This Tektronix 2210 Oscilloscope any good?

[polishdude20]

So I've found a local craiglist ad for a Tektronix 2210 and I'm wondering if it's a good deal? Is it any good?

Here's the ad:  http://vancouver.en.craigslist.ca/van/ele/4550555684.html

[elliott]

I have a newer Tektronix digital/analog hybrid, the 2221A. It is a good scope, but the digital functions are very limited and the 2210 has even less. Mine has 4K points and that is usable for some things, but nothing like the digital scopes on the market now, that 2210 only has 1K points. If you're testing a power supply for overshoot on startup then 1K should be fine, but you're not going to be capturing long data streams on a serial bus. The good thing is that it can be a full analog scope when in non-storage mode.

If you're looking for digital, look elsewhere, but as an analog scope it is decent.

The price is up to you, people on eBay seem to think is worth at least $150, however the better 2221A sells for less. Bidders are funny. Just check it out thoroughly beforehand. When I got mine the digital functions didn't work, but the analog was fine. I used this as a bargaining point even though I intended it to stay in non-storage mode. All mine needed was the cables inside re-seated.

[polishdude20]

Is there any particular way I can test it when I see it in person? Like how do I test the digital storage functions and other things?

[elliott]

Just do the the standard tests that you would for a full analog scope, get it to display something and then let it run for 20 minutes or so. Play with different controls to make sure they all work as expected.

Pretty much if it shows waveforms in storage mode you should be fine, mine was just blank in storage mode because it wasn't feeding anything to the ADCs. Hit the Save button and remove the signal to make sure it can save. You don't have a lot to test as far as digital is concerned.

In storage mode it is going to be slow to respond and jerky, that is just the nature of these old things.

Mine has a self diagnostic mode, but I can't find a free service manual for the 2210 to see if it has one or how to get to it.

[David Hess]

There is some documentation online for the 2211 which replaced the 2210 but I do not see anything about a diagnostic mode.  The big difference between the two appears to be the lack of cursors on the 2210.  The 2211 (or 2225) operating manual available online will give a good rundown into how to use the 2210.

The 2221A is really a different series of oscilloscope.  The 2210 and 2211 lack equivalent time sampling  and peak detection so storage mode is limited to a bandwidth of 10 MHz or lower and aliasing will be an issue.  I would consider the 2210 to be a 2225 that happens to have limited digital storage capability.

The rather common 2230 oscilloscopes which are completely usable as DSOs (more so than the 2221A because they have a delayed timebase) often sell for $150 or less so a 2210 at that price is marginal unless the capability of a 2225 will work for you and you can verify that it is operating properly.  The only significantly unique feature of this series is the 500 microvolt/division vertical sensitivity.

[elliott]

The 2221A's digital side is probably more capable than I give it credit for. It just seems pitiful when you see 1GS/sec and 1M points from a lowly Rigol DS1052e, I guess 100MS/s isn't bad though and I do have primative intensity graduated display.

I wouldn't mind that delayed time base though, I guess the 2232 would be mine with a delayed time base.

[David Hess]

The 2221A's digital side is probably more capable than I give it credit for. It just seems pitiful when you see 1GS/sec and 1M points from a lowly Rigol DS1052e, I guess 100MS/s isn't bad though and I do have primitive intensity graduated display.

I wouldn't mind that delayed time base though, I guess the 2232 would be mine with a delayed time base.

Except for the lack of a delayed timebase, I would consider the 22221A better than a Rigol DS1052e because of its peak detection capability which the Rigol lacks.  This was actually the deciding factor when I bought and refurbished an old 2230 rather than buy a new Rigol.

As far as sample rates, keep in mind that the 2221A, which really is just a 2232 without the delayed timebase, supports equivalent time sampling up to 2 GS/s.  The 100 MHz real time sample rate of the 2221A (and 2232) makes display generation slower at fast sweep speeds but it is completely usable.  The 2221 is just a 2230, again without the delayed timebase, but their sample rate of 20 MS/s makes display generation 5 times slower at fast sweep speeds and their peak detection is 100 nanoseconds instead of 10 nanoseconds for the 2221A and 2232.  All of the oscilloscopes in this series support 2 GS/s equivalent time sampling.  The 2232 and 2221A are better in all respects than the 2230 and 2221 but I would consider all of them usable DSOs.

Their displays are not intensity graded in the usual sense.  They just have the capability of drawing real vectors so "filled in" areas of the display are shown darker.

[polishdude20]

Should I just get a rigol DS1052E in that case? On ebay, I'm seeing the lowest price of the 2221A as $250, and that's risky cause it's used and I don't know if it will work. I could bump up a bit and get the rigol 2221A for $330 instead shouldn't I?

[nctnico]

I'd get a Rigol or Siglent. Although the Tektronix 2200 series are very nice scopes (I used to own a 2230 for many years) they are very old.

[Electronics-Repairman]

With digital storage it can't be that bad, plus I think Tektronix is a good brand although I have a Digital oscilloscope and a 10MHz CRO, I'm still looking for a Tek 2225,for my workshop,mainly because I've always wanted one.

[Noise Floor]

What do you intend to use the scope for?

[polishdude20]

What do you intend to use the scope for?

I'm just beginning electronics although I dabbled in it in highschool. I'm not sure what kind of scope I would need because I'm not sure what I'll be working with! I mean, I don't know any application right now that would use anything past a few mhz but maybe I will in the future.

[nctnico]

In that case I would choose to get a modern digital. These are miles ahead of the older oscilloscopes. It's like choosing between a modern car and a model-T Ford.

[polishdude20]

In that case I would choose to get a modern digital. These are miles ahead of the older oscilloscopes. It's like choosing between a modern car and a model-T Ford.

What about the whole video where Dave says an analog is best for a beginner in terms of learning?

[elliott]

What about the whole video where Dave says an analog is best for a beginner in terms of learning?

They are great for beginners who want to inspect quick repeating signals. If the signal doesn't repeat or is slow, an analog scope isn't going to help you much. There was a way to capture single or slow events with an analog scope, it was done with a Polaroid attachment triggered by the scope.

[nctnico]

What about the whole video where Dave says an analog is best for a beginner in terms of learning?

I can't see how that would be good advice. Maybe less knobs but with less knobs there are also less possibilities like measurements, FFT, saving pictures on a USB stick, etc. Besides that an analog and digital scope both have the same basic settings like horizontal time/division, vertical Volt/division, trigger level and trigger type. They are not different in that respect.

IMHO the only valid reason to start with an analog scope is financial: if you can get one for $30 or so. But that will be an old one with lots of potential problems like bad switches etc. The mainstream manufacturers stopped mass producing analog scopes a long time ago so most you buy are 20 or many more years old. Dwelling in the past is nice but at some point you want a reliable instrument with all the modern bells and whistles. Everything what was good once will get old, obsolete and broken.

[GreyWoolfe]

From nctnico-- Everything what was good once will get old, obsolete and broken

Forget the ocsilloscope, sounds just like me.  SWMBO says she will keep me though because she is tired of breaking in new ones.

[haoleboy]

What about the whole video where Dave says an analog is best for a beginner in terms of learning?

In my beginner experience (not knowing anything about EE or oscilloscopes), I've found some of the options hidden away in menus on my digital scope obfuscates how to properly operate the scope.  It seems that with an analog scope nothing is hidden, but rather has a knob or switch on the front with all the possible options.  For a beginner having all options labeled and out in the open could make learning basic scope use much more intuitive.  Once you learn all those options, you could move with that knowledge to a digital scope and things like AC/DC coupling can be hidden in a menu without becoming "a trap for young players".

That said, I would recommend getting a digital scope first if you can afford that as an option.  I was able to buy my Rigol 1052e from rigolna.com for $180 as a refurbish item and it has been great.  I've been looking at analog scopes for a second learning tool, but I cannot justify the expense and how much space it would take on my bench. 

[miguelvp]

What about the whole video where Dave says an analog is best for a beginner in terms of learning?

Someone that used analog scopes can use digital ones, but not the other way around, setup and calibration is done automagicaly for you on digital scopes but they are tricky on analog ones for the untrained.

Only thing I miss on digital ones is that even simple math functions are quite slow on the lower end digital scopes where analogs just did it realtime for add or add with inverse and that is very useful for probing around without grounds using two probes.

[elliott]

Only thing I miss on digital ones is that even simple math functions are quite slow on the lower end digital scopes where analogs just did it realtime for add or add with inverse and that is very useful for probing around without grounds using two probes.

That is one thing the old Tek hybrid scopes can do well, they do they add/invert in analog. I couldn't imagine how slow it would be if it did it digitally.

[David Hess]

Only thing I miss on digital ones is that even simple math functions are quite slow on the lower end digital scopes where analogs just did it realtime for add or add with inverse and that is very useful for probing around without grounds using two probes.

That is one thing the old Tek hybrid scopes can do well, they do they add/invert in analog. I couldn't imagine how slow it would be if it did it digitally.

Add and invert is not a demanding process so a DSO should be able to do it and keep up with the acquisition rate.  DSOs usually do have a disadvantage here though in dynamic range and overload recovery.  Add and invert is a poor but often workable substitute for a dedicated differential input.

Where it gets interesting is old DSOs which do the add and invert in the analog instead of digital domain.

[miguelvp]

Tried Add with Inverted channel 2 on my DS2072 and it's painfully slow. Using subtract is as slow.
Maybe more expensive DSOs can do it fast enough.

[David Hess]

On my Tektronix 2440, the maximum waveform update rate is about 44 waveforms/second.  Add drops it to 32 waveforms/second and multiply drops it to 22 waveforms/second.  In practice it never drops low enough to be annoying to use.  My other DSOs do the addition on the analog side so their waveform update rates do not change.