I am thinking of purchasing a Pico Scope 5242D or 5243D two channel USB scope with FlexRes, 8 - 16 bit DAC resolution depending on sample rate. The higher resolution at low sample rates would obviate the need for an analog scope and 8 - 12 bit resolution at higher sample rates would represent a significant improvement over my 8 bit TBS series Tek digital scope and also help me to slightly declutter my bench.
I have an Intel Nuc that already runs my RTX-6001 and Utracer 3+ so this seems like a no brainer.
I considered standalone scopes like the 12 bit range from Rigol, but it takes up space and under a few MHz the 524xD should win easily on resolution.
If you have not used any pico scope product this probably isn't a thread you should be participating in. I am looking for feedback from actual current or former Pico scope owners. (Seriously, and thanks for understanding)
I have an Intel Nuc that already runs my RTX-6001 and Utracer 3+ so this seems like a no brainer.
I considered standalone scopes like the 12 bit range from Rigol, but it takes up space and under a few MHz the 524xD should win easily on resolution.
If you have not used any pico scope product this probably isn't a thread you should be participating in. I am looking for feedback from actual current or former Pico scope owners. (Seriously, and thanks for understanding)
I just have a low end model, and it's ok. I did find out that LeCroy probes don't fit the jacks.
Make sure the AWG will fit your needs, and that the software works on your PC, and is acceptable.
You can download the software to try it out in demo mode, without the scope. May not work with older PCs.
Their software division is run out of Tyler, Texas, and you can ask the techs there questions, if you need to before buying.
800-591-2796. I was told that for hardware problems, they have to ship the units back to the UK.
Make sure the AWG will fit your needs, and that the software works on your PC, and is acceptable.
You can download the software to try it out in demo mode, without the scope. May not work with older PCs.
Their software division is run out of Tyler, Texas, and you can ask the techs there questions, if you need to before buying.
800-591-2796. I was told that for hardware problems, they have to ship the units back to the UK.
Last edited:
Hi Rayma,
That's a good suggestion to test the software in demo mode, the NUC is a few years old and is based on i5 core duo, with SSD and 8GB of ram running windows 10.
I'm thinking 60MHz is fast enough, the higher resolution at low sample rates should be good for my audio design work, and it's fast enough for slow digital. It's not fast enough for most of the limited dac work I do, but I am not too comfortable forking over the cash for a 5244D.
I doubt I will use the AWG much if at all, unfortunate that there is no option to delete.
I would just buy the kit (bundle of accessories + the scope) so I would get the probes with it. I also have a number of TTI and other probes that are should fit the bnc jacks as shown.
That's a good suggestion to test the software in demo mode, the NUC is a few years old and is based on i5 core duo, with SSD and 8GB of ram running windows 10.
I'm thinking 60MHz is fast enough, the higher resolution at low sample rates should be good for my audio design work, and it's fast enough for slow digital. It's not fast enough for most of the limited dac work I do, but I am not too comfortable forking over the cash for a 5244D.
I doubt I will use the AWG much if at all, unfortunate that there is no option to delete.
I would just buy the kit (bundle of accessories + the scope) so I would get the probes with it. I also have a number of TTI and other probes that are should fit the bnc jacks as shown.
I'm not using my 2204A at present, due to having an older computer not working with the software,
and would be happy to mail it to you for trying out. It's much more limited, though.
See the data sheet, attached.
and would be happy to mail it to you for trying out. It's much more limited, though.
See the data sheet, attached.
Much appreciated, your insights are invaluable. I'm going to load the software over the next few days and make sure it runs well on the Nuc. What sort of computer do you have that it will not run on?
Well the software for the 5000 series definitely works fine on the target computer, but it isn't entirely intuitive. I guess I am going to have to read the user manual. 😀
It's an older Mac. The PicoScope 2204A used to run fine on it, but after a software update last year, it stopped running.
So I can't use it until I get a new PC, in probably 6 months or so. No problem though, since I have an Agilent to use.
I can mail it to you for a trial if you like.
Once you have a setup running, save a copy of the software in case you need it after an upgrade, like I didn't.
There's a user manual?
So I can't use it until I get a new PC, in probably 6 months or so. No problem though, since I have an Agilent to use.
I can mail it to you for a trial if you like.
Once you have a setup running, save a copy of the software in case you need it after an upgrade, like I didn't.
There's a user manual?
Last edited:
Yes, the user manual is here:
I'm wondering if there is a newer version of the Pico Scope software that would run on you MAC.
I'm wondering if there is a newer version of the Pico Scope software that would run on you MAC.
That is unfortunate. In the mean time I realize that the scope USB is not isolated which probably means further thought is needed before I proceed. I am generally careful and in 40+ years I have yet to blow up a scope, but I worry that it would be much more than just the scope if I make a mistake. LOL
I read the manual and find it's not really useful. Sadly I don't think the Pico Scope is going to be the right solution for me. I do a lot of stuff both low voltage SS and not very low voltage tube stuff, and I need one simple solution. I am also concerned about the conducted noise from the computer interfering with the measurements I would be doing with it.
Not sure yet either, there are not many affordable scopes that have better than 8-bit quantization which limits their usefulness for audio and general analog stuff. The vertical display resolution is often as much as 4 bits better than the actual quantization in most scopes and with processing may appear to be higher resolution than it is, and it doesn't always matter until you have very small signals riding on other stuff or just very low level signals near the limits of the scope's sensitivity settings (signals in the 1 - 2 vertical division range) I have a TBS1052 and there is a lot of quantization noise visible on sine waves at low amplitudes.
There are differential preamplifiers intended for low signal levels.
Haven't looked for some time, but there may be some lower cost units these days.
Or maybe you could build one.
https://www.tek.com/en/datasheet/ada400a-differential-preamplifier-datasheet
https://www.priggen.com/LNA-10-Low-Noise-Differential-Preamplifier-for-Oscilloscopes
Haven't looked for some time, but there may be some lower cost units these days.
Or maybe you could build one.
https://www.tek.com/en/datasheet/ada400a-differential-preamplifier-datasheet
https://www.priggen.com/LNA-10-Low-Noise-Differential-Preamplifier-for-Oscilloscopes
Last edited:
Hi,
doing mostly low level stuff, maybe the highly versatile Digilent analog discovery 2 (or the new 3) might be something useful for You.
No isolated inputs, differential though, and no artefacts from the connected computer.
Can accommodate typical probes but it may be useful or required to build Your own probes.
The software is easy to deal with.
jauu
Calvin
doing mostly low level stuff, maybe the highly versatile Digilent analog discovery 2 (or the new 3) might be something useful for You.
No isolated inputs, differential though, and no artefacts from the connected computer.
Can accommodate typical probes but it may be useful or required to build Your own probes.
The software is easy to deal with.
jauu
Calvin
I have two generations of Picoscopes. And lot of experiece with them My current example is a Picoscope 3206. It works well and is quite versatle. There are two generations of software that work for it. In some ways I prefer the older version (6) to the newer version. Early on (15+ years ago) I went through all the USB scopes on the market. The Picoscope was far better then than any other. The current software is good but its like Excel- it has so many features you almost needtraing or software to find the feature you want.
Also, if you use a scope for active troubleshooting all the USB scopes will be dissapointing. Needing to reach for a mouse to access a control really slows things down. I asked about a "knob" to control it at a trade show. I was told the "boss" was very against those ideas. "Just use the screen". The sales guys mentioned someone had created a demo but it went nowhere.
In sum, the Picoscope it one of the best USB scopes. Just be sure what you need from a scope. For most audio troubleshooting its way more than you need. However it can be really good when you are chasing a glitch. The Siglent 1104-XE on the bench is what I use mostly. (FWIW I have 7 scopes in my lab.)
Also, if you use a scope for active troubleshooting all the USB scopes will be dissapointing. Needing to reach for a mouse to access a control really slows things down. I asked about a "knob" to control it at a trade show. I was told the "boss" was very against those ideas. "Just use the screen". The sales guys mentioned someone had created a demo but it went nowhere.
In sum, the Picoscope it one of the best USB scopes. Just be sure what you need from a scope. For most audio troubleshooting its way more than you need. However it can be really good when you are chasing a glitch. The Siglent 1104-XE on the bench is what I use mostly. (FWIW I have 7 scopes in my lab.)
I use picoscope at work and siglent at home. Siglent is more profesional feel even it is cheaper.specs are better for the same price. Picoscope is good if you do remote work. Hook up and leave. And can debug remotely, but that is more important for digital signals. For more analog job i would go for siglent. It is like iphone vs old android car radio interface. Just very different in feel when you work. Even both can do the job
When I need separation for my picoscope (2204A) I use some second hand laptop (60£ from ebay).
Thank you everyone for the really valuable insights provided here. I think I am better off sticking with a conventional scope based on the feedback received. I was looking to save space on my cluttered bench, but the many tradeoffs mentioned in your posts make it a non-starter for me.