and plug it in you find out the old version doesn't work anymore and the new version was beta with half the features you need missing/broken. The stable release of 7 just dropped in the past few weeks though so that may no longer be an issue, I'll find out when my test device arrives.

As for the other point, I don't think a USB variant needs to be cheaper than the standalone version. You can get full DSOs for less than many Picoscope models, I don't think people look at them as the cheaper option. It's not about price, it's about convenience/portability/extended functionality in software. Which, if done well, creates its own value. Another example being what Dave said earlier in the thread, Analog Discovery 2 boxes absolutely aren't worth their price for the hardware, the value is in the software.

I get that I'm in the minority of people who want a USB scope, but I think part of the unpopularity of them is the clear misunderstanding you see in threads like this about where they fit in the grand scheme of things. I doubt anyone with a clue about electronics is looking for a USB scope to be their primary scope, or expecting one for $100, or wishing they had real knobs, or whatever. They supplement real test gear rather than replace it.

My current life is a tech fixing audio gear and my previous life was as a recording engineer/producer, and in this world I've seen these exact same arguments hashed out for decades now with the same misunderstanding. Does a $500 USB audio interface replace a million dollar recording facility? Absolutely not. Is it the best tool for the job when you're fucked for time and need to edit drums on a plane between sessions? 100%.

--- End quote ---

However to get a dso as powerful as the pico you have to drop big money over the DSO that costs the same.
Wfm/s are way less important than what the average person things, there are analog scopes or keysights if you care about wfm/s, what's important is what you can do with the computer at your disposal: as many* decoders as you want, plus the capability of creating your own. As many* math traces, math with formula, plotting math, math on math, multiple views at the same time (spectrum, persistence, actual data)

*there is probably an actual limit, i haven't reached it yet.

What picoscopes lack is the capability to trigger on anything different than an edge (it does edge, pulse, sequence of edges,  runt?) especially decoders or triggering on math traces, as they are all calcuated on the PC side after the acquisition. That's fine as they cost 10x less than DSOs that do that*

*not the four bog standard decoders of course, all the exotic ones and the custom ones

Me, when i'm using the pico i'm usually with my laptop and other equipment, all running on USB, inside a car or simillar environments, on the go. I don't have access to power outlets, i don't have space for more than one screen. USB instruments are what i need for convenience. On the bench depending on what i have to probe, it's either dso or pico, usually pico as it's one click away from starting and probing is already done, but dso if i have to probe around

EPAIII:
I fail to see how the desirability and capability of the two types of scope are related.

There is no reason in the world why a high capability scope can not be made in a form factor that no one wants.

2N3055:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on February 18, 2023, 06:03:37 am ---
--- Quote from: David Aurora on February 17, 2023, 11:30:44 pm ---My current life is a tech fixing audio gear and my previous life was as a recording engineer/producer, and in this world I've seen these exact same arguments hashed out for decades now with the same misunderstanding. Does a $500 USB audio interface replace a million dollar recording facility? Absolutely not. Is it the best tool for the job when you're fucked for time and need to edit drums on a plane between sessions? 100%.
--- End quote ---

I have a top of the range National Instruments USB scope, yet I would greatly pefere to use a bottom of the range Rigol/Siglent on the bench because of the convenience.
And there is somethign about having a scope right next to your work on the bench so you don't have the glance up at monitor. Same argument for handheld vs bench multimeter for bench use, handheld wins almost every time, you can bring the meter right physically close to the work.

--- End quote ---

Like I said before. It really depends on what you do. For repair type of work physical standalone scopes are good choice.
My son did a lot of assignments for uni using Pico because there you have to document what you do. I do a lot of development using Picos, because, you guessed it, I need to document what I do.
Also like JPortici said (him and I are example of people that do work that Picos are good for), there are many things you can do with them no other scopes can. It decodes twice the number of protocols than my fully unlocked MSOX3104T.
You can define your own probes and can connect sensors, linearize them and convert a value to true physical property. For instance, connect NTC circuit and show temperature on screen. On X-Y  plot where other value is power from math channel that came from two other sensors... OR X-Y plot of 7 other values on same plot...
OR...
Picoscopes are analytic scopes. Cheapest ones you can buy. You need to go with higher end LeCroy with additional advanced math packages to get something better.. And even then Pico has some functions no other scope has.

They are great because they are different, so they can do different things. I'm always amazed when people buy 8 scopes that are all basically the same functionality...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod