upgrade your surround for 35.00

so, the digital meter is slower than the analogue readings , (If I understand Bigwood correctly)?
Or, is the analogue meter just more accurate?
Appreciate your help here everyone.

Bmpnyc, have always read not to use the digital meter. Have read that a more accurate calibration is achieved using the analog meter. The analog meter set to "C-weigh - slow responce" is slower than the digital meter and will be more accurate. I believe what Bigwood is saying is that using the test disc he mentions will work with the digital meter. The digital meter will not be accurate using the test tone generator on the AV/pre or receiver. Also its best not to just place the meter in your hand while calibrating. Sound waves will be bouncing off you and affecting the spl. I do find that using a test disc instead of the test tone generator on the AV/pre results in obtaining a better balance. Maybe someone with a better explaination can jump in and explain why its best to use an analog meter set to C-weigh - slow responce than to use the digital meter. Anyhow according to Bigwood you can use your digital meter with a test disc he describes. I used Video Essentials with the analog meter and never had to adjust. But i do recalibrate once a year or if i change cables, reposition the speakers etc. Using the meter is the only way to go for balance, but after all channels are the same level you can than fine tune to your taste by ear, say add a little more to the rears of compensate for some hearing loss etc. Hope this helps

Actually, were not too far out of agreement Mikec. I also re-calibrate my levels whenever I change cables, components, speaker placement, or whatever else may have affected my settings. What I meant in my previous post is that with my digital meter when the initial signal is generated. the meter takes a second or two to "settle in" (for lack of a better term) to the actual reading being observed. An analog meter will shoot the needle actually faster to the setting than my digital meter takes to proccess then display the result! This is why I only use sustained test tones, I can run each tone for minutes as opposed to the few seconds each that my processor outputs (it has no manual setting). I hope that clears up any confusion on my original post. As far as sound pressure levels bouncing off my body, thats a good point, but the way I look at it my body's going to be there every time I'm listening anyway! (joke intended!) Anyway, for the 35 bucks or so for these meters you cant really go wrong when compared to calibrating by ear! Later...

Our processor setup asks for speaker position and distance and size, etc. I thought that we had it licked by this set up. so, would we see better results if we used this? Are you still talking about the $35 meter? If so, it may be worth the experiment. any thoughts?

Angela, Yes to your question. Get the 35 Radio shack (analog spl meter) and a surround set-up test disc, follow the instructions in the previous post and have fun.