Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Sean Conolly Sean Conolly is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 638
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Sean Conolly Sean Conolly is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 638
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Sean Conolly Sean Conolly is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 638
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Jay Ts[_4_] Jay Ts[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Jay Ts[_4_] Jay Ts[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
gregz gregz is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 131
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Trevor Trevor is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,820
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Sean Conolly Sean Conolly is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 638
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Sean Conolly Sean Conolly is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 638
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] makolber@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 614
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Jay Ts[_4_] Jay Ts[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Jay Ts[_4_] Jay Ts[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Gary Eickmeier Gary Eickmeier is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,449
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
None None is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 782
Default 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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Measurement microphones Tobiah Pro Audio 23 June 10th 13 08:21 AM
dbx RTA-M measurement mic. Garth D. Wiebe Pro Audio 1 May 4th 12 01:55 PM
measurement microphones? andrejs eigus Pro Audio 34 March 26th 08 03:26 PM
DBX RTA-M Measurement Mic LJM Pro Audio 2 May 4th 05 01:54 AM
measurement mic recommendations strata Tech 0 December 25th 03 03:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"