SPL meters and one other quick question

[ThA tRiXtA]

Hi guys,

I currently own a RadioShack digital SPL meter which I got for my birthday a few years back. I always wanted to get the analog version (from what I have read everyone recommends the analog meter over the digital) but I guess the person who bought it for me couldn’t find the analog meter.

What am I missing by owning the digital version vs. the analog? I have been researching the digital meters lately and from what I see they aren’t regarded to be very accurate… is that the only downfall?

Secondly, if you guys were to buy an SPL meter nowadays, what model would you buy? I am considering selling my digital one and getting an analog model that hopefully has some sort of factory calibration which will give more accurate readings.

Just seeing what’s in your box of gadgets as compared to mine.

On a side note, does anyone have a link to an article or graph showing the proper/optimal distances to sit from your TV at certain resolutions to get the best viewing experience? I am trying to figure out where to place my couch which will obviously in turn determine my surround speaker locations, so I figure this would be a good place to start.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Exit]

The analog RS SPL meter has been around a long time so its inaccuracies are known and correction factors are available to get truer room frequency response to test tones. These correction factors are built into excel spreadsheets which graph frequency response. I have not seen correction factors for the digital meter but maybe soneone else has. I so you could probably modify the spreadsheets with digital correction factors and use the digital meter.

To get an RS analog SPL meter you have to special order them through RS because they no longer carry them in the store. You have to be persistent because the clerks are sometimes reluctant to look it up and might blow you off and say they don't carry one. I got mine two years ago so it was available then and I know SVS sells them too.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I have the Radio Shack Analog SPL meter, and I hate it.

So I actually bought the Galaxy Digital SPL meter to replace it.

 

[supervij]

tRiXtA, regarding optimal seating distances, here are a couple of graphs that might help: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/hitech/1137/maxing-out-resolution.html.

Of course, the proper seated distance is the one that's most comfortable for you and your eyes.

cheers,
supervij

 

[GlocksRock]

I use the analog radio shack spl meter, and I like it a lot, but I haven't used any other meter so I have nothing to compare it to, but it does the job for me.

 

[Swerd]

I currently own a RadioShack digital SPL meter which I got for my birthday a few years back. I always wanted to get the analog version (from what I have read everyone recommends the analog meter over the digital) but I guess the person who bought it for me couldn’t find the analog meter.

What am I missing by owning the digital version vs. the analog? I have been researching the digital meters lately and from what I see they aren’t regarded to be very accurate… is that the only downfall?

You aren’t missing anything. The sound pickup microphone in these SPL meters is what determines accuracy, not the readout. When I bought mine several years ago, both the digital and analog SPL meters had the same microphone in them. They are both equally accurate. Some people prefer to read the number off a digital display and some prefer to look at a needle. For balancing the volume in the channels of your HT system, either one will do the job. Today, I'm not sure RadioShack sells the very same meters that they had when I last looked.

Secondly, if you guys were to buy an SPL meter nowadays, what model would you buy? I am considering selling my digital one and getting an analog model that hopefully has some sort of factory calibration which will give more accurate readings.

If you really need a more precise SPL meter, Parts Express sells one SPL meter for $60 that has 0.5 dB resolution http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=245-262 , and another one for $130 that has 0.1 db resolution. For balancing channels in your HT, you probably don't need that extra precision.

On a side note, does anyone have a link to an article or graph showing the proper/optimal distances to sit from your TV at certain resolutions to get the best viewing experience? I am trying to figure out where to place my couch which will obviously in turn determine my surround speaker locations, so I figure this would be a good place to start.

Resolution chart http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

 

[jcPanny]

Room measurement

The analog or digital RS SPL meter will both work just fine for adjusting the speaker levels. If you want to do somthing more exciting, like measure the frequency response of the room or EQ your sub, you should consider a measurment mic and phantom power supply (about $85) used in congunction with RTA software. This is a much more powerful tool than an SPL meter.

 

[ThA tRiXtA]

Thanks guys, I guess I will keep my digital meter unless anyone else can think of some reasons why the analog version is always touted as the one to use.

Thanks for the charts too, they were exactly what I was looking for.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I use the analog radio shack spl meter, and I like it a lot, but I haven't used any other meter so I have nothing to compare it to, but it does the job for me.

So where's that In-depth review of the BP7001SCs (using that analog SPL for calibration, of course)?

 

[GlocksRock]

So where's that In-depth review of the BP7001SCs (using that analog SPL for calibration, of course)?

gotta work on getting them setup properly first... I've been in contact with Adam at Def Tech who is going to get some measurments and pics of my room from me so he can advise me of the best placement and which one to put on what side. Right now I have to set the sub level to about 2:00 to get any amount of good bass from them, and that seems a bit too high considering the CLR 3000 puts out a lot of bass when set to 11:00. Also some of the treelocks are broke, and he is going to send me replacements. But those speakers are so freakin heavy, I'm not going to move them any more than I have to, so I'm going to wait to hear what he has to say before I move them again. But so far I like them a lot, hopefully I'll like them more once I get them setup right. But after using my SPL meter, I did have to lower the amp level to get them all matched, so that was good... but once it's all said and done I'll get some pics up.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Hi guys,

I currently own a RadioShack digital SPL meter which I got for my birthday a few years back. I always wanted to get the analog version (from what I have read everyone recommends the analog meter over the digital) but I guess the person who bought it for me couldn’t find the analog meter.

What am I missing by owning the digital version vs. the analog? I have been researching the digital meters lately and from what I see they aren’t regarded to be very accurate… is that the only downfall?

Secondly, if you guys were to buy an SPL meter nowadays, what model would you buy? I am considering selling my digital one and getting an analog model that hopefully has some sort of factory calibration which will give more accurate readings.

Just seeing what’s in your box of gadgets as compared to mine.

On a side note, does anyone have a link to an article or graph showing the proper/optimal distances to sit from your TV at certain resolutions to get the best viewing experience? I am trying to figure out where to place my couch which will obviously in turn determine my surround speaker locations, so I figure this would be a good place to start.

Thanks in advance.

Swerd made some good points.
The digital readout is good for overall spl readings, or readings that a 1dB precision is fine.
If you need better resolution for level matching, or plotting FR, perhaps the analog is more suited as you can read the needle closer to a value than whole numbers. The digital has to round up or down at some point; you can be off by 0.9 dB. If that is not an issue for you, the digital is fine.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

If you need better resolution for level matching, or plotting FR, perhaps the analog is more suited as you can read the needle closer to a value than whole numbers. The digital has to round up or down at some point; you can be off by 0.9 dB. If that is not an issue for you, the digital is fine.

How so?

I have the RShack analog SPL. The numbers are not exactly in increments of less than 1 dB. They are more like 2.0 dB increments. The analog needle is constantly moving back and forth as it never stays still. I think you will be lucky if you can get within 1.0 dB. I think most likely you will have to settle for within 2.0 dB. Some of the < $75 digital SPL meters have increments of 0.1dB!

My $60 digital SPL is in 0.5dB increments.

So how can an anlaog SPL be more accurate?

 

[supervij]

Yeah, but also consider the increments that your a/v receiver works in. In each speaker, my Yamaha can increase and decrease sound levels by 0.5 dB. So an SPL meter that has an increment of 0.1 dB is not terribly useful to me. Whatever piece of gear is your "weakest link", that's the one to work from.

cheers,
supervij

 

[GlocksRock]

Acudeftechguy doens't use a receiver, he has preamps with continuously variable gains on them, so he can make as big or small of adjustments as he wants... so maybe the digital meter is better for him. My yamaha also has .5 db increments so my analog meter works fine for me, I'm ok with a 1 to 2 db variance it my system, it's not rocket science here, so we don't have to be super exact.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Acudeftechguy doens't use a receiver, he has preamps with continuously variable gains on them, so he can make as big or small of adjustments as he wants... so maybe the digital meter is better for him. My yamaha also has .5 db increments so my analog meter works fine for me, I'm ok with a 1 to 2 db variance it my system, it's not rocket science here, so we don't have to be super exact.

Yeah, actually the ONLY reason I got the digital SPL was because it is easier for me to READ.

It was not so much about accuracy at all. It was just about readability.

Kind of like a digital watch vs analog watch. Digital is just easier for me to read and I don't have to think as much (I know...what thinking? So don't go there.)

So Analog vs Digital SPL is probably the same in terms of accuracy, but some people just prefer a digital display vs analog.

Same thing with those analog clocks in some cars. Man, I hate them. Lexus = Digital Clocks. Infinity & Lincoln = Analog Clocks. I love Lexus.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

...my Yamaha can increase and decrease sound levels by 0.5 dB.

...My yamaha also has .5 db increments.

So this is where the bass management of a receiver is actually better than a $3,000 Denon DVD5910 player (1.0 dB increments only), huh?

 

[mtrycrafts]

How so?

I have the RShack analog SPL. The numbers are not exactly in increments of less than 1 dB. They are more like 2.0 dB increments. The analog needle is constantly moving back and forth as it never stays still. I think you will be lucky if you can get within 1.0 dB. I think most likely you will have to settle for within 2.0 dB. Some of the < $75 digital SPL meters have increments of 0.1dB!

My $60 digital SPL is in 0.5dB increments.

So how can an anlaog SPL be more accurate?

You can more accurately level match or read a test tone level. When you channel balance, level match, you are using pink noise or test tones. The needle should not be swinging. So, you can get it right on that 75dB mark on each channel. I can.
A digital rounds up or down, so you have no idea if that 75dB is 74.5 or 75.4. So, on one channel you have 74.5 and the other you have 75.4 but the meter shows 75. I hope you can interpolate better than a .5 dB on that meter if the value is not on one of the marks.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Yeah, actually the ONLY reason I got the digital SPL was because it is easier for me to READ.

It was not so much about accuracy at all. It was just about readability.

Kind of like a digital watch vs analog watch. Digital is just easier for me to read and I don't have to think as much (I know...what thinking? So don't go there.)

Oh, readability issues now That I cannot help you out with

 

[croseiv]

I have both the digital and analog meters, and I greatly prefer the digital one due to ease of reading.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I have both the digital and analog meters, and I greatly prefer the digital one due to ease of reading.

That's exactly what I was saying.