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 Mike Lewis 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
Guys, thats all fine and good, but if you want to certify, don't get frustrated with certifier prices. We rented when wee needed them for years, It's a big pain, yes, but it did the trick until we could justify using one SO OFTEN that it would be worthwile. Remember, most testers are ticking time bombs, ready to explode into oblivion when we jump to CAT 7, 8 , 9 whatever they figure out next. The DTX is the last tester I hope to buy....everything will be fiber if more speed is needed, and FTTD is comming quickly, sort of, not really, uh, .....what was the question again?
-T-
Trevor Farren
Metrotech Telecom Inc.
-T-
Trevor Farren
Metrotech Telecom Inc.
Very interesting thread... especially since today I had a fluke rep demo the CableIQ unit. I was left salivating for the DTX unit which he also had with him...
As to the CableIQ, from what I have seen I can say that it is a VERY basic unit. It will tell you the wiremap, it will tell you the length of the whole cable and it will give you a checkmark or X if it is certified for 1gb, 100MB, 10Mb, VoIP and telco. That is it. From READING this thread, the Validator seems to give a lot more for the same price. And yes if I had the $$$$ I would get the Fluke DTX.
Main problem I noticed with the CableIQ is that if a cable is not wiremapped properly it will fail all tests. So, for example, it shows a crossover cable not suited for any standard other than telco. I did not like this. The checkmark or X was too vague for me and left me with a feeling of not trusting the unit- even though it could have very well done all the certification tests. I wish we had a cable wiremapped properly, however with some problem that I could see that it fails 1gb and 100mb but passes 10mb. But we did not.
Also the CableIQ will not tell you this pair has a short and these pairs fail certification at these speeds. If wiremapping is wrong it does not seem to test any other parameters.
It will show you shorts or open, however without distances.
My conclusion was: if you need to know if a cable is good or bad - it will tell you very simply: with a checkmark or X. However if the cable is bad- you will need other tools to troubleshoot where and why. I think this is also how Fluke wants to market this tester-as a dumb'ed down version for low-tech installers. They will be able to give the thumbs up or down, and if down, send the hi-tech installers/network engineers with the REAL tools, AKA Fluke DTX ...
As to the CableIQ, from what I have seen I can say that it is a VERY basic unit. It will tell you the wiremap, it will tell you the length of the whole cable and it will give you a checkmark or X if it is certified for 1gb, 100MB, 10Mb, VoIP and telco. That is it. From READING this thread, the Validator seems to give a lot more for the same price. And yes if I had the $$$$ I would get the Fluke DTX.
Main problem I noticed with the CableIQ is that if a cable is not wiremapped properly it will fail all tests. So, for example, it shows a crossover cable not suited for any standard other than telco. I did not like this. The checkmark or X was too vague for me and left me with a feeling of not trusting the unit- even though it could have very well done all the certification tests. I wish we had a cable wiremapped properly, however with some problem that I could see that it fails 1gb and 100mb but passes 10mb. But we did not.
Also the CableIQ will not tell you this pair has a short and these pairs fail certification at these speeds. If wiremapping is wrong it does not seem to test any other parameters.
It will show you shorts or open, however without distances.
My conclusion was: if you need to know if a cable is good or bad - it will tell you very simply: with a checkmark or X. However if the cable is bad- you will need other tools to troubleshoot where and why. I think this is also how Fluke wants to market this tester-as a dumb'ed down version for low-tech installers. They will be able to give the thumbs up or down, and if down, send the hi-tech installers/network engineers with the REAL tools, AKA Fluke DTX ...
Analogies are powerful statements that simplify the understanding of complex subjects.
"The best analogy we can give is that a traditional certifier is like estimating the time it will take to drive between two cities by analyzing the road, looking at the weather report, and listening to the traffic condition on the radio. Validator actually puts a car on the road and drives to the designated city and reports back on how long it ACTUALLY took."
"Certification testers are good at "analyzing the road" and can tell you if there are structural problems that exist (fragile bridges, emerging potholes) that simply driving down the road one day will not."
Analogies have been used in the above examples to show why the Validator is BETTER than conventional testers and also to show why the Validator is WORSE than conventional testers...
While both are interesting analogies - they present a problem because the correctness of the analogy those not necessarily imply the correctness of what is being analogized...
What does all this mean? It means that we need to know ALL the ACTUAL parameters in order to make a correct observation. If for example the Validator would use a car to test a fragile bridge, it would not be able to detect a problem, as the poster "wires" pointed out. However if Validator used a 30,000 lbs truck to drive accross the bridge, the bridge would have collapsed and failed. An argument can be made that in order to certify a bridge you need to be able to drive over it with a certain weight specification. That is akin to certifying a network for a certain speed. It may be OK for cars, but not OK for trucks, or without the analogy: it may be OK for 100Mb/s but not OK for 155Mb/s.
Then again, the question of bridge fatigue comes into play: does the bridge become less apt to carry weight when subject to repetitive heavy weights?
This question however, is only relevant for the analogy - since a marginal cable that can handle only 100 Mb/sec will not become less apt to handle that, if it were subject to "high traffic". This again proves that analogies are only good to a certain extent...
"The best analogy we can give is that a traditional certifier is like estimating the time it will take to drive between two cities by analyzing the road, looking at the weather report, and listening to the traffic condition on the radio. Validator actually puts a car on the road and drives to the designated city and reports back on how long it ACTUALLY took."
"Certification testers are good at "analyzing the road" and can tell you if there are structural problems that exist (fragile bridges, emerging potholes) that simply driving down the road one day will not."
Analogies have been used in the above examples to show why the Validator is BETTER than conventional testers and also to show why the Validator is WORSE than conventional testers...
While both are interesting analogies - they present a problem because the correctness of the analogy those not necessarily imply the correctness of what is being analogized...
What does all this mean? It means that we need to know ALL the ACTUAL parameters in order to make a correct observation. If for example the Validator would use a car to test a fragile bridge, it would not be able to detect a problem, as the poster "wires" pointed out. However if Validator used a 30,000 lbs truck to drive accross the bridge, the bridge would have collapsed and failed. An argument can be made that in order to certify a bridge you need to be able to drive over it with a certain weight specification. That is akin to certifying a network for a certain speed. It may be OK for cars, but not OK for trucks, or without the analogy: it may be OK for 100Mb/s but not OK for 155Mb/s.
Then again, the question of bridge fatigue comes into play: does the bridge become less apt to carry weight when subject to repetitive heavy weights?
This question however, is only relevant for the analogy - since a marginal cable that can handle only 100 Mb/sec will not become less apt to handle that, if it were subject to "high traffic". This again proves that analogies are only good to a certain extent...
- Thread starter
- #45
foosy, Thanks for the heads up on the CableIQ. Your analogy gave me an idea....maybe the testers could have an an on module with GPS and satellite radio that can tell you the road and traffic conditions on the way to a site..... CMJ let us know the results. The Validator seems to be looking like the best tester for the price.
I really have a big headache now. This is all hurting my head. Foosy, I see you're new, welcome aboard...
I too had me rep demonstarte the CableIQ to me too yesterday, and it fell short of my expectations, in a big way, I will indeed go back to the Validator as a non-certifier tester. My Microscanner, and my little Ideal testers had better wiremap fault finding skills than the CableIQ, very disapponting. I read the above article, and there are a couple of key points about progress in technology. They are right to say that traditional analog certifiers are excessivly expensive, and so were modems, serial devices, Class 5 Switches, etc, etc. UNTIL....DSP came along. DSP made everying cheap and effective, well most stuff anyways. Maybe it's time to try a new form of certification with cost effective validation style testers...
Hmmm, food for thought, huh...
-T-
Trevor Farren
Metrotech Telecom Inc.
I too had me rep demonstarte the CableIQ to me too yesterday, and it fell short of my expectations, in a big way, I will indeed go back to the Validator as a non-certifier tester. My Microscanner, and my little Ideal testers had better wiremap fault finding skills than the CableIQ, very disapponting. I read the above article, and there are a couple of key points about progress in technology. They are right to say that traditional analog certifiers are excessivly expensive, and so were modems, serial devices, Class 5 Switches, etc, etc. UNTIL....DSP came along. DSP made everying cheap and effective, well most stuff anyways. Maybe it's time to try a new form of certification with cost effective validation style testers...
Hmmm, food for thought, huh...
-T-
Trevor Farren
Metrotech Telecom Inc.
OK, I have only used the Validator a few times so far, but for what I have used it for it has worked great!! I tested my new install at my company, and tested the CAT3 phone jacks before termination in the communications closet, this worked great, I found about 4 Keystones that were not terminated correctly, indicating an open pair, I re punched and all was fine. Also ran the test on a clients network and found several data ports that were not terminated correctly, opens, shorts and staples through wires!! I did not wire this clients office, just terminated the Data and phone.
As far as the software, its a bit flakey and needs some attention. I would like the ability to import floor plans from ACAD or Visio files, saving the time of drawing them in Plan-Um software. Export to ACAD and Visio format would also be a plus. I will post more findings in a few days....
As far as the software, its a bit flakey and needs some attention. I would like the ability to import floor plans from ACAD or Visio files, saving the time of drawing them in Plan-Um software. Export to ACAD and Visio format would also be a plus. I will post more findings in a few days....
All I did at this location is terminate the punch panel, another individual installed wiring. I know he stapled because I couldnt pull any slack from wall locations when I had to redo some of his keystone terminations. I use staples on my CAT5 installes but they are Powerfast Cable Tacker kind, these still allow cable to move freely. Check out link below for information on Cable Tacker
You can get them at Home Depot, it works great and there are a few different staples you can get for it. If you go looking for it at Home Depot, it will not be in the tools sections with other staplers, it will be in the electrical section. I let someone borrow it one, asked for it back and he went a purchased one!
I just spoke with Jason at Test-Um. I had wrote an email concerning the "flaky" software and just about everything I asked for is in next release.
Lanscaper fuctionality- (Next 6 months) This will be an upgrade, I was told +/- $100
Import from Visio for Plan-Um software.
Better printing functionality.
Ability to print to a Brother Label Printer.
Too many others to list.
I apreciated Jasons quick response to my concerns, and will continue to purchase Test-Um products. I had also addressed a concern about foriegn material under my Validator screen and a screw missing from serial port, he said he would gladly ship me a brand new unit!! Maybe he will offer the upgrade to me for free instead.
Lanscaper fuctionality- (Next 6 months) This will be an upgrade, I was told +/- $100
Import from Visio for Plan-Um software.
Better printing functionality.
Ability to print to a Brother Label Printer.
Too many others to list.
I apreciated Jasons quick response to my concerns, and will continue to purchase Test-Um products. I had also addressed a concern about foriegn material under my Validator screen and a screw missing from serial port, he said he would gladly ship me a brand new unit!! Maybe he will offer the upgrade to me for free instead.
-
2
- #55
cableprofessor
Vendor
In buying any piece of equipment, I need that warm feeling. I get this from some companies, and not others. The response from Test-Um reminds me of the days of Microtest attacking Fluke. I was crawling the Fluke site and net for info on Cableiq/Validator and found this:
Assuming the initials at the end of this doc indicate the author - then I can pretty much trust the contents.
I got one of the Cableiqs to try. It is a MUCH smaller package than Validator. BTW, tried the Byte Brothers. Random PASS/FAIL generator based on my OMNI and DSP results. And you have to connect the remote unit half way through the test to complete it.
The best thing about the Validator is the 30 day money back guarantee I got from my distributor. It failed to report the same info as the DSP and OMNI. If I am going to buy a tester like this for my cheaper customers, I need to know that on most occassions it will give the same answer. I didn't expect it to be exact but the length accuracy is +/- 2m. Customers do not understand reports, but they do understand length-Um.
A 98.4 ft section of cat5e was checked (I measured it first). The spec of this cable was NVP (70%) used by CableIQ and Capactance (15pf/ft) used by Validator. Validator measured 90 ft (shortest pair as required by those horrible cabling people at TIA) while CableIQ measured better at 98.5 ft. My DSP said 98.7 ft and the OMNI 98.2 ft.
Cableiq found distance to faults. It even found crosstalk issues (distance to crosstalk issues), Validator does not but then it seems to pass more so that feature may not be of such benefit.
30 seconds to boot up on the Validator. Too long but I expect they will fix this with an update? Almost instant on the Cableiq. Sounds stupid, but the Cableiq takes 4xAA batteries and they seem to last for ever. Guess that is because they only have that small LCD.
My final observation: These testers are clearly for customers who do not want certification. If the Validator was a certifier, why did they call it a Validator? I chuckle that the engineers at Test-Um called it a Validator, because they know technically it is not a certifier. The sales/marketing folks know the only market that exists is the certification market, and ... But may be that is my dark side speaking here.
Not sure if I am going to hold onto Cableiq. I need a DTX from Fluke. It drops the cat 6 certification from 44 secs on my DSP to 9 secs. Faster that Validator. Cableiq takes 6 seconds to do it's stuff.
Shame I cannot attach the results here that I took.
Assuming the initials at the end of this doc indicate the author - then I can pretty much trust the contents.
I got one of the Cableiqs to try. It is a MUCH smaller package than Validator. BTW, tried the Byte Brothers. Random PASS/FAIL generator based on my OMNI and DSP results. And you have to connect the remote unit half way through the test to complete it.
The best thing about the Validator is the 30 day money back guarantee I got from my distributor. It failed to report the same info as the DSP and OMNI. If I am going to buy a tester like this for my cheaper customers, I need to know that on most occassions it will give the same answer. I didn't expect it to be exact but the length accuracy is +/- 2m. Customers do not understand reports, but they do understand length-Um.
A 98.4 ft section of cat5e was checked (I measured it first). The spec of this cable was NVP (70%) used by CableIQ and Capactance (15pf/ft) used by Validator. Validator measured 90 ft (shortest pair as required by those horrible cabling people at TIA
) while CableIQ measured better at 98.5 ft. My DSP said 98.7 ft and the OMNI 98.2 ft. Cableiq found distance to faults. It even found crosstalk issues (distance to crosstalk issues), Validator does not but then it seems to pass more so that feature may not be of such benefit.
30 seconds to boot up on the Validator. Too long but I expect they will fix this with an update? Almost instant on the Cableiq. Sounds stupid, but the Cableiq takes 4xAA batteries and they seem to last for ever. Guess that is because they only have that small LCD.
My final observation: These testers are clearly for customers who do not want certification. If the Validator was a certifier, why did they call it a Validator? I chuckle that the engineers at Test-Um called it a Validator, because they know technically it is not a certifier. The sales/marketing folks know the only market that exists is the certification market, and ... But may be that is my dark side speaking here.
Not sure if I am going to hold onto Cableiq. I need a DTX from Fluke. It drops the cat 6 certification from 44 secs on my DSP to 9 secs. Faster that Validator. Cableiq takes 6 seconds to do it's stuff.
Shame I cannot attach the results here that I took.
- Thread starter
- #56
cmj, You should send Jason at Test-Um the Fluke link from cableprofessor to see what he has to say about it:
Hey Guys,
I'm new and I have had the Validator for over a month now and love it. I got the new updates on Test-Um's website last week and they work great. You can import image files from Visio or ACAD and view all the results on the Plan-Um software now.
I'm new and I have had the Validator for over a month now and love it. I got the new updates on Test-Um's website last week and they work great. You can import image files from Visio or ACAD and view all the results on the Plan-Um software now.
- Thread starter
- #59
shinklee,
Unfortunately, in this discussion, you've gotta watch your verbage. I don't believe the Validator does CERTIFICATION, it does QUALIFICATION, which as describe previously are two very different things. Most cable/connectivity vendors won't give you a warranty to start with if all you've done is QUALIFICATION. Their requirment is CERTIFICATION. So you won't have a warranty to void.
Which to do is between you and your client, what are you offering them (and charging for) and what do they want?
Justin T. Clausen
Physical Layer Implementation
California State University, Monterey Bay
Unfortunately, in this discussion, you've gotta watch your verbage. I don't believe the Validator does CERTIFICATION, it does QUALIFICATION, which as describe previously are two very different things. Most cable/connectivity vendors won't give you a warranty to start with if all you've done is QUALIFICATION. Their requirment is CERTIFICATION. So you won't have a warranty to void.
Which to do is between you and your client, what are you offering them (and charging for) and what do they want?
Justin T. Clausen
Physical Layer Implementation
California State University, Monterey Bay
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question