Possible reasons *not* to get an analog oscilloscope

[2N3055]

Digital oscilloscopes have too many functions.

Don't worry; you don't have to use them all at once.

You are very funny.
In the past the analog oscilloscopes, the low-end at least, was simple to use because they had few functions.
Nowadays, it is necessary to study a degree in digital oscilloscope use.

It is kind of like that.

Those few basic functions are just a bit more complicated to use.
To know how to use most of it's power is more work.

But as everything in life, more effort will bear fruit of more things you can do, that you could not even dream about before.
It is effort, I agree, but effort well worth.

[Njk]

My first didital scope wasTek TDS3034B. When I started using it for the first time, I did not noticed any problem that makes it less convenient for a basic tasks than an analog scope

[user]

That’s a great scope. Are you still in the process of reviewing/testing it?

I'm more or less done reviewing/testing but I still have access to it. If there is something very specific you'd like to see I can do a test.

Great. Could you check the actual update rate on faster timebases using a second scope with measurement trend capabilities, or by using a dual-channel AWG? For context, I’ve been testing the waveform update rate of the Siglent SDS1204 at 20 ns/div. I calculate the capture percentage based on the trigger output signal, and then verify the results using the generator.

 I measure the percentage using a LeCroy scope via its Web Editor. In P1 - I define the timebase of the SDS1204. P2 - the frequency every cycle, where the min/max values are visible in the statistics, and I plot this as a trend in F1. P3 counts the number of trigger events within the LeCroy’s acquisition window. In the Web Editor, using these measurements along with the internal timebase and the P1 constant, I calculate the dead time per event in P5. From there, I plot trends in F3 and F4: F4 is a linear trend scaled to the minimum values, while F3 shows these same values on a log10 scale. P4 displays the calculated capture percentage. As you can see, at this timebase, the Siglent’s efficiency is roughly 0.5% (0.487%), with a dead time ranging from 38 µs to 2.2 ms.

 Alternatively, you can verify this using AWG. Channel 1 outputs a 10 MHz square wave, while Channel 2 generates narrow pulses at a repetition rate of roughly 10 Hz.
First, feed these signals into separate channels of the scope and set the trigger to the 10 Hz pulse. Select the segmented memory mode (Sequence mode) with 10 segments for convenience. Adjust the frequency (or rather the period, for better precision) of one of the channels to create a slight phase drift. In my setup, this results in a drift of about 2 ns per pulse period.

Next, mix these two signals together and feed the combined signal into the scope with infinite persistence enabled. The narrow pulse must have a small, positive-only amplitude so that when it's mixed with the main square wave, it stays clear of the trigger threshold.
I timed the acquisition for exactly 100 seconds. During this window, 1,000 narrow pulses are generated, meaning a 0.5% update efficiency should yield exactly 5 captures. The time difference between the screenshots confirms these 100 seconds (measured via clock), and we can see exactly 5 captures recorded


Could you test the update rate and percentage at this specific timebase (20 ns/div) and compare it to the actual reading displayed by the Rohde & Schwarz scope itself? Also, could you share some screenshots showing the Bode plot calibration process using high-impedance probes when testing a filter or an amplifier? I'm curious to see how accurately it compensates for any mismatches
 
P.S. For comparison, an analog scope at this timebase delivers an update rate of 275 kHz with a dead time of 3.5 µs, achieving a 5.5% waveform capture efficiency. At 2 ns/div, its update rate exceeds 1 MHz (with a dead time of 800 ns).