Decent benchtop multimeter for beginner?

[Muttley Snickers]

I have found what I think may be the best value for money, at least in Europe.
Owon XDM3051, 5.5 digits, 150 readings/s, precision 0.015±0.004

And all this for 415€ with taxes included. What do you think?

It looks very, very strange, but the accuracy of this DMM is fully consistent with Siglent SDM3055. Absolutely the same values for all parameters! How is this possible?

Maybe they were just rewritten from a competitor's datasheet so as not to look worse?

I'm yet to understand how some people even attempt to compare a brand such as Siglent with Owon, it's too silly for words so I won't even bother.   

SIGLENT >>> SUPPORT >>> SERVICE >>> SUPERIOR.
OWON >>> LILLIPUT >>> A FANTASY LAND.

[uargo]

I'm not comparing anything, I'm just trying to answer the purpose of this thread, instead of rambling about whether my multimeter is more accurate than yours, or who has a bigger one.

[Kleinstein]

Aiming for the specs that a main competitor offers is not such an exception. Quite a lot of 6.5 digit meters have specs very similar to the HP34401. They kind of set the standard.
The specs for a meter are also more like limits that they think they are compftable with. Especially for the long term drift part there is no measurement or definitive way to tell what specs a given meter should get. Its only the TC and linearity part that can be checked relatively easy. It usually takes many years before it turns out if a meter usually is more stable or tends to drift more than expected.

Another point is that often similar (or in part identical) parts are used, so one ends up with similar specs. These modern 5.5 digit usually use a bandgap reference and SD ADC chip which leads to a best range of some 2 V, that usually offers high impedance.
At least the SDM3055 uses a relatively good ADC chip, that others may as well use for 6.5 digits.

[Mahagam]

Quite a lot of 6.5 digit meters have specs very similar to the HP34401. They kind of set the standard.

"Similar" is not "the same".
Owon specs is absolutely the same as for Siglent. For every type of measurement and for every range.

[KungFuJosh]

"Similar" is not "the same".
Owon specs is absolutely the same as for Siglent. For every type of measurement and for every range.

Some people get paid to copy and paste. 🤷

[Kleinstein]

There is a good chance they took the specs of an existing 5.5 digit meter as the design goal and the design team was spot on.
The sigilent meter has more detailed specs on different DC ranges - so not absolutely the same, but very close and possible matching a different DS version.

How good the meter will actually perform, especially over the longer time is a thing that only time will tell.
Anway a 5.5 digit meter is usually not bought because of it's accuracy - it is more for PC control,  the noise, the ability to measure small voltages and have 4 wire ohms. If accuracy matters one often directly goes to 6 digits.

[coromonadalix]

It's too bad nobody offers a modular multimeter yet..

well you do have pci  pxi pxie  meter card   loll   not modular enough  loll

[J-R]

The BM857 has over 50 calibration points, for example, covering every function and range.  So one photo at 5V is not showing much of anything.

FWIW my BM857s and Fluke 187 agree within a digit or so on every range except small currents*.

Both meters have laser trimmed precision resistor arrays which basically don't drift. All measurements are derived internally from voltage measurements so if the voltage ranges are good then the rest of the meter probably is, too.

There is absolutely plenty of opportunity for drift.  Checking one point is just not a valid method for this.  If those two DMMs haven't drifted, then that is great, but what you're saying is not something that can be applied and the photo isn't proof of the method.

Some DMMs DO follow a principle adjacent to this where they know which components are leveraged for each measurement path.  So a performance verification procedure will heavily leverage that in order to reduce the number of tests that need to be performed by the operator.

The protection circuits can also make an impact depending on the voltage you are applying, so each range will still need to be checked.


Edit:
Link to the Fluke 187 calibration guide: https://www.tonyplaza.nl/download/YT251/187cal.pdf
There are 64 performance verification test steps.
There are 38 calibration inputs required.

[Fungus]

There is absolutely plenty of opportunity for drift.  Checking one point is just not a valid method for this.  If those two DMMs haven't drifted, then that is great, but what you're saying is not something that can be applied and the photo isn't proof of the method.

I didn't check just one point, I checked many, but I only uploaded one photo, OK?

The only point I was making is that if two good quality meters from completely different backgrounds agree with other to within a digit, it makes a very strong case for trusting those meters.