/diy/ - Do It Yourself

>>1280655
If the price is right.
Decent analog scope >>> shit digital scope
Decent digital scope > decent analog scope

> perhaps a cheapo logic analyser is a better investment
They're mentioned quite often on /diy/, but logic analyzers are pretty rare in professional use, while pretty much every electronics lab has scopes.
Point: scopes have many uses, logic analyzers are special purpose tools.

>>1280655
Those work really good for tuning analog systems. I have an old Heathkit POS in the garage for checking ignition systems.
I have a Tectronics TDS 2002. Nice to be able to store traces and veg out on doing math. If all you are doing is looking for bits flipping a logic analyzer would work.

>>1280661

>logic analyzers are pretty rare in professional use,

OP said he was dealing with digital signals. If he's tracing logic then he will be 1000x better off with a logic analyzer like professionals who do that, and it's not rare by any means.

If OP is looking at problems like weak or noisy digital signals then yes he needs a scope.

>>1280669
Why not both?

(because it's not cheap and needs hours and hours of work because the caps are 40 years old)

I prefer analog scopes for a lot of things: I find them easier to look at, less jaggies, better X/Y mode, no bullshit software limitations (in fact, you can often push them beyond their ratings) and generally better built/last longer than an el cheapo digital scope, and you can actually fix them when something goes wrong (and, there is less to go wrong).

If you think you need a logic analyzer, then you could probably build one... there's not that much to them. Although you could probably just use a raspberry pi and the GPIO pins, but a 4-channel scope would work for most modern busses that you'd probably want to look at, CAN, I2C, etc; The days of the 32-bit wide busses are over since balanced pairs took over.

>>1280677
>Why not both?

certainly that is optimum. OP mentioned cash so perhaps he's like a lot of us and has to pick one or the other for now.

>>1280655
Do get an analog scope, there's nothing better when you want to see what exactly is going on in your circuit. The C1-83 you have on the photo is bretty nice, has everything you'd want from an analog scope of the era and is practically indestructible. As mentioned by others here there's no waiting for it to boot, no screwing around with software, you just have to wait a bit for the tube to warm up and use some contact cleaner on the rotary switches if it's needed.

>>1280689
>Do get an analog scope, there's nothing better when you want to see what exactly is going on in your circuit.

True if it is a storage scope. Not always true otherwise.

>The C1-83 you have on the photo is bretty nice,

bretty? what are you, 12?

and yes I know it's a meme but it belongs on the children's boards.

>>1280681

OP here, actually looking further into it both may be an option. Seems like there are extra-chinky analysers for like 7$ on ebay that use the Saleae software. From what i read they don't even have firmware - everything is loaded into the chip at runtime and there's a lot of open-source support for those as a result.

>>1280689

The analog scope i was looking at was an C1-118 which has some pretty good specs for its price. Says it goes up to 20Mhz instead of 5Mhz for the 83

>>1280655
The general advice is to get an analog scope if you're working with analog video signals and stuff like that. An analog scope also has a simpler interface without menus (which is better IMO). The advantages of a digital scope are capturing, and they usually give you all the measurements about wavelength and stuff like that.

You can find analog scopes for cheap too. They are pretty abundant, but better ones in nice condition are getting pricey.

Both are useful and both have their place.

>>1280655
Absolutely get one if you have none.

I got my first scope when I was like 10, it was 1 channel 5 mHz BW analog scope. It was awesome, that's what let me with moving forward with analog and even digital stuff.
Not having a scope is akin to be blind.

>>1281180
Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of /diy/ are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

>>1281196
found the moron.