Can someone help me pick a DMM? Fluke 87V, BM789, BM215, UT-61E, etc..

[joeqsmith]

...
My 9 year old Ideal 61-340 is starting to show some issues from abuse over the years and I am looking to replace it with something that will hopefully outlast me.
...

4000 count, averaging meter that lasted you 9 years.  Maybe just stay with that same brand/model.  Save the money for something else.       

[tooki]

No, but we're talking about Brymen, not Uni-T.

I was specifically talking about using CAT ratings and labels in general as the basis for comparison. 

PS: CAT ratings don't say anything about the meter surviving, only the user.

I'm pretty sure that isn't exactly true.

It is my understanding that that’s precisely what the CAT standards say: the user must be protected, but the meter can be sacrificial.

[Fungus]

It is my understanding that that’s precisely what the CAT standards say: the user must be protected, but the meter can be sacrificial.

This is where I see the difference between brands like Brymen/Fluke and Uni-T (for example). Some brands make an effort for the meter to survive (Brymen/Fluke), others only want the safety mark on the front and produce meters that don't easily kill the user but the meters themselves die at the drop of a hat (Uni-T).

Then there's brands that lie and put false ratings on the front.

So long as you know where your meter stands then it's not a problem.

Apply some common sense, too, eg. don't go into an industrial zone thinking "I'm perfectly safe and can do whatever I want because my meter is expensive". It doesn't work that way. 90% of the safety battle is knowledge and procedure.

[bdunham7]

It is my understanding that that’s precisely what the CAT standards say: the user must be protected, but the meter can be sacrificial.

From an earlier discussion of IEC 61010-2-033:

"After the voltage of 4.4.2.101 has been applied to the METER, the METER shall continue to be
able to indicate the presence of HAZARDOUS LIVE voltages up to the maximum RATED voltage.
NOTE The METER is not required to maintain its normal accuracy. A maximum deviation of 10 % is acceptable."

So it can sustain damage, but must not stop working entirely.  That's what I was referring to--the standard is not silent about damage to the meter.  It might be a lot easier to design a meter to pass CAT (x) standards if this was not a requirement.

[nick779]

...
My 9 year old Ideal 61-340 is starting to show some issues from abuse over the years and I am looking to replace it with something that will hopefully outlast me.
...

4000 count, averaging meter that lasted you 9 years.  Maybe just stay with that same brand/model.  Save the money for something else.     

It's certainly worked for the most part, but I have wanted to upgrade for a while as I had quite a few gripes with it.

BTW I really enjoyed your series of videos reviewing this meter. Very thorough and easy to understand. Granted it did make the 869S look quite appealing.

[25 CPS]

Just don’t be tempted by the Keysight U1250 series: it’s got maddeningly slow continuity and a few other oddities. The U1240, U1270, and U1280 series are newer and don’t have those issues.

I ended up with a U1252A blue Agilent model and a U1252B, the current Keysight version of this meter in that series last year.  I haven't used them heavily so I haven't encountered anything strange personally yet - what should I be watching out for?

[Fungus]

I ended up with a U1252A blue Agilent model and a U1252B, the current Keysight version of this meter in that series last year.  I haven't used them heavily so I haven't encountered anything strange personally yet - what should I be watching out for?

Listen to how nice and clicky the rotary switch is right at the start of the video then listen to the feeble grinding noise it makes just a few seconds in (or jump to 1:40 to hear it better).

[Shock]

Haven't checked the latest or IEC version but the 2012 BS EN 61010-2-033 seems to make it clear that functional integrity needs to be maintained at rated voltage and transients. It goes into a bit more detail that no hazard should arise from overvoltage limiting or ambiguous measurements displayed.

Older standards seem to have omitted this but functional operation of the device within it's rating is implied. I've never read anything that says it's acceptable for a device to fail within it's measurement category rating (under normal operation), it doesn't make sense.

bdunham7, I think you have misread that paragraphs intention. It was referring to measuring slightly over max voltage by design so that the user can still interpret it. Not failure inducing levels and still operating. It's a bit clearer when you read the test they are referring to.   

[bdunham7]

Haven't checked the latest or IEC version but the 2012 BS EN 61010-2-033 seems to make it clear that functional integrity needs to be maintained at rated voltage and transients. It goes into a bit more detail that no hazard should arise from overvoltage limiting or ambiguous measurements displayed.

bdunham7, I think you have misread that paragraphs intention. It was referring to measuring slightly over max voltage by design so that the user can still interpret it. Not failure inducing levels and still operating. It's a bit clearer when you read the test they are referring to.

I only have the quote in isolation, out of context, so I can't be sure.  However, you seem to be indicating that what I am asserting--that the meter is not allowed to just fail completely--is in fact part of the standard somewhere, even if it isn't the part I'm quoting.  I don't have section 4.4.2.101 that they refer to, so I can't know if that is the relevant test.

[nctnico]

Haven't checked the latest or IEC version but the 2012 BS EN 61010-2-033 seems to make it clear that functional integrity needs to be maintained at rated voltage and transients. It goes into a bit more detail that no hazard should arise from overvoltage limiting or ambiguous measurements displayed.

bdunham7, I think you have misread that paragraphs intention. It was referring to measuring slightly over max voltage by design so that the user can still interpret it. Not failure inducing levels and still operating. It's a bit clearer when you read the test they are referring to.

I only have the quote in isolation, out of context, so I can't be sure.  However, you seem to be indicating that what I am asserting--that the meter is not allowed to just fail completely--is in fact part of the standard somewhere, even if it isn't the part I'm quoting.  I don't have section 4.4.2.101 that they refer to, so I can't know if that is the relevant test.

Shock's interpretation seems logical to me. For example: how can a meter still read current after an overcurrent situation has blown the fuse?

[BeBuLamar]

I heard good things about the Brymen but Brymen doesn't sell in the USA so my choice would be the Fluke 87V. It's a nice meter and does all the things that you require but I don't know if the other meters can do the same for less or not as I never own one of them.
I had the original 87 and when it's broke for the second time I had to buy the 189. I use an 87V at work all the time. I also have 289. They are all nice meters but I think I would pick up the 87V for quick job. I think I would get my company to get me the 87V Max. I am afraid it may be too big.

[bdunham7]

Shock's interpretation seems logical to me. For example: how can a meter still read current after an overcurrent situation has blown the fuse?

So I actually found an older UK version of the standard, and while it doesn't really match what I was saying, it doesn't match a lot of other things that I see elsewhere--for example there is no CAT I.  I think we all have been doing too much thinking with too little information.  So I'll have to peruse it a bit.

As far as current and other issues, I think (but may be wrong) that it goes like this:

The meter must withstand it's RATED voltage (not transients or overvoltages) being applied to any terminal that is compatible with the same leads as the voltage inputs.  That means ohms, capacitance, diode, current, whatever the meter has.  The available fault current in the case of the current ranges is listed by CAT level but there are enough conditions there that I'll just say it is very high.  "Withstand" seems to mean (again, subject to more reading) that it 1) doesn't blow up or catch on fire and  2) it continue to be able to "indicate the presence of hazardous voltages" --not 'work properly'--presumably when the operator actually changes the switch and/or leads to a voltage range.

In addition, the meter is tested in the voltage mode and overvoltages (the section I quoted) and transients are applied.  There again, it is required that the meter not pose a hazard and in the section I quoted, continue to operate enough to again, "indicate the presence of hazardous voltages".  In what I was reading, I could not find a clear, express requirement that the meter needed to survive the transient testing and still read voltages.  However, in newer standards there is a CAT I (unless Fluke et. al. are just making that up!) and it is pretty clear that there is no real arc-flash or significant fire hazard in CAT I.  The primary emphasis of this standard does not seem to be the arc-flash vaporized meters that we all discuss--there are other issues too, like leakage, shock hazards and the ability of the meter to....."indicate the presence of hazardous voltages" .  It would seem silly to me that the meter would be deemed 'safe' when a small ESD charge could damage it in a way so that 1000VDC reads 0V or some other low voltage.

Anyway, I'll keep searching for the latest standard because I'm pretty sure that things have changed. 

[J-R]

I heard good things about the Brymen but Brymen doesn't sell in the USA so my choice would be the Fluke 87V. It's a nice meter and does all the things that you require but I don't know if the other meters can do the same for less or not as I never own one of them.
I had the original 87 and when it's broke for the second time I had to buy the 189. I use an 87V at work all the time. I also have 289. They are all nice meters but I think I would pick up the 87V for quick job. I think I would get my company to get me the 87V Max. I am afraid it may be too big.

FYI:

Greenlee rebrands some Brymen DMMs for sale in the US.  (Not all Greenlee DMMs are Brymen.)

Welectron.com has been my go-to for Brymen as they offer DHL shipping to the US for about $11US per order.

[Fungus]

I heard good things about the Brymen but Brymen doesn't sell in the USA so my choice would be the Fluke 87V.

Brymens are rebranded in the USA under Amprobe and Greenlee brands.

eg. These are Brymen's top "industrial" meters (BM857 and BM859):

https://www.amprobe.com/product-category/multimeters/precision/

(feel free to read the specs and compare with your 87V...  )


These are Brymens in a green case:

https://www.tequipment.net/greenlee/multimeters/

Welectron.com has been my go-to for Brymen as they offer DHL shipping to the US for about $11US per order.

This, too.

[Anthocyanina]

taking advantage of this thread, as lately i'm looking for a multimeter under 80 USD (maybe i could stretch my budget to 100$ if nothing in that range is worth it) particularly for ohms measurement. It seems in the under 80$ the ut 61e is the best overall, but is there any which might be better in the ohms range? i would like to be able to have the most accurate and precise ohms measurement possible in that price range. I've seen the comparison between the 61e and 61e+ and an aneng whose model i don't remember at this moment, and they seem pretty close. I would also use it for the ocasional low voltage/low current measurements (nothing ever above 24V/1A) so input protections not being the best wouldn't matter that much, but i really want to have the best meter for ohms within that price range. Would anyone have a recommendation other than the uni-t or the aneng? Thank you!

[Fungus]

it seems in the under 80$ the ut 61e is the best overall, but is there any which might be better in the ohms range? i would like to be able to have the most accurate and precise ohms measurement possible in that price range. I've seen the comparison between the 61e and 61e+ and an aneng whose model i don't remember at this moment, and they seem pretty close.

I'm not a fan of the Uni-Ts, they don't seem to offer anything over the far cheaper Anengs and they're not really any "safer" or more robust.

Resistance? The UT61e+ has Ohms accuracy of 0.5%+10, the Aneng 870 has Ohms accuracy of 0.2%+3.

nb. No meter is very good at measuring tiny amounts of Ohms because of cables, probes, contact resistance, etc. It doesn't matter how many times you press the "rel" button, it's not going to magically fix it.

For tiny Ohms you need 4-wire measurements.

My advice: Get an Aneng 870 and splash out an extra couple of bucks on some very sharp gold plated probes.

eg. These: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4001306288640.html

(randomly chosen seller, there's hundred of people selling those)

[Anthocyanina]

My advice: Get an Aneng 870 and splash out an extra couple of bucks on some very sharp gold plated probes.

eg. These: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4001306288640.html

(randomly chosen seller, there's hundred of people selling those)

Thank you! That's the Aneng I've seen compared to the ut 61e ( not the plus) and while that's the one i've seen the comparisson for, it is about 39$ at the moment, since my budget is about 80$ do you think i could get a better one for ohms in that range? or under 80$ they are all the same? i'm still reading thru the specifications of most i see in that price range and they seem pretty similar. Maybe getting the An870 and probemaster probes would be the best to do within my budget? Thanks again!

[rsjsouza]

If you have up to $80 to spend and will use your meter in the bench, the UT61E is the best bang per buck. Sure, it does not have the protection, but for the bench this is not very important. If you would like better protection, stretch the budget to $100 and get the BM235 from Dave.

The Aneng AN870 has terrible contrast, although it has larger digits than the UT61E. It also does not have a bargraph and PC communications. I personally like the bargraph, which on the UT61E is well implemented. Also, the capacitance checker of the UT61E is excellent, although a LCR is usually much more usable.

I have both meters and they clearly cater to different price points.

Despite the rated difference in ohms' accuracy, they both have relative mode to null the residual resistance and measure low ohms relatively ok. I did not perceive any significant difference between them.

BTW, Newark/Farnell is running a special on the UT61E with better protection (1kV) for $55.

[Fungus]

The Aneng AN870 has terrible contrast

Not true.

It also does not have a bargraph and PC communications.

I'll concede that. The Aneng is better for measuring but the Uni-T has a couple of extra talents.

I still wouldn't spend $80 on one though. Once you get to that price point you might as well save up for a couple more weeks and get a proper meter.

Me? If I needed a meter today I'd buy the Aneng then start saving for a Brymen.

BTW, Newark/Farnell is running a special on the UT61E with better protection (1kV) for $55.

The big problem with the UT61E is that you have no idea what input protection you're going to get. They make many variants with different amounts of protection components and it's a lottery which one you'll get.

At least the Anengs seem to survive Joe's grill starter test, the UT61E didn't.

[Fungus]

Aneng ... do you think i could get a better one for ohms in that range?

No.

or under 80$ they are all the same?

The Aneng is the best measurement bang per buck under $100. It's also a pretty solidly built meter.

If you buy the probemaster probes they'll still serve you when you eventually get a Brymen. 

[Shock]

The UniT 61E ohm resolution is good, but I find for practical reasons if you need greater low ohms resolution than most handheld multimeters you need to go down to 100 microohms or use an external current source to measure voltage drop and solve for resistance. Anywhere lower than that also detects hidden chinesium.

[Fungus]

The UniT 61E ohm resolution is good, but I find for practical reasons if you need greater low ohms resolution than most handheld multimeters you need to go down to 100 microohms or use an external current source to measure the voltage drop and solve for resistance. Anywhere lower than that also detects hidden chinesium.

Yep. No "ordinary" meter will work will under a couple of Ohms. For that you need a specialized meter or get a current source and do a four wire measurement (measure volts and amps simultaneously with two meters).

[nctnico]

The UniT 61E ohm resolution is good, but I find for practical reasons if you need greater low ohms resolution than most handheld multimeters you need to go down to 100 microohms or use an external current source to measure the voltage drop and solve for resistance. Anywhere lower than that also detects hidden chinesium.

Yep. No "ordinary" meter will work will under a couple of Ohms. For that you need a specialized meter or get a current source and do a four wire measurement (measure volts and amps simultaneously with two meters).

Don't confuse accuracy with resolution here. It is perfectly possible to find which Mosfet has a short from a couple of mosfets in parallel using standard probes.

[bdunham7]

Yep. No "ordinary" meter will work will under a couple of Ohms. For that you need a specialized meter or get a current source and do a four wire measurement (measure volts and amps simultaneously with two meters).

If by 'ordinary' you mean cheap junk, then OK.  "Ordinary" meters should be able to read accurately (absolutely) to 0.1 ohms with decent connections and REL/zeroing.  "Good" meters will do 0.01 ohms fairly well under the same conditions.  Even when you can't make metrology-grade connections due to the realities of probing real devices, you should be able to get this relative level of resolution for component comparison and short finding purposes.

[Fungus]

If by 'ordinary' you mean cheap junk, then OK.  "Ordinary" meters should be able to read accurately (absolutely) to 0.1 ohms with decent connections and REL/zeroing.

OK, maybe down to an Ohm you'll be able to do it with gold leads, etc.

I just tried two meters (Aneng 870 with $2 Aliexpress gold leads and Brymen BM857 with $12 Brymen gold leads) and shorted the probes, pressed rel, then put the probes together differently and they both said about 0.03.

I also did it with my Fluke 187 which has the crappy non-gold Fluke probes and results were much more variable, from negative numbers to about 0.2 Ohms.

Moral: Use gold leads.