I know in forums like these where many people know Tek from the old days and have fond memories of its great scopes the natural thing for many is to look for Tek when thinking about buying a digital scope, but this is a great example why past experience doesn't necessarily extrapolate to the present.

I agree with all you had to say.

In the "old days" you "could" fix things. Repairs were 1/2 the cost of the instrument sometimes if you sent it back. A $200 minimum order mad parts difficult to get. The "old stuff" required maintenance.

In my case the "institutional buys" were tied to contracts, so it was difficult to get general purpose stuff.

Fluke, Tek and Keithley (now Tek) are totally different animals.

I'm amazed that the old Tek is still alive in a sense that the retired employees are supporting the old instruments and that Tek essentially took steps to allow the community to support the old products.

There were apparently problems with many designs: e.g. capacitor failures, the U800 IC issue, Dallas RAMS not socketed.
People have made U800 replacements (very close anyway) and they have re-designed the entire internals for a sampling head.

HP is now so throw-away and the quality is lacking.

 

In the "old days" you "could" fix things. Repairs were 1/2 the cost of the instrument sometimes if you sent it back. A $200 minimum order mad parts difficult to get. The "old stuff" required maintenance.

Indeed. The only thing that hasn't changed though is that even today repairs can easily exceed half the cost of the instrument, and all the big brands gouge their customers on even cheap spare parts like plastic feet.

In my case the "institutional buys" were tied to contracts, so it was difficult to get general purpose stuff.

That's unfortunate. i know these single supplier contracts, which are common in many government projects (although it seems that the budgeting departments are slowly learning). Education is often the same, when many Profs and tutors were still working in the industry Tek was still the best vendor for scopes, and later when teaching they are usually so detached from what's going on in the market so they'll continue to buy Tek.

Fluke, Tek and Keithley (now Tek) are totally different animals.

How true. I had little exposure to Keithley but folks familiar with their gear tell me it went downhill pretty much like Tek itself.

I'm amazed that the old Tek is still alive in a sense that the retired employees are supporting the old instruments and that Tek essentially took steps to allow the community to support the old products.

Well, there's not really a lot Tek could do to prevent former employees to help collectors and fans to fix old scopes, and being supportive is an inexpensive way to improve the brand image.

LeCroy does something similar, i.e. some of its employees participate in the Yahoo LeCroy user group which deals with older LeCroy scopes, they often release the service manuals and schematics for scopes that are no longer supported (which with LeCroy is 7 years after end of production), and even provided the GAL images to enable all software options on 9300 Series and LC Series scopes for free.

Keysight is a bit more cautious but I know that at least one official employee participates in another forum and tries to help people to fix older gear.

There were apparently problems with many designs: e.g. capacitor failures, the U800 IC issue, Dallas RAMS not socketed.
People have made U800 replacements (very close anyway) and they have re-designed the entire internals for a sampling head.

Yes, unobtainiums like the U800 are a big problem. Another one is plastics parts, i.e. parts of the housing, front panel or back plate, and inside mechanical switches. After all these years plastics tend to go brittle and break, and if you manage to find a replacement then it's often in no better condition. But I guess the constantly improving print quality of 3D printers helps to alleviate the problem to some extend.

HP is now so throw-away and the quality is lacking.

I can't complain about Keysight, really. Of course the obvious robustness and over-engineering that was common in the old HP days are gone, but in general the quality is still there, with some exceptions (like the U1253B DMM with dying OLED displays). Its kit, while often not being the best, is still top-notch.

The real shame is that Keysight, like others, has started to gouge users by charging for software that used to be included or available for free in the past. And it's not that the instruments itself are exactly cheap.

 

Remember we now have Keysight (instruments); Agilent (gas chromatographs) and HP (printers, computers, switches) all split from HP.
HP absorbed Compaq which ended up a disaster.
Actually, I think, HP divested into Allegro which is now Broadcom (double Yuk!)

HP stayed because it was a well known brand for printers. These are acting independently as opposed to the "gobble gobble" in the IC industry.

Familiar ones are: Analog Devices (Precision Monolithics, Linear Technology)
These mergers turned out to be good. The sharing of technology made better products.

TI with (burr-Brown, National Semiconductor)
I don;t have the same feeling with these.

