I'm not going to debate this any further. I have made my position very clear on how to get work done efficiently. It is up to the reader to decide whether this applies to his/her use cases or not.
To the OP: Regarding the Siglent: one thing to watch out for is that it uses a different memory management compared to the Tektronix you are used to; Siglent typically cuts the memory short to have just enough samples to fit the screen. This has to match your usage.That is utter BS !That is because you want to sell Siglent.
For that you'll need a high speed differential probe (shameless plug: I sell a relatively low cost one)............
Just be fair and see the downsides for a change. No shame in that.
We've been over and over this.And it doesn't work the way I want an oscilloscope to work; the way the Siglent scopes work seriously hamper my productivity. And I'm not the only one who sees shortening the record length to fit the screen as a downside.
How much is too much for a good current probe ?
I've done a bit of 500 KHz DC-DC convertor work too and always got away with a Tek P6021 AC current probe and apart from only being an AC rated probe they still whip most of the current (excuse pun) offerings
I have a current probe I'm looking at selling for under US$250 and under $300 for a 2MHz unit.
I'm not going to debate this any further. I have made my position very clear on how to get work done efficiently. It is up to the reader to decide whether this applies to his/her use cases or not.
I can certainly accept that (although I really tried to understand your point), however I'm really disappointed that I now will never learn which of the some "50/50" of all scopes will allow "zooming out " on very short time bases
So basically Nico relies that his "full memory capture" will hopefully, maybe, with any luck, capture all of the stuff he needs...And will keep calculating in his head if that is going to happen or not.
But guess what, there is a very good way to deterministically do this. Easy too.
You set scope to capture whole time span with timebase (in this case 1ms/div, 10ms full screen if 10 divisions), set memory depth to make sure you have sample rate that is adequate for what you're doing (and verify both settings right there on the screen),capture whole thing in first try, and then zoom in and out of area of interest at will , for as long as you want to.. And it will do exactly as you commanded. Every time.
So basically Nico relies that his "full memory capture" will hopefully, maybe, with any luck, capture all of the stuff he needs...And will keep calculating in his head if that is going to happen or not.Here your reasoning goes wrong. A modern DSO has 10, 40, 80, 100Mpts worth of memory. At 2 Gs/s 10Mpts is already 5ms worth of data. A time span of 5ms is more than enough to capture 5000 bits of SPI data clocked at 1MHz (which is low for typical SPI). So even when limited to the maximum samplerate you are very likely to capture all of the relevant data you need. There is no luck involved. Ofcourse there are situations where you may need to capture over a longer period of time but that doesn't mean 'my' way of working is useless to begin with. And increasing memory depths on DSOs keep pushing that boundary further away.QuoteBut guess what, there is a very good way to deterministically do this. Easy too.
You set scope to capture whole time span with timebase (in this case 1ms/div, 10ms full screen if 10 divisions), set memory depth to make sure you have sample rate that is adequate for what you're doing (and verify both settings right there on the screen),capture whole thing in first try, and then zoom in and out of area of interest at will , for as long as you want to.. And it will do exactly as you commanded. Every time.That is way too much work for me. The DSO is there for me, not the other way around. The less twiddling knobs and the less clutter on the screen, the better.
I never proclaimed oscilloscopes which don't record beyond the screen if there is acquisition memory leftover are useless. I just noted that for me personally it is a hard fail.
And zooming out after a capture is very useful. Trigger on a detail, check if the detail is right / wrong and then zoom out to check whether the rest of the signal is (still) as expected. This is a very efficient way to do design verification.
No scope I am aware of does this, they won't capture beyond the screen window. So if your timebase at the capture time is set to 1uS then you only capture 10us or so (can be slightly more) worth of data.
So you can't "zoom out" after capture as there is no data capture at longer timebase settings.
What you do is set a long time base and deep memory, trigger on some event, and then zoom in.
I never proclaimed oscilloscopes which don't record beyond the screen if there is acquisition memory leftover are useless. I just noted that for me personally it is a hard fail. Sure you can get similar results using zoom mode but it also means more fiddling with knobs and settings things up just right. I like fire & forget better. You may call that a bad habit but I call needing to bother with the exact time/div setting a waste of my time and attention.
I never proclaimed oscilloscopes which don't record beyond the screen if there is acquisition memory leftover are useless. I just noted that for me personally it is a hard fail. Sure you can get similar results using zoom mode but it also means more fiddling with knobs and settings things up just right. I like fire & forget better. You may call that a bad habit but I call needing to bother with the exact time/div setting a waste of my time and attention.Sounds pretty useful feature.
Is there a name for it? How do you find out which ones do and which ones don’t.
@Tautech: your ad-hominem attack which lacks any technical substance is really mature.
I have a Siglent sds1102 but not really happy with the speed and user interface, I guess the new 5000 series is much better...
The Rode&Schwarz offering too less for the money, what RTB2000 series concerns.
Sure, it got 10" screen and higher screen resolution, but that is it at all.
Keysight and Tek I didn´t know really at all.
The Rode&Schwarz offering too less for the money, what RTB2000 series concerns.
Sure, it got 10" screen and higher screen resolution, but that is it at all.
Keysight and Tek I didn´t know really at all.Some might say it offers a 10bit ADC but there seem to be justified concerns if the RTB/RTM/RTA scopes by R&S are truly 10bit.
I haven't heard about that, what are the justifications for the concerns?
With the lecroy HDO6034A, we got a "true 12 Bit" scope plus a WR9054 ( 500Mhz, 8 bit).
Until now, I couldn´t detect any advantages between the both, 12bit vs 8bit.