We Can Make Multimeter Reviews Better

[EEVblog]

My contention was that because it is frequently ignored, small-signal ac performance does not get put in perspective. I never hear the phrase "basic ac accuracy" for example. Why? In your reply here, you would seem to be saying, and I am sure I must have got this wrong, that mentioning the quoted basic dc accuracy is straightforward, but to mention the quoted ac accuracy is inappropriate without testing many examples of the same model of meter. If that is so, why? What is different between ac and dc in this regard?

The perspective is that for most users, small signal AC performance is not that important. As I said, for some like yourself it may be THE spec you are after, but for most people it's just not, and that's why reviews have evolved to not even bother measuring it. Anyone with experience with RMS converter chips knows that small signal perfornace is usually poor, the bandwidth drops and so can the accuracy, so you avoid doing that if possible.

I'm not saying it's not a worthy test, it's just that most people aren't going to care and so the review community has evolved to not care that much and focus is spent elsewhere.

[IanJ]

Improving DMM testing?…….then I’ll throw in my DMM Continuity tester, a free design for anyone to make up.

https://www.ianjohnston.com/index.php/projects/124-project-062-dmmcontinuity

It’s a device that puts numbers to and replaces the ‘clacking the probes together as fast as the DMM can handle’ in continuity mode.

I sent one to The Defpom, he uses it in all his DMM reviews…….albeit he really should update the firmware in his hint hint…..LOL!

Ian.

[nonlinearschool]

Hi.
This may be an incredibly dumb question.

why not use a scope?  you are talking about AC signals and audio frequency range.  How would a DMM that meet's your desired specs be better?

Or, maybe it is the frustration of how everyone does multi meter reviews.  I may be new here, but I have watched an awful lot of electronics videos.The small, new, and major YouTube channel creators in electronics.  I get curious and go back to their beginning videos. What I have noticed is that early on, Dave kind of set the standard format of how to review them.  Afrotechmod got it going, others did their various method or style...Then slowly they all began to emulate Dave's style.

Dave is right. add too much and a video can get really long.  However, I rarely see reviews that review a pieced of kit specifically for Audio, and very low level work.  I know all you electronics YouTube content creators are on this forum. Right?

How about trying out doing a video or two in a different format that caters to this "limited" interest?  it might just lead to more review videos catering to other specific areas and needs!

Uh, so DO I have the lingo right?  "piece of kit"?  "YouTube channel creator"? or "content creator"?

[J-R]

While I do think it's a valid conversation to discuss the AC capabilities of various DMMs, unfortunately what was primarily asked for is that every review be perfect.  But so what if they extensively cover AC capabilities.  Maybe another person comes along and wants to know how many Newtons it takes to flatten the DMM's stand.  You're just asking for this one area of interest to be focused on.

So I would propose pivoting the thread to some real world testing, result aggregation and problem solving instead.

With regard to the concept that analog meters are superior in certain areas, I do see that of course with the AC millivolt meter I mentioned earlier that the 300uV range was an advantage, but wouldn't say the fact that it is analog is automatically also an advantage.
If there is some criteria that must be tested, then there is no reason for someone to have to develop some specific skill with an analog meter.  There are plenty of digital meters that can sample the same signal for automated analysis and do a far better and consistent job than a human watching a twitchy pointer.

It's true that most handheld DMMs are made for some very specific use cases, and I'd actually suspect that perhaps over 90% of handheld DMMs are sold to the average person on the street who wants to check some basic stuff around the house or on their car.  Out of hundreds of friends and family that I can recall at the moment, all of them fit this.  These are the folks that try to "measure the amps" of their doorbell transformer or car battery, for example.

[alm]

My contention was that because it is frequently ignored, small-signal ac performance does not get put in perspective. I never hear the phrase "basic ac accuracy" for example. Why? In your reply here, you would seem to be saying, and I am sure I must have got this wrong, that mentioning the quoted basic dc accuracy is straightforward, but to mention the quoted ac accuracy is inappropriate without testing many examples of the same model of meter. If that is so, why? What is different between ac and dc in this regard?

"Basic DC accuracy" is more fundamental specification because every DMM is a DC voltmeter with circuits strapped on to convert ACV, Ohms, current etc to a DC voltage. So it gives an upper bound on accuracy. No range is going to be more accurate. For a good meter at least Ohms performance will be fairly close to DCV performance.

"Basic AC accuracy", as in best AC accuracy based on the data sheet could easily be mentioned, although there is usually more variation in AC accuracy over ranges and frequency than for DC. Also lowest AC range could easily be mentioned, although like others mentioned the trick with a review is to extract the specifications most important for the intended audience. They could also mention how the AC accuracy is specified from 5% of the range, if that's in the data sheet. But why not read the data sheet? I think the value in reviews is in information that's not in the data sheet, like mechanical construction or user interface, or how quickly it responds to a change in value.

The problem I see is with measuring unspecified things, like how low can it really meaasure ACV or over what bandwidth. That partly depends on the noise of the RMS converter (if analog), for example, and that may vary between samples. So I see limited value in such testing. For testing specified metrics you can at least verify if they are consistent with the specifications.

[Kleinstein]

This may be an incredibly dumb question.
why not use a scope?  you are talking about AC signals and audio frequency range.  How would a DMM that meet's your desired specs be better?

Many AC measurement can be done with a scope, but most scopes are not portable, not really suitable for direct mains reading and usually come at a high price point.

At the high end, when there is already a graphical screen anyway one could prefer a scope view (even if low sampling rate / BW), but this more one the wishlist and actually found with common DMMs.

Looking at properties not specified is a 2 sided thing. It is problematic with properties that are (or likely can be) quite different with different units . This would be something like the drift on turn on, the low end for AC when using analog RMS, the actual accuracy of the meter at hand. So the common point is most previews of showing the meter spot on at 2 V or 10 K is more like a useless part. It would only be a point if a meter is significant off (e.g. more than half the accuracy spec).
Other properties are the interesting ones, like the speed for autoranging or the beeper and they will likely not vary much and are just missing in the spec sheet.  The BW for AC is more one of the 2nd kind - usually similar between units and not allways given in the specs. However it needs some care (e.g. BW may depend on the range, amplitude) and it can get lengthy covering it all.

For the accuracy the Ohms part may actually be better than the DC voltage part as a different reference is relevant, though this is more like an exception.

[Richard_S]

My contention was that because it is frequently ignored, small-signal ac performance does not get put in perspective. I never hear the phrase "basic ac accuracy" for example. Why? In your reply here, you would seem to be saying, and I am sure I must have got this wrong, that mentioning the quoted basic dc accuracy is straightforward, but to mention the quoted ac accuracy is inappropriate without testing many examples of the same model of meter. If that is so, why? What is different between ac and dc in this regard?

The perspective is that for most users, small signal AC performance is not that important. As I said, for some like yourself it may be THE spec you are after, but for most people it's just not, and that's why reviews have evolved to not even bother measuring it. Anyone with experience with RMS converter chips knows that small signal perfornace is usually poor, the bandwidth drops and so can the accuracy, so you avoid doing that if possible.

I'm not saying it's not a worthy test, it's just that most people aren't going to care and so the review community has evolved to not care that much and focus is spent elsewhere.

That is absolutely fair enough. Because it is an area I am interested in does not mean that anyone else is, or at least that many other people are. I get that. I still think that it is fair for me to ask though. Let's say there were more than just a few other people who cared about small signal ac performance, how would we know unless we all speak up? What else can I do but ask?

As part of a pitch that the minute or two it takes to talk about the basic ac accuracy is time worth spending, here are my thoughts. The quality of dc measurement is summed-up by our term "basic dc accuracy". It will change according to the range and sometimes within a range for example. Yet we still mention it even though the detail is generally omitted. It is why we even have the phrase I believe. It communicates that there is more to know but that this figure gives you a simple overall summary. The couplet of stating a basic dc accuracy and lowest range really define a meter for low-voltage dc work without drowning in detail.

So, this is probably me just being dense (I often am), but aren't the challenges of giving a basic ac view not much the same? Aren't all the arguments that it is an incomplete picture still just as true for dc? For ac it would have to be three elements, basic accuracy, lowest range, and then bandwidth as well. So, one more number. I get that not everyone cares about ac performance, though can I ask, is there also not a case that it acts as a bell-weather for all users regarding design quality, even those not directly interested?

And thanks so much for engaging on this. I have learned loads. I hope it has helped others too.

[mendip_discovery]

Improving DMM testing?…….then I’ll throw in my DMM Continuity tester, a free design for anyone to make up.

https://www.ianjohnston.com/index.php/projects/124-project-062-dmmcontinuity

It’s a device that puts numbers to and replaces the ‘clacking the probes together as fast as the DMM can handle’ in continuity mode.

I sent one to The Defpom, he uses it in all his DMM reviews…….albeit he really should update the firmware in his hint hint…..LOL!

Ian.

How about adding a sound sensor that can listen for the beep and provide a time from clack to beep.

EDIT: Just read the full page Ian posted to and noticed that he has already thought of that.

[mendip_discovery]

My general feeling is there is room out there for a more in-depth review of meters on YT but it's got to be from someone with some tasty stuff that can test the various elements with a good degree of confidence. But also to avoid being a brand snob and asking too much from a hungflug cheap meter. I must admit it is hard to get information on the performance of a meter when you are looking to buy as there is a lack of unbiased info out there, but each person has a different use case depending on what they plan to use the meter for. I wish more of my customers spent some time thinking about the gear they are buying as most of the time it is a non-tech person who goes on RS and just buys something that will do what they want for not a lot.

My issue is it is within the spec new and also a year or two after working out in the real world?
How does it handle as a daily tool?

I see cheap ass meters turn up at work and they are OK but not convinced of the result they want to show you. Then expensive known brands that make their mind up quickly and neatly, as well as expensive brands with lots of digits but the extra digits are a waste as wander about soo much. Though I am cheating as I am confident of the source and unsure of the meter, normal people are sure of the meter and unsure of what they are measuring so I see 2 or 3 digits out as being not great.

[Richard_S]

Hi.
This may be an incredibly dumb question.

why not use a scope?  you are talking about AC signals and audio frequency range.  How would a DMM that meet's your desired specs be better?

Or, maybe it is the frustration of how everyone does multi meter reviews.  I may be new here, but I have watched an awful lot of electronics videos.The small, new, and major YouTube channel creators in electronics.  I get curious and go back to their beginning videos. What I have noticed is that early on, Dave kind of set the standard format of how to review them.  Afrotechmod got it going, others did their various method or style...Then slowly they all began to emulate Dave's style.

Dave is right. add too much and a video can get really long.  However, I rarely see reviews that review a pieced of kit specifically for Audio, and very low level work.  I know all you electronics YouTube content creators are on this forum. Right?

How about trying out doing a video or two in a different format that caters to this "limited" interest?  it might just lead to more review videos catering to other specific areas and needs!

Uh, so DO I have the lingo right?  "piece of kit"?  "YouTube channel creator"? or "content creator"?

That is a fair question and in some cases, a scope would work just fine. Starting with measuring sine wave test signals then... Of course, the first issue may well be that the user does not have a scope. Apart from that it is convenience, balanced signals, and accuracy I think. Oscilloscopes are more cumbersome and do not just give you a singular direct reading in the way a meter does. It is really straightforward to use a meter. You are likely to need to measure other things like resistance and the multimeter can be turned to multiple tasks easily. Where the signal is balanced (common in audio), a battery-powered multimeter can easily be used across the two conductors while for a scope it is a bit more tricky (though not an awful lot these days). Finally, the scope, at best, is about the same accuracy as the most basic of meters meaning that for the price its accuracy is poor.

For more complex signals, the performance depends so much on the scope and what measurement functions it has built in. What you always want to know about any complex signal is their power and therefore you need their RMS voltage. The accuracy is still a limitation for complex signal waveforms - at least compared to a reasonable multimeter.

[2N3055]

Hi.
This may be an incredibly dumb question.

why not use a scope?  you are talking about AC signals and audio frequency range.  How would a DMM that meet's your desired specs be better?

Or, maybe it is the frustration of how everyone does multi meter reviews.  I may be new here, but I have watched an awful lot of electronics videos.The small, new, and major YouTube channel creators in electronics.  I get curious and go back to their beginning videos. What I have noticed is that early on, Dave kind of set the standard format of how to review them.  Afrotechmod got it going, others did their various method or style...Then slowly they all began to emulate Dave's style.

Dave is right. add too much and a video can get really long.  However, I rarely see reviews that review a pieced of kit specifically for Audio, and very low level work.  I know all you electronics YouTube content creators are on this forum. Right?

How about trying out doing a video or two in a different format that caters to this "limited" interest?  it might just lead to more review videos catering to other specific areas and needs!

Uh, so DO I have the lingo right?  "piece of kit"?  "YouTube channel creator"? or "content creator"?

That is a fair question and in some cases, a scope would work just fine. Starting with measuring sine wave test signals then... Of course, the first issue may well be that the user does not have a scope. Apart from that it is convenience, balanced signals, and accuracy I think. Oscilloscopes are more cumbersome and do not just give you a singular direct reading in the way a meter does. It is really straightforward to use a meter. You are likely to need to measure other things like resistance and the multimeter can be turned to multiple tasks easily. Where the signal is balanced (common in audio), a battery-powered multimeter can easily be used across the two conductors while for a scope it is a bit more tricky (though not an awful lot these days). Finally, the scope, at best, is about the same accuracy as the most basic of meters meaning that for the price its accuracy is poor.

For more complex signals, the performance depends so much on the scope and what measurement functions it has built in. What you always want to know about any complex signal is their power and therefore you need their RMS voltage. The accuracy is still a limitation for complex signal waveforms - at least compared to a reasonable multimeter.

Scopes absolutely give you discrete measurements and actually dozens of them at the same time.
AC RMS, AC+DC RMS, DC component, frequency, P-P value etc.
In addition to time domain waveform view also spectrum and other things..

At the same time you see if signal is what you expect.
I prefer to use scope for most voltage measurements first, and break out multimeter only to measure with more accuracy...

And contrary to what you wrote, with complex signal good scope will actually do much better than most meters.
It has much wider BW and built in measurements will do very good job.

[Rax]

I admit not reading all posts in detail, but what I've seen I think misses the paradigm shift the "low level audio measurements" universe requires. This may just be the wrong place to ask those questions.

The gold standard for this type of endeavor is the Audio Precision systems. R&S and Keysight makes some similar units, but I don't think anyone else than AP can claim the top spot.

The issue with this type of measurements is:

• They're "dB" precise, not "ppm" precise. When analyzing audio signals, "ppm" accuracy is irrelevant.
• The whole deal with this type of analysis is that, to be relevant ("dB" levels response, distortion, FFT, intermodulation, phase accuracy, group delay, etc.) it simply doesn't need to employ the same accuracy exigencies as metrology would require. Absolutely all of the relevant data harvesting is disjunct with that mindset. 100% of the professionals involved in "low level ACV audio signals" analysis need relevance and interpretations that don't really intersect with metrology, 5.5 digits + levels.

My point being oftentimes there's just no "pull" for utility the actual audience is not looking for.

[Rax]

One exception to the lack of intersections I mention that I am aware if is the Keithley 2015 (and I feel there were a couple of others I can't recall now) that does THD, but most, if not all, people doing work in this field will not resort to what I personally feel is a compromised solution and resort to the heavyweights such as AP.

Anyone working in this field that experiences an AP box for the first time feels they've had both legs and arms tied behind their back until they got that box. It's a whole other universe.

[Richard_S]

Scopes absolutely give you discrete measurements and actually dozens of them at the same time.
AC RMS, AC+DC RMS, DC component, frequency, P-P value etc.
In addition to time domain waveform view also spectrum and other things..

At the same time you see if signal is what you expect.
I prefer to use scope for most voltage measurements first, and break out multimeter only to measure with more accuracy...

And contrary to what you wrote, with complex signal good scope will actually do much better than most meters.
It has much wider BW and built in measurements will do very good job.

Are we presenting contrary arguments? I don't see that myself.

Seeing the waveform can be an big plus and that is a good point to make. For audio test signals it tends to be irrelevant much of the time because the levels of distortion being observed do not show up to the human eye. For audio noise, well there is rarely anything meaningful to see in the waveform. The spectrum by contrast would be valuable, but oscilloscopes typically do not have the resolution (frequency resolution) required to display what is going on (you need considerably less than one Hertz for sound). To be fair, a lot of specialist audio gear and software lacks it too. For measurements like pulse-width drives though, observing the waveform can be a huge boon.

Bandwidth for RMS measurements is a rather moot point isn't it? The struggle with so many multimeters is that their RMS bandwidths are too narrow. They can be in the hundreds of Hertz. Then when you do get an instrument, like a digital scope, that can measure bandwidths in the hundreds of kilohertz and even megahertz, the bandwidth is often too wide. RMS is about inferring power, power is the ability to do work, higher frequencies often can't be used to do work. The upper frequencies are irrelevant to say audio signals, because you can't hear them, while they are irrelevant to motor drives, because the motor will not apply that energy, and so on. So, ironically meters often have too little bandwidth and scopes too much (for the application).

[Richard_S]

I admit not reading all posts in detail, but what I've seen I think misses the paradigm shift the "low level audio measurements" universe requires. This may just be the wrong place to ask those questions.

The gold standard for this type of endeavor is the Audio Precision systems. R&S and Keysight makes some similar units, but I don't think anyone else than AP can claim the top spot.

The issue with this type of measurements is:

• They're "dB" precise, not "ppm" precise. When analyzing audio signals, "ppm" accuracy is irrelevant.
• The whole deal with this type of analysis is that, to be relevant ("dB" levels response, distortion, FFT, intermodulation, phase accuracy, group delay, etc.) it simply doesn't need to employ the same accuracy exigencies as metrology would require. Absolutely all of the relevant data harvesting is disjunct with that mindset. 100% of the professionals involved in "low level ACV audio signals" analysis need relevance and interpretations that don't really intersect with metrology, 5.5 digits + levels.

My point being oftentimes there's just no "pull" for utility the actual audience is not looking for.

Thank you for the contribution Rax. Yes, I think you are suffering from not reading the posts.

In summary, reviews of multimeters that cost in the region of $100, to $200 would be more informative if they included their basic ac accuracy just like they include their basic dc accuracy.

An AP unit is not pocketable and two orders of magnitude more costly.

I loved the phrase "accuracy exigencies", never been prompted to think of accuracy in terms of its urgency before.

For audio we are really talking 0.1dB precision rather than dB precise I think, suggesting an ideal accuracy of 0.11% (roughly one tenth of 0.1dB) with still-workable accuracies up to around 0.3% or 0.5% at a push.

Metrology is the study of measurement is it not? Difficult to follow the concept that measuring with either less than, or more than, a certain number of digits is no longer measurement. Or did I misunderstand?

[David Hess]

Decibels
The ability to present the reading in dB is often scored well in reviews when in practice, I find that it is rarely useful. If you want to line a piece of equipment up, then you can convert from dB first and simply measure in volts. Where direct reading of decibels does become useful is when tracking changing values and most multimeters are too slow for their dB reading displays to be relevant.

I recently found dB to be advantageous when tuning speaker cabinets because it made the measurements more sensitive.

Being able to switch between average-responding RMS reading and true RMS isn't a feature I've ever seen and A-weighting really wouldn't be appropriate for an RMS-reading DMM.  It is true that many use cases don't require TRMS, but I'm not sure why you think they are necessarily more accurate without it.

The old Tektronix handheld multimeters have a configuration option to switch between average responding AC and true RMS AC readings, while always displaying true RMS for the AC+DC mode.  When I was first using precision square waves to do AC calibration, all three of these measurement modes on my Tektronix DMM916 read exactly what they should have to the last digit.  I ended up using average reading AC mode because the settling time was faster.

With the most common analog true RMS conversion circuit, the difference between average AC and true RMS AC is a single wire.

One exception to the lack of intersections I mention that I am aware if is the Keithley 2015 (and I feel there were a couple of others I can't recall now) that does THD, but most, if not all, people doing work in this field will not resort to what I personally feel is a compromised solution and resort to the heavyweights such as AP.

I never understood what market Keithley was aiming for with that expensive meter supporting THD measurements.

Anyone working in this field that experiences an AP box for the first time feels they've had both legs and arms tied behind their back until they got that box. It's a whole other universe.

I suspect it is like the first time you use a low frequency network analyzer, or a time domain reflectometer that has picosecond resolution.

[TUMEMBER]

Thank you for the contribution Rax. Yes, I think you are suffering from not reading the posts.

In summary, reviews of multimeters that cost in the region of $100, to $200 would be more informative if they included their basic ac accuracy just like they include their basic dc accuracy.

An AP unit is not pocketable and two orders of magnitude more costly.

I loved the phrase "accuracy exigencies", never been prompted to think of accuracy in terms of its urgency before.

For audio we are really talking 0.1dB precision rather than dB precise I think, suggesting an ideal accuracy of 0.11% (roughly one tenth of 0.1dB) with still-workable accuracies up to around 0.3% or 0.5% at a push.

Metrology is the study of measurement is it not? Difficult to follow the concept that measuring with either less than, or more than, a certain number of digits is no longer measurement. Or did I misunderstand?

Many problems with the "shape" of voltage can be "skipped" by using analog meters with electro-magnetic conversion. A laboratory-grade analog meter may meet your requirements and will cost much less than super-advanced DMMs.

In this presentation you can see the surprising results achieved in the "duel" between the "old" and the somewhat modern, much more expensive Rigol.
Niestety filmik nie ma automatycznej translacji na angielski. Unfortunately, the video does not have automatic translation into English. 

Fortunately, "the tables are international".

[Kleinstein]

Many of the analog meters us a simpler rectifier and not true RMS. For mechanical averaging there are moving iron meters that actual come close to RMS response, but they are far from ideal (e.g. limited BW from eddy currents, magnetic hysteresis, nonlinear scale). With the analog scale it is hard to read much better than 1% and the meter movements are somewhat temperature sensitive. To reduce loading one may also want an electronic amplifier up front.

The better of the analog RMS meters often use similar RMS to DC converter chips as the DMMs, just the needle instead of an ADC.
The only really better way are thermal RMS converters, but these are slow and expensive, and thus more a thing for CAL labs.

[Rax]

Thank you for the contribution Rax. Yes, I think you are suffering from not reading the posts.

Well, that's a little unfair, and also incorrect. Did you think my point was misplaced, or maybe unclear?

I didn't say I didn't read the posts, I said I didn't read them in as much detail as I would have liked to. I am an extremely close and attentive reader, but don't always have as much time as I'd like to achieve that result, was essentially my point.

So, I re-read the thread and I still think my point is pertinent. There was one mention of "audio analyzers" (2N3055's post) but that's it.

For audio we are really talking 0.1dB precision rather than dB precise I think, suggesting an ideal accuracy of 0.11% (roughly one tenth of 0.1dB) with still-workable accuracies up to around 0.3% or 0.5% at a push.

I was making a different point - similarly with RF measurements, AF measurements typically follow logarithmic scales. A "level generator" such as the 3335A is linear to about .1dB. How much would that translate in ppm? If you look at AC performance (typically evaluated from the perspective of "logarithmic linearity") in actual V (mV, uV), it's all full of mountains and valleys.

Metrology is the study of measurement is it not? Difficult to follow the concept that measuring with either less than, or more than, a certain number of digits is no longer measurement. Or did I misunderstand?

Both are measurements, but priorities are everything. See my points above. I did a quick search on the Metrology group for "Audio Precision" and the results are very few (and a good proportion are mine...). I just think there's little intersection between specialists in audio analysis (though there's a whole, massive chunk of the internet catering for those crowds) and the voltnuts.

[TUMEMBER]

With the analog scale it is hard to read much better than 1% and the meter movements are somewhat temperature sensitive. To reduce loading one may also want an electronic amplifier up front.

The better of the analog RMS meters often use similar RMS to DC converter chips as the DMMs, just the needle instead of an ADC.
The only really better way are thermal RMS converters, but these are slow and expensive, and thus more a thing for CAL labs.

I value your knowledge because it is gigantic.
 But you are wrong here - some of the LABORATORY MIRROR meters had a class of 0.2.
ll your objections are valid, but 20 years of "patterning" in the old days have not allowed me to forget about it.



And for my friend who started this topic, the only thing left to do is buy a Fluke 8050A on eBay and send it to the service center for adjustment. It will be "relatively cheap", although the measurement class is so-so.

[bdunham7]

The old Tektronix handheld multimeters have a configuration option to switch between average responding AC and true RMS AC readings, while always displaying true RMS for the AC+DC mode.

Was that average-responding but RMS corrected?  Or did it display the actual average voltage? 

[TheDefpom]

As someone that actually does these review videos, I can say there is only so much time I am willing to put into doing one.

I spend up to 3 hours recording the actual footage (depending upon the features of the meter, plus whatever playing around I do before hand to learn the meter a bit), then at least two to three times that time to edit it down to something more concise, and even then the videos are still usually over 30 minutes long.

It is a LOT of work, and whilst I dont mind doing that so much for a higher priced meter such as a Fluke or Keysight as the value of the meter makes it worthwhile (plus I would not be selling one of those afterwards), the budget meters are hard to justify committing that much time to, yes I still put a lot of time into those reviews, but if I can only sell the meter for $20 afterwards (as I have no need for budget meters), I don't want to spend 3 days making a video for it, plus the final video would be WAY too long for the target audience, people looking for a budget meter are not going to be interested in the finer details of edge case usage, sure that may be the case for higher cost meters though.

[joeqsmith]

....
This is why to me, arguing over whether or not a meter survives Joe Smith's overload tests slighter better than some other meter is likely moot for most people. ....

Sure, drag me into this mess...
 
I don't check meters for their accuracy as part of my reviews.  I don't often check all their features.  Rare I even look at current measurements.  Rather I focus on stressing the meters to failure.  Life cycling their rotary switches, exposing them to chemicals, dropping them, and of course subjecting them to some low level transients.    It all takes time.   

I don't normally accept donations so there is the cost of the product (which is going to be trashed).  But that pails to the time required.   No Pateron, begging people to join the channel,  ring that bell or what ever YT wants.  It's a total loss channel.   Then the content is sparse and dry.   

I run the tests I want to see and make them available for free.  That about sums it up.  Don't like the content, plenty of it out there.   

[David Hess]

The old Tektronix handheld multimeters have a configuration option to switch between average responding AC and true RMS AC readings, while always displaying true RMS for the AC+DC mode.

Was that average-responding but RMS corrected?  Or did it display the actual average voltage?

Average responding for a voltmeter always means RMS corrected for a sine source, which means it reads 11.11% high for a square wave compared to the RMS reading.

[alligatorblues]

I know the premiere and most sought after audio tech in Los Angeles. He's booked for five years. He has a mod for the Fluke 8840A/8842A AC add-on board that makes it perfect for audio. It's not a difficult mod, but thinking it up might have been.

I have to search in my email for his phone#.