why do they still make analog oscilloscopes

[electronics man]

why do some manufacturers still make analog oscilloscopes, i could understand some small, niche manufacturer making them but theses are cheep chinese companies http://www.rapidonline.com/Test-Measurement/GW-Instek-GOS-6000-Series-of-30MHz-Analog-Oscilloscopes-518850. so ?

[Excavatoree]

Because they are less noisy than digital scopes.








*ducks*

[Hydrawerk]

Because people buy them. Sometimes you need an intensity graded display but only 30 MHz bandwidth. Then the cheapest option is an analog scope.

[c4757p]

GW Instek is no Tektronix or Agilent, but they're no Wun Hung Lo either.

Beats me - educational market? It's not a bad scope, though the bandwidth is kind of sad. At least it has the "digital" features that the analog scopes had at the end of their time - cursors, frequency counter, configuration save/recall...

[Neilm]

Because they are less noisy than digital scopes.

Rats - beaten to it

[free_electron]

*ducks*

that's it, duck hunting season is open, and i got my jar of orange glaze ready...

[electronics man]

Because they are less noisy than digital scopes.

but are they?

[nctnico]

Because they are less noisy than digital scopes.

but are they?

Not really. The noise just doesn't show. Vertical deflection needs quite a bit of amplification so there is a big chance to add a lot of noise on the way. Most digital scopes have averaging and/or high resolution to filter noise (some even with variable filters) so you can clean up a signal.

[EEVblog]

Some people still prefer the analog intensity graded display and no-fuss operation, and hiding all that uncorrelated noise 
Obviously a market for them.
Perhaps still some education market left too? Old time teachers who think it's best to learn on an analog. I don't blame, I think they are still excellent learning tools.

[georges80]

More likely they have a stockpile of old CRTs that they would rather have in your landfill than theirs

cheers,
george.

[John Coloccia]

Because some of us are still doing things like analog audio work, and to get a digital scope that will show me what I need to see is thousands of dollars but I won't use but a fraction of the bandwidth and features.  For digital, again all I need is a dirt cheap digital scope.  Both together is a fraction of what I'd pay for one scope that will do it all.

[AG6QR]

They've still got some advantages over digital scopes.  No "dark time" in x-y mode, no aliasing, intuitive intensity graded display, among others.

Sure, digital scopes have their own advantages, and for many jobs, a DSO would be preferable.  But not always.  Lots of people prefer to keep at least one analog scope around.

It's not at all surprising that people still have occasional tasks where an analog scope works better than a DSO.  What is kind of amazing to me is that new analog scopes can be sold in today's market when they have to compete with all of the old used analog scopes out there, available so cheaply.  There are some old high-end scopes available today for a tiny fraction of their original cost.  I guess some people want something new with a warranty, even if it's not as capable or well built as what's available on the used market.

It's like if you wanted to build a 35mm film camera today.  Your major competition isn't the new digital cameras being made today, but the glut of old used professional quality film cameras that are available for peanuts today, after so many professional photographer switched to digital.  There are still a few 35mm film cameras made now, but not very many.

[MadTux]

I fully agree, analog scope market is oversaturated and you can get goodies such as Tek 2465; 7854 7904(A)  or high end Hamegs for very little money, so it's kinda stupid to make new analog scopes with crap specs.

For everyday use, I wouldn't trade any of these mentioned above for a new rigol or even one of those Tek junk scopes with 2kB of CCD-memory. Reasons for that are:
-Instant beam, no boot time, no stupid menus, there's a knob for everything so much faster to use
-you see what's really there no ADC artifacts, aliasing or undersampling
-usually displays and triggers on signals well beyond their specs, do that with a digital one
-quality that will outlast any china crap
-analog stuff is relatively easy to repair and rarely fails compared to (new) digital circuits and I like to keep my equipment working myself, furthermore the documentation is usually excelent compared to new equipment
-a plugin for about everything in the 7k series like the 7A13 (my everydays favorite since it combines voltmeter and scope); ADC for slow non repeating signals (7A22) in the 7854

The only time I really miss a truely new DSO with deep memory is when I'm working with serial buses or need to look on the analog properties of a digital signal. Everything else can be handled (better) with an analog scope or logic analyzer

[electronics man]

I just think digital scopes are much easier to use, they are also much better for analysis.

[rf-loop]

why do some manufacturers still make analog oscilloscopes,

Analog scope have many advantages (of course also disadvantages)

With totally unknown signal one disadvantage with digital scopes is aliasing.
If look price and aliasing - well this is one reason. And only one. There is of course also many other reasons.
I have find in my work that sometimes need digital scope and some times still analog is very handy.
(of course I mean real (and old) professional analog scopes like Tek and HP)

[tszaboo]

They make them, so Linear Technology can still put new pictures in their datasheets and application notes.

