You gave me the answer yourself:

Wuerstchenhund said: ↑
- an activity through which people express particular ideas

Just because you had the idea to build an USB charger doesn't mean your finished circuitry becomes art. In fact, your "idea" is more like a specification, which your design (hopefully) satisfies. Because it doesn't express an idea, it fullfills a function. Which is something inherent in engineering. It's not in art.

Designing a ciruit or building an electronic gadget is as much art as deciding to buy a new TV. It may well contain some creativity, but it's a far cry from what is accepted as "art".

I get what you want to argue, however you will not find much support for your line of argueing.

 

Just because you had the idea to build an USB charger doesn't mean your finished circuitry becomes art. In fact, your "idea" is more like a specification, which your design (hopefully) satisfies. Because it doesn't express an idea, it fullfills a function. Which is something inherent in engineering. It's not in art.

Designing a ciruit or building an electronic gadget is as much art as deciding to buy a new TV. It may well contain some creativity, but it's a far cry from what is accepted as "art".

I get what you want to argue, however you will not find much support for your line of argueing.

Check this article, it pretty much supports my line of thought:

The catch is that we do need both ‘Art’ and Science’ for this – it’s not ‘one-or-the-other’ here. And we need the right mix of both, in order to create technologies that can work well with real-world sameness-and-difference, at any requisite scale. There’s a real Goldilocks challenge here, for every engineer:

• if we allow ourselves to get stuck in ‘Art’, we’ll over-focus on difference, and end up with non-scalable ‘craft’ that can’t be made repeatable or replicable for anyone else
• if we allow ourselves to get stuck in ‘Science’, we’ll get caught up in analysis-paralysis loops, and never cross the ‘edge of action’ to make anything real

Just enough art and ambiguity, just enough science and certainty: that’s when engineering works well in the real-world!

 

Also, this debate seems to be a very long one in which no definite conclusion has been arrived at, even by respectable authorities:

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/do_you_think_engineering_is_an_art_form

 

1. Why these labs don't work with Siglent or Rigol?
2. Why the big know companies, medical industries, automotive industries around the world have not Siglent or Rigol as first choice?
3. Why are now selling the Rohde & Schwarz, Keysight and other top brands and are still in the market and not go on the sidelines from Siglent or Rigol?

Since the Siglent and Rigol are the winner in absolute specifications and half priced, what is the cause that somebody buy a top brand measuring device? Maybe from blindness or stupidity? Why the Rigol and Siglent with these very strong competitive edge don't have the whole of global market. From the other side why these "stupid" manager from the top brands selling so expensive their sub-specs products in one competitive market?

OK, here's the short answer:

1. Rigol and Siglent both make low-end devices, i.e. their best scopes only have simpler scopes with a maximum bandwidth of 1GHz. Which is, pretty much, at the lower end of the spectrum. Just to give you an idea, even R&S (which is still relatively new in the scope business) has scopes to 8GHz, and LeCroy to 100GHz and Keysight to 110GHz (yes, these are hundred GHz), with sample rates of up to 256GSa/s (256GHz). Rigol and Siglent are from that technology so far away as humanity is landing on Mars.

2.) Even though Rigol and Siglent have scopes to 1GHz, they mostly sell simple scopes up to 200MHz which are aimed at hobbyists, not professionals. Also, their 500MHz and 1GHz scopes are pretty buggy, and will remain so for a while (the Rigol DS6000 has been on the market for more than 5 years and still has lots of non-working functionality).

3.) Neither Rigol nor Siglent scopes can offer the performance and functionality that is expected from a upper midrange or high-end scope.

4.) Neither Rigol nor Siglent can offer the probing solutions that we require.

5.) Neither Rigol nor Siglent have a support system that can deal with what large customers expect.

6.) With Rigol and Siglent being Chinese brands, which like all Chinese companies are under control by the Chinese government, they can't be used in projects that touch national security in certain countries.


So while for the hobbyspace, both Rigol and Siglent offer tremendous bang for the buck, this does not equally translate into the professional market. And quite frankly, that won't change anytime soon.

 

And while HPAK and especially LeCroy have been pushing the technology in scopes further and further, there was very little innovation over the years from Tek.

You used the I word. What is Innovation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation

Innovation in its modern meaning is a "new idea, creative thoughts, new imaginations in form of device or method".

The art of technical problem solving is intimately intertwined with engineering. Physics and math provide the bulk canvas and tools but they can't replace actual artistic skill and talent in designing and building systems. I do understand, if a person doesn't have this ability (not something you can learn in school but it can be sharpened) it's nearly impossible to explain what you see and think.

 

It is very obvious that you have very strong opinions about all kinds of oscilloscopes.
My go-to scope for over 20 years has been a Tektronix TDS 220 100MHz scope. If I had no scope at all and wanted a personal scope (ignoring the latest offerings) this would be my first choice.

I love mine. Using it today at home to debug software for a new controller board prototype using the PIC18F57K42.
https://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/en/PIC18F57K42

The old girl still has lots of life in her.

