I still have a Tek 2465 analog scope, which was the standard we used at work until we transitioned to Yokogawa digital scopes, which stored waveforms with an onboard SCSI floppy drive. I also have a scope hood for a Sony Mavica camera, so I can capture waveforms from the analog scope.
Last edited:
Hi wrenchone,
Yeah, I have 2465B CT. Not impressed compared to other scopes I have. They were a standard, that's for sure. I used a digital camera to take a picture of the screen and settings. Talk about rudimentary, but it gets the job done!
Nice score! What was the model number?
Yeah, I have 2465B CT. Not impressed compared to other scopes I have. They were a standard, that's for sure. I used a digital camera to take a picture of the screen and settings. Talk about rudimentary, but it gets the job done!
Nice score! What was the model number?
The 2465 has a sharper trace than the Tek465 I also own. I don't know what the model number for the LeCroy is yet, as I haven't even shucked it out of its box.
Last edited:
Interesting. My Tek scopes aren't that sharp, the 2235 was better that way. The 2465B CT is not sharp at all, plus the processor is very slow. My Philips scopes, PM3070 and PM3365A have very sharp traces, as does my HP 1722A. This is where the 7613 and 7633 are better too. I'd say the 2465B is easily the worst of that lot. I haven't checked my 465 in a while, but I didn't recall not being happy with the trace.
The best scopes I have for trace sharpness are the Philips oscilloscopes.
The best scopes I have for trace sharpness are the Philips oscilloscopes.
I used the Tek 2465 on my bench for years before we transitioned to Yokogawa digital scopes, and I never had a problem with the sharpness of its trace.
Hi wrenchone,
Yep, you get used to what you are using. I had an HP 54600 on my bench at the cal lab, I got used to it. That was a very early DSO. Grim.
Maybe because I certified many different models of oscilloscopes and other instruments in the cal lab, it was more apparent. Then I use several different ones here at home as well. You pick out your favorites pretty quick. When I had a large service shop, I bought a few different brands and you got to know them well too. It also became clear what features mattered on the service bench, and what was more important in a lab setting.
These days I think manufacturers get it confused in the race to provide whiz-bang features. What is important should be front and center, the toys should be easy to get to.
I'm dying to see how your scope does and what it is. Great find !
Yep, you get used to what you are using. I had an HP 54600 on my bench at the cal lab, I got used to it. That was a very early DSO. Grim.
Maybe because I certified many different models of oscilloscopes and other instruments in the cal lab, it was more apparent. Then I use several different ones here at home as well. You pick out your favorites pretty quick. When I had a large service shop, I bought a few different brands and you got to know them well too. It also became clear what features mattered on the service bench, and what was more important in a lab setting.
These days I think manufacturers get it confused in the race to provide whiz-bang features. What is important should be front and center, the toys should be easy to get to.
I'm dying to see how your scope does and what it is. Great find !
Nice! You'll love it!
I bought a 4263A when they were first introduced. I had to rebuild the power supply (undocumented in the manual) and it's been great since. See if you can find the 16089B Kelvin test leads for it, they also make a test fixture (16047A) that has component connections on it so you can use the 100 KHz frequency, you can't with leads. They sell a similar one (TH26001A - Tonghui Electric) that you can find on AliExpress. I trust the HP jig, and it has axial contacts in addition to the radial contacts.
Learn to compensate the leads / fixture when you turn it on, and after it's been on for a bit. That allows it to read accurately. Series or parallel depending on capacitor type and what may be the greatest importance for that use. Same for inductors and resistors. This holds for all LCR meters.
I bought a 4263A when they were first introduced. I had to rebuild the power supply (undocumented in the manual) and it's been great since. See if you can find the 16089B Kelvin test leads for it, they also make a test fixture (16047A) that has component connections on it so you can use the 100 KHz frequency, you can't with leads. They sell a similar one (TH26001A - Tonghui Electric) that you can find on AliExpress. I trust the HP jig, and it has axial contacts in addition to the radial contacts.
Learn to compensate the leads / fixture when you turn it on, and after it's been on for a bit. That allows it to read accurately. Series or parallel depending on capacitor type and what may be the greatest importance for that use. Same for inductors and resistors. This holds for all LCR meters.
Thanks guys. Yes, I've been looking at the HP/Agilent fixtures. Wow $$$ I am exploring my options 😀
There was a 4263A at the auction as well, and it had a test fixture bundled with it... Now I know why that one went for more overall money.
I have had some grim experiences with early digital scopes, including an HP that had 500 MHz bandwidth but only 32k of memory. I had to consult the user manual to figure out how to do basic things like saving waveforms. HP scopes of that era were notorious for user-unfriendliness. We had a 1 GHz HP scope at my workplace in our early days with only 1k of memory, and it was notoriously cranky and user-unfriendly. Nobody liked to use it.
Hi jordheis,
Just think. I bought all my test fixtures new with the instrument. The 16089B Kelvin test leads alone were $600 back then. Watch and wait for one to come up at a reasonable price. The inexpensive cable sets are only good for very low frequency stuff.
Hi wrenchone,
Agreed! When I was buying a scope, HP had gone all digital and I didn't like the one I test drove back then, bought the Philips PM3070 as that was the best of them, better than the Tek by far. Having to use the 54600 wasn't fun. Later I bought an Agilent 64642D, that is a good MSO, currently using a Keysight MSOX3104T loaded up.
It takes a very expensive digital scope to begin coming close to a decent analogue scope. I still use analogue scopes, for some things they are simply better than the expensive digital option.
Just think. I bought all my test fixtures new with the instrument. The 16089B Kelvin test leads alone were $600 back then. Watch and wait for one to come up at a reasonable price. The inexpensive cable sets are only good for very low frequency stuff.
Hi wrenchone,
Agreed! When I was buying a scope, HP had gone all digital and I didn't like the one I test drove back then, bought the Philips PM3070 as that was the best of them, better than the Tek by far. Having to use the 54600 wasn't fun. Later I bought an Agilent 64642D, that is a good MSO, currently using a Keysight MSOX3104T loaded up.
It takes a very expensive digital scope to begin coming close to a decent analogue scope. I still use analogue scopes, for some things they are simply better than the expensive digital option.
Nice, I used one for years. Do you have the proper leads for it?
I still have a NOS extender cable set 1689-9602-00/B1 that would work with it.
Anatech,
Digital scopes are OK if all you want to do is capture a waveform for documentation purposes. That's probably what I'll be doing with the little 60 MHz LeCroy I nabbed. We have LeCroy scopes that cost as much as a new car in our labs, and a lot of the data that goes into our SMPS evaluation reports is captured on them.
Digital scopes are OK if all you want to do is capture a waveform for documentation purposes. That's probably what I'll be doing with the little 60 MHz LeCroy I nabbed. We have LeCroy scopes that cost as much as a new car in our labs, and a lot of the data that goes into our SMPS evaluation reports is captured on them.
Last edited: