[sdiy] What test gear do you use?

[sleepy_dog at gmx.de]

Hey,

Protocol analyzer: Whart, the Owon does not have that? :P :D
I guess you are aware of those chinese ultra cheapo probes that you can 
connect to Sigrok and then do all sorts of protocol analyses? (like, add 
a UART decoder to a line, and stack a MIDI decoder onto it...)

Owon scope, interesting, my perception so far was that they are regarded 
*much* less highly than the Rigol ones in all sorts of regards, but 
maybe they have improved.
I think Siglent also supposedly improved a lot, with their "higher end" 
models anyway.

I do find the Rigol encoders a bit slow, but calling it "useless", I 
don't know, Brian must be a vampire or something (in some media they 
have much higher speed of movement than humans ;)).
And in the 7 or so years that I have some scope or another, I may have 
used the "auto set" 2..3 times ;)
But I confess, I used the "measure all" button a lot, which often has in 
the big table of measurements that fills half the screen, at leats one 
thing I am interested in at that time, so I don't need to fumble with 
cursors or poke around in menus.
And for some things I have done, I would have been lost without the 
memory sizes of todays scopes.

I have used Tek DSOs made between 2005 and 2014, old analog HAMEG ones, 
and a LeCroy WaveRunner from ~ 2010 with Windows XP on it which had cost 
more than my current car costs new ;)
While I can't say what Brian is using that I'm maybe not using due to 
lack of knowledge or type of projects,
I can say I like some aspects of the Rigol User Interface better than of 
the Tek scopes I have used,
but do acknowledge that the update rate is somewhat slow, so if you 
really are really fast, I guess, you won't see well enough what you are 
doing - but I think I developed something like "intuitive physics" for 
it, lol, I have a feeling for how much to turn the knobs to get to 
where, even if I don't see the relevant screen update immediately but 
some blink of an eye later.

- Steve


Tom Wiltshire wrote:
> Have you ever used one of the Owon scopes, Brian? Similar price to 
> Rigols, but better than what you’re describing, if the Rigols are 
> really that bad.
>
> I’d be interested to hear your view. I’ve been using one for several 
> years now and find it very suitable for the stuff I do. It’s fast and 
> plenty accurate enough for my purposes. The interface is clear and 
> pretty straightforward, I’d say. One or two of the lesser-used 
> features might be a bit of a poke-around,  but that’s why they put the 
> lesser-used features there and gave the common stuff it’s own front 
> panel button.
>
> I’ve never used a Tek scope, but unless it makes me toast and a nice 
> cup of tea and magically improves my sex life, it’s going to struggle 
> to justify the huge price-per-feature increase over cheaper scopes. 
> Seems to me they’re mostly aiming at a market of people who buy them 
> for the work lab with someone else’s money. I’m not convinced at all.
>
> Tom
>
> ==================
>        Electric Druid
> Synth & Stompbox DIY
> ==================
>
>> On 7 May 2018, at 01:41, rsdio at audiobanshee.com 
>> <mailto:rsdio at audiobanshee.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you’ll note, I used terms like “unusable” and “useless” before 
>> saying “overall design quality.” I guess I should have said, “overall 
>> usability design quality” or “overall user experience design quality.”
>>
>> I am an EE and I have used many different ‘scopes over the decades. 
>> When I’m using a ‘scope, I’m not really concerned with what it looks 
>> like when you take it apart (*) in a YouTube video, I’m focused on 
>> getting a task done. The Rigol makes it almost impossible to get work 
>> done at a reasonable pace. I’d rather have an ancient ‘scope with 
>> fewer features that work quickly, than a modern ‘scope that doesn’t 
>> know how to provide precise control over those features. I’m not 
>> saying that the encoders are falling off (physical build quality), 
>> I’m saying that I can’t use them to get work done efficiently (user 
>> experience design quality).
>>
>> It’s like the firmware inside the Rigol was created by a team with 
>> absolutely no experience in practical functionality or user experience.
>>
>> Mere editing of things like calibration scaling or DC offset gets to 
>> be hopeless. If all you know how to do when it comes to using a 
>> ‘scope is the automatic settings, then the encoders won’t really 
>> bother you.
>>
>> Admittedly, some of my clients are not EE graduates, and they’re not 
>> interested in hiring EE graduates, but they still buy a ‘scope so 
>> they can plod along. Folks who don’t know what they’re missing aren’t 
>> really going to complain about the poor usability of the Rigol 
>> designs. I guarantee you that it’s only popular because it’s cheap 
>> and most folks don’t know any better.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> p.s. I am happy that the Tektronix parts have reliable build quality. 
>> If the user experience wasn’t functional, then I really wouldn’t care 
>> how well the Tektronix was put together. However, when they have both 
>> build quality and appropriate user interface design, that’s the ultimate.
>>
>>
>> On May 6, 2018, at 3:35 PM, sleepy_dog at gmx.de 
>> <mailto:sleepy_dog at gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>> I have found the Rigol products to be completely unusable compared 
>>>>> to quality ‘scopes. The encoders are useless, for all intents and 
>>>>> purposes. There’s a reason these ‘scopes are cheap, and hacking 
>>>>> one to a higher base model does not make up for the poor overall 
>>>>> design quality.
>>> <<
>>>
>>> Do you have anything concrete about that "poor overall design quality"?
>>> I have seen teardowns and extensive tests done by several EEs, and 
>>> they were quite impressed with the quality, even though there have 
>>> initially been some firmware bugs.
>>>
>>> Apparently many people finding them quite usable, some of them 
>>> smaller companies, not just hobbyists.
>>> When I bought my Rigol of the newer generation when it had just come 
>>> out, its specs - and they are real specs - completely dwarfed the 
>>> back then basic Tek DSO model, especially its laughable point memory 
>>> size (and the "1 elephant tooth per kpoints" they were asking for 
>>> extra). For what was it, 1/3 the price or less? I don't remember 
>>> exactly.
>>>
>>> Now take it with as many tablespoons of salt as you like as I'm no 
>>> EE, but there are not just a few EEs who do approve of that product 
>>> line :-)
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what exactly is your beef with the encoders. That 
>>> they're a bit slow?
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Synth-diy mailing list
>> Synth-diy at synth-diy.org <mailto:Synth-diy at synth-diy.org>
>> http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://synth-diy.org/pipermail/synth-diy/attachments/20180507/f812f7c5/attachment.htm>