Test Equipment Anonymous (TEA) group therapy thread

[Robert763]

Hmm, just bought a seaward PAT tester on ebay. A 2000i for £8.20 INCLUDING shipping.
I only want the flash test lead which is missing from my Supernova. It's parts or not working, but typically it probably is working when I don't care.

Faulty leads was the reason a new machine got purchased at work years ago, the guy from maintenance tried the new lead with the old machine, which then worked fine), then saw £££ signs and bought the old machine as scrap to resell on ePay, this is one reason why it's hard to obtain redundant/defective TE now (certain managers were very unhappy about the reselling).  The 2000i must be quite an old one, as there was one in the junk room at work, last time I looked.

David

I already have a 2000i which is quite old but clearly was never used. It's a very capable unit but the user interface is a bit clunky, not helped by a 2 line display IIRC I paid £20 for that one.
The £8.20 tester has been marked a shipped. Carrier is UPS so I assume they are using an account They seem to mostly sell knitting machines. Interestingly that has a slight TE connection, the hooked needles and side bar make them great tools for hooking under component leads when lifting one end for testing.

[Squarewave]

If you could pick between the Tek TDS320 and the HP 54602B which would you go for and why? I've been lusting over a digitising CRT scope for a while....

I am curious of others members input aswell, I seem to always be tossing between of buying a cheap new scope for a few $$ ( Hantek 2C10, $199) or go for one of these well known CRT scopes. ( usually around the same price.)

I just missed a Agilent 54622D, with some minor issues. It went for best offer(Damm!)

Another variant I am curious of the TDS410, seems very similar to TDS310.

If I get one, I'll have another one to add to having too many. I have already, three analogue CRT scopes, plus a TDS2014.

[capt bullshot]

If you could pick between the Tek TDS320 and the HP 54602B which would you go for and why? I've been lusting over a digitising CRT scope for a while....

I am curious of others members input aswell, I seem to always be tossing between of buying a cheap new scope for a few $$ ( Hantek 2C10, $199) or go for one of these well known CRT scopes. ( usually around the same price.)

I just missed a Agilent 54622D, with some minor issues. It went for best offer(Damm!)

Another variant I am curious of the TDS410, seems very similar to TDS310.

Those TDS4xx and TDS3xx both are rather outdated scopes, all half decent modern ones run circles around them. I'd stay away from anything "lower" in reputation than Rigol or Siglent. You often get good looking specs at horrible usability, or some bug-ridden firmware. Have no personal experience with the 54622D, but it apparently it's a good scope for its vintage.

TDS3xx and TDS4xx look similar from outside, but are different beasts inside. IIRC, TDS4xx can offer "large" (in back in the days measurement units) memory depth at "meh" sampling rage (100MSPS, but can do ETS for repetitive waveforms), while TDS3xx have small memory at reasonable (for their bandwidth) sample rates (single shot, no ETS). You'd probably prefer a TDS2xx over a TDS3xx since it's smaller, lightweight and really easy to use. All of them are rather poor scopes in todays measures.

[Squarewave]

They are outdated, yes, but that's always a part of the appeal with some of this gear for non professional use.

[Vince]

I think we are drifting a bit here 

The OP never asked if he should get a modern scope instead, to the contrary he clearly said he liked CRT scopes and was asking about two particular old models, not anything else...

Having both a TDS3XX and an HP 546XX, my answer would be.... get both of course ! Well OK, IIRC someone already replied that.... 

I would not want to get rid of either of them, I like them both for what they are...

[factory]

I'm probably too biased, having used the Tek TDS210 & TDS 2012 at work, I'm not a fan of either, I found the menu system & lack of dedicated controls very frustrating to use, I much preferred the Yokogawa DL1520 and ended up buying one for my home lab.

Can't say much about the Tek TDS320 & HP 54602B, as I've never used them. My 54615B has issues that need repair, before I can put it into regular use, I wouldn't recommend that model, as it doesn't have the Megazoom functionality.

David

[capt bullshot]

I think we are drifting a bit here 

The OP never asked if he should get a modern scope instead, to the contrary he clearly said he liked CRT scopes and was asking about two particular old models, not anything else...

Having both a TDS3XX and an HP 546XX, my answer would be.... get both of course ! Well OK, IIRC someone already replied that.... 

I would not want to get rid of either of them, I like them both for what they are...

Yes, fully agree. If you're into this "old stuff", you have to acquire all models of interest to see their strengths and weaknesses. The you'll know which of them is best suited for what task. It's really interesting to explore the differences between various series and models within the series, not yet speaking of general differences between the brand names. So of course I'd recommend to get at least one scope of each vintage series oscilloscopes.
Otherwise, If you just want a workhorse for daily usage, bite the bullet and get a non low-end modern one from a reputable brand.

[capt bullshot]

I'm probably too biased, having used the Tek TDS210 & TDS 2012 at work, I'm not a fan of either, I found the menu system & lack of dedicated controls very frustrating to use, I much preferred the Yokogawa DL1520 and ended up buying one for my home lab.

I own a TDS220 and TDS2024, and had access to Yokogawa scopes. IMO, especially these Tek models are way easier to use then any Yokogawa scope, I find their way of designing an user interface rather odd and non-intuitive.

[Vince]

OK I Googled the specs for the TDS320 and HP54602B...

They are quite different even on basic specs, so which one to chose depends on what spec is most important to the OP :

TDS320 is 2 channels but 500MS/s (100MHz BW), which is very good compared to the HP at 150MHz BW but only 20MS/s ! I thought at first it must be typo in the datasheet but....
However, the HP is a FOUR channel scope ! OK not four "real" channels, just a 2+2.. but still. Also the HP is more sensitive : 1mV / DIV vs 2mV for the Tek.

Also the TDS3XX tend to have more I/O at the back than the 546XX scopes. The TDS probably has GPIB and serial already in it, and with some luck VGA and // port as well.

So if it were me I would get the TDS320 unless I absolutely needed a 2+2 and could do with a pathetic sampling rate --> say you work only on audio stuff or slow signals like bio sources or mechanical or geophysical processes or what not.

[factory]

I'm probably too biased, having used the Tek TDS210 & TDS 2012 at work, I'm not a fan of either, I found the menu system & lack of dedicated controls very frustrating to use, I much preferred the Yokogawa DL1520 and ended up buying one for my home lab.

I own a TDS220 and TDS2024, and had access to Yokogawa scopes. IMO, especially these Tek models are way easier to use then any Yokogawa scope, I find their way of designing an user interface rather odd and non-intuitive.

That my opinion, I guess it's all down to what you prefer, maybe Squarewave should look for both (assuming they can be found at sensible prices) and try them out to decide, then keep the one he prefers.

David

[capt bullshot]

OK I Googled the specs for the TDS320 and HP54602B...
...

The 54602 is a thing that I wouldn't touch with a barge pole ... IMO it's been a poor scope back in the days in comparison with similar vintage Tek ones.
The 54622 is a totally different beast, way ahead of any Tek from that day (as far as I can see from various sources, I don't have any experience on my own with these HP models).

[Squarewave]

OK I Googled the specs for the TDS320 and HP54602B...

They are quite different even on basic specs, so which one to chose depends on what spec is most important to the OP :

TDS320 is 2 channels but 500MS/s (100MHz BW), which is very good compared to the HP at 150MHz BW but only 20MS/s ! I thought at first it must be typo in the datasheet but....
However, the HP is a FOUR channel scope ! OK not four "real" channels, just a 2+2.. but still. Also the HP is more snesitive : 1mV / DIV vs 2mV for the Tek.

Also the TDS3XX tend to have more I/O at the back than the 546XX scopes. The TDS probably has GPIB and serial already in it, and with some luck VGA and // port.

So if it were me I would get the TDS320 unless I absolutely needed a 2+2 and could do with a pathetic sampling rate --> say you work only on audio stuff or slow signals like bio sources or mechanical or geophysical processes or what not.

I could have, or should have added, to disregard the basic specs of BW and channels. But yes, 20ms would seem slow, certainly compared to my 1Gs Tek.

Seeing Yokogawa mentioned above, I've never seen one of their 'normal' scopes, but one place I used to work, we had some DL750's and a DL850, which was very useful for what we did, but took some time setting up for what we wanted to do.

[Vince]

OK I Googled the specs for the TDS320 and HP54602B...

They are quite different even on basic specs, so which one to chose depends on what spec is most important to the OP :

TDS320 is 2 channels but 500MS/s (100MHz BW), which is very good compared to the HP at 150MHz BW but only 20MS/s ! I thought at first it must be typo in the datasheet but....
However, the HP is a FOUR channel scope ! OK not four "real" channels, just a 2+2.. but still. Also the HP is more snesitive : 1mV / DIV vs 2mV for the Tek.

Also the TDS3XX tend to have more I/O at the back than the 546XX scopes. The TDS probably has GPIB and serial already in it, and with some luck VGA and // port.

So if it were me I would get the TDS320 unless I absolutely needed a 2+2 and could do with a pathetic sampling rate --> say you work only on audio stuff or slow signals like bio sources or mechanical or geophysical processes or what not.

I could have, or should have added, to disregard the basic specs of BW and channels. But yes, 20ms would seem slow, certainly compared to my 1Gs Tek.

Oh !  Well in this case the TDS320 is a no brainer, go for it...

[capt bullshot]

I could have, or should have added, to disregard the basic specs of BW and channels. But yes, 20ms would seem slow, certainly compared to my 1Gs Tek.

In my understanding and knowledge of ISO units and modifiers, 20 milliseconds is at least a way shorter interval than one Gigasecond.

[factory]

The Yokogawa scopes aren't exactly common in the UK, both the one at work & mine have worse CRT burn, than the HP 54615B.
Plus serviceability of the DL1520/40 might be a problem, AFAIK there are no manuals with circuit diagrams and it's quite crammed inside. On the plus side, the dead battery in the one at work never stopped it from working, it was only needed for the time/date & saved setups.
 
David

[Squarewave]

I could have, or should have added, to disregard the basic specs of BW and channels. But yes, 20ms would seem slow, certainly compared to my 1Gs Tek.

In my understanding and knowledge of ISO units and modifiers, 20 milliseconds is at least a way shorter interval than one Gigasecond.

Ok low then 

So the HP would be fine for analogue stuff, radio stuff.....so my home lab would probably be ok with it.

[tautech]

I could have, or should have added, to disregard the basic specs of BW and channels. But yes, 20ms would seem slow, certainly compared to my 1Gs Tek.

In my understanding and knowledge of ISO units and modifiers, 20 milliseconds is at least a way shorter interval than one Gigasecond.

 
Isn't it surprising how often how often multipliers are incorrectly used here in an engineers forum.
I've had my arse kicked too for this.   

[Squarewave]

Yes, I suppose people are more used to 20ms meaning milliseconds, rather than million samples per second, 20ms/s when it's not an engineery scopey person.

[tautech]

Yes, I suppose people are more used to 20ms meaning milliseconds, rather than million samples per second, 20ms/s when it's not an engineery scopey person.

It's no problem if you state the spec correctly where for your Tek it's 1GSa/s.
Minus the full stop of course. 

[Squarewave]

Yes, I suppose people are more used to 20ms meaning milliseconds, rather than million samples per second, 20ms/s when it's not an engineery scopey person.

It's no problem if you state the spec correctly where for your Tek it's 1GSa/s.

It shouldn't be a problem at all normally, with respect, to those au fait with scopes, but point taken.

[capt bullshot]

Yes, I suppose people are more used to 20ms meaning milliseconds, rather than million samples per second, 20ms/s when it's not an engineery scopey person.

20ms/s would mean something like a 20 millisecond interval per second to me. As in: your scope can acquire one 20ms interval per second, the rest (980ms) just passes by. Or, if you do the math and numbers, the correct answer just a plain 0.02.

[capt bullshot]

Yes, I suppose people are more used to 20ms meaning milliseconds, rather than million samples per second, 20ms/s when it's not an engineery scopey person.

It's no problem if you state the spec correctly where for your Tek it's 1GSa/s.

It shouldn't be a problem at all normally, with respect, to those au fait with scopes, but point taken.

Messing with units and modifiers is a serious issue to someone familiar with scopes and many other kinds of measurement instruments.

BTW: please excuse my inaccurate usage of the word "scope". Of course I know what a scope is:


(picture stolen from the internet)

[Squarewave]

We'll see what turns up over the next few weekends, there's plenty of events on, opportunities....Though the TDS3xx are quite a bit bigger, in depth. For a CRT scope that HP series is quite a nice smaller size in that dimension.

[Neomys Sapiens]

They are outdated, yes, but that's always a part of the appeal with some of this gear for non professional use.

Not only. While I totally love to work with my (still fresh) TDS5104, I am wondering whether I should keep an as-modern-as-possible non-Windows Tek around..

[Squarewave]

They are outdated, yes, but that's always a part of the appeal with some of this gear for non professional use.

Not only. While I totally love to work with my (still fresh) TDS5104, I am wondering whether I should keep an as-modern-as-possible non-Windows Tek around..

Always worth while, certainly. There's always some scope for keeping spare equipment....