Author Topic: Old Tektronix or new Hantek  (Read 1115 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online awesomechaproTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 13
  • Country: au
  • All hail the Tek Scopes!
Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« on: December 05, 2024, 08:16:38 am »
Hi all,
I’m tossing up whether I should get an older Tektronix TDS3012B or a newer Hantek DSO2D10 oscilloscope. As the Tektronix is probably built better but the Hantek is more up to date. Which one would you go for?
All hail the Tek Scopes!
EEVBLOG BM786, Tektronix 465B, Tektronix TDS3012, BK Precision 2125, Hantek 2D72
 

Offline Smokey

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3046
  • Country: us
  • Not An Expert
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2024, 08:47:36 am »
What are the prices for both?
 

Offline ebourg

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 29
  • Country: fr
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2024, 08:48:10 am »
The Tektronix TDS3012B has 1.25 Gs/s per channel vs 1 Gs/s shared on the Hantek DSO2D10, but the Hantek has more memory depth. Don't buy the Hantek new, there are better alternatives at this price range (see the Siglent/Rigol threads).
 

Online Kean

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2468
  • Country: au
  • Embedded systems & IT consultant
    • Kean Electronics
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2024, 08:57:28 am »
What are you going to use it for?

As mentioned, the Hantek has a lot more record memory, and it also has protocol decoding.  Those may be useful/important to you.

From what I've read about the Hantek, most users were pretty disappointed with it relating to reliability/stability.  Do a few searches here.

I don't know your budget, but maybe compare the price and specs of the low end Siglent and Rigol models.  You'll get something much more useful immediately, and with a longer useful life.
 

Online squadchannel

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 423
  • Country: jp
  • deepl translate user
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2024, 09:05:37 am »
I would definitely go for the TDS3012B; it's an older model, but the performance is commensurate with the Tektronix brand.

Oscilloscopes are like "knives" for hardware engineers. The ease of use of the UI is the sharpness of the knife.
If it is not easy to use, you will spend minutes trying to find the mode you need. The UI may not work smoothly.

Just because something is cheap doesn't mean it's good, as evidenced by the widespread use of Tek TBS for educational purposes.
As for Hantek, you can ask anyone who has used it, but I would choose Tek based on performance, ease of use of the UI, and hackability.

(I am a Tek/hp believer. understand that i am biased.)
 

Offline NE666

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 241
  • Country: gb
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2024, 09:30:54 am »
the performance is commensurate with the Tektronix brand.

It was when the unit was new, many moons ago. Who knows what it is now.

And even if it is still factory fresh, the spec sheet performance of this model, whilst good of its era, is significantly below that of any of the current, popular low-end  models from either Siglent or Rigol. The Tek has very short memory depth and only 9-bits of resolution. I don't know what you're expecting to pay for the Tek but based on average values I see on auction sites, if you're prepared and able to spend 100USD more, then I think that the Rigol 802 (whilst flawed in some aspects) would be a much more useful tool for most of the common use-cases of a contemporary hobbyist, and represent a better long-term investment.

 imho.

 

Online Aldo22

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1276
  • Country: ch
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2024, 09:37:45 am »
Hi all,
I’m tossing up whether I should get an older Tektronix TDS3012B or a newer Hantek DSO2D10 oscilloscope. As the Tektronix is probably built better but the Hantek is more up to date. Which one would you go for?

We cannot advise you without price information.

This question is only about the price and your budget.

P.S. I have a Hantek DSO2D10 which I bought for $130 and I am happy with it, but I know there are other opinions out there.
I wouldn't pay more than $200 for it though.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2024, 09:43:14 am by Aldo22 »
 

Online coromonadalix

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7015
  • Country: ca
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2024, 09:49:33 am »
had the hantek d15 , was not impressed by it    sure memory ... but

i would go to the TEK right away ... abd some bw hack can be made ...

protocol decoding, save money  and get some logic analyzer,  you can find some at very low prices ... Kingst LA xxxx   series, and some ds logic

low price is not always an excuse, save money  get good stuff if possible, and in the long term it will pay back
« Last Edit: December 05, 2024, 09:52:20 am by coromonadalix »
 

Online awesomechaproTopic starter

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 13
  • Country: au
  • All hail the Tek Scopes!
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2024, 09:55:30 am »
They are both around $300 AUD (around $200 USD)
I have been looking at the Siglent and Rigol options but I only have the budget for the really entry level models which would probably have similar specs
« Last Edit: December 05, 2024, 09:57:31 am by awesomechapro »
All hail the Tek Scopes!
EEVBLOG BM786, Tektronix 465B, Tektronix TDS3012, BK Precision 2125, Hantek 2D72
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 28429
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2024, 10:14:26 am »
What do you want to use the oscilloscope for? The TDS3012B has an extremely short memory so if you want to capture longer events with some detail, you'll run out quickly.

IMHO neither is a good option nowadays. How about spending US $50 on a cheap pocket DSO from Ali-express and save money to buy one of the entry level Rigol or Siglent DSOs later on?
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 
The following users thanked this post: zrq

Online Aldo22

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1276
  • Country: ch
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2024, 10:32:03 am »
They are both around $300 AUD (around $200 USD)
I have been looking at the Siglent and Rigol options but I only have the budget for the really entry level models which would probably have similar specs

$200 is a bit on the high end.
The Tek is technically 25 years old, afaics. It has a floppy disk!  ;)
I don't know.

The Hantek is okay for ~$150, but for $200+ I'd rather save up for a Siglent/Rigol.
You can get the Hantek cheaper though, right?
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005006741286094.html
 

Online coromonadalix

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7015
  • Country: ca
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2024, 11:35:19 am »
Save 

Get Siglent or Rigol,  maybe some xmass lower prices ??  and add some free bw upgrades  loll  new models are out and cost effectives ...

for an oldie like the Tek  you have to be sure it pass self tests and yes  you have the "battery" problem who could happen, and yes it's old 

Hantek, meh  works but cheaaaap     get the 2d15  ???  so far i don't hear about many problems on them ...   you have a thread about them  here

for all machines ... be sure to get the latest fw updates     os some ol floppies  for the Tek  loll  had problems to get some  :palm:


 
« Last Edit: December 05, 2024, 11:38:14 am by coromonadalix »
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21231
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2024, 12:02:47 pm »
The Tektronix TDS3012B has 1.25 Gs/s per channel vs 1 Gs/s shared on the Hantek DSO2D10, but the Hantek has more memory depth. Don't buy the Hantek new, there are better alternatives at this price range (see the Siglent/Rigol threads).

Samples/second is an irrelevant metric: the only metric that matters is bandwidth.

Examples:
  • 35 years ago I was using HP scopes to examine 800ps risetimes. It was 25MS/s
  • I have a 200ps/1.7GHz 1970 scope that uses BC107 (fT=350GHz) transistors in the signal path
  • I have a scope with <100ps risetimes and a 37kS/s sampling rate
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21231
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2024, 12:06:45 pm »
Hi all,
I’m tossing up whether I should get an older Tektronix TDS3012B or a newer Hantek DSO2D10 oscilloscope. As the Tektronix is probably built better but the Hantek is more up to date. Which one would you go for?

Provided the scope works, either will be better than no scope. Beyond that we would need to know what you need to use it for.

The cheaper scope would be better if it enables you to buy other necessary equipment.

Don't forget to ensure you have the right class of probe for your use cases. Probes aren't cheap, and the wrong class can ruin your day. FFI, see the references at https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/library-2/scope-probe-reference-material/

Example: the Tek IsoVu probes have a base price of £10700. I doubt they are what you need! https://www.tek.com/en/products/oscilloscopes/oscilloscope-probes/isovu-isolated-probes
« Last Edit: December 05, 2024, 02:02:49 pm by tggzzz »
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Online 2N3055

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7467
  • Country: hr
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2024, 12:12:00 pm »
The Tektronix TDS3012B has 1.25 Gs/s per channel vs 1 Gs/s shared on the Hantek DSO2D10, but the Hantek has more memory depth. Don't buy the Hantek new, there are better alternatives at this price range (see the Siglent/Rigol threads).

Samples/second is an irrelevant metric: the only metric that matters is bandwidth.

Examples:
  • 35 years ago I was using HP scopes to examine 800ps risetimes. It was 25MS/s
  • I have a 200ps/1.7GHz 1970 scope that uses BC107 (fT=350GHz) transistors in the signal path
  • I have a scope with <100ps risetimes and a 37kS/s sampling rate

Would you, please, stop confusing people with useless comments of how sampling scopes sample at slow sample speeds..
They do not. They have equivalent sampling rate defined by sample aperture of individual sample in reconstruction  process. They do not violate Nyquist, but cleverly reconstruct signal shape from thousands of separate trigger events.

And people are talking about Real Time sampling scope for which realtime sampling rate IS important.
You know, like ANY average scope made in the last 20 years...

And in the last more than 10 years, scopes mostly don't even provide ETS function anymore..
"Just hard work is not enough - it must be applied sensibly."
Dr. Richard W. Hamming
 
The following users thanked this post: Performa01, Kean, mark432

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21231
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2024, 02:09:20 pm »
The Tektronix TDS3012B has 1.25 Gs/s per channel vs 1 Gs/s shared on the Hantek DSO2D10, but the Hantek has more memory depth. Don't buy the Hantek new, there are better alternatives at this price range (see the Siglent/Rigol threads).

Samples/second is an irrelevant metric: the only metric that matters is bandwidth.

Examples:
  • 35 years ago I was using HP scopes to examine 800ps risetimes. It was 25MS/s
  • I have a 200ps/1.7GHz 1970 scope that uses BC107 (fT=350GHz) transistors in the signal path
  • I have a scope with <100ps risetimes and a 37kS/s sampling rate

Would you, please, stop confusing people with useless comments of how sampling scopes sample at slow sample speeds..
They do not. They have equivalent sampling rate defined by sample aperture of individual sample in reconstruction  process. They do not violate Nyquist, but cleverly reconstruct signal shape from thousands of separate trigger events.

And people are talking about Real Time sampling scope for which realtime sampling rate IS important.
You know, like ANY average scope made in the last 20 years...

And in the last more than 10 years, scopes mostly don't even provide ETS function anymore..

Please read and understand what I wrote in context, before having a knee-jerk response.

I used those examples to illustrate why a scope's sample/second metric is meaningless. In particular comparing 1.25GS/s with 1.0GS/s is not useful: they are both 100MHz scopes!

The only metric that matters is the bandwidth.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Online 2N3055

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7467
  • Country: hr
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2024, 02:25:44 pm »
The Tektronix TDS3012B has 1.25 Gs/s per channel vs 1 Gs/s shared on the Hantek DSO2D10, but the Hantek has more memory depth. Don't buy the Hantek new, there are better alternatives at this price range (see the Siglent/Rigol threads).

Samples/second is an irrelevant metric: the only metric that matters is bandwidth.

Examples:
  • 35 years ago I was using HP scopes to examine 800ps risetimes. It was 25MS/s
  • I have a 200ps/1.7GHz 1970 scope that uses BC107 (fT=350GHz) transistors in the signal path
  • I have a scope with <100ps risetimes and a 37kS/s sampling rate

Would you, please, stop confusing people with useless comments of how sampling scopes sample at slow sample speeds..
They do not. They have equivalent sampling rate defined by sample aperture of individual sample in reconstruction  process. They do not violate Nyquist, but cleverly reconstruct signal shape from thousands of separate trigger events.

And people are talking about Real Time sampling scope for which realtime sampling rate IS important.
You know, like ANY average scope made in the last 20 years...

And in the last more than 10 years, scopes mostly don't even provide ETS function anymore..

Please read and understand what I wrote in context, before having a knee-jerk response.

I used those examples to illustrate why a scope's sample/second metric is meaningless. In particular comparing 1.25GS/s with 1.0GS/s is not useful: they are both 100MHz scopes!

The only metric that matters is the bandwidth.

But you are wrong.
You cannot have a scope with a 100MHz BW with realtime sampling of 120MS/s.
It violates Nyquist and won't show you actual signal, but a downconverted version.
"Just hard work is not enough - it must be applied sensibly."
Dr. Richard W. Hamming
 
The following users thanked this post: Performa01

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21231
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2024, 02:28:33 pm »
The Tektronix TDS3012B has 1.25 Gs/s per channel vs 1 Gs/s shared on the Hantek DSO2D10, but the Hantek has more memory depth. Don't buy the Hantek new, there are better alternatives at this price range (see the Siglent/Rigol threads).

Samples/second is an irrelevant metric: the only metric that matters is bandwidth.

Examples:
  • 35 years ago I was using HP scopes to examine 800ps risetimes. It was 25MS/s
  • I have a 200ps/1.7GHz 1970 scope that uses BC107 (fT=350GHz) transistors in the signal path
  • I have a scope with <100ps risetimes and a 37kS/s sampling rate

Would you, please, stop confusing people with useless comments of how sampling scopes sample at slow sample speeds..
They do not. They have equivalent sampling rate defined by sample aperture of individual sample in reconstruction  process. They do not violate Nyquist, but cleverly reconstruct signal shape from thousands of separate trigger events.

And people are talking about Real Time sampling scope for which realtime sampling rate IS important.
You know, like ANY average scope made in the last 20 years...

And in the last more than 10 years, scopes mostly don't even provide ETS function anymore..

Please read and understand what I wrote in context, before having a knee-jerk response.

I used those examples to illustrate why a scope's sample/second metric is meaningless. In particular comparing 1.25GS/s with 1.0GS/s is not useful: they are both 100MHz scopes!

The only metric that matters is the bandwidth.

But you are wrong.
You cannot have a scope with a 100MHz BW with realtime sampling of 120MS/s.
It violates Nyquist and won't show you actual signal, but a downconverted version.

Has that been suggested anywhere in this thread?

If not, why are you raising a strawman argument?
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Online 2N3055

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7467
  • Country: hr
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2024, 02:36:52 pm »
The Tektronix TDS3012B has 1.25 Gs/s per channel vs 1 Gs/s shared on the Hantek DSO2D10, but the Hantek has more memory depth. Don't buy the Hantek new, there are better alternatives at this price range (see the Siglent/Rigol threads).

Samples/second is an irrelevant metric: the only metric that matters is bandwidth.

Examples:
  • 35 years ago I was using HP scopes to examine 800ps risetimes. It was 25MS/s
  • I have a 200ps/1.7GHz 1970 scope that uses BC107 (fT=350GHz) transistors in the signal path
  • I have a scope with <100ps risetimes and a 37kS/s sampling rate

Would you, please, stop confusing people with useless comments of how sampling scopes sample at slow sample speeds..
They do not. They have equivalent sampling rate defined by sample aperture of individual sample in reconstruction  process. They do not violate Nyquist, but cleverly reconstruct signal shape from thousands of separate trigger events.

And people are talking about Real Time sampling scope for which realtime sampling rate IS important.
You know, like ANY average scope made in the last 20 years...

And in the last more than 10 years, scopes mostly don't even provide ETS function anymore..

Please read and understand what I wrote in context, before having a knee-jerk response.

I used those examples to illustrate why a scope's sample/second metric is meaningless. In particular comparing 1.25GS/s with 1.0GS/s is not useful: they are both 100MHz scopes!

The only metric that matters is the bandwidth.

But you are wrong.
You cannot have a scope with a 100MHz BW with realtime sampling of 120MS/s.
It violates Nyquist and won't show you actual signal, but a downconverted version.

Has that been suggested anywhere in this thread?

If not, why are you raising a strawman argument?

Problem is that it is you that have a knee jerk response without knowing whole discussion.
Yes, exactly THAT was discussed.

A scope with claimed 250 MHz BW and sampling of 312.5 MS/sec.
Do you understand now?

Of course that if you sample 100MHz BW with 500MS/s, 1GS/sec or 1.25GS/sec, that in that case it does not matter.
It is a 100MHz BW scope. And your statement means that. I agree.

But that was not discussed, but mathematically insufficient sampling...
And than you jump in with "sampling rate does not matter..." argument.  :-//

Of course I reacted.
"Just hard work is not enough - it must be applied sensibly."
Dr. Richard W. Hamming
 

Offline Conrad Hoffman

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2078
  • Country: us
    • The Messy Basement
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2024, 02:43:31 pm »
It took 12-bit to get me away from analog scopes. I've used 8/9 bit scopes at work for years and they didn't move me enough to get one, no matter how fast or expensive. The memory depth on the older scopes is too small. Plus, the FFT on 8/9 bit scopes seems near to worthless for any real world problem. Depending on what you're doing, # of channels and bandwidth, even the lower end Siglent SDS800 series could make you quite happy for not much $$.
 
The following users thanked this post: 2N3055

Offline mawyatt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4120
  • Country: us
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2024, 03:12:02 pm »
  • I have a 200ps/1.7GHz 1970 scope that uses BC107 (fT=350GHz) transistors in the signal path

That's a pretty fast transistor, even today ;)

BTW for DSO use, Sample Rate should only be discussed along with Bandwidth as they are both limiting DSO functions that are inter-related. There's a new DSO (won't mention brand as it's likely to start another flame war) that when "enabled" and using all 4 channels has an effective Channel Sampling Rate which violates it's Channel Nyquist Bandwidth!!

Best
Curiosity killed the cat, also depleted my wallet!
~Wyatt Labs by Mike~
 
The following users thanked this post: Performa01

Offline mawyatt

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4120
  • Country: us
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2024, 03:29:44 pm »
It took 12-bit to get me away from analog scopes. I've used 8/9 bit scopes at work for years and they didn't move me enough to get one, no matter how fast or expensive. The memory depth on the older scopes is too small. Plus, the FFT on 8/9 bit scopes seems near to worthless for any real world problem. Depending on what you're doing, # of channels and bandwidth, even the lower end Siglent SDS800 series could make you quite happy for not much $$.

Had a similar experience long ago. When we were allowed in the lab (our value was perceived at creating more company $ developing systems, circuits, chips rather than in the lab testing such), not too impressed by the DSOs back then and always reached for a Tek Analog Scope.

When we semi-retired we needed a scope for our home lab and acquired a pair of familiar Tek 2565Bs which we repaired/restored. Later we studied this forum and decided on a DSO for our lab and selected the SDS2000X+, which even tho 8 bit ADC based was quite impressed (it has 10 bit mode) with the performance/features wrt to cost.

Now with the 12 bit SDS800X HD, this moves to another level of performance/features vs $, of course our "appetite" was created with the SDS2000X+ and we are getting hungrier :-+

Best
Curiosity killed the cat, also depleted my wallet!
~Wyatt Labs by Mike~
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21231
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2024, 04:52:46 pm »
  • I have a 200ps/1.7GHz 1970 scope that uses BC107 (fT=350GHz) transistors in the signal path

That's a pretty fast transistor, even today ;)

Oh... picky picky picky.

30 years ago I worked on a project demonstrating data comms in the 60GHz ISM band. Filled a room, and was deafening.

Now there are many chips for short-range distance measurement, especially for cars.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 21231
  • Country: gb
  • Numbers, not adjectives
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2024, 04:58:54 pm »
It took 12-bit to get me away from analog scopes. I've used 8/9 bit scopes at work for years and they didn't move me enough to get one, no matter how fast or expensive. The memory depth on the older scopes is too small. Plus, the FFT on 8/9 bit scopes seems near to worthless for any real world problem. Depending on what you're doing, # of channels and bandwidth, even the lower end Siglent SDS800 series could make you quite happy for not much $$.

Yup, the "use case" is critical information.

I started on 1GHz 6-bit boat anchor DSOs at work. OK for some purposes.

I quite like my 10MHz 14bit Digilent Analog Discovery. The added AWG and simple digital pattern generation/capture make it easy to implement, say, N-path filters and Tayloe mixers. Having the decent post-processing makes it easy to demonstrate their surprisingly interesting characteristics.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 
The following users thanked this post: Conrad Hoffman

Offline Performa01

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1729
  • Country: at
Re: Old Tektronix or new Hantek
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2024, 07:56:36 pm »
  • I have a 200ps/1.7GHz 1970 scope that uses BC107 (fT=350GHz) transistors in the signal path

That's a pretty fast transistor, even today ;)

Yes, I was quite shocked too. Having still worked with the TO18 BC107/1087/109 in the seventies of last century, I've always thought they had 200 MHz transition frequency, and that only at relatively high collector currents between 15 and 25 mA. Had I known about the secret 350 GHz of these transistors, I would still have been baffled how a relatively big  leaded component can be that fast...
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf