🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:41:07 +1000, "David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:


>
>It's not only about waveforms-per-second, it's also about the capture and 
>display engine as well.
>The manufactuers have various technologies (e.g. Tek Digital Phosphor) to 
>make their digital scopes have an "analog type" display and response, and 
>they work superbly. In fact they can be better than analog in many respects. 
>But that performance costs money, so you have to start paying around say the 
>$5K mark before you get a digital scope that really performs like an analog 
>one in terms of variable display intensity, response time, and capture 
>dead-time.
>See here for more info:
>http://www.tek.com/products/oscilloscopes/dpo_technology/
>http://www.tek.com/Measurement/App_Notes/Technical_Briefs/55-13757/eng/55w-13757-0.pdf
>
>Lower end scopes don't have these "analog like" display technologies, so 
>then "waveforms-per-second" is pretty much the basic benchmark. Modern 
>scopes are pretty darn good though, and even the low end cheap ones are 
>streets ahead of previous generation DSO's.
>Those who haven't used a modern high end digital scope don't know how superb 
>they can really be.
>
>With modern fast real-time deep memory scopes, aliasing is pretty much a 
>thing of the past.

Is that an Agilent 6000 series scope I see in front of you?

>
>Might make an interesting future blog...
>
>Dave.