2. speakers
  3. 1177002332

using the Radio shack SPL meter

I got a digital Rad Shak SPL meter the other day. I'm trying to figure out just how to use it. At this point all I want to do is find out how loud is loud, for me.

I got it set to the C weighted setting. Set the Range to 80db, and then on to 90db.

Pointed it straight ahead fixing it at the listening position where my head would be and turned up the music. Slowly..Stopping now and then.

At a level surely loud enough for me, and off 85-86db speakers, the highest number shown on the meter was 91-92db.

Given the +/- 10% variation the gizmo is professed to have, does this mean I was listening to 91-92db, or 100-101db? Or 82-83db?

While on the 100 range the numbers remained the same with 91-92db still the highest numbers reflected on the screen at the loudest level I could stand, without worry of gear issues or for just brief periods like a single song or at best two. They’d need be short ones as well.

I've done nothing else. In fact whatever those numbers actually represent, it was certainly too loud for extended listening. IMO. I didn’t turn it up past that level either... though it may have produced greater numbers. From repairs or on the meter.

Checking the vol knob later I had some more room to go but not safely as I was about the 1-2 o’clock position on the preamp.

I heard no audible clipping or distortion at any time.

How loud was I listening?
blindjim

Showing 4 responses by blindjim

blindjim OP
3,092 posts
 
I think it was set to AVG. I know it was fluctuating up and down, either at the.2 sec or .5 second intervals.

Is there a function setting to measure this particular aspect with?

Also, how can one find out about the diffs indicated in the literature as to the actual eff of the meter, as Ive heard more than one say "Accurate within 10%"... or did that only apply to the analog meters?
blindjim OP
3,092 posts
 
Jaffeassc
thanks... I don't think the max thingy was in use.

Shadorne
db? I meant %. I may have misheard the reading of the info too, though I really thought the manual said +/- 10% accuracy.... at what range (if any was specified) I don't recall. the concern was that 10%. 10% of a 90db reading is 9db. that is pretty big if you ask me.

Montytx
Thanks. I tend to agree. the issue for me is I have no previous refference. Any reading came as a suprize to me. though I felt the 91-92 (fast) readings preety fair an assessment... yet again... had no previous ref.

What I find amazing, or better yet, most interesting, about the SPL readings of ambient noise/sound at the LP, is the type or fashion of the sound being realized at the ears. Volume was surely in abundance, yet the striking, impacting or visceral dynamics were still not agregious.

The best I can describe it is the diffs from a plannar speaker to one using cones. these were cones too, though with limited responnse pressure levels... agan, 85db or so.

At no time was the sound near approaching "piercing".

Other speakers I've owned with greater Eff #s have had that "piercing" trait however. So there is IMO more to SPL than simply SPL. In fact I could well stand a touch more of a striking quality, but only just, to add to the dimensionality of the sound as well. The "jump" factor as I call it was lacking.

"A dollup or two more jump, if you please, my good man."... and I am a happy camper.

Swampwalker
i know what you mean. it is suprizing, huh?

Makes me really wonder about speakers PROFESSING OR providing 100+db SPLs.

Who can handle that? Unless only a watt or two is used.

OK, So is there a better, or easier way using a PC to gain greater accuracy, and ease, in redeeming acoustic numbers, like SPL, nodes, nulls, spikes, etc?

....without a big expense being necessary?

Using the Windows XP Pro PC & monitor would be a very good thing for me. I'd not need any assistance.
blindjim OP
3,092 posts
 
Shadorne

Gee thanks. My heads swimmin' now from all the input you've mustered here. ...and I was once a whiz at math. Thanks much.

The distortion aspect you put forth is likely on the beam. that system was simply put at best, sterile and analytical. Nothing by way of cabling, isoing, conditioning, decent front end . . . just some cheap CD player, a Krell amp and my rusty, dusty Sony receiver as preamp. All in a much smaller room too.

That sound is not one I have today, nor do I want any part of it again. A touch more jump perhaps, but that's about it.
blindjim OP
3,092 posts
 
Thanks. I'm on it.

I'll be taking care of that in the future at some point. I suspect a couple tubes here or there, and some more eff speakers will do the trick. My current ones sound so akin to di poles and plannars it is astounding. Real nice for background or when you're working.

Things will work out. They always do.
More to discover