Hi, I was wondering if anyone had any experience with the TEST-UM and BYTE BROTHERS testers. We were looking for an additional inexpensive tester and I recently saw these. The byte brother model was around $600. Both have some neat features for the price. I am not so sure if they really provide true certification (no NEXT). Anyone have any experience or thoughts on these. Thanks
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Cat 5e/6 tester question 14
- Thread starter annacat
- Start date
Both TEST-UM and BYTE BROTHERS make nice inexpensive test equipment. I really like TEST-UM's Ranger butt set.
The major differences I have found between these inexpensive devices and the more expensive units from Fluke and the like are:
1. Durability. To hit the price point build quality is not as good as more expensive units. You shouldn't drop any test gear but...
2. Test methods. There are several ways to determine the length of a cable without a tape measure. Resistance and capacitance are cheap easy methods and can be quite accurate if the cable is undamaged and meets specifications. The better way to measure cable length is with Time Domain Reflectometry . The more expensive testers will use TDR while the less expensive ones tend to use capacitance measurements.
Notice how Byte Brothers refer to their RWC1000 as a Real World Certifier. This appears to mean that it does not give industry standard results but instead give you an idea of how the cable might "perform". I find this notion very interesting but I doubt it will get you very far with a professional cabling contractor.
The major differences I have found between these inexpensive devices and the more expensive units from Fluke and the like are:
1. Durability. To hit the price point build quality is not as good as more expensive units. You shouldn't drop any test gear but...
2. Test methods. There are several ways to determine the length of a cable without a tape measure. Resistance and capacitance are cheap easy methods and can be quite accurate if the cable is undamaged and meets specifications. The better way to measure cable length is with Time Domain Reflectometry . The more expensive testers will use TDR while the less expensive ones tend to use capacitance measurements.
Notice how Byte Brothers refer to their RWC1000 as a Real World Certifier. This appears to mean that it does not give industry standard results but instead give you an idea of how the cable might "perform". I find this notion very interesting but I doubt it will get you very far with a professional cabling contractor.
FuturistechComm
Vendor
- Dec 28, 2004
- 26
What are you looking to test?
The Fluke Microscanner is a great entry level tester. If your only looking for wiremapping, go for the Ideal tester available at Home Depot for $50. If you're looking for certification I'd recommend the Fluke DSP 4100.
The Fluke Microscanner is a great entry level tester. If your only looking for wiremapping, go for the Ideal tester available at Home Depot for $50. If you're looking for certification I'd recommend the Fluke DSP 4100.
- Thread starter
- #4
Thanks for the info. We already have an older Wavetek unit, but it does not go to 5e and 6. It tests to 100Mhz and is not upgradeable, ($5000 down the drain.) We are looking at the new Fluke units (4300, DTX), but thought that maybe one of the cheaper units might be O.K. to use until we decide. It seems as though every month or so a new unit comes out that test higher than the others(ideal's now goes to 1Gz, at least is was a software upgrade rather than a replacement) We are just starting to get requests for cat 6 so we will need to make the plunge soon.
franklin97355
Technical User
This is obvious but software upgradability is pretty much necessary these days. (as you found out)
Test-um has a new tester called VALIDATOR Ihave only seen it on their web-site and we have been talking to them about a purchase it apparently does all the right things and is software upgradable seems to be a nice package
and for a lot less than types like Fluke
and for a lot less than types like Fluke
-
9
- #7
Actually, just for kicks I bought a ByteBros RWC and tested it alongside our brand new Fluke DTX 1800. Results:
Price: The DTX 1800 really dings you....badly....ouch..$7685
THE RWC is pretty cheap at around $400
Performance: Anything the Fluke failed 5e/6, the RWC didn't call it Gigabit
Anything the Fluke failed 5, the RWC didn't give it 100Mb performance
TDR:
Accurate to each other within 2-3 feet, in fact the Fluke's TDR seemed a bit, well, flakey.
Memory: Fluke remembers, RWC's easier with a pen.
I would really like to see others compare these two, and I am interested in getteing a Test-Um validator too. As rpfessionals, we'd all like the pro-grade gear in every truck all of the time, but that's just not possible.
Would I use a RWC to grade a LAN: Absolutely.
Would I check VERY IMPORTANT lines with the Fluke afterwards: No doubt about it.
Anyone else have one?
-T-
Trevor Farren
Metrotech Telecom Inc.
Price: The DTX 1800 really dings you....badly....ouch..$7685
THE RWC is pretty cheap at around $400
Performance: Anything the Fluke failed 5e/6, the RWC didn't call it Gigabit
Anything the Fluke failed 5, the RWC didn't give it 100Mb performance
TDR:
Accurate to each other within 2-3 feet, in fact the Fluke's TDR seemed a bit, well, flakey.
Memory: Fluke remembers, RWC's easier with a pen.
I would really like to see others compare these two, and I am interested in getteing a Test-Um validator too. As rpfessionals, we'd all like the pro-grade gear in every truck all of the time, but that's just not possible.
Would I use a RWC to grade a LAN: Absolutely.
Would I check VERY IMPORTANT lines with the Fluke afterwards: No doubt about it.
Anyone else have one?
-T-
Trevor Farren
Metrotech Telecom Inc.
-
1
- #14
As briefly noted in one of the earlier posts, that devices like the Test-Um and the MicroScanner are only verification tools, NOT certification tools. Certification tools (like the DTX, PentaScanner, WireScope, etc) test each TIA required parameters where as verification tools do not.
Also, testers like the Bite Brothers RWC are testing the application (ethernet protocol) not the application independant media (cabling system). Again this is contrary to TIA standards.
The thing to note in this is that if you go the verification route, you cannot tell the customer that they have a Cat6 system. You can tell them that the cabling installed has been tested to connect at 1gig, but that's it.
It's also highly unlikely that you will get any vendor support or warranty on the structured cable without Certification testing.
If none of those things matter, by all means, go the more cost effective route. When working for a contractor, that is the way we did it, gave the customer the choice of having a verfied system that we would warranty on a time & matterials basis, or Certified system with manufacture warranty. Of course that cost them more, but gave them the choice.
Justin T. Clausen
Physical Layer Implementation
California State University, Monterey Bay
Also, testers like the Bite Brothers RWC are testing the application (ethernet protocol) not the application independant media (cabling system). Again this is contrary to TIA standards.
The thing to note in this is that if you go the verification route, you cannot tell the customer that they have a Cat6 system. You can tell them that the cabling installed has been tested to connect at 1gig, but that's it.
It's also highly unlikely that you will get any vendor support or warranty on the structured cable without Certification testing.
If none of those things matter, by all means, go the more cost effective route. When working for a contractor, that is the way we did it, gave the customer the choice of having a verfied system that we would warranty on a time & matterials basis, or Certified system with manufacture warranty. Of course that cost them more, but gave them the choice.
Justin T. Clausen
Physical Layer Implementation
California State University, Monterey Bay
AdmanOK
MIS
- Mar 5, 2001
- 412
Understood, I would just like a tool that give me a better idea of what is wrong with my cabling before I have to call in the cabling company... they have the top dollar Fluke scanners to do certification, I just want something for troubleshooting that is a little more advanced than a plain wiremap.
Then you would be a perfect candidate for the Test-um or the Fluke MicroScanner. The older Fluke 620 is a great tool for that. I think they may still sell it, if not I'm sure you could find one used.
Justin T. Clausen
Physical Layer Implementation
California State University, Monterey Bay
Justin T. Clausen
Physical Layer Implementation
California State University, Monterey Bay
Hey guys, I'm back from a very remote big job and I have news and opinions to share.
First of all: Jtodd, the Fluke microscanner is an individual wire continuity test tool, with TDR and link speed verification. In NO way is it a speed tester. Second... I am with you that they are not true certifiers, however, this new breed of tool is getting close. Otherwise Fluke woulden't have come out with a very new and cool tester called the CableIQ. I am supposed to be getting one of the first ones that come out.... By my review following you'll see what I mean about the similarities.
OK!
The Test-Um Validator is a fairly strudy device like the rest of Test-Um's line of gear, I use their Toners, but not their butt-sets, I am a Progressive PE series kind of guy...
I pitched this against the DTX and the Pentascanner again and was quite impressed with how much you get for the $$ with the Validator. While the ByteBro's offering is basic, the Validator offers much more certifier like details: SNR, and true skew readings, and that is not too shabby for a $960 tester. Of couse my DTX told me everything on the planet about my runs, and what color my underwear is , but the Validator's output was the same as the DTX about 99% of the time. The Validator lacks your Margin and NEXT and FEXT readings, but any of those faliures will result in a sub Gig or 100mb link rate depending on the cable category being installed. So I decided to do the same test as before (with the ByteBrothers)and purposefully Fu%&%$ed some cabling and saw if one tester failed and the other passed. Out of 107 tests, the Validator passed only one false pass, and the DTX did muff that drop as well, failing the cable the first time and passing it on the second and third tries. I guess that cable was right on the edge of pass/fail.
The memory is pretty good, but I did find the interface a bit muddled and overly complicated, but battery life was ok, and the memory did it's job, but the bundled software is a little lame.
What does this all mean? I will be changing my tester stratigy soon. My clients are demanding less certification theese days due to the rise in cable quality and, I'll be a bit boastful here, our company's excellent installation track record. Certification is important, but not everyone wants to pay for it, or they prefer to troubleshoot faulty drops after installation. I perfer to always certify, but the market is competitive, and I do what the client asks; to a certain extent. But that was befor theese gadgets came out. I will only now do jobs and leave after they have been tested at the very minimum with a speed based certifier like the Validator; and soon, I will trade all of my Validators, RWC's, MicroScanners, etc for a couple of CableIq's. I suggest that everyone try the demo at Fluke's site. That is a cool piece of gear. You'd have to pry my DTX out of my cold, dead hands with a crowbar, and I DON"T LEND or RENT my gear to others, but I'll definitly have more verifiers and probably a couple less certifiers with the CableIQ comming out!
Any Questions?
Trevor Farren
Metrotech Telecom Inc.
First of all: Jtodd, the Fluke microscanner is an individual wire continuity test tool, with TDR and link speed verification. In NO way is it a speed tester. Second... I am with you that they are not true certifiers, however, this new breed of tool is getting close. Otherwise Fluke woulden't have come out with a very new and cool tester called the CableIQ. I am supposed to be getting one of the first ones that come out.... By my review following you'll see what I mean about the similarities.
OK!
The Test-Um Validator is a fairly strudy device like the rest of Test-Um's line of gear, I use their Toners, but not their butt-sets, I am a Progressive PE series kind of guy...
I pitched this against the DTX and the Pentascanner again and was quite impressed with how much you get for the $$ with the Validator. While the ByteBro's offering is basic, the Validator offers much more certifier like details: SNR, and true skew readings, and that is not too shabby for a $960 tester. Of couse my DTX told me everything on the planet about my runs, and what color my underwear is , but the Validator's output was the same as the DTX about 99% of the time. The Validator lacks your Margin and NEXT and FEXT readings, but any of those faliures will result in a sub Gig or 100mb link rate depending on the cable category being installed. So I decided to do the same test as before (with the ByteBrothers)and purposefully Fu%&%$ed some cabling and saw if one tester failed and the other passed. Out of 107 tests, the Validator passed only one false pass, and the DTX did muff that drop as well, failing the cable the first time and passing it on the second and third tries. I guess that cable was right on the edge of pass/fail.
The memory is pretty good, but I did find the interface a bit muddled and overly complicated, but battery life was ok, and the memory did it's job, but the bundled software is a little lame.
What does this all mean? I will be changing my tester stratigy soon. My clients are demanding less certification theese days due to the rise in cable quality and, I'll be a bit boastful here, our company's excellent installation track record. Certification is important, but not everyone wants to pay for it, or they prefer to troubleshoot faulty drops after installation. I perfer to always certify, but the market is competitive, and I do what the client asks; to a certain extent. But that was befor theese gadgets came out. I will only now do jobs and leave after they have been tested at the very minimum with a speed based certifier like the Validator; and soon, I will trade all of my Validators, RWC's, MicroScanners, etc for a couple of CableIq's. I suggest that everyone try the demo at Fluke's site. That is a cool piece of gear. You'd have to pry my DTX out of my cold, dead hands with a crowbar, and I DON"T LEND or RENT my gear to others, but I'll definitly have more verifiers and probably a couple less certifiers with the CableIQ comming out!
Any Questions?
Trevor Farren
Metrotech Telecom Inc.
- Thread starter
- #20
Thanks MetromMan, that was great info. I went to fluke website and saw the demo, pretty cool. Did you have the price for the cableiq?(everytime you call fluke for a price, you get inundated with sales pitch/emails/onsite demo offers). Also to everyone: If you are registered on the fluke site, you can enter to win a cableiq. GOOD LUCK. Sorry about your HP...I think everyone has had tools/testers "disappear" on jobs. I had a fluke meter walk away while I was on anouther floor (all the electrical workers were foreign and "didn't understand" what I was talking about when asked about it), now I don't leave anything that I want out of site.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question