EEVblog #99 – $100 Multimeter Shootout

[Whalesac]

Personally, I combined the results of the $50 and $100 DMM shootouts to decide on a meter for me.  I liked the results of the Amprobe AM220 from the $50 shootout, but it was pretty limited (and cheap).  The 34XR-A, however, seemed to leave little to be desired.  So, I went with the Amprobe AM270, and love it.  I think it would have been a much stronger contender than the 34XR-A in the $100 shootout.  In fact, I actually like it more than my Fluke 233 (with the exception of the remote display feature, though). 

Anyways, I truly appreciate the thorough reviews of so much test equipment, Dave.  I will see if I can give some feedback to tequipment.net as well.  They got my business due entirely to you promoting them.  So, it's the least I can do.  Thanks.

[valentinc]

   I see a big problem on all the multimeters in the test, they have very very low AC voltage & current bandwidth (400 Hz, 1 Khz are very low in my opinion). The 400 Hz bandwidth have even the cheapest chineze multimeters that cost only $10. If I need to measure signals that have high frequencies (like 10-100 Mhz) an oscilloscope measurement is the only way to do it precisely, from what I see ...
   Though I don't need True RMS if it's only for 400 Hz signals maximum.

   And I'm also wondering about something, the frequency meter have accuracy on any type of signal waveform, or only on sinusoidal singnals ?  The datasheets don't mention that, and it's also an important feature

[Kiriakos-GR]

400 Hz, 1 Khz are very low in my opinion

You are currently watching the hot deals at the 100$ mark.
No one stopping you from getting the true tool that fits in you own needs.
Plus no one can stop you about expecting or asking for higher demands in the 100$ mark.
Even if in my ears, it does sound as strange.

Never the less, what you seek can be found in the DMM's that called as Industrial models.
   
 

[ejeffrey]

   I see a big problem on all the multimeters in the test, they have very very low AC voltage & current bandwidth (400 Hz, 1 Khz are very low in my opinion). The 400 Hz bandwidth have even the cheapest chineze multimeters that cost only $10. If I need to measure signals that have high frequencies (like 10-100 Mhz) an oscilloscope measurement is the only way to do it precisely, from what I see ...
   Though I don't need True RMS if it's only for 400 Hz signals maximum.

   And I'm also wondering about something, the frequency meter have accuracy on any type of signal waveform, or only on sinusoidal singnals ?  The datasheets don't mention that, and it's also an important feature

Some bench meters have much higher bandwidth RMS measurements -- up to a few MHz if I recall, but it isn't very common in hand held meters.  10 kHz is high bandwidth true RMS for a hand held meter.

For >> 10 MHz, an oscilloscope or spectrum analyzer is the right tool.  At the low end of that you might find some average-responding (non true-RMS) meters, especially analog meters that work well enough.  Average responding meters are usually more accurate and faster than true-RMS, but they have large systematic errors for non-sine wave shapes.  They are great if you know you have a sine wave, or if you are doing only relative measurements.

[alm]

For >> 10 MHz, an oscilloscope or spectrum analyzer is the right tool.

Or power meter.

  At the low end of that you might find some average-responding (non true-RMS) meters, especially analog meters that work well enough.  Average responding meters are usually more accurate and faster than true-RMS, but they have large systematic errors for non-sine wave shapes.  They are great if you know you have a sine wave, or if you are doing only relative measurements.

How do you know you have a sine wave? You just replaced the problem of measuring the RMS voltage by the problem of measuring the distortion (though the distortion probably doesn't have to be that low). Even mains can not be considered a sine wave anymore in most places. Relative measurements are fine, but only if the wave shape stays the same (again: how do you know?). In my opinion, the extra accuracy of average-responding meters is mostly theoretical, though I don't argue with your statements about price, speed and bandwidth.

[ejeffrey]

Someone pointed out the BK Precison 2712 meter
http://www.bkprecision.com/products/model/2712/true-rms-ac-dc-tool-kit-digital-multimeter.html
Only $10 more than the winning 2709B but it has 0.1%+5, 40,000 count, and AC+DC TRMS.
Shame it doesn't have sub uA resolution or the high cap range though.

Dave.

I just tested the 2712 out and find it has a slow continuity test circuit.  I don't care so much about the current resolution or the large capacitance range, but the continuity meter is a serious deal breaker for me.  I would rather have one of the scratch non-latched fast detectors than something that won't register a 0.5 second contact.

On the capacitor measurement side, I am somewhat annoyed at the  low end.  The settling time for small capacitances (<100 pF) is too long.  Not as slow as the agilent 1253, but it still takes a few seconds for the reading to stabilize.  I don't have a 2709B to test for comparison, so I don't have a comparison.

Dave, if I have one suggestion for a test to add to your standard DMM review, it would be settling time for a 33 pF capacitor.  I have seen it vary from a fraction of a second to several seconds for different models.  Obviously this doesn't matter to everyone, but it is a major annoyance to me. 

[meerweten]

seems like UNI-T updated there design a little,
just bought myself a Uni-T 61D as my velleman dvm870 is the only meter i have and is not realy a good one (was a good one for starting with)

2 ptc's
3 mov's (if i'm correct, the green ones)
and a 1kV 10n cap?

to bad the continuety tester still sucks