Re: Favourite Test Equipment

On 6 Apr 2024 22:05:35 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 6 Apr 2024 at 21:39:25 BST, "Cursitor Doom" <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>

On Fri, 05 Apr 2024 19:37:27 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
 

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:35:46 +0200, Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund
<klauskvik@hotmail.com> wrote:
 

On 05-04-2024 23:22, john larkin wrote:

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 16:26:49 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
 

On 4/5/2024 3:49 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:20:19 -0400) it happened bitrex
<user@example.net> wrote in <660ed343$0$1258343$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
 

My most useful old machine dollar for dollar is my 8012B pulse generator!
 
<https://imgur.com/a/2GaSZVq>

 
Nice, real components...
 
 

$50 "not working." It was just a burned-out pilot lamp and dirty controls.

 
mm 50 dollars,
even today with people using dollars for wallpaper,
buys you a nice pulse generator on ebay..

 
It cost $1700 USD in the 1987 catalog, about $4500 equivalent today!
 

555 timer works fine too
Or use sox in Linux for all sort of audio, including sweeps:
 
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/howto-sox-audio-tool-as-a-signal-generator.4242/
or just use a Raspberry Pi as signal generator:
   https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/download.html#freq_pi

 
Our DDG is about $4K, addmittedly over the top for a home lab.
 
    http://highlandtechnology.com/DSS/P500DS.shtml
 
I love my beat-up old unit on my bench.  Timing and levels are
brutally quantitative.
 

I bought a Siglent DDS SDG6022X for 1300USD, 200MHz thingie. I knew
forehand that it could be hacked to 500MHz, so "saved" 3000 USD for 1
hours work :-)
 
https://www.batronix.com/shop/waveform-generator/Siglent-SDG6022X.html
 
EEVBLOG has hacking details if anyone is interested...

 
We bought a few Rigol 300 MHz 4-chan scopes and insisted that they
throw in the 500 MHz upgrade.
 
I remember when FFT was an extra-cost feature. Now it's free.

 
Excuse me for being a bit slow on the uptake here, but it seems to me
that there are a *lot* of products which are fundamentally all
manufactured to the same spec - but then deliberately crippled unless
you pay some sort of ransom to have them 'unlocked' as it were. Would
that be correct or am I being too cynical?

>
No, but is differentiating products on softwar supplies any different from
differentiating them on hardware?  Cheap ones simply wouldn't be available to
hobbyists if they had to sell them all as top of the range, where they make
the money for the effort to make a high bandwidth scope.  There is also the
advantage that they can perhaps be hacked by well-informed hobbyists, but most
commercial buyers wouldn't be happy doing that for one or another reason.

AFAIC, it *does* matter if the limitations are in hardware or
software. In the case of scopes for example, good  bandwidth don't
come cheap! So if you're going to go to the expense of developing high
bandwidth capability it just seems like self-mutilation to cripple all
that hard work to produce an inferior product.