| Products > Test Equipment |
| Choosing a ~$10K MSO (Keysight 3000G, LeCroy 4000HD, Tek MSO34, R&S ??) |
| << < (3/10) > >> |
| Someone:
--- Quote from: nctnico on November 05, 2023, 09:18:40 pm ---Lecroys typically can't zoom out which is something that is super handy for doing embedded development work. --- End quote --- And the scopes discussed have several other ways to achieve the same result. In many ways the more flexible windows/views of the Lecroy where the user can freely define the split between the views is far and away more useful than your hacky "zoom out", which while it may fit your construed workflow does not naturally make sense. |
| Someone:
--- Quote from: tooki on November 05, 2023, 06:10:40 pm ---Am I giving too much weight to having digital inputs? --- End quote --- Probably, unless you have a known/demonstrated need to time correlate many channels. I've used MSO sections only a handful of times in real situations and it was never essential but just nice to have (would have found the same information by repeating the experiments and moving the analog channels around the DUT. --- Quote from: tooki on November 05, 2023, 06:10:40 pm ---Am I missing anything? --- End quote --- Costings presented did not include probes. You are already limiting choices to scopes with active probe interfaces for some reason. What is the fleet of available probes already? Consider looking at a Siglent 6000A + LPA10 to share probes with the bigger lecroy. |
| tooki:
--- Quote from: Someone on November 05, 2023, 10:18:02 pm --- --- Quote from: nctnico on November 05, 2023, 09:18:40 pm ---Lecroys typically can't zoom out which is something that is super handy for doing embedded development work. --- End quote --- And the scopes discussed have several other ways to achieve the same result. In many ways the more flexible windows/views of the Lecroy where the user can freely define the split between the views is far and away more useful than your hacky "zoom out", which while it may fit your construed workflow does not naturally make sense. --- End quote --- Bear in mind that the WaveSurfer models can’t do this with anywhere near the flexibility of the WaveRunners. |
| tooki:
--- Quote from: Someone on November 05, 2023, 10:30:35 pm --- --- Quote from: tooki on November 05, 2023, 06:10:40 pm ---Am I giving too much weight to having digital inputs? --- End quote --- Probably, unless you have a known/demonstrated need to time correlate many channels. I've used MSO sections only a handful of times in real situations and it was never essential but just nice to have (would have found the same information by repeating the experiments and moving the analog channels around the DUT. --- End quote --- Yeah, that’s more or less been my experience so far. --- Quote from: Someone on November 05, 2023, 10:30:35 pm --- --- Quote from: tooki on November 05, 2023, 06:10:40 pm ---Am I missing anything? --- End quote --- Costings presented did not include probes. You are already limiting choices to scopes with active probe interfaces for some reason. What is the fleet of available probes already? Consider looking at a Siglent 6000A + LPA10 to share probes with the bigger lecroy. --- End quote --- No existing active probes around. Other than appreciating the basic divider ratio detection ring for ordinary probes, the active probe interface isn’t a requirement, just an artifact of the scope class I’ve been looking at. |
| Martin72:
--- Quote ---Bear in mind that the WaveSurfer models can’t do this with anywhere near the flexibility of the WaveRunners. --- End quote --- And HDOs... I wouldn´t go for any wavesurfer model. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |