-
CROs have both "Normal" & "Auto" trigger mode.
When I am looking at various points in a DUT, I normally let the 'scope "free run" in Auto.
DSOs have the same, and a few more, eg. Single shot mode where you trigger once and it grabs the signal so you can look at it at in your own time, maybe even zoom in for a closer look... very useful, but CROs don't do it.
Obviously, "single shot" mode is very useful in applications where a non-recurrent signal needs to be examined, but for recurring signals, a decent CRO has dual/delayed timebases where you can "zoom" in on any point on that displayed waveform.
You have to do it then & there, however.
I was actually answering Mechatrommer who questioned whether "normal" triggering mode was available on CROs.
I agreed that maybe Wallace Gasiewicz may have had his DSO on "normal" & it sort of "morphed" into a discussion of a useful method of using the "auto" trigger function for troubleshooting a circuit.
-
DSOs have the same, and a few more, eg. Single shot mode where you trigger once and it grabs the signal so you can look at it at in your own time, maybe even zoom in for a closer look... very useful, but CROs don't do it.
Yes they do. My Tek 465 does. I also know the 475 and the 485 will too.
-
-snip
No: when I returned to real-time embedded electronics, it was still 8-bit micros programmed in C. No change in 35-40 years
Well, smaller, faster, cheaper, but that's only a change in degree, not in kind. The main things that have changed are nanopower and ADC/DAC speed/resolution.
Which period are you referring to ?
First period: early 80s to mid 90s.
Second period: 2015 to date.
Example technology: z80 and arduino atmega328 respectively. Yes, there were alternatives during both those periods, but those are sufficient to illustrate my point.QuoteAnyhow, interesting discussion that brings back to mind the transition era from vinyl to CD music listening in late 80s toward 90s (luckily now finished), funny to note that at the end digital compressed music and class D amplification won hands down after billions of discussions about spectral fidelity, 0.001% THD, jitter and so on.
CDs very quickly established themselves as being superior to vinyl in all but one respect: sleeve art.
~1984 I remember listening on a high end (not audiophool!) audio system with a friend to http://arsnovaclassic.blogspot.com/2012/09/michala-petri-blockflotenkonzerte.html on both CD and vinyl. We could tell a slight difference, but not which was which, nor which was better.
Compression needn't be an issue, but too often people compress too much. When my ears were remotely useful I didn't compress MP3 to less than 192kb/s. Compressed video on TVs is all to obvious, particularly where there is a colour gradient across the screen, e.g. underwater.QuoteThe only people that I know that still own an analog scope are old hams (age > 60) that never get through the navigation of two levels menu system.
Hams are a very poor sample set, for several relevant reasons!
I am aware of very competent people that own both analogue and digitising scopes. They are aware of each instrument's characteristics and use the appropriate one.
My principal (and principle) objection is to those that state analogue scopes should not be used and that only digitising scopes should be bought. That's wrong for several relevant reasons. -
The 7613 also has it.DSOs have the same, and a few more, eg. Single shot mode where you trigger once and it grabs the signal so you can look at it at in your own time, maybe even zoom in for a closer look... very useful, but CROs don't do it.
Yes they do. My Tek 465 does. I also know the 475 and the 485 will too.
I've played around with it, but never really got a lot of sense out of it.
When/if I fix it, I will have to try again. -
CROs have both "Normal" & "Auto" trigger mode.
and probably Wallace Gasiewicz's CRO doesnt have that feature, since from the way he stated, he never see "Normal" triggering effect in his CRO.
When I am looking at various points in a DUT, I normally let the 'scope "free run" in Auto.
-
~1984 I remember listening on a high end (not audiophool!) audio system with a friend to http://arsnovaclassic.blogspot.com/2012/09/michala-petri-blockflotenkonzerte.html on both CD and vinyl. We could tell a slight difference, but not which was which, nor which was better.
Ooh yes, one of my first ever CD purchases! Still sounds great on the ESL63’s…
Meanwhile, back on topic, as a 66 year old greybeard, I still have a couple of CRT analogue oscilloscopes in the cupboard, but they never really get used. The Keysight MSOX3104T does it all, including ‘analogue’ things like audio and XY, only better -
Note: I don't own one of the affected types and so have only peripheral knowledge of the topic based on a 30s google search and imperfectly remembered very long threads on this forum. The statements above are not definitive but do serve to raise questions about false expectations.
