Jump to content

splo meters


mobobog

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Yes Handheld...

 

I am looking the RS Lee... i fact i was going to ask what would be better, the digital one or the analog... i wanted to know if there is a better option for the money but even acoustisoft and ethan winer recommend it.

 

Anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I've actually heard people recommend against the digital one. It's digital in it's meter display but I don't think there's any digital output involved. I can't see what it would output anyway.

 

For ETF, all you're trying to do is get an accuate SPL readings in your room so the various measurements are using an even playing field. Really, the Radio Shack is all you need for this...

 

...it's also nice to keep at you mix spot to keep your mixing SPL consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

IMHO, you are a lot better off buying an omni small diaphragm condenser mic to use with ETF.

 

The mic in the RS SPL meter is not flat over frequency - - not even close.

 

But they are great if you are monitoring SPL level - - like setting a known level for mixing, or seeing if the SPL of a kick drum exceeds the rating for the mic you want to use on it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Originally posted by philbo

The mic in the RS SPL meter is not flat over frequency - - not even close.


But they are great if you are monitoring SPL level - - like setting a known level for mixing, or seeing if the SPL of a kick drum exceeds the rating for the mic you want to use on it.

 

How can both these statements be true? :confused:

 

Your first statement is painfully true, this is a cheap meter.

 

Since the mike is bad, the SPL level isn't very accurate. I guess you mean it's close enough for these applications?

 

If so, I'd agree. :thu:

 

Terry D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I didn't think he wanted to use the mic as his test mic...

 

If that's the case then I would assume it's not up for the job, though I'm aware that the ETF manual says you can use it. As far as offering insight into roughly what level you're putting out in your room for any given measurement, I'm sure it's more than fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by MrKnobs

How can both these statements be true?
:confused:

Your first statement is painfully true, this is a cheap meter.


Since the mike is bad, the SPL level isn't very accurate. I guess you mean it's close enough for these applications?


If so, I'd agree.
:thu:

Terry D.

 

This is because the SPL meter is calibrated to measure A, B or C weighted audio spectrum. Only the C-weighting is even close to flat, and even it is -10 dB at the 20K and 15 Hz ends.

 

Experiment with posting an image:

400px-Lindos2.svg.png

 

If it doesn't work, here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-weighting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by MrKnobs

Radio Shack one is pretty inaccurate, we use B&K 2250 SPL meters at work. Unfortunately, they're $9,000 each.
:o

Terry D.

 

$9000 for a spl meter jajajajajaja

 

much (a lot more) than i have in my whole studio!

 

well as i understand the RS meter is more than fine to use with etf for the low range... efen the acoustisoft site says so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by where02190

RS here, I have an analog one I use live and a digital in the studio. They are basically idential except one has an LCD readout and one an analog meter.


I generally mix in the 70dbA range.

 

 

any reason why you use one for one application and the other for other application...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

Originally posted by philbo

The mic in the RS SPL meter is not flat over frequency - - not even close.

It's actually remarkably good. I had a giveaway correction table that some manufacturer published. I didn't bother to attach it to the meter since it didn't seem to be far enough off flat to worry about. But here's a link to a correction table that's probably the same as what I have around somewhere.

 

http://www.danmarx.org/audioinnovation/rsmeter.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

Originally posted by MikeRivers

It's actually remarkably good. I had a giveaway correction table that some manufacturer published. I didn't bother to attach it to the meter since it didn't seem to be far enough off flat to worry about. But here's a link to a correction table that's probably the same as what I have around somewhere.


http://www.danmarx.org/audioinnovation/rsmeter.html

 

 

Yep, that's the subjective part of it. 2dB down at 4kHz and 2dB up at 100Hz would be considered horrendous in the measurement world. Probably OK for the home audio person.

 

Thanks for posting the link, I was planning to take my own RS meter to the anechoic chamber here at the uni and run these numbers out myself.

 

Table from the link follows:

 

10hz........+20db

12.5hz.....+16.5db

16hz........+11.5db

20hz........+7.5db

25hz........+5db

31.5hz.....+3db

40hz........+2.5db

50hz........+1.5db

63hz........+1.5db

80hz........+1.5db

100hz......+2db

125hz......+.5db

160hz......-.5db

200hz......-.5db

250hz......+.5db

315hz......-.5db

400hz......0db

500hz......-.5db

630hz......0db

800hz......0db

1k...........0db

1.25k......0db

1.6k........-.5db

2k...........-1.5db

2.5k........-1.5db

3.15k......-1.5db

4k...........-2db

5k...........-2db

6.3k........-2db

8k...........-2db

10k.........-1db

12.5k......+.5db

16k.........0db

20k.........+1db

 

Terry D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

Originally posted by MrKnobs

Yep, that's the subjective part of it. 2dB down at 4kHz and 2dB up at 100Hz would be considered horrendous in the measurement world. Probably OK for the home audio person.

Depends on whose measurement world you're talking about. If I was designing a loudspeaker, I'd probably want a meter that's more accurate than this. But you won't find a room that's anywhere near that flat, unless it was designed and build by someone who could (and should) afford a meter that does more than the Radio Shack SPL meter.

 

What's significant about its inaccuracy is in the area below 40 Hz. If you were trying to calibrate a subwoofer installation with it, it's probalby worth applying the corrections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by mobobog

any reason why you use one for one application and the other for other application...

 

 

 

I have one of each, and I like the analog meter for live, as I can see it peripherally easy, while the digital one is more an occasional look reference. The analog one is far more visual, with it's white backround against the meter needle, it's instantly obvious if you're too loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by where02190

I have one of each, and I like the analog meter for live, as I can see it peripherally easy, while the digital one is more an occasional look reference. The analog one is far more visual, with it's white backround against the meter needle, it's instantly obvious if you're too loud.

 

 

What level do you target live? in the studio?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

Originally posted by philbo

Wow, those numbers are much better than I had remembered.


I guess my memory might not be what it used to be - - I stand corrected....


Sorry for my misleading conclusions.

 

 

No, you're not wrong. There is also the issue that the RS meters are never calibrated again after the initial factory setting, which is pretty sloppy.

 

Terry D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks Mr. Knobs - - maybe Alzheimers is not settling in after all...

 

:D

 

I usually mix at 80 to 84 dB SPL = -10 dB FS (measured using pink noise as the reference signal), depending on the music and it's dynamics.

 

Most of the work is done at a much lower level (50 - 65 dB SPL), because the ear can detect finer increments in level there.

 

But the final 5 or 6 listens, to see if the mix translates well over level, is generally done at the 84 dB level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Originally posted by philbo

Thanks Mr. Knobs - - maybe Alzheimers is not settling in after all...


:D

I usually mix at 80 to 84 dB SPL = -10 dB FS (measured using pink noise as the reference signal), depending on the music and it's dynamics.


Most of the work is done at a much lower level (50 - 65 dB SPL), because the ear can detect finer increments in level there.


But the final 5 or 6 listens, to see if the mix translates well over level, is generally done at the 84 dB level.

 

I often wonder at my day job (which involves measuring noise) why we use the A weighting curve. A weighting corresponds to the 40 Phon contour on the Fletcher Munson curve, which in turns corresponds to an approximately 40dB 1kHz center. Whether listening to loud music or measuring highway noise, this is far too low an equal loudness contour to be meaningful. It would be better to use B, C, or D weighting (in my work), for example.

 

Good discussion of this HERE.

 

:wave:

 

Terry D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...