PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare sound level meter (SLM) readings obtained using a Larson-Davis (Depew, NY) Model 831 Type 1 SLM, a RadioShack (Fort Worth, TX) SLM, and iPhone 5 (Apple, Cupertino, CA) SLM apps. METHOD: In Procedure 1, pure tones were measured in an anechoic chamber (125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, and 8000 Hz); sound pressure levels (SPLs) ranged from 60 to 100 dB SPL in 10-dB increments. In Procedure 2, human voices were measured. Participants were 20 vocally healthy adults (7 women, 13 men; mean age = 25.1 years). The task was to sustain a vowel "ah" at 3 intensity levels: soft, habitual, and loud. Microphones were lined up equal distances from the participant's mouth, and recordings were captured simultaneously. RESULTS: Overall, the 3 SLM apps and the RadioShack SLM yielded inconsistent readings compared with the Type 1 SLM. CONCLUSION: The use of apps for SPL readings in the clinical setting is premature because all 3 apps adopted were incomparable with the Type 1 SLM.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare sound level meter (SLM) readings obtained using a Larson-Davis (Depew, NY) Model 831 Type 1 SLM, a RadioShack (Fort Worth, TX) SLM, and iPhone 5 (Apple, Cupertino, CA) SLM apps. METHOD: In Procedure 1, pure tones were measured in an anechoic chamber (125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, and 8000 Hz); sound pressure levels (SPLs) ranged from 60 to 100 dB SPL in 10-dB increments. In Procedure 2, human voices were measured. Participants were 20 vocally healthy adults (7 women, 13 men; mean age = 25.1 years). The task was to sustain a vowel "ah" at 3 intensity levels: soft, habitual, and loud. Microphones were lined up equal distances from the participant's mouth, and recordings were captured simultaneously. RESULTS: Overall, the 3 SLM apps and the RadioShack SLM yielded inconsistent readings compared with the Type 1 SLM. CONCLUSION: The use of apps for SPL readings in the clinical setting is premature because all 3 apps adopted were incomparable with the Type 1 SLM.