digital vs naked eye you decide

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by Aqua-Digital

a prism refractometer is only as accurate as its calibration (same as a digital unit) however there is no risk of human miss read error with digital.

Exactly however unlike other testing equipment refractrometers don't require the hopeless attempt of matching a color to another set that all look the same So digital kits like Hanna are quite valuable and are not overly more expensive. A typical refractometer costs around $60 and IMO are easy to read, the difference between blue and white is noticeable and the line is very defined. So the question is how much more does one have to pay to eliminate the so called difficult task of reading a refractometer?

[Aqua-Digital]

we estimate based on us in charge of manufacture about $45.00

The pro to this in our view is

Easy of calibration no requirement to find a good NSW solution
Ease of reading.

[subman]

If the pricing is similar to a good refractometer and I didn't already have one I would probably go with a digital one, but I wouldn't replace my refractometer with one just because.

[jorjef]

Everyone's head is pointy enough already, why make it worse with a new gadget.

[sphelps]

I would agree with ease of reading but that's about it. Despite the fact it won't require a specific kind of calibration fluid you will still need a verified fluid so that's really a moot point. Price sounds compatible which is good but really what will kill this product is the constant need for calibration, unless you can insure reasonable accuracy using RO water for calibration fluid it's ultimately doomed to fail. A hobbyist will always need a supply of calibration fluid, if it is lost, spilled or contaminated the meter is useless until more fluid can be purchased. For something that is typically used all the time, often in emergency situations it just doesn't sound reliable enough.

[Aqua-Digital]

This is all good feedback, we always like to involve our target audience with product development, its a great barometer for us.

In regards to calibrating, I say everytime to ensure the best of readings even Hanna meters require this, and to be honest I would not even trust a refractometer unless it has been calibrated before hand, but thats personal choice.

A digital meter does not require pre use calibration its more a recommendation for optimum accuracy, just as with a refractometer and also the likes of hanna or pinpoint.

[Aysha]

I think it's a neat idea. I was silly and bought my refractometer without a light not to mention I have to take my glasses off to squint at it aside from finding a light to point it at. If it's easier to use (not all of us are reef gear heads) and priced the same as a traditional vertex style. I'd be interested.
Anything that makes it easier for me to keep my fish happy is a good investment.

[Aqua-Digital]

Great input, thanks this all helps.

[sphelps]

While I've never heard or calibrating a refractometer prior to every use if such a new digital device would prove as reliable without the "every use calibration" it would certainly change things and be a very useful device but like everything newly adapted for this hobby reliability has to be earned

[Ross]

Originally Posted by Aysha

I think it's a neat idea. I was silly and bought my refractometer without a light not to mention I have to take my glasses off to squint at it aside from finding a light to point it at. If it's easier to use (not all of us are reef gear heads) and priced the same as a traditional vertex style. I'd be interested.
Anything that makes it easier for me to keep my fish happy is a good investment.

Thankfully I dont have bad eyesight, so reading a refractometer isnt an issue I personally have to deal with.
But for those that wear glasses this might be a seller.

I'll stick with my vertex refractometer for the following reasons:
-It's a simple design
-No batteries required
-No need to calibrate every time
-Tough

If this unit was priced identically to a standard refractometer I'd still buy the refractometer.