A little help on selecting the right Oscilloscope - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: AlainDLC
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 06, 2015, 05:59:58 am
content: Well i'm new here so i hope this is the right place for my post/question, basically i want to start building my personal lab for hobby some tinkering and once in a while a repair, i been considering to get and oscilloscope and i want to make the right choice for my needs i.e. i don't want a super fancy and super expensive oscilloscope with tons of functions that maybe i will never use but also a don't want an scope that passes for a nice toy, doing some research i have narrowed to this 3 options1. Tektronix TBS1052B (is really that bad to have a 2.5Kpoints record lengh?)2. Tektronix DPO2002B (really cool 70Mhz, 1Mpoints, but also $740 more not counting customs taxes in my country!, Do i really need to spend that extra money)3. Agilent/Keysight DSOX2002A (really cool because i can upgrade and lots of functions but also a bit expensive for me)So my question is for a beginner do i really need those functions offered by Keysight DSOX2K or tek DPO2K or can i bear simple tasks with the tek TBS1000B, can someone be specific about the horrors that imply a 2.5Kpoints or why some people consider the Tek TBS1000B series as a toy oscilloscope.Thanks in advance!

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2015, 06:15:59 am
content: Same questions asked often here, actually its quite simple, starting by ... "How much is the budget ?".

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 06, 2015, 06:16:45 am
content: Search for Rigol DS2072 and DS1054Z here and see your other cheaper options with all you should need.

author: AlainDLC
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 06, 2015, 06:34:47 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on January 06, 2015, 06:15:59 amWell budget can go as far as for a Keysight (in my country plus taxes lets say $1700) but my point is do i really need it? i mean spending $750 for something that i am really going to use because otherwise i can use that money for a Bench DMM, Function Generator or Power Supply

author: AlainDLC
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 06, 2015, 06:38:53 am
content: Quote from: Lightages on January 06, 2015, 06:16:45 amIs Rigol really a good brand? sorry if i sound like an idiot asking that (newbie writing here) but i mean is that brand up to Tek and Keysight quality? or should i said is Tek and Keysight up to the Rigol quiality?

author: Wuerstchenhund
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2015, 06:46:08 am
content: Quote from: AlainDLC on January 06, 2015, 06:34:47 amSince you're a beginner on a shoestring budget I think the best choice for you is the Rigol DS1054z/DS1074z/DS1104z. At its price it's a bargain, the hardware seems to be solid, and it gives you four channels which you might find useful more quickly than you'd think now. Even the DS1104z should leave you enough money for buying other stuff.The TBS1k is crap, it's a very basic scope based on a 15+ year old design with very poor specs. Don't even go there. The other scopes aren't bad but the bang for buck is much lower as with the Rigol DS1000z Series.Have you consider buying 2nd hand?

author: drakke
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2015, 10:30:40 am
content: Quote from: AlainDLC on January 06, 2015, 06:34:47 amI am in the same position as you and found I need a good function generator to test circuits which will be about 60% of the cost of my oscilloscope.It's easy to be seduced by a single piece of equipment and forget to budget for the essential tools you need to actually accomplish anything.

