Choosing a CRO: Hitachi V-222 or TEK 465

[james_s]

I had a very similar Kikusui scope for a while, I eventually sold it several years ago since I had other scopes and no real need for it. Seemed like a fairly nice instrument though. Kikusui is in the same general class as Tek, HP, Hitachi, etc.

[coppice]

avoid 465, 475, all the HV transformers and multipliers fail eventually

I've heard that before.

Of course you have.  Exactly the same thing can be said for every part of literally everything man has made.  It all fails eventually.  Even stone axes will fail.

The 465 and 475 ( and 485) scopes were pretty state of the art when the arrived.  Like anything of that nature they need occasional maintenance and repair.  They are still held in high regard today despite being a 53 year old design.  And some, like mine are still 100% meeting their specifications.  Do you think anyone will give a gnat's fart about a TDS1012B 33 years from now?

What on Earth are you gabbling on about? I responded to something very specific. That these particular models eventually fail in one particularly way. If you had seen the awful things we put them through in the 70s and 80s you might expect it would be something like general fatigue or the usual suspects like electrolytic capacitors that gets them in the end. Yet, even something with no apparent weak links in its first few years turns out to have one very specific one in the long term. I find that interesting.

[tggzzz]

Do you think anyone will give a gnat's fart about a TDS1012B 33 years from now?

Many digitising scopes are so awful their main use is gold recovery. One example is the Tek TDS340 and related abominations, but there are many others. They existed solely because analogue storage scopes were even worse. That has become less true with the amazing recent increases in ADC performance.

Analogue sampling scopes, OTOH, continue to have unique and important advantages in some niche applications, e.g. measuring settling times.

[BillyO]

What on Earth are you gabbling on about? I responded to something very specific.

And I was generalizing the sentiment.

Yet, even something with no apparent weak links in its first few years turns out to have one very specific one in the long term. I find that interesting.

Like I said, they were close to cutting edge devices.  They employed new technologies that were not yet matured.  Evolution of this sort should be expected.  In fact, it may have been brought on by the hard use these generally got.  They were run until they failed, not replaced every 3 years in favor of newer gizmo loaded units.  I don't find it very strange that machines like these eventually fail in specific ways.  It's just the sort of thing that ends up happening to machines that are used until they fail.

[coppice]

Yet, even something with no apparent weak links in its first few years turns out to have one very specific one in the long term. I find that interesting.

Like I said, they were close to cutting edge devices.  They employed new technologies that were not yet matured.  Evolution of this sort should be expected.  In fact, it may have been brought on by the hard use these generally got.  They were run until they failed, not replaced every 3 years in favor of newer gizmo loaded units.  I don't find it very strange that machines like these eventually fail in specific ways.  It's just the sort of thing that ends up happening to machines that are used until they fail.

In those days the amortisation period for capital purchase accounting purposes for new test equipment was at least 5 years. Pretty much every piece of equipment, except probes and accessories, was expected to be in heavy use for at least that long. Normally much longer.

[BillyO]

Normally much longer.

Exactly, and in this series of scopes, the engineers and techs using them had no compelling desire to replace them (I was one).  Some have been in near continuous use for 51 years.  Like the one I was using today.  Well, mine was a later model purchased by the company I got it off in 1979 so it's only 44 years old.  Perhaps some bugs were ironed out over time.

[tggzzz]

Yet, even something with no apparent weak links in its first few years turns out to have one very specific one in the long term. I find that interesting.

Like I said, they were close to cutting edge devices.  They employed new technologies that were not yet matured.  Evolution of this sort should be expected.  In fact, it may have been brought on by the hard use these generally got.  They were run until they failed, not replaced every 3 years in favor of newer gizmo loaded units.  I don't find it very strange that machines like these eventually fail in specific ways.  It's just the sort of thing that ends up happening to machines that are used until they fail.

In those days the amortisation period for capital purchase accounting purposes for new test equipment was at least 5 years. Pretty much every piece of equipment, except probes and accessories, was expected to be in heavy use for at least that long. Normally much longer.

Not least because the purchase price for a run-of-the-mill decent scope was probably the same as an engineer's annual salary

Still true

[EEVblog]

Hi All, I ended up picking up this Kikusui COS6100M for $70.00 locally.  It seems to work.  Now I have a lot to learn.  Thanks everyone for your help.

I think I mentioned that model in my video, an excellent scope! 12 traces IIRC.

[coppice]

Not least because the purchase price for a run-of-the-mill decent scope was probably the same as an engineer's annual salary

Don't exaggerate. When the Tek 465 was in its heyday it cost no more than 8 or 9 months of a fresh grad's salary.

[tggzzz]

Not least because the purchase price for a run-of-the-mill decent scope was probably the same as an engineer's annual salary

Don't exaggerate. When the Tek 465 was in its heyday it cost no more than 8 or 9 months of a fresh grad's salary.

Comparing the prices I have seen with my salary, my point is certainly in the right ballpark.

In the context in which I made the comment (which you snipped), the comparison is useful.