not sure how useful storage scopes (rigol) will be to an audio guy. I'm also an audio guy (but I do digital stuff as well as analog and the storage is nice to look at spi or i2c or stuff like that).Many thanks for your input! Thats useful info and food for thought. The choice of models and specs can get a bit overwhelming and reading review after review doesn't help! I was hoping I'd get close to what I wanted with a HP or Fluke 4ch (c £250). What would you say I should be looking at in terms of spec's and models for audio work?
if you want to see real waveforms, risetimes, etc; the digital scopes are utter crap. they won't show real waveform quality; they sample at 8bit (!) vertical and that is just crap to show real wave geometry.
I was going along the lines of the fancy rigol but decided to put my money into the tek 2465b as my ultimate 4ch analog scope. I bought mine for less than the rigol, it has no software bugs, it has time proven hardware and is fixable, which I can't say about imported chinese gear.
the tiny 2ch rigol is a good bargain if you want to have as storage scope around. but I'd put more money toward an analog scope, and a real brand one, too. you will have to increase your budget but if you want to 'buy once' then buy the best and avoid having to rebuy and sell to inch your way up the ladder.
I do not regret getting that tek scope. there's a saying 'a man who buys the best will not have 2nd thoughts later on'. if you buy a lower end scope, you may be wondering if the better one would have been the wiser choice, later on.
Here in the UK Tek 2465 £700 and a 400 mile round trip. I may have to set my sights lower..
Here in the UK Tek 2465 £700 and a 400 mile round trip. I may have to set my sights lower..
I suspect you'd get reasonable money for that A100, it would certainly go for more than £50 on ebay with a good advert.You are probably right. Maybe a keen collector would want it but I think its true value (from a technical and practical point of view in 2014) is close to zero :)
There is a 605 for sale quite close to me but it looks to be faulty sadly. Problem with the focus and no probes which isn't that big an issue.Seems to be a high frequency oscillation of the final vert. amplifier, not a focus problem.
if you mean analog audio, of course you want an analog scope.Crap. The vertical accuracy of a scope is a few percent. So sampling with 8 bits is more than enough. Just get a digital scope and don't mess around with old junk analog scopes. How old are 2465s by now? 30 years? more? They are big and produce a lot of heat -if they work-. Besides that a digital scope also allows to look at low frequency waveforms. Impossible with an analog scope without getting a headache. Digital scopes also have FFT which is usefull to look at distortion. You won't see -30dB 2nd order harmonic distortion from a waveform but the FFT will show it (with the scope set to high resolution).
But when it comes to something like a scope I want the best for my money.
Thanks for you comments Mark. Now I am confused, especially as a previous poster said this..
"not sure how useful storage scopes (rigol) will be to an audio guy. I'm also an audio guy (but I do digital stuff as well as analog and the storage is nice to look at spi or i2c or stuff like that).
if you want to see real waveforms, risetimes, etc; the digital scopes are utter crap. they won't show real waveform quality; they sample at 8bit (!) vertical and that is just crap to show real wave geometry.
I was going along the lines of the fancy rigol but decided to put my money into the tek 2465b as my ultimate 4ch analog scope. I bought mine for less than the rigol, it has no software bugs, it has time proven hardware and is fixable, which I can't say about imported chinese gear.
the tiny 2ch rigol is a good bargain if you want to have as storage scope around. but I'd put more money toward an analog scope, and a real brand one, too. you will have to increase your budget but if you want to 'buy once' then buy the best and avoid having to rebuy and sell to inch your way up the ladder.
I do not regret getting that tek scope. there's a saying 'a man who buys the best will not have 2nd thoughts later on'. if you buy a lower end scope, you may be wondering if the better one would have been the wiser choice, later on."
From that I understood divi scopes aren't suited to audio?
But when it comes to something like a scope I want the best for my money.
We all do for everything, but your problem is you don't know what you want and you'll end up with what someone else wants.
What usually sorts me out in this situation is to go and get something cheap and reasonably capable as a technology demo. I use it, and in using it I find out what I want and need, and then I go and spend the proper money on the right thing.
For instance, we needed a brushcutter (not an electronic item, your honour) and had not a clue about which or what, so I got a cheap one from a local shop having a sale. Cost about £40 IIRC. It was rubbish, but in using it we found out why it was rubbish, so when it finally died we knew that the next on would have a geared joint at the business end instead of bent flexible drive. It would have to be startable in situ rather than having to take it off to do that. Etc. We wound up with a Stihl that's done many years service and which we love to bits, but had we not got the rubbish one first we'd probably not have realised why the Stihl is so much better, and got a not-quite-so-cheap one that was still rubbish.
Strangely, we had the rubbish one dismantled on a bench (the motor seized) when we had a break-in one night. The only thing the perps nicked was this dismantled rubbish strimmer...
Er, so in your position I wouldn't bother about getting something that will suit me down to the ground in 5 years. I would get something that will work sufficiently well right now and which I will replace next year having figured out what I want by then. A 20MHz analog job might be great for audio work, and if I haven't learned why 20MHz is a serious limitation by next year I don't need the 1GHz HP after all.
Those 'fixable' teks are loaded with custom proprietary unobtanium parts. They are reliable, but there isn't a lot of fixing to be done for many failures.
An analog scope is not good for low frequency stuff, e.g. an envelope control voltage. You only see a moving dot. Not a trace.
For this application (low frequency stuff), you can choose a P7 phosphor crt.An analog scope is not good for low frequency stuff, e.g. an envelope control voltage. You only see a moving dot. Not a trace.
Thats a good point, especially for LFO's too I would guess. So maybe there is a case for both after all!
The same problem with Tektronix 2445/2465 with Horiz amplifier U800.You could always come up with an alternative. I have fitted an HP800 series scope with a completely new 300MHz front end because the old one was build around a piece of unobtanium.
If these parts fail, you can't repair your scope.
Sounds good, especially if that means I can do the LF stuff without the initial outlay of 2 units. Thanks.CRT's with P7 phosphor have a yellow plastic shield instead of a green one.
Thats a good point, especially for LFO's too I would guess. So maybe there is a case for both after all!Yes.
For this application (low frequency stuff), you can choose a P7 phosphor crt.How good is P7 for fast changing waveforms?
I have a PM3233 Philips with such P7 phosphor I use as curve tracer.
NB: HM605 is also available with P7 phosphor instead of P31.
I don't like it... :--For this application (low frequency stuff), you can choose a P7 phosphor crt.How good is P7 for fast changing waveforms?
I have a PM3233 Philips with such P7 phosphor I use as curve tracer.
NB: HM605 is also available with P7 phosphor instead of P31.
Then it's not good for analog synth stuff. Maybe an analog/digital combo scope. It has the fidelity in analog mode and for the slow frequency stuff the digital mode. Or a DSO with intensity grading and a decent wfrm/s.How good is P7 for fast changing waveforms?I don't like it... :--
I would counter that: hybrid parts are buyable, but not cheaply. still, you rarely have to junk the whole scope. a tds, otoh, you will likely junk the whole thing since its all custom and not enough of those chips (etc) are on the used market.Or just buy another working one. The hybrids and boards aren't cheap as you say. Then you need expensive test equipment for the calibration after repair. So buying another one is maybe cheaper.
2465: lots of used BOARDS on the market, crt displays, etc. even knobs and front panels. its fixable.
are schematics availabe for tds scopes? I have not looked since I was advised to avoid them and they came well after tek stopped releasing schematic and service manuals. the common wisdom (which may be arguable) is that theThere are schematics available for the TDS500,600 and 700 series. Look for the TDS520B component service manual. Besides that most of the problems are in power electronics and analog inputs. The digital part usually is OK.
again, for slower moving things that you want to graph, why not just use a dmm that has computer control?
you get (time,value) pairs that can be sent to any graph display, even simple spreadsheets can do graphing for this kind of data. you can import into mysql (for example) and so analysis on it. WAY more power than any scope will give you.
if the data rate is too high, dmm polling won't work but for slower moving data collection jobs, an rs232 or gpib meter is the best way to do this. and this is why, when it comes to dmm's, I recommend only computer-controllable (serial i/o port on the back) DMMs.
Thats a good point, especially for LFO's too I would guess. So maybe there is a case for both after all!Yes.
But there are cases where an analog scope is better than a low-end digital one. For example looking at a modulated signal from a VCO or VCF. Look at my posts in this thread: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hello-looking-for-small-digital-oscilloscope-for-use-with-analog-synthesizer/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hello-looking-for-small-digital-oscilloscope-for-use-with-analog-synthesizer/)
For analog synth stuff a 50$ dual channel 20MHz analog scope is enough. No need for a high-end analog one. Make sure you can get the service manual with schematic for it.
again, for slower moving things that you want to graph, why not just use a dmm that has computer control?These slower things can have rise times of a few ms. Look at the attachments. This is the audio out of a note played with an analog synth. Unfortunately it doesn't has outputs for the control voltages. But the envelope of the waveform is one of them. A scope is much more versatile for this. And you maybe want to zoom into the waveform. Here a DSO wins.
Thanks for you comments Mark. Now I am confused, especially as a previous poster said this..
"not sure how useful storage scopes (rigol) will be to an audio guy. I'm also an audio guy (but I do digital stuff as well as analog and the storage is nice to look at spi or i2c or stuff like that).
if you want to see real waveforms, risetimes, etc; the digital scopes are utter crap. they won't show real waveform quality; they sample at 8bit (!) vertical and that is just crap to show real wave geometry.
I was going along the lines of the fancy rigol but decided to put my money into the tek 2465b as my ultimate 4ch analog scope. I bought mine for less than the rigol, it has no software bugs, it has time proven hardware and is fixable, which I can't say about imported chinese gear.
the tiny 2ch rigol is a good bargain if you want to have as storage scope around. but I'd put more money toward an analog scope, and a real brand one, too. you will have to increase your budget but if you want to 'buy once' then buy the best and avoid having to rebuy and sell to inch your way up the ladder.
I do not regret getting that tek scope. there's a saying 'a man who buys the best will not have 2nd thoughts later on'. if you buy a lower end scope, you may be wondering if the better one would have been the wiser choice, later on."
From that I understood divi scopes aren't suited to audio?
The 1074z was first on my list to be honest!Then buy it!
what is the longer term cost of ownership of that rigol? anyone have any guesses?
Back in the days when I was into synthesizer stuff I only had a very basic 15MHz two channel analog scope and a crappy DMM. It worked. Of course the scope didn't well on the slow things and debugging the microprocessor stuff.
I think today I would prefer my Rigol DS1074Z over my analog Tek 2246A for this. But a basic two channel analog scope is enough. A DSO has advantages.
QuoteI know a lot of hobbyists buy them and love them but it is the equivalent of a sprightly grandad at a disco... he knows a few quick and exclusive moves but at the end of the night nobody (in industry) wants to take him home... If they did then scopes like this would still be mainstream today.
Brilliant analogy!!
no one in the industry wants to take them home
if you are going to own analog for life, why not get a classic that has a ton of support, etc?
as for the user interface, you complain about this and yet you enjoy using digitals of today?? boggle! digitals of today SUCK in user interfaces. they reuse controls over and over, you have to menu thru things to get to what you want and they tend to have less knobs to turn and more overloaded functions on each of the knobs they do have.
Besides that a digital scope also allows to look at low frequency waveforms. Impossible with an analog scope without getting a headache.
An analog scope is not good for low frequency stuff, e.g. an envelope control voltage. You only see a moving dot. Not a trace.
I still maintain, for home users, a very good, well engineered, well documented and well supported analog scope is prio #1.
The 2465 would be better at looking at fast risetimes of waveforms and for looking at (obsolete?) stuff like HD video
but I can't really think of a practical use that justifies the cost/risk of ownership of an old £££ It's a legendary and very capable scope that attracts hobbyists like moths to a flame but I would not want to see one where my 465 is currently located. I guess I'm immune to the hype ;)
Those of us who tried to use the early DSOs from both Tek & HP for general Electronics maintenance & repair tend to have a rather jaundiced view of DSOs from that experience.
Who is clever, has good knowledge of electronics and experience can do a lot of great work with an analog scope.
That's only true if what you are doing requires it.
And mostly, that's not the case with hobbyist.
There is so much more to go wrong with a CRT scope.For sure, you write about something you don't know.
What's obsolete about HD video?Yes, sorry for any confusion. I was loosely referring to the various HD video formats of the 70s, 80s and 90s. One of the key selling points of the 2465 (compared to digital scopes of the same era) was that it could display HD video and show any subtle video problems as a change in the 'intensity' of the scope display. It could also trigger and display waveforms at an extremely high rate.
It is the standard for Terrestrial Digital TV-----did you mean analogue TV?
You are forgetting about worn switches and potmeters. A major nuisance with any well used analog scope.QuoteThere is so much more to go wrong with a CRT scope.For sure, you write about something you don't know.
Hameg has sold more than 300.000 units of the HM203 model... :clap:
And most of them still work.
You are forgetting about worn switches and potmeters. A major nuisance with any well used analog scope.QuoteThere is so much more to go wrong with a CRT scope.For sure, you write about something you don't know.
Hameg has sold more than 300.000 units of the HM203 model... :clap:
And most of them still work.
You are forgetting about worn switches and potmeters. A major nuisance with any well used analog scope.QuoteThere is so much more to go wrong with a CRT scope.For sure, you write about something you don't know.
Hameg has sold more than 300.000 units of the HM203 model... :clap:
And most of them still work.
I find that the biggest issue with scopes is intermittent switches on those that haven't been used much, or at least the switches haven't been used much. Fortunately a quick squirt is all that is required to sort these.
Worn switches are not commun....sometime worn rotary switches on 465/475/22xx.You are forgetting about worn switches and potmeters. A major nuisance with any well used analog scope.QuoteThere is so much more to go wrong with a CRT scope.For sure, you write about something you don't know.
Hameg has sold more than 300.000 units of the HM203 model... :clap:
And most of them still work.
I done some probing in my synth (Arp Odessy) for comparison. The DSO is a DS1074Z, the analog is a Tek 2246A. On both the bandwidth was limited to 20MHz. You can see a weakness of the DS1000Z. It's sometimes more like a 7 - 7.5bit scope. So the horizontal traces are thick. On repetitive waveforms the averaging acquisition mode helps here.
Here the VCO outputs for sawthooth and square wave. The first DSO picture is from normal acquisition mode, the second from averaging acquisition mode.
Anyone have any experience of these?
http://www.jameco.com/1/1/24635-os-5020-20mhz-2-channel-oscilloscope-test-measurement.html (http://www.jameco.com/1/1/24635-os-5020-20mhz-2-channel-oscilloscope-test-measurement.html)
There is one over here for sale for £149 but he'll accept an offer.
Pro's - It's a recent model compared to some of the older 'scopes out there ergo it'll have less hours on it, Its got all the gubbins with it including printed manual and delayed sweep lead.
Cons's - It's a recent model compared to some of the older 'scopes out there ergo it'll be built cheaply with custom ic's, It's prob pricey for a 60Mhz scope with a fairly basic spec?? I've not found a schematic yet but I've read that Jameco can provide a pdf.
Any thoughts? Just throwing it out there as someone mentioned buying a new scope earlier in the discussion.
I notice there's a little non-linearity showing up on the analog traces, circled below, that do not show up on the Rigol. Which is right? Perhaps a mis-adjusted probe? A straight coax connection (no probe) might settle that at least.I noticed it too. I had adjusted the probe compensation directly before the measurements. I test the probe again (1st picture). It's a Tek P6109. There is a little bit overshot. But there is also a dip after the edge. The adjustment is a compromise. For comparison I use a DIY Z0 probe (2nd picture). There is a tiny overshoot.
the 400 series teks had a really classic and easily recognizable interface. if yours is in good condition, you should be happy with it.
you're still going to get a cheapie digital, though, right? ;)
sync, that distortion on your analog scope - it does look like poor compensation. Might not be the probe though. I'm not familiar with the 2246A, but it probably has a few compensation adjustments internally in the various amplifier circuits. Maybe it just needs a cal?I just made a test with a function gen with the same scope settings as in the distorted synth measurements, but using coax + termination. The linearity error is about 0.1 - 0.2mm using a 6 div p-p sawthooth signal. Very hard to see. No over- or undershoot. At the edges of the screen the scope has a little geometry error which can't fixed by adjustment. I tried it. But this error is within spec.
The 468 is essentially a 465 100 MHz scope with a DSO option added. The digital side is good for 10 MHz and, if I remember correctly, has around 512 sample points. It does give you cursors for time and voltage measurement while in DSO mode.
The CPU chip in the digital section is the single largest IC I have ever seen, anywhere.
There are two volumes for the manual for the scope, both are available free online. Be sure to get both of them.
I notice there's a little non-linearity showing up on the analog traces, circled below, that do not show up on the Rigol. Which is right? Perhaps a mis-adjusted probe? A straight coax connection (no probe) might settle that at least.
But this also got me thinking, along with another post in this thread referencing rise times, that in analog scopes there's a lot more to the signal path that has to be just right to keep the signal-to-eyeball fidelity. Everything from the front BNC to the vertical deflection plates has to be perfect.
Contrast this to digital scopes, where the signal is gotten into the digital domain as quickly as possible. The physical length of the signal path where distortions could be introduced, I would venture a guess, is about a magnitude less. There's also no shared analog circuitry, delay lines, analog channel switching, etc. which can only detract from signal integrity. And calibration? Reduced to a button in many modern scopes.
Edit: I'll take back that part about digital scopes not doing analog channel switching. Many, but not all, digital scopes will share a common ADC by switching between analog channels. But still, the point is the analog signal path is much shorter in digital scopes.
The 468 is essentially a 465 100 MHz scope with a DSO option added. The digital side is good for 10 MHz and, if I remember correctly, has around 512 sample points. It does give you cursors for time and voltage measurement while in DSO mode.
The CPU chip in the digital section is the single largest IC I have ever seen, anywhere.
That's only true if what you are doing requires it.
And mostly, that's not the case with hobbyist.
The ability to capture and store a waveform is the biggest advance in oscilloscope usability since it's inception. So much so that the pinnacle of analog oscilloscope design was the microchannel plate design (Tek 2467) that allowed the viewing of fast single shot events, something that any modern $300 DSO does with the utmost of ease and to even greater usability (with deep memory). To imply that ability is not generally important is simply crazy.
Of course some requirements are entirely met by an analog scope, and a digital is not required. But we are not talking specific usage scenarios here, so the only thing we can talk about is general usefulness. In which case any modern digital oscilloscope offer many very important and useful features simply not afforded by analog scopes. There is no contest.
Anyone who could pick only one scope to have in a general purpose lab would be a fool to pick an analog scope.
IMO, the storage ability of a modern DSO is even more important to a beginner, because it lets them capture and freeze single shot event and analyse what is happening , without any interpretation or limitations you would have to do with an analog display.
same deal with the 2465 series. it does bug me that they are full analog channels but have only 2 atten settings.It's odd that Tek never did the "logical" thing of building the series with a full 4 channel variant.
with the 246x series, at least, the front panel is not 'real', its just control. all signals pass thru relays and boards; and so the front atten knobs could have doubled up. or at least have a 4 way switch for atten for ch 3,4.
A 4 channel scope with 2 half-baked channels is just useless. Maybe nice as trigger inputs with a visual check. I had such a scope and I have learned the hard way to never ever buy a 4 channel scope which doesn't have 4 full attenuators again.
But this also got me thinking, along with another post in this thread referencing rise times, that in analog scopes there's a lot more to the signal path that has to be just right to keep the signal-to-eyeball fidelity. Everything from the front BNC to the vertical deflection plates has to be perfect.
I have occasionally seen similar problems with modern DSOs where the transient response of the signal was obviously wrong and uncorrectable so this is hardly a unique issue with analog oscilloscopes.
