> I would actually like to know why many seem to feel that a 500 MHz analog > 'scope is not "good enough" for what you really do in your lab?
> Older 'scopes didn't NEED to re-allocate memory, or use "peak" modes to > avoid sampling artifacts. I can think of 3 reasons why I like digital scopes: It holds the picture for a long time. This is great for looking at slow/PPS signals and things that happen only occasionally (logic glitches, software bugs). You can see the signal before the trigger. You can get the data out to a PC. Any one of those could be enough to convince me to switch to digital. With all 3, it's a no-brainer. YMMV. I'm sure I'll get burned by an aliasing glitch one of these days. In the meantime, I'll get lots of good pictures. If you want a really good example of aliasing, try this one: http://www.megapathdsl.net/~hmurray/time-nuts/Rigol/scope-2ms.png That sine wave is10 MHz. :) Since this is time-nuts, you can back compute the frequency of the internal clock in the scope. -- These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
