PC based oscilloscope

Anyone has experience with PC based oscilloscopes? They are cheaper than
regular ones (asuming you have the PC), but I'm not sure about the quality.

Thanks

Rafael




Rafael Letelier

In article <d808c5$u6p$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
says...

> Anyone has experience with PC based oscilloscopes? They are cheaper than
> regular ones (asuming you have the PC), but I'm not sure about the quality.

No direct experience here. However, in general terms, I often
despair at how much faith people seem to have in the myth that the PC is
the Ultimate Troubleshooting Tool for any electronics workbench.

You would do far better, IMO, to take the funds that you're
thinking of blowing on PC-based device and put them towards a real O-
scope, preferably one bearing the Tektronix name.

You can still do an awful lot with even the older Tek 7000 series
instruments, and we're getting to the point where a lot of the early
digital and digitizing instruments are becoming available on the surplus
market.

Without knowing your specific requirements, I can't really make
any in-depth suggestions. However, again, I would avoid PC-based 'scopes
on general principles. I would be stunned if any of them can perform as
well as a good dedicated 'scope for a comparable price/value figure.

Happy hunting.


--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
with surreal ports?"

"Rafael Letelier" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Anyone has experience with PC based oscilloscopes? They are cheaper than
>regular ones (asuming you have the PC), but I'm not sure about the quality.
>
>Thanks
>
>Rafael
>
I'd hate to be without mine, which I've used for many years. It's a
Pico ADC-200/50, with PicoScope and PicoLog software.
http://www.picotech.com/

In fairness, I can't make a direct comparison with a high end digital
storage 'scope, as I've never been able to afford one. But I now use
my conventional dual-channel Hameg only when I suspect some software
problem (PicoScope or Windows) is giving me a misleading result on the
Pico, or on the very rare occasions when I need an additional
simultaneous waveform or two. (A 'Channel-Splitter' has been on my
list of future projects for a couple of years <g>).

The Hameg takes up an unjustifiable chunk of my scarce bench space,
but so far I've resisted relegating it to a dark corner of the
workshop.

Major appeal to me is the ease of use through its familiar PC GUI
interface, with full mouse and keyboard access to all settings. And
being able to capture and annotate a waveform and file/display/publish
it on my PC (with or without an appropriate schematic) within minutes.

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 21:23:35 -0400, "Rafael Letelier"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Anyone has experience with PC based oscilloscopes? They are cheaper than
>regular ones (asuming you have the PC), but I'm not sure about the quality.

I've got the velleman PCS500 http://www.velleman.be/ . I like it and
you can't fault it for the price. You have a twin channel scope,
spectrum analyser, and if you have the velleman sig gen as I do you
can also do frequency plots e.g. for filters etc. You can save the
data, take pictures etc as you would expect with a PC scope.

The sig gen can also generate arbitrary waveforms BTW. Takes a bit of
programming though since you need to generate a list of data points
which is not something you want to do by hand :-).


--

Malcolm

Malcolm Reeves BSc CEng MIEE MIRSE, Full Circuit Ltd, Chippenham, UK
((E-Mail Removed), (E-Mail Removed) or (E-Mail Removed)).
Design Service for Analogue/Digital H/W & S/W Railway Signalling and Power
electronics. More details plus freeware, Win95/98 DUN and Pspice tips, see:

http://www.fullcircuit.com or http://www.fullcircuit.co.uk

NEW - www.CharteredConsultant.co.uk - The Consultant A-List

"Malcolm Reeves" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 21:23:35 -0400, "Rafael Letelier"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Anyone has experience with PC based oscilloscopes? They are cheaper than
>>regular ones (asuming you have the PC), but I'm not sure about the quality.
>
> I've got the velleman PCS500 http://www.velleman.be/ . I like it and
> you can't fault it for the price. You have a twin channel scope,
> spectrum analyser, and if you have the velleman sig gen as I do you
> can also do frequency plots e.g. for filters etc. You can save the
> data, take pictures etc as you would expect with a PC scope.
>
> The sig gen can also generate arbitrary waveforms BTW. Takes a bit of
> programming though since you need to generate a list of data points
> which is not something you want to do by hand :-).

If you want to do spectrum analysis and don't care much about what's above 1MHz,
get a model with 16 bits. Gives you more dynamic range and you often need that.

I've got pico adc216 since I wanted 16 bits and the spectrum analyzer function has saved
my life a couple times already. I've got Tektronix 496P, but its not suitable for 0-100KHz work.

One more thing, PC based scope lets you capture long waveforms, just like a digital storage scope.
Comes handy in studying communication protocols etc. Kind of like a logic analyzer.

You've now got integrated PC based solutions with signal generator, a scope and logic analyzer in
one box (I think its USB), check last issue of Elektor magazine.

--
Siol
------------------------------------------------
Rather than a heartless beep
Or a rude error message,
See these simple words: "File not found."

Rafael Letelier wrote:

> Anyone has experience with PC based oscilloscopes? They are cheaper than
> regular ones (asuming you have the PC), but I'm not sure about the quality.

The difference is the liftime.
A standalone scope can be working for 15 years and more.
A PC based could too, but :
- the interface, USB, serial, ethernet tends to
outdated then
- the software is outdated too, and you'll need
an old pc just for the scope by then

Just some ideas, though.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

Rene Tschaggelar <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Rafael Letelier wrote:
>
>> Anyone has experience with PC based oscilloscopes? They are cheaper than
>> regular ones (asuming you have the PC), but I'm not sure about the quality.
>
>The difference is the liftime.
>A standalone scope can be working for 15 years and more.
>A PC based could too, but :
>- the interface, USB, serial, ethernet tends to
> outdated then
>- the software is outdated too, and you'll need
> an old pc just for the scope by then
>
>Just some ideas, though.
>
>Rene

I disagree with both your points:
- The hardware becomes dated no faster than that in a conventional
'scope.
- Pico's software is far from perfect, but it is updated regularly.

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK

In article <MPG.1d0d7ac4f4a073989754@localhost>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> In article <d808c5$u6p$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
> says...
>
> Without knowing your specific requirements, I can't really make
> any in-depth suggestions. However, again, I would avoid PC-based 'scopes
> on general principles. I would be stunned if any of them can perform as
> well as a good dedicated 'scope for a comparable price/value figure.
>
> Happy hunting.

Dunno about that. I think the most important feature of a DSO, even
beyond temporary waveform storage, is recordability. Increasingly, I
find that if I don't save a measurement for recall perhaps months later,
I might as well have never made it. That, and the user interface. If I
hate the UI, I'll try not to use the scope in the first place.

The features that differentiate a Tek DSO and a cheap PC DSO are all
secondary to these two factors. Where the Teks shine is in the details,
not the feature set. When you select Ch1-Ch2 mode, for instance, where
does the math happen? Even Tek's cheaper current scopes do it in image
space, which means both Ch1 and Ch2's waveforms need to be entirely
onscreen. You don't want that. Where does the cheap PC DSO adapter do
it? And when the waveform *is* driven far offscreen, how long does it
take to recover? Etc.

Keep in mind that commodity components available to the PC DSO adapter
vendors today are in most cases better than the exotic stuff available
to the designers at Tek in the early Eighties, when most gear accessible
to current hobbyists on the surplus market was built. Certainly nobody
would build a DSO with a 1K record length today (I hope).

Price is important for most folks, too, and for the price of the GPIB
card and cable I have to use with my Tek 2430A DSO if I want to keep
waveforms around, you can get a full-featured PC scope with similar
specs.

If you're serious at all, you pretty much either have to buy a high-$
DPO scope, or you still need an analog scope on the bench right next to
your DSO. I would be tempted to tell people to put the money into the
*analog* scope, and buy the cheapest PC DSO that fits your needs at any
given moment.

-- jm

------------------------------------------------------
http://www.qsl.net/ke5fx
Note: My E-mail address has been altered to avoid spam
------------------------------------------------------

Terry Pinnell wrote:
> Rene Tschaggelar <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Rafael Letelier wrote:
>
>>>Anyone has experience with PC based oscilloscopes? They are cheaper than
>>>regular ones (asuming you have the PC), but I'm not sure about the quality.
>>
>>The difference is the liftime.
>>A standalone scope can be working for 15 years and more.
>>A PC based could too, but :
>>- the interface, USB, serial, ethernet tends to
>> outdated then
>>- the software is outdated too, and you'll need
>> an old pc just for the scope by then
>>
>>Just some ideas, though.
>>
> I disagree with both your points:
> - The hardware becomes dated no faster than that in a conventional
> 'scope.
> - Pico's software is far from perfect, but it is updated regularly.
>

The PC scope becomes useless as soon as you cannot
connect it anymore or as soon as you cannot run
the software anymore. Modern PC don't have a serial
port anymore for example. Yes, there still are USB
to serial converters.
My PCs tend to finally die at age 7 or 8.

Rene
--
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net

Hello John,

> Dunno about that. I think the most important feature of a DSO, even
> beyond temporary waveform storage, is recordability. Increasingly, I
> find that if I don't save a measurement for recall perhaps months later,
> I might as well have never made it. That, and the user interface. If I
> hate the UI, I'll try not to use the scope in the first place.

Well, that is why I bought a digital camera for the lab after a few
folks here in the newsgroup said it would work. And it does!

I just got tired of that HPIB stuff with cables that are about as
flexible as a reinforced garden hose. At least after one flung backwards
and sent the coffee mug sailing.

> The features that differentiate a Tek DSO and a cheap PC DSO are all
> secondary to these two factors. Where the Teks shine is in the details,
> not the feature set. ...

There is some more to the picture here. One is channel-to-channel
crosstalk, the other is triggerability. So far I have not seen a PC
based scope that came close to the Tek 7000 series. Most of the Tek
scopes can trigger on a piece of dog hair floating by. Even some of
their serious competitors don't match up.

Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com