[sdiy] What test gear do you use?

[sleepy_dog at gmx.de]

Rigol scopes addendum:

Oh, but let me say one other thing:
One negative aspect of the UI I to see is the somewhat minimalism / 
self-imposed space consctraints.
They could have used more encoders for direct acesss of some things, and 
a better (more intuitive) arrangement.
For sure.
Still not "useless" to ,e, though :-)

- Steve

Am 07.05.2018 um 19:41 schrieb 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/aed54ea2/attachment.htm>