Back in the 80s I had a Heathkit 10MHz scope. My kids used to play doctor with it. They would check their heartbeat by touching their finger to the probe.
I've tested my "hacked" Rigol MSO5072 with a MAX2870 signal generator -- Similar to the ADF4351, but the MAX2870 can go up to 6GHz! BTW, seems like a new FW for the MSO5000 is coming soon. It showed up on Rigol's public FTP site earlier today.
A 300 MHz Tektronix 2465 will measure up to 1GHz with an attenuated signal. You can measure the frequency with the cursors if the frequency counter can't. Your frequency counter worked just fine once you increased the signal size on the display.
Goin to have to turn of the lights, and get out the glasses, if you're going to see a signal that fast on a 2465... maybe you are thinking of a 2465B. ... or a 2467B with a micro-channel plate CRT. Anyway those two scopes were about as good as analog scope (with a CRT got).
@@willthecat3861 You have no idea what you are talking about. My comment was not to brag about my scope. Rather to note how all scopes can often dispIay a much higher signal then their rated bandwidth. Yes my 2465 will display a 1 GHz signal and I can measure the frequency with the cursors. It may even do better than that but my signal generator a Systron-Donner 1702 only goes to 999.9999 MHz. BTW I have owned at least 12 oscilloscopes, digital and analog, in my 5o year career. Now my 300 MHz Rigol digital scope crapped out at 340 MHz.
Couple things. a) The roll off on the front end is dropping the level the counter can reliably trigger off. b) also could be the physical implementation of the counter which may not support counting over a certain number of ticks during whatever its sampling interval is internally. I think a video about how frequency counters work would be interesting, no ? [edit] Silly me, you probably already have a video on that subject 😂
This is freaking amazing that this relatively inexpensive scope will work that far out of its specification. I have an analog HP scope that was manufactured for the Navy in a watertight case. I bought it in the mid-1990s while I was in college, but was likely manufactured in the 1970s. It is rated 60 MHz, but that is the 3 dB down point. So, even with 100 MHz probes, by 100 MHz there is virtually no display. The scope still works, but something has failed in the trigger circuit so I can't get a stable display.
I did some testing of my unlocked MSO5104 with an RF signal generator. I found the response was flat up to 500MHz with a 3Db rolloff at 650MHz. Very remarkable indeed. This was with 50 Ohm test cables and a feed thru terminator at the scope. The probes are rated 350MHz, but they were unpredictable past 100MHz even with care grounding, so you should be careful about probe use. Quick question: Is there a way to lock the vertical channels to 10:1. When ever I power up the scope it switches the inputs to 1:1.
It's interesting how we start to see lower frequency modulations starting at 1.1GHz and gets worse as you go up. Seems like the input filter is starting to alias a little bit.
So after 1 year of purchase, would you say it is worth every penny for 1100$ ? Would you recomand it ? You didn't mention flaws of that scope, is there flaws to consider before buying ? I wan't to buy one but ouch 1100$.
Yes I would recommend if you need that type of performance and you have money. this is way more scope than most people need. flaws: long boot time, crashes but is extremely rare, no detection of 10x probe,
What's the model number of the square wave generator? I guess they only send the output of sharp edge digital switch without enabling the bandpass filter?
I recently purchased 200 MHZ series Rigol scope and bandwidth upgraded to 350 M HZ. I decided to measures its bandwidth. So i was giving a 75 MHz Squarewave from STM32 development board(3 .3 V, gpio signal driven by timer) initially. while doing this i observed the squarewave is getting attentuated and loosing its shape.i have doubt like 1) shouldn't we use the PVP2350 probes to do this test? 2) shouldn't we use squarewave to test the bandwidth of the scope? 3) how to proove my scope is actually 350 MHz ? replies would help me to understand more about the bandwidth
Yes by Nyquist 8/2 = 4: but, the signal still has to be processed before it is sampled. Top end, MSO5000 has 350 MHz analog bandwidth.... so there is going to be low passing, and the DSP is going to get utterly confused.
Scope input filters tend to roll off at 1/5th to 1/10th sampling frequency unlike, say, audio devices which can operate closer to Nyquist. This is mainly due to the type of input filter used, since it's much harder to make a sufficiently sharp filter at higher frequencies (and oversampling is impractical). If you're curious I think you can also start to see aliasing in this video at around 1.1GHz and higher (really apparent at 1.3GHz) showing up as lower frequency components
@@peter.s.3207 , the sampling part of the scope in the video has 8 MSa capability. Expecting bandwidth of this device must be 800-1600 MHz, if follow your «1/5th to 1/10th». > since it's much harder to make a sufficiently sharp filter at higher frequencies Since from what? BTW I don't know what you mean by the sharpness of the lowpass filter. I know the term «order».
@@Scorry > Expecting bandwidth of this device must be 800-1600 MHz, if follow your «1/5th to 1/10th» Which seems to be right around where the scope starts rolling off in real life. The max 350MHz spec from the manufacturer is conservative to allow for manufacturing and calibration error > Since from what? Meaning the scope could operate closer to 1/2 sampling if it had a sufficiently sharp / high order input filter (otherwise known as a "brickwall" filter), but it can't use such a filter because they're technically challenging / prohibitive to make at such high frequencies. > I don't know what you mean by the sharpness of the lowpass filter. I know the term «order» Yep, "order" would be the correct interpretation of my meaning. In this context "sharp" is referring to the sharp/steep/quick transition between pass-band and stop-band of the filter. For an analog filter this is analogous to "order" but "sharp" is generally applicable to both analog and digital filters.
@@IMSAIGuy I recall you measuring some feedthrough terminators, but I don't remember if you did it while plugged on the scope. The input capacitance of the scope has heavy influence, Chriss Grossman discusses a bit about it. One way to mitigate it would be using attenuation pads.
