you crack me up ' ..a digital phosphor effect and a really fast update and really fast responding knobs is probably the best way to look at a signal with which you're unfamiliar and you're probably unfamiliar with it because you're using an oscilloscope to look at it, anyway..'
I have a question. How did you get to where you're at today? What schooling did you do/your job/how you're able to afford doing all the experiments and stuff. Individuals like you are essentially role models for what I'd like to do with my life.
And here goes my suggestion to NI and all others supplying drivers & apps for some instruments. Why not also have a built-in html5 web server, so the only thing you need on your PC, PAD, etc. is a html5 capable browser, which is nearly every browser today. No install, no hassle with drivers, apps, conflicts, just start up your browser, type the IP/adress of your instrument or have it all set up as a shortcut and you're ready to go. No matter if it is a Samsung android pad, Ipad or one of your windows,linux machines or virtual machines. The same goes with integrating it with user code in any language. Do it with a general TCP/IP interface, too. What is the use for a driver talking to the instrument and then presenting some kind of non standardized API anyway? Just skip the driver and use the "TCP/IP API" built into the instrument directly.
I agree. The VirtualBench does have a webserver for configuration and settings, but no HTML5 app for usage. This sentiment applies to mobile too: Forget iOS and android apps which provide the same functionality as a webpage -- just use a webpage! Of course, vendors know users want this, but would prefer to have them locked into app, rather than able to quickly switch to another vendor by typing a different URL.
As a web developer I find people think html5 does a lot more than it actually does. Most of what goes into a webapp is pre-html5, html5 is just a few available features.
Something that I think could be quite powerful with this product is combining all these tools into a single interface. Using serial output to trigger the oscilloscope, that kind of stuff. I believe oscilloscopes exist that trigger off serial signals, but that's just an example off the top of my head
Excellent review of a fine piece of equipment. I agree with your assessment at the end 100%. This thing has a ton of potential already (especially if you purchase LabView), but the regular interface only brings this thing about half way to it's ultimate useful/user-friendly-ness level. I imagine future software updates would bring this thing to a whole new level.
Interesting. Despite the versatility, it's pretty niche. I personally like the idea of having separate bench gear with physical knobs and clicky buttons for most things. I'm not sure this could replace a trusty set of standalone bench equipment for most people. The ability to program it inside out is nice but in practice probably isn't necessary unless, like you said, you have something specific in mind.
Pretty nice. But a bit pricy. You can buy very good bench MSO for similar price. Also for a PC / software oscilloscope this have pretty good GUI and update rate!
I think this instrument is for the educational market, schools love to be able to set up a lab curse by simply hooking these to a bunch of old PCs and be done with it. The specs on it are pretty decent to make the 2 grand price tag resonable, but as with a lot of products these days the software NEEDS more work..
Applied Science Whops meant to say "course", but yeah that name fits better, i never learned anything from them despite how many i had to go trough. Luckily Ben can teach more than that in just a few minutes of video (I'm very experienced in electronics, but not as much in chemistry or physics so i seen quite a lot of stuff new to me)
I'm guessing it could be linked to Multisim too. That would make it great for rapidly testing circuits by simulating them on real signals and outputting the simulation results as real signals as well.
+Dren Imeraj There is a VirtualBench and Multisim teaching bundle: sine.ni.com/nips/cds/view/p/lang/en/nid/213385 If you already have Multisim, here is a whitepaper on how to importing VirtualBench measured data Into a Multisim circuit simulation: www.ni.com/tutorial/52089/en/
Another good use for the wifi capability is if it's in the field, then you can talk to it without lugging around extra hardware, and if it's not feasible to use a hardware connection
Rob Mckennie A computer qualifies as 'extra hardware.' Things like this are only suitable for ATE and similar applications where the instrument will not be controlled by an actual human. For anything that needs to be controllable by something in meatspace, four words: *Knobs. Buttons. Switches. Screen.*
randacnam7321 a computer is extra hardware, but it's multipurpose extra hardware. Sure it's nice to have a physical interface, but do you feel like carrying around 20 different panels for talking to your various installations?
Rob Mckennie Dealing with multiple separate intuitive UIs is better than one thing that tries to do everything and does none of what it is capable of better than separate equipment. The number of situations where this level of integration and combined control are needed are pretty much limited to ATE situations anyway. This is not something I would have to dick around with in the field as the UI looks to be a pain in the ass. And a friend of mine who was testing one of these for our school found using it a pain in the ass. Real labs and shops almost always use standalone instruments for the simple fact that pure computer UIs are a right pain to fight just to get the damn thing to show a sodding signal let alone do any analysis on it.
randacnam7321 Let's say, for the sake of argument, you need to control 500 different devices, all with different UI needs, and none of which can have a permanent control panel. Would you prefer to carry 500 control units that are all perfect, or carry 1 that is just kinda okay? Sure, it's not super realistic, and I don't care. I was just making a little comment, and there's no need to throw a fit over it.
Rob Mckennie Which is not a likely situation for a typical or even relatively atypical lab setup. Anything that complicated will most likely be some kind of ATE setup anyway. My point that this kind of instrument has no advantages for the vast majority of human operated test rigs still stands. As a meatspace hardware design engineer, I don't want to drag around a complicated computer controlled thingamajig like this every time I need to power something or take measurements. Time is money and dicking around with recalcitrant test gear slows work down, drives NRE costs through the roof, pisses off the techs and worse. If I need a multimeter or power supply, I use one that has a power on time measured in seconds. If I need a scope, I have an analog Elenco job and an Owon Tek clone DSO that are ready in seconds and a Rigol that takes less than a minute to boot. And anything needing something that spits out serial data can be done with a microcontroller and some line drivers. Or just a power supply and some switches for static logic line stuff.
5:45 - they really should move the function gen controls to a horizontal position under the display (maybe even as a hover popup) then use the space where it is now for all the controls they have hidden
It always seems that the apps bundled with PC based scopes haven't been designed with any input from actual oscilloscope users. The signal rendering on this one at least seems fairly clear but the controls seem pretty terrible.
Strange that they included USB and WiFi, but not Ethernet? Nice having a c interface, which would ease wrappers in python etc, hopefully you can actually access all the controls via the api. LabVIEW has always seemed a strange beast to me, but from memory the extent of the module library is just mind boggling.
+oranac The VB-8034 which was released earlier this year includes Ethernet as well as upgrades to many of the instruments. Scope: 4 channel, 350 MHz, 1.5 GS/s/ch DC Power Supply: 3A on the +6V rail and 1A on the +/-25V rails w/binding post connectivity Please visit www.ni.com/virtualbench/specifications/ for more information on VB-8034.
There's a Python wrapper for NI's DAQmx drivers that would probably work for this. The hardest part is grinding into low gear to make sure you feed it the correct C-types. The help files that NI sends with DAQmx are pretty good, but I had to keep checking Python references to figure out how to send 32-bit Ints and so on.
I wonder if the oscilloscope can't pan (like a real scope would) because the peripheral part is captured as a much lower resolution. It would explain how you can't pan/zoom without recapturing the waveform.
You should hook the electron microscope up to the virtual bench and record a new video, it should look much better and you wouldn't have the inherent crt refresh issue on the camera
This with and an Arduino GPS and a LabJack I could replace my $35k PXI chassis (High-Speed Digitizer, GPS card, Slow DAC, and delay generator) it seems--and have a much smaller form factor. What am I missing here? I guess I need to contact NI and see. Was this product out before 2015?
So... big 3 in oscilloscopes... I'm guessing KeySight (previously Agilent, what i'm used to playing with), Rigol, and.... Tektronix? Also, I've seen a LOT of low-refresh-rate 'pocket oscilloscopes' on the market for cheap recently that boast insane sample rates and sizes, all of which were crap.
hello friend , I've designed a magnetic crostat to measure the magnetoresistance at high and low temperatures , now I'm leaning lab view and I've NI MyDaQ but I've a problem I couldn't solve it for a year , I use the four probe method to measure resistivity ,I wonna to make a program that can record the measured voltage as a function of temperature as I want the program to record the voltage at a specific steps of temperature set it ,,, and thanks a lot
If they could bring the price way down and make some good cross platform software for it, it would be great for hobbyist use. For 2 grand you can get some rigol gear that doesn't need a pc.
My university has NI's PXI instruments in the undergraduate labs. 90% of students and TAs will tell you they are nothing but trouble. The soft panel interfaces are pretty dickey with all the drop down menus and radio buttons. We frequently have to restart the computers to get them to see the instruments.
They do. Just look into the higher end (20kUSD and upwards) Keysight/Tek oscilloscopes where they just put in an ATX motherboard and a touchscreen. The oscilloscope frontend is as usually connected to an ADC which is in turn connected to an FPGA that is connected to the PC via SATA (or sometimes PCIe, but don't quote me on that). The FPGA and ADC are mandatory to capture signals and deliver them to the PC. Also long ribbon cables and PCIe don't work well, since there will be a lot of data loss (if the data even arrives at all).
brandonhughes7 If I was manufacturing something, or had a good application for it I would be all for it. But I would just be using it for the occasional hacking up of whatever comes around, or maybe repairing and diagnosing equipment.
So you wouldn't recommend this over something like a DS1000 series O-scope (+DMM and PSU) for an engineering student or new engineer who wants to build a small personal lab on a budget?
You can get a LOT of really nice gear for $2k.... If you are just starting out, you'll also want a nice soldering station, various soldering tips, prototyping supplies, consumables, resistor/capacitor books, LCR meter, analog scope, inspection scope, shelves, storage bins, dev boards, etc... I would die if I had to drag out my laptop and plug in that big box every time I needed to make a quick voltage measurement.
johnfranks you got that so right. If you pick up as much of that used as possible (or ask a college professor for some older hardware they don't need) you can get all of that for a few hundred bucks. don't forget a few good multimeters, and a solid multi-rail adjustable power supply!
Falcrist I'd go for separate "real" instruments, if you aren't pressed for space and you don't have the need to program your instruments. And I say that as someone, who is using Labview and NI's hardware (even expensive one) quite alot. Get used instruments first and upgrade them one by one after you know what you need. A dedicated instrument will most likely still work in 20 years, if you don't knock it around too much. Can't say that about a PC based solution. Or are you planning to keep a computer with the last software supporting it around for years? Even if you go for new stuff, 2000$ will get you quite decent equipment, including an oscilloscope, function generator and power supply. My 3-channel power supply is over ten years old, still works like on the first day, never had to install an update and works within a second. I'm using a 30 year old (I think it's from that time) analog Tektronix scope (used 2215A with second timebase, that's very useful). Still working fine. For a logic analyzer I got one of the el-cheapos from ebay that got me all that I needed till now. My function generator is a repaired Hameg Fgen, just has Sine, triangle and square from 300mHz to 3MHz. Up until now that was all I needed (PWM would be fine though; but I just do that with an Arduino if I need a signal like that). All in all I spent maybe 400€. Yes, I have to improvise sometimes, but that's also the best way to learn something. Separate devices also have the advantage that if you select the correctly, all their outputs can be floating (i. e. no common ground). I don't know how it is in this device, but in many of these combined devices, the oscilloscope, function generator, logic IO and powersupply all have the same ground reference. That can be really limiting!
Even if NI try to pass this "all-in-one piece of electronic test gear" this is no match for normal oscilloscope. My company use extensively NI products (PXI based modular instruments) but they are in reality only useful for automated testing, not as laboratory instruments.
Ben, do you dislike pc oscilloscopes categorically, or have you just never used a decent one? I've never used a decent one, but I reckon it would be possible to scrape together a lean fast output, and with this unit you could even interface with a physical control panel via the various inputs
To be exact most of middle/high range oscilloscopes are PC based. If i remember all Tek oscilloscopes form 5000+ series are running Windows, I know that MSO 7000 series use Windows 7( I have one), same is for Keysight (Agilent) for series 5000+, LeCroy......
Miloš Lazović It's a good point. I guess the distinction should be: Does the device have a dedicated front panel with knobs and buttons, its own display, and low-latency controls and acquisition?
Applied Science I agree with your division between PC based and "classic" instruments, but lately even category as low-latency controls started do blend between them, there are some models of oscilloscopes from renowned manufacturers that suffer from very sluggish control response (they nearly freeze when you go to menus) and again you have very low acquisition latency from PC based instruments (like from NI PXI instruments). I totally agree with your conclusion what is purpose of this "All-in-One Instrument", it is not replacement for "classical" instruments, it is best suited for automated testing of products (basically as all NI modular instruments).
I believe that a PC based oscilloscope could be potentially better than a traditional one. Nowdays even modest integrated GPU or tablets have more than enough graphics power to display intensity grading at 60 FPS with no perceivable delay. A properly designed interface with keyboard shortcuts etc.. could beat knobs anytime. However I think that the problems lies in the fact that electronics test equipment companies do not put (yet) as much thought into the software as they do on the hardware.
For future PC recordings, please consider using some on-PC screen capture app, like OBS (Open Broadcast Software), then syncing up audio in post-production. Although OBS could be a massive overkill for you. This blotchy, moire-ridden, unfocused camera-recordings is nasty. Especially when getting a clean recording is not that hard.
Mark Beeunas One of our developers actually did a teardown of the product for a Xilinx conference where you can see the insides and hear him discuss the different parts; you can check it out here: forums.ni.com/t5/BreakPoint/Not-for-the-squeamish-NI-VirtualBench-Teardown/td-p/3026311 Cheers! Katie Collette, National Instruments
I suppose it is great for low end, kind of low volume product testing. I mean, for 2000$ you can also buy all that stuff that it has internally as separate (better working) equipment. Rigol DS1054z is just 500$, you can get like 3 powersupplies for 400$, add a logic analyzer 100$, random uC dev board for generating stuff 10$, 2x multimeter 400$. Under 1500$ you can easily have all of the stuff in the box, with better performance and/or capabilities, easier UI and of course separate screens. I dont think any semi-serious engineer could get used to PC oscilloscopes btw, they are great to carry around if you are travelling or working in a car, but for any serious work they are just too finicky.
I think it's just that not enough effort has been put into PC scopes, its generally viewed as a low cost option. Its certainly not that you can't make a good UI for a scope. I mean modern scopes are basically PCs with some extra data acquisition hardware stuffed into it, most of them even run windows.
I've only ever heard it pronounced are-dwee-no. That's how Adafruit Industries and their guests pronounce it on their channel, so I'm guessing that's the accepted pronunciation.
Sounds like the big brother to the SmartScope I supported on Kickstarter. www.lab-nation.com/ Of course, it's an order of magnitude different in price.
No doubt about it. But you won't get better integration. This thing is okay if you are limited in space or, as Ben says, if you want to setup a bench for production line, i.e something you don't have to play with all the time.
It's pretty common to pronounce acronyms: AIDS, MoMA, GIF, MADD, NATO, even SQL. I think most people would prefer to pronounce them, and only revert to saying letters when the pronunciation is nonsensical or difficult, like ATM.
Or words like RAM and ROM... and LASER (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation). But I assume the people complaining try to correct everyone on those too..
It's a nice bit of kit, but sorry, the "bang for the buck" just isn't there. A Rigol (who makes the lower end Teks) mixed mode scope with an LXI will interface to LabVIEW as will many competitively priced power supplies and function generators, giving much more flexibility and you don't always have to drag around a laptop, boot up, etc. With a laptop and a MDSO, you now have two simultaneous screens. And of course, if your needs go outside the power supply range for example, you have another box on the bench anyway. Like you said, it seems pretty niche. I say this as a hard core Certified LabVIEW Developer. For my money, there isn't a better rapid development environment out there, period. Even so, I prefer my dedicated knobs and buttons. It's just more intuitive.
