Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
The DEQ2496 equalizer/analyzer has just arrived, along with the proper XLR
connectors for unbalanced systems. Still studying the manual. In the meantime, I got curious about which measurement microphone could be used with the RTA function and how much more that would cost. A fortune I would think, probably even more than the unit itself. So I turn to the Behringer ECM 8000, the one made for the 2496, and my jaw drops as I see a price of 59 dollars! Looking further into this, one fellow reviewing this product says no, the Behringer isn't as accurate as they tell us, but the Dayton EMM-6 is, and comes with its own calibration file. The price? $48.00 ! That's forty-eight dollars for a calibration microphone. http://www.parts-express.com/dayton-...one--390-801So what's up with that? There are some similar products for hundreds ofdollars, but are these inexpensive ones OK to use for RTA work? How bad (orgood) are they?Very good news if they are OK for RTA work into my new 2496.Thanks,--Gary Eickmeier |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
On Sat, 31 May 2014 01:23:07 -0400, "Gary Eickmeier"
wrote: The DEQ2496 equalizer/analyzer has just arrived, along with the proper XLR connectors for unbalanced systems. Still studying the manual. In the meantime, I got curious about which measurement microphone could be used with the RTA function and how much more that would cost. A fortune I would think, probably even more than the unit itself. So I turn to the Behringer ECM 8000, the one made for the 2496, and my jaw drops as I see a price of 59 dollars! Looking further into this, one fellow reviewing this product says no, the Behringer isn't as accurate as they tell us, but the Dayton EMM-6 is, and comes with its own calibration file. The price? $48.00 ! That's forty-eight dollars for a calibration microphone. http://www.parts-express.com/dayton-...one--390-801So what's up with that? There are some similar products for hundreds ofdollars, but are these inexpensive ones OK to use for RTA work? How bad (orgood) are they?Very good news if they are OK for RTA work into my new 2496.Thanks,--Gary Eickmeier I wouldn't take too much notice of that. Looking at the spec sheet, it is evident it was written by the sales office, not an engineer. S/N ratio specified as A-weighted? Please! As for the unique calibration graph, it is as meaningful as the system on which it was measured. Did they use a matched B&K pistonphone for absolute level? And was the frequency response really measured in a million bucks worth of anechoic chamber? I'm guessing not. d |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
On 5/31/2014 1:23 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I got curious about which measurement microphone could be used with the RTA function and how much more that would cost. A fortune I would think, probably even more than the unit itself. For room measurement, you really don't need a high precision mic. The Behringer will do. What you need is a decent omni pattern, and the Behringer gives you that largely because of its tiny capsule. The tradeoff is more noise, but for the kind of measurement and adjustments that you'll be making with the DEQ2496, it's good enough. I'm pretty sure that the Dayton mic is the equivalent of the Behringer. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
So I turn to the Behringer ECM 8000, the one made for the 2496, and my jaw drops as I see a price of 59 dollars! Looking further into this, one fellow reviewing this product says no, the Behringer isn't as accurate as they tell us, but the Dayton EMM-6 is, and comes with its own calibration file. The price? $48.00 ! That's forty-eight dollars for a calibration microphone. There are actually at least two different microphones sold as the ECM8000, which are completely different inside. One is better than the other, but neither have any sort of calibration. The EMM-6 calibration is better than nothing but is not to be believed for narrowband measurements. The cheap Josephson measurement mike is around $200, I think, and the calibration chart is to be believed. The microphone itself is not all that different than the Dayton but the calibration is very different, and that's what you're paying for. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
... The DEQ2496 equalizer/analyzer has just arrived, along with the proper XLR connectors for unbalanced systems. Still studying the manual. In the meantime, I got curious about which measurement microphone could be used with the RTA function and how much more that would cost. A fortune I would think, probably even more than the unit itself. So I turn to the Behringer ECM 8000, the one made for the 2496, and my jaw drops as I see a price of 59 dollars! I guess they went up - I paid $40 for mine off the shelf at GC. It works fine for what it is - and it runs off the low voltage power on the DEQ input. Sean |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... The DEQ2496 equalizer/analyzer has just arrived, along with the proper XLR connectors for unbalanced systems. Still studying the manual. In the meantime, I got curious about which measurement microphone could be used with the RTA function and how much more that would cost. A fortune I would think, probably even more than the unit itself. So I turn to the Behringer ECM 8000, the one made for the 2496, and my jaw drops as I see a price of 59 dollars! I guess they went up - I paid $40 for mine off the shelf at GC. It works fine for what it is - and it runs off the low voltage power on the DEQ input. Sean Well how do you know what it does? Did it come with a calibration sheet? Gary |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
... "Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... The DEQ2496 equalizer/analyzer has just arrived, along with the proper XLR connectors for unbalanced systems. Still studying the manual. In the meantime, I got curious about which measurement microphone could be used with the RTA function and how much more that would cost. A fortune I would think, probably even more than the unit itself. So I turn to the Behringer ECM 8000, the one made for the 2496, and my jaw drops as I see a price of 59 dollars! I guess they went up - I paid $40 for mine off the shelf at GC. It works fine for what it is - and it runs off the low voltage power on the DEQ input. Sean Well how do you know what it does? Did it come with a calibration sheet? At $40 I'll live without the calibration chart. As they use to say, close enough for government work.... Sean |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... Well how do you know what it does? Did it come with a calibration sheet? At $40 I'll live without the calibration chart. As they use to say, close enough for government work.... But we are EQing our whole sound system with this thing. What good is it if it is not accurate? I know that I was sort of depending on my Radio Shack meter to measure levels from a 31 band pink noise disc, until I tried the calibration microphone from my AudioControl C101. I then got a curve that almost duplicated one measured by a professional friend a couple of years ago. I have the 2496 in the system and functioning. The thing has so many functions and capabilities I hope some day to learn them all, but I also need an accurate measurement microphone or it is all a pointless exercise. Gary |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... Well how do you know what it does? Did it come with a calibration sheet? At $40 I'll live without the calibration chart. As they use to say, close enough for government work.... But we are EQing our whole sound system with this thing. What good is it if it is not accurate? I know that I was sort of depending on my Radio Shack meter to measure levels from a 31 band pink noise disc, until I tried the calibration microphone from my AudioControl C101. I then got a curve that almost duplicated one measured by a professional friend a couple of years ago. I have the 2496 in the system and functioning. The thing has so many functions and capabilities I hope some day to learn them all, but I also need an accurate measurement microphone or it is all a pointless exercise. Are you interested in absolute measurement or just relative measurement? i.e. Do you need to know the exact sound levels or just know that the response is 'flat'? If you only need relative levels, use a naked pressure capsule on the end of a bit of screened wire with a simple CR circuit in a torch (flashlamp) casing to power it. Most small pressure capsules have a flat response because it is almost impossible to make them behave otherwise. They cost less than 2 UKP. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
... "Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... Well how do you know what it does? Did it come with a calibration sheet? At $40 I'll live without the calibration chart. As they use to say, close enough for government work.... But we are EQing our whole sound system with this thing. What good is it if it is not accurate? I know that I was sort of depending on my Radio Shack meter to measure levels from a 31 band pink noise disc, until I tried the calibration microphone from my AudioControl C101. I then got a curve that almost duplicated one measured by a professional friend a couple of years ago. I have the 2496 in the system and functioning. The thing has so many functions and capabilities I hope some day to learn them all, but I also need an accurate measurement microphone or it is all a pointless exercise. You might be interested in this comparison: http://realtraps.com/art_microphones.htm Most of these mics are accurate to within a couple of dB just by the nature of the design - and without a controlled environment there will be other errors in that range so I don't worry about them. If I was interested in stepping up a notch I'd probably go with the Audix TM1 @ $300 MAP. And to go along with Adrian's suggestion, here's some supporting info: http://sound.westhost.com/project93.htm Sean |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
But we are EQing our whole sound system with this thing. What good is it if it is not accurate? I know that I was sort of depending on my Radio Shack meter to measure levels from a 31 band pink noise disc, until I tried the calibration microphone from my AudioControl C101. I then got a curve that almost duplicated one measured by a professional friend a couple of years ago. Right, but what makes you think it's any more accurate? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Gary Eickmeier wrote: But we are EQing our whole sound system with this thing. What good is it if it is not accurate? I know that I was sort of depending on my Radio Shack meter to measure levels from a 31 band pink noise disc, until I tried the calibration microphone from my AudioControl C101. I then got a curve that almost duplicated one measured by a professional friend a couple of years ago. Right, but what makes you think it's any more accurate? --scott He is more experienced at speaker measurement than I, and his equipment is more expensive and he did spatial averaging very carefully, and our results matched. Right now I am struggling with something that is probably just psychoacoustic, but I am trying to shake it. I have the 2496 in the system, have checked all of the settings, have done a couple of rounds of careful EQ, and I still think the 6200 sounded better. More dynamic. In the back of my alleged mind I am resisting the AD/DA conversion that the 2496 uses on the signal to be able to do so many tricks. I had lived with the 6200 for a week and convinced myself that I was groovin' with the thing - dynamic, flat, right as rain, just plain great sound. So I dunno. You folks ever go through fits like this? Sounds like Ikaru's "EQ Disorientation." Gary |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Gary Eickmeier" writes:
snips Right now I am struggling with something that is probably just psychoacoustic, but I am trying to shake it. I have the 2496 in the system, have checked all of the settings, have done a couple of rounds of careful EQ, and I still think the 6200 sounded better. More dynamic. In the back of my alleged mind I am resisting the AD/DA conversion that the 2496 uses on the signal to be able to do so many tricks. I had lived with the 6200 for a week and convinced myself that I was groovin' with the thing - dynamic, flat, right as rain, just plain great sound. So I dunno. You folks ever go through fits like this? Sounds like Ikaru's "EQ Disorientation." Hate to rain on your parade, but I just flat out do not trust anything from Behringer. My Cranesong monitor switcher cost $2400 (2 channel version) -- worth every penny and then then some. It's astonishing what a well-designed, class-A discrete signal path will do for sonics in a monitor chain. Everything is just so much more real, open & exposed, and effortless. At $400 my electronic crossover wasn't all that expensive, but I added another $500 in higher-end parts to make it utterly transparent (and a lot of hours on the bench -- also very worthwhile). Maybe the software in your unit is good, maybe it isn't. But I can guarantee that in its analog line drivers post D-A you'll see nothing like the care taken by David Hill in the Avocet controller. It's just a fact of life. Now, in audiophool land you can spend huge amounts of money for bogus crap, but the real discussion here is professional grade gear, designed by professionals for professionals, vs. lower-end prosumer stuff where every possible corner is cut to meet a parts budget and by extension market price point. There's nothing wrong with a extra AD-DA ASSUMING good converters are used, with a good clock -- but those things are rather unlikely in a lower-end unit, IMO. (It would be my personal preference to avoid extra AD-DA steps, but it's less of an issue these days than, say, five years ago -- again, assuming careful design, good parts, and good software.) Good luck with it. You're probably not imagining the problems you describe. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
On Tue, 03 Jun 2014, Sean Conolly wrote:
And to go along with Adrian's suggestion, here's some supporting info: http://sound.westhost.com/project93.htm That is an old page and the electret mic capsule used for the design is a Panasonic WM-60 or WM-61, which were discontinued some years ago. I was recently looking for a suitable replacement at Mouser and Digi-Key, and I did not find one. There are many models of electret mic capsules, but none, as far as I could determine, offer the ruler-flat frequency response from 20 Hz to 20 KHz of the Panasonics. On eBay, there are Chinese sellers offering Panasonic capsules, which I assume are counterfeit. Even if you get a real Panasonic capsule, the frequency response curve shown in the datasheet is labeled "Typical" (not "minimum" or "guaranteed"), so you will not get exactly the same nice, flat response in any specific capsule, and you will not know now much your specific capsule varies from the datasheet figure. Rather than build something and end up with an unknown, I think it's better to go with a product from a reputable manufacturer that comes with a calibration chart. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
On 6/3/2014 2:29 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
here's nothing wrong with a extra AD-DA ASSUMING good converters are used, with a good clock -- but those things are rather unlikely in a lower-end unit, IMO. (It would be my personal preference to avoid extra AD-DA steps, but it's less of an issue these days than, say, five years ago The DEQ-2496 has been around for quite some time, I'd guess 10 years or so. -- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
Jay Ts wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2014, Sean Conolly wrote: And to go along with Adrian's suggestion, here's some supporting info: http://sound.westhost.com/project93.htm That is an old page and the electret mic capsule used for the design is a Panasonic WM-60 or WM-61, which were discontinued some years ago. I was recently looking for a suitable replacement at Mouser and Digi-Key, and I did not find one. There are many models of electret mic capsules, but none, as far as I could determine, offer the ruler-flat frequency response from 20 Hz to 20 KHz of the Panasonics. Digi-Key still carries the Panasonic electret capsules. The WM-60 has been discontinued and replaced with a similar product of slightly different design. The frequency response isn't any different although Panasonic's datasheets are now a little bit better about accuracy of response plots than they used to be. On eBay, there are Chinese sellers offering Panasonic capsules, which I assume are counterfeit. Horn is making some Panasonic copies in China which are fairly similar but don't have as good consistency. Are people selling them as Panasonics? They might be. Even if you get a real Panasonic capsule, the frequency response curve shown in the datasheet is labeled "Typical" (not "minimum" or "guaranteed"), so you will not get exactly the same nice, flat response in any specific capsule, and you will not know now much your specific capsule varies from the datasheet figure. The Panasonic capsules are remarkably consistent and surprisingly flat. I still wouldn't trust them for measurement use without proper calibration. Most of the inexpensive measurement mikes in the $100 to $200 range use the Panasonic capsules along with some pre-assembly quality control and selection, some baffle designed to normalize the off-axis response, and some calibration. The calibration is where most of the money goes. Rather than build something and end up with an unknown, I think it's better to go with a product from a reputable manufacturer that comes with a calibration chart. You can build something and send it off to Wyle for a $200 calibration as well. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message ... Good luck with it. You're probably not imagining the problems you describe. Frank Mobile Audio Well, it was a few members in this group who highly recommended the 2496 over the 6200, and the feature set is nothing short of astounding - so I couldn't resist. Anyway, I think I have licked my problem with the psychoacoustic part. First, I cleaned out my ears. Don't laugh - we have all been there. Then, I discovered a setting called Gain Offset in th Utility window that allows you to set the output gain a little higher, so I boosted that by 4 dB and that seemed to do the trick. There was a good technical reason for this, that the subwoofer is fed from the receiver sub out and doesn't go through the Behringer, so the crossover point had a shelving gain discrepancy at 100 Hz. It seemed better to raise the Gain Offset than to lower the sub, so that is what I did and got more acoustic power in the bargain - for the same gain setting. This Behringer is absolutely amazing. I won't read off the litany of features, but the one that got my attention was the Auto EQ function. I have always been leery of those, because I know that we do NOT want "flat." But so does Behringer, because the Auto EQ function on this thing will let you literally draw the response curve that you want, and then it will match it automatically! Behringer measurement microphone on its way. Got that over the Dayton simply because the Dayton was out of stock. Gary Eickmeier |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Jeff Henig" wrote in message ... "Gary Eickmeier" wrote: In the back of my alleged mind *chuckle* Nice. Self deprecating humor - the mark of all great men. Gary |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 18:39:48 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Jay Ts wrote: That is an old page and the electret mic capsule used for the design is a Panasonic WM-60 or WM-61, which were discontinued some years ago. I was recently looking for a suitable replacement at Mouser and Digi-Key, and I did not find one. There are many models of electret mic capsules, but none, as far as I could determine, offer the ruler-flat frequency response from 20 Hz to 20 KHz of the Panasonics. Digi-Key still carries the Panasonic electret capsules. The WM-60 has been discontinued and replaced with a similar product of slightly different design. I'll assume that you are referring to the WM-64. Digi-Key has it only in the pressure contact version (WM-64MNT330), which does not look particularly useful to me. The datasheet lists only 50-16 KHz performance, although it is very flat within that range. Most of the inexpensive measurement mikes in the $100 to $200 range use the Panasonic capsules along with some pre-assembly quality control and selection, some baffle designed to normalize the off-axis response, and some calibration. The calibration is where most of the money goes. [...] You can build something and send it off to Wyle for a $200 calibration as well. Yes, that is it! If you build it yourself, it will probably be no better, and cost more to get something that is about as good as what's offered commercially. For all the time it would take, IMO it's just not worth it. I was looking into the current offerings of electret capsules more as a side project to see if I could make something that would be useful as a studio mic. If I can find the WM-64 in another version (PC pins or no pins) I may try that later. For now, I'm using the CUI CMB-6544PF, with about a 50% larger diaphragm, and it has a bump in the frequency response at about 13 KHz. This isn't what anyone would want for a measurement mic, but it might have an interesting sonic character for recording. I don't know how much I can trust the datasheet, but it shows flat response down to 20 Hz. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... In the meantime, I got curious about which measurement microphone could be used with the RTA function and how much more that would cost. A fortune I would think, probably even more than the unit itself. So I turn to the Behringer ECM 8000, the one made for the 2496, and my jaw drops as I see a price of 59 dollars! I guess they went up - I paid $40 for mine off the shelf at GC. No, the list price is simply not what you pay at discount shops. Trevor. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... "Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... "Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... The DEQ2496 equalizer/analyzer has just arrived, along with the proper XLR connectors for unbalanced systems. Still studying the manual. In the meantime, I got curious about which measurement microphone could be used with the RTA function and how much more that would cost. A fortune I would think, probably even more than the unit itself. So I turn to the Behringer ECM 8000, the one made for the 2496, and my jaw drops as I see a price of 59 dollars! I guess they went up - I paid $40 for mine off the shelf at GC. It works fine for what it is - and it runs off the low voltage power on the DEQ input. Well how do you know what it does? Did it come with a calibration sheet? No, but what ir does and how accurately it does it are two different things. Trevor. |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Jay Ts wrote: On Tue, 03 Jun 2014, Sean Conolly wrote: And to go along with Adrian's suggestion, here's some supporting info: http://sound.westhost.com/project93.htm That is an old page and the electret mic capsule used for the design is a Panasonic WM-60 or WM-61, which were discontinued some years ago. I was recently looking for a suitable replacement at Mouser and Digi-Key, and I did not find one. There are many models of electret mic capsules, but none, as far as I could determine, offer the ruler-flat frequency response from 20 Hz to 20 KHz of the Panasonics. Digi-Key still carries the Panasonic electret capsules. The WM-60 has been discontinued and replaced with a similar product of slightly different design. The frequency response isn't any different although Panasonic's datasheets are now a little bit better about accuracy of response plots than they used to be. On eBay, there are Chinese sellers offering Panasonic capsules, which I assume are counterfeit. Horn is making some Panasonic copies in China which are fairly similar but don't have as good consistency. Are people selling them as Panasonics? They might be. Even if you get a real Panasonic capsule, the frequency response curve shown in the datasheet is labeled "Typical" (not "minimum" or "guaranteed"), so you will not get exactly the same nice, flat response in any specific capsule, and you will not know now much your specific capsule varies from the datasheet figure. The Panasonic capsules are remarkably consistent and surprisingly flat. I still wouldn't trust them for measurement use without proper calibration. Most of the inexpensive measurement mikes in the $100 to $200 range use the Panasonic capsules along with some pre-assembly quality control and selection, some baffle designed to normalize the off-axis response, and some calibration. The calibration is where most of the money goes. Rather than build something and end up with an unknown, I think it's better to go with a product from a reputable