Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
I've recently built a pair of speakers using Jordan JX92s'. I'm
considering boosting the low end using a resistor/inductor network. Before doing this I'd like to measure the frequency response of the speakers in their cabinets. I was considering generating white noise on my pc and recording it to CD. Then play this through the speakers and record back onto my PC to analyse the frequency response. Is this a good way to analyse speakers? I need to get a mic for the job, either with a flat response or with a known response so I can adjust my frequency response readings accordingly. What type of mic do I need, where could I get one in the UK (online sources)? Thanks in advance Ivan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
Behringer makes one, but I'm not sure how good it is. ECM something...
-- ____________________________________ Brandon Anderson Lighting, Sound, and Video http://www.bdanderson.com/ "Ivan" wrote in message om... I've recently built a pair of speakers using Jordan JX92s'. I'm considering boosting the low end using a resistor/inductor network. Before doing this I'd like to measure the frequency response of the speakers in their cabinets. I was considering generating white noise on my pc and recording it to CD. Then play this through the speakers and record back onto my PC to analyse the frequency response. Is this a good way to analyse speakers? I need to get a mic for the job, either with a flat response or with a known response so I can adjust my frequency response readings accordingly. What type of mic do I need, where could I get one in the UK (online sources)? Thanks in advance Ivan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
Behringer makes one, but I'm not sure how good it is. ECM something...
-- ____________________________________ Brandon Anderson Lighting, Sound, and Video http://www.bdanderson.com/ "Ivan" wrote in message om... I've recently built a pair of speakers using Jordan JX92s'. I'm considering boosting the low end using a resistor/inductor network. Before doing this I'd like to measure the frequency response of the speakers in their cabinets. I was considering generating white noise on my pc and recording it to CD. Then play this through the speakers and record back onto my PC to analyse the frequency response. Is this a good way to analyse speakers? I need to get a mic for the job, either with a flat response or with a known response so I can adjust my frequency response readings accordingly. What type of mic do I need, where could I get one in the UK (online sources)? Thanks in advance Ivan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
(Ivan) wrote in
om: I was considering generating white noise on my pc and recording it to CD. Then play this through the speakers and record back onto my PC to analyse the frequency response. Is this a good way to analyse speakers? Definitely not. Try the software at either of these places: http://www.etfacoustic.com/Index.html http://www.speakerworkshop.com/ (freeware) I need to get a mic for the job, either with a flat response or with a known response so I can adjust my frequency response readings accordingly. What type of mic do I need, where could I get one in the UK (online sources)? http://www.etfacoustic.com/Index.html Behringer ECM8000 (cheap, available almost anywhere, probably good enough) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
(Ivan) wrote in
om: I was considering generating white noise on my pc and recording it to CD. Then play this through the speakers and record back onto my PC to analyse the frequency response. Is this a good way to analyse speakers? Definitely not. Try the software at either of these places: http://www.etfacoustic.com/Index.html http://www.speakerworkshop.com/ (freeware) I need to get a mic for the job, either with a flat response or with a known response so I can adjust my frequency response readings accordingly. What type of mic do I need, where could I get one in the UK (online sources)? http://www.etfacoustic.com/Index.html Behringer ECM8000 (cheap, available almost anywhere, probably good enough) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
Ivan,
Is this a good way to analyse speakers? Only if you do it outdoors far away from any buildings or other surfaces. Or in a genuine anechoic chamber. Otherwise the room will contribute FAR more than the speakers to what you measure. What type of mic do I need A high quality, omnidirectional condenser mike. --Ethan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
Ivan,
Is this a good way to analyse speakers? Only if you do it outdoors far away from any buildings or other surfaces. Or in a genuine anechoic chamber. Otherwise the room will contribute FAR more than the speakers to what you measure. What type of mic do I need A high quality, omnidirectional condenser mike. --Ethan |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message ... Ivan, Is this a good way to analyse speakers? Only if you do it outdoors far away from any buildings or other surfaces. Or in a genuine anechoic chamber. Otherwise the room will contribute FAR more than the speakers to what you measure. Which is why there are computer-aided methods of measurement that eliminate the room effects. What type of mic do I need A high quality, omnidirectional condenser mike. With a KNOWN (i.e. measured against calibrated standard) freuency response. Else you have no idea whether you are measuring the mic or the speakers (or room). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message ... Ivan, Is this a good way to analyse speakers? Only if you do it outdoors far away from any buildings or other surfaces. Or in a genuine anechoic chamber. Otherwise the room will contribute FAR more than the speakers to what you measure. Which is why there are computer-aided methods of measurement that eliminate the room effects. What type of mic do I need A high quality, omnidirectional condenser mike. With a KNOWN (i.e. measured against calibrated standard) freuency response. Else you have no idea whether you are measuring the mic or the speakers (or room). |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
Richard,
Which is why there are computer-aided methods of measurement that eliminate the room effects. Thanks, yes, good point. I've never actually used such a system, but someone (probably in this group) explained it a while ago. By measuring only the first few instants the test sounds are generated, the damaging reflections that occur a few milliseconds later are ignored. With a KNOWN (i.e. measured against calibrated standard) That was implied with "high quality," but you are again correct. Even a really great mike will deviate at least a little from flat. And that's fine as long as the true response is known. For measuring I use an AKG C-451 with a CK-22 omni capsule, and the top end on that capcsule does indeed vary a little. --Ethan |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
Richard,
Which is why there are computer-aided methods of measurement that eliminate the room effects. Thanks, yes, good point. I've never actually used such a system, but someone (probably in this group) explained it a while ago. By measuring only the first few instants the test sounds are generated, the damaging reflections that occur a few milliseconds later are ignored. With a KNOWN (i.e. measured against calibrated standard) That was implied with "high quality," but you are again correct. Even a really great mike will deviate at least a little from flat. And that's fine as long as the true response is known. For measuring I use an AKG C-451 with a CK-22 omni capsule, and the top end on that capcsule does indeed vary a little. --Ethan |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
Richard,
Which is why there are computer-aided methods of measurement that eliminate the room effects. Thanks, yes, good point. I've never actually used such a system, but someone (probably in this group) explained it a while ago. By measuring only the first few instants the test sounds are generated, the damaging reflections that occur a few milliseconds later are ignored. With a KNOWN (i.e. measured against calibrated standard) That was implied with "high quality," but you are again correct. Even a really great mike will deviate at least a little from flat. And that's fine as long as the true response is known. For measuring I use an AKG C-451 with a CK-22 omni capsule, and the top end on that capcsule does indeed vary a little. --Ethan |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message ...
Richard, Which is why there are computer-aided methods of measurement that eliminate the room effects. Thanks, yes, good point. I've never actually used such a system, but someone (probably in this group) explained it a while ago. By measuring only the first few instants the test sounds are generated, the damaging reflections that occur a few milliseconds later are ignored. Actually, it's not "the first few instants," is the amount of time between the arrivale of the direct signal and the arrival of the first reflection. If, for example, the distance between the speaker and the nearest reflecting surface is 5 feet, that gives you 10 mS of data to use. With a KNOWN (i.e. measured against calibrated standard) That was implied with "high quality," but you are again correct. Even a really great mike will deviate at least a little from flat. And that's fine as long as the true response is known. For measuring I use an AKG C-451 with a CK-22 omni capsule, and the top end on that capcsule does indeed vary a little. It's actually interesting that you should mention this particular unit, because I was asked by AKG about 10 years ago to evaluate 451/CK22's as a possible measurement microphone. While it was not bad as a microphobe per se, there was simply to much unit-to-unit variation between capsules, and the diaphragm itself was too large to make an effective measurement tool without going through very expensive calibration and measurement for each individual example of the product. The construction of the capsule did not lend itself to calibration by electrostatic actuation, which is the means B&K uses for calibrating capsules, leaving it up to acoustic calibration which for anything other than low frequencies, is VERY difficult and expensive. Electrostatic actuation is where the microphone diaphragm, without it's shield, is placed in close proximity to a plate on which the charge is varied over a wide range of frequencies. The results in movement of the diaphragm as if it was being mived acoustically. It provides a repeatable, accurate measurement of the mechanical properties of the microphone. Now, it does not include effects such as diffraction and such, but that is constant from sample to sample: you only need to measure those effects once for a given capsule type. It also assumes the the mic is being used for pressure response measurement, which as long as the wavelength is longer than the diaphrgan dimensions, is the same as the perpendicular and random incidence response. Another method is reciprocity caibration. The reciprocity principle states in essence that if you take two samples of a transducer, using one as a transmitter and the second as a receiver in close proximity, the total response of the two is the sum of each units response. Thus, if one is a standard capsule, whose response is well known, then by using them in tandem in such a fashion you can measure the response of the other. As in every such measurement, the limit to high frequency measurement is the pjysical dimensions of the device. But the limit to the low end is the time constant of any leaks in the system. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message ...
Richard, Which is why there are computer-aided methods of measurement that eliminate the room effects. Thanks, yes, good point. I've never actually used such a system, but someone (probably in this group) explained it a while ago. By measuring only the first few instants the test sounds are generated, the damaging reflections that occur a few milliseconds later are ignored. Actually, it's not "the first few instants," is the amount of time between the arrivale of the direct signal and the arrival of the first reflection. If, for example, the distance between the speaker and the nearest reflecting surface is 5 feet, that gives you 10 mS of data to use. With a KNOWN (i.e. measured against calibrated standard) That was implied with "high quality," but you are again correct. Even a really great mike will deviate at least a little from flat. And that's fine as long as the true response is known. For measuring I use an AKG C-451 with a CK-22 omni capsule, and the top end on that capcsule does indeed vary a little. It's actually interesting that you should mention this particular unit, because I was asked by AKG about 10 years ago to evaluate 451/CK22's as a possible measurement microphone. While it was not bad as a microphobe per se, there was simply to much unit-to-unit variation between capsules, and the diaphragm itself was too large to make an effective measurement tool without going through very expensive calibration and measurement for each individual example of the product. The construction of the capsule did not lend itself to calibration by electrostatic actuation, which is the means B&K uses for calibrating capsules, leaving it up to acoustic calibration which for anything other than low frequencies, is VERY difficult and expensive. Electrostatic actuation is where the microphone diaphragm, without it's shield, is placed in close proximity to a plate on which the charge is varied over a wide range of frequencies. The results in movement of the diaphragm as if it was being mived acoustically. It provides a repeatable, accurate measurement of the mechanical properties of the microphone. Now, it does not include effects such as diffraction and such, but that is constant from sample to sample: you only need to measure those effects once for a given capsule type. It also assumes the the mic is being used for pressure response measurement, which as long as the wavelength is longer than the diaphrgan dimensions, is the same as the perpendicular and random incidence response. Another method is reciprocity caibration. The reciprocity principle states in essence that if you take two samples of a transducer, using one as a transmitter and the second as a receiver in close proximity, the total response of the two is the sum of each units response. Thus, if one is a standard capsule, whose response is well known, then by using them in tandem in such a fashion you can measure the response of the other. As in every such measurement, the limit to high frequency measurement is the pjysical dimensions of the device. But the limit to the low end is the time constant of any leaks in the system. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message ...
Richard, Which is why there are computer-aided methods of measurement that eliminate the room effects. Thanks, yes, good point. I've never actually used such a system, but someone (probably in this group) explained it a while ago. By measuring only the first few instants the test sounds are generated, the damaging reflections that occur a few milliseconds later are ignored. Actually, it's not "the first few instants," is the amount of time between the arrivale of the direct signal and the arrival of the first reflection. If, for example, the distance between the speaker and the nearest reflecting surface is 5 feet, that gives you 10 mS of data to use. With a KNOWN (i.e. measured against calibrated standard) That was implied with "high quality," but you are again correct. Even a really great mike will deviate at least a little from flat. And that's fine as long as the true response is known. For measuring I use an AKG C-451 with a CK-22 omni capsule, and the top end on that capcsule does indeed vary a little. It's actually interesting that you should mention this particular unit, because I was asked by AKG about 10 years ago to evaluate 451/CK22's as a possible measurement microphone. While it was not bad as a microphobe per se, there was simply to much unit-to-unit variation between capsules, and the diaphragm itself was too large to make an effective measurement tool without going through very expensive calibration and measurement for each individual example of the product. The construction of the capsule did not lend itself to calibration by electrostatic actuation, which is the means B&K uses for calibrating capsules, leaving it up to acoustic calibration which for anything other than low frequencies, is VERY difficult and expensive. Electrostatic actuation is where the microphone