🚀 go-pugleaf

The Phantom wrote:
> 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?

It is indeed.
In fact, it's that exact same setup where I first found this issue, 
debugging that actual design as you see there, probably only days before or 
after that photo was taken.

Dave.

-- 
---------------------------------------------
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.alternatezone.com/eevblog/