SPL Meter Question

[PSU80]

Why does it appear most people prefer the RAdio Shack analog SPL meter over the digital verison?

 

[Buckle-meister]

Why does it appear most people prefer the RAdio Shack analog SPL meter over the digital verison?

It's just as good for the level of accuracy required for Home Theatre, and probably cheaper.

Regards

 

[MDS]

The digital version is fairly new and more people have experience with the analog version.

IMO, the digital version is superior. It has more features and I think it's alot easier to read a 1" high number on the LCD screen than it is to eyeball a little mark on the analog scale. It is about $10 more though...

 

[mtrycrafts]

Why does it appear most people prefer the RAdio Shack analog SPL meter over the digital verison?

I prefer the analog for level setting the channels and the digital for other applications. The digital indicates in whole numbers only, so you could be off 1 dB spl between channels. The analog can be set right on one of the marks on the face of it and repeat it for all channels, much closer than 1 dB spl, much.

 

[Resident Loser]

I prefer analog...

...metering for everything...I have used it for too many years so it is familiar and it's use is second-nature to me. And real-time...even though the digital RS SPL is updated every 2/10ths of a second, I feel the analog capable of revealing more, the amount of needle swing, and duration of it, gives me an "insight"(for lack of better words) to what's really happening...a digital readout snaps a less resolved picture...but then again, I may just be nuts...

jimHJJ(...but usually quiet if not disturbed...)

 

[majorloser]

And more important, they're also cheaper!

As far as ease of reading, once you know what range you're on, the center of the dial is really what matters. How far above or below.

Unless you're a pro that uses it every day (which I'm not) why spend the extra money.

 

[WmAx]

The analog version has a considerably faster response time, which is important if you need to use the fast response mode. The analog unit is more precise for relative dB meausure/difference. You can visually resolve 1/4-1/2 of a dB with the analog unit, but the digital rounds to 1dB increments.

Does these things really matter in a practical application? I don't think so, unless you need the fast response mode for a specific application. If you desire the easiest to read unit, the digital is the obvious choice, due to it's large numerical display.

-Chris

 

[Steve1000]

I have the analog meter because the digital meter's readings are harsh and soul-less and cold and grainy. I can easily see the difference. One has the needle thing going back and forth, and the other one just shows you numbers. So if anyone thinks there's no difference show them an analog meter and a digital meter and say now you tell me these look the same. You tell me analog and digital are the same. Because they don't look the same. Although my Behrginer DEQ2496 has an emulation of analog VU meters. But that's beside the point. But I bet they could make a digital meter that has a graphic just as responsive as the analog one. You know, looking like an analog meter. But it might eat a lot of batteries. The analog meter takes like 10 million years to run through batteries. I bet the digital ones eat batteries. But I don't know.

 

[tedmjr2]

Most of us first started using the analog and so we've become accustomed and comfortable with it. It's similar to like most people prefer to read an analog speedometer instead of a digital one - same reading, different presentation. IMO, it's a matter of preference.

 

[Buckle-meister]

You can visually resolve 1/4-1/2 of a dB with the analog unit, but the digital rounds to 1dB increments.

I didn't know that about the digital meter. Not quite so good then in my opinion.

Do these things really matter in a practical application? I don't think so, unless you need the fast response mode for a specific application.

Fast response is selected when I use the meter with ETF, so in this practical application, I'd say it does matter.

Regards

 

[WmAx]

Fast response is selected when I use the meter with ETF, so in this practical application, I'd say it does matter.

Regards

I have never used the pre-amped output of the SPL meters(I use dedicated measurement microphones and preamp), but I would suspect that it's just a pre-amped feed from the microphone element. Response time of the meter readout should not make a difference if this is the case.

-Chris

 

[Sonnie Parker]

A while back... when I first began to write the BFD GUIDE, there were a couple of forum guys in one of the forums that had done some measurements and testing with the digital vs. the analog meters from Radio Shack. There was a difference. Then I read some other places that there was not, but there was not testing for the was not.

