Why do Tek TDS210 Scopes sell for so much on Ebay?

[MatthewEveritt]

I totally agree about the tds210. We've got one or two in dusty corners of the lab and while they're fine for simple things there's no way I'd pay much for one. A while back I forced myself to use one to see how I'd get on with a low end scope at home. In the end I got a hantek 6022e usb price if c**p (for £20), and to be honest I wouldn't swap it.

[xrunner]

Hahaha - and now the TDS210 scope I bid on when it was $20 is up to $78 ... I bet I could kick it up to $90 0r $100 with no worry of actually having the top bid. There's 6 hours remaining and it's interesting to watch these things in the last few minutes. People will be battling for the last winning bid. The sky's the limit folks!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/311319338779?_trksid=p2055359.m1431.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

[dom0]

eBay just goes crazy sometimes. I've seen ancient (50s, early 60s) and beaten up HP generators sell for three figure numbers here... probably some collector stuff or something like that. And here, my dear guests, my rare, valuable and complete collection of early HP sine wave generators *applause*

Google AD390, and see how much is it.

Can't believe people pay a grand for a quad 12-bit 20ppm/degC DAC.

If an ancient part like that carries a high price tag its usually because it is needed for repairing something highly valuable or irreplaceable, and its in short supply. That's normal market dynamics at work, although its painful when you find the only way forward is to put down the money and buy a part like that.

It's strange that no one has stepped in with a drop-in replacement PCB with a $10 DAC on it...

You can bet that that chip is some thoroughly tested and characterized part used in some very sensitive piece of equipment. Designing a fully compatible replacement and testing or maybe even certifying that replacement for use instead of the original part will be much more expensive than the expensive original part.

[paulie]

I totally agree about the tds210. We've got one or two in dusty corners of the lab

In my shop it's the Rigol shitbox gathering dust in the corner. Played with it for a week then out of sight out of mind. There seems to be some confusion here over usefulness of a gem like my TDS220 compared to 20mhz analog or one those junk chinese 50mhz. I also have a TDS210 retired few years ago and would certainly pull that out before resorting to the christmas tree colors and inscrutable menus buried in the Rigol.

But then again I'm famous for using the simplest easiest tool for the job over the most complicated and "pretty".

[dom0]

Well the screen is good for nothing, 320x240 if I remember correctly, like the first Rigols. Probably any DSO before or after the TDS2xx beat that, easily. I think the higher end CRT DSOs had more than 800 lines or so. And nowadays even the cheapest Chinese DSOs have color 8" screens with 800x480.

[westfw]

Under $100 doesn't seem like a bad price for a TDS210.   Is there a standard compact digital scope on that performance range that regularly sells for < $100?  (There are some classic analog scopes, of course, that you can get for little more than the cost of shipping.  But shipping those monsters isn't cheap, and not everyone has room for a full-sized scope.)

[xrunner]

Under $100 doesn't seem like a bad price for a TDS210.   Is there a standard compact digital scope on that performance range that regularly sells for < $100?  (There are some classic analog scopes, of course, that you can get for little more than the cost of shipping.  But shipping those monsters isn't cheap, and not everyone has room for a full-sized scope.)

I was willing to fork over $20 - $30  for one, but any more than that just seemed like a waste of money in this day and age.

But look at the price of it now - it's up to $96 and in the last two hours I guarantee you it will go crazy, so it won't be under $100 ...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/311319338779?_trksid=p2055359.m1431.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

[MarkL]

...

You can bet that that chip is some thoroughly tested and characterized part used in some very sensitive piece of equipment. Designing a fully compatible replacement and testing or maybe even certifying that replacement for use instead of the original part will be much more expensive than the expensive original part.

Whenever I see outrageously priced parts, my first thought is always how the audiophoolery segment might be using it.

[paulie]

Well the screen is good for nothing, 320x240 if I remember correctly, like the first Rigols. Probably any DSO before or after the TDS2xx beat that, easily. I think the higher end CRT DSOs had more than 800 lines or so. And nowadays even the cheapest Chinese DSOs have color 8" screens with 800x480.

Iif you want BIG why not get one of those cheap USB PC scopes? Hard to beat a 26" five jillion pixel PC monitor. And the COLORS... lordy! Even if important details were more visible how useful watching those signals fly by or squinting at the captures. And just how important are colors compared to grey scale anyway?

I won't even bother to bring up comparisons of my $6 Saleae clone LA with those gorgeous Rigol dealies. Or how many of those you can scatter around the place for the cost of just one.

Like I said, "pretty" is not high on my personal list. I need to get things done. Not gaze at holiday lights, spend the day pushing buttons and navigating menus, or try to impress on the internet with 500 thousand dollar wall of equipment behind me.

[MatthewEveritt]

I totally agree about the tds210. We've got one or two in dusty corners of the lab

In my shop it's the Rigol shitbox gathering dust in the corner. Played with it for a week then out of sight out of mind. There seems to be some confusion here over usefulness of a gem like my TDS220 compared to 20mhz analog or one those junk chinese 50mhz. I also have a TDS210 retired few years ago and would certainly pull that out before resorting to the christmas tree colors and inscrutable menus buried in the Rigol.

But then again I'm famous for using the simplest easiest tool for the job over the most complicated and "pretty".

Depends what you're doing with them,  most things we do require pretty and complicated (multiple channels + multiple math + statistics). I don't know about electronics / repair / whatever,  but for use in a physics lab the tek is seriously limited. To be fair to it,  it is fantastically quick and easy to use for simple things in a way I can't imagine a cheap Rigol is.
Of course, the hours I've spent fighting our lecroys have made me somewhat resilient to nasty menu systems.

[dom0]

...

You can bet that that chip is some thoroughly tested and characterized part used in some very sensitive piece of equipment. Designing a fully compatible replacement and testing or maybe even certifying that replacement for use instead of the original part will be much more expensive than the expensive original part.

Whenever I see outrageously priced parts, my first thought is always how the audiophoolery segment might be using it.

I stumbled over this a while ago and I think this is a great example of that which you mentioned:

http://www.ti.com/product/opa128

First review:

By Jwang
Experience: > 1 yr
Design Phase: Design
Location: Taiwan
It has the greatest sound
Posted on:July 12, 2014
" It is the best operation amplifier that I had ever used, in an Audio AMP, it make the best sound "

How did that guy pick this Op (unsuitable for audio, just btw)? Here's my theory: He went to TI. Went to precision amplifier category. Sorted by price. First one is some high power op. Second one is the OPA128. That thing is essentially the most expensive signal op amp TI has. So it must have the best sound, right? Right?

[Vgkid]

An electrometer grade op-amp for audio
 

[paulie]

Depends what you're doing with them,  most things we do require pretty and complicated (multiple channels + multiple math + statistics). I don't know about electronics / repair / whatever,  but for use in a physics lab the tek is seriously limited. To be fair to it,  it is fantastically quick and easy to use for simple things in a way I can't imagine a cheap Rigol is.

Of course what you say is 100% correct. I was hoping to get more of a rise out of the Rigol-oids but since that didn't work will admit features on these new scopes are way ahead of oldies like tek. Personally I rarely if ever find need for stuff like RMS or fancy trigger options so the basic type DSO is more useful. For me more important to have all options on the front panel instead of navigating menus.

Ironically my TDS210 at couple grand cost more than the used TDS220 and  new DS1052E combined. However I wasn't kidding about going back to that TDS210 in an emergency. In fact had to do just that last year when the CFL tubes went on my 220 and had to be replaced with white LED string. They like to do that when it's cold or super important project afoot. Both mine have LEDs now so problem solved. I imagine Rigols come stock like which would be another plus if so.