author: don
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2015, 06:15:49 am
content: The TBS1000 is a basic scope and is the type of scope you will find in repair centers, on a factory floor or in an introductory lab class in school or in student dorms (TBS actually stands for tek basic scope). There is an EDU version that lets you load up course material for labs. Given that you looked at three scopes and think this one will meet your needs it's likely it will be good enough as far as features go. It's a well made scope, has a 5yr warranty but is basic. So not a toy in the sense of poorly made and won't last.The screen is decent size/resolution especially given the simple user interface. Usability should be good. If you want to look at a waveforms and do basic measurements & debug and learn about electronics it will definitely work. 2.5k memory is as small as you will get but if you just want to look at what's on screen it's fine. Some people will think it's useless, some will think it's plenty. If you don't care about what was happening in that single acquisition before and after the trigger it does not matter. Can you just keep watching on screen or set up a trigger to catch what you want? If so, 2.5k is probably fine. Kind of depends on where you think you will take the hobby, but know it is considered a small amount of memory. Fine for clocks and regulators, not good for protocol decoding and monitoring a lot of events in detail. It does have a trend plot feature and the ability to log data to flash drive so that helps a bit.On the other end of the spectrum are scopes from newer companies (ie Rigol) that add every feature they can at a very low cost. They are hackable too if that's what you like, and a lot of people buy them to get the most features per dollar. They tend to be more buggy and less polished, but you may not even notice depending on what you are doing or what your expectations are.Are you looking to get other equipment now or accumulate over time? If I was setting up a lab I would try to budget for the entire lab and get the whole thing functional to some degree. A functional lab takes a while to acquire and you would be surprised how much easier a lab is to use once you acquire the little necessities that you didn't realize you needed until you can't go any further with task at hand. You can do some cost saving measures like substitute handheld DMM for bench meter depending on what you are measuring (ie do you need to measure microvolts). Or you might be better off with two or three hand helds instead of one bench meter for example. A stereo microscope is great depending on what you are doing, also heat gun, tools, cables, parts, etc.Second hand will get you a lot of lab for your money but can take some time to acquire. Equipment will be larger but generally very nice quality. Ignore the stickers, scratches and dents as it's just the patina from well used equipment. It can be tricky to find good deals and it helps if you know what you are looking for and know the source. Don't be put off by the age unless it's obviously a relic. Take the Agilent 34401a multimeter. It was released in 1992. They may still be in production or were just a year ago or so. We have a bunch of them at work, and ones that say HP or newer agilent ones work exactly the same way. So don't be too worried about age. If it serves it's purpose then no problem.From your basic goals and initial scope assessment it's likely the tbs1000 would work fine. I would wager that most people here would opt for more features and likely take a rigol. But plenty of people that would not, so do what makes sense for you. The higher end tek and agilent are likely unnecessary but if budget allows they are nice. If the electronics bug hits you might find you want a totally different scope later so starting small makes sense. Try to think about goals for your entire lab and see what's left in the budget for a scope.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2015, 07:21:53 am
content: The Rigol DS1104z is a very good choice, upgradable / hackable. Check out the shipping delays 3 week backlog in North America (very popular and inexpensive). It had an issue recently fixed in software, probably will have more but read about it first. Have a look at Daves older Rigol reviews and wait a couple weeks.You can get a discount from Tequipment (forum members) search for the thread. It's good for anything they sell, the DS1104z is a good price there.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2015, 09:17:41 am
content: Quote from: don on January 07, 2015, 06:15:49 amSorry but this is just total crap. If you want to buy something you want value for money. The value for money in the TBS1000 is zero. It is like telling someone a Ford Model-T is just fine while he/she can buy a decent modern car for less money. If you want to avoid Rigol (is the DS1000Z series buggy anyway?) then it would make more sense to look at Hameg (nowadays part of R&S).

author: Solder_Junkie
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2015, 09:58:56 am
content: Until fairly recently the standard home workshop scope would have been a second user dual channel 100 MHz analogue scope from one of the main USA or EU manufacturers. I had one that had poor triggering and a couple of intermittent faults.Now I have a Rigol DS1054Z, it is close to 100 MHz b/w at 3dB right out of the box with no hacks (98 MHz measured with a commercial grade Marconi RF signal generator), has superb triggering, 3 year warranty and four channels. All for the cost of one of those old crappy surplus scopes. The 70 and 100 MHz versions appear to all have identical hardware, those that don't mind fouling up their warranty can easily hack the 1054Z to a 1104Z.I hate to admit it, but the Rigol blows the Hameg, Tektronix and Keysight out of the water for home/hobby use.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2015, 10:25:15 am
content: Quote from: AlainDLC on January 06, 2015, 05:59:58 amDo NOT under any circumstances buy this scope, it is a joke by modern standards. Only still available for a very niche market.QuoteThe Rigol DS1054Z beats it by miles in bang-per-buck.QuoteThe Agilent is a nice scope if it suits your needs and budget.QuoteThat scope is based on a 20 years old design, 2.5K is a joke, you can't do any useful single shot zoom function at all, and that is one of if not the the best thing about modern digital scopes.We'll make it easy for you, just buy the Rigol DS1054Z

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2015, 10:30:29 am
content: Quote from: AlainDLC on January 06, 2015, 06:34:47 amWith that sort of budget you can equip a decent lab, you'd be crazy to blow all that money on a scope. Get the Rigol DS1054Z for $400, get a $300 function gen, two decent meters, and a decent soldering station, and some other bits of gear you think you need.Heck for $1700 you could almost get a the DS1054Z, and a DSA815 spectrum analyser!

author: don
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2015, 07:46:05 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 07, 2015, 09:17:41 amThe OP did research and asked specifically about this scope. It's not crap to explain the intended market of the scope because the OP might be one of those people, particularly given that it made it to his short list and he is a beginner. Lots of scopes with less features than TBS1000 being bought on ebay and I'm pretty sure it's not all out of ignorance.I would choose the dz1000z over the tek tbs1000. It's $150 less with more features that I need. However, I work with lots of technicians and even some engineers that gravitate to older easier to use scopes (that's code for saying crap scopes), but I'm not going to rip it out of their hands, tell them they like crap scopes and then tell them to use a newer and better one. We have millions of dollars in scopes and still have analog ones that get some use. How do you explain that? We just hired idiots? Come on. The electronics world is a lot bigger and at times simpler than some make it out to be.By the way, if we all put up a list of equipment in our labs I'm sure everyone would have a lot of useless "crap" according to a lot of people here. But so what?

author: devanno
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2015, 08:34:00 pm
content: I have a cluster of 'scopes... acquired over some time, a couple brand new. Old stuff ... two old Tektronix units, a 475A which was a well worn gift, and a 2465 which was a "steal" off of eBay for under $150. When I decided to set up a bench late last year, I wanted some digital gear, and did a bit of research. Not knowing exactly what I was going to need in terms of bandwidth, I wanted a really nice 'scope for most things and opted for the Rigol DS2072A rated 70MHz because of it's higher quality more "analog-like" display. I really wanted to be able to work up around 20MHz sometimes, so, following the "rule of 5s" wanted a 100MHz capability as well. The price jump from 70 to 100MHz on the Rigol was steep, and I found that I could get a 2 channel Siglent SDS1102CML at 100MHz for less than the price difference than the upgrade on the Rigol. This also gave me a "backup" 'scope if I had issues with the Rigol (or the other way 'round), and since I could export a trigger from the Rigol and use that as an input trigger to the Siglent, could establish a poor-man's 4 channel if I really needed it.Since I just got most of this stuff in the last few months, I've not done a lot with this gear (although I was testing some signal patterns on a model RR last night with the Siglent), but the Rigol 2000 series is clearly the nicer of the scopes. From everything I've seen, I'd go with Dave Jones here on the Rigol 1000z series or the 2000 series if you want to pop for the nicer display and higher sampling rate and memory depth. As others have mentioned, save some money for those other things you might need... you can never have enough multimeters (grin). I wouldn't opt for the signal generator option inside the 'scope, either... from what I've seen they are a bit limited, you'd do better to get the 1000z series 'scope and put the extra money to a sig-gen.One other thing that I found that I over-spent on (well, no, not over-spent, but exceeded my estimate) was decent test leads. I probably bought more than I needed, but that's something else you don't want to have to stop to create when you're in the middle of things.One nice thing you can do on Tequipment.net 's website is bring up a number of these models and select "compare" and look at the specs in comparative detail.As far as the "crap gear" goes... well, if it works for you, it's not crap. But getting more bang for the buck (as the phrase goes here in the 'States) is usually considered a good thing when buying gear. Let us know what you decide on!

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2015, 09:37:47 pm
content: QuoteVery true.While all these "extras" are nice, really now much of this addded functionality does the average "Joe" use? Bugger all IMO.As time goes by circuit technology has changed and the tools required to analyse them become more complex, so features like MSO and Decode are almost entry level requirements now, if not very soon.All that if fine if you know how to use such features.We all need to start with the basics, then progress to more complex requirements.All the features in DSO's can be daunting for a newbie, let alone the massive learning curve in electronics.Over the last decade or so there has been a mad scramble by manufacturers to include all manner of functionality in scopes.Little of that was possible until DSP and the advent of ADC's.Now we have a never ending cycle of oneupmanship with each manufacturer trying to out-do the other. Is this good or bad? Are we now conditioned to never ending upgrades of our gear?Fine for the professional market, but for hobbyists?

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 07, 2015, 10:04:14 pm
content: If you ask for opinions you get opinions! In comparison to the Rigols the Tek is "crap" in someone's opinion. If it hurts someone's feelings because they are attaching the opinion of a piece of equipment to their intelligence or worth and that is not the intent. I happen to agree that the Rigols ate a much better buy and the Tek is way over priced and under featured.Is it crap? In comparison to the Rigol, yes. If it was what I had it would be my crap.

author: don
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2015, 11:24:48 pm
content: Quote from: devanno on January 07, 2015, 08:34:00 pmYep, I would definitely opt for a larger functional lab instead of going nuts on a single piece of equipment. At least in the realm of the work you want to do. Once you get far enough into it you can then start buying equipment more tailored towards your needs or simply likes / dislikes. But an entire functional lab is great. Decade boxes, decade capacitors, spare parts, supplies that can sink / source curent, sourcemeter, current probes, wire, flux, tweezers, microscope, differential probes, capton tape, temp sensors...on and on and on if you have a need. And a lot of great second hand stuff.Quote from: devanno on January 07, 2015, 08:34:00 pmI've puchased some really poor quality test leads from ebay. I had one set where the banana jack broke and got stuck in my DMM because it was tight and poorly made. This happened to my best meter of course...lol a source of inexpensive nice quality leads that won't damage equipment would be nice to have.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2015, 11:33:39 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on January 07, 2015, 09:37:47 pmWell an oscilloscope is still an oscilloscope. If you spend amount X to get 100Y features or spend the same amount X and get 200Y features the latter is the better buy. You don't have to use those features as a beginner but since the features are there by popular demand even a beginner is likely to put those extra features to a good use at some point.And some features are left unused. I've never used segmented memory for example. If someone calls me an old fart because of that he/she is probably right@Don: regarding test leads: Hirschmann has a nice range of silicone insulated test leads like these:http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/4-mm-connector-test-leads/3469317/If you you shop around you can find them cheaper. I have a whole bunch of them.

author: don
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 07, 2015, 11:46:32 pm
content: Quote from: tautech on January 07, 2015, 09:37:47 pmThat's a good question, I think the excited hobbiest wanting the best bang for the buck is conditioning the manufacturer to put out buggy equipment. bugs will always be there - I get it. But it seems some manufactures rely on the bait and switch "look at all our features"...that don't necessarily work. And no ramifications because feature to cost ratio is so high. So features go up and quality goes down with complexity until they master the design by using their production models as prototypes (assuming they have bandwidth to learn from the feedback). When I was in college or a few years into my job I would have taken ANY dso. Yet alone one packed with features. protocol decoding? did it by hand of course and not a big deal. I had to do that again recently for a proprietary bus, good exercise actually because I learned some things about the protocol.Now I just want something I know works for my needs and am less interested in the cool factor or bang for the buck in some cases. give me he minimum for the foreseeable future that works well and I'm good to go. Very little of my equipment is latest gear and I wouldn't trade most of my older gear for any of the latest (let others work through issues...I already have a job where I "get" to do that)

author: aviphysics
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2015, 03:58:03 am
content: Quote from: devanno on January 07, 2015, 08:34:00 pmWhat signal generator would you recommend for the difference in price? My first inclination was to not get the built in signal generator, but I just didn't see a good option that would be significantly better without costing significantly more. Maybe I missed something.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2015, 06:19:04 am
content: Quote from: don on January 07, 2015, 11:46:32 pmI'm sure many would agree, some of us have never had all the "bells & whistles" until recently and got by fine without them because of our understanding and experience.But as gear gets more complex those without the experience will all fall into the trap of always believing what they see on the screen as fact. This is not always the case as some members signatures attest to.Before you hook up, ask youself: what waveform do I expect to see?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2015, 06:29:09 am
content: QuoteInbuilt AWG's are not reknown for their range of functions like bench top AWG's.If you consider basic waveforms sufficient for your needs then inbuilt can be the way to go.The Siglent SDG1000 series is well known by the community and a good choice.The SDG800 range is a little cheaper but only has 1 output.

author: HighResolution
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2015, 06:37:28 am
content: Quote from: aviphysics on January 08, 2015, 03:58:03 amThe GW-Instek SFG-1003 is a really good value at $153 with free shipping at tequipment. For a few dollars more you can get the SFG-1013 which also gives you voltage display.

