The PRR advice is not enough. You need after that to work some hours on a high end osciloscope and after this you can do the comparison.
No. Many users never in their life progress to a high-end scope, certainly not for audio. The point was the learn to walk before trying to run, absolutely gold advice. It is impossible to advice on a scope if the advised doesn't have any experience and doesn't even understand the terms.
Jan
I do not completely agree with this. But surely they must learn to walk before to run.
The idea is not to have and use a hi-end oscilloscope, but to understand what a high-performance oscilloscope can do and only then they can decide how performant the oscilloscope they will have to buy will be.
The idea is not to have and use a hi-end oscilloscope, but to understand what a high-performance oscilloscope can do and only then they can decide how performant the oscilloscope they will have to buy will be.
Sorry to disagree. By using a basic scope you will find out what it is you need for work or hobby. You can then purchase a scope with those functions.
But we can agree to disagree ;-)
Jan
But we can agree to disagree ;-)
Jan
The best "teacher" is an analog scope and nowadays you can get a used one for not so much money but the OP isn't very keen on getting a second hand one.
The thing is that with a bit of extra money he can get a much better scope than the one he wants to but of course it's his choice.
The thing is that with a bit of extra money he can get a much better scope than the one he wants to but of course it's his choice.
You are assuming the user would understands the limitations of a $30 scope. Unlikely, if you ask me, more likely he will got fooled by the results. The right way is IMO to study first, then decide. But with the "quick reward" mentality (in particular in youngsters) this is unlikely, too...
So I would think gambling is a viable strategy, get what you can afford, use it, sell it for whatever, or dispose it, get another one, etc... Consumerist approach, like so many other things today.
Hi,
while learning on an analog scope will certainly help with working with oscilloscopes in general, I don't think it is required, or even might not improve work with a digital oscilloscope.
Modern DSOs are imho rather analyzers equipped with different tools like advanced trigger modes etc. to catch and analyze single or infrequent events, while in fact they are blind most of their time.
Beginners should realize that even expensive scopes may perform with >90% of blind time under certain conditions, not even talking about trigger parameters chosen off or inappropriate trigger types.
Analog scopes remain still good at displaying repetitive continous signals .... which is what most analog audio repair probabely is about.
But digital has overtaken audio almost fully and asks for more advanced scopeing and analyzing functionalities a DSO may offer.
At the same it asks for a deeper understanding on digital signal handling .... what's happening inside the scope ... and can I trust the dislayed waveform at all?
Tektronix for example used to build for decades some of the best analog oscilloscopes.
Yet they seemed to never really have got a grasp around DSOs and till recently built their scopes as if it were analog ones just with some digital chips inside.
Today Keysight, LeCroy and even the first chinese scopes leave Tek clearly behind.
jauu
Calvin
while learning on an analog scope will certainly help with working with oscilloscopes in general, I don't think it is required, or even might not improve work with a digital oscilloscope.
Modern DSOs are imho rather analyzers equipped with different tools like advanced trigger modes etc. to catch and analyze single or infrequent events, while in fact they are blind most of their time.
Beginners should realize that even expensive scopes may perform with >90% of blind time under certain conditions, not even talking about trigger parameters chosen off or inappropriate trigger types.
Analog scopes remain still good at displaying repetitive continous signals .... which is what most analog audio repair probabely is about.
But digital has overtaken audio almost fully and asks for more advanced scopeing and analyzing functionalities a DSO may offer.
At the same it asks for a deeper understanding on digital signal handling .... what's happening inside the scope ... and can I trust the dislayed waveform at all?
Tektronix for example used to build for decades some of the best analog oscilloscopes.
Yet they seemed to never really have got a grasp around DSOs and till recently built their scopes as if it were analog ones just with some digital chips inside.
Today Keysight, LeCroy and even the first chinese scopes leave Tek clearly behind.
jauu
Calvin
A simple example of the triggering issue I've seen is on an analog scope, a tone burst is easy to grab at the beginning. With a sampler in normal mode, I've seen cases where it triggers at the beginning, and then the sampling length beats with the burst rate and so the beginning of the trigger is not always at the beginning of the burst so the display is jumping around. Makes sense, but the first time I saw it I was scratching my head as I was coming from analog think. But I will trade that inconvenience for the single shot and complex triggering available for bus tracing.
These cheep scopes have poor analog input design. I am afraid you have to do some investment. In case you have a good studio Pre-AMP für MICs you can use that one to amplify the signal to overcome noise inputs.
I come from an analogue scope era so tend to prefer that.
A 100MHz analog scope is great.
I do have a 20 mega samples USB PC scope but its very low frequency about 1MHz, good enough for audio.
I do a bit of work with model railway DCC controls and the digital scope is good for capturing DCC data runs.
A 100MHz analog scope is great.
I do have a 20 mega samples USB PC scope but its very low frequency about 1MHz, good enough for audio.
I do a bit of work with model railway DCC controls and the digital scope is good for capturing DCC data runs.
I have a Siglent and love it. It also does Digital Protocol analysis, has a slightly fiddly but still useful FFT with auto-display of harmonics and level in a table if you want, does Bode plots and recently they also even added a logger functionality via a free firmware update. I also like the Ethernet connectivity and the Web interface to control and display the waveforms as well as easily do screenshots for saving or uploading - which you can also do via USB.
It will be useful not just for audio signals for sure, so I know I can extract many years of very fruitful use out of it.
The only cons I can think about are the SMPS as well as the very flimsy feet when you want to put it in a slanted position. The feet don't lock into place very tight, so they can snap back at slight bumps and the thing just collapses flat on the table. These repeated shocks can't be good for the clock. Another one: I wished it had an internal SigGen. It doesn't but there used to be an add-on which has since been discontinued. The only internal SigGen function is a 1kHz Square wave to calibrate the probes, so I got myself a cool external SigGen and use an app to simulate the presence of their own SigGen which then unlocks the Bode screen plots.
It will be useful not just for audio signals for sure, so I know I can extract many years of very fruitful use out of it.
The only cons I can think about are the SMPS as well as the very flimsy feet when you want to put it in a slanted position. The feet don't lock into place very tight, so they can snap back at slight bumps and the thing just collapses flat on the table. These repeated shocks can't be good for the clock. Another one: I wished it had an internal SigGen. It doesn't but there used to be an add-on which has since been discontinued. The only internal SigGen function is a 1kHz Square wave to calibrate the probes, so I got myself a cool external SigGen and use an app to simulate the presence of their own SigGen which then unlocks the Bode screen plots.