Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oscilloscope watch

kickstarter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: Oscilloscope watch

#11

Post by KimberlyJClark »

DanBC wrote: post #7
ohazi wrote: post #6

Oscilloscope Specifications: Maximum Sampling rate: 4MSPS Analog Bandwidth: ---> 200kHz Arbitrary Waveform Generator Specifications Maximum conversion rate: 1MSPS Analog Bandwidth: ---> 50kHz This is certainly not the first project in the "super miniaturized hardware tools" category, and as much as I like the idea of having a single tricorder-like device that can replace a lab full of hardware, all of the similar pro…

What analogue bandwidth do you want? Does the device need to have a display, or is a USB device ok?

my classmate's mother-in-law makes $67 an hour on the computer. She has been fired for 7 months but last month her pay check was $18297 just working on the computer for a few hours. this page ========================== http://WWW.Works23.Com

Re: Oscilloscope watch

#12

Post by ohazi »

DanBC wrote: post #7
ohazi wrote: post #6

Oscilloscope Specifications: Maximum Sampling rate: 4MSPS Analog Bandwidth: ---> 200kHz Arbitrary Waveform Generator Specifications Maximum conversion rate: 1MSPS Analog Bandwidth: ---> 50kHz This is certainly not the first project in the "super miniaturized hardware tools" category, and as much as I like the idea of having a single tricorder-like device that can replace a lab full of hardware, all of the similar pro…

What analogue bandwidth do you want? Does the device need to have a display, or is a USB device ok?

I actually prefer the USB scopes. I paid a lot for a high resolution laptop display, and I'm going to have that with me anyway.

At work, I'm generally okay with a 400-500 MHz bandwidth for some of the more fiddly stuff. At home, 100 MHz is usually plenty, although I've occasionally had to take parts of my projects to the lab.

I'll concede that many hobbyists don't really need all of this capability (e.g. the Arduino + LED crowd), but I'd have a really hard time recommending a scope that doesn't do at least 100 MHz simply because you can already get 100 MHz hardware for dirt cheap.

It's gotten significantly easier for hobbyists to play with relatively high-end hardware that would have been out of reach a decade ago (FPGAs, fast memory, wired/wireless communication ICs, cameras, etc). A lot of this hardware requires relatively high bandwidth interconnects to work well (or to work at all), but today's hobbyists seem undeterred and are figuring out how to make it work.

But when the shit hits the fan, you don't want to be banging your head against the wall because of crappy test hardware.

Re: Oscilloscope watch

#14

Post by ohazi »

anigbrowl wrote: post #9
ohazi wrote: post #6

Oscilloscope Specifications: Maximum Sampling rate: 4MSPS Analog Bandwidth: ---> 200kHz Arbitrary Waveform Generator Specifications Maximum conversion rate: 1MSPS Analog Bandwidth: ---> 50kHz This is certainly not the first project in the "super miniaturized hardware tools" category, and as much as I like the idea of having a single tricorder-like device that can replace a lab full of hardware, all of the similar pro…

I would pay a lot of money for a miniaturized tool that took RF performance seriously. I'm sure, but how many others would, vs just using bulky equipment? I agree the analog bandwidth is quite limited here, but it's good enough for audio work, and there's a large potential market there among live sound engineers.

Your output might be 20 kHz audio, but in the real world you're surrounded by analog at much higher frequencies. I've worked on enough "low bandwidth" audio projects plagued by problems at higher frequencies that I can't really recommend the "Its good enough for audio" approach anymore. You can easily have a tiny DSP with a noisy clock signal in the tens of MHz. Or a wonky USB signal. Or an intermodulation product from some unrelated circuit.

If I can pay $100 for a super miniaturized audio only scope, or the same price for a bulkier 100 MHz scope, I'd go with the 100 MHz scope every time, so in that sense you're right.

That being said, it sure is nice that today's scopes are more like a lunchbox than a boat anchor. My lab at work easily has a million dollars worth of "full size" test and measurement equipment from Agilent and Tektronix, but there's no reason the entire budget has to go to them. We're happy to pay for stuff like this (http://www.triarchytech.com/) when it's a solid product that makes our lives easier.

