As the title states which one does everyone prefer. I have been using a hydrometer but may purchase a refractometer due to the lower volume needed and the lack of temperature calibration.
Let the debate begin
Let the debate begin
Hydrometer vs. Refractomoter
- Thread starter stu4stew
- Start date
Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:
broadbill
Well-Known Member
I prefer both.
There isn't much of a debate. I believe most refractometer users (myself included) use both. The refractometer doesn't work very well in the presence of alcohol so not very useful for getting a SG/FG reading. There are calculations you can use to correct for the alcohol, but a hydrometer reading is more accurate from what I have read.
Edit to add:
I use the hydrometer for OG, FG. I use the refractometer for checking gravity during the mash and boil as it's easier and like you mentioned, uses such a small sample that temp correction is not really needed.
Refractometer for mash/pre-boil/post-boil gravity readings
hydrometer anytime after I pitch yeast. Calculators that supposedly convert brix to SG after fermentation have been off for me 100% of the time. Trial and error and each time there is some error. I prefer and always recommend a hydrometer if alcohol is present.
I often use both, because I'm curious to see if they differ. But generally, as others have said, refractometer for pre-pitch, hydrometer for post-pitch.
I like to keep things as simple as possible, so I only use a hydrometer. If I'm drinking, I use two hydrometers... 'cus one is bound to be broken!
Calichusetts
Well-Known Member
I have both. Really like the refractometer when I started out but now I enjoy the hydrometer for OG and FG. I hit my numbers pretty consistently and have my system down, I don't check the mash or first runnings or anything like that.
kcbeersnob
Well-Known Member
I have analogue and digital refractometers as well as standard triple scale and precision hydrometers. I used to use a refractometer for everything but OG and FG, but I found too much variance when I took side-by-side samples using all three tools. The variance was always small, but annoying. Before anyone asks, all tools were calibrated.
Unfortunately one of the key benefits of a refractometer (tiny sample size) is also a problem, because if your wort is not mixed very well (e.g., pre-boil gravity when you combine 1st and 2nd runnings) your readings can vary substantially. I've found more consistent results when using hydrometers.
So now I use precision hydrometers for nearly everything. They are easy to read and indeed very accurate. I use an app to compensate for temperature. I use a refractometer when making starter wort. Sometimes I will use a refractometer toward the end of the boil when I just want to check that I'm in the ballpark before knockout.
Unfortunately one of the key benefits of a refractometer (tiny sample size) is also a problem, because if your wort is not mixed very well (e.g., pre-boil gravity when you combine 1st and 2nd runnings) your readings can vary substantially. I've found more consistent results when using hydrometers.
So now I use precision hydrometers for nearly everything. They are easy to read and indeed very accurate. I use an app to compensate for temperature. I use a refractometer when making starter wort. Sometimes I will use a refractometer toward the end of the boil when I just want to check that I'm in the ballpark before knockout.
Yes, me too. I use the refractometer for preboil readings, to ensure I'm in the right area, and then the hydrometer for OG and FG.
jwalker1140
Well-Known Member
I've been using only a refractometer for a few years now for both brewing and winemaking and I can't imagine going back to using a hydrometer, but YMMV. Personally, I like how small of a sample I need to get a reading and I just prefer the device.
For about six months after I bought it I tracked the readings against my hydrometer and I never noticed a meaningful difference so I eventually mothballed my hydrometer. Even today, if BeerSmith estimates a FG of 1.009, dollars to doughnuts that's what my refractometer is going to show me, so I don't sweat it. (Of course, you have to use an app or spreadsheet to account for the presence of alcohol, but that's no big deal.)
For about six months after I bought it I tracked the readings against my hydrometer and I never noticed a meaningful difference so I eventually mothballed my hydrometer. Even today, if BeerSmith estimates a FG of 1.009, dollars to doughnuts that's what my refractometer is going to show me, so I don't sweat it. (Of course, you have to use an app or spreadsheet to account for the presence of alcohol, but that's no big deal.)
hunter_le five
Sheriff Underscore
Both.
If I could choose only one, I would pick hydrometer, but I like the flexibility of using both.
Having only a refractometer is not very useful, IMHO. YMMV.
This.
And This.
If I could choose only one, I would pick hydrometer, but I like the flexibility of using both.
Having only a refractometer is not very useful, IMHO. YMMV.
This.
And This.
jwalker1140
Well-Known Member
These hydrometer vs. refratometer threads come up fairly regularly and I've never understood why it is that some people get sketchy results measuring FG while others, including me, get reliable results.
Mine is a $25 model from Hong Kong. I calibrate before every use. I use the MoreBeer spreadheet. My beers tend to be "fairly normal" and usually have an OG that's between 1.040 and 1.060. A difference that's +/- 0.1 brix is acceptable to me, but +/- 1.0 is not - basically the same amount of error I'm likely to get by misreading my hydrometer.
Mine is a $25 model from Hong Kong. I calibrate before every use. I use the MoreBeer spreadheet. My beers tend to be "fairly normal" and usually have an OG that's between 1.040 and 1.060. A difference that's +/- 0.1 brix is acceptable to me, but +/- 1.0 is not - basically the same amount of error I'm likely to get by misreading my hydrometer.
Orthobrewsky
Senior Member
Yes, my experience is similar. I frequently verify correspondence for OG between the refrac. and hyd. using what's left in my kettle after draining and occasionally still check correspondence for FG, though I always checked FG with both for a while. I've had very consistent results with FG as well as OG. I usually get the same specific gravity (to 2 significant digits) with both tools; occasionally, they'll be one point off. With high gravity beers, maybe 2 points, but usually within a point. It's important to calibrate before each use, but that is certainly not a big deal.
i use both, the refractometer for before fermentation and the hydrometer after. While I am interesetd in what my ABV is Im not a real stickler for extreme precision..just a ball park, and my experince says its close enough for my tastes.
I use a refractometer for everything, and it works great in my hands. I've measured the abv of several of my beers by nmr (cuz I can, lol), and have always gotten a value that was very close to the refractometer value (usually .2-3% higher, but that is more likely error from using nmr). So, I have no problems with just using a refractomer. It's way easier than a hydrometer.
A question for you guys:
Would it make sense to anyone here to calibrate the refractometer to your (lab quality) hydrometer reading? Say, mix up some sugar water to anywhere between 1.04 and 1.06 and take a hydrometer reading. Then, straight away take a drop or two from the cylinder and calibrate the refractometer to the hydrometers reading.
The reason I ask is I'd like to use the refract for pre-boil and SG and then use the hydrometer for FG readings and yet know there is minimal various between to two devices so that ABV is NOT guess work.
So in direct response to the OP, I'd like to use both but it brings up the above question...
Would it make sense to anyone here to calibrate the refractometer to your (lab quality) hydrometer reading? Say, mix up some sugar water to anywhere between 1.04 and 1.06 and take a hydrometer reading. Then, straight away take a drop or two from the cylinder and calibrate the refractometer to the hydrometers reading.
The reason I ask is I'd like to use the refract for pre-boil and SG and then use the hydrometer for FG readings and yet know there is minimal various between to two devices so that ABV is NOT guess work.
So in direct response to the OP, I'd like to use both but it brings up the above question...
dudius
Well-Known Member
A hydrometer reads everything dissolved in a substance. That's dissolved proteins, sugars, minerals, isomerized alpha acids, etc. It also will be skewed slightly by alcohol, as it is less dense than water, and carbonation, which can push the hydrometer up. This makes hydrometers most accurate with wort and degassed beer.
Refractometers measure things that refract light, best used for finding fermentable sugars. However, alcohol refracts light so it throws off your fermentable sugar measurement without being great for determining abv.
I take both before pitching yeast and then use a hydrometer thereafter. I use calculations to find approximate abv and if I wanted anything exact I would distill to find abv (but I don't).
