On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 08:13 -0700, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: > I agree with Don, I like analog scopes. Any time a signal is taken to bits > (literally!) and then reassembled there are display artifacts and some > accuracy of the waveform is lost but, you're quite right, analog scopes are > *big* and heavy.
I also dislike most digital oscilloscopes. On most of them, it is obvious that the user interface was designed by a software person, hot a hardware engineer. I hate having to search through multiple layers of menus to access some simple function. However, the HP54600-series oscilloscopes are different. They combine the advantages of digital with the look and feel of an analog scope. There are separate knobs for all the most-used functions. The design team was lead by Bob Witte K0NR who knows a thing or two about what a hardware engineer wants in an oscilloscope. HP/Agilent no longer sells the 546XX, but you can occasionally find one on the used market. Scanning down the list on Ebay I see an HP54620A (version with built-in logic analyzer) with a starting bid of $200, two 54610B's (500 MHz, dual channel) starting at $700 and $725, HP54600A with optional GPIB module $500, etc. > Again, good digital scopes are the more expensive scopes. Generally true. I bought mine brand new (with employee discount) some years ago and have never regretted it. For once in my life, it's nice to have a no-compromise, reliable piece of test equipment. By the way, if you do decide on analog, the HP1740 100 MHz scope is a very good choice. (Much better than most of the analog scopes HP came out with over the years.) They often show up on Ebay. Al N1AL ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