[electronics man]

I do find xy mode is better on analog scopes than digital

[madshaman]

An analog scope, like its digital counterpart, graphs voltage over time, but it's an inherently different instrument/tool (please noone jump in with DSOs that use internal CRTs, that will just confuse things :-p).

I honestly could never see myself having less than two analog scopes on my bench, no matter what my budget.  And you certainly won't see me give up my DSOs any time soon.

It's very close to apples and oranges for me.

Most larger companies can afford DSOs that will give you almost everything a CRO can, and even Rigol's mid-range scopes come close at a reasonable price, but cheap DSOs are almost useless; a cheap CRO can be *very* useful.

That's just an opinion, it's hard to say why they're still manufactured.

[electronics man]

CROs cant do nearly as much analysis as DSOs can thats why i wouldnt waste my money oon a CRO as i wouldnt have much use for it as CROs have a much more general perpose use. for things like digital signals a CRO is useless. thats why my first O scope is a Rigol ds1074z

[c4757p]

Use care when applying the word "useless", as its meaning is rather final. An oscilloscope isn't really the right tool for viewing the data of a digital signal anyway, you want a logic analyzer for that. And an analog scope is perfectly good for viewing the oscillatory part of the waveform - edges, etc.

No good for catching rare runt pulses either, but lots of DSOs also suck at that.

[pickle9000]

As long as they can make a fair profit on them someone will continue to make them.

[electronics man]

Use care when applying the word "useless", as its meaning is rather final. An oscilloscope isn't really the right tool for viewing the data of a digital signal anyway, you want a logic analyzer for that. And an analog scope is perfectly good for viewing the oscillatory part of the waveform - edges, etc.

No good for catching rare runt pulses either, but lots of DSOs also suck at that.

why do they make oscilloscopes with serial decode function? therfore an oscilloscope is the right tool for analysing digital signals.

[Fsck]

Use care when applying the word "useless", as its meaning is rather final. An oscilloscope isn't really the right tool for viewing the data of a digital signal anyway, you want a logic analyzer for that. And an analog scope is perfectly good for viewing the oscillatory part of the waveform - edges, etc.

No good for catching rare runt pulses either, but lots of DSOs also suck at that.

why do they make oscilloscopes with serial decode function? therfore an oscilloscope is the right tool for analysing digital signals.

What's the point of having serial decode on say.. a rigol 2k series scope? 2 channel decode isn't particularly great.

the same reason you can do FFT on a scope but there are spectrum analyzers.

not everyone needs the cost+power(+has space) of dedicated hardware. the scope (many, if not most models) is basically becoming a multitool, lots of features but nothing mindblowingly good, doesn't mean they're not still useful.

I'd probably still take a 2465 over a ds1074z.

[jancumps]

(please noone jump in with DSOs that use internal CRTs, that will just confuse things :-p).

Shame. I have one of those and I'm ready to jump in

[vk6zgo]

why do some manufacturers still make analog oscilloscopes,

Analog scope have many advantages (of course also disadvantages)

With totally unknown signal one disadvantage with digital scopes is aliasing.
If look price and aliasing - well this is one reason. And only one. There is of course also many other reasons.
I have find in my work that sometimes need digital scope and some times still analog is very handy.
(of course I mean real (and old) professional analog scopes like Tek and HP)

In repair situations,a common procedure with an analog Oscilloscope is to:-

(1) Set the 'scope Vertical input to “DC coupled",& the  triggering to “Auto”-----in this setting,the instrument will “free -run”,displaying a flat line on the screen without any input.(None of the DSOs I've ever used really had any equivalent to this function,as “Auto” was a completely different thing)

(2) Look at various parts of the circuit to determine the presence or otherwise,of the desired signal,dc power supplies,spurious signals,etc.
(At this point,proper triggering is not necessary)
   
(3)Trigger 'scope correctly on the signal of interest,for detailed examination.

A Tech may fault-find a piece of equipment without using any other instrument although,usually a DMM is used to verify  the power supply voltages more exactly,before "closing everything up".

I found it was very hard to follow this procedure using a DSO,as the only way to look at a dc level seemed to be to put the 'scope in “roll”.
Even this didn't work well,as it displayed the voltage change as the probe was placed on the test point as a transition,which may or may not be on a visible part of the display.

No doubt,modern DSOs have overcome such limitations,but the early versions have left us “Greybeards” with a somewhat jaundiced view of such devices.

I was an early enthusiast for the idea of Digital Oscilloscopes,but the reality set me back on my heels!

Ultimately,"It's horses for courses".

If you are looking for a "runt" pulse in a pulse train,then the DSO is the obvious choice.

If you are not even sure if the pulse train is there,or if it is riding on a few volts of AC mains hum,I'd go for the analog Oscilloscope!