diaphragm, without it's shield, is placed in close proximity to a plate on which the charge is varied over a wide range of frequencies. The results in movement of the diaphragm as if it was being mived acoustically. It provides a repeatable, accurate measurement of the mechanical properties of the microphone. Now, it does not include effects such as diffraction and such, but that is constant from sample to sample: you only need to measure those effects once for a given capsule type. It also assumes the the mic is being used for pressure response measurement, which as long as the wavelength is longer than the diaphrgan dimensions, is the same as the perpendicular and random incidence response. Another method is reciprocity caibration. The reciprocity principle states in essence that if you take two samples of a transducer, using one as a transmitter and the second as a receiver in close proximity, the total response of the two is the sum of each units response. Thus, if one is a standard capsule, whose response is well known, then by using them in tandem in such a fashion you can measure the response of the other. As in every such measurement, the limit to high frequency measurement is the pjysical dimensions of the device. But the limit to the low end is the time constant of any leaks in the system. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
Dick,
I was asked by AKG about 10 years ago to evaluate 451/CK22's as a possible measurement microphone. I got mine many years ago, in the late 1970s as I recall. I know there are better measuring mikes these days, having smaller diaphragms and other advantages. Fortunately nothing I do is critical. Electrostatic actuation is ... Another method is reciprocity caibration. Fascinating. I had heard of the reciprocal method, but never electrostatic. I assume reciprocal works only with dynamic elements, and not condensers, right? Thanks. --Ethan |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
Dick,
I was asked by AKG about 10 years ago to evaluate 451/CK22's as a possible measurement microphone. I got mine many years ago, in the late 1970s as I recall. I know there are better measuring mikes these days, having smaller diaphragms and other advantages. Fortunately nothing I do is critical. Electrostatic actuation is ... Another method is reciprocity caibration. Fascinating. I had heard of the reciprocal method, but never electrostatic. I assume reciprocal works only with dynamic elements, and not condensers, right? Thanks. --Ethan |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
Dick,
I was asked by AKG about 10 years ago to evaluate 451/CK22's as a possible measurement microphone. I got mine many years ago, in the late 1970s as I recall. I know there are better measuring mikes these days, having smaller diaphragms and other advantages. Fortunately nothing I do is critical. Electrostatic actuation is ... Another method is reciprocity caibration. Fascinating. I had heard of the reciprocal method, but never electrostatic. I assume reciprocal works only with dynamic elements, and not condensers, right? Thanks. --Ethan |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message ...
Fascinating. I had heard of the reciprocal method, but never electrostatic. I assume reciprocal works only with dynamic elements, and not condensers, right? Wrong. Any transducer that can produce sound can act as a microphone, and vice versa. A condensor microphone works just fine as a little, tiny speaker, just like a dynamic mike. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message ...
Fascinating. I had heard of the reciprocal method, but never electrostatic. I assume reciprocal works only with dynamic elements, and not condensers, right? Wrong. Any transducer that can produce sound can act as a microphone, and vice versa. A condensor microphone works just fine as a little, tiny speaker, just like a dynamic mike. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message ...
Fascinating. I had heard of the reciprocal method, but never electrostatic. I assume reciprocal works only with dynamic elements, and not condensers, right? Wrong. Any transducer that can produce sound can act as a microphone, and vice versa. A condensor microphone works just fine as a little, tiny speaker, just like a dynamic mike. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message ...
Fascinating. I had heard of the reciprocal method, but never electrostatic. I assume reciprocal works only with dynamic elements, and not condensers, right? It should work with any reciprocal transducer, and both dynamic and condenser mics are. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message ...
Fascinating. I had heard of the reciprocal method, but never electrostatic. I assume reciprocal works only with dynamic elements, and not condensers, right? It should work with any reciprocal transducer, and both dynamic and condenser mics are. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message ...
Fascinating. I had heard of the reciprocal method, but never electrostatic. I assume reciprocal works only with dynamic elements, and not condensers, right? It should work with any reciprocal transducer, and both dynamic and condenser mics are. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
Dick Pierce wrote: Wrong. Any transducer that can produce sound can act as a microphone, and vice versa. A condensor microphone works just fine as a little, tiny speaker, just like a dynamic mike. So Dick, you saying the typical condenser mike that has a Phantom powered preamp or impedance convertor or such connected to the actual condenser element will work as a speaker transducer by hooking a signal up to its XLR jacks? Did I understand you right? Bob -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
Dick Pierce wrote: Wrong. Any transducer that can produce sound can act as a microphone, and vice versa. A condensor microphone works just fine as a little, tiny speaker, just like a dynamic mike. So Dick, you saying the typical condenser mike that has a Phantom powered preamp or impedance convertor or such connected to the actual condenser element will work as a speaker transducer by hooking a signal up to its XLR jacks? Did I understand you right? Bob -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
Dick Pierce wrote: Wrong. Any transducer that can produce sound can act as a microphone, and vice versa. A condensor microphone works just fine as a little, tiny speaker, just like a dynamic mike. So Dick, you saying the typical condenser mike that has a Phantom powered preamp or impedance convertor or such connected to the actual condenser element will work as a speaker transducer by hooking a signal up to its XLR jacks? Did I understand you right? Bob -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
Dick and Svante,
Any transducer that can produce sound can act as a microphone I was also considering the FET or tube preamp, which of course won't work in reverse. So you're saying if you remove the head preamp but leave the polarizing voltage, you can send a pre-amped signal to the capsule and it will make noise? Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. --Ethan |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
Dick and Svante,
Any transducer that can produce sound can act as a microphone I was also considering the FET or tube preamp, which of course won't work in reverse. So you're saying if you remove the head preamp but leave the polarizing voltage, you can send a pre-amped signal to the capsule and it will make noise? Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. --Ethan |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
Dick and Svante,
Any transducer that can produce sound can act as a microphone I was also considering the FET or tube preamp, which of course won't work in reverse. So you're saying if you remove the head preamp but leave the polarizing voltage, you can send a pre-amped signal to the capsule and it will make noise? Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. --Ethan |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
BOB URZ wrote in message ...
Dick Pierce wrote: Wrong. Any transducer that can produce sound can act as a microphone, and vice versa. A condensor microphone works just fine as a little, tiny speaker, just like a dynamic mike. So Dick, you saying the typical condenser mike that has a Phantom powered preamp or impedance convertor or such connected to the actual condenser element will work as a speaker transducer by hooking a signal up to its XLR jacks? No, I did NOT say that: "Any transducer that can produce sound can act as a microphone, and vice versa." A "transducer" is the device in a microphone that converts acoustical energy (really, mechanical energy) into electrical energy. That device is quite reversable. So is any other such transducer, such as dynamic microphone, a ribbon microphone, a ceramic microphone, a speaker, even a magnetic phono cartridge. The preamp, impedance converter and such is NOT part of the transducer, but there to provide electrical-to-electrical interfacing, gain and such. Since these are NOT part of the transducer, they are not part of the definition encompassed by the reciprocity principle. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
BOB URZ wrote in message ...
Dick Pierce wrote: Wrong. Any transducer that can produce sound can act as a microphone, and vice versa. A condensor microphone works just fine as a little, tiny speaker, just like a dynamic mike. So Dick, you saying the typical condenser mike that has a Phantom powered preamp or impedance convertor or such connected to the actual condenser element will work as a speaker transducer by hooking a signal up to its XLR jacks? No, I did NOT say that: "Any transducer that can produce sound can act as a microphone, and vice versa." A "transducer" is the device in a microphone that converts acoustical energy (really, mechanical energy) into electrical energy. That device is quite reversable. So is any other such transducer, such as dynamic microphone, a ribbon microphone, a ceramic microphone, a speaker, even a magnetic phono cartridge. The preamp, impedance converter and such is NOT part of the transducer, but there to provide electrical-to-electrical interfacing, gain and such. Since these are NOT part of the transducer, they are not part of the definition encompassed by the reciprocity principle. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
BOB URZ wrote in message ...
Dick Pierce wrote: Wrong. Any transducer that can produce sound can act as a microphone, and vice versa. A condensor microphone works just fine as a little, tiny speaker, just like a dynamic mike. So Dick, you saying the typical condenser mike that has a Phantom powered preamp or impedance convertor or such connected to the actual condenser element will work as a speaker transducer by hooking a signal up to its XLR jacks? No, I did NOT say that: "Any transducer that can produce sound can act as a microphone, and vice versa." A "transducer" is the device in a microphone that converts acoustical energy (really, mechanical energy) into electrical energy. That device is quite reversable. So is any other such transducer, such as dynamic microphone, a ribbon microphone, a ceramic microphone, a speaker, even a magnetic phono cartridge. The preamp, impedance converter and such is NOT part of the transducer, but there to provide electrical-to-electrical interfacing, gain and such. Since these are NOT part of the transducer, they are not part of the definition encompassed by the reciprocity principle. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Mic for measuring frequency response
|
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bandwidth and Frequency response | High End Audio | |||
What is a high end mic that has a Studio Projects C1 frequency response? | Pro Audio | |||
Tape Size and Frequency Response | Tech | |||
frequency response for a subwoofer | Car Audio |