So now I have both the analog and digital meters, and they both read the same with every frequency and any test CD, therefore, the corrections apply to any RadioShack meter (and I am only going to keep the digital). Moreover, the capacitors in both are different than the original post, therefore, it's currently questionable whether the surgery will achieve the desired results. BTW, thanks for the pointer to the Rives CD, which I also obtained.
So I believe the Rives CD indeed corrects the curves of both of these meters as advertised (I can only really confirm this by ear at the very low end of the spectrum, < 30Hz, where in fact 20Hz and 25Hz tones do indeed sound much louder than measured with the uncorrected tones), however, there is a major difference and issue when compared with the Stereophile CD... Namely, I get smoother readings with Stereophile's warble tones than Rives' pure sinusoidal (uncorrected and corrected) tones, and in fact, if I move my head around I get cancellations in lots of frequencies with the Rives, and this is verified with the meters as well (wild fluctuations, especially at the reference tone of 1kHz - as much as 10dB).
So despite the fact the Rives CD corrects the errors in the SPL meter, positioning of the mic is extremely critical, down to fractions of an inch, in my room.
So, the question is - in general, are warble tones the better approach to measuring level, or not, and why? Any idea why Rives didn't use warble tones? As good as Rives' idea was to correct the meter's curve, I think they missed the mark by not using warble tones, and in that case, we can just play the Stereophile warble tones and adjust the readings manually by applying the diffs in the original post herein.
Thanks
So I believe the Rives CD indeed corrects the curves of both of these meters as advertised (I can only really confirm this by ear at the very low end of the spectrum, < 30Hz, where in fact 20Hz and 25Hz tones do indeed sound much louder than measured with the uncorrected tones), however, there is a major difference and issue when compared with the Stereophile CD... Namely, I get smoother readings with Stereophile's warble tones than Rives' pure sinusoidal (uncorrected and corrected) tones, and in fact, if I move my head around I get cancellations in lots of frequencies with the Rives, and this is verified with the meters as well (wild fluctuations, especially at the reference tone of 1kHz - as much as 10dB).
So despite the fact the Rives CD corrects the errors in the SPL meter, positioning of the mic is extremely critical, down to fractions of an inch, in my room.
So, the question is - in general, are warble tones the better approach to measuring level, or not, and why? Any idea why Rives didn't use warble tones? As good as Rives' idea was to correct the meter's curve, I think they missed the mark by not using warble tones, and in that case, we can just play the Stereophile warble tones and adjust the readings manually by applying the diffs in the original post herein.
Thanks