[LAU] Which sound level meter for calibrating monitors?

Fons Adriaensen fons at kokkinizita.net
Sat May 9 17:50:19 EDT 2009


On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 12:44:30AM +0400, Andrew Gaydenko wrote:

> On Sunday 10 May 2009 00:22:57 Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > Several people have reported that the reference SPL suggested by
> > Bob Katz is quite high anyway. This is most certainly the case if
> > you are in a relatively small listening room with close speakers -
> > there seems to be a psychological effect that makes it seem unnatural
> > and unpleasant to have high SPL in small enverinments.
> >
> > So unless you go for scientific accuracy the cheaper meters will
> > probably do.
> >
> > Ciao,
> 
> Hi, Fons!
> 
> Will you be so kind to point me to publically available explanation of k14/k20 
> sense/motivation?

There is a link to Bob Katz' pages in the README.
 
> And is there some probability you will add a k0 type? :-)

Zero, it doesn't make any sense to do that. 

The K-meters indicate two values: an RMS one (the
coloured bar), and digital peak value (the white
dot). These are two independent values: the dot
is *not* the peak value of the bar as it is with
most meters. They will indicate the same value
for a continuous sine wave.

For typical music signals the peak indication will
be higher than the RMS one, and that is why the dB
scale (which applies to the RMS indication) is offset.
The only difference between the k20 and k14 meters is
this offset of the scale, they are the same meter
otherwise.

The k14 is used for music that is compressed, so it
can have a lower peak/RMS ratio, and thus a higher
average RMS level.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.




More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list