Products > Test Equipment
Let’s Talk About LeCroy Scopes, AKA… the “Wuerstchenhund Holds Court” Thread
moerm:
Allow me as a still almost outsider to talk about what I saw here, in particular in this thread, but also to some degree generally.
I personally have an almost brutally pragmatic approach. Example: I don't ask or even care which instrument, let alone which brand, is "the best". I rather try to find out what the "best" for me and within a certain budget, "best" meaning some numbers (like WUR, Samplerate, etc), sure, but at least as importantly, (ideally all) the features I need.
LeCroy fell out of my scope (as in "what I looked at") for one simple reason: no MSO, at least not with a reasonable budget. Side note: I have a certain lab structure, mainly based on recognizing that there simply is no "perfect scope" and that I need to define a few kinds of tasks and then find the scope for those tasks, e.g. a "versatile bread and butter everyday scope" vs a higher end analysis scope.
One factor that I felt making it particularly difficult, also here, and well visible in this very thread here, is the "mine is superior to yours" also appearing in the form of "Brand X is the true/best instrument, period" but also in the form of "a scope without feature xyz is basically worthless".
But I also, not learned, but found again what I take to be human kinks out of control, e.g. a 10000+ post "heavyweight" in all seriousness putting some Rigol crap, uhm, stuff right next to professional quality gear.
And I also found (and disclose right away that I'm a fan) Wuerstchenhund who, the way I see it, is not trying to "sell" LeCroy scopes but likes them and seems to be on a (laudable) mission to remind the community that there is A-brand life outside of Tektronix and Agilent (pardon me, but I refuse to play their "use the most current name" game). And he seems to be a very knowledgeable man with plenty experience in the TME world - but, of bloody course, some seem to be incapable to let a brand they don't care about or simply dislike for whatever reason enjoying a bit light. It seems almost as if some reflex forced them to hit on any attempt by Wuerstechenhund.
I myself developed kind of a somewhat weak spot for LeCroy scopes but got seriously pi__ed off by their, so it seems, "we don't give a flying f_ck about small customers!" attitude. So, all in all, I'm certainly not a warrior for LeCroy. But one should be able to recognize and accept that they did some things damn right and/or well (e.g. their probe interface continuity).
Somewhat similarly I hear people over and over again say that Tektronix digital scopes are slow as snails - while a certain gentleman from down under seemed to almost have an orgasm when he introduced the new 2000 thingy.
Would it maybe be possible to (possibly in another and/or new thread) get reasonable and moderate, concrete experience based info on the Tek TDS7000 series, preferably without some Rigol fan taking a dump?
I'm asking because I wonder how the Wavepro 7300 and the Tek TDS7254 compare.
Sidenote: yes I've heard it, Tek digital scopes are snails - but is that really also true for kind of (former) high-end scopes? And, if so, how bad is it? I'm asking because such a scope, for me, would not be my everyday, go to scope but my north of 500 MHz (i.e. only occasionally used) and analysis scope, so while snail speed would not be OK, "cow with a lame leg" slow would be OK and with a max budget of about 4k or 5k for such a beast I'd not be a beggar but neither can I expect too much.
And no, I don't feel bad about possibly derailing this thread because a) it's pretty much dead anyway, and b) my point is not off-topic (WP 7300 is within topic I guess).
Thanks and have a nice sunday
joeqsmith:
As for the MSO, my old scopes supported the MS-32. This was made by NCI GoLogic, GLUSB-36-1M-575. You can find various flavors of this for cheap (<600 USD) but not the exact same one. I've often wondered if they have anything proprietary in the one sold to LeCroy.
Wuerstchenhund had tried to give me advice on the SSDs and the 1Gb interface claiming both would be problematic. History has proven otherwise. Good source but would rather if you don't know or unsure, don't present your claims as fact. He is also the person who had suggested swapping the CPU in the WaveBlunder and claimed performance increase. I don't think he ever presented any data and I never made the switch.
Shame he left, but he was banned for some reason or another prior. Guessing people were reporting him for some reason or another. Doubt it was for bad advice as that would take out 100% of us. They reactivated his account but seemed to mark the end of his posting. Again, too bad IMO.
moerm:
@joeqsmith
Thank you.
"MS-32" I know but I seem to remember that only somewhat newer LeCroy scopes seem to have supported that device plus its price tag looked prohibitively high (but maybe I remember something wrong).
And yes, I know your story with Wuerstchenhund's advice, at least the basic line, and I agree; it seems his knowledge in that area was a bit off. But still, from what I looked at and found out (checking what he said generally about LeCroy scopes), modulo some details, I got a much clearer picture of LeCroy and their scopes.
Say, did you possibly happen to ever have had your fingers on (or, even better, played or worked with) a TDS7000? I'd really value your feedback. What would you consider to be a at least halfway reasonable alternative to a WP7300 within 4k to 5k$?
joeqsmith:
My WaveBluner was made in 2006 and supports the MS-32. I know my old WaveMaster supports it as well. I have never seen one, let alone tried one. Doing a search there is a used on listed on eBay now for 2k. Several similar ones listed for $500. With them LeCroy rebranding Siglent, you may be able to get something much better and lower cost. I have zero experience with Siglent scopes.
I had called him out about a comment he made about their first PC based scopes as my old 7200A used a standard PC 486DX motherboard which I believe was their actual first step into using a common PC platform. Guessing he just didn't know the history. It used PSOS, and maybe PC to him meant MS Windows. Again just small misinformation which wasn't a problem. Adds some color to the discussion. But it seems he got into a few large battles with members. I don't remember them ever posting anything political, religious.... that would have potentially led to their being banned.
I have not used the Tektronix you mention and really have no idea about their support, if it could it be serviced, parts availability, manuals.... IMO, buying vintage high end equipment is a crap shoot. Your 4-5k may not cover the repairs and service when you buy your "working" scope used. And you may not be able to work a deal to have it shipped to the OEM for inspection as they may longer support it. Even if it works when received, can you afford to buy a second one for parts to keep it running? Lots of custom parts.... This is why I was wondering in the lower speeds, does it now make more sense to get something new.
You could add a couple of zeros onto that and get a new WaveMaster with options. I was looking at one for work. They do seem nice.
https://www.teledynelecroy.com/oscilloscope/wavemaster-hd
moerm:
--- Quote from: joeqsmith on April 21, 2024, 05:27:34 pm ---(re Wuerstchenhund) that would have potentially led to their being banned.
--- End quote ---
I never saw an explanation either. But that may be due to lurking but not carefully reading any and all threads.
Whatever, it seems that at some later point in time he was allowed back, but seems to be much less active since. A bit sad, I always enjoyed reading his posts.
--- Quote from: joeqsmith on April 21, 2024, 05:27:34 pm ---IMO, buying vintage high end equipment is a crap shoot. Your 4-5k may not cover the repairs and service when you buy your "working" scope used.
...
This is why I was wondering in the lower speeds, does it now make more sense to get something new.
--- End quote ---
Yep, that's my view too, that buying vintage high end equipment is a bit like lottery.
That said, nope, I still prefer to go that route (for some instruments). One major reason being that older equipment usually was of significantly higher quality and mainly driven by engineers rather than "managers", or worse, by marketing and sales people (I want to stay polite ...).
Yes, some materials used back then, in particular plastics, it seems were lower quality, but still, all in all, one got a quality that seems hard to get nowadays with all the "a computer plus some slapped on analog stuff" equipment, profit optimized, of course.
And I have a (small) advantage: I don't care for anything north of 2.5 GHz (with scopes), nor do I run a show room (cracked front plate? So what, as long as that device works fine).
My major worry with Tektronix is their tendency to use proprietary chips etc. which nowadays are either ridiculously expensive or unobtainium plus they seem to have multiple waves of "bad luck" that is, crapacitors, whole board sections with bad soldering, etc.
Thank you again!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version