@ Sync : How do you like your 2246, I own one as well.I love it. I was searching for a Tek with cursors and readout for a lot of months. The 2465 (2445) are too expensive and have their problems (lost of calibration, bad hybrids). Then I found the 2246A on ebay. I like that the signal path is separated from the front panel controls. No problems with bad switches or pots. I really like the automated measuring. It has hybrids too. But not as many and sophisticated as the 2465. What I don't like is the noisy fan.
My only complaint on it is if Ch3/4 had more V/div settings.
I dont believe mine has a fan, havent used it in 6 months.@ Sync : How do you like your 2246, I own one as well.I love it. I was searching for a Tek with cursors and readout for a lot of months. The 2465 (2445) are too expensive and have their problems (lost of calibration, bad hybrids). Then I found the 2246A on ebay. I like that the signal path is separated from the front panel controls. No problems with bad switches or pots. I really like the automated measuring. It has hybrids too. But not as many and sophisticated as the 2465. What I don't like is the noisy fan.
My only complaint on it is if Ch3/4 had more V/div settings.
For me it's a two channel scope with two additional limited channels.
As far as I now all of the 2246A series include fans but usually they are quiet enough to to be unnoticeable.I love it. I was searching for a Tek with cursors and readout for a lot of months. The 2465 (2445) are too expensive and have their problems (lost of calibration, bad hybrids). Then I found the 2246A on ebay. I like that the signal path is separated from the front panel controls. No problems with bad switches or pots. I really like the automated measuring. It has hybrids too. But not as many and sophisticated as the 2465. What I don't like is the noisy fan.I dont believe mine has a fan, havent used it in 6 months.
As far as I now all of the 2246A series include fans but usually they are quiet enough to to be unnoticeable.That makes sense, I forgot that my fan would rattling unfrequently.
As far as I now all of the 2246A series include fans but usually they are quiet enough to to be unnoticeable.
Speaking as an owner of a LeCroy 9400A, it's cool if you can get one for $50-ish, any more than that and you're better off with a hacked Rigol DS1052E. The Rigol will out-perform the 9400A in every practical way. The 9400A is a HUGE, slow, hot, power sucking monster.
Only plus is maybe the vector(!) CRT on the 9400A is a bit sharper than the Rigol's chunky 320x240 LCD...
If i needed a DSO, i would have bought one by now. Maybe if i didn't have the 2430A. Don't buy old DSO's, unless it's becomes a hobby :palm:
@bunk
in germany 2465b (400Mhz) do sell regularly at about 500 to 550 pounds st., I find this reasonably priced. the other interesting one I would recommend, suitable for all kinds of use, is the 7000 series from tektronix. the 7104 with a 7a29 plug in goes up to 1ghz, amazing. now of course you dont need this for audio and the like, but other plug ins such as differential do help a lot there sometimes. and the interesting thing is, they sell at pretty low prices sometimes in the us bay.
How heavy is a 7104. Someone has offered me one but if I can't pick it up then it will be difficult.
How heavy is a 7104. Someone has offered me one but if I can't pick it up then it will be difficult.
The 7104 is a great scope if you truly need the 1 GHz bandwidth and high writing rate. A true wonder of engineering, and would be a terrific subject for a teardown video (lots of geek porn inside).
But the Achilles heel is the microchannel plate (MCP) tube. VERY susceptible to phosphor burn, and finding one that still has even brightness across the entire screen is becoming difficult. The readout areas in particular seem to dim out noticeably. The only source for replacement is another 7104, as this tube was unique to it.
But the Achilles heel is the microchannel plate (MCP) tube. VERY susceptible to phosphor burn, and finding one that still has even brightness across the entire screen is becoming difficult. The readout areas in particular seem to dim out noticeably. The only source for replacement is another 7104, as this tube was unique to it.
If you want a 4-slot 7000 series mainframe, the 500 MHz 7904/7904A might be a better candidate as far as spare parts availability, as there was a lot more parts commonality with other models.
Only for local pick-up for a symbolic price and I add free a frame 5000 with memory but the CRT is dead. :-DD :-DD
Only for local pick-up for a symbolic price and I add free a frame 5000 with memory but the CRT is dead. :-DD :-DD
I'll bite if you have a 5CT1N plugin ;)