I think the idea behind the analog is that SPLs will vary significantly over time, and with a digital readout it is hard to mentally calculate an average, as it is not simply the mean between the highest and lowest level. There is a time component (i.e., time-weighted average). So with an analog meter, you can "see" an average SPL better.
Rat Shack SPL meter: Analog or Digital?
I decided to buy a Rat Shack SPL meter (to test the frecuency response of my speakers and subwoofer) but I'm not sure which one, the analog or the digital? Robert Harley suggests in his book to buy the analog one but he does not explain why. Is there any reason to choose the analog one over the digital one? or it does not matter?
Thank you for any input.
Thank you for any input.
- ...
- 12 posts total
The analog is much easier to use and read. You can get pressure zone readings much faster with the analog. In my mind there is not question--the analog is much better (and less expensive). Also, you should be aware that the analog meter is not a flat response, but we manufacture a test CD that has calibrated test tones for this meter. You can get it at http://www.rivesaudio.com, go to products and software--or directly to the test CD. There is also a set of instructions that is much better than what is provided with the Radio Shack meter. Be sure to download these--even if you don't get our test CD. |
Rives! Where were you 10 years ago when I pulled my hair out trying to calibrate these $30 suckers! And the battery-charge correlated non-linearity error across each scale was no fun either. I remember calibrating the errors across band extremes. Do you have new templates to glue over the existing one that are more accurate at the extremes? Wonder why RS never reprinted more accurate grids.... |
- 12 posts total