Just recently I asked another forum buddy to conduct a test between the two... meter's side by side and he came up with a difference.

There does appear to be a difference and it appears different correction values may be in favor.

Here's a thread on the test he did with the differences.

If anyone else has BOTH of these meters and is willing to do a similar test, please help. I would... and several others... as well as I'm sure multiples of others would really like to make absolutely sure we are using the right correction values. Another test would help confirm this and also tell us if maybe it is different from meter to meter, or maybe just in the setup of the test.

This is info I'd also like to get updated in the BFD GUIDE.

Thanks!

 

[vividere]

I was at RS yesterday. The online catalog only showed the new digital model but the store still had the older analog model and the newe digital model.

Is there any more information on which might be "better", i.e. more accurate?

I am still trying to figure out if a newbie like me has any chance to use the Aria disk and a RS meter and actually be able to improve my system?

I have a Yamaha receiver with the YPAO setup. For most people, is that good enough, or is spending $65 for the program and meter going to really give me value for the dollar in the improvement to the listening experience?

Thanks,

Lew

 

[Sonnie Parker]

Yeah... see the thread in the post above. Not only that but now we've discovered that the RS Meter correction values may not even be valid.

 

[vividere]

I read the message thread which seemed to prefer the analog meter but part of that seemed to be less experience with the digital model. Was hoping since the last messages were posted more people might have tried the digital model or had a chance to compare alongside each other.

Thanks!

 

[Sonnie Parker]

We definitley need more comparisons.

I'm trying to find someone to calibrate the mic in my analog unit to verify the famous correction values floating around the net.

 

[vividere]

One more thing on this subject... I was reading the owners manual for the SVS PB10. They have a paragraph in the manual about using the RS meter and give you some suggestions on setting things up with the Avia disk and in fact they bundle the Avia disk with the RS meter and sell them.

They say this:

"We prefer the analog instead of the digital display model."

They don't say why...presumably because they prefer the analog dial, but maybe it is more then that, like it works better, more accurate, or ???

Lew

 

[MDS]

As far as I know, the analog and digital models are exactly the same in terms of their accuracy. The preference for one or the other comes down to whether you like to see the needle bounce on the analog version vs seeing a large lcd number on the digital version.

The minor difference is that the digital version only shows whole dB increments whereas with the analog version you could possibly see smaller increments, assuming your eyes can focus on the tiny little display. I think the analog version is harder to use simply because of the way the display works. Say you set the meter to 80 and want to calibrate to 85 dB - you have to be able to see the needle touch the +5 on the scale vs the digital version where you simply adjust until the screen says 85.

I use the digital version and I prefer it because its easier for my eyes to read the large numbers.

 

[vividere]

The local area (Minnesota) guru of setting up home theaters was away at CES but came back and caught up on our local area HT forum. He responded to my question about meters with this:

"The $40 RS spl meter is a bargain. The digital one is harder to read, because the display bounces around a bit, so the analog meter is easier. You kind of average the pointer readings by eye. There have been rumors of it going away before, and they always keep it in the line. You can do a very credible job with this meter and Avia. Highly recommended. Note that this meter needs to be corrected for low frequency use. The corection tables have been posted on-line."

As you can see, he has a different perspective on reading the meter. I would like to get more information on correcting the meter. Wouldn't the tables only apply if you are reading the information into a computer or something where you would be creating charts?

 

[MDS]

People are evenly split on which is easier to read. I take the opposite view and say the digital is easier to read; 'averaging with your eye' is exactly what is difficult to do, although just as with any tool you become accustomed to it and can use it successsfully.

The meters are inaccurate in the very low frequencies, which is irrelevant for simple calibration. It would only matter if you wanted to use it to do a sweep to plot the response of your room over the entire frequency range. The correction charts should be on the SVS site: http://www.svsound.com/index.cfm