4 ms·

Oscilloscope Specifications: Maximum Sampling rate: 4MSPS Analog Bandwidth: ---> 200kHz <--- Arbitrary Waveform Generator Specifications Maximum conversion

by ohazi 13y ago

Oscilloscope Specifications: Maximum Sampling rate: 4MSPS Analog Bandwidth: ---> 200kHz <--- Arbitrary Waveform Generator Specifications Maximum conversion rate: 1MSPS Analog Bandwidth: ---> 50kHz <--- This is certainly not the first project in the "super miniaturized hardware tools" category, and as much as I like the idea of having a single tricorder-like device that can replace a lab full of hardware, all of the similar projects that I've seen have fallen short in exactly the same way: analog bandwidth - the one spec that actually matters. I would pay a lot of money for a miniaturized tool that took RF performance seriously.

DanBC 13y ago
What analogue bandwidth do you want? Does the device need to have a display, or is a USB device ok?
- JaneJDunn 13y ago
  my classmate's mother-in-law makes $67 an hour on the computer. She has been fired for 7 months but last month her pay check was $18297 just working on the computer for a few hours. this page ========================== http://WWW.Works23.Com http://WWW.Works23.Com
- KimberlyJClark 13y ago
  my classmate's mother-in-law makes $67 an hour on the computer. She has been fired for 7 months but last month her pay check was $18297 just working on the computer for a few hours. this page ========================== http://WWW.Works23.Com http://WWW.Works23.Com
- ohazi 13y ago
  I actually prefer the USB scopes. I paid a lot for a high resolution laptop display, and I'm going to have that with me anyway. At work, I'm generally okay with a 400-500 MHz bandwidth for some of the more fiddly stuff. At home, 100 MHz is usually plenty, although I've occasionally had to take parts of my projects to the lab. I'll concede that many hobbyists don't really need all of this capability (e.g. the Arduino + LED crowd), but I'd have a really hard time recommending a scope that doesn't do at least 100 MHz simply because you can already get 100 MHz hardware for dirt cheap. It's gotten significantly easier for hobbyists to play with relatively high-end hardware that would have been out of reach a decade ago (FPGAs, fast memory, wired/wireless communication ICs, cameras, etc). A lot of this hardware requires relatively high bandwidth interconnects to work well (or to work at all), but today's hobbyists seem undeterred and are figuring out how to make it work. But when the shit hits the fan, you don't want to be banging your head against the wall because of crappy test hardware.
anigbrowl 13y ago
I would pay a lot of money for a miniaturized tool that took RF performance seriously. I'm sure, but how many others would, vs just using bulky equipment? I agree the analog bandwidth is quite limited here, but it's good enough for audio work, and there's a large potential market there among live sound engineers.
- ohazi 13y ago
  Your output might be 20 kHz audio, but in the real world you're surrounded by analog at much higher frequencies. I've worked on enough "low bandwidth" audio projects plagued by problems at higher frequencies that I can't really recommend the "Its good enough for audio" approach anymore. You can easily have a tiny DSP with a noisy clock signal in the tens of MHz. Or a wonky USB signal. Or an intermodulation product from some unrelated circuit. If I can pay $100 for a super miniaturized audio only scope, or the same price for a bulkier 100 MHz scope, I'd go with the 100 MHz scope every time, so in that sense you're right. That being said, it sure is nice that today's scopes are more like a lunchbox than a boat anchor. My lab at work easily has a million dollars worth of "full size" test and measurement equipment from Agilent and Tektronix, but there's no reason the entire budget has to go to them. We're happy to pay for stuff like this (http://www.triarchytech.com/ http://www.triarchytech.com/) when it's a solid product that makes our lives easier.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I'm thinking strictly of things like mixers and junction boxes. I take your point about DSPs and other system clocks (and am trying to figure out if this is an issue on a hybrid DSP/FPGA/discrete device right now), but in areas like live sound engineering your main enemies are things like ground loops, crosstalk between mixer channels and whatnot. These are installation issues rather than product development ones.
    - rpenm 13y ago
      Seems like a portable, precision FFT analyzer would be more useful. The ability to measure frequency response, harmonics, cancellation, distortion, noise, etc. make an engineer's job so much easier. Frequency information is far more important than timing information. What benefit does an oscilloscope have over meter+ears when resolving ground loop or crosstalk issues? Time domain information doesn't seem terribly useful.
fit2rule 13y ago
I'm a musician with a room full of synthesizers. This Oscilloscope is perfect for my needs. Sometimes, you just have to stand back and think: am I criticizing this because I'm me and have a position, or because its really an issue for the wider dynamics of the target market? Fact is, a lot of nerds are going to enjoy rockin' an Oscilloscope watch - it may well just be a faddish toy - but some of us will use the hell out of the thing. (I already have a few similar-spec'ed Oscilloscopes in the modular system. Having one on my watch is going to make it very fun to wire myself up and watch a few LFO's from afar ..)
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  We should talk...
  - fit2rule 13y ago
    About synthesizers and oscilloscopes? Sure thing! Whats up? :)
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      It's my thing...drop me an email, it's in my profile. If you're in the Bay area we should meet up.
      - fit2rule 13y ago
        I'm in Europe, but thanks for the invitation .. always nice to meet a fellow enthusiast. Anyway, I'm a backer of this Oscilloscope watch now, I can't wait to wear it, and I'll definitely be wiring up my LFO's to the thing so that I can watch 'em while playing keys away from the modular interface. ;)

by ohazi 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

What analogue bandwidth do you want? Does the device need to have a display, or is a USB device ok?