manufacturer that comes with a calibration chart. You can build something and send it off to Wyle for a $200 calibration as well. --scott It was the wm-61a I saw response plots from someone's test. Slow rise starting at 5 kHz going to a 2 dB peak at 15 kHz then falling. There is still a lot of old info on Linkwitzs pages. Mods and stuff. Greg |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message ... Hate to rain on your parade, but I just flat out do not trust anything from Behringer. My Cranesong monitor switcher cost $2400 (2 channel version) -- worth every penny and then then some. As long as you are happy, they have done their job well. Somehow I doubt everyone would say that is the best bang for their buck however when the monitors themselves have a FAR bigger influence on sound quality. It's astonishing what a well-designed, class-A discrete signal path will do for sonics in a monitor chain. Everything is just so much more real, open & exposed, and effortless. Good buzz words without any defined meaning there. At least you didn't say the one I particularly love, much used by audiophools, "speed"! :-) It's just a fact of life. Now, in audiophool land you can spend huge amounts of money for bogus crap, but the real discussion here is professional grade gear, designed by professionals for professionals, vs. lower-end prosumer stuff where every possible corner is cut to meet a parts budget and by extension market price point. True, but unfortunately a high price is not a guarantee of performance either. Perhaps simply development costs spread over far fewer units, higher production cost for low volume manufacture, or simply higher profit margins neded for low sales volume to be viable. Which is NOT to say that more expensive gear cannot offer better performance of course, just that the gap has closed considerably in the last decade or two. There's nothing wrong with a extra AD-DA ASSUMING good converters are used, And since GOOD converters are so cheap now, it is also fallacy to assume the converters are not good simply because the cost of the box is not outrageous. Trevor. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Jay Ts" wrote in message
... I was looking into the current offerings of electret capsules more as a side project to see if I could make something that would be useful as a studio mic. If I can find the WM-64 in another version (PC pins or no pins) I may try that later. For now, I'm using the CUI CMB-6544PF, with about a 50% larger diaphragm, and it has a bump in the frequency response at about 13 KHz. This isn't what anyone would want for a measurement mic, but it might have an interesting sonic character for recording. I don't know how much I can trust the datasheet, but it shows flat response down to 20 Hz. This looks interesting - at least it looks like a real response graph http://www.puiaudio.com/product-deta...er=POM-2738L-R In stock at Digi-Key, too. Sean |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
Dayton? So is this the basis for the Dayton measurement mike?
Gary "Sean Conolly" wrote in message ... "Jay Ts" wrote in message ... I was looking into the current offerings of electret capsules more as a side project to see if I could make something that would be useful as a studio mic. If I can find the WM-64 in another version (PC pins or no pins) I may try that later. For now, I'm using the CUI CMB-6544PF, with about a 50% larger diaphragm, and it has a bump in the frequency response at about 13 KHz. This isn't what anyone would want for a measurement mic, but it might have an interesting sonic character for recording. I don't know how much I can trust the datasheet, but it shows flat response down to 20 Hz. This looks interesting - at least it looks like a real response graph http://www.puiaudio.com/product-deta...er=POM-2738L-R In stock at Digi-Key, too. Sean |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Trevor" writes:
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message ... Hate to rain on your parade, but I just flat out do not trust anything from Behringer. My Cranesong monitor switcher cost $2400 (2 channel version) -- worth every penny and then then some. As long as you are happy, they have done their job well. Somehow I doubt Did some shoot-outs, even against some hand-built stuff. Cranesong was obvious winner, by a large margin (even against items I'd built myself using better-than-average parts -- that was unexpected). Everything was "acceptable", it's just that one box yielded much more real sounding instruments and voices -- difference between a good-sounding recording vs. the sense that You Are There, live. everyone would say that is the best bang for their buck however when the monitors themselves have a FAR bigger influence on sound quality. Right. And beyond that, I'd say the room has equal or even greater effect than monitors. Fortunately, I had both -- excellent monitors in an excellent room. Made hearing differences elsewhere in the chain much easier. It's astonishing what a well-designed, class-A discrete signal path will do for sonics in a monitor chain. Everything is just so much more real, open & exposed, and effortless. Good buzz words without any defined meaning there. At least you didn't say the one I particularly love, much used by audiophools, "speed"! :-) Not intended to be "buzzwords." I suspect part of the improvement here is a large current source available to drive various loads. That, and the elimination of potentiometers. Also, overall build quality is remarkable at this price point. There are "good" and there are "great" hardware builds. Like a lot of Hill's pieces, this box is in the "great-plus" class. It reminds me of the rather obvious differences between, say, a Teac home tape deck versus an ATR100 or even a 440B or C. On one side are commercial products, designed for commercial use which demands a certain level of quality, performance, and reliability, v. something occasionally used for casual purposes. It's just a fact of life. Now, in audiophool land you can spend huge amounts of money for bogus crap, but the real discussion here is professional grade gear, designed by professionals for professionals, vs. lower-end prosumer stuff where every possible corner is cut to meet a parts budget and by extension market price point. True, but unfortunately a high price is not a guarantee of performance either. Perhaps simply development costs spread over far fewer units, higher production cost for low volume manufacture, or simply higher profit margins neded for low sales volume to be viable. Which is NOT to say that more expensive gear cannot offer better performance of course, just that the gap has closed considerably in the last decade or two. Here's the practical difference between a company like Cranesong, Grace, et al who do charge more money (but not an insane amount, like many audiophool companies) and an entity like Behringer. As you step through every corner of hardware developement -- from sheetmetal to boards, to ground and power schemes, cheap relays versus those with a much longer life span, higher grade parts in general, etc, etc -- you find a lot of "little" things that add up in terms of reliability and consistent performance. AND, the company is willing to keep tweaking the product to make it the best possible. But those "little" things (and continued parentage) cost money; a company like Behringer isn't going to consider any of that for an instant. There's nothing wrong with a extra AD-DA ASSUMING good converters are used, And since GOOD converters are so cheap now, it is also fallacy to assume the converters are not good simply because the cost of the box is not outrageous. Suggest you look into what it takes to provide good conversion -- it's more than just the converters. You can take a first-rate converter and pretty quickly ruin its effective performance based on the support circuitry for that converter -- everything from analog buffering, clocking, ground and power, etc. There really seem to be three markets: 1. cheap commodity stuff 2. Commercial stuff which uses a higher-grade parts, doesn't look to shave every fractional cent off the cost of production, and with honest (not stolen) designs. In addition, if I have an odd question or need more info, I can generally get right to the designer, as I have with Mr. Hill or Mr. Grace. 3. Audiophool stuff is often based on flights of fancy and laughable pricing. There's quite a range in #2, and it's where a lot of us live. I own some lower-end gear in that range and it's fine. Even #1 has some range to it, and now and then you'll find something useful there, but typically nothing that you'd want in a critical path. To me, monitoring is critical. Never been in #3. There are certain fixed costs for development and getting something to market, regardless of what it is or how much you charge for it. Even at high volume there are certain low price points where one ought to be suspicious. (What did they steal? How long will it last?) Having seen a lot of Behringer gear fail (including one piece I own), and noting how often they ripoff the hard design work of others, I stay far away. YMMV. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
... This Behringer is absolutely amazing. I won't read off the litany of features, but the one that got my attention was the Auto EQ function. I have always been leery of those, because I know that we do NOT want "flat." But so does Behringer, because the Auto EQ function on this thing will let you literally draw the response curve that you want, and then it will match it automatically! You can have some fun with that, and it can be useful in live sound when you need to do a fast setup with someone elses speakers. But you will also quickly find out that the response changes a LOT when you start moving the mic around. One technique is to do exactly that - move the mic around as it's adjusting to get an average sound. For my own PA & monitor speakers I programmed my own curves using swept tones as a reference. It's not 'flat', but it's better than stock and a good starting point when I set up in a club, and I prefer that over using the RTA functions. The swept tone is also very useful to see where the second harmonic distortion starts to become prominant, and use that to decide what the cross-over frequency should be. Sean |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
Jay Ts wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 18:39:48 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote: Jay Ts wrote: That is an old page and the electret mic capsule used for the design is a Panasonic WM-60 or WM-61, which were discontinued some years ago. I was recently looking for a suitable replacement at Mouser and Digi-Key, and I did not find one. There are many models of electret mic capsules, but none, as far as I could determine, offer the ruler-flat frequency response from 20 Hz to 20 KHz of the Panasonics. Digi-Key still carries the Panasonic electret capsules. The WM-60 has been discontinued and replaced with a similar product of slightly different design. I'll assume that you are referring to the WM-64. Digi-Key has it only in the pressure contact version (WM-64MNT330), which does not look particularly useful to me. The datasheet lists only 50-16 KHz performance, although it is very flat within that range. They list 16 omni capsules from Panasonic, not all of which are stocked. But they list the WM-63 as non-stocked too, when they have 1200 of them in stock right now. So I'd give them a call and ask if they can get you WM-61B capsules. You should know that the WM-61B only goes out to 20 KHz is because there is a Helmholtz resonator in front of the diaphragm that adds an equalization pole in there to bring the response up above the point where it drops off due to the mass of the diaphragm. It's possible with mounting to get the WM-63 to do exactly the same thing. Whether this is beneficial or not depends on whether you care more about flat phase response or frequency response. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/3/2014 2:29 PM, Frank Stearns wrote: here's nothing wrong with a extra AD-DA ASSUMING good converters are used, with a good clock -- but those things are rather unlikely in a lower-end unit, IMO. (It would be my personal preference to avoid extra AD-DA steps, but it's less of an issue these days than, say, five years ago The DEQ-2496 has been around for quite some time, I'd guess 10 years or so. And it is still surprisingly good. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
There are a lot of good inexpensive omni electret capsules....Panasonic for example...