C library? I assume a Linux version is available? I will never understand why technical companies release stuff for Windows only. This makes no sense as most of us us in the technical community are using Linux for everything these days. There is no point in even developing for Windows any more.
I don't think linux being the standard is true. Windows is just SO common, even though linux is definitely easier and overall better for tasks like this. Academics don't like to mix their specialties, Electrical engineers won't get into the work required to change from the norm of windows, even if it is better.
Bradley Galloway Maybe, I'm not sure about current academics as I have been working in the field for the industry for the last 25 years. However, in my experience as a freelance contractor, the top 3-letter government agencies and big-name corporations are all using Linux for anything important. Yes, I do development for Windows but it's always cross-platform compatible. Most developers are idiots and can't develop for multiple platforms even though it's relatively simple.
No point in developing for windows... What? A lot of places use/require windows for support, reliability, consistency, legacy, compatibility, etc. I certainly use/need both regularly, even for personal computing. Either way, having a choice is always nice.
droid I see where you're coming from. From my little experience with systems programming, I know that companies like to have control over what their applications use. For instance, Mattson isn't going to use some sourceforge library for cross platform UART via USB library. When confronted with the choice to make their own cross platform library, they're looking at a whole other project to keep updated. So they just follow msdn on how to do it for windows.
Speaking as a professional software engineer and as only a hobbyist with electronics: Makers of devices like these tend to be better at doing hardware than software, which often results in people phoning it in on the software, leading to windows-only. On top of that, IT support at a company who's focus is not on computers tends to be simplistic and windows only. Not saying I agree with any of that, since I think the TCO (total cost of ownership) on Linux is far lower. But I have heard the arguments from the PHBs so many times before. Though I am not sure about the workflow of how professionals that work with high-end scopes is. My guess is pros would have custom software on their test benches that might be application specific.
I would like someone to tell me how much of society's time and resources are wasted on reinventing things that work as well as we need them to, instead of concetrating on medical discoveries and letting all of the other preservation and innovation trickle from there. You can imagine if I have asked the political/legal establishment for a committee to study this, I have recieved no response. Someone with your expertise is probably best equipped to anwer me in place of that.
Windows VISTA?! REALLY? A guy like you stuck to a shit like that? I am not saying you should have Win8, but at least Win7. Better XP than Vista IMHO, even it is no longer supported
I have a few computers, and this one is running Vista because that is what it had when it was new. It isn't bad enough for me to spend time re-installing the OS with another version.
ollythebest94 Haha, XP isn't slow? I can run linux on a Raspberry Pi more fluently than Win XP on my notebook. But still, I am not giving anyone advices to change to linux because I know it's limitations. I'm just saying that if you want to give some one an advice be sure it will do no harm to the person.
The only limitation of Linux (and macOS to a lesser extent) is the software, but you can use Wine for running Windows programs or install Virtualbox and run Windows when you really need it (if it doesn't work with Wine). In any other aspect, Unix-like systems are far superior and better than Window$ since they don't get slower as time passes by. My 2 year Windows 8 Pro was awfully slow, it took 15+ minutes to boot and crashed frequently (right now, there's Windows 10 installed I use when I really need it, and after a few months it already has problems). OK, I'm a hardcore user and I install lots of apps, but I do the same on my iMac (in fact, I think I've installed many more apps on it [maybe thousands if we count command line utilities]) and it's almost like new.
I loved playing with LabView so much in school. It was really neat.
I used this thing at school along with LabView and loved It. I always had to resist the urge to take it home and borrow it indefinitely.
you crack me up ' ..a digital phosphor effect and a really fast update and really fast responding knobs is probably the best way to look at a signal with which you're unfamiliar and you're probably unfamiliar with it because you're using an oscilloscope to look at it, anyway..'
I have a question. How did you get to where you're at today? What schooling did you do/your job/how you're able to afford doing all the experiments and stuff. Individuals like you are essentially role models for what I'd like to do with my life.
Buy your own instruments, for your own lab. Experiment, design, fail and re-design!
And here goes my suggestion to NI and all others supplying drivers & apps for some instruments.
Why not also have a built-in html5 web server, so the only thing you need on your PC, PAD, etc. is a html5 capable browser, which is nearly every browser today.
No install, no hassle with drivers, apps, conflicts, just start up your browser, type the IP/adress of your instrument or have it all set up as a shortcut and you're ready to go. No matter if it is a Samsung android pad, Ipad or one of your windows,linux machines or virtual machines.
The same goes with integrating it with user code in any language.
Do it with a general TCP/IP interface, too. What is the use for a driver talking to the instrument and then presenting some kind of non standardized API anyway? Just skip the driver and use the "TCP/IP API" built into the instrument directly.
I agree. The VirtualBench does have a webserver for configuration and settings, but no HTML5 app for usage. This sentiment applies to mobile too: Forget iOS and android apps which provide the same functionality as a webpage -- just use a webpage! Of course, vendors know users want this, but would prefer to have them locked into app, rather than able to quickly switch to another vendor by typing a different URL.
That'd make too much sense.
As a web developer I find people think html5 does a lot more than it actually does. Most of what goes into a webapp is pre-html5, html5 is just a few available features.
jasonofcompsci ok so why not a pre-html5 web page and app?
