Author Topic: Is a Fluke / Philips 2535 6.5 Digit DMM Benchtop Multimeter 495$ a bargain?  (Read 8043 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ErikTheNorwegian

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 446
  • Country: ps
« Last Edit: April 10, 2016, 10:05:46 am by ErikTheNorwegian »


  • Guest
Not a bargain in my opinion. $500 is way too much, especially since it's untested. Last time I checked, it wasn't too hard to find rack-sized 6.5 digit DMMs for well under $200 (excluding shipping), eg. the HP 3455/6/7, the various Fluke 19"-sized models and the Keithley 192 and 196. I believe the PM2534/5 also has inferior specs to most of the competition. Accuracy was not very impressive, from what I remember. Update rate is slow in 6.5 digit mode. And I think 6.5 digits of resolution is only available in VDC, not VAC or resistance. Check the manual (available from BAMA) for details. You should be able to find better meters for $500 or even less. Even the more recent HP 34401A and Keithley 2000 can be found for that price.

Offline robrenz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3035
  • Country: us
  • Real Machinist, Wannabe EE
Buying that may make your 8846A jealous  ;D


  • Guest
I don't think it is. Fluke essentially bought the Philips T&M department for the ScopeMeters (some of the ScopeMeter accessories still have PM part numbers), and dropped most of the bench instruments. Fluke made bench meters before the Philips acquisition (eg. the Fluke 8840A/8842A). They acquired the high-resolution (7.5/8.5 digit) technology that went in the Fluke 8508A from Datron.

Try comparing the PM2535 specs to a contemporary competitor. Update rate in 6.5 digit / DCV mode is 0.2-0.3 measurements/s, basic 1y DC accuracy is 100 ppm. Resolution is up to 4.5 digits in ACV mode, and accuracy is 0.3% for < 5 kHz. The Keithley 196, which I believe also came from the late eighties, has 38 ppm basic DC 1y accuracy, update rate is 9 measurements/s in 6.5 digit mode, it has 5.5 digits of resolution in ACV and is 0.15% accurate from 200 Hz to 10 kHz. The PM2535 display is also one of those horrible unbacklit LCD that HP used to use when the 3457A and 3478A were designed.

Offline blackdog

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 608
  • Country: nl
  • Please stop pushing bullshit...
Hi ErikTheNorwegian, :-)

Do not buy this meter for this price, max: 150$
Yes it is 6.5 digits but has not the stability.
I have one on my bench and its not a competition for my TEK/Fluke DMM4050
It is a 5.5 digit with 6.5 resolution.
The quality of the reference circuit is not good enough for 6.5 digits.
You can see the meter drifting if the temperature change in my lab and the DMM4050 stays stable.

Kind regarts

“Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe.”

Offline nukie

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 777
  • Country: au
I have one here sitting right in front of me, made in Holland. If anyone decided to get one, it's probably a good time to upgrade the internal 3V calibration backup battery.

There are several functions that require of the use of probe cable which is a pain. But you can build one if you can find the right DIN plug. I don't understand these Dutches, there are clearly four sockets for 4-wire resistance test but they prefer to use a proprietary test cable & connection.

The plastic is very brittle after a long time, I think they have begin to breakdown. Not funny at all.

The LCD is not illuminated so you will have issues reading the measurements. Like the previous poster said, this meter is more like a 5.5 digit meter. If this meter is stack on top of another equipment, it will start to drift. It's very slow speed when all the digits are enabled compared to a HP34401A, luckily there are a few speed setting. There are also many Philips axial BC electro capacitors in the PM2535 waiting to pound on you. Bargain $150? Maybe, $400? Not in a million years. You better off looking for a LM399 based HP3468A or 3478A, I have the 3468A it's very nice despite the null function  >:(

« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 02:07:06 am by nukie »
The following users thanked this post: Deckert

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo