I'd like to see a true head to head between the two scopes being utilized to their actual capabilities. It's more of a marketing ploy than showing the "strengths" of the autoscope.
What I like about the USB Autoscope is the way the software displays the information. It is very similar to the way an engine analyzer would do it. In fact, the USB Autoscope in many ways is more of an engine analyzer than a pure oscilloscope. Disclaimer: I have and use both the PICO and the USB Autoscope.
@@Daaremikkel I dont deny that some of the scripts in the autoscope are excellent. I especially enjoy the PV charts. I just think the way these videos is misleading as they are not a true "vs" comparison.
I found out about autoscope from Eugene Irimia channel. So I was looking for some comparison to picoscope. In first few "comparison" videos comments are disabled, that is not good sign. One huge mistake was using picoscope in streaming mode using 50 or 100 Ks/s sampling speed. PIcoscope works in megasample range. I was watching Eugene Irimia channel and there I found out that picoscope might have alternative. I think that bigger Autoscope advantage over picoscope is number of channels and price for kit. In my opinion picoscope 4 channel automotive, is better if you have the money for it (build quality, access to reference waveform database and community forums). I only work on my cars as a hobby and own cheapest picoscope 2204a (10Mhz 2 channel, price - about 100 EUR), but it works fine for my needs. Im looking at 4 channel automotive picoscope but it is out of my hobby price range. For me interesting would be better price and 4, preferably 8 channels, and decent sampling rate. Also I must admit that automotive picoscope has much higher sampling rate and frequency bandwidth that might be beneficial for fast speed data buses. It can also read and decode CAN and other data.
Not sure If you have something to do with autoscope.eu site. I was trying to compare autoscope specifications form autoscope.eu/features/ to picoscope automotive. Atoscope specifications on that site is not correctly written. Maximum sampling frequency for channel (in 1 channel sub mode - 12.5 MHz) and lower for others. For digital oscilloscopes there are 2 independent parameters, and both are important. Channel analog bandwidth (analog part where high frequencies signals get weaker) and sampling rate (how often voltage is measured). In outoscope page sampling frequency is in MHz (correctly would be to show it in MS/s). If there is only 12.5 MS/s than this scope is only good for 1 to 2 MHz signals on one channel, because there should be at least 5 to 10 more MS/s than MHz for signal you attempt to measure. 10 MHz signal requires at 50 to 100 MS/s sampling rate to be accurately measured. For example picoscope automotive has analog bandwidth of 20Mhz, no matter how many channels are used, and it should not change for any digital scope. Picoscope also has 400 MS/s total sampling rate (400MS/s if one channel is used, 200MS/s for 2 channels and and 100MS/s if 3 or 4 channels are used). That is correct way how to write specifications for any digital oscilloscope.
@@Janisg616 Just to clarify. There are substantial waveform databases available for the Autoscope as well. I have found that the connectors on the Autoscope are better (more reliable with repeated use) than the BNC connectors on the Picoscopes.
I'd like to see a true head to head between the two scopes being utilized to their actual capabilities.
It's more of a marketing ploy than showing the "strengths" of the autoscope.
What I like about the USB Autoscope is the way the software displays the information. It is very similar to the way an engine analyzer would do it. In fact, the USB Autoscope in many ways is more of an engine analyzer than a pure oscilloscope. Disclaimer: I have and use both the PICO and the USB Autoscope.
@@Daaremikkel I dont deny that some of the scripts in the autoscope are excellent. I especially enjoy the PV charts.
I just think the way these videos is misleading as they are not a true "vs" comparison.
I found out about autoscope from
Eugene Irimia channel. So I was looking for some comparison to picoscope. In first few "comparison" videos comments are disabled, that is not good sign. One huge mistake was using picoscope in streaming mode using 50 or 100 Ks/s sampling speed. PIcoscope works in megasample range. I was watching
Eugene Irimia channel and there I found out that picoscope might have alternative. I think that bigger Autoscope advantage over picoscope is number of channels and price for kit. In my opinion picoscope 4 channel automotive, is better if you have the money for it (build quality, access to reference waveform database and community forums). I only work on my cars as a hobby and own cheapest picoscope 2204a (10Mhz 2 channel, price - about 100 EUR), but it works fine for my needs. Im looking at 4 channel automotive picoscope but it is out of my hobby price range. For me interesting would be better price and 4, preferably 8 channels, and decent sampling rate. Also I must admit that automotive picoscope has much higher sampling rate and frequency bandwidth that might be beneficial for fast speed data buses. It can also read and decode CAN and other data.
Not sure If you have something to do with autoscope.eu site. I was trying to compare autoscope specifications form autoscope.eu/features/ to picoscope automotive. Atoscope specifications on that site is not correctly written.
Maximum sampling frequency for channel (in 1 channel sub mode - 12.5 MHz) and lower for others. For digital oscilloscopes there are 2 independent parameters, and both are important. Channel analog bandwidth (analog part where high frequencies signals get weaker) and sampling rate (how often voltage is measured). In outoscope page sampling frequency is in MHz (correctly would be to show it in MS/s). If there is only 12.5 MS/s than this scope is only good for 1 to 2 MHz signals on one channel, because there should be at least 5 to 10 more MS/s than MHz for signal you attempt to measure. 10 MHz signal requires at 50 to 100 MS/s sampling rate to be accurately measured.
For example picoscope automotive has analog bandwidth of 20Mhz, no matter how many channels are used, and it should not change for any digital scope. Picoscope also has 400 MS/s total sampling rate (400MS/s if one channel is used, 200MS/s for 2 channels and and 100MS/s if 3 or 4 channels are used). That is correct way how to write specifications for any digital oscilloscope.
@@Janisg616 Just to clarify. There are substantial waveform databases available for the Autoscope as well. I have found that the connectors on the Autoscope are better (more reliable with repeated use) than the BNC connectors on the Picoscopes.
no cabe duda autoscope IV el mejor!! pd. me gustaría que también se traduzca éstos videos al español.
Veré que podemos hacer