Tektronix 465 or Owon SDS7102 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: vinylb
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 03:32:55 pm
content: Hi there, I was settled on picking up the Owon SDS7102 ($430) and then found a gentleman that is selling Tektronix 465/b/m models with probes, manual that has been tested and calibrated for $200.I am a beginner and plan to dabble around with diy audio projects (amps, preamps and dacs). I know the 465 is 50 years old, has a bigger footprint than Owon and wont have a 3 yearwarranty like the Owon. An extra $230 for piece of mind is expensive but then again if the 465 dies tomorrow, I am out $200 and have a very nice paper weight.Any advice would be appreciatedNeville

author: Axtman
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 04:19:22 pm
content: My advice is get that you can never go wrong with a TEK! Analog scopes are easier to understand than digital scopes. I am still trying to figure out how to use my digital scope. Plus that model of Tektronix is the standard of the industry. Ever wonder why it is still operating 50 and useful years later? I bet the same will not be said about digital scopes. They become obsolete in just a few short years. The 465B has lots of documentation and parts available. Plus if it breaks (doubt that) you can probably sell it for what you paid for it.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 04:46:54 pm
content: I hate to say it but if you can only get one scope go for the DSO (the Owon). It has more functionality.A DSO (a cheap modern one) is far more useful when dealing with things in general.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 05:00:29 pm
content: If you decide to go the DSO route,ditch the Owon & get a Rigol!

author: echen1024
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 06:09:00 pm
content: Honestly, Owon scopes are absolute CRAP! For your $476, just spend a little more and get yourself a Rigol DS1074Z. 4 channels, and more features than you could poke a barge pole at!

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 06:13:27 pm
content: Quote from: vinylb on March 09, 2014, 03:32:55 pmFyi, you will need an extra working scope to fix a broken scope, and also assuming you're not an electronic beginner.The choice is obvious isn't it ?

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 06:34:01 pm
content: I don't know where the OP is located or his circumstances so it's hard to say get another unit. True getting 2 scopes is a good choice but if that was an option I'd say pool the money go for a higher end DSO. Buying from a real store locally (and the Owon) may be the only option for him.

author: vinylb
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 06:58:31 pm
content: I'm in the U.S and the 465 is a local sale so no shipping. I don't have funds to purchase 2 scopes, so one will have to do and I also don't have the skills to troubleshoot the 465 if it fails.The Owon I can purchase from a store in the U.S. They also have the Rigol DS1052e for $329 but if I am not mistaken, the Owon specs are far better than the Rigol 1052e or 1102e - please correct me if I am wrong. I chose the Owon for its price point and features/specs...in fact I was originally looking at the ultra cheap PDS5022T ($240) since I am a beginner and not sure if I will get to use all its functions.If I was to stick to the digital side, what other makes/models will you suggest? Please keep it under $430. 8" screen, dual trace, vga+lan are nice but not critical, 1Gs/s sample and 1M+ record length

author: echen1024
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 07:10:33 pm
content: I would HIGHLY suggest you save up a little more and purchase a Rigol DS1074Z. I have done several videos covering it's features. Part 1 here:

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 07:53:43 pm
content: See if you can talk him down to $150 on the 465. If it hasn't been fully serviced (like caps, whisker-prone parts and other wear items), it will need work sooner or later. But it's still not a terrible price with cal and stuff included.Otherwise yeah, go with a Rigol instead..Tim

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 08:12:25 pm
content: It is always nice to have both, an older analog scope and a modern digital scope.I would definitely start with the Tek 465B, learn it in and out, save some more money over the next few month and when you are ready, buy the next scope, the digital one.Do not get an Owon!I had one of them and sold it faster than I bought it.I thought it was a good buy for a client of mine but it sucked in all aspects.

author: PA4TIM
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 08:15:22 pm
content: As a dissapointed ex-rigol owner andd very happy ex 465 owner I advise to buy the 465. They are well build, easy to repair and still work after the Chinese 3rd Chinese toy scope stops working due to crap capacitors.Ex 465 but it still works, I gave it to a friend, my scopes for regular use are a Tek 547, 7704, 7603 and Hameg DSO.

author: true
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 08:18:21 pm
content: And I am the opposite - my Rigol scopes work well and have been very helpful. I own a 475 and 465. Considering the age of the old scopes, I don't think it would be worthwhile...you'll be dealing with equipment failure, troubleshooting, bad contacts and more.Not sure that's a fair price for a 465B either, depends on condition.