By your comments it is obvious you have only peripheral knowledge of modern DSO and are passing judgment based on Google searches and opinion of digital scopes more than 25 years old....
You also made quite "modest" claim that you "simply know it all" about this topic of oscilloscopes ("And I know the accurate and correct facts."). Which is quite the statement for a person that apparently misses last 25 years of development in this field.. You might know the accurate facts, but only about analog part of it. You are missing several books worth of knowledge on new stuff.
To make it funny enough, whenever someone asks me about probing with a scope, I send them to your web site. Your pages about that are awesome resource and very interesting read anybody that uses the scope should know... You did GREAT job there.. Thank you for that, in the name of everybody.
But luddism about DSO, is just that.
CRTs are dead.
If you like them, good for you.
Anybody that have very little money (not enough for a cheap DSO) and can get a CRT scope for few buck should go with that. Any scope is better than none. But those are exigent circumstances.
DSO are the way to go, if you can. -
~1984 I remember listening on a high end (not audiophool!) audio system with a friend to http://arsnovaclassic.blogspot.com/2012/09/michala-petri-blockflotenkonzerte.html on both CD and vinyl. We could tell a slight difference, but not which was which, nor which was better.
a very poor sample set, for several relevant reasons!
another very poor sample set, for several relevant reasons!QuoteThe only people that I know that still own an analog scope are old hams (age > 60) that never get through the navigation of two levels menu system.
...removed...
I am aware of very competent people that own both analogue and digitising scopes. They are aware of each instrument's characteristics and use the appropriate one.
btw... this topic is in my ignore list... sounds familiar...
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/have-we-all-been-seduced-by-digital-arent-analogue-scope-nicer/
-
The 7613 also has it.DSOs have the same, and a few more, eg. Single shot mode where you trigger once and it grabs the signal so you can look at it at in your own time, maybe even zoom in for a closer look... very useful, but CROs don't do it.
Yes they do. My Tek 465 does. I also know the 475 and the 485 will too.
I've played around with it, but never really got a lot of sense out of it.
When/if I fix it, I will have to try again.
Single sweep on an analog scope is only really useful when using a scope camera or with a storage scope, both of which roughly mimic the behavior of a DSO, which as the name describes is another type of storage oscilloscope. -
One obsolete technology for which I have no nostalgia is analog storage oscilloscopes.
I speak from experience with them. -
A very relevant and undeniable point relating to this topic is not one A brand manufacturer still produces a CRO, why is that ?
-
One obsolete technology for which I have no nostalgia is analog storage oscilloscopes.
I speak from experience with them.
I've always thought they were fascinating. If not for the fact that the tubes are prone to failure I'd have looked for one to have in my collection of gear. -
Note: I don't own one of the affected types and so have only peripheral knowledge of the topic based on a 30s google search and imperfectly remembered very long threads on this forum. The statements above are not definitive but do serve to raise questions about false expectations.
By your comments it is obvious you have only peripheral knowledge of modern DSO and are passing judgment based on Google searches and opinion of digital scopes more than 25 years old....
You also made quite "modest" claim that you "simply know it all" about this topic of oscilloscopes ("And I know the accurate and correct facts."). Which is quite the statement for a person that apparently misses last 25 years of development in this field.. You might know the accurate facts, but only about analog part of it. You are missing several books worth of knowledge on new stuff.
To make it funny enough, whenever someone asks me about probing with a scope, I send them to your web site. Your pages about that are awesome resource and very interesting read anybody that uses the scope should know... You did GREAT job there.. Thank you for that, in the name of everybody.
But luddism about DSO, is just that.
CRTs are dead.
If you like them, good for you.
Anybody that have very little money (not enough for a cheap DSO) and can get a CRT scope for few buck should go with that. Any scope is better than none. But those are exigent circumstances.
DSO are the way to go, if you can.
Provide references for your (incorrect) assertions.
Don't create strawman arguments. The context you deliberately snipped demonstrates your entire post is a strawman argument - or that there is a significant issue with English not being your first language. Or I could mention less charitable interpretations... -
~1984 I remember listening on a high end (not audiophool!) audio system with a friend to http://arsnovaclassic.blogspot.com/2012/09/michala-petri-blockflotenkonzerte.html on both CD and vinyl. We could tell a slight difference, but not which was which, nor which was better.
a very poor sample set, for several relevant reasons!
another very poor sample set, for several relevant reasons!QuoteThe only people that I know that still own an analog scope are old hams (age > 60) that never get through the navigation of two levels menu system.
...removed...
I am aware of very competent people that own both analogue and digitising scopes. They are aware of each instrument's characteristics and use the appropriate one.
And what might the two sets of reasons be? -
One obsolete technology for which I have no nostalgia is analog storage oscilloscopes.
I speak from experience with them.
Agreed. Painful. Capturing one off events always was the USP of digitizing scopes.
Having said that I have come across one that works better han I recall, a Telequipment DM63. But digitizing scopes are still preferable. -
In the CRO days, it was often only important to know if a particular event occurred (e.g., "the bad thing happened"), and not particularly what the waveform looked like. In single sweep, the scope would always indicate if it was waiting or if the trigger happened. It didn't matter if the event was too fast or non-repetitive to visually capture.
The 7613 also has it.DSOs have the same, and a few more, eg. Single shot mode where you trigger once and it grabs the signal so you can look at it at in your own time, maybe even zoom in for a closer look... very useful, but CROs don't do it.
Yes they do. My Tek 465 does. I also know the 475 and the 485 will too.
I've played around with it, but never really got a lot of sense out of it.
When/if I fix it, I will have to try again.
Single sweep on an analog scope is only really useful when using a scope camera or with a storage scope, both of which roughly mimic the behavior of a DSO, which as the name describes is another type of storage oscilloscope.
In the simplest scenario, one could be waiting for a particular voltage level, but some of the old analog scopes had fairly sophisticated trigger systems to be able look for a specific event and on multiple channels, and some even had logic word-recognizer inputs to look for a pattern such as on a data bus. -
A very relevant and undeniable point relating to this topic is not one A brand manufacturer still produces a CRO, why is that ?
Are you confusing the output display technology (cro/lcd) with the input front end technology (analogue/digitising/sampling)?
If so that's a silly mistake. -
A very relevant and undeniable point relating to this topic is not one A brand manufacturer still produces a CRO, why is that ?
Are you confusing the output display technology (cro/lcd) with the input front end technology (analogue/digitising/sampling)?
If so that's a silly mistake.
Does it matter? As far as I know, no A brand is producing any sort of CRT based scope, whether analog or digital.
And as I've said before, I am skeptical that any manufacture is still making any type of CRT based scope, unless they are assembling them as needed from components that are stocked. I'm not aware of any factory still producing new CRTs of any type. -
-snip
No: when I returned to real-time embedded electronics, it was still 8-bit micros programmed in C. No change in 35-40 years Well, smaller, faster, cheaper, but that's only a change in degree, not in kind. The main things that have changed are nanopower and ADC/DAC speed/resolution.
Which period are you referring to ?
First period: early 80s to mid 90s.
Second period: 2015 to date.
Example technology: z80 and arduino atmega328 respectively. Yes, there were alternatives during both those periods, but those are sufficient to illustrate my point.
Probably we refer to different things, in my mind real time embedded electronics is something complete different where 32bits ARM (Cortex-M, Cortex-R and so on) dominate the market from 2004 with performance that 8 bits could only dream, Arduino is a toy for children.
I worked a lot with Z80 and 8051 in pure assembly code during the 80s and then in plain C with HC11 during the 90s together some expensive Analog Device expensive DSPs, after that everything changed in a way that probably is not clear to everyone, so i do not understand your statement.
It's enough to say that in the mid 90s to implement a brushless motor vector control with a simple HMI and field bus interface was necessary a DSP, an FPGA plus an 8bit MCU, nowadays its enough a 3-4 USD Cortex-M to do a much better job at sensible lower BOM cost.
To finalize, current tech state of real time embedded real time has nothing to do with 8bit era. -
-snip
No: when I returned to real-time embedded electronics, it was still 8-bit micros programmed in C. No change in 35-40 years Well, smaller, faster, cheaper, but that's only a change in degree, not in kind. The main things that have changed are nanopower and ADC/DAC speed/resolution.
Which period are you referring to ?
First period: early 80s to mid 90s.
Second period: 2015 to date.
Example technology: z80 and arduino atmega328 respectively. Yes, there were alternatives during both those periods, but those are sufficient to illustrate my point.
Probably we refer to different things, in my mind real time embedded electronics is something complete different where 32bits ARM (Cortex-M, Cortex-R and so on) dominate the market from 2004 with performance that 8 bits could only dream, Arduino is a toy for children.
I worked a lot with Z80 and 8051 in pure assembly code during the 80s and then in plain C with HC11 during the 90s together some expensive Analog Device expensive DSPs, after that everything changed in a way that probably is not clear to everyone, so i do not understand your statement.
It's enough to say that in the mid 90s to implement a brushless motor vector control with a simple HMI and field bus interface was necessary a DSP, an FPGA plus an 8bit MCU, nowadays its enough a 3-4 USD Cortex-M to do a much better job at sensible lower BOM cost.
To finalize, current tech state of real time embedded real time has nothing to do with 8bit era.
Progression from 8 to 32 bit is part of *smaller faster cheaper", as is condensing a few PCBs into one chip. There is too little fundamental difference, particularly given the other hardware advances.
Fundamental advances might include formal specification and proof an implementation matches the specification, performance guarantees by design without measurement, multicore and distributed languages.
We need fundamental changes and advances, not incremental fiddles
-
~1984 I remember listening on a high end (not audiophool!) audio system with a friend to http://arsnovaclassic.blogspot.com/2012/09/michala-petri-blockflotenkonzerte.html on both CD and vinyl. We could tell a slight difference, but not which was which, nor which was better.
Ooh yes, one of my first ever CD purchases! Still sounds great on the ESL63’s…
It did sound good, didn't it!
I use the past tense only since my wetware is now a limitation
-
A very relevant and undeniable point relating to this topic is not one A brand manufacturer still produces a CRO, why is that ?
Are you confusing the output display technology (cro/lcd) with the input front end technology (analogue/digitising/sampling)?
All oscilloscopes use analogue inputs.
The modern varieties all use LCD of one sort or another and some variety of sampling.
Your point is ?
-
A very relevant and undeniable point relating to this topic is not one A brand manufacturer still produces a CRO, why is that ?
Are you confusing the output display technology (cro/lcd) with the input front end technology (analogue/digitising/sampling)?
If so that's a silly mistake.
Does it matter? As far as I know, no A brand is producing any sort of CRT based scope, whether analog or digital.
And as I've said before, I am skeptical that any manufacture is still making any type of CRT based scope, unless they are assembling them as needed from components that are stocked. I'm not aware of any factory still producing new CRTs of any type.
Stupid arguments matter, and should be exposed for what they are.
I expect there are still CRT scopes and other instruments being made. They are an ever diminishing and not very interesting niche. -
Also I am unable to get a usable display of a Transistor Curve Tracer, which is a snap on my analog scopes.
You'll find all the guidance you need here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/dso-awg-based-curve-tracer/
And for the PM you sent:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/two-tone-test-with-scope-and-sa/
-
A very relevant and undeniable point relating to this topic is not one A brand manufacturer still produces a CRO, why is that ?
Are you confusing the output display technology (cro/lcd) with the input front end technology (analogue/digitising/sampling)?
All oscilloscopes use analogue inputs.
The modern varieties all use LCD of one sort or another and some variety of sampling.
Your point is ?
Some sampling scopes [1] have the sampler directly connected to the input via resistors, inductors and capacitors. The only active amplifying components in the signal path are after the sampler.
That can give vital advantages, since there is zero overload recovery time - because when the sampling gate isn't open the input is effectively disconnected. For scopes that don't have those characteristics, you may need to get the same characteristics by building your own precision high speed sampling front end; see Jim Williams' justly famous AN47 for details.
Whether or not that sampled input is digitised and displayed on a CRT or LCD is obviously a separate design decision.
[1] two examples are the Tektronix 1S1 and 1S2 plugins; I know of one other and I expect there are more. EDIT: add s1, s2 s3, 7s11, 7s12