analog vs. digital Sound Level Meter?

[OliverB]

I have a digital radioshack sound level meter, but now I see that most seem to use the analog one, is there a good reason (aside from the $10 diff) to use the analog? I got the digital because I prefer number displays over analog. The digital shows an average measurement as the numbers and real time measurements with little bars below.

I'm still within my 30 day return/exchange, should I get the analog, or will the digital do the same (as I'd expect)?

Thanks for any advice! I could not find any post about this in the forums.
(and I hope I put this post it in the right category)

Oliver

 

[Kurt C.]

I made the same mistake. In this case the analog really is better. For one thing, it allows you to do frequency sweeps and easily see peaks. Also, getting speakers perfectly aligned and in-phase is easier if you can judge the magnatude of the 'bounce' in SPL.

 

[MDS]

There is no difference in accuracy between the analog and digital versions. The digital version has a few more features than the analog, such as the ability to save min and max readings. I think the digital is easier to read because it is easier to see a 1 inch high LCD number than to eyeball a tiny little scale to see if it is at +1 or +2 or whatever (then quickly do the math - it's set to 80 so +2 means its 82 dB vs directly reading 82 dB on the digital version).

Maybe Kevin C can confirm this: I think the analog version's scale is in .5 dB increments whereas the digital version is in 1 dB increments. If so, that might be a minor reason, IMO, to prefer the analog version. It's really personal preference (and the fact that the analog version is now hard to find). I have the digital version and it works great.

 

[mtrycrafts]

There is no difference in accuracy between the analog and digital versions. The digital version has a few more features than the analog, such as the ability to save min and max readings. I think the digital is easier to read because it is easier to see a 1 inch high LCD number than to eyeball a tiny little scale to see if it is at +1 or +2 or whatever (then quickly do the math - it's set to 80 so +2 means its 82 dB vs directly reading 82 dB on the digital version).

Maybe Kevin C can confirm this: I think the analog version's scale is in .5 dB increments whereas the digital version is in 1 dB increments. If so, that might be a minor reason, IMO, to prefer the analog version. It's really personal preference (and the fact that the analog version is now hard to find). I have the digital version and it works great.

The analog meter is analog, not in 1/2 dB increments. It is how well you can differentiate the needle But, if one is able to get it precisely on a marker on the meter face, then you can match levels dam close. Fr measurements is about that, 1/2dB, interpolation errors.

The digital one you don't know at what value it rolls to the next full digit, so you can be off a whole dB.

 

[OliverB]

Ha, now I'm almost tempted to have them both!

So, if one had the choice, would the digital be better or the analog? Not so much from a personal pref of numbers over needles, but from the desired functionality?
I'd guess that the digi rolls to the next # at .5, so yes, ther's a range of -.4999 to +.49999 in there I guess. I'm no audio expert as you can probably tell, and I haven't looked at the analog scale. Is +- 1 a lot?

And what is the scale on the analog? Also a range of -10 to +10? With how much (accurate) distance between the seperate ones?

The digi has the number display but also the little bars from -10 to +10 below. True, even on 0 I won't know if it's 0-4.999 or 0+4.999, is the analog accurate enough to show me >exactly< where I'm at?

I don't mind going back to the Shack and exchanging, but only if it makes some reasonable sense in a way. I figured digi is nicer and more "modern" and it sounds like they don't even make the analog anymore? They still sell it online.

But if the experts would prefer the analog...

The extras as hold, max and min seem to be not very useful for this kind of application.

Thanks!

Oliver

 

[MDS]

The analog meter is analog, not in 1/2 dB increments.

So analog is analog, eh? I'm not sure what you are getting at there. I'm saying the scale is marked in .5 dB increments.

 

[OliverB]

I think what he's saying is that you see the needle wave around, so if you get it to sit exactly on any line, that's exactly the value you get.
With the digital, since it only shows full values, you don't really know where _exactly_ the measurement is, you just know that it's somewhere between -,4999999 and +.4999999, i.e. somewhere in the range that rounded would give you a full value.
The needle, if it's not exactly on a line, shows you a more accurate picture of what's going on.

At least that's how I understood it - I might be +/- .4999999 off in either direction though

 

[mtrycrafts]

Ha, now I'm almost tempted to have them both!

So, if one had the choice, would the digital be better or the analog? Not so much from a personal pref of numbers over needles, but from the desired functionality?
I'd guess that the digi rolls to the next # at .5, so yes, ther's a range of -.4999 to +.49999 in there I guess. I'm no audio expert as you can probably tell, and I haven't looked at the analog scale. Is +- 1 a lot?

And what is the scale on the analog? Also a range of -10 to +10? With how much (accurate) distance between the seperate ones?

The digi has the number display but also the little bars from -10 to +10 below. True, even on 0 I won't know if it's 0-4.999 or 0+4.999, is the analog accurate enough to show me >exactly< where I'm at?

I don't mind going back to the Shack and exchanging, but only if it makes some reasonable sense in a way. I figured digi is nicer and more "modern" and it sounds like they don't even make the analog anymore? They still sell it online.

But if the experts would prefer the analog...

The extras as hold, max and min seem to be not very useful for this kind of application.

Thanks!

Oliver

If you have the $$, get both. They would serve you well for different functions. If you want to measure overall spl, the digital is great. But if you are level matching, checking frequency response, I'd suggest the analog.

Yes, if it rolls over on .5 but it displays a whole digit and you could be off a lot. For level matching 1 dB is a lot, yes since in mid band where the human ear is the most sensitive, one can detect .2 dB spl

 

[mtrycrafts]

So analog is analog, eh? I'm not sure what you are getting at there. I'm saying the scale is marked in .5 dB increments.

Oh, you meant the scale

Analog is continuous; the meter will read continuously between those marking, not jump 1/2 digit.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I think what he's saying is that you see the needle wave around, so if you get it to sit exactly on any line, that's exactly the value you get.
With the digital, since it only shows full values, you don't really know where _exactly_ the measurement is, you just know that it's somewhere between -,4999999 and +.4999999, i.e. somewhere in the range that rounded would give you a full value.
The needle, if it's not exactly on a line, shows you a more accurate picture of what's going on.

At least that's how I understood it - I might be +/- .4999999 off in either direction though

Actually, you are following what I am trying to get across.
Now, if that digital had 2 or 3 decimal places, I'd pick that every time

 

[Ethan Winer]

Oliver,

> should I get the analog, or will the digital do the same (as I'd expect)? <

I have the digital version and I much prefer it. Don't sweat the 1.0 dB resolution because there's no way your measurements will be even close to that anyway. One huge advantage of the digital meter is it has built-in averaging (use the Slow setting). Trying to read the level of low frequency band-passed pink noise with the analog meter takes 5 to 10 seconds per reading plus a lot of squinting and mental averaging.

--Ethan

 

[OliverB]

thanks Ethan, I guess I'll stick with the one I have. When I used it last I actually changed the db till it jumped up one number, then went back down, trying to find the middle. I'm guess that'll be a good spot for my ears.
Just looked at your website, judging from all those nice studio photos it looks like you know what your'e talking about. Once I win the lottery I'll build one of those too ;D

Interesting idea with the slow response too.

thanks!

 

[Ethan Winer]

Oliver,

> Interesting idea with the slow response too. <

In the 1980s I build a spectrum analyzer as a project for my column in a pro audio magazine. It was pretty cool for the time, with a digital pink noise source and up to 1/10th octave resolution. To measure the response in a room you'd play the noise, and set the analyzer to each frequency in turn then read the level on an external AC voltmeter. And that's when I learned what a pain it is to average analog meter readings by eye. At very low frequencies the meter dances around over a large range - even 6 dB. So you have to sit and watch and mentally average for at least ten seconds per reading. And cross your fingers that what you perceived as an average is correct.

If you're interested, that article is now on my personal site:

www.ethanwiner.com/spectrum.html

--Ethan

 

[Savant]

The "Slow" setting on the digital SLM indicates a slower integration (averaging) time (typically ~1s) than the "Fast" setting (typically ~0.125s). Both are averaging - just over different amounts of time.

Helpful article.

 

[OliverB]

thanks everybody! I think I'll just keep the digital one. They are not hyper accurate anyway, I'm sure I'll do fine.

Should get my AVIA setup dvd tomorrow to finetune the system.

Oliver

PS: and thanks for the links to those articles, interesting reads!

 

[Steve Works]

Digital is good if you don't really need an accurate tool. However, if you require professional accuracy, analog is the way to go.
________________________________________
Steve Works
sound level meter