Instead we should ask for more proof of how they reached their position...
Thanks!
Ok, I’ll shortly try to explain my position relating to several issues – aliasing, etc., trace problems.
For the last 30+ years, I have been a developer in electronics. I moved to digital scopes around 25 years ago. Since 2006, I have had my Agilent 6000 series scope (I got it almost immediately when it appeared on the market). Enormously expensive, but – still a wow device. Around 10 years ago, I purchased Siglent SDS2000 (at this moment, this was their most advanced device). The same story with MicSig and other scopes. I purchased them brand new, at the moment they appeared. So, I have some experience with digital scopes. Sorry, I have never used Owon, Rigol, Finsri, etc. as my everyday scopes.
Why have I asked our Karate John what an oscilloscope is? Because (at least, for me and by definition), it’s a device that represents a signal in the time domain. Not a sampling device. Not a device that demonstrates sampling techniques, the aliasing phenomenon.
According to this, in all possible scenarios, the scope should represent our signal as correctly as possible. Everyone knows about the bad guy Nyquist, who set some limitations. All profs know about aliasing issues. BUT. These are problems/issues. These issues need to be fixed/suspended/eliminated,/hided at the manufacturer's side! We/users should enjoy a proper curve on the screen, not aliasing/interference. Yes, in cheap models, such advanced ‘’workarounds’’ are not included. But, as we clearly see, in more expensive/top models, these issues are eliminated. How are they done? Automatic peak detection/normal acquisition? Some burst packs of high-sampling rate to check the input spectrum? Other methods? We don’t know. But we see the result.
My advice to all my haters – just try, for example, the Agilent 6000/7000 series scope. Try its responsiveness, aliasing/free performance. Yes, no additional fancy graphs, limited math capability. But basic functionality works PERFECTLY.
One more aspect is TIME. Every time I need to scroll the time scale button, I press the screen extra times to modify trigger settings – it’s a waste of my time! These are seconds that transform into minutes, which transform into hours.
Third aspect. If we have only 2 buttons, every 10 options, we have 100 combinations, right? Ten buttons? Millions of variations. If each button affects the result (memory option, some extra capturing, bitrate settings, etc.), we can achieve a million different traces on the screen. The main question is – which one is the correct result? If this scope is not dedicated to scientists, its interface should be as simple as possible. Auto options – as many as possible. 99% of users will struggle in these mega-advanced settings. Why not use 16-bit resolution at very low frequencies automatically (just one of the examples)?
For me, scope should be an instrument – fast, predictable, and stable, not a fancy toy with unpredictable results.
Guys, I paid full money for this scope (as well as for all my remaining scopes, too), and I am fully independent. NOTHING will change in my life (relating to this scope), regardless of whether you are saying thanks to me or recommending that I be banned.
Situation with the manufacturer is ENTIRELY different. It’s his business! His money! And, if the manufacturer hides glitches/bugs, so what should I do?