Products > Test Equipment

Basic scope requirements except need to see ~10 ns pulses

<< < (5/7) > >>

Fungus:
A sub-$500 oscilloscope will easily see those pulses. A 1.5ns rise time corresponds to about 200MHz bandwidth.

If all you need is to see those pulses then a Rigol DHO812 will do it.

(Yeah, we know it says "100Mhz" on the front but lots of people here have measured them and they have about 200Mhz real bandwidth...)

If you're prepared to spend half an hour fiddling you can buy a Rigol DHO804 and trick it into thinking it's a DHO924 which has 280Mhz measured bandwidth.

They're great little 'scopes.

The big question is: Will you be using it for other things and what sort of probes do you need? A sub-$500 oscilloscope will do this job but your $2000 budget would easily let you buy a Siglent 2000 series which is a much more powerful everyday oscilloscope.

Aldo22:

--- Quote from: Fungus on March 06, 2024, 10:00:13 pm ---A sub-$500 oscilloscope will easily see those pulses.

--- End quote ---

That's true, it's really nothing special.
A toyscope like Zeeweii can show a 10 or 20ns pulse (attachment, unfortunately I don't have a better pulse generator).
Rise time, noise, sensitivity etc. are a different question.

Of course I do not recommend the Zeeweii here. This is for illustration purposes only.  ;)

David Hess:
When I bought my first 100 MHz 100 MS/s Tektronix 2232 it was for that sort of application, and I tested it.  It very reliably captured 10 nanosecond pulses, as given in its specifications, at faster sweep speeds or when glitch detection was active at any sweep speed.  The slower Tektronix 2230 exactly met its specification of 100 nanoseconds.

So almost any modern DSO will at least capture the pulses, but if you want to get an accurate representation of a pulse shape with 1.5 nanosecond edges, higher bandwidth will be required.  As usual, bandwidth is king here.

Given your other requirement, I would look for a low noise DSO, however what manufacturer's commonly call "low noise" is more about marketing than reality.

2N3055:

--- Quote from: stephencox on March 06, 2024, 09:07:35 pm ---
Thanks, this is interesting . . . I am not sure what to make of the budget vs. quality brand debate for this particular purchase. Depending on what you read, brands like Rigol are either a great value and pretty decent to use for anything that doesn't require critical calibration/certification, or are lousy, buggy, and failure-prone pieces of junk with terrible UI. Seems like there's a missing middle for my part of the market, which I know is true for lots of sectors (microscopes come to mind).


--- End quote ---

Rob is not discussing Rigol here. They are what they are.

But Siglent IS exactly this middle market you are talking about. And more than that actually. Their lower end scopes are shaming that segment from A brands. Their mid range is shaming A brands..
In this segment they are the leading brand.

A brands only have edge in higher end, where they have 20+GHz scopes and likes of LeCroy who have miles and miles of all kinds of advanced analysis nobody else has (not even other A brands).

Age of total supremacy of A brands is gone. Now they have edge only in super sophisticated products.
And that is not because legendary A brands couldn't keep the step. It is because their MBA managements only want to manufacture products where they have no competition. That way you can have predatory pricing and numbers  look impressive.

tggzzz:

--- Quote from: 2N3055 on March 07, 2024, 08:28:07 am ---A brands only have edge in higher end, where they have 20+GHz scopes and likes of LeCroy who have miles and miles of all kinds of advanced analysis nobody else has (not even other A brands).

Age of total supremacy of A brands is gone. Now they have edge only in super sophisticated products.
And that is not because legendary A brands couldn't keep the step. It is because their MBA managements only want to manufacture products where they have no competition. That way you can have predatory pricing and numbers  look impressive.

--- End quote ---

Let's put that in perspective.

HP chose to go for markets where they are demonstrably a technology leader, and can offer reliable products and good service for products that customers need. Consequently HP has never been cheap

David Packard once said that if he ever found anybody suggesting market share was a valid business objective, he would fire them.

HP still exists, except it is now called Agilent Keysight.

I doubt the OP gives a hoot about these points; quite right too.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod