EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Products => Test Equipment => Topic started by: BartManInNZ on February 10, 2015, 03:16:07 am
-
Admittedly it is fully specc'ed and load with all the features - dreams are free still, or I'd be very broke O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GPvQ9-sR0E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GPvQ9-sR0E)
-
Its a paid commercial. Weak. I can read the data sheet and save the time. It's not a review.
-
"the colors seem more vivid and contrasty"
sorry buddy you lost me there.....you do have a great announcers voice though....you should get a job in media advertising....oh wait....
-
The colour and contrast remark is vs. his other 2000-X scope, I don't see a problem with his personal opinion there.
"not a review" assuming your not hating a little, are the reviews where Dave gets to keep the gear weak commercial too then? :)
-
Admittedly it is fully specc'ed and load with all the features - dreams are free still, or I'd be very broke O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GPvQ9-sR0E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GPvQ9-sR0E)
From the description on the above Youtube site:
Keysight sent me a high end MSO-X 3104T touch screen mixed signal oscilloscope to review!
It's a nice scope, but a MSOX3k certainly isn't anywhere close to high end. It's more like lower mid-range.
And it looks like Keysight (again) just plastered touch over a non-touch interface :(
-
I wouldn't actually mind if that worked with the 3000-X, i.e. to plug an external touch screen monitor to the VGA port (and the touch to USB).
But it looks like the menus are all movable etc. (so the fw from the 4000-X ?).
Then there's some extra triggers and gated fft, those look interesting.
-
That is actually a very nice looking scope with lots of features, if you have all options installed.
But wow... $ 2700 for all features in a bundle. I think I paid $600 for all the features on my 3000X last year in the bundle special.
The Power features also look nice. But then I can do that on any scope with a voltage and current probe.
Probably the only real advantage over the 3000X series is the trigger selection on the screen.
-
The colour and contrast remark is vs. his other 2000-X scope, I don't see a problem with his personal opinion there.
"not a review" assuming your not hating a little, are the reviews where Dave gets to keep the gear weak commercial too then? :)
When focusing on Agilent and Fluke, they seem like it sometimes.....the flaws are still pointed out, but the harsh words are reserved....there is a definite bias there IMO....
at the same time words like "contrasty" aren't used....I saw no objective testing in the video, just feature pimping.....show me where and how it fails, using a given scenario....everything has flaws, and I am more concerned about the real world application and potential flaws, than pimping specs from a product brief
-
Did you watch the whole review or was the word "contrasty" enough to make you lose emotional control?
I was happy to point out flaws and weaknesses in the scope. I compared the FFT to a real spectrum analyzer and made it clear that the dynamic range on it just could not compare to what you'd get from an MDO or benchtop spectrum analyzer. (Not really a fair test, but I felt it was worth doing since Keysight took pot shots at Tektronix's MDO3000 in the datasheet). I made sure people were aware that the waveform generator's maximum output swing was 5vp-p into a high impedance load and that this may not be enough for some people. I was clearly underwhelmed with the fact that the multimeter was only 3 digits. I said point blank that $1100 to buy each serial protocol decode is really expensive and that their waveform generator software costs as much as a cheap AWG. There were other flaws I mentioned too.
I could have started and finished filming the review in a single day if I had just run through all the demo signals but instead I did my best to spend 2 weeks putting the scope through as many tests as I could create in the limited time I had. I actually ripped apart a Wiimote and started filming a reverse engineering of it before deciding it would just end up being too long and not add much to the review. If it seems like the review is glowing and the product doesn't have many flaws, it's because it's a damn good product and I wasn't able to find many flaws.
-
If it seems like the review is glowing and the product doesn't have many flaws, it's because it's a damn good product and I wasn't able to find many flaws.
May be I am bias toward Keysight, since I have a few Agilent scopes and lots of Agilent gear and I love the quality. Over the years I have tried many other manufactures, but most of the time I am ending up with Agilent gear again, because it is superior in many ways. And be able to buy it directly from the Agilent ebay store gives me huge savings and good service too.
I think you video review was balanced and gave good insights that I did not know from other videos.
-
From the description on the above Youtube site:
Keysight sent me a high end MSO-X 3104T touch screen mixed signal oscilloscope to review!
It's a nice scope, but a MSOX3k certainly isn't anywhere close to high end. It's more like lower mid-range.
And it looks like Keysight (again) just plastered touch over a non-touch interface :(
The MSO-X 3104T is the high end of the 3000T series though, isn't it?
-
The MSO-X 3104T is the high end of the 3000T series though, isn't it?
Is it? It's just another MSO-X3k with larger bandwidth, not generally better specs and/or better performance than other DSO-/MSO-X 3k scopes.
-
Yes, it is. It has the highest available bandwidth and the maximum number of mixed-signal channels.
-
Yes, it is. It has the highest available bandwidth and the maximum number of mixed-signal channels.
There are certain conventions which make something 'high end', and those aren't part of it. It's a loaded model, nothing more.
I guess under your crude definition a Rigol DS1104z-S would also qualify as "high end", but I'm sure that few would agree with it.
-
I was thinking about "high end" like nfmax described, but I see your point Wuerstchenhund. I will change the video description to "fully loaded". Good feedback!
-
I guess anything is "high end" compared to just blowing stuff up!
-
But blowing stuff up in slow motion is even better :-DD
-
Some channels dedicated to blowing stuff up have 100s of thousands of subscribers. Human beings love watching destruction! :)
-
Martin's latest T4D says he received a scope as well for review.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQhtpVFDSMg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQhtpVFDSMg)
-
Some channels dedicated to blowing stuff up have 100s of thousands of subscribers. Human beings love watching destruction! :)
I was wondering if he was going to blow the scope up by overclocking it with a few too many kV, but it was not to be. That would be a disappointment for all those subscribers locked away in their bedrooms :)
By the way, is the voiceover on that channel synthesised?
-
Did you watch the whole review or was the word "contrasty" enough to make you lose emotional control?
I was happy to point out flaws and weaknesses in the scope. I compared the FFT to a real spectrum analyzer and made it clear that the dynamic range on it just could not compare to what you'd get from an MDO or benchtop spectrum analyzer. (Not really a fair test, but I felt it was worth doing since Keysight took pot shots at Tektronix's MDO3000 in the datasheet). I made sure people were aware that the waveform generator's maximum output swing was 5vp-p into a high impedance load and that this may not be enough for some people. I was clearly underwhelmed with the fact that the multimeter was only 3 digits. I said point blank that $1100 to buy each serial protocol decode is really expensive and that their waveform generator software costs as much as a cheap AWG. There were other flaws I mentioned too.
I could have started and finished filming the review in a single day if I had just run through all the demo signals but instead I did my best to spend 2 weeks putting the scope through as many tests as I could create in the limited time I had. I actually ripped apart a Wiimote and started filming a reverse engineering of it before deciding it would just end up being too long and not add much to the review. If it seems like the review is glowing and the product doesn't have many flaws, it's because it's a damn good product and I wasn't able to find many flaws.
"lose emotional control"? that's uncalled for....but I hardly think the word "contrasty" describes anything accurately....I have never seen that in a dictionary. It's not a real descriptor for anything.....it's a subjective made up word....it's like saying "suckey" instead of saying WHY something fails in practice....
anyhow, aside from that....a comparison of a scopes FFT function to a "real" spectrum analyzer.....and the scope failing to perform in a similar manner, or to a similar resolution is hardly a "failure". That is like comparing an orange to a lemon and saying....the lemon is "bitter".....it's obvious....
for example you point out that the scope in review is the first you have ever used that "has a "real" touch screen keyboard.... :wtf: I have a 5 year old scope sitting on my desk that has the same exact function....it's certainly not a "first"....it's over-embellished (as the rest of the review is), with an implication that it is somehow making a scope "groundbreaking"....I don't see how that quite fits....
on the issues of waveform generation and pseudo-DMM functionality...again, that is NOT what a scope does....so either of those "failing" to perform like the "real thing" is not showing me anything really......
$1100 for an option is again not a failure or unique....it's PAR for the course with Agilent and many other manufacturers.....over-priced licenses have been around for a long long time....
again I just see feature-pimping....I am certainly not trying to be hostile or rude about your review....just giving you an opinion
many reviews on scopes include showing things that might go above and beyond the specs or features of XYZ model (for example where does the bandwidth really rolloff....where are measurement errors, in comparison to a known baseline etc...).....I mean how good is it as a "scope"....repeating Keysight marketing notes doesn't really tell me that....in fact if anything it just shows me that this is yet another 3000 series agilent box, with no real improvements....i can't call the triggering an improvement, because ANY scope can do the same thing....provided you are at least half way versed in setting up triggers....
I would much rather have seen you tear apart the wiimote and reverse engineer it....during that exercise you could have shown ALL of the features in action, in a real world scenario....(why spend so much time describing things like segmented memory....we all know what that is....lets see this thing do something that we would all use it for)
again I am not trying to be hostile, just offering some constructive criticism....and opinions to back up why myself (and obviously others) think this is more of a "commercial" than a "review".... :-//
I simply see another 3000 series Agilent box....with a new "skin" and some "standard" touch control....it's certainly not some groundbreaking new product....my 5 year old "dinosaur" does all of this and more, and simply decimates this "new fangled box" in terms of accuracy and measurement capability....
Agilent (keysight w/e) seems to have this bad habit of releasing these mid-life products as "new and WOW", and then comparing them to offerings from others....from three or more generations ago....they are just trying too hard to sell me on something I don't need, already have, or do not want.....I'm a big fan of most Agilent gear, but the more they try to WOW me with marketing nonsense (while really offering nothing new) the more I want to jump ship....
obviously this is all an opinion, but it's my opinion...none the less.....I would personally like to see more "review" and less "salesmanship".....I personally think reviews should be more objective and not focus on the same information as a companies marketing material....
I would have liked to have seen those "2 weeks" of putting it through it's paces (especially showing the struggles anyone goes through when landing in front of a totally foreign or new "box")....in an abridged, buffered and with a "brandless" bias.....put a huge pice of black tape over the brand name....show us what it does in a real world scenario, and let me decide WOW on my own....then take the tape off and tell me how much.....
you also said "the build quality of the scope is flawless"..... :wtf: I see no tear-down
my $0.02 :blah:
P.S. you really do have a fantastic announcers voice....have you ever done professional VO work? If not you should consider it.... :-+
-
Some channels dedicated to blowing stuff up have 100s of thousands of subscribers. Human beings love watching destruction! :)
wanna get a bunch of views....chuck a Keysight 3000T in one of these.....you won't hear one single complaint from me....just :-+
>:D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibEdgQJEdTA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibEdgQJEdTA)
-
it's certainly not a "first"
well, he said it's the first HE ever used, are you really saying that's not true?
I also think you build too many straw men to give you a reason to rant. To pick an example, the claim that "it's not what a scope does", those are paid options (added functionality) that are exactly meant to do what they do. And they're not failing. The argument was that it did not meet someone's expectation, not that they don't work.
But I can see that some of your word definitions do not match Afrotechmods'. It was clear to me for example, that 'build quality' was referring to the outside appearance and controls.
EDIT: This made me look up on the definition of 'review' and think about what I thought it meant :)
-
it's certainly not a "first"
well, he said it's the first HE ever used, are you really saying that's not true?
I also think you build too many straw men to give you a reason to rant.
I guess it comes down to what people expect from a review these days, which is how an item performs in comparison with similar products. But if the reviewer has no or very limited experience with similar products then it's not really possible to produce a useful review, at least not without help from someone who has the required knowledge. It's in the nature of things.
For example, I agree with TunerSandwich in that the comparison with a Spectrum Analyzer wasn't very useful as even most high end scopes will perform worse than a good SA, and that even includes the Tek MDO3000's built-in SA, so there's really no need to test that. What would have been interesting however is how the scope's FFT function performs against other scopes in this class, and especially against the predecessor.
I also have to agree with that just running down Keysight's marketing sheets isn't very revealing if that's all the performance information the viewer gets from that review. It's ok to quickly rehash listed specs but then it should be shown how the scope behaves in reality. This is even more interesting when the manufacturer has a long history of bending the truth to occasionally borderline lying in its marketing material.
If this video would have been called say an "introduction" or "unboxing" (good unboxing videos are often sought after, and you don't need to be a scope expert for that!) then I guess the comments wouldn't be that negative. But calling it a review creates certain expectations, as did some of the wording. Just have a short look at Shariar's videos to get an impression what's expected from a good review.
But I also second the comments made by others about the reviewer's voice which really seems destined for voice over work.
-
Some channels dedicated to blowing stuff up have 100s of thousands of subscribers. Human beings love watching destruction! :)
Case in point, the red hot nickle ball (https://www.youtube.com/user/carsandwater) channel. He doesn't have to say a word to get over 100K views on a video.
-
This kind of a review reminds me of typical reviews auto "journals" and video channels produce.
[rant]
New car comes out, journalist gets to drive and take photos of the car. Review is "New car is released, it is better than predecessor. It has 4 wheels, 4 doors, a boot and, most importantly, fancy radio with gadgets. Price varies from A to B, take your pick of few engines and transmissions."
And in some car video reviews car is shown being driven, but nothing is told/shown about the car that you would not know from the spec sheet otherwise. Video with zero value over a text! :palm:
[/rant]
I guess it all depends on definition and expectation of a term review. Dave/Mike/Alan/Shahriar set very high standard indeed :-+
-
it's certainly not a "first"
well, he said it's the first HE ever used, are you really saying that's not true?
I also think you build too many straw men to give you a reason to rant.
I guess it comes down to what people expect from a review these days, which is how an item performs in comparison with similar products. But if the reviewer has no or very limited experience with similar products then it's not really possible to produce a useful review, at least not without help from someone who has the required knowledge. It's in the nature of things.
For example, I agree with TunerSandwich in that the comparison with a Spectrum Analyzer wasn't very useful as even most high end scopes will perform worse than a good SA, and that even includes the Tek MDO3000's built-in SA, so there's really no need to test that. What would have been interesting however is how the scope's FFT function performs against other scopes in this class, and especially against the predecessor.
I also have to agree with that just running down Keysight's marketing sheets isn't very revealing if that's all the performance information the viewer gets from that review. It's ok to quickly rehash listed specs but then it should be shown how the scope behaves in reality. This is even more interesting when the manufacturer has a long history of bending the truth to occasionally borderline lying in its marketing material.
If this video would have been called say an "introduction" or "unboxing" (good unboxing videos are often sought after, and you don't need to be a scope expert for that!) then I guess the comments wouldn't be that negative. But calling it a review creates certain expectations, as did some of the wording. Just have a short look at Shariar's videos to get an impression what's expected from a good review.
But I also second the comments made by others about the reviewer's voice which really seems destined for voice over work.
I think Shariar's videos are a perfect example of a review. There is an experiment....which is first conceived, explained in detail and then implemented in the video. They are often exactly the way the product would be used in the real world. They also point out the real failings of a product. For example in the MDO review it becomes clear that there just isn't the screen real-estate or horsepower in the unit when things get "tricky". The unit gets bogged down and there is simply too much going on in that "tiny" screen....it's a perfect example of what I consider a "failure". It shows me that I would much rather have a dedicated SA and "scope".
I am much more likely to care about problems like those, than some fancy new touch interface that essentially adds no real gains to my day to day experiences with a tool. Sure the zone trigger thing is nice, but it doesn't fundamentally change anything. On the other hand the MDO DOES fundamentally change something....and on the surface it sounds "WOW"....but in practice it's not so "WOW"...and Shariar's video shows me that. THAT is very helpful....a "failure" shown through real world use case scenario, with a uniquely conceived experiment....
Dave's videos are somewhere in between....I find some pretty clear biases towards Agilent and Fluke....and that's fine, because Dave is wildly entertaining....and he could basically talk about tree bark and I would still be interested....the entertainment value is there, simply in the presentation....for example I think Dave recognizes that his videos are entertainment and he has dropped things like "fundamentals friday" to focus on more entertaining aspects of the channel.....at the same time I don't see regurgitation of product briefs from the entire video.....usually there is some redeeming quality, which leads to a relatively scientific conclusion....
I also can't re-iterate enough.....the gentleman in the "review" in question, has a simply amazing VO talent.....he should be using that voice to make his fortune....it's THAT good IMO (I used to do a lot of VO recording and have a good basis for what these folks are looking for).
-
it's certainly not a "first"
well, he said it's the first HE ever used, are you really saying that's not true?
No, if you read what I wrote, you would have answered your own question....
"for example you point out that the scope in review is the first you have ever used that "has a "real" touch screen keyboard.... :wtf: I have a 5 year old scope sitting on my desk that has the same exact function....it's certainly not a "first"....it's over-embellished (as the rest of the review is), with an implication that it is somehow making a scope "groundbreaking"....I don't see how that quite fits....
"
So if it't the first touch screen he has ever used....then what is the basis for WOW..... :-//
Any "review" needs to have a basis for comparison, before WOW can be dished out.....at least if you want to be taken seriously....
For example if a 17 year old male did a "review" of an automobile....never having driven one before....and proclaimed "wow this thing is FAST"....and it was let's say a GEO metro.....it would be hard for someone like me to take him seriously, as I have a basis for what is actually "fast"....I think there are prerequisites for the term "review" vs. "impressions of".....a review requires a baseline for comparison....IMO
-
But I can see that some of your word definitions do not match Afrotechmods'. It was clear to me for example, that 'build quality' was referring to the outside appearance and controls.
So then how can one proclaim the build quality as "flawless".....that means without flaw....if one does not examine the entire device....inside and out, how can one say such a broad overstated thing?
You can say "the external build quality is very nice in my opinion".....but when you use words like "flawless" in a review....there goes ALL objectivity....as NOTHING is flawless.....especially when you don't even inspect the whole thing.....
For example we all know Dave loves Agilent kit, but he often rips them a new one for even small little flaws.....to me that builds credibility, because it is a factual analysis....with an outcome of opinion + fact....that is what it means to "review" something...." To examine with an eye to criticism or correction:"
If you are not objective and make broad reaching statements, with no basis in fact.....you have an Agilent commercial :) meh keysight w/e :blah:
-
Dave's videos are somewhere in between....I find some pretty clear biases towards Agilent and Fluke....
My how people forget and only remember what they want to remember...
Perhaps you don't recall when I showed Agilent's brand new scope that they had spend years working on in secret blowing up on its launch day?
Perhaps you don't recall when I discovered and showed Agilent's brand new meter with bad firmware issues, warts and all?
Perhaps you don't recall me exposing Fluke's GSM issue with their best selling meter of all time? And then bagging them out for not responding quick enough.
::)
-
So then how can one proclaim the build quality as "flawless".....that means without flaw....if one does not examine the entire device....inside and out, how can one say such a broad overstated thing?
Because he was clearly talking about only the external build quality and feel.
You can say "the external build quality is very nice in my opinion".....but when you use words like "flawless" in a review....there goes ALL objectivity....as NOTHING is flawless.....especially when you don't even inspect the whole thing.....
Get over it.
Lets see you do a review.
-
Dave's videos are somewhere in between....I find some pretty clear biases towards Agilent and Fluke....
My how people forget and only remember what they want to remember...
Perhaps you don't recall when I showed Agilent's brand new scope that they had spend years working on in secret blowing up on its launch day?
Perhaps you don't recall when I discovered and showed Agilent's brand new meter with bad firmware issues, warts and all?
Perhaps you don't recall me exposing Fluke's GSM issue with their best selling meter of all time? And then bagging them out for not responding quick enough.
::)
Oh I do recall...
but i also recall the "uni-t DMM suck" video....where you clearly stated how pathetic the continuity test, and gave them a proper and thorough rant.....no problem, it was in fact pathetic....
but then on the Fluke 27 video....it had an equally horrible continuity test....you said it was bad, but didn't call it pathetic or other such things (as the uni-t)....
i also recall a thumbs up on that horrid agilent OLED DMM (can't remember the model number).....despite recognizing some flaws that made it wholly un-usable.....I had one of those for all of a day or two....and couldn't wait to get it off my bench and send it back.....
I see a pretty clear bias towards Fluke and Agilent....and that's ok....we all have a bias somewhere.....at the same time, you do point out flaws in fluke and agilent hardware.....but they don't seem to get the same ass-chewing (yes that is a technical term) as other brands.....
I have no problems with it.....I still watch and subscribe....because I find you entertaining.....I actually find your rants about hardware flaws somewhat hilarious.....but c'mon, you've gotta admit that you at least have a personal bias towards Fluke and Agilent, and maybe reserve some "ass-chewing" (here it is again) for other brands....
At the end of the day i think you know this to be true....and that part of your channel is it's entertainment value....I mean fundamentals friday had to go for some reason or another right? Book reviews also....I see the trend and changes in your channel....it's catering to a broader audience now....
So again....like I said....I think you have a bias towards Fluke and Agilent (meh keysight w/e)....but at least you don't wind up sounding like a commercial when you "review" them.....
P.S. I miss fundamentals Friday....but the public has spoken?
-
Get over it.
Lets see you do a review.
I actually do reviews, for an unrelated industry.....I get my fair share of face punching.....and take it as constructive criticism....and I think my reviews are better for it....
I let it go, like water off a ducks back....those are my customers....
-
So... you're saying you didn't like the review?
;)
-
So... you're saying you didn't like the review?
;)
No.....I actually think you produced a pretty good commercial....and think you have a fantastic VO talent.....but I don't recognize it as an objective review....I made a simple comment on page one, that mirrored other comments (more than just me shares this opinion)....and you chose to make the comment towards me "Did you watch the whole review or was the word "contrasty" enough to make you lose emotional control?"....which is snide and actually shows your own loss of emotional control...
And then you brought up some points....and I simply defended my position....and stated it to be my opinion....others decided to bring up their own points, which didn't share the same opinion as mine....and I responded to those comments as well, with my opinions.....some agree with and share my opinion....
If you get defensive and make UN-necessary (rude) comments when someone states their opinion about your videos (regardless of the manner in which they state their opinion....you should see some of the comments I have gotten...I think some might actually have been death threats :-DD)...how will you ever be objective and improve? As I said above, I do my own independent video reviews (un-related industry) and I certainly have flaws in my approaches over the years....someone makes a comment and I take it seriously, graciously and with some level of appreciation.....your viewers are your customers.....you got 2 plays out of me....and I complimented you excellent VO work and production quality.....and offered you a detailed overview of WHY I thought this wasn't an actual review.....you can choose to take it or leave it....I personally see a commercial for Keysights 3000T(WOW scope).....there has to be at least some merit to my opinion, as it's shared by at least a few other commenters here....you can recognize those opinions and improve or chalk it up to "well screw those guys"....you could earn my viewership on further videos (and others) or not... :-// ;)
-
but then on the Fluke 27 video....it had an equally horrible continuity test....you said it was bad, but didn't call it pathetic or other such things (as the uni-t)....
Because there is nothing else wrong with the 27, maybe apart from the slow power-on, it's a top class meter.
The Uni-T got more of a serve because by that point I was fed-up with it in case you hadn't noticed. My reviews are sometimes emotional, sue me.
i also recall a thumbs up on that horrid agilent OLED DMM (can't remember the model number).....despite recognizing some flaws that made it wholly un-usable.....I had one of those for all of a day or two....and couldn't wait to get it off my bench and send it back.....
I copped a fair of flack for that, but when a huge sale came around on this meter and everyone rushed to by one and they all said apart from the battery life it was a an awesome meter. I was happy to be vindicated. But I can understand those who don't like the battery life and hence it's unusable for them. BTW, the OLED display is not horrid, it is gorgeous! (inside that is, hopeless outside). It's only the battery life that sucks.
I noticed you didn't acknowledge my willingness to give Agilent and Fluke a serve. Some of those videos I did caused the entire company to have a convulsive fit, and I was fully prepared for them to never speak to me again, ever. Or even gets their lawyers onto me.
I see a pretty clear bias towards Fluke and Agilent....and that's ok....we all have a bias somewhere.....at the same time, you do point out flaws in fluke and agilent hardware.....but they don't seem to get the same ass-chewing (yes that is a technical term) as other brands.....
You know why that might appear be the case?
Because Fluke and Agilent have earned their reputation over many decades, they don't disappoint me time and and time again like some brands do.
That sometimes might cut them some slack. But whether or not a swear and throw a fit in a review has to do with my emotional state during the review. It don't sit there and go "This is a Uni-T, I really hate Uni-T, so I'll swear and throw it down in disgust." or "This is an Agilent, so I'll go really nice on them."
And sometimes I'm just feeling in a better more than other times.
At the end of the day i think you know this to be true....and that part of your channel is it's entertainment value....I mean fundamentals friday had to go for some reason or another right?
Nope, wrong.
I lost interest in Fundamental Friday's because:
a) They are time consuming to produce
b) They don't get all that many views or feedback, and a lot of what feedback there is is not about that video, but "can you do, or that"
c) Sometimes I'm just that not interested in a doing tutorials and can't think of something interesting enough to do, so I simply go onto other things. Let it slide a few times and you quickly lose enthusiasm and routine.
Book reviews also....I see the trend and changes in your channel....it's catering to a broader audience now....
Of course it is! I has too!
When a general interest channel like mine grows to the scale it has, then that thin edge of the wedge is well and truly in and you have more and more people subscribe for very different reasons. And to try and please them all is next to impossible. The only way to do it to keep a big mix of stuff.
I've tried to explain this to people time and time again, it's getting very monotonous.
And book reviews? are you serious? when was the last time I did a book review? Episode 10 or something?
FYI, I will be doing the new AoE book soon.
-
but then on the Fluke 27 video....it had an equally horrible continuity test....you said it was bad, but didn't call it pathetic or other such things (as the uni-t)....
Because there is nothing else wrong with the 27, maybe apart from the slow power-on, it's a top class meter.
The Uni-T got more of a serve because by that point I was fed-up with it in case you hadn't noticed. My reviews are sometimes emotional, sue me.
i also recall a thumbs up on that horrid agilent OLED DMM (can't remember the model number).....despite recognizing some flaws that made it wholly un-usable.....I had one of those for all of a day or two....and couldn't wait to get it off my bench and send it back.....
I copped a fair of flack for that, but when a huge sale came around on this meter and everyone rushed to by one and they all said apart from the battery life it was a an awesome meter. I was happy to be vindicated. But I can understand those who don't like the battery life and hence it's unusable for them. BTW, the OLED display is not horrid, it is gorgeous! (inside that is, hopeless outside). It's only the battery life that sucks.
