I haven't seen anything that bad but it wouldn't surprise me. Gratten/Atten doesn't make anything themselves. They tend to choose the most basement model from manufacturers and sell that. Some of their digital scopes are hantek, others are Siglent (which makes some good and some bad, they chose bad) and some from an unknown maker. Every single one I have encountered was very lackluster. I have never heard of a person picking an Atten scope and being happy with it.
Very true, I think it pretty much only exists for businesses that HAVE to use a new 20MHz analog scope for GMP reasons (which would explain the price). It is WAY over priced for what it is and not at all worth it.
Hi gadut,
The old Tek 465 is a real workhorse and an excellent 'scope. Sometimes the tantalum capacitors fail. Just do them all if that happens. The newer 2235 is another good scope, but the buttons break easily and there is a triac that you need to solder the leads onto the connector. The Philips PM3070 is actually a very good 'scope. Major failure is all the electrolytic caps in the power supply. You get about the sharpest trace with that one. Any HP / Agilent 'scope is excellent. I found and rebuilt an old 1722A from 1974. It's excellent! Any HP scope is well worth grabbing. No so-called trigger problems. The 1741A is the 100 MHz model. The 1722A is about 275 MHz, dual trace. I really like that one, and if my 2465B fails too bad to fix, the 1722A will take it's place.
B&K, Leader are so-so. I would go with a Leader between those two. Hitachi and others are okay.
-Chris
The old Tek 465 is a real workhorse and an excellent 'scope. Sometimes the tantalum capacitors fail. Just do them all if that happens. The newer 2235 is another good scope, but the buttons break easily and there is a triac that you need to solder the leads onto the connector. The Philips PM3070 is actually a very good 'scope. Major failure is all the electrolytic caps in the power supply. You get about the sharpest trace with that one. Any HP / Agilent 'scope is excellent. I found and rebuilt an old 1722A from 1974. It's excellent! Any HP scope is well worth grabbing. No so-called trigger problems. The 1741A is the 100 MHz model. The 1722A is about 275 MHz, dual trace. I really like that one, and if my 2465B fails too bad to fix, the 1722A will take it's place.
B&K, Leader are so-so. I would go with a Leader between those two. Hitachi and others are okay.
-Chris
Hi Chris
thank you for your advice, i'm still asking the seller for which item that he has. my budget is limited to $100, because at this point i have no idea what will be tested, so no fancy tools yet. I just want to learn to use a scope for my audio build, which is curently working fine. no hum and no noise at all, but i think that looking at sinewave on scope will be cool
ebay price is so interesting, but shipping and customs fee will be higher that scope price.
btw, as i only have used dmm for my build, can you guys advice me what exactly the benefit of having a scope? what kind of testing that will be done? I have no plan to be a service man
thank you for your advice, i'm still asking the seller for which item that he has. my budget is limited to $100, because at this point i have no idea what will be tested, so no fancy tools yet. I just want to learn to use a scope for my audio build, which is curently working fine. no hum and no noise at all, but i think that looking at sinewave on scope will be cool
ebay price is so interesting, but shipping and customs fee will be higher that scope price.
btw, as i only have used dmm for my build, can you guys advice me what exactly the benefit of having a scope? what kind of testing that will be done? I have no plan to be a service man
Modern scopes also serve as spectrum/distortion analyzers, by virtue of FFT math, but analog scopes still have a lot to offer. Gross distortion is easily visible on sinewaves, and waveshape often suggests the cause. For instance, a sawtooth shape suggests slew rate limiting. Given adequate bandwidth, e.g. 100MHz or so, parasitic oscillation is reliably revealed. Amplifier stability, risetime, and phase/frequency response flatness can all be evaluated by squarewave analysis. Tone burst analysis is a great way to expose grid blocking, bias shift, and power supply rejection/regulation problems. Power supply noise issues can often be classified as to root cause by examination of waveshape and frequency. All of this stuff has a huge impact on your ability to make a good amplifier.
Digital scopes with math/measurement functions can indeed display RMS values, and should exceed 'true RMS' DMM accuracy when the crest factor is more than about 3.
As for recommendations, I'm sure I speak for many fellow old-timers when I say that there's only one scope worthy of the name: Tektronix. I just bought another one -- probably my last. I see that it was made in China, but it reeks of quality just as much as the first Tek scope I bought back in the seventies. And that old analog 475 still does standby duty in my shop.
While I'm pontificating, one more point: Scopes let you visualize unseen and misunderstood electrical phenomena in a way that makes them much more than a measurement instrument. Don't cripple yourself by getting a cheap one that's confusing to operate. You could learn a lot by just fooling around -- if it's not painful.
Have you ever used a current modern digital scope besides a Tektronics?
Hi gadut,
Do what you can. $100 isn't a lot, so look at other places away from Ebay. I never had good fortune on Ebay with equipment. Assume it's all broken before you bid.
Try tech schools that might be upgrading their 'scopes. They may be able to help you. Same for service shops.
Why have an oscilloscope? Aside from the voltmeter, it is the next most handy instrument to have. It can give you rough voltages (the newer digital 'scopes are much better in that regard). It is very important to know exactly what your voltmeter is measuring. Otherwise you could be measuring a slightly DC voltage that is really almost pulsating DC, but at the expected voltage. I have two oscilloscopes on my bench. An older analog 'scope, and a less old Agilent DSO. If having an oscilloscope wasn't so darned important, I wouldn't have two 'scopes on my bench!
An oscilloscope is knowledge. You really are blind without one.
-Chris
Do what you can. $100 isn't a lot, so look at other places away from Ebay. I never had good fortune on Ebay with equipment. Assume it's all broken before you bid.
Try tech schools that might be upgrading their 'scopes. They may be able to help you. Same for service shops.
Why have an oscilloscope? Aside from the voltmeter, it is the next most handy instrument to have. It can give you rough voltages (the newer digital 'scopes are much better in that regard). It is very important to know exactly what your voltmeter is measuring. Otherwise you could be measuring a slightly DC voltage that is really almost pulsating DC, but at the expected voltage. I have two oscilloscopes on my bench. An older analog 'scope, and a less old Agilent DSO. If having an oscilloscope wasn't so darned important, I wouldn't have two 'scopes on my bench!
An oscilloscope is knowledge. You really are blind without one.
-Chris
+1 My last analog scope was a 20 MHz Hethkit that had 1/mv sensitivity which was a big thing when I bought it. Scopes tend to be havily used with 10x probes (20 dB loss) so the extra gain can help
+1
I was an IBM mainframe tech when the standard scope was a Tek 463, which was 100-150 MHz if memory serves. Very smooth and nice.
Depends on the highest frequency that you want to generate. For a 20 KHz top, a Behringer UCA 202 @$30 can work. The onboard audio interface may do up to 96 KHz analog in and out. You also get an ADC which with freeware can give you pretty much a super-functiional 'scope.
The problem with audio interfaces versus dedicated test gear is things like protection and signal levels.
Its all about costs, benefits and availability.
Hi Arny,
-Chris
We'll disagree on that one. I say, never fight your test equipment. Even with the newest 'scopes, manufacturers (okay, Keysight) understands that engineers and techs just want to reach out and twist a knob. Even though touch screens are very handy, most of us will go for the knob. (no, not the one sitting beside you!)
-Chris
Matt,
You amy want to take a look at a youtube series on "Scopology 101"
Yes, you will find many folks talking about the Rigol DS1054Z
Hope this helps out!
Rick
One more vote, for finding a working analog scope. I too have been eyeballing the Rigol scopes for some time, specifically the 1054Z and 1074Z. But for the life of me, I can't seem to find a good reason, outside of the smaller foot print, to stop using my 30 year old, 15 mHz Leader scope. Not the best scope, not the biggest screen, but it does exactly what it's supposed to, every single time.
If it ever fails - it would probably still be a tough decision, to lay down $400 or more, for a newer scope, that I just don't need, for audio work.
If it ever fails - it would probably still be a tough decision, to lay down $400 or more, for a newer scope, that I just don't need, for audio work.
Have you ever used a current modern digital scope besides a Tektronics?
Yup. LeCroy and Agilent. My stated preference for Tek was tongue-in-cheek, but that sort of thing doesn't always come across clearly in writing. On a serious note, I do recognize that underdogs in the test equipment business feel compelled to one-up the established players in order to grab market share, and they sometimes deliver meaningful advantages. Buyers have to balance headline specs against operational smoothness, reliability, and resale value, which is difficult for first-timers.
Hi cihtog,
You absolutely do need a scope for audio work. Also for looking at serial data and changes in control lines. Meters can look after steady state values, low frequency ones. But without knowing what your meter is trying to measure, I just don't know. Your meter is probably doing it's best, but is still telling you lies.
On the costs of 'scopes. It wasn't so long ago that $400 would only ever buy you a rough used scope with no specs to speak of. These days, the original "data acquisition system", now called a DSO cost a nasty fortune. I have one called a "Norland Prowler", and it still works! It is amazing to see what the start of what is now a digital oscilloscope. It's beginnings looked very different to what they are now. And they were even made to work as close to an oscilloscope as possible. This thing takes up a lot of bench space and roars into life very proudly. There is no mistaking that the old peak bleeding edge of technology was booting up.
I get that $400 is a lot of money, it is. But, what you get for that money today is so much more than it used to buy when it was a great deal more valuable. What is $400 in 1982 dollars worth today? It wouldn't buy a 20 MHz dual trace scope back then. Yet, we were all forced to have oscilloscopes to do the work in "just analogue". I had to outfit all of our technicians with their own scope to use, and I was in my early 20's then. Very quickly the requirements changed from "just an analogue oscilloscope" to do work in the audio business to a minimum 2 channel, 35 MHz (to get to 0.5 uS / div) oscilloscope. The minimum equipment continued to increase until you needed a 100 MHz dual trace 'scope somewhere in the shop, plus the other scopes with that vertical speed of 0.5 uS / div, and a good THD meter (below 0.05% residual) and generator capable of the same performance, then the CD jitter meter, frequency counters and pulse generators. On and on with specialized equipment - just for audio.
Even though you aren't doing warranty work, you still need an oscilloscope to work on audio equipment.
I'm not trying to pick on you here, but for the benefit of all newcomers, at some point before you start troubleshooting something that is just audio, you're going to need an oscilloscope. No, sound cards won't cut it either, although they bring some nice features to the table.
Most people spend far more on whatever hobby they are in to. $400 isn't really a lot of money at the end of the day. My first 'scope for audio work cost me $800 and something, plus tax. The Rigol is better in every way, for 1/2 of the dollars (diluted dollars now).
-Chris
So, are you saying that you don't use your 'scope?
You absolutely do need a scope for audio work. Also for looking at serial data and changes in control lines. Meters can look after steady state values, low frequency ones. But without knowing what your meter is trying to measure, I just don't know. Your meter is probably doing it's best, but is still telling you lies.
On the costs of 'scopes. It wasn't so long ago that $400 would only ever buy you a rough used scope with no specs to speak of. These days, the original "data acquisition system", now called a DSO cost a nasty fortune. I have one called a "Norland Prowler", and it still works! It is amazing to see what the start of what is now a digital oscilloscope. It's beginnings looked very different to what they are now. And they were even made to work as close to an oscilloscope as possible. This thing takes up a lot of bench space and roars into life very proudly. There is no mistaking that the old peak bleeding edge of technology was booting up.
I get that $400 is a lot of money, it is. But, what you get for that money today is so much more than it used to buy when it was a great deal more valuable. What is $400 in 1982 dollars worth today? It wouldn't buy a 20 MHz dual trace scope back then. Yet, we were all forced to have oscilloscopes to do the work in "just analogue". I had to outfit all of our technicians with their own scope to use, and I was in my early 20's then. Very quickly the requirements changed from "just an analogue oscilloscope" to do work in the audio business to a minimum 2 channel, 35 MHz (to get to 0.5 uS / div) oscilloscope. The minimum equipment continued to increase until you needed a 100 MHz dual trace 'scope somewhere in the shop, plus the other scopes with that vertical speed of 0.5 uS / div, and a good THD meter (below 0.05% residual) and generator capable of the same performance, then the CD jitter meter, frequency counters and pulse generators. On and on with specialized equipment - just for audio.
Even though you aren't doing warranty work, you still need an oscilloscope to work on audio equipment.
I'm not trying to pick on you here, but for the benefit of all newcomers, at some point before you start troubleshooting something that is just audio, you're going to need an oscilloscope. No, sound cards won't cut it either, although they bring some nice features to the table.
Most people spend far more on whatever hobby they are in to. $400 isn't really a lot of money at the end of the day. My first 'scope for audio work cost me $800 and something, plus tax. The Rigol is better in every way, for 1/2 of the dollars (diluted dollars now).
-Chris
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.