author: IO390
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 08:30:33 pm
content: I would personally go for the 465 for a first scope.My first scope was an Iwatsu analogue scope (5710). I've learned on that and it's really nice and simple. A digital scope has so many features, and don't get me wrong, they are extremely useful. This being said, for quick things where I don't need to analyse a wave in depth, I always use my analogue scope. No waiting for things to refresh, and I find the CRT green wave so much nicer to look at.Personal preference, but I'd go for the Tek.

author: Electro Fan
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 08:55:57 pm
content: The entry price for a reasonable 465 will be less than a decent new Rigol (the previous generation Rigols would be somewhere in the middle).If you can get a 465 in reasonable condition for around $200 you will learn a lot and you will have nailed down a piece of history (there are a lot of such pieces out there but increasingly their numbers will diminish as they fatigue from old age and you will always be very happy to have experienced a vintage Tek scope while it works well). Additionally, once you have worked with a vintage Tek scope you will have it as a frame of reference and when people start telling you about why you need an analog scope you will be able to say "Been there, done that, I get it, I appreciate the Tek, etc, etc.".Once you have lived with a vintage Tek scope you will recognize their many wonderful attributes and you will also become clear about the limitations of analog scopes. So, when you finally move to a DSO you will go "Wow, I see why the world is moving in this direction." At which point you will be able to move forward with a Rigol DS1000Z series, or possibly a DS2000 or DS4000 series.My guess is that you will be happy to have the Tek in addition to a Rigol DSO, but there is some chance that once you get the DSO you might find yourself using the Tek less; if it is a lot less then you can sell the Tek.Worst case, you spend about $200 now on a 465 and then maybe this summer you go for what is rumored to be the new Rigol MSO1000Z with serial decoders which will also supposedly have an entry level logic analyzer built-in. You will be set for a while with scopes and ready to move on to other categories of test equipment.The price performance of DSOs will only improve over time so waiting will only bring you better choices and more value. At the same time if you really want to sell your Tek you will probably be able to recover some of the cost.Mostly, for $200 you owe it to yourself to see if you can live with an analog Tek scope. After you have learned what an analog Tek scope is all about you can move forward with a DSO with confidence and never have to look back.Just some thoughts....PS, if your name is a reference to vinyl as in LPs and hifi, etc. then you will find that the Tek scope is somewhat analogous to LPs, turntables and cartridges, tube preamps and amps, etc. and the DSO is somewhat along the lines of CD players, DACs, etc. In order to fully appreciate the full history, evolution, and overall genre of "hifi, stereo, etc" you probably should listen to some systems that have turntables and tube preamps and amps in addition to systems with CDs and solid state electronics. Reading about it is one thing, hearing it is another. Same with scopes, it's worth owning or at least using a vintage Tek analog scope before moving to a DSO simply for the experience. Personally, for hifi I prefer tube electronics and LPs (over digital) but for oscilloscopes I prefer DSOs (but I still love my Tek scope). YMMV

author: GreyWoolfe
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 10:54:24 pm
content: I own both types, a Tek 2235, a Hantek DSO5102B that is hacked to 200 MHz and a BK precision 5100 combiscope. Get the 465B first. Have fun, learn all about then save up, get a DSO and keep the Tek. I mostly use my Tek for my octopus circuit tester and the Hantek for general use, switching off with the BK to keep it used and in good shape. It is always nice to have the choice.

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 09, 2014, 11:54:15 pm
content: Like I said if you are only going to have one scope get a DSO. If you need or think you need deep memory then the Owon is probably what you want. It's not a great scope but does have a long warranty.The Owon has been Walmarted it's really cheap (both in construction materials and software).It's not like you are spending 30,000.00 on a scope to find that in five years it worth 10 times less. You can buy a cheap DSO, use it and sell it in a couple years for a couple hundred bucks. Not really a big loss.There is nothing wrong with buying a cheap scope, but please don't buy a nano.

author: JuiceKing
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 10, 2014, 12:10:54 am
content: The analog scope will give you more of an intuition for analog electronics. But the measurement and storage features of a DSO are also really helpful. A used Rigol 1052 plus the 465b could be a good balanced combo that will cover your needs for a long time.

author: AndrejaKo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 10, 2014, 12:17:31 am
content: I myself currently use an SDS7102 and I'm not really sure it would work nice for audio uses.The SDS series scopes are noisy, but newer models are a bit better than older ones. They also have a bit of trigger issues with low level signals, so I fear that it could be hard to use because of that. My unit's screen refresh rate drops dramatically when it's set to 10 ms, 20 ms or 50 ms timebase. Setting of 5 ms is bearable, but it feels sluggish until it's set to 2 ms per division or lower. After that, the refresh rate is around 25 Hz for older units and 35 Hz for newer units. Above 100 ms per division, it switches from trigger to scan mode. I mentioned this, because I found it a bit hard to fit sound waveforms onto screen and have it update quickly, the few times I needed to analyze sound.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 10, 2014, 03:50:47 am
content: I did have my "tongue in my cheek" a bit with my answer,as I don't have a DSO,either OwonorRigol.The general consensus on this forum is that Rigol are a better deal,so I was echoing that.Re the 465,it is only in recent years that DSOs that cost less than a small car have approached the versatility,& performance of these 30 year old instruments.Of course,the 465 cost a "king's ransom" when new,too!The very early DSOs had one good point----storage,but they were pretty much unusable in general Electronics work.DSOs have come a long way,with the more expensive (but still cheap by comparison with older stuff) models pretty much matching the functionality of analog,but with very much extended functions in the storage side.All that said,I would still go for the 465 in your situation.

author: PA4TIM
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 10, 2014, 06:47:14 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on March 10, 2014, 03:50:47 amI agree, when I had the Rigol DS1102E I still used my analog Teks 90% of the time. OK, it was nice new and shiny with a colorscreen etc and it should be a good choise according to Dave who then just reviewed the 1052. But the more I used it, the more I started to hate it. And after a year or so, some buttons stopped working and one fell of, so it ended on a shelf until I gave it away to a student.I was very anti-DSO's after that experience. But then I bought a 350 MHz Hameg (about 2 years ago after playing with a 200 MHz (real) agilent at a friends lab). I know it is not a compare because of price but we are talking about tools here, not toys. The Rigol was a very expensive toy (>900 euro back then and a waist of money) , the Hameg is a tool. ( although it was a lot of money, looking at the quality and pleasure of using it, versus money it was cheaper then the Rigol )At this moment I use the Hameg for more than 95% of the time and if I had to choose to keep one scope, it would be the Hameg.

author: vinylb
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: March 10, 2014, 11:04:45 am
content: Electro Fan, yes I am a huge vinyl and tube fan..thanks for analogy.AndrejaKo, thank you for that info, I did read somewhere that they are noisy, but thanks for confirming that.Thank you all for your input and its good to hear from both camps. I am leaning towards the 465 for now. Are there any books/material anybody can recommend for a first timer?Now, IF I was to decide that I should not risk the 465 and I know that Owon is not a brand with much fan fare, but what if I had to get the Rigol 1052e? I know its 5 years old and the newerDSO's are more advanced and feature packed......1052e has a large following and should I get stuck, could get answers or support from forum members.

author: w2aew
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 10, 2014, 02:58:39 pm
content: Quote from: vinylb on March 10, 2014, 11:04:45 amMost of the oscilloscope tutorial and instructional videos on my channel use an analog scope, and many of them feature my 465B. I've got videos on the vertical controls, trigger controls, timebase/horizontal controls, coupling issues, bandwidth issues, probing, XY mode, etc., all on analog scopes like the 465.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 11, 2014, 08:17:08 am
content: The largest advantage of storage oscilloscopes is being able to easily view low repetition rate signals like switching power supply startups. Nothing involving amplifiers, preamplifiers, and DACs is likely to need that so a Tektronix 465 oscilloscope should work fine for you. $200 seems a little steep to me since I have a pair of Tektronix 2230 oscilloscopes which each cost me less than that but if it is in good condition and I did not already have an oscilloscope, I might pay that much. I bought a Tektronix 547 not long ago for $50 locally.Maintaining such an old piece of equipment can be a challenge but you can learn a lot and the 465 series has excellent and detailed service documentation.

author: WattSekunde
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 11, 2014, 09:45:16 am
content: It's a pleasure to work with my old analog/digital Hameg HM1507-3 even on audio ranged signals. I always trust the shown waveform in analog mode. The digital storage feature is nice to have add on for slow things in sec./div. This storage mode prevents me over the last few years buying a cheap digital scope. What I really miss:1.) 4 channel2.) logic analyzer3.) deep sample memory (in comparison to my HM1507-3)I am happy to see that more and more MSOs with integrated logic analyzer features come along these days. I am happy to have the good analog Hameg and can easy wait (and save the money) for the right MSO like Hameg HMO2024. If it has to be cheaper and can't wait until the money is saved maybe the Siglent SDS2000 MSO series are the right ones. But you get what you pay for.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 11, 2014, 05:46:40 pm
content: I do more power supply than audio work these days but feel much the same way about my 2230 combination analog and digital storage oscilloscope although it is in a different performance class than the Hameg 502. There is a digital storage version of the 465, the 468, which is close though.With one exception I have avoided any DSOs which lack peak detection. I even stayed away from the low end Rigol oscilloscopes and instead went with a 2230. I can do without the automatic measurements, long record lengths, and variable persistence but I cannot do without peak detection.I watched the EEVblog teardown of the Hameg 502 and wondered what Dave would think of a Tektronix 2230 or 2232.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 11, 2014, 09:09:39 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on March 11, 2014, 08:17:08 amI've done worse:If you set it to a low sweep rate, moderate trace intensity, NORM trigger, DC level as appropriate for the rising edge, and toggle the power to the device, you can measure the rising/falling transient. Persistence of phosphor and vision is enough to get a gross idea of performance down to 100us/div sweep rates (I think?).A camera on long exposure can even be used for shorter times, and produces hardcopy. (A CCD with digital storage, the ultimate in storage CRT technology!) Here's some examples:I think I did these with 10 second exposures; the circuit (a xenon flash tube discharge transient) was repeating at a few Hz, so it's not truly single trigger.Tim