I have a recent, relatively expensive handheld LCR meter from Keysight. At work I used a very nice ancient one that had to be replaced. It was not an economical replacement because we could not afford what we really needed. We had to test under bias on an active device - a solar cell.
Not something easy to accomplish.

Their handheld DVM's seem to have fantastic features. In some respects beating Fluke.

Fluke networks really annoys me that I can't get a simple battery door for http://www.flukenetworks.com/datacom-cabling/copper-testing/IntelliTone-Pro-Toner-and-Probe without servicing the instrument at like $125.00 or so.

 

If you are an amateur dabbler, then by all means go the cheapest route. If you are doing serious product development work or research there is no substitute for capable instrumentation. When I was young, and had limited means, I did as you suggest and very quickly bumped up against the limitations of low cost equipment. My solution was to get a bank loan to buy my Tektronics #2236 in 1981 (~ $2500.00). I never regretted that decision.

S/H top gear is worth having if you can get it, but it doesn't stay calibrated forever no matter how well previous owners looked after it.

Cheap gear usually isn't worth the expense of periodic calibration, so you really have to weigh up how cheap you want to go against the cost of replacing it often.

Selecting the right instrument for the job goes some way to making ageing less of an issue.

 

Remember we now have Keysight (instruments); Agilent (gas chromatographs) and HP (printers, computers, switches) all split from HP.

You forgot HPE (servers, networking, enterprise software) which was spun off from HP a while ago.

HP absorbed Compaq which ended up a disaster.
Actually, I think, HP divested into Allegro which is now Broadcom (double Yuk!)

HP stayed because it was a well known brand for printers. These are acting independently as opposed to the "gobble gobble" in the IC industry.

Well, HP is a bit more than printers, they also supply business PCs and laptops as well as workstations, and have a presence in the consumer space (which is mostly poor unfortunately) as well. And HP's business gear is generally really good.

I remember the Compaq merger, the main problem for us was that this meant that HP's own line of servers (NetServer) were replaced by Compaq ProLiant, which back then often had some annoying quirks.

Familiar ones are: Analog Devices (Precision Monolithics, Linear Technology)
These mergers turned out to be good. The sharing of technology made better products.

TI with (burr-Brown, National Semiconductor)
I don;t have the same feeling with these.

I agree.

I have a recent, relatively expensive handheld LCR meter from Keysight. At work I used a very nice ancient one that had to be replaced. It was not an economical replacement because we could not afford what we really needed. We had to test under bias on an active device - a solar cell.
Not something easy to accomplish.

True. Unfortunately too often there's a conflict between needs and budget.

Their handheld DVM's seem to have fantastic features. In some respects beating Fluke.

We mostly buy Keysight DMMs, but also Fluke and MetraHit. The Keysight meters are good and mostly reliable, even the older ones made by Escort(?). The most durable ones seem to be the MetraHit, but they really cost an arm and a leg.

Fluke networks really annoys me that I can't get a simple battery door for http://www.flukenetworks.com/datacom-cabling/copper-testing/IntelliTone-Pro-Toner-and-Probe without servicing the instrument at like $125.00 or so.

Yes, they're really milking it. Which unfortunately most of the big brands do.

 

In my opinion you get what you pay for. Would rather spend more and purchase a quality tool that I can use without or minimal issues then something cheap and spend time getting it to work the way I want it (assuming its even possible). Always consider your time and opportunity cost.

 

I feel like quality and price relate like a MOSFET. In general, you must put forward a certain voltage (price) to not have it operate in the ohmic (poor quality) region. Then unless you want high frequencies or operate it close to the max power, you will not need to much more voltage or current at the gate. But if you want very optimal performance, even in less demanding situations, you will still need a driver.

 

Wow this has been an interesting discussion. I haven't voted.

I like the old scopes for mostly one reason - nostalgia. I admit it. I like the smell, I like the razor this traces, I like the sounds, I like the knobs, I like the performance, I like the repairability. However, I would not buy a Tek 547 (the Jim Williams model*) brand new for any reason. Do I have one? Of course, but I don't use it for any serious work. I guess if I really needed a very small noise floor or to trigger on a very low level signal, something DSO's still don't do well, I could do that with the 547. It should be pointed out that the noise floor problem could be solved with a better ADC, but even the high-end scopes I've used appear to have a 8bit ADC with ~2mV/div being their lowest usable attenuation scale which equates to 78.125 uV resolution (at 10 vertical divisions) - which is probably okay for most applications, but is really not great for many applications (ADC, DAC, low-level analog, power supply ripple, precision test measurement, etc). Even a 10 bit could get you down to about 2uV/div which will make the noise floor issue nearly non-existent.**

I'm spoiled. I've worked for companies that aren't afraid to purchase equipment. I have used 1GHz DSO's from Tek of several generations. I hate them for several reasons, but primarily refresh rate, sample depth, and poor menu layout (In that order). I'd much rather use my 200MHz Keysight MSO. Tek simply hasn't kept up with Keysight especially in refresh rate. Which means you get more bang for your buck with the Keysight scope. Despite the the corny name.

Now to answer the question at hand, does spending more on equipment result in better equipment? Yes - unequivocally yes. I have a friend that keeps trying to get me to buy one of the Rigol 2054Z (I think I got that right). I would argue that they offer more functionality than my old analog scopes and are probably worth the few hundred extra bucks if you're a budding hobbyist. But really, I can get a decent refurbished Keysight MSO for only 3x the price of the Rigol. The quality of a Keysight product is top notch and I know I won't be fighting my equipment much if at all. I don't particularly enjoy troubleshooting my equipment - I enjoy troubleshooting my designs and old scopes. Is it expensive? Yes, but if you do things right, it will pay off in short order. I would not recommend the Keysight to a beginning hobbyist however. But to a home-based professional or an advanced hobbyist, it's worth certainly worth the extra money IMHO, YMMV.

* - I think the 547 was Jim Williams favorite scope, although I believed he used the 556 a lot for producing images for his app notes primarily because he could get 8 traces on the display at the same timebase. The 547 is capable of 8 waveforms, but only of 4 signals, each at 2 different time bases, if I'm not mistaken (I have not actually done this myself - as I don't have the proper 4 channel plug-in).

** - I also think the noise floor issue is a bit of a misnomer. The razor thin traces of these scopes were also a function of their reduced bandwidth. Most of these scopes only had 20-50MHz bandwidth. Ever done the calculation on Johnson noise at 200MHz on a 1Meg input impedance vs 20MHz?

ETA I could type about this all day, but I have something I have to get done today.

 

Know what your requirements are/ will be and to the extent possible know beforehand the quality of what you are thinking to buy. Asking price does not necessarily correspond to the quality of the equipment up for sale.

 

I like the old scopes for mostly one reason - nostalgia. I admit it. I like the smell, I like the razor this traces, I like the sounds, I like the knobs, I like the performance, I like the repairability.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Many people collect old test instruments, like others collect old radios.

It's also interesting to see how (measurement) problems were solved when engineers didn't had access to the vast array of computing power and cheap high performance components.

However, I would not buy a Tek 547 (the Jim Williams model*) brand new for any reason. Do I have one? Of course, but I don't use it for any serious work. I guess if I really needed a very small noise floor or to trigger on a very low level signal, something DSO's still don't do well, I could do that with the 547. It should be pointed out that the noise floor problem could be solved with a better ADC, but even the high-end scopes I've used appear to have a 8bit ADC with ~2mV/div being their lowest usable attenuation scale which equates to 78.125 uV resolution (at 10 vertical divisions) - which is probably okay for most applications, but is really not great for many applications (ADC, DAC, low-level analog, power supply ripple, precision test measurement, etc). Even a 10 bit could get you down to about 2uV/div which will make the noise floor issue nearly non-existent.**

That's not really a problem with the ADC, it's one of probing. With a DSO you'd use an active probe for probing uV signals.

Also, keep in mind that DSOs only appear more nosiy simply because they show noise that an analog scope wouldn't show. And then there's the BW effect which you mentioned, and you can reduce the noise on a DSO quite a bit by using the BW limiter, and even more so by using averaging.

I'm spoiled. I've worked for companies that aren't afraid to purchase equipment. I have used 1GHz DSO's from Tek of several generations. I hate them for several reasons, but primarily refresh rate, sample depth, and poor menu layout (In that order). I'd much rather use my 200MHz Keysight MSO. Tek simply hasn't kept up with Keysight especially in refresh rate. Which means you get more bang for your buck with the Keysight scope. Despite the the corny name.

Yes, Tek DSOs are horrible, and that includes their latest model (MSO5 Series) which looks good on paper but is still slow, bug-ridden and with an UI designed by someone who must hate humans.

We mostly buy Keysight and LeCroy. Most of our simple scopes are Keysight (500MHz DSOX4054A/1GHz DSOX4104A), although we also have a large number of 500MHz LeCroy WaveSurfer 3054 and a few 1GHz WaveSurfer 10 as they are cheaper and offer more memory than the Keysight DSO-X. Most of our high-end scopes are LeCroy, especially for very large BW (i.e. >30GHz), simply because there's nothing better out there. Below 30GHz it's mixed, we have some 4GHz/8GHz Keysight DSO-S/MSO-S which are great scopes as well as a few older DSO90k, plus a bunch of LeCroy HDO9000 and HDO6000 scopes, as well as a few LeCroy WaveRunner 6zi (mostly 2GHz models) and WavePro 7zi (6GHz).

Now to answer the question at hand, does spending more on equipment result in better equipment? Yes - unequivocally yes. I have a friend that keeps trying to get me to buy one of the Rigol 2054Z (I think I got that right).

I guess you mean the DS1054z.

I would argue that they offer more functionality than my old analog scopes and are probably worth the few hundred extra bucks if you're a budding hobbyist. But really, I can get a decent refurbished Keysight MSO for only 3x the price of the Rigol. The quality of a Keysight product is top notch and I know I won't be fighting my equipment much if at all. I don't particularly enjoy troubleshooting my equipment - I enjoy troubleshooting my designs and old scopes. Is it expensive? Yes, but if you do things right, it will pay off in short order. I would not recommend the Keysight to a beginning hobbyist however. But to a home-based professional or an advanced hobbyist, it's worth certainly worth the extra money IMHO, YMMV.

Is it? Considering that the DS1054z is only $399 (or sometimes even less) for a 4Ch 50MHz scope with 12Mpts memory which with a simple 'hack' (where you enter a code generated on a website) can be unlocked to 100MHz, 24Mpts sample memory, serial decode and advanced triggers, while the cheapest offer from Keysight is the EDU variant of the DSO-X1000 Series, the $450 EDUX1002A which is a 50MHz 2Ch scope with laughable 100kpts memory and which includes two really poorly made passive probes. To get at a comparable level to the unlocked Rigol you'd have to spend almost $1k to end up with a 100MHz DSOX1102A which still only has 1Mpts (which thanks to Keysight's MegaZoom ASIC leaves you with half of that or even less of usable memory depending on what you do) and only 2Ch.

The thing is that if your budget is $500 or less then the Rigol DS1054z is the most you can get for that amount of money. And because it has been on the market since 2014 it's now a pretty mature instrument. Not sure what decent refurbished Keysight MSO you can get for $1200 but my guess is that this will be a DSOX2000 Series scope, which like all Keysight scopes in the entry-level market comes with tiny memory (1Mpts per channel, again in reality you'l often end up with half or even less than that thanks to the ASIC).

There's no secret sauce in such low-end scopes, and the hardware quality that Rigol and Siglent push out is comparable to what you get from the big names (and was good enough for Keysight and LeCroy to put their names on kit manufactured by Rigol and Siglent). After all, Agilent taught Rigol how to design proper scopes, and LeCroy is doing the same for Siglent (which in return manufactures the WaveSurfer 3000 for them). What traditionally has been a problem with B-brands is firmware/software, but in case of the DS1054z most bugs have long been fixed (while Keysight's new entry-level scope EDUX1000/DSOX1000 still seem to suffer from a few bugs), and both Rigol and Siglent have made improvements to their development processes.

If we're talking about investing a notable sum, say $5k+ then yes, you're better off with the big brands, and for that money you want big brand support and service. For $1500 or less, the B-brands like Rigol, Siglent or GW Instek can offer a better equipped product at a lower price than the big brands, all while offering at least standard service (i.e. warranty and repairs). And the savings can be invested in other stuff, i.e. better probing (which can be expensive, too).

Just buying big brand because you trust the name would be foolish, just look at Tektronix.