Refractometers measure things that refract light, best used for finding fermentable sugars. However, alcohol refracts light so it throws off your fermentable sugar measurement without being great for determining abv.
I take both before pitching yeast and then use a hydrometer thereafter. I use calculations to find approximate abv and if I wanted anything exact I would distill to find abv (but I don't).
I'll go against the grain and say that I use both, but rely more on refractometer. I use it both pre and post pitching yeast and have found Sean Terrill's conversion calculation spot on and accurate when compared to hydrometer. I like the smaller sample that doesn't have to cool as well. Consistent readings from hydrometer or refractometer over 3+ days tell you the beer is finished either way. I wouldn't sweat if I was 1.010 or 1.011 anyway.
dyqik
Well-Known Member
I'm also interested in the practical aspects of this question. I never get consistent readings between my cheap hydrometer (from a brewer's best equipment kit) and cheap refractometer. The difference in OG for the last batch (Pliny clone) was 0.005 at 1.070 on the hydrometer and 1.075 (converting from Brix) on the refractometer (averaged over several measurements from different parts of the wort). I did calibrate the refractometer using condensed steam from the boil, and I've previously tested the hydrometer using tap water, and both are within 0.002 on those tests.
I think I need to make a set of calibrated sugar solutions that target different SGs to get a cross calibration between the two, because at the moment I don't trust either instrument that much. And I guess I should drop the money on the set of precision hydrometers linked above.
broadbill
Well-Known Member
some points to consider:
It would be interesting to see if your hydrometer reading is consistently lower than that refractometer if you repeated your experiment. Since you never measured BOTH devices with the SAME solution (other than your Pliny clone) you can't be sure that your hydrometer just doesn't read 0.005 lower than your refractometer.
Furthermore, you don't know what the difference is between hydrometer and refractomer is when you read something other than water. Just because two measurement devices correspond at 1.000 doesn't mean they will at 1.040, 1.070 etc. We assume linearity between [sugar] and measurement when there may not be.
Also, there is certain amount of measurement error with a device like a hydrometer. Take your hydrometer and have three different people read it; chances are those three people will interpret where that liquid crosses the graduations in the hydrometer differently.
Finally, one has to consider if the fourth decimal on a hydrometer reading is significant. It is possible that, although the paper scale goes down to 0.001 that if you tested it with two sugar solutions that differed by 0.005 that it would be able to see a difference with that hydrometer. If this is the case, then the operator needs to not consider the third decimal place as part of an accurate reading (i.e it is not significant, and instead of reporting 1.074, you only report 1.07).
dyqik
Well-Known Member
That was basically the conclusion I was getting too. I don't trust either instrument to that level of accuracy, but with only two instruments to compare, there's no way to identify which one is least accurate at any particular point on the scale.
I should mention that I build scientific instruments for a living - I'm quite aware of non-linearities, cross-calibrations requirements, reading errors, etc. What I'm not sure about is how accurately the Brix reading from a refractometer scales to SG from a hydrometer and vice versa. And which one is more important or useful for brewing.
Anyway, I've ordered the set of precision, narrow range hydrometers linked above, so I'll compare those to the cheap one and the refractometer in a couple of different sugar solutions and worts and report back.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2013
- Messages
- 7,705
- Reaction score
- 14,687
**VERY** much looking forward to seeing the results of this experiment. Ordering the limited range hydrometer myself, if only to help read the thing, but I've been interested in refractometer for some time.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that you are indeed supposed to do this.
You take your calibrated refractometer, and your calibrated hydrometer and compare the readings of a substance. Then you use a "wort correction factor" so that the readings match. Thereafter, whenever you use your refractometer, you adjust the reading with that "wort correction factor". Beersmith has the tools to do it (I hate math) and mine is around 1.08 something if I remember correctly.
That doesn't adjust the reading for alcohol; it just adjusts your tools' readings so that they are calibrated to each other.
Similar threads
