DMM Recommendations?

[amplexus]

The Fluke 117 would fit your needs and your budget well.

That said, if you scan various online sales and places that sell used test equipment, you can probably find a great HP, Tek, Keithley, or Fluke bench DMM with a recent calibration for a similar price range and get better accuracy and precision.

My main shop meters are a pair of $5k Keithley THD deals that i scored refurbed and calibrated for like 1/5th their original price and they have been flawless and still match each other to within a few microvolts. I’m sure there are similar deals around!

 

[Whoops]

Am i a heathen for preferring an oscilloscope for AC measurements? Surely several different waveforms could result in the similar numerical AC voltage reading.

Not really, I think most will agree with you, Oscilloscope and a Soundcard and REW are what I use for "general purpose audio measurements"

 

[Whoops]

But, for checking frequency response I believe that an AC meter needs to have as flat as possible frequency response well above and below 20 Hz to 20 KHz. That's why HP sold the 400 series analog meters with a high end out to 10 MHz (?). Overkill for audio but a trusted instrument.

I'm pretty sure you really don't understand what the OP asked for and what the OP needs are.
We all give advice for free, and we are free to say what we want, but if someone asks for advice it's important to understand and be sensitive to what that person needs and goals are, otherwise we just give advice for own needs and that doesnt help anyone.

 

[Whoops]

I've been using this ****** little $12 DMM I happened to have but, for calibration, I wanna use something better because this thing sucks in just about every way there is to suck

What are you using that you like? Auto-only, please.

Any of this will fit well your needs and will make you happy:

Uni-T UT136
Brymen BM786
Fluke 179

I recommend you try the Uni-T UT136 first, before buying a much more expensive DMM because it might just fit your needs perfectly and then you don't have to spend much more than needed.

 

[kato]

For budget DMM's, I've been pretty happy with the Mastech MS8268. I've been using it for 5 years with no troubles.
It's auto ranging, and much quicker to give you a result. (Much faster than the one you have.)

The only thing I don't like about it is that the diode / continuity test share a switch position. So it's a two-step process to go into continuity checking mode. 1.) turn the dial, 2.) press the "Select" button. It's highly annoying at first but I'm used to it now.

I also have a fancy expensive meter, but the law of diminishing returns kicks in very quickly over the $50 Mastech, which is still what I use 95% of the time.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Since I designed a piece of test equipment back in the 80s (Loftech TS-1) I can comment on the difficulty of making accurate audio band measurements.

Typical precision rectifiers lose HF bandwidth at low level making accurate wide band noise measurements difficult (this loss of HF response at low level tends to indicate quieter noise floors than they actually are). As some have mentioned there are a few decent VOM that perform better than most.

I suspect some modern sound cards (do those still exist?) could be gamed as a bench test unit.

JR

 

[Bjorn Andersson]

I have been using a Fluke 77 (mk I) for 30 years, never have failed me. When i had some cash i bought the Fluke 189 for around 350$ at a clearance sale.
The 189 is a nice true RMS meter, but i like the 77 more

 

[Gold]

I just checked, and the Uni-T and 179 mentioned above are only rated for AC voltage accuracy to 1000 Hz. Maybe not a big deal for some folks/situations, but not suitable for general purpose audio measurements.

Bri

I have a Fluke 179. I just checked and on the Fluke website it says it's good to 100K Hz. I just checked mine and it is accurate to 100K Hz. It says AC volts to 1000VAC. It can display frequency or VAC but not at the same time.

That Fluke 187 mentioned earlier looks nice. A single button to press for dB mode is nice. I usually use my Fluke 287 for AC voltage measurements because it will display frequency and dBu at the same time.You have to go through menus to get there though. It's a little on the large side and has more buttons. The 179 gets more use because it's quicker and easier for everything except AC volts.

 

[Brian Roth]

I have a Fluke 179. I just checked and on the Fluke website it says it's good to 100K Hz. I just checked mine and it is accurate to 100K Hz. It says AC volts to 1000VAC. It can display frequency or VAC but not at the same time.

That Fluke 187 mentioned earlier looks nice. A single button to press for dB mode is nice. I usually use my Fluke 287 for AC voltage measurements because it will display frequency and dBu at the same time.You have to go through menus to get there though. It's a little on the large side and has more buttons. The 179 gets more use because it's quicker and easier for everything except AC volts.

That's odd. Here is a screen shot of the AC specs taken from the user's manual from the Fluke website.

No accuracy spec above 1 kHz.

Bri

 

[Brian Roth]

I'm pretty sure you really don't understand what the OP asked for and what the OP needs are.
We all give advice for free, and we are free to say what we want, but if someone asks for advice it's important to understand and be sensitive to what that person needs and goals are, otherwise we just give advice for own needs and that doesnt help anyone.

I did go on a veer, but my intent was to encourage anyone buying test gear to look down the road and buy the best possible instrument they can afford for the long run.

Bri

 

[JohnRoberts]

I have a Fluke 179. I just checked and on the Fluke website it says it's good to 100K Hz. I just checked mine and it is accurate to 100K Hz. It says AC volts to 1000VAC. It can display frequency or VAC but not at the same time.

not that I suspect Fluke of funny specs it might be interesting to see how that frequency response looks at -60dBu... You can throw together a simple -60dB pad and sweep it.

Not a huge deal but a deal for noise measurement accuracy...

JR

[edit- one popular trick for low level noise measurements is put a flat fixed gain stage in front of the measurement device. Even hipper is to build in a noise weighting curve. /edit]

 

[Gold]

not that I suspect Fluke of funny specs it might be interesting to see how that frequency response looks at -60dBu... You can throw together a simple -60dB pad and sweep it.

Not a huge deal but a deal for noise measurement accuracy...

JR

[edit- one popular trick for low level noise measurements is put a flat fixed gain stage in front of the measurement device. Even hipper is to build in a noise weighting curve. /edit]

I never use it for low level audio measurements. I don’t even use the fancier 287 for low level audio measurements. I have used it once or twice for high level audio measurements. I’ve never needed 1000VAC in dBu at 20K though. I could output a sweep at -60dBu from the AP P1.

 

[Gold]

That's odd. Here is a screen shot of the AC specs taken from the user's manual from the Fluke website.

No accuracy spec above 1 kHz.

Bri

I’ll check it again at 100k. I just took a quick look. I don’t think VAC was accurate at 100K. It did read the frequency accurately. I’ve never used it for audio measurements. Always the 287 for that.

 

[CJ]

i had a wattmeter checked at the So Cal Edison lab, fun to wander around there, 7 digit HP meters, anecholic(sp) chambers, torque wrench calibrators, anything calibration they had.

so what gets calibrated on the 1176

 

[Tubetec]

Lower level audio measurements with the 187 seems possible , If I short the inputs with copper U noise is around -90 dbu . Then again if you connected a high z audio input via the usual multimeter test cables you would expect to pickup an inordinate amount of hum and noise , when I short the inputs via the test cables I measure a noise level of around -60dbu . A proper screened probe set up for the multimeter might improve its AC measurement performance a lot , especially setting time . Maybe a scope probe and BNC adapter is the simplest option.

I narrowly missed a fluke 92b scopemeter going cheap recently , As a basic visual reference the scope functionality is ok to have but the fact that you have two channels of good AC rms multimeter made it worth having .

I like the portability and simplicity afforded by battery test gear even if you loose a few zeros resolution compared to a bench top setup .

 

[Matt Syson]

It is instructive to make a parallel reading of multimeters pitched against more audio specific gear. I checked my 'usual' DMM against an Audio precision system 1 and a 'portable one' and my little Neutrik minilysor and noting where measurements drift because as indicated by Bri earlier frequency, ;evel and waveshape all contribute to the 'accuracy' of a reading. What my 'fave' DMM actually reads when presented with 0dBu and +4dbu at 1KHz is now scribbled on the back for times when i want it to be 'accurate' An old Fluke 75 was 'spot on' at 0dBu and 1KHz which was great as I was working mostly on gear using 0dBu as line up.
now all we need is artists who can sing/play 1dB louder or quieter to order. Or maybe half a dB difference or better if you are 'mastering' a recording!
Matt S

 

[GET SALES AND SERVICES]

I love my 8060 handheld just do not loose the battery cover.......They are the original audio design meter in the late 70's I bought one when I was at Carver Corp. Scott is on track and as far as auto scaling I hate that feature since an engineer should know what range he should be in before the measurement is done.

 

[musika]

I updated my DMM last year… found a Fluke 87 III with case, manual, and extras on eBay. It was under $100. and was IMO has lots of capabilities and a good value.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Lower level audio measurements with the 187 seems possible , If I short the inputs with copper U noise is around -90 dbu . Then again if you connected a high z audio input via the usual multimeter test cables you would expect to pickup an inordinate amount of hum and noise , when I short the inputs via the test cables I measure a noise level of around -60dbu . A proper screened probe set up for the multimeter might improve its AC measurement performance a lot , especially setting time . Maybe a scope probe and BNC adapter is the simplest option.

The indicated noise floor does not say much about frequency response at low levels. I recall while I was developing the TS-1 being pleased when i first measured a noise floor around -100dBu until I realized that my precision rectifier was a severe LPF. After much bench work and with some added complexity I got the precision rectifier up to only be -3dB @ 20kHz for -50dBu. As I recall even that improved rectifier bandwidth falls off below there as I recall -60dBu was -3dB at 10kHz etc, with bandwidth dropping in half for every 10 dB lower.

I do not know what the frequency response of the 187 is at -90dBu but I know how hard it is deliver full audio bandwidth using active precision rectifiers. Some meters that use alternate detection technology may not be similarly limited. This is why serious bench meters used high quality gain stages in front of their meters.

JR

 

[Gold]

I checked the Fluke 179 again. ACV is not accurate to 100K. I guess I was confused because it will measure frequency to 100K HZ.