Ok, that makes sense. Maybe this is a dumb question, but given that the accuracy specs across many ranges are the same between the 34465A and 34470A, why pay for the extra digits?
Edit: I should clarify, I was looking at the current ranges. The voltage measuring accuracy of the 70A is considerably better than the 65A, so I assume that's what folks are paying for.
Please read inside this thread, that the 34465A and the 34470A are virtually identical in hardware, and also in performance.
The only physical difference is the voltage reference, i.e. LM399 versus LTZ1000A, respectively.
That makes the '470A more stable and less noisy in DCV, as reflected in the specification, and by our common noise measurements.
All other parameters are identical, and over the bus, the resolution of both instruments is identical, too.
This is in contrast to the resolution specification in the user manual.
The '470A displays 7 1/2 digits in most, but not all modes, when using the instrument 'on the bench'.
But this additional resolution has nothing to do with accuracy or stability, see my review of 465A vs. 470A, also:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/keysight's-new-34465a-(6-5-digit)-and-34470a-(7-5-digit)-bench-multimeters/msg889215/#msg889215Therefore, you pay double the price for an LTZ1000A reference (about 350$ as spare part), and the 7 1/2 digits feeling, only.
Frank