[G0HZU]

I totally agree about the tds210. We've got one or two in dusty corners of the lab

In my shop it's the Rigol shitbox gathering dust in the corner. Played with it for a week then out of sight out of mind. There seems to be some confusion here over usefulness of a gem like my TDS220 compared to 20mhz analog or one those junk chinese 50mhz. I also have a TDS210 retired few years ago and would certainly pull that out before resorting to the christmas tree colors and inscrutable menus buried in the Rigol.

But then again I'm famous for using the simplest easiest tool for the job over the most complicated and "pretty".

Agreed. At my place of work the TDS220 and TDS20xx are still very popular scopes and we still have dozens of them.  They have their limitations  (and are also Chinese made) but when used with some sympathy for these limitations they are still a very useful tool

I can't see a Rigol scope being 'accepted' or taken seriously at work because of their crappy reputation for bugs and poor service etc.

I paid about £550 for my TDS2012 some 10 years ago and I still use it here at home today. At work I have access to all kinds of modern, powerful scopes from Tek/Agilent/R&S but I nearly always reach for a TDS2012 or TDS2022 instead because it's often the case that 'less is more'. Often, the little TDS can do the job and can do it quicker and hardly takes up space and is totally silent in operation

I think the reason the TDS scopes hold their value is because they are a known industry scope that is easy to use and offers good reliability and may users are familiar with the UI. In terms of performance they're pretty lame compared to a modern scope but that doesn't mean they have no appeal or demand today.

[pickle9000]

When it comes to menus you would think after all this time a single customizable start menu would be standard. Low overhead and easy to implement. It would be so nice to have your to favorite 5-10 functions ready to go after startup.

[nctnico]

I have used a TDS220 in the past but I was very happy I could replace it with an Iwatsu DS-8617:

I don't see how a TDS200 series can be better in any way compared to a mainstream Rigol or Siglent scope. Feature wise the TDS200 is dwarfed by what Rigol and Siglent offer as standard nowadays.

[MatthewEveritt]

I do have a lot of affection for the tds2024 I must admit. I wouldn't relish trying to explain what 4 black and white traces all mean though, colour screens are a must.

This raises an interesting question though, how many features do most people actually ever use? Half the time all I really need is decent averaging and some simple measurements.

[dom0]

Well a scope with a proper trigger counter is nice, most have that and while not a great counter it doesn't take any desk space or cost any money.

Having automatic peak, peak-peak and RMS measurements is handy, too, esp. RMS since that's not easily worked out from for complex waveforms

Deep memory is a must for some things, others will never notice it

Filters (including averaging). I wish more scopes had arbitrary filters (LPF/HPF/BPF), but most have at least selectable bandwidth, so that's a start. A 500 MHz scope would be quite useless for many things if it didn't have a LPF option.

FFT is handy for similar reasons as the trigger counter, although you'll get more from the DSOs' AFE if you export the waveform data and use some PC based software to analyze it


Decent resolution color screen. A scope is about seeing things. Not much to see with a crap screen.

Intensity grading should be standard.

Unnecessary (IMHO): decoding (most scopes can't decode much, and it's completely useless on 2 ch models), front panel presets, auto set, unnecessary built in help, stupid dials that are hard to adjust (heeeellooo, hantek 5000 series)

[Muttley Snickers]

Thirty buck's for shipping and no local pickup, that's bullshit it's only ten minute's up the road.   


Muttley


http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/New-20-MHz-Dual-Trace-Oscilloscope-HQ-/260686424575?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_15&hash=item3cb21f29ff#ht_5265wt_1034

[lowimpedance]

 ................

clearly needs to cover the cost of the bubble wrap.

[Muttley Snickers]

................

clearly needs to cover the cost of the bubble wrap.

Although to be fair, thirty buck's world wide is more than reasonable in my opinion.   

Bugger it, just realised that he is out of stock down the page, 5 available, 18 sold. 


Muttley

Compared to the above listing these pictured below probably are not such a bad deal after all.

[flashcoder]

Did not really want to bring up a new thread on this topic but just recently I had an opportunity find out how reliable is the old TDS210. I had this TV with LED backlight problem, it kicked in for a split second and then turned off. At some point I wanted to see what the LED driver is sending to the MOSFET and but my fairly recent entry level SIGLENT did not show anything on its output. The LED backlight clearly blinks for a short moment every time I turn on the TV so it must be sending something. But the scope refuses to pick it up. I tried many times, went through scope settings to make sure I am not doing something wrong, went for defaults - still no go. So I went to my closet and pulled the good old TDS210 out of the box and bingo - it captures the waveform the first attempt in single mode! Soo.. I am in the market of a new scope. Entry level SIGLENT is crap, even it it has more bells and whistles what is the use of it if you cant rely on it doing its most basic function reliably. I cant even explain why it happens this just crazy. The SIGLENT worked well so far and I never really noticed anything weird. But this test clearly shows it does not work properly.
Will I ever get rid of my old TDS210? Naah, never. This is why people love these old scopes - THEY ALWAYS WORK. I am even considering using it as my primary scope, well, at least I will get something better. Definitely no SIGLENT any more they have lost any trust.

[Hydrawerk]

TDS210 was quite expensive back in the 1997 or so. It was one of the very first portable scopes with no fan.

[2N3055]

Did not really want to bring up a new thread on this topic but just recently I had an opportunity find out how reliable is the old TDS210. I had this TV with LED backlight problem, it kicked in for a split second and then turned off. At some point I wanted to see what the LED driver is sending to the MOSFET and but my fairly recent entry level SIGLENT did not show anything on its output. The LED backlight clearly blinks for a short moment every time I turn on the TV so it must be sending something. But the scope refuses to pick it up. I tried many times, went through scope settings to make sure I am not doing something wrong, went for defaults - still no go. So I went to my closet and pulled the good old TDS210 out of the box and bingo - it captures the waveform the first attempt in single mode! Soo.. I am in the market of a new scope. Entry level SIGLENT is crap, even it it has more bells and whistles what is the use of it if you cant rely on it doing its most basic function reliably. I cant even explain why it happens this just crazy. The SIGLENT worked well so far and I never really noticed anything weird. But this test clearly shows it does not work properly.
Will I ever get rid of my old TDS210? Naah, never. This is why people love these old scopes - THEY ALWAYS WORK. I am even considering using it as my primary scope, well, at least I will get something better. Definitely no SIGLENT any more they have lost any trust.

Unless Siglent is damaged, I find your story (or shall I say your conclusions) quite hard to believe. By that I don't mean you didn't have problems capturing data, but your conclusion something is wrong with the scope might not be the only conclusion. Could you please elaborate what exactly signal was and how did you setup scopes so one did catch a data and other didn't ..

Scopes from Rigol, Siglent, Micsig etc. are not perfect, but basic things like triggering they do flawlessly. So it is either you didn't know how to use it, or scope is damaged, or you caught a rare bug, in which case both many users here and Siglent will like to know. And yes, WHICH entry level Siglent you're have?

[flashcoder]

No the SIGLENT is not damaged, it is not much used and even looks brand new, so far it always did what I wanted. Like I said I had no complaints before and I would probably not have any if not this incident. It is SDS1102CML+ model. Yes it is entry level scope but this topic discussion is about the fact that the newer cheaper scopes are always better. And this is clear example that it isnt true. It does not register the impulse no matter what. I did set it to defaults to rule out any setup mistakes but it does not "see" that short impulse. But the old and omg_why_it_is_still_so_expensive TDS210 shows the signal flawlessly. That was my point. I cant trust this Siglent any more. What other stuff it could be not doing correctly? Well obviously this is a simple case but how can I be sure that it always "sees" the stuff that I am trying measure? I might sound like a drama queen and this is not life and death situation but all I am saying it is better to have an older instrument that you can trust instead of having a nice color screen.