I'm thinking seriously to buy a pc oscilloscope.
But I'm tottaly newbie on this. Today I have done some google search for the first time.
Do you have any experience with these oscilloscopes?
They're cheap and with spectrum analyzer too.
I allready own an old oscilloscope (Hitachi) but I don't have an analyzer. And as I can see they're too expensive even used. Or I'm wrong?
I'd like to do an upgrade in my test equimpent, so what do you suggest?
Any source with a test btw pc oscilloscopes?
I'm not planning to pay a fortune so low cost equimpent is needed
But I'm tottaly newbie on this. Today I have done some google search for the first time.
Do you have any experience with these oscilloscopes?
They're cheap and with spectrum analyzer too.
I allready own an old oscilloscope (Hitachi) but I don't have an analyzer. And as I can see they're too expensive even used. Or I'm wrong?
I'd like to do an upgrade in my test equimpent, so what do you suggest?
Any source with a test btw pc oscilloscopes?
I'm not planning to pay a fortune so low cost equimpent is needed
I have a Velleman PCS100a (similar to this one). I works reasonably well, but it has some strange problems.
1) it always reads a small 50 Hz component, visible in the spectrum analyzer.
2) Measured values in one sensitivity setting (like 100mV/div), can be something else completely in another, like 1V/div.
3) it's relatively noisy. At least, I think so, because I have difficulty measuring something like a small hum from an amplifier, because I can't differentiate it from the noise. I don't know how this is with other scopes, however.
And, it being a digital scope, it's readout is slow, especially for the lower time/div settings. The best readout is about 15 fps (frames per second), and for the lowest time/div setting, it can be as low as 1 fps.
These are my experiences with this particular scope. It's likely there are better ones.
1) it always reads a small 50 Hz component, visible in the spectrum analyzer.
2) Measured values in one sensitivity setting (like 100mV/div), can be something else completely in another, like 1V/div.
3) it's relatively noisy. At least, I think so, because I have difficulty measuring something like a small hum from an amplifier, because I can't differentiate it from the noise. I don't know how this is with other scopes, however.
And, it being a digital scope, it's readout is slow, especially for the lower time/div settings. The best readout is about 15 fps (frames per second), and for the lowest time/div setting, it can be as low as 1 fps.
These are my experiences with this particular scope. It's likely there are better ones.
PC Oscilloscope Candidate
Hi,
I'm interested too.
I don't have any personal experience with this but it looks promising:
http://www.virtins.com/page2.html#Instrument
Anyone have any opinions?
Best,
George
Hi,
I'm interested too.
I don't have any personal experience with this but it looks promising:
http://www.virtins.com/page2.html#Instrument
Anyone have any opinions?
Best,
George
I wouldn't trust a sound card oscilloscope. For one, the maximum frequency is quite low. You won't be able to detect oscillation for example, which typically occurs around 500 KHz.
Another important thing is that you don't have the voltage range of a real scope, unless you put in some kind of divider of course. But, anything that is not (optically) isolated from the computer, is not very safe.
And, sound cards can have a pretty high noise factor.
Lastly, I think there are plenty of free packages available which do the same thing.
Another important thing is that you don't have the voltage range of a real scope, unless you put in some kind of divider of course. But, anything that is not (optically) isolated from the computer, is not very safe.
And, sound cards can have a pretty high noise factor.
Lastly, I think there are plenty of free packages available which do the same thing.
" I wouldn't trust a sound card oscilloscope. For one, the maximum frequency is quite low. You won't be able to detect oscillation for example, which typically occurs around 500 KHz. ..."
I wouldn't trust a parallel port connected oscilloscope. For one, there are going to be serious compatibility issues with any modern PC = no parallel ports.
I would also try for a USB 2.0 'scope as, even if you don't currently have a USB 2 port, these will all be backward and forward compatibile with USB 1.1 and 2.0 ...
....
This is interesting ... a DIY 'scope for USB 2.0 : http://www.usbee.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=17 ... just add your own probes, etc., I guess. ... I was confused until I groked this: http://www.usbee.com/comp.html ... and this: " ... Cypress EZ-USB FX2 Development kit software that you can download for free from Cypress Semiconductor's web site at www.cypress.com. ..." !!
You might also consider: http://www.pc-oscilloscopes.com/ ... their 3000 series is able to do a few MegaHertz which should be good enough for all audio work, even "ultra-sound" medical scanning machines ... I doubt if getting more than two channels is worth the extra bucks. ( http://www.pc-oscilloscopes.com/usb_3224.html )
I kinda like the BitScope: http://www.bitscope.com/ ... the 310 for USB 2.0 is about US$550 or the BS50 "pocket" unit looks like plenty of features for audio. ... I wouldn't bother with the other models unless I was serious about logic analisys.
This looks nice: http://www.tiepie.com/uk/home/ ... the model HS3 should be plenty for audio work. (US / Canadian dealers available)
I have been involved with USB since the beginning and have always wanted a digital 'scope myself. I have seen these as low as US$150 (bare boards w/o probes) and as high as US$1500 (fancy, expensive software does the really cool tricks). I can't really see any differences except noted at the top. Make it USB 2.0 and at least 2 MegaHertz and two channels would be nice. All of that logic analisys stuff is for other purposes than audio ...
I wouldn't trust a parallel port connected oscilloscope. For one, there are going to be serious compatibility issues with any modern PC = no parallel ports.
I would also try for a USB 2.0 'scope as, even if you don't currently have a USB 2 port, these will all be backward and forward compatibile with USB 1.1 and 2.0 ...
....
This is interesting ... a DIY 'scope for USB 2.0 : http://www.usbee.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=17 ... just add your own probes, etc., I guess. ... I was confused until I groked this: http://www.usbee.com/comp.html ... and this: " ... Cypress EZ-USB FX2 Development kit software that you can download for free from Cypress Semiconductor's web site at www.cypress.com. ..." !!
You might also consider: http://www.pc-oscilloscopes.com/ ... their 3000 series is able to do a few MegaHertz which should be good enough for all audio work, even "ultra-sound" medical scanning machines ... I doubt if getting more than two channels is worth the extra bucks. ( http://www.pc-oscilloscopes.com/usb_3224.html )
I kinda like the BitScope: http://www.bitscope.com/ ... the 310 for USB 2.0 is about US$550 or the BS50 "pocket" unit looks like plenty of features for audio. ... I wouldn't bother with the other models unless I was serious about logic analisys.
This looks nice: http://www.tiepie.com/uk/home/ ... the model HS3 should be plenty for audio work. (US / Canadian dealers available)
I have been involved with USB since the beginning and have always wanted a digital 'scope myself. I have seen these as low as US$150 (bare boards w/o probes) and as high as US$1500 (fancy, expensive software does the really cool tricks). I can't really see any differences except noted at the top. Make it USB 2.0 and at least 2 MegaHertz and two channels would be nice. All of that logic analisys stuff is for other purposes than audio ...
" ... USB 2.0 will probably be overkill, as the sample data can perfectly well be transferred as 1.5 MByte/s. ..."
Dealing with 8-bit data frames (as many of these 'scopes' A to D converters do) = that's 8 data bits plus 8 bits for the packet address info and check sum & eop data ... times your 1.5 MegaBytes => 24+ MegaBits per second ... so the USB 2.0 being ~ 30+ times faster than the 12 MegaBits per second speed for USB 1.x = a much better performing digital 'scope.
USB 1.x is very good for real time, real world mechanical activity like printers, mice, keybaords, joysticks, turntables, and single or dual channel (stereo) wave forms, etc. ... But when it comes to higher frequency analog data converted to digital format, USB 2.0 is required for anything greater than about 400 K Hertz converted to USB data packets. ... USB 1.x is good enough for the observation of the human hearing range audio (2 to 20K+ Htz. X 2 channels or a full load of broadcast FM radio information w/o the carrier) but not nearly good enough for observing power supply noise or the EMF/noise associated with Class-D audio or switching power supplies as an example. And if you are talking about observiing 6 channels of Dolby 5.1 or 8 channels of, say THX audio, symultaniously, USB 2.0 performance is required
Dealing with 8-bit data frames (as many of these 'scopes' A to D converters do) = that's 8 data bits plus 8 bits for the packet address info and check sum & eop data ... times your 1.5 MegaBytes => 24+ MegaBits per second ... so the USB 2.0 being ~ 30+ times faster than the 12 MegaBits per second speed for USB 1.x = a much better performing digital 'scope.
USB 1.x is very good for real time, real world mechanical activity like printers, mice, keybaords, joysticks, turntables, and single or dual channel (stereo) wave forms, etc. ... But when it comes to higher frequency analog data converted to digital format, USB 2.0 is required for anything greater than about 400 K Hertz converted to USB data packets. ... USB 1.x is good enough for the observation of the human hearing range audio (2 to 20K+ Htz. X 2 channels or a full load of broadcast FM radio information w/o the carrier) but not nearly good enough for observing power supply noise or the EMF/noise associated with Class-D audio or switching power supplies as an example. And if you are talking about observiing 6 channels of Dolby 5.1 or 8 channels of, say THX audio, symultaniously, USB 2.0 performance is required
My scope, which uses a parallel port connection, which can transfer at only a few KByte/s, can display 12 MHz signals just fine. There is also a version of this scope, also with LPT connect, which can display several hundred megahertz signals. There is a very simple reason for this: the computer does not get the raw sample data. If it would, it would be a very bad design.
The scope samples the analog signal, normalizes it to values needed for the software to display a waveform, and sends that to the computer.
The scope samples the analog signal, normalizes it to values needed for the software to display a waveform, and sends that to the computer.
Then what is your point about USB 1.1 not being able to handle it? Or do you mean that there are some scopes which do send the raw sample data to the computer? Can you give an example, because I think it's highly unlikely. Partly because USB is not realtime, and the OS may halt the transfer when it sees fit.
Also, when the specs of a USB 1.1 scope say that it can measure up to several megahertz, it seems kind of unlikely that this isn't actually the case because the data transfer speed is not high enough.
Thanx for your help!
I need the scope only for audio measurements. I build tube amps and need something good and not very expensive just to do my measurements.
I don't need a scope more than 10MHz. Even the 5Mhz that TiePie gives looks ok to me.
Not switching power supplies or class-D audio for me
I think that the TiePie HS3 is the best solution for me.
What do you say?
The Bitscope looks good too but I like the TiePie's design!
Also I don't need that smart POD.....
PicoScopes are more expensive
I need the scope only for audio measurements. I build tube amps and need something good and not very expensive just to do my measurements.
I don't need a scope more than 10MHz. Even the 5Mhz that TiePie gives looks ok to me.
Not switching power supplies or class-D audio for me
I think that the TiePie HS3 is the best solution for me.
What do you say?
The Bitscope looks good too but I like the TiePie's design!
Also I don't need that smart POD.....
PicoScopes are more expensive
The TiePie site can't be reached at the moment, so I can't have a look, but the specs don't say enough about it's capabilities. For example, the shortcomings I mentioned about my Velleman scope aren't visible in the specs. If the specs seem OK to you, look up some reviews and such on the internet, to find out what people's experiences are.
And, when you get it, be sure to post your experiences in this topic. Might help others some day
And, when you get it, be sure to post your experiences in this topic. Might help others some day
Hi,
I'm not sure if you need a pc scope to keep the costs down but a few months ago I bought a new bench LCD color oscilloscope for less than a pc-based one.
7.8" color screen
25-60Mhz
USB interface
etc...
Color LCD 'scopes
Regards,
Emmanuel
I'm not sure if you need a pc scope to keep the costs down but a few months ago I bought a new bench LCD color oscilloscope for less than a pc-based one.
