Re: Opinions on Oscilloscopes
- From: "RR" <newspaper.20.broom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 06:20:50 GMT
"Walter Harley" <walterh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:SOWdnY4-5PYwgKPeRVn-pA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I would really push you to go with two channels. Being able to do things
> like looking at both the good channel and the bad channel of a stereo, at
> the same time, is very useful. And you need two channels to do Lissajous
> curves, and to do curve tracing of semiconductors - all useful stuff.
I'm convinced. :-)
>
> As I said earlier, one of the big differences between okay and excellent
> scopes is the quality of the triggering. That statement is probably
> meaningless to you now, but you'll come to appreciate it over time... and
> good triggering is all about ANALOG, even for a digital scope. Being able
> to reliably trigger on a short erratic pulse, being able to *ignore* a
short
> erratic pulse - this is stuff that can't be done in software; you have to
> just plain have good analog circuitry. Maybe there are PC scopes that
have
> good analog sections, but I'm sure there are more that don't :-)
Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
>
> But don't sweat it too much; you'll get there eventually. Get a cheap
> dual-trace one way or another and start playing with it.
Thanks again. I'm going to take your advice.
cheers,
RR
.
- References:
- Re: Opinions on Oscilloscopes
- From: RR
- Re: Opinions on Oscilloscopes
- From: Walter Harley
- Re: Opinions on Oscilloscopes
- Prev by Date: Re: Opinions on Oscilloscopes
- Next by Date: Re: Eprom programmer question
- Previous by thread: Re: Opinions on Oscilloscopes
- Next by thread: Re: Opinions on Oscilloscopes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|