Analogue SPL Meter (1 Viewer)

[thapa]

Is the Analogue Sound Level Meter better than the Digital one?

The SVS FAQs page says that the analogue meter is "generally preferred as allowing easier fine tuned calibrations".

So, is it easier/harder to operate? More precise? More/less cumbersome?

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

 

[thapa]

Is the Analogue Sound Level Meter better than the Digital one?

The SVS FAQs page says that the analogue meter is "generally preferred as allowing easier fine tuned calibrations".

So, is it easier/harder to operate? More precise? More/less cumbersome?

Any thoughts?

Thanks.

 

[Burke Strickland]

Is the analog "better" than the digital? Not really. I own both an analog and a digital sound pressure level (SPL) meter and have found that both have their place.

For general level readings to determine safe listening levels, they are virtually interchangeable. In that case you are basically just checking to see if the sound levels are staying within a safe range, not trying to pinpoint an exact reading. But even in system calibration, where more precise readings are desired, each has strengths, although some features that some find to be an advantage for one might be considered a disadvantage in someone else's view.

If I were trying to establish precisely for the record what the SPL level was in a given situation where I did not have control over the level, as opposed to adjusting SPL to a predetermined level, I'd probably go for the analog model. However, while the analog model does resolve to half db levels instead of just one db increments, that may not translate into a real advantage when calibrating one's home system.

For one thing, if I am adjusting the SPL of each the channels in my system to the same level and going for a particular SPL reading (say 75 db), to me, seeing the number digitally is a lot easier to read and interpret than seeing a needle bouncing around. For another, in that situation, I am not trying to discover precisely at what level each channel already is at when I start, but rather to get them all to have hit the same reading when I have finished. Seeing the minor fluctuations of the bouncing needle even when the test tone is steady, I don't think I'm far enough off to worry about it if I see all of them hit my example number of 75 on the digital readout.

Also the digital model will show readings even if they are a bit beyond the selected scale, while the analog model simply pegs the needle, requiring a scale change if you are trying to pin it down more precisely. So I don't think the analog is necessarily "easier" to use than the digital. And the digital model has a mode to average readings over a selected time span.

Some people think the analog looks retro-cool, while the other one is just another digital device with the Radio Shack name on it. :>) Most of the time, the analog model is less expensive than the digital, so it usually has the cost advantage. However, I bought my digital the one time I saw it in a "special sale" at a price that was actually a couple of bucks less than the analog.

I really don't think you can go wrong with either one.

 

[Burke Strickland]

Is the analog "better" than the digital? Not really. I own both an analog and a digital sound pressure level (SPL) meter and have found that both have their place.

For general level readings to determine safe listening levels, they are virtually interchangeable. In that case you are basically just checking to see if the sound levels are staying within a safe range, not trying to pinpoint an exact reading. But even in system calibration, where more precise readings are desired, each has strengths, although some features that some find to be an advantage for one might be considered a disadvantage in someone else's view.

If I were trying to establish precisely for the record what the SPL level was in a given situation where I did not have control over the level, as opposed to adjusting SPL to a predetermined level, I'd probably go for the analog model. However, while the analog model does resolve to half db levels instead of just one db increments, that may not translate into a real advantage when calibrating one's home system.

For one thing, if I am adjusting the SPL of each the channels in my system to the same level and going for a particular SPL reading (say 75 db), to me, seeing the number digitally is a lot easier to read and interpret than seeing a needle bouncing around. For another, in that situation, I am not trying to discover precisely at what level each channel already is at when I start, but rather to get them all to have hit the same reading when I have finished. Seeing the minor fluctuations of the bouncing needle even when the test tone is steady, I don't think I'm far enough off to worry about it if I see all of them hit my example number of 75 on the digital readout.

Also the digital model will show readings even if they are a bit beyond the selected scale, while the analog model simply pegs the needle, requiring a scale change if you are trying to pin it down more precisely. So I don't think the analog is necessarily "easier" to use than the digital. And the digital model has a mode to average readings over a selected time span.

Some people think the analog looks retro-cool, while the other one is just another digital device with the Radio Shack name on it. :>) Most of the time, the analog model is less expensive than the digital, so it usually has the cost advantage. However, I bought my digital the one time I saw it in a "special sale" at a price that was actually a couple of bucks less than the analog.

I really don't think you can go wrong with either one.

 

[thapa]

That was a very detailed and helpful answer. Thanks a lot Burke.

 

[thapa]

That was a very detailed and helpful answer. Thanks a lot Burke.