Which 'scope?

On Saturday, 16 February 2019 00:28:59 UTC, Phil Allison wrote:

tabby wrote:

I was offered a 1940s Cossor recently for ÂŁ20-30.

** So they were offering to PAY you to take the POS away ?

Vintage scopes have market value for collectors.

If all you're doing is audio, any halfway sane scope will do that,
even that Cossor.


** Absolute BOLLOCKS.

Audio is ELECTRONICS, not sound.

no kidding

The range of frequencies found in audio electronics extends to frequencies of many MHz. Domestic AM and FM radio deceivers are considered "audio".

Radio microphones are considered "audio".

I'd call those radio myself

> Faulty ( or badly designed / built ) audio amplifiers may exhibit oscillation upto 50MHz.

which can be found on a low speed scope with a capacitor & diode

> Digital audio seems to know no bounds.

though it doesn't normally tax any sane scope. The 200kHz toy scope it may do, but for some hobbyists it may be good enough. Then there are smpsus.


NT

 

[Phil Allison]

tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

I was offered a 1940s Cossor recently for ÂŁ20-30.

** So they were offering to PAY you to take the POS away ?

Vintage scopes have market value for collectors.

** Still a POS and you are no collector.

If all you're doing is audio, any halfway sane scope will do that,
even that Cossor.


** Absolute BOLLOCKS.

Audio is ELECTRONICS, not sound.

no kidding

** Asinine reply, from an utter ass.

The range of frequencies found in audio electronics extends to frequencies of many MHz. Domestic AM and FM radio deceivers are considered "audio".

Radio microphones are considered "audio".

I'd call those radio myself

** Another asinine reply.

Folk who service "audio" are expected to do each of them.

Faulty ( or badly designed / built ) audio amplifiers may exhibit oscillation upto 50MHz.

which can be found on a low speed scope with a capacitor & diode

** Completely irrelevant.

Digital audio seems to know no bounds.

though it doesn't normally tax any sane scope.

** As if a bullshitting troll like you would know.

NT = nutcase troll.

Fuck off.


..... Phil

 

On Saturday, 16 February 2019 07:05:08 UTC, Phil Allison wrote:

tabby wrote:

I was offered a 1940s Cossor recently for ÂŁ20-30.

** So they were offering to PAY you to take the POS away ?

Vintage scopes have market value for collectors.


** Still a POS

yep

> and you are no collector.

lol

If all you're doing is audio, any halfway sane scope will do that,
even that Cossor.


** Absolute BOLLOCKS.

Audio is ELECTRONICS, not sound.

no kidding


** Asinine reply, from an utter ass.

yours was indeed

The range of frequencies found in audio electronics extends to frequencies of many MHz. Domestic AM and FM radio deceivers are considered "audio".

Radio microphones are considered "audio".

I'd call those radio myself


** Another asinine reply.

Folk who service "audio" are expected to do each of them.

but the fact is it is radio

Faulty ( or badly designed / built ) audio amplifiers may exhibit oscillation upto 50MHz.

which can be found on a low speed scope with a capacitor & diode


** Completely irrelevant.

heh, hardly

Digital audio seems to know no bounds.

though it doesn't normally tax any sane scope.


** As if a bullshitting troll like you would know.

feel free to show us some digital audio that a sane scope can't handle

NT = nutcase troll.

Fuck off.

PA = personality-problem ass. Grow up. If you have any facts show us.

 

On Monday, 18 February 2019 20:30:46 UTC, Phil Allison wrote:

tabbypurr

Folk who service "audio" are expected to do each of them.

but the fact is it is radio


** Irrelevant to the need.

"mainly for looking at audio signals. Just for hobby work. Just because
I'm curious about the audio stuff. "

Servicing radios was something you came up with.

** Completely irrelevant.

heh, hardly



** Even more childish and asinine.

You really are a prize fuckwit.

you snipped the relevant stuff, which was the ability to spot oscillation

** As if a bullshitting troll like you would know.

feel free to show us some digital audio that a sane scope can't handle


** Feel free to go fuck yourself.

you don't have any. A sane scope can do digital audio.


> NT = Nutcase TROLL and vile, autistic pig.

there you get confused again.

> FOAD.

What a nice constructive man.


NT

 

[Phil Allison]

Some vile, trolling FUCKWIT calling itself:
tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

Folk who service "audio" are expected to do each of them.

but the fact is it is radio

** Irrelevant to the need.

** Completely irrelevant.

heh, hardly

** Even more childish and asinine.

You really are a prize fuckwit.

** As if a bullshitting troll like you would know.

feel free to show us some digital audio that a sane scope can't handle

** Feel free to go fuck yourself.


NT = Nutcase TROLL and vile, autistic pig.

FOAD.

 

On Tuesday, 19 February 2019 09:31:27 UTC, Phil Allison wrote:

tabbypurr wrote:

Folk who service "audio" are expected to do each of them.

but the fact is it is radio

** Irrelevant to the need.

** Completely irrelevant.

heh, hardly

** Even more childish and asinine.

You really are a prize fuckwit.

** As if a bullshitting troll like you would know.

feel free to show us some digital audio that a sane scope can't handle



** Feel free to go fuck yourself.


NT = Nutcase TROLL and vile, autistic pig.

FOAD.

I'm not sure what repeating your already debunked points is going to establish, other than that you have no rational argument.

Why don't we skip the childishness and maybe agree on the very basic and frankly obvious points behind this argument:

1. Any sane scope can handle audio frequencies & class D amps. More bandwidth is needed for fm radio receivers. 'Sane' does not include soundcard scopes.

2. Scopes can detect signals & oscillation well above their bandwidth by using a diode as an envelope detector.

There we go, some simple facts we can probably agree on. The rest is time wasted.


NT

 

[Phil Allison]

Some know nothing TROLL calling itself
tabb...@gmail.com wrote:


tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

Both of those are way above audio, which only extends to 20kHz.

** While the audible range extends to just a little over 20kHz this has NOTHING to do with the frequencies regularly encountered in *audio electronics*.

You are making a common and BIG mistake !!!

A scope suitable for audio electronics needs a BW of at least 10MHz, preferably 50MHz and good waveform resolution - which counts out all the 8 bit "digital" toys being offered today.


..... Phil

 

On Tuesday, 19 February 2019 20:13:45 UTC, Phil Allison wrote:

tabbypurr wrote:
tabby wrote:



Both of those are way above audio, which only extends to 20kHz.



** While the audible range extends to just a little over 20kHz this has NOTHING to do with the frequencies regularly encountered in *audio electronics*.

that is stating the obvious, and we've already covered that.

You are making a common and BIG mistake !!!

A scope suitable for audio electronics needs a BW of at least 10MHz, preferably 50MHz and good waveform resolution - which counts out all the 8 bit "digital" toys being offered today.


.... Phil

I've asked you to provide a basis for this claim.


NT

 

On Tuesday, 19 February 2019 20:16:31 UTC, Phil Allison wrote:

tabby wrote:

If all you're doing is audio, any halfway sane scope will do that,
even that Cossor.



** Absolute BOLLOCKS.

Audio is ELECTRONICS, not sound.

The range of frequencies found in audio electronics extends to frequencies of many MHz. Domestic AM and FM radio deceivers are considered "audio".

Radio microphones are considered "audio".

I'm sure we covered this already. The OP did not ask for a scope to do radio work with. He is not servicing hifis.

> Faulty ( or badly designed / built ) audio amplifiers may exhibit oscillation upto 50MHz.

which even a clunky old 1MHz scope can pick up using an envelope detecting diode.

> Digital audio seems to know no bounds.

It's the OPs choice whether to spend 3 figures on a scope that can handle every piece of digital audio in existence or 2 figures for one that can do more or less everything he's likely to work on. Given that he's a curious hobbyist, the latter seems more sensible. However, it is the op's choice, not mine or yours.

There really is no point covering this ground yet again.


NT