 

Seeing the waveform allow for a quick visual check of a known or even unknown signal, and the grid is there to give a 2D reference to the waveform that is displayed.

And that is what I was hinting on my previous post: a waveform is not only a collection of parameters; the shape can show many other intricacies that may be relevant to the measurements performed by the equipment. And yes, I have seen expensive equipment do blatant errors in measurements.

I'm sorry but there's no demonstrable connection between using a graticule and critical thinking.
After all, pretty much any 5 year old can count his fingers, and greading from a graticule is hardly more difficult.

You would be surprised. Your experience is different than mine.

The same is true for the (unfortunately still very widespread) belief that only by using the most archaic method possible a person can really gain appreciation for using a scope.

I am not sure if you are talking about something I have said or not, but I disagree with that belief.

In fact, if a contender starts using graticule or cursors from getting the base parameters of a modestly complex signal then there's a very high chance this person is also oblivious to the sampling theorem and the inter-relation of BW, sample rate and sample memory.

I do know that and sometimes I still count graticules. It is quicker than going to the menu. Also, I read somewhere that there is a correlation between reduced mental disorders in later life and the amount of daily exercise you force your brain to do: mental math, crosswords, etc.

True, but that is equally valid for any test instrument. For example, many people would be surprised if they knew how much an analog scope lies to and hides stuff from its user.

Yes, but you can't deny that blindly pressing buttons to find parameters tend to be more obscure than actually thinking about how the signal is shaped in the screen and then trying to find its parameters. Don't forget the mind naturally adapts much faster to a quick fix or a shortcut.

I have to disagree. The only reason (...)

Ok, we agree to disagree.

 

I will add this any thing can be art, anything. Art belongs to the audience not the creator. Of course your going to say well that is not electronics that's music but that is as blind as atheism. For example in the Indian religions god can be anything and nothing is one of those things so by believing god is nothing you still yet believe in god.

What is a led cube or other light displays. Yeah I am going to have to side with the course despite all the help, Wurstchenhound!

http://cdm.link/2015/06/watch-oscilloscope-draw-3d-make-amazing-music-time/

 

I love mine. Using it today at home to debug software for a new controller board prototype using the PIC18F57K42.
https://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/en/PIC18F57K42

The old girl still has lots of life in her.

And I thought my workbench was cluttered.

 

And I thought my workbench was cluttered.

It's organized clutter.

 

While old analog grandpa can't contend with his digital children and grandchildren, he's perfectly adequate for a birds eye view of digital circuit activity with a proper trigger source.

PIC18f57k42 board signals: Testing main program, channel 1 spi dma and timer 6/uart1 vector interrupt overlapping processes sharing cpu/memory resources using the default System Arbiter priorities.

1: spi DMA to LCD display
2: uart1 TX interrupt driven 19200 baud

Top to Bottom:
50us period timer6 interrupt toggle on a gpio pin
spi signal using dma transfer
uart1 tx using buffer and interrupts
dma start/complete interrupt trace trigger using a gpio pin

If you can find one in good condition and dirt cheap, buy it as a complement to the DSO.

 

You used the I word. What is Innovation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation

Innovation in its modern meaning is a "new idea, creative thoughts, new imaginations in form of device or method".

Well, I would be careful using Wikipedia as an authorative source.

Cambridge Dictionaires defines Innovation as "(the use of) a new idea or method."

But yes, the process of innovating might be considered "creative".

The art of technical problem solving is intimately intertwined with engineering. Physics and math provide the bulk canvas and tools but they can't replace actual artistic skill and talent in designing and building systems. I do understand, if a person doesn't have this ability (not something you can learn in school but it can be sharpened) it's nearly impossible to explain what you see and think.

I'm sorry but that sounds a bit mushy. For example, 'Problem Solving' is not an art, it's a skill. There's a saying "xxxx is an art" but that is meant figuratively, not literally (i.e. XXX is very difficult to do right and needs a very skilled person to do).

As to physics and math providing "the bulk canvas and tools" and that they can't replace "actual artistic skill and talent in designing and building systems", while to some extend I can see how this may be the case for an hobbyist who starts dabbling in electronics and for whom it's mostly about to learn, or maybe an artist playing with electronics as means of expression, this certainly isn't the case if you do EE professionally, where skill and precision are what matters, not creativity. Because without solid knowledge in math and physics there would be very little "innovation".

I'm not saying it's completely creativity-free work, but it's as far away from actual art as possible.

So if you're a hobbyist dabbling in Maker stuff, then yes, creativity may be a necessity to come up with ideas (but still, it's the idea which requires the crativity, not so much the process of building it).

But if you work on cutting edge EE projects for a living then it's very likely that creativity takes the last row, while skills and knowledge have to have front seats.

I will add this any thing can be art, anything. Art belongs to the audience not the creator. Of course your going to say well that is not electronics that's music but that is as blind as atheism. For example in the Indian religions god can be anything and nothing is one of those things so by believing god is nothing you still yet believe in god.