Applied Science what does the vender get for forcing app? you purchased their hardware...they got paid! what are they trying to gain?
I recognized the Adafruit board as soon as you cut to it. Their boards look so good.
Something that I think could be quite powerful with this product is combining all these tools into a single interface. Using serial output to trigger the oscilloscope, that kind of stuff. I believe oscilloscopes exist that trigger off serial signals, but that's just an example off the top of my head
Excellent review of a fine piece of equipment. I agree with your assessment at the end 100%. This thing has a ton of potential already (especially if you purchase LabView), but the regular interface only brings this thing about half way to it's ultimate useful/user-friendly-ness level. I imagine future software updates would bring this thing to a whole new level.
Interesting. Despite the versatility, it's pretty niche. I personally like the idea of having separate bench gear with physical knobs and clicky buttons for most things. I'm not sure this could replace a trusty set of standalone bench equipment for most people. The ability to program it inside out is nice but in practice probably isn't necessary unless, like you said, you have something specific in mind.
I love this channel
Have you ever used the Digilent Analog Discovery 2?
I kept getting distracted in the first half by the SPI data stream.. :(
cool review :)
This is super cool, I have something of a fetish for interfacing with hardware and I could see this being extremely fun to play with
I really look forward to your videos Ben, always interesting and I always learn something so Thanks!
Pretty nice. But a bit pricy. You can buy very good bench MSO for similar price.
Also for a PC / software oscilloscope this have pretty good GUI and update rate!
I think this instrument is for the educational market, schools love to be able to set up a lab curse by simply hooking these to a bunch of old PCs and be done with it.
The specs on it are pretty decent to make the 2 grand price tag resonable, but as with a lot of products these days the software NEEDS more work..
I like the Freudian slip: "lab curse." I also agree that this device would be great for educational use.
Applied Science
Whops meant to say "course", but yeah that name fits better, i never learned anything from them despite how many i had to go trough.
Luckily Ben can teach more than that in just a few minutes of video (I'm very experienced in electronics, but not as much in chemistry or physics so i seen quite a lot of stuff new to me)
I'm guessing it could be linked to Multisim too. That would make it great for rapidly testing circuits by simulating them on real signals and outputting the simulation results as real signals as well.
+Dren Imeraj There is a VirtualBench and Multisim teaching bundle: sine.ni.com/nips/cds/view/p/lang/en/nid/213385
If you already have Multisim, here is a whitepaper on how to importing VirtualBench measured data Into a Multisim circuit simulation:
www.ni.com/tutorial/52089/en/
Another good use for the wifi capability is if it's in the field, then you can talk to it without lugging around extra hardware, and if it's not feasible to use a hardware connection
Rob Mckennie A computer qualifies as 'extra hardware.' Things like this are only suitable for ATE and similar applications where the instrument will not be controlled by an actual human. For anything that needs to be controllable by something in meatspace, four words: *Knobs. Buttons. Switches. Screen.*
randacnam7321 a computer is extra hardware, but it's multipurpose extra hardware. Sure it's nice to have a physical interface, but do you feel like carrying around 20 different panels for talking to your various installations?
Rob Mckennie
Dealing with multiple separate intuitive UIs is better than one thing that tries to do everything and does none of what it is capable of better than separate equipment. The number of situations where this level of integration and combined control are needed are pretty much limited to ATE situations anyway. This is not something I would have to dick around with in the field as the UI looks to be a pain in the ass. And a friend of mine who was testing one of these for our school found using it a pain in the ass.
Real labs and shops almost always use standalone instruments for the simple fact that pure computer UIs are a right pain to fight just to get the damn thing to show a sodding signal let alone do any analysis on it.
randacnam7321 Let's say, for the sake of argument, you need to control 500 different devices, all with different UI needs, and none of which can have a permanent control panel. Would you prefer to carry 500 control units that are all perfect, or carry 1 that is just kinda okay? Sure, it's not super realistic, and I don't care. I was just making a little comment, and there's no need to throw a fit over it.
Rob Mckennie
Which is not a likely situation for a typical or even relatively atypical lab setup.
Anything that complicated will most likely be some kind of ATE setup anyway.
My point that this kind of instrument has no advantages for the vast majority of human operated test rigs still stands.
As a meatspace hardware design engineer, I don't want to drag around a complicated computer controlled thingamajig like this every time I need to power something or take measurements. Time is money and dicking around with recalcitrant test gear slows work down, drives NRE costs through the roof, pisses off the techs and worse. If I need a multimeter or power supply, I use one that has a power on time measured in seconds. If I need a scope, I have an analog Elenco job and an Owon Tek clone DSO that are ready in seconds and a Rigol that takes less than a minute to boot. And anything needing something that spits out serial data can be done with a microcontroller and some line drivers. Or just a power supply and some switches for static logic line stuff.
5:45 - they really should move the function gen controls to a horizontal position under the display (maybe even as a hover popup) then use the space where it is now for all the controls they have hidden
It always seems that the apps bundled with PC based scopes haven't been designed with any input from actual oscilloscope users. The signal rendering on this one at least seems fairly clear but the controls seem pretty terrible.
Nice detailed review Ben - bit outside my pay grade tho!
Strange that they included USB and WiFi, but not Ethernet?
Nice having a c interface, which would ease wrappers in python etc, hopefully you can actually access all the controls via the api.
