Yep, this point will never end until YOU get some real world experience with serious Analog design
It's getting better by the minute
Of course, whoever disagrees with your "wisdom" must be young and inexperienced, something you resort to like a broken record. I guess your next post will contain some "Jim Williams only ever used analog scopes so they must be better" or similar drivel to get your point across, as usual.
You know, until now I thought you're just an old guy who couldn't make the mental leap to the modern day, and therefore clings to what he learnt 30+ years ago. But now I seriously start to wonder if you even have any engineering background, or if you just want to troll, because I severely doubt that any engineer worth its salt would refer to any analog scope as "high fidelity" instrument. You sound more like the kind of guy that would pay $500 for a HiFi HDMI cable.
and why high quality, high fidelity analog O'scopes DO NOT LIE if the user knows instrument limitations and how to apply said instrumentation properly.
Interesting, so now it's not "a high fidelity scopes DO NOT LIE" (whatever "high fidelty" is supposed to mean here, considering how shit the specs of even the best analog scopes are in most areas!), now you're actually retreating ("they don't lie if you know their limitations").
Can you prove DSO's don't lie?
No. Which is a strange and frankly pretty moronic question when I only in my last post said this (I highlighted the important bit, just in case you lose the plot again):
I'm sure it's complete news to you, but FYI, analog scopes *do* lie, they lie a lot (Dave did even a video about that some time ago). In fact, *every* test instrument lies to an extend, and any engineer worth it's merits should be very well aware of that.
But as I said, it's getting better by the minute
Then prove high quality, high fidelity analog O'scopes lie.
It's clear you don't care what Dave has posted (same as you don't care about how shit your full quotes look), and I guess most of this stuff is lost on you anyways. However, just for the sake of it, Dave made a nice episode showing how your "high fidelity" analog scope can trick you:
There are many more situations where your "high fidelity" analog scope will lie or hide stuff from you. Which should be obvious once you understand the principle, and that the on-screen luminance for a specific component of the input signal very much depends on two things, a) that it's position remains stable on the time axis, and b) the period of occurrence. If the component moves on the time axis (i.e. it's period of occurrence varies, or if the period of occurrence is pretty long then there's a good chance it won't cause sufficient luminance for the user to notice it. Plus, the analog scope suffers from blooming (more or less any CRT does to some extend, but analog scope CRTs are pretty bad), which can easily cover signal components that due to the mentioned factors only cause low luminance. You could turn up the brightness and therefore make these components brighter, but unfortunately with increasing brightness blooming gets a lot worse.
Then there are the specs, which for today's standards are pretty poor on most analog scopes. Just as an example, the pretty expensive Tek 7B92 dual time base for the 7904 500MHz analog scope (all pretty much high end in the 80s) has a time base accuracy of (depending on the setting) 2-10% which is a huge. Compare that to a cheap-ass Rigol DS1054z (hardly the epithome of DSOs) which is spec'd with
<+25ppm. That's like day and night. Most analog scopes are even worse. "High fidelity", yeah, right.
However, all that's pretty basic stuff.
(although that does happen, even in this forum we have a certain group of backwarders that regularly appear and tell people how much better analog scopes are and what hogwash all this new-fangled digital stuff is; pretty much the EE equivalent of HiFi vodoo)
So once again, thanks for proving my point. I couldn't have done it without you