I have been using my 454A for 40 years and never had any problems. I love it!
They are one of the most reliable scopes Tek has built.
Nick
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In TekScopes@..., Denis <xyzzx_adv@...> wrote:
While the comments are valid for 454, the 454A (as listed in the subject) does have a larger screen and FET input circuitry.?? So, if Frank truly has a 454A available its more of a level playing field to compare.
??
Having lived and carried a 453 for many??years, my first encounter with a 465 was to always adjust the Focus and Astigmatism controls to get a sharp trace; until I went on line and learned what TEK had done to the CRT.??????
??
To Paul's point, indeed it is very handy (sometimes mandatory) to have a second scope to use when the first gets into problem.??. . .?? but indeed [BE Warned] it does tend to get out of hand very very quickly! I started with a non TEK scope, found a 453 at St Vincent's thrift, eBayed 465s, 453A, 454A, 464. . . .
??Denis
??
________________________________
From: "wa2mze@..." <wa2mze@...>
To: TekScopes@...
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 12:28 PM
Subject: [TekScopes] Re: 454A vs 465B Recommendation
??
I also own both a 465 and a 454. The 454 has a smaller screen and 50% greater BW. However in tests I very recently made, both scopes would display and (barely) trigger on a 200mhz signal from a GDO. The 465 series does not focus as sharp as the 454/453, this is a CRT design issue, Tek sacrificed spot size for brightness, screen size, and writing speed on the newer tubes. The difference is small IMHO and not worth fussing over.
The 454/453 may use common parts, though the Nuvistor triodes in the front end are becoming as expensive and hard to find as 1L6's for Trans-Oceanics. (TV 13CW4's *might* sub). They ARE harder to fix, in some cases you have to completely disassemble the things to get at the area you need to work on. I recently fixed the channel 1 variable pot which had become "ganged" with the V/D switch due to gunk between the shafts. I was able to reach the Allan screw to loosen the inner shaft at the pot with a long hex key. To reach the same on channel two might have required pulling the CRT and shield!
453/454 scopes rarely needed replacement CRT's compared to the 465 series. The techs working in the Metrology lab at Gould CSD where I used to work told me they had purchased spare CRT's for all the 454 and 465/475 scopes they owned. They nearly used up all of the spares for the 465/475 scopes, but still had almost all of the spares in unopened boxes for the 454's. This was years later when they were finally selling off these scopes to buy newer ones. BTW I bought my 454 from Gould when they auctioned them off to the employees. I also got a set of probes and a cart out of the deal. (The idiots threw out the spare tubes before I could get my hands on one!).
If you need to use the scope in XY mode (like for a curve tracer such as the Heath IT-1121) the 465 is a better choice with a "sane" xy mode and larger screen. The 465 is a little lighter and easier to carry than the 454 if that matters.
--- In mailto:TekScopes%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Amaranth wrote:
I have both a 465 and a 453.
The trace might be a little crisper on the 454 and the controls might be a little larger.
But from using both, I'd get the 465b and look for a parts mule for the day when repair is needed.
BTW, since you're looking at that genre of instruments, you'll also need a second scope to
fix the first one when it breaks. In the FWIW department, it's OK to stop at 2, you don't
have to become like us. Or is it 3 with the parts mule? And so the slippery slope starts ...
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 04:25:44PM -0000, Frank Edwards wrote:
I have an opportunity to get either a 454 or 465. Spec wise, either will meet my need, both are working and there is no difference in cost. From what I have read, the 454 contains no proprietary parts and can therefore be repaired using common off-the-shelf parts, vs the 465 which has some proprietary parts but is newer. It seems to me there are many more 465s available, but I have not been looking for any particular part. My intent is to get a scope that will not become economically unrepairable because of availability of repair parts. In summary, from a reliability and repairability perspective, which should be the better option?
--
Paul Amaranth, GCIH | Rochester MI, USA
Aurora Group, Inc. | Security, Systems & Software
paul@ | Unix & Windows
