[Ethan Winer]

Folks,

People often ask which affordable microphones I recommend for measuring
their room. To answer this question I tested ten popular microphones ranging
from an inexpensive DIY model to a Josephson with Microtech Gefell capsule
costing $1,800, and wrote up the results for this article:

http://www.realtraps.com/art_microphones.htm

Enjoy!

--Ethan

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:
Folks,

People often ask which affordable microphones I recommend for measuring
their room. To answer this question I tested ten popular microphones ranging
from an inexpensive DIY model to a Josephson with Microtech Gefell capsule
costing $1,800, and wrote up the results for this article:

http://www.realtraps.com/art_microphones.htm

Enjoy!

Great. I was just looking back on some of my collected graphs.

One thing I would disagree on, small diaphrams do have resonances below 20kHz
unless they are extremely small. The medium sized ones start to have peaks around 6 khz.

The link to RS analog is wrong.
One thing would be really nice was to have the orginal ES meter there.
I think Vellman sell one that looks like the orginal RS.
http://www.mcmelectronics.com/product/72-8095

greg

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Ethan Winer ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:
Folks,

People often ask which affordable microphones I recommend for measuring
their room. To answer this question I tested ten popular microphones ranging
from an inexpensive DIY model to a Josephson with Microtech Gefell capsule
costing $1,800, and wrote up the results for this article:

http://www.realtraps.com/art_microphones.htm

This is interesting, but what you don't talk about is how good the calibration
plots that come with the mikes are, and that's the really important part.

For example, the Mitey Mike comes with a chart of third octave deviations,
which is not all that useful but is at least something. The Behringer does
not come with anything.

If the microphone response is off, and in the real world it always is, for
a lot of work it's fine as long as you know how much it's off and can
compensate for it. The issue with the cheapies is less that the response
isn't accurate but that the manufacturer doesn't tell you how much it's
off by. The Mitey Mike at least tries to do that even if they don't do it
so well.

Of the mikes you tested, the Josephson is the only one that is IEC Type I
certified and the only one that you can assume is actually flat on-axis
without compensation. It would be fair enough to use that as a reference
and give plots of the various microphone responses measured with respect to
it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Harry Lavo]

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...
Folks,

People often ask which affordable microphones I recommend for measuring
their room. To answer this question I tested ten popular microphones
ranging from an inexpensive DIY model to a Josephson with Microtech Gefell
capsule costing $1,800, and wrote up the results for this article:

http://www.realtraps.com/art_microphones.htm

Enjoy!

--Ethan


Thanks, Ethan. Looks like the old analog Radio Shack is the bargain among
the group, if you are lucky enough to have one.

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
m...
Folks,

People often ask which affordable microphones I recommend for measuring
their room. To answer this question I tested ten popular microphones
ranging from an inexpensive DIY model to a Josephson with Microtech Gefell
capsule costing $1,800, and wrote up the results for this article:

http://www.realtraps.com/art_microphones.htm

Enjoy!

--Ethan


Thanks, Ethan. Looks like the old analog Radio Shack is the bargain among
the group, if you are lucky enough to have one.



I believe he tested this, and its not hard to own.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...entPage=search

however the old RS meter looks more like this
http://www.designnotes.com/Merchant2...roduct_Count=0

[Harry Lavo]

"GregS" wrote in message
...
In article , "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
om...
Folks,

People often ask which affordable microphones I recommend for measuring
their room. To answer this question I tested ten popular microphones
ranging from an inexpensive DIY model to a Josephson with Microtech
Gefell
capsule costing $1,800, and wrote up the results for this article:

http://www.realtraps.com/art_microphones.htm

Enjoy!

--Ethan


Thanks, Ethan. Looks like the old analog Radio Shack is the bargain among
the group, if you are lucky enough to have one.



I believe he tested this, and its not hard to own.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...entPage=search

however the old RS meter looks more like this
http://www.designnotes.com/Merchant2...roduct_Count=0



Thanks for the info. Are you saying the "old" one Ethan tested looks more
like the Velleman than the current analog design? If so, then all bets are
off on the new one, which I doubt is different than the digital version.

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"GregS" wrote in message
...
In article , "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
news:4vqdnV50aMGOohrVnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@giganews. com...
Folks,

People often ask which affordable microphones I recommend for measuring
their room. To answer this question I tested ten popular microphones
ranging from an inexpensive DIY model to a Josephson with Microtech
Gefell
capsule costing $1,800, and wrote up the results for this article:

http://www.realtraps.com/art_microphones.htm

Enjoy!

--Ethan


Thanks, Ethan. Looks like the old analog Radio Shack is the bargain among
the group, if you are lucky enough to have one.



I believe he tested this, and its not hard to own.

http://www.radioshack.com/product/in...=&sr=1&origkw=
analog+sound&kw=analog+sound&parentPage=search

however the old RS meter looks more like this

http://www.designnotes.com/Merchant2...oduct_Code=AVM
2050&Category_Code=spm&Product_Count=0



Thanks for the info. Are you saying the "old" one Ethan tested looks more
like the Velleman than the current analog design? If so, then all bets are
off on the new one, which I doubt is different than the digital version.


I am not sure which one he tested. Since the digital link goes to a current
model, I asssumed the analog one tested is also the current model.

greg

[Anahata]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:07:12 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote:


Which of the microphones tested by Ethan
leads to an optimal mix/listening environment with the least amount of
imaginative interpretation by the user? I don't see why a flat on axis
response would be the magic ticket.

It seemed pretty obvious to me that the peaks and dips in the room
response far exceeded the differences between the mics, so it doesn't
really matter which mic you use.

Ethan's test environment wasn't anechoic but I'd guess it was deader than
many recording, monitoring and listening rooms.

--
Anahata
==//== 01638 720444
http://www.treewind.co.uk ==//== http://www.myspace.com/maryanahata

[Scott Dorsey]

anahata wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:07:12 -0400, Soundhaspriority wrote:

Which of the microphones tested by Ethan
leads to an optimal mix/listening environment with the least amount of
imaginative interpretation by the user? I don't see why a flat on axis
response would be the magic ticket.

It seemed pretty obvious to me that the peaks and dips in the room
response far exceeded the differences between the mics, so it doesn't
really matter which mic you use.

Unless you want to categorize the peaks and dips precisely, yes. The good
news is that measurement microphone problems are most substantial at higher
frequencies where they are less important for room acoustics.

Ethan's test environment wasn't anechoic but I'd guess it was deader than
many recording, monitoring and listening rooms.

Yes. In a real-world environment, you need flat on-axis response, but
more than that (and harder to get), you need flat diffuse-field response.
Even the IEC Type I capsules can't guarantee flat diffuse-field response
although the 1/2" ones are pretty good in that regard up until the top
octave and they can be regularized with a bullet-shapped diffuser which
fixes the top octave.

But yes, the room issues are much greater than any microphone issues, and
you should realize that the speaker issues are usually pretty substantial
in most places too.

That's why if you want to evaluate microphones the easiest thing to do is
to compare them all against a known reference. This is a good thing for
both objective measurements like frequency response and for subjective
listening comparisons.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ethan Winer]

Greg,

small diaphrams do have resonances below 20kHz unless they are extremely
small. The medium sized ones start to have peaks around 6 khz.

Yeah, good point. I had in mind the "tiny" diaphragm types when I wrote
that. I just edited the text.

The link to RS analog is wrong.

I know, but the 20-year old model my friend brought is no longer listed on
the RS web site.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Scott,

This is interesting, but what you don't talk about is how good the
calibration plots that come with the mikes are, and that's the really
important part.

Most of the microphones tested have no calibration charts, and I'm not
confident enough in my setup to proclaim absolute accuracy. I know the
Mackie 824 is pretty darn flat, but without a calibration on the speaker I'd
just be guessing. Also, I had the microphones "pointing" down as per room
testing convention, but for absolute accuracy the microphone should point at
the source. You can see the difference with the Radio Shack SPL meter in the
last graph.

The Behringer does not come with anything.

Right, and the MAIN point of this was to determine if the cheap models are
at least close to the expensive types. And it seems they most definitely
are.

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

I am not sure which one he tested. Since the digital link goes to a
current model, I asssumed the analog one tested is also the current model.

The digital SPL meter we tested is my own, bought about 4 years ago. The
analog model was brought by one of the guys in the test, and he said it's at
least 20 years old. I think I mentioned that in the article.

[Scott Dorsey]

Ethan Winer ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:
Scott,

This is interesting, but what you don't talk about is how good the
calibration plots that come with the mikes are, and that's the really
important part.

Most of the microphones tested have no calibration charts, and I'm not
confident enough in my setup to proclaim absolute accuracy. I know the
Mackie 824 is pretty darn flat, but without a calibration on the speaker I'd
just be guessing. Also, I had the microphones "pointing" down as per room
testing convention, but for absolute accuracy the microphone should point at
the source. You can see the difference with the Radio Shack SPL meter in the
last graph.

No, but you could say "this mike came with a third-octave chart" and
"this mike came with no calibration at all."

The Behringer does not come with anything.

Right, and the MAIN point of this was to determine if the cheap models are
at least close to the expensive types. And it seems they most definitely
are.

Yup, at least with respect to the room! The thing is, if you have a good
chart, you can have a microphone that is way off and still get good results
because you can compensate for the error. Without a calibration chart you're
still in a situation where the room is worse than the mike even for pretty
bad mikes and pretty good rooms, but the chart gives you a lot of help.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , "Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:
Greg,

small diaphrams do have resonances below 20kHz unless they are extremely
small. The medium sized ones start to have peaks around 6 khz.

Yeah, good point. I had in mind the "tiny" diaphragm types when I wrote
that. I just edited the text.

The link to RS analog is wrong.

I know, but the 20-year old model my friend brought is no longer listed on
the RS web site.


I'm guessing the Vellman I showed is the same thing as the old RS, and is available.

RS does have a new analog meter.
At one time the old RS meter was on sale for $20. I thought about buying a second but never did.


greg

[Eric B]

On Jul 24, 10:07 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Ethan Winer ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:
Scott,
This is interesting, but what you don't talk about is how good the calibration plots that come with the mikes are, and that's the really important part.
Most of the microphones tested have no calibration charts, and I'm not confident enough in my setup to proclaim absolute accuracy. I know the Mackie 824 is pretty darn flat, but without a calibration on the speaker I'd just be guessing. Also, I had the microphones "pointing" down as per room testing convention, but for absolute accuracy the microphone should point at the source. You can see the difference with the Radio Shack SPL meter in the last graph.

No, but you could say "this mike came with a third-octave chart" and
"this mike came with no calibration at all."
The Behringer does not come with anything.
Right, and the MAIN point of this was to determine if the cheap models
are at least close to the expensive types. And it seems they most
definitely are.

Yup, at least with respect to the room! The thing is, if you have a good chart, you can have a microphone that is way off and still get good results because you can compensate for the error. Without a calibration chart you're still in a situation where the room is worse than the mike even for pretty bad mikes and pretty good rooms, but the chart gives you a lot of help.
--scott
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Hey Scott,
This is not a response to you precisely. You are right of course.
EB
Ethan,
Most small omnis are accurate enough for most measurement systems.
Which are one you using?
If you are looking for information only within the 20 to 15kHz range
then even the Behringer (Spit) will do. dBx makes one too. Audix as
well. They all probably use the same capsule.
I am surprised no one has mentioned Earthworks. They do supply
calibration charts with their measurement mics and their system does
compensate for the diaphragm resonance. I know from personal
experience that they are reliably accurate. You can buy them through
EAW as an accessory for their Smaart system or from a variety of other
sources.
I am no longer associated with them so this is from the heart, I
mean mind, I mean... you know what I mean.
BTW it is practically impossible to calibrate a microphone from
below 20Hz to beyond 20k with a single test with any degree of
accuracy. Most mic companies do not have the capabilities or are
unwilling to spend the time/ money to supply really accurate response
curves with each mic. It is expensive. Testing is a large part of the
cost of the expensive models.
Eric Blackmer
BlackmerSound.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in
message
Folks,

People often ask which affordable microphones I recommend
for measuring their room. To answer this question I
tested ten popular microphones ranging from an
inexpensive DIY model to a Josephson with Microtech
Gefell capsule costing $1,800, and wrote up the results
for this article:
http://www.realtraps.com/art_microphones.htm

Enjoy!


It is said that some of the el-cheapo measurement-style mics lack
consistency.

It would be a lot of work to test multiple samples of everything, not to
mention impractical due to the expense.

But a few samples of ECM 8000s might be more within the realm of reason.

BTW when I do measurements with multiple ECM 8000s, I start out with a run
of them in close proximity and similar orientation. They give somewhat
different results, mostly in terms of sensitivity.

Another person has told me that he runs them against a mic calibrator before
each use, and keeps track of the offsets.

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , Eric B wrote:
On Jul 24, 10:07 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Ethan Winer ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:
Scott,
This is interesting, but what you don't talk about is how good the
calibration plots that come with the mikes are, and that's the really
important part.
Most of the microphones tested have no calibration charts, and I'm not
confident enough in my setup to proclaim absolute accuracy. I know the Mackie
824 is pretty darn flat, but without a calibration on the speaker I'd just be
guessing. Also, I had the microphones "pointing" down as per room testing
convention, but for absolute accuracy the microphone should point at the
source. You can see the difference with the Radio Shack SPL meter in the last
graph.

No, but you could say "this mike came with a third-octave chart" and
"this mike came with no calibration at all."
The Behringer does not come with anything.
Right, and the MAIN point of this was to determine if the cheap models
are at least close to the expensive types. And it seems they most
definitely are.

Yup, at least with respect to the room! The thing is, if you have a good
chart, you can have a microphone that is way off and still get good results
because you can compensate for the error. Without a calibration chart you're
still in a situation where the room is worse than the mike even for pretty bad
mikes and pretty good rooms, but the chart gives you a lot of help.
--scott
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Hey Scott,
This is not a response to you precisely. You are right of course.
EB
Ethan,
Most small omnis are accurate enough for most measurement systems.
Which are one you using?
If you are looking for information only within the 20 to 15kHz range
then even the Behringer (Spit) will do. dBx makes one too. Audix as
well. They all probably use the same capsule.
I am surprised no one has mentioned Earthworks. They do supply
calibration charts with their measurement mics and their system does
compensate for the diaphragm resonance. I know from personal
experience that they are reliably accurate. You can buy them through
EAW as an accessory for their Smaart system or from a variety of other
sources.
I am no longer associated with them so this is from the heart, I
mean mind, I mean... you know what I mean.
BTW it is practically impossible to calibrate a microphone from
below 20Hz to beyond 20k with a single test with any degree of
accuracy. Most mic companies do not have the capabilities or are
unwilling to spend the time/ money to supply really accurate response
curves with each mic. It is expensive. Testing is a large part of the
cost of the expensive models.

I was hoping to get another source of a response plot of my old RS sound level meter.
I sent my meter to someone who had access to a large anechoic chamber and test
facilities. I still have the plot, but its very smooth and drooping on either end. It does not reflect what
some others have shown. There was some question about the test, and I don't
remember all the details now. The test was going to be repeated but never made it again.

greg

[GregS[_3_]]

In article , (GregS) wrote:
In article ,
Eric B wrote:
On Jul 24, 10:07 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Ethan Winer ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:
Scott,
This is interesting, but what you don't talk about is how good the
calibration plots that come with the mikes are, and that's the really
important part.
Most of the microphones tested have no calibration charts, and I'm not
confident enough in my setup to proclaim absolute accuracy. I know the Mackie
824 is pretty darn flat, but without a calibration on the speaker I'd just be
guessing. Also, I had the microphones "pointing" down as per room testing
convention, but for absolute accuracy the microphone should point at the
source. You can see the difference with the Radio Shack SPL meter in the last
graph.

No, but you could say "this mike came with a third-octave chart" and
"this mike came with no calibration at all."
The Behringer does not come with anything.
Right, and the MAIN point of this was to determine if the cheap models
are at least close to the expensive types. And it seems they most
definitely are.

Yup, at least with respect to the room! The thing is, if you have a good
chart, you can have a microphone that is way off and still get good results
because you can compensate for the error. Without a calibration chart you're
still in a situation where the room is worse than the mike even for pretty
bad
mikes and pretty good rooms, but the chart gives you a lot of help.
--scott
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Hey Scott,
This is not a response to you precisely. You are right of course.
EB
Ethan,
Most small omnis are accurate enough for most measurement systems.
Which are one you using?
If you are looking for information only within the 20 to 15kHz range
then even the Behringer (Spit) will do. dBx makes one too. Audix as
well. They all probably use the same capsule.
I am surprised no one has mentioned Earthworks. They do supply
calibration charts with their measurement mics and their system does
compensate for the diaphragm resonance. I know from personal
experience that they are reliably accurate. You can buy them through
EAW as an accessory for their Smaart system or from a variety of other
sources.
I am no longer associated with them so this is from the heart, I
mean mind, I mean... you know what I mean.
BTW it is practically impossible to calibrate a microphone from
below 20Hz to beyond 20k with a single test with any degree of
accuracy. Most mic companies do not have the capabilities or are
unwilling to spend the time/ money to supply really accurate response
curves with each mic. It is expensive. Testing is a large part of the
cost of the expensive models.

I was hoping to get another source of a response plot of my old RS sound level
meter.
I sent my meter to someone who had access to a large anechoic chamber and test
facilities. I still have the plot, but its very smooth and drooping on either
end. It does not reflect what
some others have shown. There was some question about the test, and I don't
remember all the details now. The test was going to be repeated but never made
it again.

Well, I always forget to open up the other pages in Excel. Might as well show the results..
I think we were measuring two RS SLM's.
Don't ask me any questions, I'm still trying to figure it out.

http://zekfrivolous.com/sub/radslm/rs_slm.xls

greg

[Scott Dorsey]

Eric B wrote:
If you are looking for information only within the 20 to 15kHz range
then even the Behringer (Spit) will do. dBx makes one too. Audix as
well. They all probably use the same capsule.
I am surprised no one has mentioned Earthworks. They do supply
calibration charts with their measurement mics and their system does
compensate for the diaphragm resonance. I know from personal
experience that they are reliably accurate. You can buy them through
EAW as an accessory for their Smaart system or from a variety of other
sources.

Behringer and Audix both use capsules that are Chinese copies of the
design that Earthworks use. It's a good design, and it's fairly
easy to make consistently if you don't care about the noise floor... and
for room measurement you don't care about the noise floor at all.

I am no longer associated with them so this is from the heart, I
mean mind, I mean... you know what I mean.
BTW it is practically impossible to calibrate a microphone from
below 20Hz to beyond 20k with a single test with any degree of
accuracy. Most mic companies do not have the capabilities or are
unwilling to spend the time/ money to supply really accurate response
curves with each mic. It is expensive. Testing is a large part of the
cost of the expensive models.

Absolutely! And as you say, the accurate curve that comes with the Earthworks
is worth the cost over the Behringer... if you buy the Behringer and send
it in for calibration you'll pay more for the combination than you would
have got if you'd have bought the Earthworks (or the cheap Series 5
Josephson) in the first place.

Oh... something else that isn't mentioned is that there are two completely
different microphones that Behringer has sold as the ECM-8000... one has
a transformer in it and the other doesn't. They probably have different
response.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

GregS wrote:

I was hoping to get another source of a response plot of my old RS sound level meter.
I sent my meter to someone who had access to a large anechoic chamber and test
facilities. I still have the plot, but its very smooth and drooping on either end. It does not reflect what
some others have shown. There was some question about the test, and I don't
remember all the details now. The test was going to be repeated but never made it again.

Well, remember all the SPL meter standards use response curves that are
supposed to droop on both ends. You should be able to find the A and C
weighting curves online somewhere or in the Beranek book... compare them
with the measurements that were done. SPL meters aren't supposed to be
flat across the band; that's not what they are for.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Kalman Rubinson[_3_]]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:43:26 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:


"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...
[snip]
Also, I had the microphones "pointing" down as per room testing convention,
but for absolute accuracy the microphone should point at the source. You
can see the difference with the Radio Shack SPL meter in the last graph.

[snip]

How did the "pointing down" room testing convention come to be? I would have
thought "pointing at speakers."

I am more familiar with the "pointing up" convention but
either one is going to provide the appropriate grazing angle
incidence from each speaker, assuming the correct height of
the element.

Kal

[Kalman Rubinson[_3_]]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:57:21 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:


"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:43:26 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:


"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...
[snip]
Also, I had the microphones "pointing" down as per room testing
convention,
but for absolute accuracy the microphone should point at the source. You
can see the difference with the Radio Shack SPL meter in the last graph.

[snip]

How did the "pointing down" room testing convention come to be? I would
have
thought "pointing at speakers."

I am more familiar with the "pointing up" convention but
either one is going to provide the appropriate grazing angle
incidence from each speaker, assuming the correct height of
the element.

Kal

Then why a grazing angle, or something close to 90? I'm unaware of any
microphone that would provide other than a very idiosyncratic response at
that angle?

I am far from expert on this and, undoubtedly, more knowledgable
people will correct me but, imho, the reason is to optimize the omni
response so as not to bias the response to any of the sources.

Kal

[Mark]

On Jul 24, 3:57*pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message

...



On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:43:26 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message
...
[snip]
Also, I had the microphones "pointing" down as per room testing
convention,
but for absolute accuracy the microphone should point at the source. You
can see the difference with the Radio Shack SPL meter in the last graph.

[snip]

How did the "pointing down" room testing convention come to be? I would
have
thought "pointing at speakers."

I am more familiar with the "pointing up" convention but
either one is going to provide the appropriate grazing angle
incidence from each speaker, assuming the correct height of
the element.

Kal

Then why a grazing angle, or something close to 90? *I'm unaware of any
microphone that would provide other than a very idiosyncratic response at
that angle?

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

the mics are omnis

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:57:21 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

Then why a grazing angle, or something close to 90? I'm unaware of any
microphone that would provide other than a very idiosyncratic response at
that angle?

I am far from expert on this and, undoubtedly, more knowledgable
people will correct me but, imho, the reason is to optimize the omni
response so as not to bias the response to any of the sources.

Bingo.

And these omnis are pretty omni. If they aren't omni enough, you can
always put a deflection device on them. With the bullet-shaped baffle,
on a typical 1/2" IEC Type I capsule, I can hear no difference at all
whether the microphone is pointed at a person speaking or away from
him, but what is more impressive I can't hear any difference in a triangle.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ethan Winer]

How did the "pointing down" room testing convention come to be? I would
have thought "pointing at speakers."

I explained that in the article, here's that text:

"Although omnidirectional microphones supposedly receive sound equally from
all directions, when measuring rooms and loudspeakers the convention is to
'aim' the microphone upward. No omni microphone has exactly the same
frequency response from all directions, though microphones with tiny
diaphragms and slim bodies are often more uniform than larger models. So
when balancing loudspeaker volume levels on a surround system, pointing the
microphone toward the ceiling favors all of the loudspeakers equally."

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

Eric,

Most small omnis are accurate enough for most measurement systems. Which
are one you using?

I have a DPA 4090 I bought a few years ago for room testing. Before that I
used my Radio Shack SPL meter and AKG microphone. All three of these are in
the microphone comparison article I linked above.

even the Behringer (Spit) will do. dBx makes one too. Audix as well. They
all probably use the same capsule.

I included the dbx RTA-M In my test, and when I called dbx they said it's
not the same as the Behr. Nor does it look or measure the same.

I am surprised no one has mentioned Earthworks.

There was also an Earthworks in our test. Maybe you didn't read the article
yet? Here's the link again:

http://www.realtraps.com/art_microphones.htm

--Ethan

[willbill]

GregS wrote:

The link to RS analog is wrong.


agreed

both the analog *and* digital RS (Radio Shack)
links (in Winer's page) have the same ref

how about:
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=
2103668&cp=2032057.2032187.2032193.2032222&parentP age=family

sorry about the long url, you'll have
to join the two lines

or try this:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/qdpdu
for the above long RS ref

maybe this $45 RS analog meter is what
Winer wants for his "RS analog" ref?

bill