Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Scott*E, Nov 10, 2002.
Analog or digital and why?
I find the analog (33-2050) easier to read (easier to see the swaying needle rather than changing numbers on the digital (33-2055) readout). They should both work the same, set to Slow and C Weighted.
The difference is about 15 bucks US between the 2 units.
Note that Radio Shack does not sell the Analog unit in Canada any longer unless they have some in old stock. I had to have a friend in the US grab me one.
I think the consensus is that the analog meter is better. It is much easier to read the position of the needle than the alternating digits on the digital display, especially when calibrating the subwoofer level.
I live in Northern Virginia (Wash. D.C. area). I've already checked my local store and they have both in stock. I just wasn't sure if the digital was worth the extra money.
Thanks for the info guys.
I also have the digital one and never had trouble with numbers jumping all over the place. The meter is supposed to be on a "slow" response anyway.
I use both. The digital version is capable of taking an average measurement over a user preset time period. I find this very useful for subwoofer calibration.
As stated, the digital one is great for subwoofer calibration because of the averaging ability.
The analog meter has 10th's of a db whereas the digital one rounds to the nearest db. This means that the analog meter is more accurate than the digital meter.
I purchased the analog meter for two reasons:
2) Easier for me to read.
do digital meters have the same problem in incorrectly reporting SPLs at low frequencies?
I can't get my hands on the RS analog version here in Singapore, and the shops only sell digital ones by other vendors -- for that matter, is the problem endemic for all SPL meters or only the RS ones?