LabVIEW has always seemed a strange beast to me, but from memory the extent of the module library is just mind boggling.
+oranac
The VB-8034 which was released earlier this year includes Ethernet as well as upgrades to many of the instruments.
Scope: 4 channel, 350 MHz, 1.5 GS/s/ch
DC Power Supply: 3A on the +6V rail and 1A on the +/-25V rails w/binding post connectivity
Please visit www.ni.com/virtualbench/specifications/ for more information on VB-8034.
There's a Python wrapper for NI's DAQmx drivers that would probably work for this. The hardest part is grinding into low gear to make sure you feed it the correct C-types. The help files that NI sends with DAQmx are pretty good, but I had to keep checking Python references to figure out how to send 32-bit Ints and so on.
I wonder if the oscilloscope can't pan (like a real scope would) because the peripheral part is captured as a much lower resolution. It would explain how you can't pan/zoom without recapturing the waveform.
Good review!
You should hook the electron microscope up to the virtual bench and record a new video, it should look much better and you wouldn't have the inherent crt refresh issue on the camera
Good review Ben.
I see that you have Vostro 1500 too ;) Best laptop ever
Really sad they didn't make it for Android and/or Linux... :-/
Hmm, I assumed they provide C API ?
This with and an Arduino GPS and a LabJack I could replace my $35k PXI chassis (High-Speed Digitizer, GPS card, Slow DAC, and delay generator) it seems--and have a much smaller form factor. What am I missing here? I guess I need to contact NI and see. Was this product out before 2015?
Nice review
So... big 3 in oscilloscopes... I'm guessing KeySight (previously Agilent, what i'm used to playing with), Rigol, and.... Tektronix? Also, I've seen a LOT of low-refresh-rate 'pocket oscilloscopes' on the market for cheap recently that boast insane sample rates and sizes, all of which were crap.
hello friend , I've designed a magnetic crostat to measure the magnetoresistance at high and low temperatures , now I'm leaning lab view and I've NI MyDaQ but I've a problem I couldn't solve it for a year , I use the four probe method to measure resistivity ,I wonna to make a program that can record the measured voltage as a function of temperature as I want the program to record the voltage at a specific steps of temperature set it ,,,
and thanks a lot
If they could bring the price way down and make some good cross platform software for it, it would be great for hobbyist use. For 2 grand you can get some rigol gear that doesn't need a pc.
Thanks Ben.
My university has NI's PXI instruments in the undergraduate labs. 90% of students and TAs will tell you they are nothing but trouble. The soft panel interfaces are pretty dickey with all the drop down menus and radio buttons. We frequently have to restart the computers to get them to see the instruments.
But did you ever send it back?
What type of workbench is required for the assembly of Audio Video boards in Windows OS ?
but does it play MP3's?
Not only that, it also gives you a massage.
Nice gear
OBS to record your screen bro.
Man I want one
They should make a pc oscilloscope that plugs onto a pc with a giant ribbon cable to a PCIexp slot. then you could have realtime.
They do. Just look into the higher end (20kUSD and upwards) Keysight/Tek oscilloscopes where they just put in an ATX motherboard and a touchscreen. The oscilloscope frontend is as usually connected to an ADC which is in turn connected to an FPGA that is connected to the PC via SATA (or sometimes PCIe, but don't quote me on that).
The FPGA and ADC are mandatory to capture signals and deliver them to the PC. Also long ribbon cables and PCIe don't work well, since there will be a lot of data loss (if the data even arrives at all).
Nice unit, but I wouldn't buy it for the price. Something good to pick up "for parts" and repair.
The app reminds me of the music looping software FL Studio. Annoying small buttons that you use all the time :|.
for what it does its well worth the price.
brandonhughes7 If I was manufacturing something, or had a good application for it I would be all for it. But I would just be using it for the occasional hacking up of whatever comes around, or maybe repairing and diagnosing equipment.
So you wouldn't recommend this over something like a DS1000 series O-scope (+DMM and PSU) for an engineering student or new engineer who wants to build a small personal lab on a budget?
You can get a LOT of really nice gear for $2k.... If you are just starting out, you'll also want a nice soldering station, various soldering tips, prototyping supplies, consumables, resistor/capacitor books, LCR meter, analog scope, inspection scope, shelves, storage bins, dev boards, etc...
I would die if I had to drag out my laptop and plug in that big box every time I needed to make a quick voltage measurement.
johnfranks you got that so right. If you pick up as much of that used as possible (or ask a college professor for some older hardware they don't need) you can get all of that for a few hundred bucks.
don't forget a few good multimeters, and a solid multi-rail adjustable power supply!
Falcrist
I'd go for separate "real" instruments, if you aren't pressed for space and you don't have the need to program your instruments. And I say that as someone, who is using Labview and NI's hardware (even expensive one) quite alot.
Get used instruments first and upgrade them one by one after you know what you need. A dedicated instrument will most likely still work in 20 years, if you don't knock it around too much. Can't say that about a PC based solution. Or are you planning to keep a computer with the last software supporting it around for years?
Even if you go for new stuff, 2000$ will get you quite decent equipment, including an oscilloscope, function generator and power supply. My 3-channel power supply is over ten years old, still works like on the first day, never had to install an update and works within a second. I'm using a 30 year old (I think it's from that time) analog Tektronix scope (used 2215A with second timebase, that's very useful). Still working fine. For a logic analyzer I got one of the el-cheapos from ebay that got me all that I needed till now. My function generator is a repaired Hameg Fgen, just has Sine, triangle and square from 300mHz to 3MHz. Up until now that was all I needed (PWM would be fine though; but I just do that with an Arduino if I need a signal like that). All in all I spent maybe 400€. Yes, I have to improvise sometimes, but that's also the best way to learn something.
Separate devices also have the advantage that if you select the correctly, all their outputs can be floating (i. e. no common ground). I don't know how it is in this device, but in many of these combined devices, the oscilloscope, function generator, logic IO and powersupply all have the same ground reference. That can be really limiting!
Even if NI try to pass this "all-in-one piece of electronic test gear" this is no match for normal oscilloscope.
My company use extensively NI products (PXI based modular instruments) but they are in reality only useful for automated testing, not as laboratory instruments.
It seems to really make use of that you do need labview.
Ben, do you dislike pc oscilloscopes categorically, or have you just never used a decent one? I've never used a decent one, but I reckon it would be possible to scrape together a lean fast output, and with this unit you could even interface with a physical control panel via the various inputs
Are there any decent ones at all? (at a price where you can't get a much better standalone scope instead)
To be exact most of middle/high range oscilloscopes are PC based.
If i remember all Tek oscilloscopes form 5000+ series are running Windows, I know that MSO 7000 series use Windows 7( I have one), same is for Keysight (Agilent) for series 5000+, LeCroy......
Miloš Lazović
It's a good point. I guess the distinction should be: Does the device have a dedicated front panel with knobs and buttons, its own display, and low-latency controls and acquisition?
Applied Science I agree with your division between PC based and "classic" instruments, but lately even category as low-latency controls started do blend between them, there are some models of oscilloscopes from renowned manufacturers that suffer from very sluggish control response (they nearly freeze when you go to menus) and again you have very low acquisition latency from PC based instruments (like from NI PXI instruments).
I totally agree with your conclusion what is purpose of this "All-in-One Instrument", it is not replacement for "classical" instruments, it is best suited for automated testing of products (basically as all NI modular instruments).
I believe that a PC based oscilloscope could be potentially better than a traditional one. Nowdays even modest integrated GPU or tablets have more than enough graphics power to display intensity grading at 60 FPS with no perceivable delay. A properly designed interface with keyboard shortcuts etc.. could beat knobs anytime. However I think that the problems lies in the fact that electronics test equipment companies do not put (yet) as much thought into the software as they do on the hardware.
thank god you can use c.
For future PC recordings, please consider using some on-PC screen capture app, like OBS (Open Broadcast Software), then syncing up audio in post-production. Although OBS could be a massive overkill for you. This blotchy, moire-ridden, unfocused camera-recordings is nasty. Especially when getting a clean recording is not that hard.
...Windows Vista?
Have you asked NI if -we- you could crack open this Box-of-Magic?
Cheers,
Mark
***********************
Mark Beeunas One of our developers actually did a teardown of the product for a Xilinx conference where you can see the insides and hear him discuss the different parts; you can check it out here:
forums.ni.com/t5/BreakPoint/Not-for-the-squeamish-NI-VirtualBench-Teardown/td-p/3026311
Cheers!
Katie Collette, National Instruments
Katie Collette
Thanks Katie. I will view now.
Cheers,
Mark
****************************
You lost me at the price 3k xd
I suppose it is great for low end, kind of low volume product testing. I mean, for 2000$ you can also buy all that stuff that it has internally as separate (better working) equipment. Rigol DS1054z is just 500$, you can get like 3 powersupplies for 400$, add a logic analyzer 100$, random uC dev board for generating stuff 10$, 2x multimeter 400$. Under 1500$ you can easily have all of the stuff in the box, with better performance and/or capabilities, easier UI and of course separate screens.
I dont think any semi-serious engineer could get used to PC oscilloscopes btw, they are great to carry around if you are travelling or working in a car, but for any serious work they are just too finicky.
I think it's just that not enough effort has been put into PC scopes, its generally viewed as a low cost option. Its certainly not that you can't make a good UI for a scope. I mean modern scopes are basically PCs with some extra data acquisition hardware stuffed into it, most of them even run windows.
Is that really how one pronounces arduino, I always thought it was are-do-I-know?
Welcome to other languages! Arduino is Italian. And in Italian like in most languages a written "i" is a spoken "i" and not an "ay" ;)
I've only ever heard it pronounced are-dwee-no. That's how Adafruit Industries and their guests pronounce it on their channel, so I'm guessing that's the accepted pronunciation.
Certainly much easier to say that way, I suppose I had only ever read the name. Thanks
I am from Europe (not natively speaking any roman language) and I've always said it like the italians. I think it depends on your region.
i checked the price on their website and almost had a heart attack.
We used labview for my high school robotics team, the graphical interface made no sense to me. I definitely preferred coding in a standard language
Sounds like the big brother to the SmartScope I supported on Kickstarter.
www.lab-nation.com/
Of course, it's an order of magnitude different in price.
Nice equipment! but I live in a third world country, 2000 dollars is way beyond my capacities.
putting $2000 lab equipment on a moving robot
I think for 3000 Dollar you can get much better equipment that that....
No doubt about it. But you won't get better integration. This thing is okay if you are limited in space or, as Ben says, if you want to setup a bench for production line, i.e something you don't have to play with all the time.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
time for chinese to copy this, i will never pay more than 500 for this.
Looks like I have been beaten to the post with my Ultimetscopower.
It's not "spy" it's ESS PEE AI, god dammit!
S. P. I.
S. P. I
> S.P.I
>>SPI
>>>Spi
>>>>Spy
Better than Spee
S
P
I
yes
It's pretty common to pronounce acronyms: AIDS, MoMA, GIF, MADD, NATO, even SQL. I think most people would prefer to pronounce them, and only revert to saying letters when the pronunciation is nonsensical or difficult, like ATM.
Or words like RAM and ROM... and LASER (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation). But I assume the people complaining try to correct everyone on those too..
Hey, you understood what he meant, so what are you complaining about?
It's a nice bit of kit, but sorry, the "bang for the buck" just isn't there. A Rigol (who makes the lower end Teks) mixed mode scope with an LXI will interface to LabVIEW as will many competitively priced power supplies and function generators, giving much more flexibility and you don't always have to drag around a laptop, boot up, etc. With a laptop and a MDSO, you now have two simultaneous screens.
And of course, if your needs go outside the power supply range for example, you have another box on the bench anyway. Like you said, it seems pretty niche.
I say this as a hard core Certified LabVIEW Developer. For my money, there isn't a better rapid development environment out there, period. Even so, I prefer my dedicated knobs and buttons. It's just more intuitive.
C library? I assume a Linux version is available?
I will never understand why technical companies release stuff for Windows only. This makes no sense as most of us us in the technical community are using Linux for everything these days. There is no point in even developing for Windows any more.
I don't think linux being the standard is true. Windows is just SO common, even though linux is definitely easier and overall better for tasks like this. Academics don't like to mix their specialties, Electrical engineers won't get into the work required to change from the norm of windows, even if it is better.
Bradley Galloway Maybe, I'm not sure about current academics as I have been working in the field for the industry for the last 25 years. However, in my experience as a freelance contractor, the top 3-letter government agencies and big-name corporations are all using Linux for anything important. Yes, I do development for Windows but it's always cross-platform compatible. Most developers are idiots and can't develop for multiple platforms even though it's relatively simple.
No point in developing for windows... What? A lot of places use/require windows for support, reliability, consistency, legacy, compatibility, etc. I certainly use/need both regularly, even for personal computing. Either way, having a choice is always nice.
droid I see where you're coming from. From my little experience with systems programming, I know that companies like to have control over what their applications use. For instance, Mattson isn't going to use some sourceforge library for cross platform UART via USB library. When confronted with the choice to make their own cross platform library, they're looking at a whole other project to keep updated. So they just follow msdn on how to do it for windows.
Speaking as a professional software engineer and as only a hobbyist with electronics: Makers of devices like these tend to be better at doing hardware than software, which often results in people phoning it in on the software, leading to windows-only. On top of that, IT support at a company who's focus is not on computers tends to be simplistic and windows only.
Not saying I agree with any of that, since I think the TCO (total cost of ownership) on Linux is far lower. But I have heard the arguments from the PHBs so many times before.
Though I am not sure about the workflow of how professionals that work with high-end scopes is. My guess is pros would have custom software on their test benches that might be application specific.
It's a peheprial device
W/o led LCD CRT or even simple meter. No good w/o it them
Parallel pics
so its like an arduino on steroids
I like the host but I hate how he says spi
I would like someone to tell me how much of society's time and resources are wasted on reinventing things that work as well as we need them to, instead of concetrating on medical discoveries and letting all of the other preservation and innovation trickle from there. You can imagine if I have asked the political/legal establishment for a committee to study this, I have recieved no response. Someone with your expertise is probably best equipped to anwer me in place of that.
Windows VISTA?! REALLY? A guy like you stuck to a shit like that?
I am not saying you should have Win8, but at least Win7. Better XP than Vista IMHO, even it is no longer supported
I have a few computers, and this one is running Vista because that is what it had when it was new. It isn't bad enough for me to spend time re-installing the OS with another version.
ollythebest94 So you are recommending XP, an OS without any security actualization support and lots of unpatched security issues. Great advice.
RenanzinhoSP Well Vista isn't that better, but at least XP isn't that slow
ollythebest94 Haha, XP isn't slow? I can run linux on a Raspberry Pi more fluently than Win XP on my notebook. But still, I am not giving anyone advices to change to linux because I know it's limitations. I'm just saying that if you want to give some one an advice be sure it will do no harm to the person.
The only limitation of Linux (and macOS to a lesser extent) is the software, but you can use Wine for running Windows programs or install Virtualbox and run Windows when you really need it (if it doesn't work with Wine). In any other aspect, Unix-like systems are far superior and better than Window$ since they don't get slower as time passes by. My 2 year Windows 8 Pro was awfully slow, it took 15+ minutes to boot and crashed frequently (right now, there's Windows 10 installed I use when I really need it, and after a few months it already has problems). OK, I'm a hardcore user and I install lots of apps, but I do the same on my iMac (in fact, I think I've installed many more apps on it [maybe thousands if we count command line utilities]) and it's almost like new.
looks a whole lot like a myDaq