Re: Oscilloscope watch

#15

Post by ohazi »

ruslan wrote: post #8

Max sampling rate (4MSPS) is too small. Note that for more or less proper measurement you need at least Sampling_rate=Freq*4. So, for something real you need 200MSPS or even more. Beside that the idea is very cool, would buy one. Eagerly waiting for a Spectrum Analyzer Watch to pop up on Kickstarter any time soon. :-)

It's worse than that. The 4 MSPS doesn't do a damn thing for you when your analog bandwidth is in the kHz. It doesn't matter how fast you sample if your signal can't get to the sampler.

Re: Oscilloscope watch

#16

Post by anigbrowl »

ohazi wrote: post #14
anigbrowl wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would pay a lot of money for a miniaturized tool that took RF performance seriously. I'm sure, but how many others would, vs just using bulky equipment? I agree the analog bandwidth is quite limited here, but it's good enough for audio work, and there's a large potential market there among live sound engineers.

Your output might be 20 kHz audio, but in the real world you're surrounded by analog at much higher frequencies. I've worked on enough "low bandwidth" audio projects plagued by problems at higher frequencies that I can't really recommend the "Its good enough for audio" approach anymore. You can easily have a tiny DSP with a noisy clock signal in the tens of MHz. Or a wonky USB signal. Or an intermodulation product fr…

I'm thinking strictly of things like mixers and junction boxes. I take your point about DSPs and other system clocks (and am trying to figure out if this is an issue on a hybrid DSP/FPGA/discrete device right now), but in areas like live sound engineering your main enemies are things like ground loops, crosstalk between mixer channels and whatnot. These are installation issues rather than product development ones.

Re: Oscilloscope watch

#17

Post by ja27 »

I've met Gabriel at a few Mini Maker Faires and have one of his XProtoLab boards. It isn't a replacement for a real oscilloscope, but it is a fun tool to always have around.

Re: Oscilloscope watch

#18

Post by selmnoo »

anigbrowl wrote: post #9
ohazi wrote: post #6

Oscilloscope Specifications: Maximum Sampling rate: 4MSPS Analog Bandwidth: ---> 200kHz Arbitrary Waveform Generator Specifications Maximum conversion rate: 1MSPS Analog Bandwidth: ---> 50kHz This is certainly not the first project in the "super miniaturized hardware tools" category, and as much as I like the idea of having a single tricorder-like device that can replace a lab full of hardware, all of the similar pro…

I would pay a lot of money for a miniaturized tool that took RF performance seriously. I'm sure, but how many others would, vs just using bulky equipment? I agree the analog bandwidth is quite limited here, but it's good enough for audio work, and there's a large potential market there among live sound engineers.

I don't know much about the work of sound engineers, but I'm curious, can you please describe some of the applications this device would offer to sound engineers?

Re: Oscilloscope watch

#19

Post by hackula1 »

selmnoo wrote: post #18
anigbrowl wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would pay a lot of money for a miniaturized tool that took RF performance seriously. I'm sure, but how many others would, vs just using bulky equipment? I agree the analog bandwidth is quite limited here, but it's good enough for audio work, and there's a large potential market there among live sound engineers.

I don't know much about the work of sound engineers, but I'm curious, can you please describe some of the applications this device would offer to sound engineers?

I am not a professional by any means, but I use an oscilloscope frequently when building guitar effects pedals. Being able to see a fuzz pedal's "clip" is extremely useful.

Re: Oscilloscope watch

#20

Post by rpenm »

anigbrowl wrote: post #16
ohazi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your output might be 20 kHz audio, but in the real world you're surrounded by analog at much higher frequencies. I've worked on enough "low bandwidth" audio projects plagued by problems at higher frequencies that I can't really recommend the "Its good enough for audio" approach anymore. You can easily have a tiny DSP with a noisy clock signal in the tens of MHz. Or a wonky USB signal. Or an intermodulation product fr…

I'm thinking strictly of things like mixers and junction boxes. I take your point about DSPs and other system clocks (and am trying to figure out if this is an issue on a hybrid DSP/FPGA/discrete device right now), but in areas like live sound engineering your main enemies are things like ground loops, crosstalk between mixer channels and whatnot. These are installation issues rather than product development ones.

Seems like a portable, precision FFT analyzer would be more useful. The ability to measure frequency response, harmonics, cancellation, distortion, noise, etc. make an engineer's job so much easier. Frequency information is far more important than timing information.

What benefit does an oscilloscope have over meter+ears when resolving ground loop or crosstalk issues? Time domain information doesn't seem terribly useful.

Post reply on HN