author: rf-loop
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2015, 07:00:18 am
content: Quote from: tautech on January 08, 2015, 06:29:09 amSDG1000 series is well known and also if filter out some old obsolete issues what are not at all valid today, it have quite mature FW today and also small old issues in HW (mainly related to old Square function glitches issue and old case where Siglent was accidentally installed wrong end amplifier chips in some manufacture lot) have all fixed.Also FW have upgraded so that there is channel lock function where user can define which channel is master and which is slave and when adjust master, slave follow. Between thyese can also set offset frequency.Output load impedance can also now select free and not only Hi-Z and 50ohm.Some small bugs fixed.It have been enough long time on the market and we know its HW is really reliable. Also signal quality is very good in its price range.SDG800 have one channel but it is not one channel version of SDG1000.It is more like SDG1000 but it have also some advantages over SDG1000. It have Siglent developed exellent "EasyPulse" technology adopted from SDG5000 series. It give adjustable rise and fall times and also fast risetimes and narrow pulses with extremely low frequencies.

author: aviphysics
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2015, 07:16:32 pm
content: Quote from: rf-loop on January 08, 2015, 07:00:18 amSo the SDG 800 as a single channel generator is substantially better then the SDG1000?Also, what do you typically need arbitrary shaped waveforms for? I had kind of written it off as one of those things that was cool, but not super useful.SDG1000 looks cool. I noticed it before and it was somewhat tempting. Can it generate random pulses (i.e user defined pulses at Poisson distributed intervals?) I just can't imagine many applications where I would need any regularly shaped waveforms fancier than your typical sin or square wave. One of the few useful exceptions would be generating pulses at random intervals to simulate the output of a particle detector. I was thinking of building something for that. It would need to be able to generate overlapping peaks and the peak to peak interval would have to be as low as 0.1 uS. Kind of a specialty application. The last place I worked had a very nice dedicated device, but the results were always skewed because it had a slightly too long deadtime before it could generate another peak.SFG-1003 is too low frequency to interest me. I can think of a number of cases where I could use at least 20 Mhz.Hrrmmm... Only extra $112 and the MSO1074Z is in stock while the "-s" won't get to me until Feb 24th. Will see how I feel on Monday. 2.5V P-P at 50 ohms also seems pretty limiting.BTW, Any sign if the SDG1000 will see a successor anytime soon?

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2015, 08:49:45 pm
content: QuoteThe main feature is to set waveform parameters that you know to be that you have set without first having to confirm them on a scope.You could define a pulse for example, short duration, low frequency to test a capture design.Or set a serial string.QuoteNo. The 1000 series is capable of both higher frequencies and faster risetimes.QuoteNot that I am aware of.For higher spec and frequencies, have a look at the SDG5000 series.

author: aviphysics
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2015, 09:30:00 pm
content: Okay,Sent a message to tequipment to cancel or adjust my order, so I can get the MSO1074Z and SDG1025 instead.I just received some parts for a noise generator that I can't do much with until I get the new scope.

author: AlainDLC
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: January 11, 2015, 12:57:33 am
content: WOW!!! Thank you guys lots of helpful information here, i have opened my mind to other brands i guess i was been seduced by top brands willing to spend my money on a single piece of test equipment giving up to other important things for my personal lab, but comparing functionality vs price i think i'm not going to pay so much more just for a cool brand sticker, for a starter i think i'll go for a Rigol MSO1074z, over time maybe will get a keysight which i think is a really cool equipment but expensive right now for me but who knows depending on my rigol experience they might buy me, thanks a lot and i'll keep posting upgrades in the future hoping it will be useful for other newbies like me. Very cool forum over here

author: aviphysics
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2015, 04:14:17 am
content: Quote from: AlainDLC on January 11, 2015, 12:57:33 amI was tempted by the Keysight , but then I thought about how much a scope like the MSO1074z would have gone for just 4 years ago. There has definitely been a lot of downward pressure on the market in the last 4 years. Yet I think the fact that they are selling scopes like the DS1054z for less than $400 that is only separated from the $800 DS1104Z by software limits, indicates that there is still a lot of room for scopes to get cheaper. In 4 years or less, I am guessing there will be a scope with the specs of a base model Keysight 3000T and costs between $400 - $600.Unless you need more bandwidth, the MSO1074z seems like it is pretty fully loaded. I might have gone for the function generator if it was more capable and had better integration with the scope. Being able to do things like replay a signal the scope recorded could be useful, but it doesn't do anything like that at all. It is just a tiny little function generator tacked onto the rest of the unit. If you need what the little function generator does and nothing more, it is a good deal. When you look at the spec sheet and compare the signal generator to a dedicated unit, it has some nice qualities and bang for the buck, but it also has limitations. (I feel like such a flip-flopper. Was totally down with getting the "-s" until corresponding with y'all in this thread.)

author: devanno
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2015, 05:16:21 am
content: Quote from: aviphysics on January 08, 2015, 03:58:03 amThat depends on what kind of waveforms and output you need. I have a little kit one that puts out basic signals, albeit not at high frequency (sine up to 200KHz is all), that I think I paid $49 for... just as a fun little project... but as Dave Jones would say, "It works a treat!" It even has a USB jack on it so you can create .csv files for arbitrary wave form generation. I bought the 80MHz 6000 series Siglent, but that was likely "overkill" for my needs. There are much less expensive units out there, so if you can live in the 20 ~ 50MHz bandwidth, you can do OK for a few hundred US$.

author: devanno
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2015, 05:30:45 am
content: Quote from: tautech on January 10, 2015, 08:49:45 pmOne thing I can do with the Siglent O'scope is capture a measured waveform in a CSV file on a memory stick or on the computer. I can then load that waveform into the arbitrary generator to reproduce that wave. I see this as a way to capture a signal in situ in a running DUT... perhaps that device is in production, but suffering some sort of glitch that you can capture on the 'scope. Now, I can look to build and test a filter without taking that DUT out of service, because I can still pass the errant waveform through the filter... test by injecting the arb waveform into the filter and 'scoping the output. This way you also only need one oscilloscope... not one to watch the glitchy signal on the input side, and another to capture your filter test results out the other. Just one example off the top of my head.Another might be if you have a series of components passing signals. The components may be large, bulky, or difficult to work with. If you can capture the output of "stage 1" you can then move on to test "stage 2" with that captured waveform, and so-on, perhaps minimizing the amount of components "under test" at once.BTW, this is where the number of memory points on the signal generator comes into play... you have to have enough memory points to generate the entire waveform. On my Siglent 6000 series, CHL 2 has a much larger memory than CHL 1, so that's where I'd be generating a complex waveform. Which is another point on the ARB generators... you may need a rather complex waveform, which can often be created on the PC using supplied software. With the ARB you can do that, a "standard" sin / step / triangle / square / ramp" series may not be sufficient... like inserting a pulse in the middle of a sine wave, or (whatever) ... just stuff that a "standard" generation won't do.

author: devanno
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2015, 05:42:39 am
content: Quote from: tautech on January 07, 2015, 09:37:47 pmAs the price of technology drops, manufacturers need to add features to keep selling gear. It's why so many "office suites" (software) have so many more features or functions than 99.9% of the end users utilize. This drives margins tighter, limiting the money for R&D, while creating a scenario where the company has to increase sales volume (number of units) to maintain revenue and cash flow. So, yes, we'll have features that we don't use, but some smart individual will find ways to use some of these features that we hadn't thought of. This actually is good for the consumer, as our "bang for the buck" increases. Realize that an "unused or seldom-used feature" probably didn't really cost you anything, unless it meant adding hardware (like adding a sig gen to a 'scope for instance). These little features probably won't drive the hobbyist to run out and buy the latest and greatest, unless a hobbyist is one that is like some of the "over the top" audiophiles who must have the latest and greatest clear insulation on the same old 16ga stranded wire because it makes the conductor look sooo big. :-) As long as our gear works for us and we're not craving the new function adds, we're still good.Businesses are having to use less and less well-skilled labor, because the supply often exceeds demand for those skilled resources. So.. complexity gets hidden behind the facade of the machine. The complexity is still there, and as someone else pointed out, there will be mistakes made because the end user doesn't understand what's happening behind that face plate, and will make assumptions that's what's on screen is "gospel." Good training will help, and this model has worked well in the computing industry. (For example, many people will say how much easier the Apple is to use than a Windows machine... because Apple learned early on how to hide the complexity from the casual user.)So, yes, I think we're in for a constant roll of gear. I've learned one adage, however... and that is that Hardware eventually fails, Software eventually works (or is abandoned). A corollary is that "legacy means that it works."Cheers!