Have a look at this video and see what you think?
I think that I don't like the Agilent. If you consider ergonomics or human usability, a digital display should not update more frequently than the eye and brain can absorb the numbers. Practically speaking, this means the display should freeze the current reading for at least a quarter of a second before moving on to the next reading. Any faster than this and you tend to see a blur--any advantage is lost.
Of course the bar graph is different. This is an "analog" display, and it should update as close to real time as the display permits before burring occurs. Obviously a better LCD display with fast pixel response and low persistence would be ideal here. Those ancient slow displays with long persistence are no good at all. They have long since been abandoned on computer or smartphone displays.
Getting back to the display of numerical readings, the ideal situation would be to show three numbers on the display. Every quarter of a second the display should update to show the average over the previous quarter of a second, but simultaneously it should show the high and low values instantaneously measured over that same quarter of a second. The spread of the high and low would give you a measure of the noise, fluctuation or uncertainty on the signal.
This is an interesting situation in that I don't think my ideal meter exists out there at any price point. The Fluke 289 has some nice features, but it is way too big and has that horribly inconvenient soft menu system. Not to mention the appetite for batteries. The Fluke 87V is old technology and is overpriced for what it offers. The Agilent is interesting, but not quite there yet. The designers have built a few too many usability flaws into it. I wonder if the U1251B is any better?
You raise good valid and sensible points about the display. My ears prick up when you mention "my ideal meter"....as I recall Dave started a series on an ideal open multimeter design....I was excited to see what would transpire but I'm not sure Dave posted any more on the subject.
It's too bad that Fluke/Danaher own Pomona now - HP/Agilent used to get their probes from them and they are definitely better than the Chinese probes included with Agilent kit now.
Perhaps Probemaster would be a reasonable alternative.
Perhaps Probemaster would be a reasonable alternative.
Even though Fluke/Danaher own Pomona now, Pomona products are still available separately.
[My comment was based on the presumption that Agilent wouldn't want to use Pomona in order to both further differentiate their products from Fluke (visually), as well as not contributing funds to Danaher's bottom line.
[My comment was based on the presumption that Agilent wouldn't want to use Pomona in order to both further differentiate their products from Fluke (visually), as well as not contributing funds to Danaher's bottom line.
Sorry my bad, I wasn't thinking about alternatives from Agilents point of view. I was thinking of user replacements.
Hi,
Great videos indeed both of them.
I see most of the feedback is from "pro" Fluke users, as an everyday DMM user and a Fluke user I would like to say that Fluke has to up their game. Agilent just made a remarkably good meter. If the only bad thing about it is the probes and how fast it actualizes the display so what? can we actually read and write that fast? When was the last time someone needed to record measurements of that accuracy? We all know here that electronics measurements are never exacts, passive components have tolerances, then temperature, noise, etc... Plus if I was in the need to get that kind of reading I would use the average function.
Don't get me wrong, I see that feedback very useful, but in saying that, would I buy a 87V over a U1272A today, probably not so far I haven't been convinced that spending the extra money for a 87V is worth it. The 87V look old, the display isn't as clear and is quite small. Agilent is very competitive, what meter today matches its performance with its price? I think Fluke are living on their reputation and that's fine, but it is very good to see that Agilent is having a go at them and to be fair they are on the right track.
Here is my initial review of the U1272A.
* Continuity tester: Very good
the High-Z input mode on mV, and of course the "trust" things built up over 20 years in that model.
Out of curiosity, how often do you take advantage of the high-Z mV mode, and for what? I understand the advantages and I know is relatively easy to implement, but I wonder how often people actually use it.
Here is my initial review of the U1272A.
* Continuity tester: Very good
If you use the visual alert, yes, very good.
If you need good audible continuity then I'd rate it as barely adequate.
Hopefully they'll fix this with a firmware patch.
Dave.
FYI, my long overdue review of the U1272A is rendering now, so should be up by tomorrow.
Yes, it's hard to fault the Agilent. Bang-for-buck it just trumps the 87-V.
The only places the 87V was superior was audible continuity speed, screen size and contrast, the High-Z input mode on mV, and of course the "trust" things built up over 20 years in that model.
The Agilent still has firmware issues, it locked up on me during the review.
And it had an issue with input overload recovery on the ohms range.
Oh yeah, I didn't like the probes much either.
But the Agilent things can be fixed with firmware mostly, so really, unless it has long term issues that haven't surfaced yet, it's a bit of a no-brainer choice, unless you lust after the Fluke because, well, it's a Fluke.
If you use the visual alert, yes, very good.
If you need good audible continuity then I'd rate it as barely adequate.
Hopefully they'll fix this with a firmware patch.
Some pointed out elsewhere that the Agilent DMM rebates are still valid until April, 2012.
For the 1272a, that's $100 off the list price, so the final price is between $270-300. This certainly makes it far more attractive than a Fluke 87V, assuming they are nearly equal in functionality and reliability.
If Fluke were to reduce the 87V list price to e.g. ~$200, it would be more cost effective and give the Agilent tough competition, except if you absolutely need functions only the 1272a can deliver.
I have watched your videos, the tear down and the test were the Agilent failed. I was also very happy with your reply to that video that Agilent actally cared about user reviews. They took it seriously and (hopefully) fixed the bugs with firmware v2.0. It was interesting to see that Fluke took much longer to come back with a solution to their problem with the 87V.
The really good thing, I think, about what Agilent is doing today is providing us with a different option when it come to buy a well made DMM. Fluke use to have the monopol now it would be good to see what they do.
Here I kind of agree Dave, in the lab yes we need perhaps a better more audible continuity beeper. but the Agilent guys have come up with a great idea with the Light Alert. Out on the field, especially in busy factories its is a must to have I would say.
The test done earlier on the comparison between the 287, 87V and the U1272A showed that the Agilent was a bit slower but again I would need to confirm that when I get it. Well I reckon that the light is faster than the beeper for the Agilent.
It very clear that the audible is a fair bit slower than the visual, look at my review video
The main lead set that came with several of my 1272a and the 1252a were top quality
...however the accessory lead sets are low quality, Extech style PVC type.
I have some of the Probemaster 8000 series leads and they are indeed very nice (on par with Fluke, IMO). Note that they have a somewhat unusual grip, which I personally like, but is more rounded than Fluke/Pomona.
Is this a new video Dave? Is it posted on EEVBlog's home page?
Thanks again for that video. The issue with overloading was a good thing to point out. Now unless you have been working for 30 hours straight or are a complete noob I don't think this should happen too often.