Products > Test Equipment
Tektronix 1-3 GHz touch screen color DSO back in 1989 !
David Hess:
--- Quote from: edavid on August 22, 2017, 02:06:37 am ---
--- Quote from: David Hess on August 21, 2017, 05:51:12 am ---That is right; the 11403A shown is not a sampling oscilloscope. Those vertical amplifier plug-ins are not sampling heads; they are an improved version of the 7000 series vertical amplifier plug-ins.
--- End quote ---
Except for the 11A81 3GHz "presampler" vertical plugin.
--- End quote ---
I was not aware of the details of this plug-in although I knew it existed. It is pretty cool but the specifications given in the 1993 catalog on page 79 are not consistent with a sampling plug-in.
What happened is that the mainframe's interface connector cannot handle a 3 GHz bandwidth (1) so Tektronix implemented the attenuators, vertical amplifier, and a sample and hold in the plug-in. It is not a sampling input in the sense of a sampling oscilloscope and this can be seen in the specifications which show a 10ns overdrive recovery time and a 25 volt peak maximum input voltage.
The older 7854 with the 7T11A sampling timebase works in the same way with the mainframe's digitizer slaved to the sampling plug-in so Tektronix was aware of this possibility.
--- Quote ---(Does anyone know the presampling rate?)
--- End quote ---
I could not find it in the sparse to non-existant available documentation for the CSA404, 11403A, and 11A81. It should be only limited by the sampling rate of the plug-in itself because the bandwidth between it and the mainframe is 1 GHz leaving plenty of time for settling between samples. That would make it 20 MS/s maximum just like any other vertical plug-in.
(1) It was a pretty big deal when Tektronix extended the 7000 series interface to 1 GHz in the 7104 and there were trade articles written at the time about how they did it.
--- Quote from: Jay_Diddy_B on August 22, 2017, 02:22:47 am ---I also has 11801 with SD24 sampling heads. This is 20 GHz bandwidth, but 20 M sps.
--- End quote ---
The 11K and SD specifications all say 200 kS/s maximum. I think the chief limit in these single sampling gate designs is the operating life of the avalanche pulse generator.
--- Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on August 22, 2017, 02:35:32 pm ---
--- Quote ---If the marketing departments of other companies want to confuse the issue, that is up to them.
--- End quote ---
It's not confusing the issue, and it's not even driven by marketing.
This is what Keysight has to say:
Oscilloscopes fall into two groups, real-time oscilloscopes and sampling oscilloscopes (also called equivalent-time oscilloscopes) and it is important to understand the difference between the two types. Real-time oscilloscopes digitize a signal in real-time. Imagine a repetitive AC signal - the real-time oscilloscope acts like a camera, taking a series of frames of the signal during each cycle. The amount of frames the real-time oscilloscope captures depends upon the bandwidth, memory depth, and other attributes that we will soon discuss. A sampling oscilloscope, on the other hand, takes only one shot of the signal per cycle. By repeating this one shot, but at slightly different time frames, the sampling oscilloscope can reconstruct the signal with a high degree of accuracy.
--- End quote ---
It is confusing and here is why. Sampling oscilloscopes in the sense that I am using the term have three features which are not found in other oscilloscopes:
1. They have zero overload recovery time. A sampling bridge does not care about what is going on during the time that the sampling gate is not open. A practical application of this is measuring settling time to high accuracy which is somewhere between difficult to impossible with a normal oscilloscope which otherwise has sufficient bandwidth.
2. They use a sampling efficiency much lower than 100% to exceed the RC bandwidth limitation of a sample or track and hold which uses a sampling gate time greater than its RC time constant to allow full settling. This results in a huge increase in bandwidth.
3. 2 above produces a non-linear sin(x)/x frequency response do to integration during the sampling gate time. The effective sampling gate width can be measured by looking for the null in the response.
Both 1 and 2 above lead to sampling oscilloscopes not using linear elements like amplifiers or delay lines before the sampler. Either would significantly lower the achievable bandwidth and the former would destroy the overload recovery capability.
--- Quote ---Funny you mention PicoScope, as it seems they, too, disagree with your definition of Sampling Scope:
https://www.picotech.com/download/manuals/picoscope-9000-series-questions-and-answers.pdf:
A sampling oscilloscope is a special type of oscilloscope that uses a technique called sequential time sampling.
...
--- End quote ---
And in the very first sentence, Picoscope gets it wrong. There is nothing about a sampling oscilloscope which requires sequential sampling. Indeed, random sampling in a sampling oscilloscope allows viewing the triggering waveform without the use of a delay line or pretrigger. The only reason they were not more common is that most applications could live with these limitations.
--- Quote ---As I said, I understand where you're coming from but there's no point to fixate of a some 30 years old definition by a single manufacturer while constantly referring to ancient kit that has long been obsolete when the rest of the world has moved on.
--- End quote ---
The point is that your definition confuses two different classes of oscilloscope which have distinct properties. If there is a better and less ambiguous term for sampling oscilloscopes in the older sense, then let us know.
--- Quote from: Leo Bodnar on August 23, 2017, 08:03:09 am ---I have posted few 11800/CSA803A frontend photos elsewhere but they are so beautiful they need to be here too. They don't care how they are called.
Leo
2 channel 20GHz sampling head
--- End quote ---
Note that the coaxial line on the top carries the sampling strobe from the mainframe to the sampling gates and the two coaxial lines on the bottom carry the divided sampling strobes back into the mainframe for timing measurement. This is required to achieve high horizontal timing accuracy. None of the coaxial lines carry the sampled signal which is low bandwidth after the sampling gates.
--- Quote from: Wuerstchenhund on August 23, 2017, 11:20:13 am ---The real advantage of these scopes is in their low price compared to a real-time scope with the same BW.
--- End quote ---
I like them because they are immune to overload and have a predictable frequency response allowing them to be used to calibrate the transient response of other instruments. It is even possible to calibrate the transient response of a sampling oscilloscope without an external reference although it takes 3 sampling oscilloscopes to do this. Maybe I should have included this in my list of features above.
MrW0lf:
Would add that while RTS scope with ETS feature do not tick all the boxes mentioned it still helps with 2 things:
- no interpolation related artefacts
- very high horizontal accuracy
Weird that many cheap DSOs are dropping support for ETS. Failure to educate end-user of advantages or just cost-cutting? I suppose it needs better trigger system than just RTS / lowish sample rate where users in general seem to expect no better accuracy than +-sample_interval.
RoGeorge:
--- Quote from: Leo Bodnar on August 23, 2017, 08:03:09 am ---I have posted few 11800/CSA803A frontend photos elsewhere but they are so beautiful they need to be here too. They don't care how they are called.
Leo
--- End quote ---
Beautiful pics, thank you!
Leo Bodnar:
--- Quote from: David Hess on August 27, 2017, 04:44:50 am ---
--- Quote from: Leo Bodnar on August 23, 2017, 08:03:09 am ---I have posted few 11800/CSA803A frontend photos elsewhere but they are so beautiful they need to be here too. They don't care how they are called.
Leo
2 channel 20GHz sampling head
--- End quote ---
Note that the coaxial line on the top carries the sampling strobe from the mainframe to the sampling gates and the two coaxial lines on the bottom carry the divided sampling strobes back into the mainframe for timing measurement.
--- End quote ---
No. The top rigid line is TDR trigger pulse. It triggers both channels but channel 2 has analogue voltage-controlled delay inserted in line with its trigger.
The middle one is the strobe drive for sampling pulse generator. Both channels are sampled simultaneously.
Bottom rigid line is the strobe sense for the sampling pulser. It provides feedback from the output of SRD back to the scope sense strobe driver board. This feedback has not been used in S-xx series heads.
You probably got confused because Tek uses the same carrier PCB for SD-22/SD-24/SD-26 even though only SD-24 needs TDR section. It is a low volume product so each head seem to have had some uniqueness to it. One of my SD-26 heads has provision for loop-through on the sampling hybrid as if it was expected to be used in SD-20.
--- Quote --- This is required to achieve high horizontal timing accuracy. None of the coaxial lines carry the sampled signal which is low bandwidth after the sampling gates.
--- End quote ---
That is true. The sampled signal outputs travel over two regular pins just like other control voltages and digital data. It's a low impedance low BW signal so I can see why there was a temptation not to add two more coaxial lines.
However as soon as they enter the scope they are immediately fed into the separate coaxial cables.
Head extender also uses two coax lines for sampled signals. Note two extra coax cables that carry sampled signal.
I have attached a sampling head output for a pulse with 40ps risetime.
CSA8000 head extender before converting to operate on CSA803A:
SD-26 sampled signal output for a 40ps risetime pulse. Sampling rate is about 115ksps:
Leo Bodnar:
There was a relevant post on TekScopes group about 14000 series from someone at Tek. I cross-post for those who are not subscribed:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TekScopes/conversations/messages/96244
John Addis later joins in the discussion which this margin is too small to contain
--- Quote ---At the risk of offending members who may have worked on it, IMO the 11400 was the worst DSO ever put on the market, by any company. It was an embarassment to have a Tektronix name plate on it.
The reason for the poor choice in commercial ADCs was the length of the design project - the better part of a decade. Between the time the part was designed in and the scope actually shipped, much better ADCs were available.
The 11k products were totally driven by engineering, with essentially no marketing input. When the project started, 7000 series was the top income producer in the company, and as the replacement, this team was expected to turn out another home run. The problem was that no one was defining what the scope should be or do, or what the minimum deliverables were. There was also a culture problem. Tek unquestionably made the finest analog scopes. There was no need to study the competition, as it was inferior. This carried over to all scopes. But the truth was that for the first couple of generations, the competition was designing much better digital scopes than Tek. But no one took them seriously, or really studied the competitive products.
With no defined product defination or end point, engineering was free to work on (some say "play in the sandbox") it as long as it took to build the digital version of 7k. Don't get me wrong - these truly were some of the best engineers at Tek. The individual circuits they designed and code they wrote for 11400 was great. They just had no direction. The results was what you got, not competitive the day it introduced, with a terrible user interface. Even with Tek's name and recognition in scopes, the series was a business disaster. A high level VP gave a talk at a management training event I attended a few years later, and mentioned the financial details of the 11300-11400 investment and return. I won't repeat them as they are confidential, but suffice to say, incomes did not cover a fraction of the development costs.
For your second question - yes, just about any modern digital scope will perform much better than the 11400 - dollar for dollar with the used prices.
In addition to its performance problems, I would stay away from them for the complexity. The display processor board is pushing 200 ICs, mostly LSTTL. While I don't believe there are prone to reliability problems, the parts count alone will give a stastical poor MTBF. Troubleshooting a state machine this complex can't be any fun.
- Steve
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version