Anybody find a decent uni or cardioid electret capsule? Mark |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
wrote:
There are a lot of good inexpensive omni electret capsules....Panasonic for example... Anybody find a decent uni or cardioid electret capsule? It is WAY WAY harder to make a good cardioid small diaphragm condenser mike than to make a good omni. The degree of precision needed increases by more than an order of magnitude. There are some $50-$100 cardioid capsules that are in the league as the $2-$5 omnis. Primo makes some. It is NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE to make a good figure-8 small diaphragm condenser mike. Schoeps managed it, Sennheiser came close through some trickery. A lot of other people have tried and failed. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Trevor" writes:
snips Somehow I doubt everyone would say that is the best bang for their buck however when the monitors themselves have a FAR bigger influence on sound quality. Right. And beyond that, I'd say the room has equal or even greater effect than monitors. Right. Fortunately, I had both -- excellent monitors in an excellent room. Made hearing differences elsewhere in the chain much easier. Yep, things are much easier when you have a big enough budget. :-) Oh no, not a big budget by any means. Just a bit of purchasing luck here and there, and a willingness to invest in good tools when they clearly add value. It's astonishing what a well-designed, class-A discrete signal path will do for sonics in a monitor chain. Everything is just so much more real, open & exposed, and effortless. Good buzz words without any defined meaning there. At least you didn't say the one I particularly love, much used by audiophools, "speed"! :-) Not intended to be "buzzwords." I suspect part of the improvement here is a large current source available to drive various loads. Yes, that can be an issue in some cases like power amps and headphone amps, not quite so much when the loads are fairly standard. If you don't have an unreasonable load issue, sometimes the extra expense is not warranted however. Depends; might be more to it than meets the eye. Difference is in the hearing. That, and the elimination of potentiometers. Well that's easily fixed in any equipment if you want to. Not so easy with analog. You can do relay ladders, stepped attenuators, or some from of electronic control. The last option is often the most objectionable if the goal is complete transparency. Once in digital land things are a bit easier. Also, overall build quality is remarkable at this price point. There are "good" and there are "great" hardware builds. Like a lot of Hill's pieces, this box is in the "great-plus" class. One would hope so at that price. :-) Some aspects of Grace and Cranesong hardware perform like JPL space probe hardware rather than rugged pro-grade hardware -- yet one is not being charged JPL prices. It reminds me of the rather obvious differences between, say, a Teac home tape deck versus an ATR100 or even a 440B or C. On one side are commercial products, designed for commercial use which demands a certain level of quality, performance, and reliability, v. something occasionally used for casual purposes. Gee I hope it needs less maintenance than an ATR100 or 440 though :-) Guess I was lucky -- all the ATR100s, 440s, and MM1000 I used required almost no maintenance. (And when they did, it was easy.) Can't say the same about the MM1200, however; but that's another story. snips Here's the practical difference between a company like Cranesong, Grace, et al who do charge more money (but not an insane amount, like many audiophool companies) and an entity like Behringer. As you step through every corner of hardware developement -- from sheetmetal to boards, to ground and power schemes, cheap relays versus those with a much longer life span, higher grade parts in general, etc, etc -- you find a lot of "little" things that add up in terms of reliability and consistent performance. AND, the company is willing to keep tweaking the product to make it the best possible. No argument from me. Behringer is hardly aimed at the top end of the professional audio market! True, but a lot of folks use Behringer in that arena then seem perplexed when the junk fails to perform. But those "little" things (and continued parentage) cost money; a company like Behringer isn't going to consider any of that for an instant. I hope not, it's not what the poor/occasional consumer market can afford to pay. Behringer target their desired market very well IMO. I wonder about that. For just a little more money, you can get into better built and better supported commodity gear. But some folks see only that "bargain" price and are suckered in. There's nothing wrong with a extra AD-DA ASSUMING good converters are used, And since GOOD converters are so cheap now, it is also fallacy to assume the converters are not good simply because the cost of the box is not outrageous. Suggest you look into what it takes to provide good conversion -- it's more than just the converters. You said "assuming good converters are used", I replied to that. You can take a first-rate converter and pretty quickly ruin its effective performance based on the support circuitry for that converter -- everything from analog buffering, clocking, ground and power, etc. No argument. However I'm amazed at what a couple of hundred dollars buys now in complete A-D/D-A performance from i/p to o/p on a loop back test! The law of diminishing returns sets in very quickly now indeed. And it's often the "at the margins" performance that can be very useful. How does it sound if you (god forbid) clip? Do minimal power/ground systems cause sonic problems based on modulations because of that crappy PS or ground? (This is the kind of thing that's difficult to measure, and why junk measures the same as top drawer but can sound quite different.) snips No argument, but it still comes down to available budget and where the money can be best spent. If you have an unlimited budget, I'm simply jealous. :-) I wish, but I don't. I do tend to re-invest, however. There are certain fixed costs for development and getting something to market, regardless of what it is or how much you charge for it. Even at high volume there are certain low price points where one ought to be suspicious. (What did they steal? How long will it last?) Right, but there are always economies of scale. Having seen a lot of Behringer gear fail (including one piece I own), and noting how often they ripoff the hard design work of others, I stay far away. Yep, it's built down to a price, no argument there. But sometimes it suits my needs for occasional less critical applications where a higher expenditure is not justified. And in general it's no worse, or better than others at it's price point. It is simply irrelevant to compare it to items costing up to ten times as much, or even more. Agreed, but again, the OP opined poor performance, and from best I can tell was in something of a critical usage mode. The cheap stuff is fine if your application non-critical and you don't mind a certain cycle of throw-away/replace. But as you say, it's built to a price -- maybe you'll get something you like, that's fine; but if you don't and your need is critical, face the fact that you're likely going to need to upgrade your tools. Better tools typically lead to better outcomes with far less angst getting there, (all other things being equal). YMMV. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote: There are a lot of good inexpensive omni electret capsules....Panasonic for example... Anybody find a decent uni or cardioid electret capsule? It is WAY WAY harder to make a good cardioid small diaphragm condenser mike than to make a good omni. The degree of precision needed increases by more than an order of magnitude. There are some $50-$100 cardioid capsules that are in the league as the $2-$5 omnis. Primo makes some. If I have to spend that much, I'm a lot more interested in regular condensor capsules. So far, I haven't found a source for any. (It's off my usual radar scope that includes distributors like Mouser and Digi-Key.) Thanks for mentioning Primo! (Also not listed at the big distributors.) They have some interesting products. The "unidirectional" electrets look fun to try out, and they have omnis with good specs, along with 3 terminals instead of the usual two. I will contact them to see if I can get small quantities. It is NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE to make a good figure-8 small diaphragm condenser mike. I certainly don't want to try it! |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
On Wed, 04 Jun 2014, Scott Dorsey wrote:
So I'd give them a call and ask if they can get you WM-61B capsules. As far as that goes, I still have about 10 left over from following your article on building an electret microphone in Recording Magazine over 10 years ago. That's what originally got me interested in this. More recently, in case anyone cares, Dave Jones of EEVblog.com made a series of videos with Doug Ford, formerly of RODE, on designing various types of microphones. This is the part on electrets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhG83WS51q8 You should know that the WM-61B only goes out to 20 KHz is because there is a Helmholtz resonator in front of the diaphragm that adds an equalization pole in there to bring the response up above the point where it drops off due to the mass of the diaphragm. A-ha. That helps to explain the little wiggles in the frequency response chart they published for it, and also the little bit of "mashiness" I've heard in electrets when doing something like a key jangle test. (Actually, I prefer to use tiny round bells on a string, which I bought as "Indian wedding bells".) It seems I'd wrongly been assuming it was not so difficult to produce flat frequency and phase response in small diaphragm electrets, so maybe I need to try out some that drop off a bit over 10 KHz. It might sound better (for some applications, at least!) to have good phase response, even if it means losing the upper frequencies. Since this is a side project with no clear goal at this time, I'm pretty open-minded about it. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
Well, I got the microphone (Berhringer ECM8000) because the Dayton one was
sold out at the Parts Express. It comes in a nice plastic box, but the manual has to be obtained on line. Came with freq respnse map - except there are two of them! Haven't tried it yet because the Behringer DEQ2496 needs a little more study before I am familiar with it. Gary Eickmeier |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message ... Well, I got the microphone (Berhringer ECM8000) because the Dayton one was sold out at the Parts Express. It comes in a nice plastic box, but the manual has to be obtained on line. Came with freq respnse map - except there are two of them! Haven't tried it yet because the Behringer DEQ2496 needs a little more study before I am familiar with it. Gary Eickmeier Well, still haven't figured out the 2496. Before I mess with more EQ with the new microphone, I want to set the present EQ into memory so that I can go back to it. But the manual for the 2496 is just cryptic enough that it seems to be missing some steps - not only in the present menu but in most of them. My only avenue is going to be a forum somewhere that has gone through all of this. Anyone here know the 2496? May I correspond with you on it? Don't know if the company has phone tech support. There are enough options on the device that noodling around has not helped. HELP! Gary Eickmeier |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
Jay Ts wrote:
You should know that the WM-61B only goes out to 20 KHz is because there is a Helmholtz resonator in front of the diaphragm that adds an equalization pole in there to bring the response up above the point where it drops off due to the mass of the diaphragm. A-ha. That helps to explain the little wiggles in the frequency response chart they published for it, and also the little bit of "mashiness" I've heard in electrets when doing something like a key jangle test. Nahh, the wiggles are mostly due to diffraction around the outer edge of the capsule although sometimes they can be due to reflections inside the resonator. There are a lot of common modifications for these capsules to alter the resonators, often cutting the entrance hole open or making it oval. I don't think any of them are really good ideas personally. The thing is, this technique can get you flat frequency response but usually makes the phase response weirder because you're trying to correct a thing that isn't minimum phase with a thing that is. It seems I'd wrongly been assuming it was not so difficult to produce flat frequency and phase response in small diaphragm electrets, so maybe I need to try out some that drop off a bit over 10 KHz. It might sound better (for some applications, at least!) to have good phase response, even if it means losing the upper frequencies. Try it and see, the whole thing is to trade artifacts that you can hear for some that you can't hear, or at least don't bother you as much. It's not difficult to get flat frequency and phase response, but the higher you want to go, the smaller you have to make your capsule, and then the noise starts to kill you. Generally measurement mikes are designed for flat response at the expense of noise performance although your friendly B&K dealer can sell you some that are the opposite if you need them. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
Well, I got the microphone (Berhringer ECM8000) because the Dayton one was sold out at the Parts Express. It comes in a nice plastic box, but the manual has to be obtained on line. Came with freq respnse map - except there are two of them! Haven't tried it yet because the Behringer DEQ2496 needs a little more study before I am familiar with it. Just throw out the response plots, they aren't useful and may not even reflect the microphone you got. Open it up? Does it have a transformer? If so, send it back and get another. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
I sure hope these measurement microphones are good for recording, because I
just ordered a second one. You're stuck with the omni pattern, but they are light enough to hang from the ceiling in any concert hall without even needing a fancy bracket. I think most halls are pre-wired for this, and can get the signal down to some monitoring station within the hall. Gary Eickmeier |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Measurement Microphones
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
... I sure hope these measurement microphones are good for recording, Did you look at the noise spec? |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Measurement microphones | Pro Audio | |||
dbx RTA-M measurement mic. | Pro Audio | |||
measurement microphones? | Pro Audio | |||
DBX RTA-M Measurement Mic | Pro Audio | |||
measurement mic recommendations | Tech |