On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:41:01 -0500, bill weinel wrote:
>As others have stated, I would go for a good quality analog scope over a
> digital scope. Digital scopess tend to be harder to fix. Also I don't
>think digital scopes provide as good a picture of whats happening in an
>analog signal as an analog scope does. This is due to the
>sampling/averaging nature of the digital scope. So unless you can afford
>to purchase one with a very high sampling rate, I would go for a good
>quality analog scope.
_________________________________________________________
To expound a little further on analog vs digital:
Analog scopes are fine for a repeating waveform such as RF, or one
which changes relatively slowly such as an audio frequency voice
trace.
Digital scopes are best for a one-time event which is either too fast
or too slow for the human eye to capture well. One example would be
capturing a relay or switch contact bounce. They also (usually) have
the ability to store and print out individual traces.
Each has their place, but for amateur radio purposes, an analog type
is probably adequate, as well as easier to fix and cheaper to buy.
--
Bill W6WRT
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|