...An analog oscilloscope is suitable for a majority of applications and there is a minority of applications where an analog oscilloscope is better than a DSO.
An analog oscilloscope is suitable for a majority of applications and there is a minority of applications where an analog oscilloscope is better than a DSO. However a novice is unlikely to be able to recognize their own requirements and evaluate a used instrument making a new but expensive DSO more desirable.
...An analog oscilloscope is suitable for a majority of applications and there is a minority of applications where an analog oscilloscope is better than a DSO.
I would like to hear your list, even a minority list, where an analog scope is better than a DSO. Not just equivalent, or sufficient, but better.
The majority of scope application these days are NOT looking at repetitive signals, ...
That is a way too generic statement. What I hated about my 20MHz analog scope was that it absolutely sucked at showing slow waveforms and I needed to count divisions + do math to get amplitude, time, frequency, etc.
Measuring RMS noise is one of them that I keep coming up against. In theory any DSO with RMS measurement capability should be able to do this (it is trivial in the digital domain) however DSOs which make measurements on the processed display record which are apparently a majority now cannot.
...
Finding snivets is another problem that I have run up against with DSOs. Again, most should be able to do this however the processing used for index grading the display tends to cover them up when it should not. This is an aspect of DSO displays looking noisier than analog displays whether they truly are noisier or not.
...
So it sounds like one of your examples for when ancient analog scopes is better is essentially when working on other ancient analog scope CRTs? Can you even buy a CRT TV now? Can't say I can think of a lot of other CRT uses these days.
An analog oscilloscope is suitable for a majority of applications and there is a minority of applications where an analog oscilloscope is better than a DSO. However a novice is unlikely to be able to recognize their own requirements and evaluate a used instrument making a new but expensive DSO more desirable.That is a way too generic statement. What I hated about my 20MHz analog scope was that it absolutely sucked at showing slow waveforms and I needed to count divisions + do math to get amplitude, time, frequency, etc.
An analog oscilloscope is suitable for a majority of applications and there is a minority of applications where an analog oscilloscope is better than a DSO. However a novice is unlikely to be able to recognize their own requirements and evaluate a used instrument making a new but expensive DSO more desirable.That is a way too generic statement. What I hated about my 20MHz analog scope was that it absolutely sucked at showing slow waveforms and I needed to count divisions + do math to get amplitude, time, frequency, etc.I guess that's being considered as minor things maybe?
Yes, I also like digital scopes much better for these reasons.
But on the other side, back in the days we even didn't have that luxury?
So in a sense I totally agree with that statement a lot.
I see to many people bragging about their fancy equipment, but most of the time they don't even using it.
An analog oscilloscope is suitable for a majority of applications and there is a minority of applications where an analog oscilloscope is better than a DSO. However a novice is unlikely to be able to recognize their own requirements and evaluate a used instrument making a new but expensive DSO more desirable.That is a way too generic statement. What I hated about my 20MHz analog scope was that it absolutely sucked at showing slow waveforms and I needed to count divisions + do math to get amplitude, time, frequency, etc.I guess that's being considered as minor things maybe?
Yes, I also like digital scopes much better for these reasons.
But on the other side, back in the days we even didn't have that luxury?
So in a sense I totally agree with that statement a lot.
I see to many people bragging about their fancy equipment, but most of the time they don't even using it.Why would you have to use fancy features every time? What is important is that if you need it, it is there and it will make life easier. For example: I have a very nice Tektronix logic analyser but it is only on for a couple of hours per year. So I don't need it a lot but it is darn handy to have it available and be able to use it when necessary.
What I hated about my 20MHz analog scope was that it absolutely sucked at showing slow waveforms and I needed to count divisions + do math to get amplitude, time, frequency, etc.
An analog oscilloscope is suitable for a majority of applications and there is a minority of applications where an analog oscilloscope is better than a DSO. However a novice is unlikely to be able to recognize their own requirements and evaluate a used instrument making a new but expensive DSO more desirable.That is a way too generic statement. What I hated about my 20MHz analog scope was that it absolutely sucked at showing slow waveforms and I needed to count divisions + do math to get amplitude, time, frequency, etc.I guess that's being considered as minor things maybe?
Yes, I also like digital scopes much better for these reasons.
But on the other side, back in the days we even didn't have that luxury?
So in a sense I totally agree with that statement a lot.
I see to many people bragging about their fancy equipment, but most of the time they don't even using it.Why would you have to use fancy features every time? What is important is that if you need it, it is there and it will make life easier. For example: I have a very nice Tektronix logic analyser but it is only on for a couple of hours per year. So I don't need it a lot but it is darn handy to have it available and be able to use it when necessary.I am not saying there is anything wrong with it?
I totally agree with you, but I am just saying it's pure luxury.
So if you go back to the basics, you don't really need it.
Which is good to know for people on a tight budget for example.
But, hey, if you just wanna develop stuff and you're on a tight budget, there are options available
In fact, in most cases you only wanna see if signals are coming through, so you don't even need math functions.
Only thing I would like to add to the video, is that it's not entirely fair.
The cheap scopes are all based in the US or Asia. So that means you have to pay a lot of import tax and shipping.
Second hand market in EU is actually pretty bad to be honest.
People ask ridiculous prices or trash it. There is nothing in between.
The thing is: nowadays you don't have to compromise. There are tons of cheap DSOs out there. I only linked to the first two ones I found on Aliexpress.
I still set the lower limit of 'acceptability' (of USB models) at the VDS1022. Below that, the Hantek, Sainsmart etc. are horribly compromised, either in H/W, S/W or meeting their specified performance.
Measuring RMS noise is one of them that I keep coming up against. In theory any DSO with RMS measurement capability should be able to do this (it is trivial in the digital domain) however DSOs which make measurements on the processed display record which are apparently a majority now cannot.
Maybe you underestimate the processing power needed for that (and if they did a slow-updating display you'd just complain about that instead).
You can:
a) Download the memory to a PC for processing with nothing more than an Ethernet cable and a free program.
b) Use a TRMS multimeter, they cost about $15 these days and are the correct tool for the job. DSOs are for looking at wiggly lines and getting approximate measurements.
...
Finding snivets is another problem that I have run up against with DSOs. Again, most should be able to do this however the processing used for index grading the display tends to cover them up when it should not. This is an aspect of DSO displays looking noisier than analog displays whether they truly are noisier or not.
...
...
So it sounds like one of your examples for when ancient analog scopes is better is essentially when working on other ancient analog scope CRTs? Can you even buy a CRT TV now? Can't say I can think of a lot of other CRT uses these days.
The reality is buying a 30 or 40 year old oscilloscope is probabily a waste of time and money.