Author Topic: beginners DSO questions  (Read 8814 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 17181
  • Country: 00
Re: beginners DSO questions
« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2016, 12:59:52 pm »
The GW-Instek isn't competitive with the Rigol on features or build quality.
:blah: :blah: :blah: Repeating a false assumption doesn't make it right. If what you wrote where true then why would I have bought a GW Instek?

No idea.

After all I'm Dutch and Dutch people don't spend money unless there is a really good reason to do so.

I'm not saying it's rubbish, I'm just saying it's got half the bandwidth, it's mostly not competitive on features (see below) and build quality is worse (Dave's conclusion, not mine - see his teardown video).

The GW-Instek does have a couple of strong points: eg., If FFTs are very important to you then it may be a better choice. The Rigol's FFT function isn't as good.

It also has a proper push button to make a menu selection instead of using a twisty knob. Is that worth more than double-bandwidth? It's up to you...  :-//


PS: It's not me "Repeating a false assumptions", it was the GW-Instek fanboys that started it. As usual.

(this time they started with a repeat of the 'Yaigol' PLL nonsense - which has never been shown to have any adverse effect on anything)
 

Offline bitseeker

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9057
  • Country: us
  • Lots of engineer-tweakable parts inside!
Re: beginners DSO questions
« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2016, 10:48:40 pm »
From what I recall (too many posts to go back and read it all again),
Eh hm.

Read the Yaigol thread OP again and the post it contains a link to, and the attached screen shots.
Yes the PLL had a jitter issue but what that caused you conveniently overlook, that was and potentially still is a serious trigger issue that in some conditions would not allow a stable waveform to be displayed.
It was so bad that it prompted Dave to do a vid dedicated to the issue to hurry a FW bandaid to cover their HW mistake.

To this day I have seen no evidence of HW revisions that indicate this has been corrected. Did I miss one?

After all the ability of a scope to trigger correctly on a waveform is a fundamental requirement of any scope. Right?

It was not my intent to overlook anything, conveniently or otherwise. That's why I included the disclaimer that I hadn't gone back to re-read the Yaigol thread and was only summarizing from memory.

Thanks for the additional info. Anyone who wants to know exactly what was done and what outcomes occurred, if any, should read the whole thing.
TEA is the way. | TEA Time channel
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf