or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › A good replacement for the radio shack spl meter.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A good replacement for the radio shack spl meter.  

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
I've read a lot of reviews and threads on the radio shack spl meter 33 4050. However a lot of these are not current 2011 or newer, or this model is not available at RS anymore. So I'm wondering what my options are . Simple and cheap , are essential.

I've read about the galaxy 140 but I can't see myself spending 100 when something like the RS is out there for sub 50.

Thanks again for all the help
post #2 of 26
For what limited uses they actually provide, i would watch EBay or Craigslist and simply pick up a used RS meter for ~$15-20.

Once you set a level in REW or any of the other measurement platforms, they provide the same functionality and much more - negating the need in most cases to carry a separate meter.

(I'm not quite sure why, but this perceived need for a separate SPL meter to "calibrate" systems is perhaps one of the most misunderstood topics we routinely encounter, as so many misunderstand the difference between the setting of relative values to as common reference value and "calibration" to an absolute level...)

Note, that simply setting a platform to the level indicated by the SPL meter is NOT "calibrating" the platform! You are simply setting the level to correspond to the level displayed on the SPL meter for "agreement". And in fact, this level is simply a rough estimate of the actual level that is considered acceptable for our use. And with the exception of a few specialized activities where absolute accuracy and precision are required, such as vetted systems where data is submitted for legal purposes in Noise Level Analysis(NLA) applications, this is fine.

Considering the correction tables necessary to 'correct' a typical SPL meter and the fact that they too must be formally calibrated, few are more than simply a convenient practical estimate of SPL levels. They are NOT , as some seem to feel, a calibrated reference source. If you desire this, invest in a dual level mic calibrator - which will set you back about $250 on up...
post #3 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by skichiiwa View Post

I've read a lot of reviews and threads on the radio shack spl meter 33 4050. However a lot of these are not current 2011 or newer, or this model is not available at RS anymore. So I'm wondering what my options are. Simple and cheap , are essential.

Plenty of them on eBay. BTW, what do you plan to do with it?
post #4 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

For what limited uses they actually provide, i would watch EBay or Craigslist and simply pick up a used RS meter for ~$15-20.

Once you set a level in REW or any of the other measurement platforms, they provide the same functionality and much more - negating the need in most cases to carry a separate meter.

(I'm not quite sure why, but this perceived need for a separate SPL meter to "calibrate" systems is perhaps one of the most misunderstood topics we routinely encounter.)

Note, that simply setting a platform to the level indicated by the SPL meter is NOT "calibrating" the platform! You are simply setting the level to correspond to the level displayed on the SPL meter for "agreement". And in fact, this level is simply a rough estimate of the actual level that is considered acceptable for our use. And with the exception of a few specialized activities where absolute accuracy and precision are required, such as vetted systems where data is submitted for legal purposes in Noise Level Analysis(NLA) applications, this is fine.

Considering the correction tables necessary to 'correct' a typical SPL meter and the fact that they too must be formally calibrated, few are more than simply a convenient practical estimate of SPL levels. They are NOT , as some seem to feel, a calibrated reference source. If you desire this, invest in a dual level mic calibrator - which will set you back about $250 on up...

What are you talking about? The OP didn't mention what equipment he planned to calibrate. He may well have some gear w/o built-in calibration and room correction software.

If that is the case, it is not perceived, but imperative to have an SPL meter.
post #5 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easyaspie View Post

What are you talking about? The OP didn't mention what equipment he planned to calibrate. He may well have some gear w/o built-in calibration and room correction software.

If that is the case, it is not perceived, but imperative to have an SPL meter.

"Imperative".....wow!

It would be very encouraging if the OP did indeed have something other than "room correction(sic) software"!!!

Gee, some of us live in a world where acoustical analysis extends far beyond the <80Hz averaged EQ that your misnomer labeled "room correction software" can even dream..." And one would think that such a SMART(sic) system would include an internal voltage referenced calibration source.

The irony is that the units can actually work just 'as well as they ever do' simply by judging relative differences, there is no need for it to attempt to set absolute levels, as (some - those who are more advanced) operators may actually be capable of setting the listening volume manually. {...for those in Rio Linda: You set the relative levels between sources to a common (relative) level - and then the operator may adjust the master gain control controlling the system (including the speakers featuring relatively matched gain levels) to a level they find pleasing...}

As I stated, for the extremely limited application that a standalone SPL meter featuring a response curve that deviates as significantly from actual provides, a used RS SPL meter is the best way to go. It simply is not worth spending any more than $15-20 on a unit that simply provides a common reference to which one may set multiple sources.

If anyone is that worried about calibrating absolute levels, they are better off skipping the SPL meter entirely and instead spending the money they would otherwise put into the over-priced undervalued OmniMic into a dual level mic calibrator and using it to calibrate the mic and their more extensive and capable platform that includes and far exceeds SPL measuring capabilities.

And if it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself that the retail consumer SPL meters are "calibrated"!

So...'that's what I am talking about'. When did You start making acoustic measurements? I was thinking of finally trying to figure out what all the hoopla is about....if the 3 cables interfacing a mic pre-amp weren't just so gosh darn intimidating!




Also, one just has to maintain a sense of humor when the StudioSix iPhone App platform, which states "the default calibration is +7.0dB" for their SPL module and goes on to state: "That's it, you're now fully calibrated. But remember, we do NOT recommend the use of a Radio Shack SPL meter for reference, they are just not accurate enough." And since a 10 dB differential results in a perceived doubling of intensity, you can be sure that calibration within "+7.0 dB" is extremely precise! Unlike those 'imprecise' RS SPL meters! Sorta puts things into perspective, doesn't it?
post #6 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

"Imperative".....wow!

It would be very encouraging if the OP did indeed have something other than "room correction(sic) software"!!!

Gee, some of use live in a world where acoustical analysis extends far beyond the <80Hz averaged EQ that your misnomer labeled "room correction software" can even dream..." And one would think that such a SMART(sic) system would include an internal voltage referenced calibration source.

The irony is that the units can actually work just 'as well as they ever do' simply by judging relative differences, there is no need for it to attempt to set absolute levels, as (some - those who are more advanced) operators may actually be capable of setting the listening volume manually.

As I stated, for the extremely limited application that a standalone SPL meter featuring a response curve that deviates as significantly from actual provides, a used RS SPL meter is the best way to go. It simply is not worth spending any more than $15-20 on a unit that simply provides a common reference to which one may set multiple sources.

If anyone is that worried about calibrating absolute levels, they are better off skipping the SPL meter entirely and instead spending the money they would otherwise put into the over-priced undervalued OmniMic into a dual level mic calibrator and using it to calibrate the mic and their more extensive and capable platform that includes and far exceeds SPL measuring capabilities.

And if it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself that the retail consumer SPL meters are "calibrated"!

So...'that's what I am talking about'. When did You start making acoustic measurements? I was thinking of finally trying to figure out what all the hoopla is about....if the 3 cables interfacing a mic pre-amp weren't just so gosh dare intimidating!


FWIW I doubt there are that many folks who could calibrate their speakers to equal levels (relatively, no concern about absolute level) without a meter, given the differences likely to be present in overall FR based on placement and use of different speakers. Getting the sub somewhere around right would be particularly troublesome unless a person had an internal switchable equal loudness correction in their head . . .
post #7 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

FWIW I doubt there are that many folks who could calibrate their speakers to equal levels (relatively, no concern about absolute level) without a meter, given the differences likely to be present in overall FR based on placement and use of different speakers. Getting the sub somewhere around right would be particularly troublesome unless a person had an internal switchable equal loudness correction in their head . . .

They don't need to! (And I am coming to the conclusion that a few have much "in their head"!)

All that is required, as the "room correction software" has a mic, is to simply display the relative intensity and to allow gain adjustment to the same relative level.

But I guess with such integrated 'advanced capabilities' in packages fraudulently claiming to actually provide "room correction" capabilities that such an extreme level of functionality is simply too much to be expected.

Next we will hear the term "calibrated" applying to the mere accomplishment of having all speakers be present in the same room!...


Hence, for what folks are actually doing, simply using a generic cheap used RS SPL meter is fine - as all one is doing is setting the relative levels to a common value in a general ballpark. Once this is done, all of the additional master gain adjustments can easily be done by the operator.

And NONE of this should be necessary with the over-priced pseudo "room correction" that instead simply offer 'fancy averaged EQ' that should easily include a very simple voltage controlled tone, that in conjunction with the integrated mic could be used to set relative levels without the need for any sort of an SPL meter.

EDIT: I can see know that I should have quoted the entire nonsensical diatribe that has since been edited in an attempt to minimize the obvious, and rather hilarious in its absurdity, misinterpretation...
post #8 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

"Imperative".....wow!

It would be very encouraging if the OP did indeed have something other than "room correction(sic) software"!!!

Gee, some of use live in a world where acoustical analysis extends far beyond the <80Hz averaged EQ that your misnomer labeled "room correction software" can even dream..." And one would think that such a SMART(sic) system would include an internal voltage referenced calibration source.

The irony is that the units can actually work just 'as well as they ever do' simply by judging relative differences, there is no need for it to attempt to set absolute levels, as (some - those who are more advanced) operators may actually be capable of setting the listening volume manually.

As I stated, for the extremely limited application that a standalone SPL meter featuring a response curve that deviates as significantly from actual provides, a used RS SPL meter is the best way to go. It simply is not worth spending any more than $15-20 on a unit that simply provides a common reference to which one may set multiple sources.

If anyone is that worried about calibrating absolute levels, they are better off skipping the SPL meter entirely and instead spending the money they would otherwise put into the over-priced undervalued OmniMic into a dual level mic calibrator and using it to calibrate the mic and their more extensive and capable platform that includes and far exceeds SPL measuring capabilities.

And if it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself that the retail consumer SPL meters are "calibrated"!

So...'that's what I am talking about'. When did You start making acoustic measurements? I was thinking of finally trying to figure out what all the hoopla is about....if the 3 cables interfacing a mic pre-amp weren't just so gosh darn intimidating!




Also, one just has to maintain a sense of humor when the StudioSix iPhone App platform, which states "the default calibration is +7.0dB" for their SPL module and goes on to state: "That's it, you're now fully calibrated. But remember, we do NOT recommend the use of a Radio Shack SPL meter for reference, they are just not accurate enough." And since a 10 dB differential results in a perceived doubling of intensity, you can be sure that calibration within "+7.0 dB" is extremely precise! Unlike those 'imprecise' RS SPL meters! Sorta puts things into perspective, doesn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

They don't need to! (And I am coming to the conclusion that a few have much "in their head"!)

All that is required, as the "room correction software" has a mic, is to simply display the relative intensity and to allow gain adjustment to the same relative level.

But I guess with such integrated 'advanced capabilities' in packages fraudulently claiming to actually provide "room correction" capabilities that such an extreme level of functionality is simply too much to be expected.

Next we will hear the term "calibrated" applying to the mere accomplishment of having all speakers be present in the same room!...

Your type of drivel is why I rarely vist here. You are making absolutely no sense.

Even an inexpensive SPL meter like the RS model is infinitely more sensitive than our ears are to 1 or 2db changes.

I went for many years under the mistaken assumption, much like yourself, that I "could do it by ear". When I finally spent the $3o, got a meter and set the levels as accurately as possible with a $30 meter, the change was amazing.......to me. Everything blended much better and sounded more realistic.....again, to me.

If you have such golden ears as to not need auto set-up OR an SPL meter, you're either fooling yourself or you should be working for SETI. Hell, you should be able to hear obscure space noises without need of a radio telescopes.

If, on the other hand, you have not heard a properly matched home theater system, you are welcome to come on over for a listen. I live in northern Illinois.
post #9 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easyaspie View Post

Your type of drivel is why I rarely vist here. You are making absolutely no sense.

Even an inexpensive SPL meter like the RS model is infinitely more sensitive than our ears are to 1 or 2db changes.

I went for many years under the mistaken assumption, much like yourself, that I "could do it by ear". When I finally spent the $3o, got a meter and set the levels as accurately as possible with a $30 meter, the change was amazing.......to me. Everything blended much better and sounded more realistic.....again, to me.

If you have such golden ears as to not need auto set-up OR an SPL meter, you're either fooling yourself or you should be working for SETI. Hell, you should be able to hear obscure space noises without need of a radio telescopes.

If, on the other hand, you have not heard a properly matched home theater system, you are welcome to come on over for a listen. I live in northern Illinois.


LOL!

Are you on drugs??????

What is this crap:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easyaspie View Post

I went for many years under the mistaken assumption, much like yourself, that I "could do it by ear"...

Genius, I was the one who initially suggested that a simple used RS SPL meter would be more than adequate - and that an investment in a more capable measurement and analysis package would be optimal!

Your fallacious nonsense that implies that someone should be doing this simply by using their ears is utter hallucinated BS!!!

In fact I advocate one using a real measurement platform that is at least as capable as REW!!!! And one would benefit from investigating the capabilities of a dual channel FFT such as ARTA as well (short of investing in a high priced platform such as EASERA which may very well be beyond a reasonable ROI for the average user here!)

But continue in your ignorant hallucination thinking that I am advocating less when I am simply maintaining that the simple SPL meter for this purpose need NOT be "calibrated" and that one need not spend allot of money on a 'fancy' dedicated limited functionality SPL meter when such money and effort would be bettor invested in a more capable measurement and analysis platform - the least of which that should be considered being REW with say an ART Dual USB Pre and a Dayton EMM6 mic with calibration file that can be had for $49 + $39 or $88! Less than the alternative Galaxy SPL meter! And they would then have a future oriented measurement platform whose REAL ability far transcends that of ANY of the pseudo "room correction" packages claim to offer!!!!

And since you have demonstrated such a profound inability to read for meaning, please show us where I advocated the use of one's ears to set levels????

Based upon your demonstrated inability to read for meaning, it might serve all well if you stayed away more often rather than post based upon some hallucination predicated upon the inability to read for meaning and to recognize hyperbole.


Ironically you embody your own summary perfectly!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Easyaspie View Post

Your type of drivel is why I rarely vist here. You are making absolutely no sense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Easyaspie View Post

I went for many years under the mistaken assumption, much like yourself, that I "could do it by ear"...



I Never said, nor implied, that, genius!
post #10 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

They don't need to! (And I am coming to the conclusion that a few have much "in their head"!)

All that is required, as the "room correction software" has a mic, is to simply display the relative intensity and to allow gain adjustment to the same relative level.

But I guess with such integrated 'advanced capabilities' in packages fraudulently claiming to actually provide "room correction" capabilities that such an extreme level of functionality is simply too much to be expected.

Next we will hear the term "calibrated" applying to the mere accomplishment of having all speakers be present in the same room!...


Hence, for what folks are actually doing, simply using a generic cheap used RS SPL meter is fine - as all one is doing is setting the relative levels to a common value in a general ballpark. Once this is done, all of the additional master gain adjustments can easily be done by the operator.

And NONE of this should be necessary with the over-priced pseudo "room correction" that instead simply offer 'fancy averaged EQ' that should easily include a very simple voltage controlled tone, that in conjunction with the integrated mic could be used to set relative levels without the need for any sort of an SPL meter.

It's massively difficult to sort out your hurt feelings over the shortcomings you see in autosetup systems from whatever you are trying to say about using an SPL meter to get the levels of one's speakers in agreement.

I THINK you said that what I said is right. To put it a different way, I am more likely to have my left right center surrounds and sub at the same relative level with any given test tone using an RS meter than my ears. If, as was posited above, I have a system without one of the autosetup systems that you enjoy spewing about, I'd rather be within a dB or so using an RS meter than less accurate using my ears.

If the only time better is acceptable is when it is utterly perfect, most of us who have IQs below 200 and are not universal experts in every field and lack unlimited funds might as well go home and stop breathing. Because any improvement we make in any aspect of our lives will not be worth it.
post #11 of 26
Another one! I guess there must be a lull in the perennial cable debates...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

"If the only time better is acceptable is when it is utterly perfect, most of us who have IQs below 200 and are not universal experts in every field and lack unlimited funds might as well go home and stop breathing. Because any improvement we make in any aspect of our lives will not be worth it. "

And "hurt feelings"? LOL!!! I am sorry that you cannot discern the use of litote and hyperbole (look them up!) in my dislike for over-rated, over-priced and under-performing systems that serve as a substitute for more capable analysis platforms and the potential to enable more effective acoustical improvements that far exceed anything the "room correction" software packages claim to offer!.


"Utterly perfect" in terms of an absolutely "calibrated" level is NOT a requirement. And you certainly won't get it with a cheap retail SPL meter!

The nice thing is the "utterly perfect" is NOT required!

All you need is to adjust the various sources to "relatively equivalent" levels. There is NO requirement for an ABSOLUTE calibrated level to be achieved! Who cares if the SPL meter reading is off from an "absolute calibrated level" by 4 dB if they are all set to the same relative level? Hence why a cheap used RS SPL meter sourced from EBay is one's best deal for this purpose! Additional accuracy nor precision is NOT necessary here!

If you want to spend more money than $15-20 on a used RS SPL meter, instead of an ~$100 Galaxy SPL meter, invest in a calibrated mic and a decent 2 channel pre-amp and employ a free measurement package such as REW or the best value 2channel FFT capable ARTA for 79 Euros, either of which will afford one MUCH more capabilities than will the investment in an fancy SPL meter or a mis-represented "room correction" package that enables little more than mediocre averaged EQ.

So we have one genius saying that I advocate using one's ears to calibrate the level, and another simultaneously claiming that I demand the diametrical opposite that the calibration of relative gain levels needs to be "utterly perfect" and absolute.

At this point I would be ecstatic to discover someone with the ability to read for meaning. And I think I finally understand who constitutes the market for the amazing "room correction" packages! Looks like we have 2 sales just waiting to be consummated!

What a ship of fools...
post #12 of 26
This thread needs to be tagged with: #ElitistProblems, #MyBrainIsBigger, #ValiumPerscriptionPlease...

Anyway, back on topic. What are good replacements for the Radio Shack SPL Meter? Does the iPhone apps suffice?
post #13 of 26
As was stated in the 2nd and 3rd posts: A used RS SPL meter readily available from EBay.

ANY SPL level tool is adequate in order to set relative levels equal to a common reference.

Nothing more elaborate is required.

The iPnone app is fine (as they state that it is accurate to +7 dB). But if you do not already own a iPhone, such an investment would be excessive. If you already have an iPhone, then the $19.99 price for AudioTools (or possibly the cheaper SPL tools - depending upon what they actually do) would probably be adequate as well.

But if you want to spend more than $15-$20, then the money might be better invested in a more capable measurement platform offering more capable and future oriented abilities.

...And now its "elitist" to object to others falsely and completely misrepresenting what was asserted...but then, seeing as how the original suggestion has been stated in multiple posts and someone still asking as to what the recommended option would be (in between one falsely stating that we said to "use your ears" and still another falsely saying the exact opposite and that we required that calibration must be "utterly perfect" with absolute calibration), why should we be surprised...
post #14 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonfyr View Post

Another one! I guess there must be a lull in the perennial cable debates...



And "hurt feelings"? LOL!!! I am sorry that you cannot discern the use of litote and hyperbole (look them up!) in my dislike for over-rated, over-priced and under-performing systems that serve as a substitute for more capable analysis platforms and the potential to enable more effective acoustical improvements that far exceed anything the "room correction" software packages claim to offer!.


"Utterly perfect" in terms of an absolutely "calibrated" level is NOT a requirement. And you certainly won't get it with a cheap retail SPL meter!

The nice thing is the "utterly perfect" is NOT required!

All you need is to adjust the various sources to "relatively equivalent" levels. There is NO requirement for an ABSOLUTE calibrated level to be achieved! Who cares if the SPL meter reading is off from an "absolute calibrated level" by 4 dB if they are all set to the same relative level? Hence why a cheap used RS SPL meter sourced from EBay is one's best deal for this purpose! Additional accuracy nor precision is NOT necessary here!

If you want to spend more money than $15-20 on a used RS SPL meter, instead of an ~$100 Galaxy SPL meter, invest in a calibrated mic and a decent 2 channel pre-amp and employ a free measurement package such as REW or the best value 2channel FFT capable ARTA for 79 Euros, either of which will afford one MUCH more capabilities than will the investment in an fancy SPL meter or a mis-represented "room correction" package that enables little more than mediocre averaged EQ.

So we have one genius saying that I advocate using one's ears to calibrate the level, and another simultaneously claiming that I demand the diametrical opposite that the calibration of relative gain levels needs to be "utterly perfect" and absolute.

At this point I would be ecstatic to discover someone with the ability to read for meaning. And I think I finally understand who constitutes the market for the amazing "room correction" packages! Looks like we have 2 sales just waiting to be consummated!

What a ship of fools...

Like I said our bottom lines are precisely aligned. So something else is pushing your buttons.
post #15 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by skichiiwa View Post

I've read a lot of reviews and threads on the radio shack spl meter 33 4050. However a lot of these are not current 2011 or newer, or this model is not available at RS anymore. So I'm wondering what my options are . Simple and cheap , are essential.

I've read about the galaxy 140 but I can't see myself spending 100 when something like the RS is out there for sub 50.

Thanks again for all the help

I'd look at something like this. It's supposed to be more accurate than the RS SPL meter, and comes with its own measurement / calibration file which you can use in software like REW.
post #16 of 26
The Dayton/Superlux EMM6 mic does come with an available calibration file and as such is quite a good bargain for general analytical measurements.

It might be useful to better understand just what the mic calibration file provides...That calibration file only accounts for deviations over the mic's response bandwidth.

For instance, its gain measurement at 500 Hz may deviate from the actual level by being low by, say, 3 dB; while its response at 12 kHz may display a gain level that is, say, 4 dB too high.

The calibration file will effectively compensate for such variations by boosting or padding the energy display at those frequencies in the mic band pass that deviated from the actual and as such provide a relatively accurate display when considering how one part of the band pass spectrum measures compared to another part of the band pass spectrum..

Therefore, such calibration will allow the mic to accurately compare the relative output of one source with another source.

And while the variations in gain with respect to frequency over the units’ band pass is corrected via the calibration file, there is still no way for the mic to necessarily know the absolute gain.

The calibration file does not does not provide a reference gain level or a way to assess the absolute levels of a source. It only facilitates accurate relative comparisons between different measured sources.

(Note too that this mic calibration file will not address any other non-linear response characteristics that may result from contributions of other system components in the signal path, such as the mic pre-amp...)

Thus, up to this point, the various sources can be adjusted for equivalent gain levels in comparison with each other.

But even with a calibrated mic, one still does not have a manner by which to determine the actual ABSOLUTE gain (SPL)levels of the source, which brings us to the ‘other part’ of the 'perceived' level issue… Namely, how to adjust the gain of all of the speakers to an absolute level – often commonly stated as 75 dB SPL.

And this is why some erroneously obsess over the perceived 'need' for an SPL meter “calibrated” to an absolute level.

The common consumer SPL meters are neither calibrated nor accurate to an absolute gain level. And the imagined necessity that such a reference display absolute levels such a capability actually has only limited applicability while rendering the task to obtain an SPL meter with such a high degree of accuracy and precision unnecessarily difficult and expensive.

But this is in fact not the crisis many feel it is. As there is no need for such an 'absolute' level of calibration.

So long as the critical gain relationships of the individual speakers within the system are effectively matched to each other in the relative terms of a common gain level, the ‘master gain’ or volume can be generally adjusted to a comfortable or desired level as determined by one’s hearing and comfort level.

And a simple consumer SPL meter can also be used to set the reference level to a level that is reasonably close to a target 75 dB. This level is a level designed to set the gain level near the center of the range of adjustability. It is Not an absolute requirement that a small deviation will negatively affect. There is no need for absolute accuracy and precision here.

And if this reference level is set with a meter that deviates from the absolute level by, say, +3 or +7 or -3 or -7 dB is of little consequence, as ultimately, this level is set not by any necessary nexus to an abstract absolute value displayed on a meter gain display, but by the preference of the person or persons listening. And it will be well within the range of adjustment provided by the receiver Thus this level can be adjusted as one desires with the master volume (gain) control – all without some perceived necessity to set the level to some absolute calibrated level.
post #17 of 26
+1

severe lack of reading comprehension here; all-the-while they add zero substance to the thread.
post #18 of 26
Aperion sound level meter = $29.00. Just got mine a few weeks ago. Very nice; priced right.

http://www.aperionaudio.com/product/...43,40,146.aspx

Jim
post #19 of 26
dragonfyr - Having some sort of meter of which you know the response across a range is to help you more accurately analyze the performance of a speaker and speaker system across the entire frequency range, not just the summed SPL across said range, which is what you seem to be talking about. In other words - Yes, you can use an SPL meter for level matching, and in that case any decent quality meter will do for the majority of people.

However, you're completely ignoring the use of such a meter for equalization. This is especially useful when trying to optimize subwoofer performance, where large variations in SPL from one frequency to the next are common, have a negative impact on sound, and are relatively easy to correct to a sufficient degree for most people. Having a meter which is reasonably accurate and of which you know the deviation on the various frequencies is very useful for that.
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertjan View Post

dragonfyr - Having some sort of meter of which you know the response across a range is to help you more accurately analyze the performance of a speaker and speaker system across the entire frequency range, not just the summed SPL across said range, which is what you seem to be talking about.

i suggest you re-read his commentary; you're confusing the differing types of mics and their purpose(s).
post #21 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertjan View Post

However, you're completely ignoring the use of such a meter for equalization. This is especially useful when trying to optimize subwoofer performance, where large variations in SPL from one frequency to the next are common, have a negative impact on sound, and are relatively easy to correct to a sufficient degree for most people. Having a meter which is reasonably accurate and of which you know the deviation on the various frequencies is very useful for that.

I would suggest that if someone is serious about EQing minimum phase low frequency energy below ~80 Hz that they do indeed "completely ignor(e) the use of such a meter for equalization" and instead use the proper tool for the job - realizing what it is that they are actually trying to do! It pays to be smarter than one's tools!

Instead generate a frequency response using a calibrated mic that will display an accurate frequency response - and from which they can generate a waterfall/CSD plot. Using a program like REW they can generate PEQ filters that match the Q of the various peaks they wish to reduce.

Attempting to do this with an RS (or similar) SPL meter is an effort in futility as it is almost impossible to determine the Q for a filter from such gross generalization of data! Not only that, but are you also aware that such a plot need not display "absolute" gain levels? Relative gain levels are sufficient generated from a calibrated mic whose frequency response is 'consistent'. It, like the other levels discussed, does not matter if compared to a meter reading of 75 dB that the actual absolute gain is 77 dB or 73 dB or 82 dB, as long as all of the relative levels are consistent ('matched') in relation to each other.

Bottomline, when someone begins doing Noise Level Analysis (NLA) that needs to pass muster for data submission in court, then worry about absolute calibration of the entire measurement chain for gain.

Until then, all that is needed is a cheap RS (or equivalent) SPL meter to provide a simple reference level so that the various sources can be set in agreement. No absolute gain level is required. If the meter reads 75 dB (and the absolute gain is actually 78.7 dB SPL), that is fine! Set your various speaker levels to 75 dB on the SPL meter and move forward.
post #22 of 26
So that you've suceeded in muddying the conversation with irrelevant trivia that the OP neither wanted nor asked for, can you recommend a cheap alternative to the RS meter?

After all, that was what the thread was about.
post #23 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easyaspie View Post

So that you've suceeded in muddying the conversation with irrelevant trivia that the OP neither wanted nor asked for, can you recommend a cheap alternative to the RS meter?

After all, that was what the thread was about.


Cheaper than a $15-20 used RS SPL meter or AudioTools for the iPhone available for $19.99?

...Both of which have already been suggested multiple times previously???

(Meanwhile some actively suggest the need for more expensive $100+ Galaxy SPL meter and some have a mistaken idea that absolute levels are required...while others think I have suggested that "ears are sufficient" while others think I assert that 'absolute values are required' and you still can't determine the only less expensive SPL meters of which we are aware...)

No, I don't know of one cheaper than those two alternatives.

And as you seem incapable of handling such recommendations thus far, I doubt any additional suggestions would help - so go haunt any of the ongoing threads asserting the need for the $100+ Galaxy SPL meter in lieu of the RS SPL meter.
post #24 of 26
I swear, it's like 2 different conversions going on at the same time. I'm bowing out.
post #25 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertjan View Post

I swear, it's like 2 different conversions going on at the same time. I'm bowing out.

Yes, you don't understand. Your point, while perhaps well intentioned, is in error.

A calibrated mic does NOT provide absolute gain levels!!! The calibration file simply simply makes the frequency response more linear - so that the RELATIVE gain displayed at each frequency is more correct RELATIVE to the gain level at other frequencies! It is not a substitute for an SPL gain meter.

In other words, mic calibration compensates for, say, a low frequency roll-off or a high frequency roll-off...

Calibration does not cause the mic to display an absolute gain level. It simply makes the overall response across the mic's bandwidth more consistent.

The mic is merely an input device - an acoustic transformer that converts the acoustic energy into electrical energy that is then interpreted by the SPL meter circuitry. It does not determine the calibration of the SPL meter circuitry!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertjan View Post

I would like to point to the "S" in AVS

Indeed!!!! I wonder when that aspect will be incorporated in responses!
post #26 of 26
Enough
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › A good replacement for the radio shack spl meter.