7.8" color screen
25-60Mhz
USB interface
etc...
Color LCD 'scopes
Regards,
Emmanuel
Strictly audio?? Strictly for use with a tube amp output / input in the range of 5 to 20K or so?
Check this out: http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/FastTrackUSB-main.html " ... requency response: +0.05 / -0.20dB, 22Hz to 22kHz @ 48kHz [sampling rate] ..."
Just add ProTools software or the like or that "free" Cypress tracing program to display the CPU " 'scope traces" ... No?
Check this out: http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/FastTrackUSB-main.html " ... requency response: +0.05 / -0.20dB, 22Hz to 22kHz @ 48kHz [sampling rate] ..."
Just add ProTools software or the like or that "free" Cypress tracing program to display the CPU " 'scope traces" ... No?
I guess tube amps don't oscillate, but in my opinion, having a scope that can read oscillation or other fault conditions is recommended. What is the use if you can only display test tones a scope? You can use a speaker to determine that it amplifies correctly as well...
If you are going to use a sound card as a sampler, you could simply use some relatively cheap PCI card. No need for a USB module with "effects" that are only in the way.
My recommendation against using a sound card as a sampler still stands though...
If you are going to use a sound card as a sampler, you could simply use some relatively cheap PCI card. No need for a USB module with "effects" that are only in the way.
My recommendation against using a sound card as a sampler still stands though...
halfgaar,
where else can I see reviews on the internet?
I was thinking for a pc scope cause they have a spectrum analyzer,too and a signal generator ......and you don't need too much space in your small lab to put all your measurement devices!
I allready own an osciloscope. It's an old Hitachi (V302B 30Mhz), a handmade signal generator but they're too old and need some refreshment..........
My scope do some strange things on and on. Also I broke one pot oneday
Anyway I liked the pc scope because with a small device I can have everything.
Just in case, how much a spectrum analyzer costs? I found in net some that are very expensive! If I remember well around 1000 euros?.....
TiePie HS3
where else can I see reviews on the internet?
I was thinking for a pc scope cause they have a spectrum analyzer,too
and a signal generator ......and you don't need too much space in your small lab to put all your measurement devices! I allready own an osciloscope. It's an old Hitachi (V302B 30Mhz), a handmade signal generator but they're too old and need some refreshment..........
My scope do some strange things on and on. Also I broke one pot oneday
Anyway I liked the pc scope because with a small device I can have everything.
Just in case, how much a spectrum analyzer costs? I found in net some that are very expensive! If I remember well around 1000 euros?.....
TiePie HS3
That TiePie HS3 seems better than my Velleman one. It may be a good choice.
Not every scope is also a signal generator BTW. But, when audio frequencies are concerned, I often simply use a sound card. Unfortunately, they are not always very good. The on-board audio of my workbench PC can't generate a decent square wave, for example. (incidently, this is likely to be the case when using sound card oscilloscope software as well.)
I have no idea except Google...
Stand Alone spectrum analyzers indeed are expensive. A PC Scope would be much cheaper.
Not every scope is also a signal generator BTW. But, when audio frequencies are concerned, I often simply use a sound card. Unfortunately, they are not always very good. The on-board audio of my workbench PC can't generate a decent square wave, for example. (incidently, this is likely to be the case when using sound card oscilloscope software as well.)
I have no idea except Google...
Stand Alone spectrum analyzers indeed are expensive. A PC Scope would be much cheaper.
" That TiePie HS3 seems better ... be a good choice. ..."
Yes, a tidy box, capable of several scenarios and 100 Meg resolution, which may be overkill for the original question. (Their US dealer has another one that would do it, and the price isn't bad at all: http://www.teampctechnology.com/product_detail.php?id=199 ... to 5 Meg res.)
Yes, a tidy box, capable of several scenarios and 100 Meg resolution, which may be overkill for the original question. (Their US dealer has another one that would do it, and the price isn't bad at all: http://www.teampctechnology.com/product_detail.php?id=199 ... to 5 Meg res.)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.