New EEVBlog-Branded Multimeter Coming?

[beanflying]

Number one is written by Kane Test and is not the one written by David for the 121GW/EEVBlog.

[gnavigator1007]

Was feeling a bit paranoid what with the indiegogo scam, additional permissions, & the gmail tied to it lol

[joeqsmith]

I thought we had discussed this some time ago and I certainly showed it in a few of my videos.

It was a pre-production unit and I had an impression that a lot of effort was put to make it clear that "it's not a final performance, do not judge product by those videos". So, sorry, I completely disagree with your comment "you knew what you were buying".

Apart from that, for obvious reasons people had some (imho reasonable) expectations. Because this is Dave, because he knows what he is doing, etc. Even though Dave told it several times that he is only supervising the project and not directly involved in development. It has EEVBlog brand on it, which people trust. Please stop saying "I told you it's a slow meter, watch my videos better next time". That's not nice, not productive and you are not involved in this product (I'm not offending, I'm expressing how it looks to me, sorry if I'm wrong).

Anyway, I personally want to keep the conversation technical. And for me the biggest questions are: 1) can community help somehow with the issues 2) what is next? Shall we wait for firmware updates or this is the final version of the product and no further improvements are to be expected?

Interesting that you quote a comment that I never seem to have made.  While I am suggesting the information has been available for some time, based on several of these posts I doubt that everyone took the time to do their research.   That responsibility is on the buyer.   

I am sure I have made several comments about the meter I looked at having been a prototype and that the final product may behave differently.  That would almost go without saying but it did seem to still cause a fair amount of confusion.   That said, if people were concerned about what they saw and did not follow up to make sure their concerns were addressed prior to ordering, who's fault is that?   

[IanB]

Interesting that you quote a comment that I never seem to have made.

FYI, you said this in Reply #381 above.

[amspire]

Scratch that. Looks like you've maybe got it backwards? Look at the permissions and number of downloads.

I think that was caused by the Google App Store search. When I tried to search for EEVBLOG or 121GW yesterday, initially I got nothing and then with persistence, I got the non-EEVBLOG app only. I did not get the correct App in the search at all. Today I am getting both 121GW Apps with the same searches.

[nidlaX]

I thought we had discussed this some time ago and I certainly showed it in a few of my videos.

It was a pre-production unit and I had an impression that a lot of effort was put to make it clear that "it's not a final performance, do not judge product by those videos". So, sorry, I completely disagree with your comment "you knew what you were buying".

Apart from that, for obvious reasons people had some (imho reasonable) expectations. Because this is Dave, because he knows what he is doing, etc. Even though Dave told it several times that he is only supervising the project and not directly involved in development. It has EEVBlog brand on it, which people trust. Please stop saying "I told you it's a slow meter, watch my videos better next time". That's not nice, not productive and you are not involved in this product (I'm not offending, I'm expressing how it looks to me, sorry if I'm wrong).

Anyway, I personally want to keep the conversation technical. And for me the biggest questions are: 1) can community help somehow with the issues 2) what is next? Shall we wait for firmware updates or this is the final version of the product and no further improvements are to be expected?

While I am suggesting the information has been available for some time, based on several of these posts I doubt that everyone took the time to do their research.   That responsibility is on the buyer.   

I am sure I have made several comments about the meter I looked at having been a prototype and that the final product may behave differently.  That would almost go without saying but it did seem to still cause a fair amount of confusion.   That said, if people were concerned about what they saw and did not follow up to make sure their concerns were addressed prior to ordering, who's fault is that?

Joe, I think the point still stands that the current behavior is undesirable and should be improved if possible. Also, I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to have watched your videos or perused through a bunch of disperse forum threads to get a full picture of the meter. If you were simply coming from the Kickstarter campaign, you would have no idea about the current auto-ranging situation. Personally, I expected a comprehensive "review" of the meter from Dave himself and was surprised at the one short Kickstarter video he put out.

On the issue of feedback and follow-up, I don't think it was ever publicly elicited from members of the forum or the community at large prior to launch.

[joeqsmith]

Interesting that you quote a comment that I never seem to have made.

FYI, you said this in Reply #381 above.

Sorry but I am not seeing the quoted text.    

[joeqsmith]

I thought we had discussed this some time ago and I certainly showed it in a few of my videos.

It was a pre-production unit and I had an impression that a lot of effort was put to make it clear that "it's not a final performance, do not judge product by those videos". So, sorry, I completely disagree with your comment "you knew what you were buying".

Apart from that, for obvious reasons people had some (imho reasonable) expectations. Because this is Dave, because he knows what he is doing, etc. Even though Dave told it several times that he is only supervising the project and not directly involved in development. It has EEVBlog brand on it, which people trust. Please stop saying "I told you it's a slow meter, watch my videos better next time". That's not nice, not productive and you are not involved in this product (I'm not offending, I'm expressing how it looks to me, sorry if I'm wrong).

Anyway, I personally want to keep the conversation technical. And for me the biggest questions are: 1) can community help somehow with the issues 2) what is next? Shall we wait for firmware updates or this is the final version of the product and no further improvements are to be expected?

While I am suggesting the information has been available for some time, based on several of these posts I doubt that everyone took the time to do their research.   That responsibility is on the buyer.   

I am sure I have made several comments about the meter I looked at having been a prototype and that the final product may behave differently.  That would almost go without saying but it did seem to still cause a fair amount of confusion.   That said, if people were concerned about what they saw and did not follow up to make sure their concerns were addressed prior to ordering, who's fault is that?

Joe, I think the point still stands that the current behavior is undesirable and should be improved if possible. Also, I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to have watched your videos or perused through a bunch of disperse forum threads to get a full picture of the meter. If you were simply coming from the Kickstarter campaign, you would have no idea about the current auto-ranging situation. Personally, I expected a comprehensive "review" of the meter from Dave himself and was surprised at the one short Kickstarter video he put out.

On the issue of feedback and follow-up, I don't think it was ever publicly elicited from members of the forum or the community at large prior to launch.

I am certainly not suggesting that this delay is desired.  Based on Dave's post on the Keysight meter, it would seem he would agree with you as well.  I am not expecting anyone to following my videos.  I am only suggesting that I had brought this up some time ago.   I too was expecting to see Dave or independent detailed reviews of the meter prior to the kickstarter but it didn't seem to have hurt the sales.   If you placed an order on blind faith, I can't see a reason to be too upset over how the meter performs after it arrives.    Maybe they can find a way to improve it.

[joeqsmith]

fyi:

should I take your statement as a confirmation that the 121GW is indeed slow?

It didn't seem slow when I watched someone test it.

I guess everything is relative but here it seemed slower than I was expecting from a meter with 5 updates/sec.

I had wondered if it could not run in a low res mode then switch to high res to get it to lock in faster.  The 121GW uses the same front end chipset used in another meter that Dave had reviewed and I though the settling time was discussed back then.   I would guess some of the people who bought one have more than one meter.  Maybe others will do a side by side comparison to give you a better idea how it compares.       

There are more threads on the 121GW than there are meters.  It's getting hard to know where to post.   Because I do not view the slow autorange as a bug, I'll will keep my comments here. 

I don't understand the big surprise about the slow autorange. I thought we had discussed this some time ago and I certainly showed it in a few of my videos.  I thought I had even made a comment about them using a chip set that Dave had previously commented on it being slow.        Did people not understand what VERY SLOW meant? 

There may have been a way to overcome it as people have suggested but it seems like if it were an easy fix, it would have been addressed prior to the release.  Maybe Dave will comment on it.     

I am looking forward to seeing reviews of the more complex features, for example reading the power of a 110/220 LED bulb, showing  the BT,  trying some long term data logging to the memory card (over night sort of thing).   For those of you who have received their meters and have taken the time to run some  of these early test,  I appreciate your efforts.

The quote was "you knew what you were buying". 

[rsjsouza]

IMHO the slow continuity test is a letdown but I would consider it as part of the product and not necessarily a defect. Even having gone through quite an innovatively transparent design process, which naturally elevated the expectations from Dave's followers, this is still a version "1.0" of a new product, thus such risks are to be expected.

If this is a full "soft DMM" like a modern Fluke, then it may be quite possible the firmware corrects that, but if the product uses a custom DMM chipset then the chances are much narrower.

That is not an enviable situation - Dave moved from the street as a very vocal "stone thrower" to become the owner of a shiny glass house...

[beanflying]

 Given there is one issue of substance in the FIRST production run of a New product that can likely be resolved/improved when Dave gets back from a well earned holiday with his family.

Ease up on the whining and bitching about he said she said and quoting others to make a point. Primary School rubbish! 

[dcac]

should I take your statement as a confirmation that the 121GW is indeed slow?

It didn't seem slow when I watched someone test it.

I guess everything is relative but here it seemed slower than I was expecting from a meter with 5 updates/sec.

I had wondered if it could not run in a low res mode then switch to high res to get it to lock in faster.  The 121GW uses the same front end chipset used in another meter that Dave had reviewed and I though the settling time was discussed back then.   I would guess some of the people who bought one have more than one meter.  Maybe others will do a side by side comparison to give you a better idea how it compares.       

There are more threads on the 121GW than there are meters.  It's getting hard to know where to post.   Because I do not view the slow autorange as a bug, I'll will keep my comments here. 

I don't understand the big surprise about the slow autorange.  I thought we had discussed this some time ago and I certainly showed it in a few of my videos.  I thought I had even made a comment about them using a chip set that Dave had previously commented on it being slow.        Did people not understand what VERY SLOW meant? 

You seem to be referring to this thread: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/looking-for-a-new-handheld-multimeter-with-fast-autorange-keysight-u1282a/msg1014173/#msg1014173

But I can't find where the 121GW is ever mentioned or that it had the same issues as U1282A.

Could you please provide a link to where it was "discussed some time ago".

[dcac]

Actually what I'd liked to have seen was Dave reviewing the auto-range on 121GW and going - McFly?! (knock knock knock on the LCD) Hello McFlyyy???!!!

[fanOfeeDIY]

Suggestion of comments from joeqsmith on the YouTube.

This is my results:

Resistance autoranging from OFL to short

  121GW  - 6.5 second
  U1241B - 1.5 second
  DT4256 - 1 second

Resistance autoranging from short to OFL

  121GW  - 7 second
  U1241B - 2 second
  DT4256 - 1 second

[IanB]

Sorry but I am not seeing the quoted text.    

Here:

There are more threads on the 121GW than there are meters.  It's getting hard to know where to post.   Because I do not view the slow autorange as a bug, I'll will keep my comments here. 

I don't understand the big surprise about the slow autorange.  I thought we had discussed this some time ago and I certainly showed it in a few of my videos.  I thought I had even made a comment about them using a chip set that Dave had previously commented on it being slow.        Did people not understand what VERY SLOW meant? 

There may have been a way to overcome it as people have suggested but it seems like if it were an easy fix, it would have been addressed prior to the release.  Maybe Dave will comment on it.     

I am looking forward to seeing reviews of the more complex features, for example reading the power of a 110/220 LED bulb, showing  the BT,  trying some long term data logging to the memory card (over night sort of thing).   For those of you who have received their meters and have taken the time to run some  of these early test,  I appreciate your efforts.

[joeqsmith]

Sorry but I am not seeing the quoted text.    

Here:

There are more threads on the 121GW than there are meters.  It's getting hard to know where to post.   Because I do not view the slow autorange as a bug, I'll will keep my comments here. 

I don't understand the big surprise about the slow autorange.  I thought we had discussed this some time ago and I certainly showed it in a few of my videos.  I thought I had even made a comment about them using a chip set that Dave had previously commented on it being slow.        Did people not understand what VERY SLOW meant? 

There may have been a way to overcome it as people have suggested but it seems like if it were an easy fix, it would have been addressed prior to the release.  Maybe Dave will comment on it.     

I am looking forward to seeing reviews of the more complex features, for example reading the power of a 110/220 LED bulb, showing  the BT,  trying some long term data logging to the memory card (over night sort of thing).   For those of you who have received their meters and have taken the time to run some  of these early test,  I appreciate your efforts.

The quote was "you knew what you were buying". 

[IanB]

The quote was "you knew what you were buying".

Oh, that. But I think that was a paraphrase of "Did people not understand what VERY SLOW meant?"

[joeqsmith]

should I take your statement as a confirmation that the 121GW is indeed slow?

It didn't seem slow when I watched someone test it.

I guess everything is relative but here it seemed slower than I was expecting from a meter with 5 updates/sec.

I had wondered if it could not run in a low res mode then switch to high res to get it to lock in faster.  The 121GW uses the same front end chipset used in another meter that Dave had reviewed and I though the settling time was discussed back then.   I would guess some of the people who bought one have more than one meter.  Maybe others will do a side by side comparison to give you a better idea how it compares.       

There are more threads on the 121GW than there are meters.  It's getting hard to know where to post.   Because I do not view the slow autorange as a bug, I'll will keep my comments here. 

I don't understand the big surprise about the slow autorange.  I thought we had discussed this some time ago and I certainly showed it in a few of my videos.  I thought I had even made a comment about them using a chip set that Dave had previously commented on it being slow.        Did people not understand what VERY SLOW meant? 

You seem to be referring to this thread: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/looking-for-a-new-handheld-multimeter-with-fast-autorange-keysight-u1282a/msg1014173/#msg1014173

But I can't find where the 121GW is ever mentioned or that it had the same issues as U1282A.

Could you please provide a link to where it was "discussed some time ago".

Again, the statements were: 

I thought we had discussed this some time ago and I certainly showed it in a few of my videos.  I thought I had even made a comment about them using a chip set that Dave had previously commented on it being slow.        Did people not understand what VERY SLOW meant? 

   

To be clear, thought or if you rather, had a feeling.  This is not an absolute.   While I did take the time to find Dave's comment about the Keysight meter I mentioned, I did not look for anything else.  If you decide to research it, be aware that some of the discussions may have been in the comment section of the videos I posted and later pulled.  I did not think they would be historically important.  You may find some information in the contributors area and also in my long standing thread.   Sorry I am not of much help and am really going off of memory.   

[joeqsmith]

The quote was "you knew what you were buying".

Oh, that. But I think that was a paraphrase of "Did people not understand what VERY SLOW meant?"

My comment of "very slow" was referring to how Dave described the U1282A that was based on the same front end chip set that the 121GW was based on.    Again, I am only pointing out that there was data available.   Bread crumbs perhaps. 

[BravoV]

Just make a really short video (less than 3 mins maybe) , on comparing this autoranging speed from few well known DMMs, like top tier ones and few popular Chinese ones.

I guess this video alone will clear things up what is the "commonly" acceptable speed.

[IanB]

My comment of "very slow" was referring to how Dave described the U1282A that was based on the same front end chip set that the 121GW was based on.    Again, I am only pointing out that there was data available.   Bread crumbs perhaps.

I don't know, since I don't have one yet.

But I don't really think I would be that bothered. If I only had one resistor to test, I can wait 7 seconds. If I had a batch to test, I would put the meter in manual range mode first, or I would use another meter.

Since there is the option for firmware updates, it might be improved later anyway.

[joeqsmith]

My comment of "very slow" was referring to how Dave described the U1282A that was based on the same front end chip set that the 121GW was based on.    Again, I am only pointing out that there was data available.   Bread crumbs perhaps.

I don't know, since I don't have one yet.

But I don't really think I would be that bothered. If I only had one resistor to test, I can wait 7 seconds. If I had a batch to test, I would put the meter in manual range mode first, or I would use another meter.

Since there is the option for firmware updates, it might be improved later anyway.

If you watch the video Akira Tsukamoto posted, he did not wait for the meter to settle and you can see how the meter gets faster.   If you were looking at a batch of parts, even the auto range may be fast enough as long as you don't let it settle.   I'm with you in that it really would not be that big of a deal for me.  If the continuity were slow, for me that would be a deal breaker. 

Not that it really matters but another meter that is along the same settling time as the 121GW is that Gossen M248B.  As many things that I brought up with that meter, I am not sure I focused on the speed.  Then again, that meter has a LOT of problems. 

With Dave's meter, I am more interested in seeing how well it can calculate power.  I had made a demo of the power measurement and ran into a few snags that didn't really concern me too much with it being a prototype.  I think we discussed that in my main thread.  I think Dave was suggesting I was not using the meter correctly and I think I was confused about how it handled the internal losses.   I think they revisited that so I am expecting it to be improved.   

[TheSteve]

FYI the U1282A which uses the same chipset auto ranges from OL to short in 2.5 to 3 seconds(still rather slow) so a speed increase with new firmware may be possible.

[steverino]

should I take your statement as a confirmation that the 121GW is indeed slow?

It didn't seem slow when I watched someone test it.

I guess everything is relative but here it seemed slower than I was expecting from a meter with 5 updates/sec.

I had wondered if it could not run in a low res mode then switch to high res to get it to lock in faster.  The 121GW uses the same front end chipset used in another meter that Dave had reviewed and I though the settling time was discussed back then.   I would guess some of the people who bought one have more than one meter.  Maybe others will do a side by side comparison to give you a better idea how it compares.       

There are more threads on the 121GW than there are meters.  It's getting hard to know where to post.   Because I do not view the slow autorange as a bug, I'll will keep my comments here. 

I don't understand the big surprise about the slow autorange.  I thought we had discussed this some time ago and I certainly showed it in a few of my videos.  I thought I had even made a comment about them using a chip set that Dave had previously commented on it being slow.        Did people not understand what VERY SLOW meant? 

There may have been a way to overcome it as people have suggested but it seems like if it were an easy fix, it would have been addressed prior to the release.  Maybe Dave will comment on it.     

I am looking forward to seeing reviews of the more complex features, for example reading the power of a 110/220 LED bulb, showing  the BT,  trying some long term data logging to the memory card (over night sort of thing).   For those of you who have received their meters and have taken the time to run some  of these early test,  I appreciate your efforts.

Sorry Joe, but I've only occasionally watched your youtube videos (there's only 24hrs in a day).  And I'm not a read-every-post kind of guy.  I personally think this limitation should have been disclosed on the Kickstarter page.  Some people may feel fine with the slow response, some won't.  Would I purchase one had I known of this problem?  Probably not (don't really need another multimeter).  To me, 6-7 seconds is unacceptable.   I've always appreciated Dave for his honesty and straightforwardness, so I'm hoping this can be corrected.

[EEVblog]

Anyway, I personally want to keep the conversation technical. And for me the biggest questions are: 1) can community help somehow with the issues

Apart form reporting issues, no they cannot. UEi are in control of the firmware.
I have the actual firmware but we have not even tried to compile it.

2) what is next? Shall we wait for firmware updates or this is the final version of the product and no further improvements are to be expected?

The firmware will get refined.
If you have an issue then report it in the thread for this:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/eevblog-121gw-multimeter-issues/