author: WattSekunde
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 11, 2014, 09:46:16 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on March 11, 2014, 05:46:40 pmThe HM1507 has a 5ns peak detection in DSO mode. ( btw. analog 150MHz but as DSO 200MS/s, 2kByte/channel, measuring update rate 180/s ... unbelievable these days)I've never had my hands on 2230 but it looks impressive like most TEK scopes.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2014, 02:21:19 am
content: Quote from: WattSekunde on March 11, 2014, 09:46:16 pmUnbelievable because of the low waveform acquisition rate? Besides variable persistence, high waveform acquisition rates are the only thing I miss on my old DSOs.The HM1507 specifications look very much like the 2232.QuoteIt is definitely one of the odder combination analog and digital storage oscilloscopes because the hardware and the user interface really straddle both technologies. The ALT and CHOP mode channel switching is done on the analog side for the digitizer separately but in parrallel with the analog channel switching. ALT and CHOP mode affect both just like you would expect with an analog oscilloscope. The 2232 which replaced it operates much more like a modern DSO. The peak detection feature on the 2230 is only good to 100 nanoseconds (10 nanoseconds on the 2232) but it was a major step forward.

author: WattSekunde
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2014, 11:19:50 am
content: Quote from: David Hess on March 12, 2014, 02:21:19 amIn theory the analog trigger circuit could detect down to 4ns (bandwidth 250MHz). The 200MS/s are equivalent to 5ns. It sounds like a theoretical max value for the spec sheet. Inside the manual these value don't come up again. Instead it shrinks down to a more realistic 25ns. I have to investigate that at the bench.Quote from: HAMEG, User-ManualQuoteThe HM1507-3 has for it's time "modern" rotary encoders for all the pots. The range switching works via relays. That gives a more modern feeling especially in the analog mode. The user interface reacts equal in analog or digital mode. As I said it's a pleasure to work with at my home-brew lab. My next investment goes definitely in a 2 or better 3-way PSU.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 12, 2014, 09:00:38 pm
content: Quote from: WattSekunde on March 12, 2014, 11:19:50 amI noticed the same inconsistency in the Hameg manual. Tektronix used to specify glitch detection by percent of value like 85% confidence that 50% of the amplitude of a 2 nanosecond pulse but I do not think that is what is going on here. Later with real time sample rates, this kind of specification became meaningless.I suspect 5 nanoseconds just comes from the sampling gate width at 200 Msamples/second which is constant at slower sample rates where a glitch may or may not be picked up but the actual glitch detect mode operates the digitizer at 40 Msamples/second where a 25 nanosecond glitch will always be picked up at least somewhat. The slower rate could be caused by the additional processing required to compare samples during decimation before storage and 40 MHz would be about right for a discrete logic design from the time it was designed. The 2230 uses discrete logic and only operates at 20 Msamples/second but the 2232 has a custom ASIC (with a heat sink!) and operates at the fastest supported sample rate.In the past I tested this behavior on a 2230 and 2232 and they did indeed always catch glitches of 100 or 10 nanoseconds respectively consistent with their maximum sample rates and only intermittently catch shorter ones. I do not remember the details now but the interactions with ALT and CHOP mode confirmed how they operate.QuoteThe 2230 and 2232 use the old style cam switched attenuator and sweep with a parallel digital readout section but later lower end models in that series as well as the 24xx series use rotary encoders and relays. For a while Tektronix used dual potentiometers on a common shaft rotated with respect to each other to remove the ambiguity and digitized the linear output of both to create high resolution continuous controls. The 2230 and 2232 include one of those for cursor and UI control but later models included many "digital potentiometers". Except for mechanical wear, they perform just as well or better than optical encoders.