Seriously considering a PC based USB oscilloscope for audio/electronics hobby.
Budget $400-$500
Please make recommendations for a suitable model or even alternative brands
Multi-function PC USB Oscilloscopes, Spectrum Analyzers, Signal Generators, Data Acquisition | Virtins Technology
https://www.picotech.com/products/oscilloscope
Budget $400-$500
Please make recommendations for a suitable model or even alternative brands
Multi-function PC USB Oscilloscopes, Spectrum Analyzers, Signal Generators, Data Acquisition | Virtins Technology
https://www.picotech.com/products/oscilloscope
There are many threads that can help you decide - all via the forum search:
diyAudio - Search Results
diyAudio - Search Results
For these money, consider PicoScope 2000 Series
https://www.picotech.com/oscilloscope/2000/picoscope-2000-overview
George
https://www.picotech.com/oscilloscope/2000/picoscope-2000-overview
George
One thing I've found is that you might be happy with a pc based test device if you know your way around your pc really well.
I don't so even though I have free use of a friend's spiffy Cleverscope with a really nice GUI whenever I want, every time I use it there's always something I have to troubleshoot in the pc. Like it stalls for no apparent reason or its apparently really convenient controlled from the same screen signal generator inexplicably decides that it won't be set to an output low enough to use. Sure, I can figure it out eventually, but why?
A standalone scope new or used was made to do only one thing so is straightforward. Just my 2¢.
I don't so even though I have free use of a friend's spiffy Cleverscope with a really nice GUI whenever I want, every time I use it there's always something I have to troubleshoot in the pc. Like it stalls for no apparent reason or its apparently really convenient controlled from the same screen signal generator inexplicably decides that it won't be set to an output low enough to use. Sure, I can figure it out eventually, but why?
A standalone scope new or used was made to do only one thing so is straightforward. Just my 2¢.
Looks like the Rigol models are very competitively priced compared to Picoscope.
I am surprised why a USB model is not more cost effective considering the lack of displays, knobs etc.
From my perspective a USB model relying on compute power of a PC should be able to offer much more software features and flexibility.
Still exploring
I am surprised why a USB model is not more cost effective considering the lack of displays, knobs etc.
From my perspective a USB model relying on compute power of a PC should be able to offer much more software features and flexibility.
Still exploring
And you can use the Rigol as a PC scope via its USB... Just Google for "Rigol scope Python USB".
The USB scopes tend to have a lot more memory than the stand alone scopes. I have 3 Picoscopes (2 ADC200's and one 3406) and a Quantasylum QA101. They all have strong and weak points. Learning your way around a digital scope means understanding when its lying to you, which is a lot. Picoscope - good software but has a few issues which I do not like. 1) auto-setup drops both traces on top of each other. Really annoying. 2) Ver. 6 doesn't permit operating the FFT analyzer independent of the waveform. In ver. 5 I could have 4 windows, with waveform, spectrum and two digital readouts of measurements. Ver 6 the measurements are tiny text at the bottom of the display and the spectrum is hooked into the sample rate in a way that makes it not useful for audio.
The QA101 is a work in progress but it is a fast mixed signal scope with a deep memory. Its works well enough. Bugs are being addressed. I'm still learning my way around its UI.
I have a Tek THS720 that's OK and I'm using it, but for general troubleshooting I find an analog scope is just faster.
The QA101 is a work in progress but it is a fast mixed signal scope with a deep memory. Its works well enough. Bugs are being addressed. I'm still learning my way around its UI.
I have a Tek THS720 that's OK and I'm using it, but for general troubleshooting I find an analog scope is just faster.
Thanks for your comments Demian.
Have you tried the virtins scopes? Do they appear competent? They seem to be priced for value.
Multi-function PC USB Oscilloscopes, Spectrum Analyzers, Signal Generators, Data Acquisition | Virtins Technology
I used Analog scopes when i was in school. I do think i will have a learning curve with any scope i pickup.
Have you tried the virtins scopes? Do they appear competent? They seem to be priced for value.
Multi-function PC USB Oscilloscopes, Spectrum Analyzers, Signal Generators, Data Acquisition | Virtins Technology
I used Analog scopes when i was in school. I do think i will have a learning curve with any scope i pickup.
I'm also looking at these and stumbled across the picoscope, noticed that a waveform generator is built in, giving it the capability to script certain measurements. Frequency
response sweeps can be done for example, THD but I don't think the lower end units have
enough bits to even do tube amps with .1% distortion. I don't mind using a notch to
get better distortion measurements but then they are no longer automatic.
I came to the conclusion that the 25 MHz version (2205A) does not have enough bits for
my requirements. Vertical resolution is 8 bits, 12 with enhancement.