I'm probably not the best person to discuss faith related things but as before, and while I agree that, like taste, art lies in the eye of the beholder, reality is that electronics, at least at a professional level, has very little to do with "art". As I said above, I can see that this is probably different for the stuff hobbyist typically work on, and I'm sure in many hobbyist projects a lot of imagination went into, but don't assume that this translates directly to EE as a day job.

 

There's a lot of art in electronics, for example, PCB layout is called "artwork".
The original Macintosh computer was considered a piece of art by many.
A lot of artistry goes into the design of a modern smart phone. The whole automobile industry is swamped by the artist/engineer.

 

PCB layout is called "artwork"

Checkmate...

 

So if you're a hobbyist dabbling in Maker stuff, then yes, creativity may be a necessity to come up with ideas (but still, it's the idea which requires the creativity, not so much the process of building it).

But if you work on cutting edge EE projects for a living then it's very likely that creativity takes the last row, while skills and knowledge have to have front seats.

EE would be a dull soul-less job if that were true. The cutting edge is where creativity matters most in engineering, those with skills and knowledge do have front seats. They need those seats to take direction from engineers with creativity, skills and knowledge.

 

Rigol just released a new one MSO5000. The basic one is 800€ and trust me that is worth it. I didnt buy the basic one but it has a lot of features still, its a huge step

 

I'll not reply to any of the "arts" comments because I think right or wrong will at the end of the day depend on an individual's personal POV.

Rigol just released a new one MSO5000. The basic one is 800€ and trust me that is worth it. I didnt buy the basic one but it has a lot of features still, its a huge step

I wouldn't call it huge step. The basic 70MHz MSO5000 is a bargain at $900 simply because it's currently possible to enable all functionality through a hack. Outside that it's a new scope with immature firmware, basic functionality and a dim display with very poor viewing angles, which in it's higher spec'd versions becomes unreasonable expensive (the 350MHz version with options is $4700).

This means the only version worth buying at the moment is the 2ch 70MHz basic variant, and this really only for people who can live with buggy firmware (and may have to do so for a while).

And because the hack works through a change of files in the scope's firmware and not by a simple keygen as on the DS1054z, Rigol may well decide to close the access hole and then even the 70Mhz base scope won't look as attractive any more.

 

I feel left out here. I just purchased this one. I don't see a mention of it at all on this thread. It was recommended by an avionics engineer.
I'm no expert but this works for what I do.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B011IFQUQ8/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

I'll not reply to any of the "arts" comments because I think right or wrong will at the end of the day depend on an individual's personal POV.



I wouldn't call it huge step. The basic 70MHz MSO5000 is a bargain at $900 simply because it's currently possible to enable all functionality through a hack. Outside that it's a new scope with immature firmware, basic functionality and a dim display with very poor viewing angles, which in it's higher spec'd versions becomes unreasonable expensive (the 350MHz version with options is $4700).

This means the only version worth buying at the moment is the 2ch 70MHz basic variant, and this really only for people who can live with buggy firmware (and may have to do so for a while).

And because the hack works through a change of files in the scope's firmware and not by a simple keygen as on the DS1054z, Rigol may well decide to close the access hole and then even the 70Mhz base scope won't look as attractive any more.

I do appreciate your expertise in this area because it has helped me to decide on several entry-level scope upgrades for the maintenance floor. I also looked at the MSO5000. Maybe a future model with a boat load of bug fixes might be in the cards but for now it's on my 'no' list.

 

I do appreciate your expertise in this area because it has helped me to decide on several entry-level scope upgrades for the maintenance floor. I also looked at the MSO5000. Maybe a future model with a boat load of bug fixes might be in the cards but for now it's on my 'no' list.

Thanks for the nice words, and I'm glad I could help.

To be fair, the MSO5000 looks like it has a lot of potential. And if we look back at when the Rigol DS1054z, which today is a very mature and quite reliable entry-level scope at a ridiculously low price, came out, it was a buggy hell-hole barely useable for any serious work. But because it was cheap (and hackable) lots of people bought it, and because lots of people bought it Rigol has subsequently fixed almost all of the bugs that were found (I think the last remaining bug is just a spelling error).

Now we see lots of people buying the MSO5000. Who knows, maybe 3 years down the line it will be a solid performer in its class as the DS1054z is today?

As a side note: a while ago I tested the trigger performance/reliability of some scopes, all upper mid-range and higher scopes. At the end of the tests, I thought why not give my (unlocked) DS1054z a try, not that I expected anything coming out of it considering that the other scopes were all >$7k. To my surprise, the Rigol's trigger system performed absolutely spot on every time, and even far beyond the frequency range I would expect it to do.

So yes, while currently I don't think the MSO5000 is a good buy (and it appears the access hole that allowed hacking has been blocked with the latest firmware update), I'll definitely keep an eye on it, as there's a good chance it becomes a solid, reliable scope over the next two or three years.

And maybe by then RigLol has also been updated for this new scope