JaneJDunn 13y ago
my classmate's mother-in-law makes $67 an hour on the computer. She has been fired for 7 months but last month her pay check was $18297 just working on the computer for a few hours. this page ========================== http://WWW.Works23.Com http://WWW.Works23.Com
KimberlyJClark 13y ago
my classmate's mother-in-law makes $67 an hour on the computer. She has been fired for 7 months but last month her pay check was $18297 just working on the computer for a few hours. this page ========================== http://WWW.Works23.Com http://WWW.Works23.Com
ohazi 13y ago
I actually prefer the USB scopes. I paid a lot for a high resolution laptop display, and I'm going to have that with me anyway. At work, I'm generally okay with a 400-500 MHz bandwidth for some of the more fiddly stuff. At home, 100 MHz is usually plenty, although I've occasionally had to take parts of my projects to the lab. I'll concede that many hobbyists don't really need all of this capability (e.g. the Arduino + LED crowd), but I'd have a really hard time recommending a scope that doesn't do at least 100 MHz simply because you can already get 100 MHz hardware for dirt cheap. It's gotten significantly easier for hobbyists to play with relatively high-end hardware that would have been out of reach a decade ago (FPGAs, fast memory, wired/wireless communication ICs, cameras, etc). A lot of this hardware requires relatively high bandwidth interconnects to work well (or to work at all), but today's hobbyists seem undeterred and are figuring out how to make it work. But when the shit hits the fan, you don't want to be banging your head against the wall because of crappy test hardware.

anigbrowl 13y ago

I would pay a lot of money for a miniaturized tool that took RF performance seriously. I'm sure, but how many others would, vs just using bulky equipment? I agree the analog bandwidth is quite limited here, but it's good enough for audio work, and there's a large potential market there among live sound engineers.

ohazi 13y ago
Your output might be 20 kHz audio, but in the real world you're surrounded by analog at much higher frequencies. I've worked on enough "low bandwidth" audio projects plagued by problems at higher frequencies that I can't really recommend the "Its good enough for audio" approach anymore. You can easily have a tiny DSP with a noisy clock signal in the tens of MHz. Or a wonky USB signal. Or an intermodulation product from some unrelated circuit. If I can pay $100 for a super miniaturized audio only scope, or the same price for a bulkier 100 MHz scope, I'd go with the 100 MHz scope every time, so in that sense you're right. That being said, it sure is nice that today's scopes are more like a lunchbox than a boat anchor. My lab at work easily has a million dollars worth of "full size" test and measurement equipment from Agilent and Tektronix, but there's no reason the entire budget has to go to them. We're happy to pay for stuff like this (http://www.triarchytech.com/ http://www.triarchytech.com/) when it's a solid product that makes our lives easier.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  I'm thinking strictly of things like mixers and junction boxes. I take your point about DSPs and other system clocks (and am trying to figure out if this is an issue on a hybrid DSP/FPGA/discrete device right now), but in areas like live sound engineering your main enemies are things like ground loops, crosstalk between mixer channels and whatnot. These are installation issues rather than product development ones.
  - rpenm 13y ago
    Seems like a portable, precision FFT analyzer would be more useful. The ability to measure frequency response, harmonics, cancellation, distortion, noise, etc. make an engineer's job so much easier. Frequency information is far more important than timing information. What benefit does an oscilloscope have over meter+ears when resolving ground loop or crosstalk issues? Time domain information doesn't seem terribly useful.

fit2rule 13y ago

I'm a musician with a room full of synthesizers. This Oscilloscope is perfect for my needs. Sometimes, you just have to stand back and think: am I criticizing this because I'm me and have a position, or because its really an issue for the wider dynamics of the target market? Fact is, a lot of nerds are going to enjoy rockin' an Oscilloscope watch - it may well just be a faddish toy - but some of us will use the hell out of the thing. (I already have a few similar-spec'ed Oscilloscopes in the modular system. Having one on my watch is going to make it very fun to wire myself up and watch a few LFO's from afar ..)

anigbrowl 13y ago
We should talk...
- fit2rule 13y ago
  About synthesizers and oscilloscopes? Sure thing! Whats up? :)
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    It's my thing...drop me an email, it's in my profile. If you're in the Bay area we should meet up.
    - fit2rule 13y ago
      I'm in Europe, but thanks for the invitation .. always nice to meet a fellow enthusiast. Anyway, I'm a backer of this Oscilloscope watch now, I can't wait to wear it, and I'll definitely be wiring up my LFO's to the thing so that I can watch 'em while playing keys away from the modular interface. ;)