ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

fsprow · 3 January 2020, 06:22 AM

I had the opportunity yesterday to use my inexpensive Timegrapher (usually called Model 1000, sells for about $150) versus a friends MTG-4000 (about $700). I checked a Sub, a Pepsi and a Sky Dweller.

Results (seconds + or- per day, beat rate, frequency and amplitude) showed that the inexpensive machine did a very fine job as compared with the more expensive one in the functions offered (the MTG has many more functions but not sure how useful they are).

No firm statistics, but in the various watch positions (dial up, crown down etc) the two machines were within 1-2 seconds per day of each other in each position, beat rate identical, and amplitude within 5 degrees.

This is not offered as a scientific test but shows that the cheap machine works well, at least as compared with the MTG - which, who knows, may have mostly the same internals!

An admonition. Please don't get carried away using the tester. I did but have recovered. One use is to establish which position adds or loses a few seconds so, if you wish, you can compensate a bit overnight.

Please think twice before you take the back off and try to adjust the microstella screws. I have done this with success, but it a dangerous challenge not to damage your watch.

fsprow · 4 January 2020, 05:11 AM

Just an addendum. Last night I had a chance to use a Swiss Witschi device, using my Sky Dweller. The Chinese timegrapher "1000" produced nearly equal results, though the quality of the Swiss device is clearly superior.

OrangeKenny · 8 January 2020, 09:47 AM

Good to know, thanks for reporting.
Have you used apps like Timegrapher which use a microphone? I seem to get good quality readings which agree with the variation measured over a few weeks, but I’d love to know how it compares to a proper timegrapher.

In case anyone is interested, I bought the Frederique Constant Analytics clip mic, and it works as advertised. The standard Apple headphones microphone on a soft surface works just as well though.

fsprow · 8 January 2020, 11:05 AM

I did try that App with a microphone but, probably my fault, never got consistent results.

padi56 · 8 January 2020, 08:52 PM

IMHO Timegraphers or any of these so called timing apps are not needed unless you are a qualified watchmaker.As the most lead down the slippery slope of {CCTS} CONSTANT CHECKING TIME SYNDROME plus the many other Rolex checking syndromes.

fsprow · 9 January 2020, 01:13 AM

All true. As I said, I am a recovered CCTS! I do, when getting a new (to me) watch, check it in several positions to see if an overnight rest in a particular position can compensate a bit for small errors in time keeping.

All the best.

3 January 2020, 06:22 AM	#1
fsprow "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2018 Real Name: Frank Location: Dallas,NY,Colo. Watch: Patek 5168, 5170P Posts: 2,398	Testing Timegraphers I had the opportunity yesterday to use my inexpensive Timegrapher (usually called Model 1000, sells for about $150) versus a friends MTG-4000 (about $700). I checked a Sub, a Pepsi and a Sky Dweller. Results (seconds + or- per day, beat rate, frequency and amplitude) showed that the inexpensive machine did a very fine job as compared with the more expensive one in the functions offered (the MTG has many more functions but not sure how useful they are). No firm statistics, but in the various watch positions (dial up, crown down etc) the two machines were within 1-2 seconds per day of each other in each position, beat rate identical, and amplitude within 5 degrees. This is not offered as a scientific test but shows that the cheap machine works well, at least as compared with the MTG - which, who knows, may have mostly the same internals! An admonition. Please don't get carried away using the tester. I did but have recovered. One use is to establish which position adds or loses a few seconds so, if you wish, you can compensate a bit overnight. Please think twice before you take the back off and try to adjust the microstella screws. I have done this with success, but it a dangerous challenge not to damage your watch.

8 January 2020, 08:52 PM	#5
padi56 "TRF" Life Patron Join Date: Jun 2005 Real Name: Peter Location: Llanfairpwllgwyng Watch: ing you. Posts: 52,236	IMHO Timegraphers or any of these so called timing apps are not needed unless you are a qualified watchmaker.As the most lead down the slippery slope of {CCTS} CONSTANT CHECKING TIME SYNDROME plus the many other Rolex checking syndromes. __________________ ICom Pro3 All posts are my own opinion and my opinion only. "The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power to tell just when the hands will stop. Now is the only time you actually own the time, Place no faith in time, for the clock may soon be still for ever." Good Judgement comes from experience,experience comes from Bad Judgement,.Buy quality, cry once; buy cheap, cry again and again. www.mc0yad.club Second in command CEO and left handed watch winder

4 January 2020, 05:11 AM	#2
fsprow "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2018 Real Name: Frank Location: Dallas,NY,Colo. Watch: Patek 5168, 5170P Posts: 2,398	Just an addendum. Last night I had a chance to use a Swiss Witschi device, using my Sky Dweller. The Chinese timegrapher "1000" produced nearly equal results, though the quality of the Swiss device is clearly superior.

8 January 2020, 09:47 AM	#3
OrangeKenny "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2018 Location: Houston, TX Watch: 16570 Polar Posts: 329	Good to know, thanks for reporting. Have you used apps like Timegrapher which use a microphone? I seem to get good quality readings which agree with the variation measured over a few weeks, but I’d love to know how it compares to a proper timegrapher. In case anyone is interested, I bought the Frederique Constant Analytics clip mic, and it works as advertised. The standard Apple headphones microphone on a soft surface works just as well though.

8 January 2020, 11:05 AM	#4
fsprow "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2018 Real Name: Frank Location: Dallas,NY,Colo. Watch: Patek 5168, 5170P Posts: 2,398	I did try that App with a microphone but, probably my fault, never got consistent results.

9 January 2020, 01:13 AM	#6
fsprow "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2018 Real Name: Frank Location: Dallas,NY,Colo. Watch: Patek 5168, 5170P Posts: 2,398	All true. As I said, I am a recovered CCTS! I do, when getting a new (to me) watch, check it in several positions to see if an overnight rest in a particular position can compensate a bit for small errors in time keeping. All the best.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)