I'm looking for:
1. Portable unit
2. Scripted tests such as frequency response, THD, etc.
3. Analog capture bandwidth to at least 200KHz, prefer an upper limit above 1 MHz, 5 or 10
4. Analog scope to 15 MHz, 20-50 even better.
A friend raves about Analog Discovery which is 14 bits with a rated 5MHz scope
bandwidth but that is at -.1dB, it is actually 20 MHz -3dB. This combined with
14 bits both analog in and waveform gen out might fit the bill:
Analog Discovery 100MS/s USB Oscilloscope & Logic Analyzer (LIMITED TIME) - Digilent
Specs:
https://reference.digilentinc.com/_media/analog_discovery:analog_discovery_rm.pdf
Not sure how different the 2 version is:
Affordable and portable USB oscilloscope, logic analyzer, function generator, and digital I/O
I would have to try this out and see how they did with the human interface.
Comparing digital scopes and usb etc. scopes is like comparing fruit. They all have strengths and weaknesses. You can't tell much from the datasheet or even reviews about how they will work for you.
The USB scopes tend to have a lot more memory and are able to show more detail that the stand alone scopes but even the best (Picoscope) are clumsy to use for general troubleshooting. however the stand alone digital scopes are not that easy either and some features like "digital phosphor" are only on the expensive versions.
Start by figuring out what you need to do with it. What are your constraints and what will make it less useful or not useful. If you are working with digital audio 100 MHz is just enough with 48 MHz clocks, especially if you need to check timing. But for audio 20 MHz is usually more than enough to see oscillations. But you need sensitivity to look at low level signals. Soundcards or a QA401 are much better for quantifying audio performance.
For both standalone and USB scopes the real important part is the software. Years ago I went through 5 USB scopes and the only one worth anything was the Picoscope. The other software was not useful. Things have improved a lot since then but its the make or break for a USB scope. I prefer the older (ver. 5) picoscope software myself but everyone will have different opinions. . .
I also like the QA101 but its still a work in progress.
The USB scopes tend to have a lot more memory and are able to show more detail that the stand alone scopes but even the best (Picoscope) are clumsy to use for general troubleshooting. however the stand alone digital scopes are not that easy either and some features like "digital phosphor" are only on the expensive versions.
Start by figuring out what you need to do with it. What are your constraints and what will make it less useful or not useful. If you are working with digital audio 100 MHz is just enough with 48 MHz clocks, especially if you need to check timing. But for audio 20 MHz is usually more than enough to see oscillations. But you need sensitivity to look at low level signals. Soundcards or a QA401 are much better for quantifying audio performance.
For both standalone and USB scopes the real important part is the software. Years ago I went through 5 USB scopes and the only one worth anything was the Picoscope. The other software was not useful. Things have improved a lot since then but its the make or break for a USB scope. I prefer the older (ver. 5) picoscope software myself but everyone will have different opinions. . .
I also like the QA101 but its still a work in progress.
The problem with a sound card is that with 192K sampling, and 96K ish bandwidth you
can only see the first 4 harmonics of 20 KHz limiting THD vs. freq tests and 19/20K IMD
tests.
The one in the fancy plexi/green box is the 2nd version; I've been using version 1 for a couple of years: it's not a professional tool, nevertheless it works very well and has a lot of useful functions (generator/scope synchronization for frequency response acquisition for example - a feature that a lot of pro tools seem to lack). Great value for money, all in all.
L.
Hello,
I really prefer standalone oscilloscope, they are much more convenient to use IMHO.
As Demian said, software is often the weak point, and It tends to make the practical use painful.
We also spend much time to solve software issues and computer configuration...
Nevertheless, i bought last year the Digilent Analog Discovery and i must recognize
that it's a very good piece of gear !
The difference with this unit is that ADCs and DACs are 14 bits, much more than many USB scope.
It include 2 inputs, 2 outputs, 16 digital I/O channels and even a +/- 5 DC outputs.
It can be used as real time mixed analyzer with digital and analog I/O .
There is also an programming SDK provided for programming your own function, very open interface, DIY friendly.
For example , you can look here a very good software wrote for the analog discovery that transform it in an impedance analyzer.
I use it, and that work great !
I really recommend the Analog Discovery, a very good value for money.
(You can even get a lower price if you are student).
Frex
I really prefer standalone oscilloscope, they are much more convenient to use IMHO.
As Demian said, software is often the weak point, and It tends to make the practical use painful.
We also spend much time to solve software issues and computer configuration...
Nevertheless, i bought last year the Digilent Analog Discovery and i must recognize
that it's a very good piece of gear !
The difference with this unit is that ADCs and DACs are 14 bits, much more than many USB scope.
It include 2 inputs, 2 outputs, 16 digital I/O channels and even a +/- 5 DC outputs.
It can be used as real time mixed analyzer with digital and analog I/O .
There is also an programming SDK provided for programming your own function, very open interface, DIY friendly.
For example , you can look here a very good software wrote for the analog discovery that transform it in an impedance analyzer.
I use it, and that work great !
I really recommend the Analog Discovery, a very good value for money.
(You can even get a lower price if you are student).
Frex
I also prefer a stand alone scope when debugging and not needing portability, I much
prefer it and have one on my bench.
It does not address automating audio tests.
My main reasons for wanting this is automation, portability, and very easy screen capture.
prefer it and have one on my bench.
It does not address automating audio tests.
My main reasons for wanting this is automation, portability, and very easy screen capture.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.