Best Oscilloscope: Choosing the Right One

Hello everyone.
'I know this is basically a silly question because it can't be answered like that. I need to take some measurements on the car, especially on some of the sensors that use PWM. Unfortunately, I don't have more specific information about the signal. It should definitely be a 5V signal.'

I've taken a closer look at Pico's laptop devices.
Can anyone recommend something to me?
respectively / or rather / that is to say
- What are the minimum requirements to accurately represent PWM signals?
Sure, here's the translation:

'Best regards.'

There are a few, but I don't think there are any major differences.

I would advise against a laptop or PC solution because you will inevitably encounter driver or software problems after a few years. Then comes operating system XYZ, and there are no more drivers available, and it's also questionable whether the software will run on it, so you end up having to throw away that nice device.

I'm using a two-channel oscilloscope from OWON, and for purely PWM measurements, a version with lower bandwidth would likely be sufficient.
Especially with PC/laptop solutions, it can happen that after a period of inactivity, the device suddenly insists on updating itself, or that nothing works anymore after an update. This is frustrating; I've experienced this before (it wasn't a USB oscilloscope), and it took half a day before I could finally get started. Pressing the power button and being able to take measurements 2 seconds later – that's really something special.

Best regards, Rainer.

I use a PicoScope. The driver availability is very good, however, the devices are also on the higher end of the price range.

Hi everyone.

I am using a PicoScope from the 3000 series, specifically a 3203D MSO.
The bandwidth of 50 MHz is more than sufficient, but unfortunately, the two analog channels are quickly not enough. Today, I would choose a 3403D MSO with four analog channels.
The 16 digital inputs of the MSO option are excellent because they allow you to directly decode various bus protocols, including CAN.
The drivers and software are excellent. There's even an SDK (Software Development Kit) for Linux and Windows. The data is displayed on the PC monitor, and you can also perform various calculations. For example, there's a low-pass filter, arithmetic functions, and even FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) that can be applied directly to the incoming data. Additionally, recorded data can be subsequently displayed and edited.
The original software operates in a block-oriented manner and can only store the buffer, which is 64 megasamples in my case. Therefore, it stops working after just a few seconds.
Using the SDK, I'm currently writing a program that will allow me to directly write the data stream to the hard drive via the USB 3.0 bus. This way, I can record a full warm-up sequence, which is about 15 minutes long. I'm willing to use a computer, even though it's often necessary, because of the many possibilities that the Picoscope offers. Furthermore, this setup allows me to use a large, high-resolution monitor at my desk or just a small laptop in the car.

I'm using a digital input to log the CAN data packets, and the two analog inputs for the combustion chamber pressure and the inductive crankshaft sensor. This allows me to simultaneously capture all the data needed to calibrate the engine control unit's data.

There are also PicoScope products specifically designed for the automotive sector, which offer even greater convenience and can utilize active sensors, but they also come at a significantly higher cost.

Personally, I would choose a PicoScope again.


Best regards,
huebi