I noticed you didn't acknowledge my willingness to give Agilent and Fluke a serve. Some of those videos I did caused the entire company to have a convulsive fit, and I was fully prepared for them to never speak to me again, ever. Or even gets their lawyers onto me.
I see a pretty clear bias towards Fluke and Agilent....and that's ok....we all have a bias somewhere.....at the same time, you do point out flaws in fluke and agilent hardware.....but they don't seem to get the same ass-chewing (yes that is a technical term) as other brands.....
You know why that might appear be the case?
Because Fluke and Agilent have earned their reputation over many decades, they don't disappoint me time and and time again like some brands do.
That sometimes might cut them some slack. But whether or not a swear and throw a fit in a review has to do with my emotional state during the review. It don't sit there and go "This is a Uni-T, I really hate Uni-T, so I'll swear and throw it down in disgust." or "This is an Agilent, so I'll go really nice on them."
And sometimes I'm just feeling in a better more than other times.
At the end of the day i think you know this to be true....and that part of your channel is it's entertainment value....I mean fundamentals friday had to go for some reason or another right?
Nope, wrong.
I lost interest in Fundamental Friday's because:
a) They are time consuming to produce
b) They don't get all that many views or feedback, and a lot of what feedback there is is not about that video, but "can you do, or that"
c) Sometimes I'm just that not interested in a doing tutorials and can't think of something interesting enough to do, so I simply go onto other things. Let it slide a few times and you quickly lose enthusiasm and routine.
Book reviews also....I see the trend and changes in your channel....it's catering to a broader audience now....
Of course it is! I has too!
When a general interest channel like mine grows to the scale it has, then that thin edge of the wedge is well and truly in and you have more and more people subscribe for very different reasons. And to try and please them all is next to impossible. The only way to do it to keep a big mix of stuff.
I've tried to explain this to people time and time again, it's getting very monotonous.
And book reviews? are you serious? when was the last time I did a book review? Episode 10 or something?
FYI, I will be doing the new AoE book soon.
Yes your reviews are "emotional"....and I said I enjoy that aspect....I find it entertaining (the more hopped up you've gotten over the years....the more viewers you have gotten....)....I can't imagine you have had some massive personality shift from ep#1 to today.....you recognize what gets you views....bravo....I already said I dig it....it's entertaining
The Agilent DMM in question had a more glaring (pun) issues than the horrid battery life and charging solution....you simply could NOT see the screen in daylight....which is a HUGE :wtf: IMO.....so I disagree about "vindication" but to each their own....
To me the biggest reputation Agilent has earned with me, is laughable marketing practices.....where they compare bran new models to other brands efforts of 5 years ago....and then skew the marketing in such a way where they try to convince potential buyers that the "other brand" can't do squat (but anyone who owns brand X knows it can).....despite this I buy their WOW boxes and generally think they make good products (despite their WOW our stuff shits on the competition marketing....c'mon that isn't even necessary if you make industry leading products)
On the UNI-T comment "It don't sit there and go "This is a Uni-T, I really hate Uni-T, so I'll swear and throw it down in disgust." Bullshit.....the title of your UNI-T video (recent) is "EEVblog #712 - Uni-T UT71E Multimeter (Why Uni-T Meters Suck) "....you then proceed to swear and throw it in disgust....which AGAIN, I find wildly entertaining.....later on in the video you sort or suggest "well not ALL uni-t meters suck"......
However I have seen quite a few videos where you say some glowing about Agilent XYZ box and then follow up with something like "but of course it's an Agilent"....not sure why it pains you to admit you have a pre-biased love for Agilent....I like some of their WOW boxes too....I have a, probably, unfounded pre-biased love for certain brands....I spare them the rod a bit when I "review" something....no biggie....people call me out and I say "yep....I def think XYZ thing is WOW and generally love their products".....during a review I generally point out every fact I can.....I was, in fact, recently threatened with legal action by a company...because I reviewed a device of theirs and called the main actuator/button design "sloppy.....difficult to actuate and not to my liking". I explained that I said that because the device did in fact fit that description and I showed it in testing....they kind of let it go (no grounds to refute it) and then sent me more "stuff" to review.... :-//
I myself did a "fundamentals" type segment for my "reviews" and forum...."whiteboard lectures"....and feel your pain on that subject.....2 days to produce a 1 hour 45 minute video of technical jargon.....got very few responses....so ok fair enough, but I still miss the fundamental fridays stuff....
I think you are taking things a bit out of context Dave....or maybe just need a hug today *hug*......you seem to be on a defensive....when I already clearly stated that, despite, my criticisms...you have earned my viewership and subscriptions, likes and all other jazz that get's you paid....big deal I have some nit-picky criticisms (we all do)....no one is gonna like everything and everyone is gonnna have a unique opinion.....so I pointed out some things about the OP's video, and some of your videos....
"I've tried to explain this to people time and time again, it's getting very monotonous."
and you think that will change? I have been doing my video reviews for going on 5 years now and I get the same damn questions at least 10 times a day everyday.....I sigh and answer them and explain....it's part of my job....no biggie....I don't know at what point a user has entered my forum, or what their prior experience is....I see them as a potential member and viewer, so I sigh to myself and go through the motions....hell I don't even get adSense or any payout for my efforts....I run a manufacturing company in the same industry I review for....and sit on a few panels and recognize that I represent my industry....my forum is private, unpaid and highly scrutinized (albeit small)...
anyhow I am rambling and we aren't going to agree.....no big deal....I just don't understand why OP and you (maybe I am reading your "tone" wrong?) are so defensive about others opinions....if they have an opinion it means you got your view....if more than a few people share that opinion, we aren't all batshit looney (?)
-
On the UNI-T comment "It don't sit there and go "This is a Uni-T, I really hate Uni-T, so I'll swear and throw it down in disgust." Bullshit.....the title of your UNI-T video (recent) is "EEVblog #712 - Uni-T UT71E Multimeter (Why Uni-T Meters Suck) "....you then proceed to swear and throw it in disgust....which AGAIN, I find wildly entertaining.....later on in the video you sort or suggest "well not ALL uni-t meters suck"......
What do you think, I came up with the title first and then proceeded to hammer to Uni-T as part of some sort for scripted entertainment angle? ::)
I think you are taking things a bit out of context Dave....or maybe just need a hug today *hug*......
Someone needs a hug, but it's not me!
-
Not kissing arse here, but Dave gave a great review of the Brymen meters.
He even spent some time ripping the shitty backlight in the 857.
The result being Dave uses a Brymen, I bought an 857, and Brymen fixed the backlight issue too.
Not being a fanboy, just a vid that gave glowing review of not Fluke or Agillent IMHO.
-
On the UNI-T comment "It don't sit there and go "This is a Uni-T, I really hate Uni-T, so I'll swear and throw it down in disgust." Bullshit.....the title of your UNI-T video (recent) is "EEVblog #712 - Uni-T UT71E Multimeter (Why Uni-T Meters Suck) "....you then proceed to swear and throw it in disgust....which AGAIN, I find wildly entertaining.....later on in the video you sort or suggest "well not ALL uni-t meters suck"......
What do you think, I came up with the title first and then proceeded to hammer to Uni-T as part of some sort for scripted entertainment angle? ::)
I think you are taking things a bit out of context Dave....or maybe just need a hug today *hug*......
Someone needs a hug, but it's not me!
"I've tried to explain this to people time and time again, it's getting very monotonous."
and you think that will change?
I'm guess I'm dumb enough to still be optimistic I can educate some people on how and why I do things.
*sigh*
Yes I do think you blanketed/tainted your video "review" with the title....that is the first thing someone sees....but then later admitted "well not all uni-t products suck" (you even egg on UNI-T fanbois to "flame away")....Watch one of your earlier review videos, and watch one from recently.....you have gotten more and more off the cuff and "vocal" (ahemmm mildly put) as your viewership has increased....I am pretty damn sure you recognize sensationalized things sell otherwise niche' topics....I'm just crazy in my observation that you have gotten more and more "intense" over these videos? Ok....you see it your way I see it mine....the surest way to get views is with outrageous titles and tags....I am sure "freshwater dolphin has sex with headless fish" has about a billion views..... :-DD And UNI-T SUCKS!!! Is primed to grab eyeballs....you are saying you just stuck it in there just for the hell of it? I.E. you don't carefully choose your title words?
You are implying that I am the one who needs a hug not you? then pull this gem out ...
"I'm guess I'm dumb enough to still be optimistic I can educate some people on how and why I do things.*sigh*"
......oh please, I am sorry to have inconvenienced the great Dave Jones....sheesh....if you find responding to people here so "monotonous" why bother at all?
Relax and stop finding everything as negative....I paid both you and the OP some pretty nice compliments....amongst criticisms.... :phew:
P.S. I notice you edited your post to take out the snarky comment "I'm guess I'm dumb enough to still be optimistic I can educate some people on how and why I do things.
*sigh*".....see I think you do need a hug.....there is really no need to shit on your supporters like that, we love you buddy <3 xoxoxoxox :-*
-
I'm done arguing with or trying to explain anything to you Tunersandwich. Thanks for playing.
-
I'm done arguing with or trying to explain anything to you Tunersandwich. Thanks for playing.
BRAVO!!! :-+
-
Thank you for taking all that time to make all those posts Tuner. Not because I actually care about anything you have to say, but every time you rant you bump up this thread and I get more views ;D
-
For the record, Tek, Keysight, Rigol, Fluke, Lecroy, Atten, Siglent, Owon, Uni-T and anyone else I've missed, I'm available.
So unlike Afrotechmods, Dave, Martin and others, who actually point out your flaws, I'll even let you have script approval!
I did find it funny back when Tek released some new scopes, nearly all the electronics youtube channels that I watch had one within a week or two of each other.
-
I like the fundamental Fridays vids.
But (as others maybe) I tend to watch them as i need them, not as nerd entertainement.
So Dave's return on investement might be lower, but often they "open mind doors" that have me rewatching older vids with a better insight.
Thanks Dave, Lorton, Afrotech, and other for taking out some of the non voltage induced pain of learning electronics.
-
I did find it funny back when Tek released some new scopes, nearly all the electronics youtube channels that I watch had one within a week or two of each other.
Well, I think this is easy to explain.
If you look at some of the Tek or Agilent videos, they have some hundred views after a few years and the "independent channels" have thousands in a few days. Probably the smartest thing for Tek and Keysight to do, is to send out 10 free scopes or so. The exposure is much larger than they could ever get on their on channels.
I found it funny too, to see the new Tek scopes popping up everywhere.
It was nice to hear Afrotechmods explain the conditions he got with Keysight for reviewing the scope.
.
-
Since I was the first to offer the "commercial" comment, I will throw in my bit.
1. I fully recognize the challenge of doing a review. The time and effort necessary is not free. Planning, shooting, editing, proofing, etc are very time consuming. I appreciate the full disclosure up front.
2. This is why product journalism is 'supposed' to be supported by other means than the products being journalized. Again, I fully appreciate that this is easier said than done and I appreciate the disclosure up front. considering the cash value of the scope, that is a major pay day. I would say just about anything for a free scope so it makes it a challenge to believe the presentation after that any more than the other marketing materials from Agisight. This is not saying anything bad about Afrotechmods or anyone else that does reviews like this, it is simply stating my own personal view on the believably of the presentations. Side note: I have been in the entertainment business for a very long time and worked on countless commercials with paid endorsements. I cannot think of a single job with a spokesperson or celebrity that they were actually believing what they were saying - it was their job to love the product for that particular moment.
3. I don't really know a way around this. Just saying that if it feels contrived or the talking points were cherry picked from the good list - I take it with a grain of salt. There are some products that are 99% amazing and its hard to find something bad about them. I also feel that when a $10k scope is handed over, it will probably be harder to find fault with it. Especially if maybe a spectrum analyzer, power supply, and an AWB may be in the near future depending on how many views you get. If I had the opportunity, I would do the same thing.
Afrotechmods, I have very much enjoyed your videos - learned a lot. I just wanted to clarify what I may have started here. It would be great to find an alternate source of motivation for reviews. I am at the tail-end of a decision for a new scope - Agilent or LeCroy. I have read all the available marketing bits on each one. The hard info to find is the practical user experience on a day to day basis. Therefore, I am looking for the reviews that reveal real world limitations which every product has. Then I can better understand if the strengths and weaknesses are a good balance for me. For example, I was originally interested in Tek MDO's until I saw some videos that revealed some of its limits and they were not ok for me (although I love the RF front end for SA) - moved on the Agisight and LeCroy.
-
No worries dude. I totally understand your position. How about this, since I am supposed to get my own 3000T scope soon if you have any specific tests you'd like me to do on the scope (that are quick and easy to do given the equipment I have) then send me a PM and I will bust out the camera and get you some data/footage. O0
And if it makes you feel better, here's a quote from my emails with Keysight:
"just understand that your free scope is not contingent on giving us a nice fluffy review."
-
I am at the tail-end of a decision for a new scope - Agilent or LeCroy. I have read all the available marketing bits on each one. The hard info to find is the practical user experience on a day to day basis. Therefore, I am looking for the reviews that reveal real world limitations which every product has.
Reviews, even good ones, can only give you a starting point. The reviewer probably has a different useage scenario for that scope than you, and might weight scope properties differently than you and therefore might not bring up issues he considers minor (or which don't bother him) but which will bother you.
If you spend a noticable amount of money for a scope then you should insist of getting a loaner for a few days from all manufacturers you consider worthwhile (which is pretty standard so they shouldn't have a problem with that). That's the only way to be sure that the scope fits you, not someone else.
-
I agree. Recently I've played with a 8Mpts Keysight/Agilent oscillscope but with all the channels enabled that amount drops to 1.5Mpts per channel. Note how the Keysight 3000T states 4Mpts is a maximum memory depth but the datasheet doesn't mention the actual depths for certain channel configurations.
-
Note how the Keysight 3000T states 4Mpts is a maximum memory depth but the datasheet doesn't mention the actual depths for certain channel configurations.
It does actually, it's hidden away under the "Aquisition System" section, page 27: 2 Mpts all channel.
Would have been nice with more memory but I think to remember it's inside the Megazoom asic, so no way to increase it further.
-
I found it. But a few lines lower it says 2Mpts with digital only (so analog channels off!).
IMHO Keysight is very secretive about stating the actual memory depth in various channel configurations. I wouldn't be surprised when it turns out that having all analog and digital channels enabled reduces the memory depth to 660kpts (or less) per channel. That is way too low for today's standards.
-
Thank you for taking all that time to make all those posts Tuner. Not because I actually care about anything you have to say, but every time you rant you bump up this thread and I get more views ;D
:blah: confirming you care more about views than viewer opinions....sounds like the same agenda....a commercial/marketing.... :clap:
-
Thank you for taking all that time to make all those posts Tuner. Not because I actually care about anything you have to say, but every time you rant you bump up this thread and I get more views ;D
That is unfortunate.
-
I found it funny too, to see the new Tek scopes popping up everywhere.
It actually took a lot of convincing Tek that independent channels were the best way to go. In my case at first they wanted lots of terms and conditions, and weren't happy when I told them to stick it. But they eventually relented and now I think they really understand. Both Tek & Keysight even change their product marketing based on these reviews (e.g. the free MDO spectrum analyser)
Many companies still aren't on board because they are still in the old mindset. Lecroy is one example and refuse to deal with the terms and conditions.
-
2. This is why product journalism is 'supposed' to be supported by other means than the products being journalized.
I don't know a single channel that isn't.
Getting a free scope, even a 5 digit price tag one doesn't help one bit to putting food on your table. So apart from being a nice toy to have in the lab, it's effectively worthless.
I challenge anyone to go out and try and make a living from getting free product.
Sure, we could sell this stuff, but that's not done because:
1) It's a bit of a dick thing to do. The manufacturers hope that you will use the gear in other videos. It's kind of an unspoken agreement. It's good for them, it's good for the blogger, it's good for the audience who get better content.
2) It would effectively mean you were paid real money for the review.
3) You don't have the gear for future videos. A reviewer who is serious in this game hoards all the gear because it can be used in future videos and comparisons etc. As per #1, it's a win for everyone.
Again, I fully appreciate that this is easier said than done and I appreciate the disclosure up front. considering the cash value of the scope, that is a major pay day. I would say just about anything for a free scope so it makes it a challenge to believe the presentation after that any more than the other marketing materials from Agisight. This is not saying anything bad about Afrotechmods or anyone else that does reviews like this, it is simply stating my own personal view on the believably of the presentations.
I think the problem here is Afro's unique (for this industry) style of video. The style is great for short tutorials, so professional, but unfortunately can probably sound a little infomercial-like when it's a product review. I'm sure he doesn't mean that, it's just that his style isn't suited very well to reviews I suspect. The problem is people's pre-conditioning to this style of video and they subconsciously associate it with infomercials.
I don't agree it's a "major pay day" as above. A pay day means you get money you can spend to feed your family. A free scope does not do that.
Side note: I have been in the entertainment business for a very long time and worked on countless commercials with paid endorsements. I cannot think of a single job with a spokesperson or celebrity that they were actually believing what they were saying - it was their job to love the product for that particular moment.
Of course. That is totally irrelevant to blogging engineers though. We are nerds, and engineers are too honest for their own good.
If there was anything really bad with the 3000T and Afro found it, I have no doubt he would have pointed it out.
I also feel that when a $10k scope is handed over, it will probably be harder to find fault with it.
But what if it genuinely is a very good $10K scope without much to find fault with?
In this case the Agilent 3000T is a brilliant scope, and the only major faults IMO are the ones Afro clearly pointed out. e.g. it's expensive, the expensive options, and the small-ish memory by today's standards.
In that respect he got the review bang-on.
-
Dave,
I wanted to ask for your advice on something, what is the best way of reaching you?
Email dave AT eevblog.com is always the best way for anyone to contact me.
-
Absolutely, the info is not there or very ambiguous.
Actually after some reading it again, it claims for the digital channel record length 2 Mpts "with digital channels only". So you might be onto something.
Then it mentions 1.25 GSa/s all digital pods. On a side note, I just noticed that all bandwidth versions of the 3000T-X have 5 GSa/s half channel, even the 100 MHz version. Only the 1GHz version of the 3000A-X had 5 GSa/s, all the others were 4 GSa/s.
Even the Hameg HMO3000 datasheets are not always clear about it. They mention 4 Mpts per digital channel (up to 8 Mpts for 2x analog), but I think you have to give up on an analog input per 8-bit pod (Quote MSO mode 4ch: "CH1, CH2, CH3|POD1, CH4|POD2"). However, they do list the sampling depth for the logic channels (only 1 GSa/s while 2/4 GSa/s for the analog channels) and the maximum frequency (350 MHz regardless of scope bandwidth)
The techtronix MDO3000 datasheet also only lists 10 Mpts maximum record length on all channels for the logic analyzer option. I don't see it mention anything about sharing memory with the analog channels so I think that means it doesn't, but I have no idea.
-
I think the problem here is Afro's unique (for this industry) style of video. The style is great for short tutorials, so professional, but unfortunately can probably sound a little infomercial-like when it's a product review. I'm sure he doesn't mean that, it's just that his style isn't suited very well to reviews I suspect. The problem is people's pre-conditioning to this style of video and they subconsciously associate it with infomercials.
That is a fair assessment. The blogger/reviews are a delicate balance of unspoken rules. It's likely true that my subconscious is pre-conditioned to receive a very polished presentation with caution. It makes sense that there needs to be motivation from somewhere and the "love of the craft" can only go so far I guess.
Getting a free scope, even a 5 digit price tag one doesn't help one bit to putting food on your table. So apart from being a nice toy to have in the lab, it's effectively worthless.
I challenge anyone to go out and try and make a living from getting free product.
Sure, we could sell this stuff, but that's not done because:
1) It's a bit of a dick thing to do.
Point taken. I was given Super Bowl box tickets as part of a business back-scratching. I wanted so bad to sell them for $10k each but it would have too dick like. I don't care much for sports - proof of nerditude maybe.
-
Even the Hameg HMO3000 datasheets are not always clear about it. They mention 4 Mpts per digital channel (up to 8 Mpts for 2x analog), but I think you have to give up on an analog input per 8-bit pod (Quote MSO mode 4ch: "CH1, CH2, CH3|POD1, CH4|POD2"). However, they do list the sampling depth for the logic channels (only 1 GSa/s while 2/4 GSa/s for the analog channels) and the maximum frequency (350 MHz regardless of scope bandwidth)
The digital probing solutions on MSOs don't allow for capturing high frequency signals. They are OK for generic digital signals and FPGA debugging but don't expect to debug a 400MHz DDR memory interface with it. Therefore the sampling rate doesn't need to be very high.
-
I found it funny too, to see the new Tek scopes popping up everywhere.
I was a bit miffed when I saw everyone on youtube casually get a free mdo3000. Oh look, $10,000 scope gifted with no strings attached. Brilliant product placement. I was totally envious, but didn't for one minute believe them.
-
I think the problem here is Afro's unique (for this industry) style of video. The style is great for short tutorials, so professional, but unfortunately can probably sound a little infomercial-like when it's a product review. I'm sure he doesn't mean that, it's just that his style isn't suited very well to reviews I suspect. The problem is people's pre-conditioning to this style of video and they subconsciously associate it with infomercials.
I don't agree it's a "major pay day" as above. A pay day means you get money you can spend to feed your family. A free scope does not do that.
Thank you Dave. I think you explained it far better than I ever could.
Btw, check out Martin's video:
Keysight MSO-X 3000T - Tips, Quirks and a Bug! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvdxn1n16Xk#ws)
He managed to find a way to glitch out the FFT mode with a simple time base change during automatic scrolling. Can't believe I missed it because I basically did the same FSK test!!
-
I found it. But a few lines lower it says 2Mpts with digital only (so analog channels off!).
IMHO Keysight is very secretive about stating the actual memory depth in various channel configurations. I wouldn't be surprised when it turns out that having all analog and digital channels enabled reduces the memory depth to 660kpts (or less) per channel. That is way too low for today's standards.
There are too many variables involved, changing to high resolution acquisition halves the capture length, turning on the digital channels changes the capture depth, using 2 vs 4 channels etc, you'd end up with a big matrix of all the possible situations. Some of these changes may have been hidden when the capture depths were limited in software, but I've not used any of the limited scopes so I don't know. The Agilent/Keysight scope just gives you all the memory it can, all the time, you don't think about it when in use as the capture rate is always displayed in the top right of the screen and you adjust with that in mind. On the rare occasion I've needed to see longer captures the segmented memory has done the job, we keep asking people to provide examples where extreme memory depths are needed but there don't seem to be many (if any).
-
A couple of weeks ago I've used my Siglent SDS2204 (14Mpts at least) to debug an FPGA design running at 16MHz involving a display. It could easely capture an entire display frame with the MSO + analog on with enough detail to not having to resort to special triggering methods. Just trigger on vsync, hit stop and all the information is there. There is absolutely no way to do that with an Agilent/Keysight oscilloscope due to the limited memory. Not even the 8Mpts models.
I also have a high end logic analyser with 32Mpts of memory. Same story. Just capturing everything with lots of detail makes it easy to jump back and forth (open multiple windows with different time/div settings) between parts of a signal instead of trying to (re)capture a certain event and pray the cause of the problem is actually the same.
In that perspective the difference is much like repetitive sampling oscilloscopes and real time sampling oscilloscopes. In a realtime oscilloscope all the information is from the waveform you see on the screen while a sampling oscilloscope shows the results of many waveforms so there is no way to correlate an anomaly to a certain event.
More is better definitely is true for memory depth on oscilloscopes.
-
I watched Martin's video.
The first thing about the auto re-arm on the Agilent being quicker than that of the Tek is, well, a difference, but not a fault. I kept shouting at the monitor "Normal, Normal!" because in real life I can't imagine you'd want to leave either the Agilent or the Tek in Auto in that situation.
The second thing about the update speed decreasing with a delayed timebase to me seems common sense, I am not sure why it's perceived as a problem. How can you trigger at 1Mwps if there's a trigger delay of 3ms? The same would apply if you have a huge memory depth configured, that memory would need to be filled before it can re-trigger.
The third thing about knowing to use channels 1 and 3 rather than 1 and 2 for best performance is also common to the Agilent 54831D that I have. I can't remember where I read or heard about it, but once you know it it's not a problem. As I see it it's a hangover from the hardware between the 2 and 4 channel versions of scopes, and the way the front end and acquisition parts are populated (or not for the 2 channel). While I agree it's not immediately intuitive, once you know it, it makes sense and is not a big deal at all.
The FFT thing I understand but there is a lot of processing to do there, and at some point it is going to run out of steam. I may have missed it, but is this frequency/time correlation meant to be done in real time, or is it only for playback?
-
Thank you for taking all that time to make all those posts Tuner. Not because I actually care about anything you have to say, but every time you rant you bump up this thread and I get more views ;D
That is unfortunate.
Fully agree.
-
that memory would need to be filled before it can re-trigger.
I think the memory is filled all the time and it's just the trigger that tells when to output to the display.
-
that memory would need to be filled before it can re-trigger.
I think the memory is filled all the time and it's just the trigger that tells when to output to the display.
No, changes to most trigger and horizontal controls flush the data and have to rearm the trigger.
-
ok must be the echo of the LeCroy review still ringing in my head :)
-
No worries dude. I totally understand your position. How about this, since I am supposed to get my own 3000T scope soon if you have any specific tests you'd like me to do on the scope (that are quick and easy to do given the equipment I have) then send me a PM and I will bust out the camera and get you some data/footage. O0
And if it makes you feel better, here's a quote from my emails with Keysight:
"just understand that your free scope is not contingent on giving us a nice fluffy review."
Without even thinking about it, I read that in your voice. Just like I do with Morgan Freeman.
-
I'm done arguing with or trying to explain anything to you Tunersandwich. Thanks for playing.
BRAVO!!! :-+
Smack! No beeps for you!
-
I think the problem here is Afro's unique (for this industry) style of video. The style is great for short tutorials, so professional, but unfortunately can probably sound a little infomercial-like when it's a product review. I'm sure he doesn't mean that, it's just that his style isn't suited very well to reviews I suspect. The problem is people's pre-conditioning to this style of video and they subconsciously associate it with infomercials.
I don't agree it's a "major pay day" as above. A pay day means you get money you can spend to feed your family. A free scope does not do that.
Thank you Dave. I think you explained it far better than I ever could.
It's just that golden voice. :-+
I wonder how many of the guys here used to watch Afrotechmods before youtube? I used to watch back when you posted quicktime videos of twitching hard drives to music to your website back in the late 90's or early 2000's.