Measurement microphones

[Tobiah]

Some mics are advertised as measurement mics.
Are they not ok for normal recording? If they
are used for taking measurements, then it would
seem that they would have a flat response.

Thanks,

Tobiah

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Tobiah > wrote:
>Some mics are advertised as measurement mics.
>Are they not ok for normal recording? If they
>are used for taking measurements, then it would
>seem that they would have a flat response.

It depends what kind they are.

Many measurement mikes give you flat frequency response on and off-axis,
at the expense of noise floor.

The 1" and 1/2" IEC Type I microphones are generally very good for recording
work if the electronics in them are quiet enough. Not cheap, however.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Tobiah wrote:
> Some mics are advertised as measurement mics.
> Are they not ok for normal recording?

Yes.

> If they
> are used for taking measurements, then it would
> seem that they would have a flat response.
>

Nothing has truly flat response. They should come with a
calibration curve.

> Thanks,
>
> Tobiah

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>Nothing has truly flat response. They should come with a
>calibration curve.

If they're from a Beijing factory that makes Chinese copies of German copies
of a Danish adaptation of the Western Electric measurement capsule, then they
come with xerox copies of someone else's calibration curve.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mark]

its a little amusing that some people will use mics that have their
favorite (non-flat) EQ curve built in, in order to get the sound they
want ...... but think it is blasphemous to apply electronic EQ to get
the sound they want.

Mark

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/6/2013 9:52 PM, Mark wrote:
>
>
> its a little amusing that some people will use mics that have their
> favorite (non-flat) EQ curve built in, in order to get the sound they
> want ...... but think it is blasphemous to apply electronic EQ to get
> the sound they want.
>
> Mark
>
>
Only one of the above has three dimensional implications.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>>Nothing has truly flat response. They should come with a
>>calibration curve.
>
> If they're from a Beijing factory that makes Chinese copies of German
> copies
> of a Danish adaptation of the Western Electric measurement capsule, then
> they
> come with xerox copies of someone else's calibration curve.

Most admit it's just a "typical" curve, without actually claiming it's even
for the mics they make. A real calibration curve has to be done for each
individual mic using proper test equipment and procedures. Something which
costs far more than the typical Chinese microphone. That said, they do have
their uses if you understand the limitations.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mark" > wrote in message
...
> its a little amusing that some people will use mics that have their
> favorite (non-flat) EQ curve built in, in order to get the sound they
> want ...... but think it is blasphemous to apply electronic EQ to get
> the sound they want.

Even more so the high end HiFi buffs who disdain any use of EQ, happy in
their ignorance of how much was applied by the recording and mastering
engineers. (and what their room and speakers do to what's on the disk) Then
they happily argue over the sound of different remaster editions that used
different EQ's etc. :-)

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mark > wrote:
>
>its a little amusing that some people will use mics that have their
>favorite (non-flat) EQ curve built in, in order to get the sound they
>want ...... but think it is blasphemous to apply electronic EQ to get
>the sound they want.

Well, it's to your advantage to do it at the microphone, in part because
a lot of what the microphone is doing for coloration isn't duplicatable
with EQ, and in part because the microphone response changes with direction
so you can get a different coloration on the instrument you're spotting and
on the leakage.

My feeling is that it's always best to get the sound you want as close to
the beginning of the chain as possible. Better to get it through player
technique than instrument, better to get it through the instrument than
the room, better to get it through the room than the microphone, better
to get it through the microphone than the preamp.... etc....

The fact that most microphones vary widely in response off-axis can be
a powerful tool for good or for evil.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> Les Cargill > wrote:
>>>Nothing has truly flat response. They should come with a
>>>calibration curve.
>>
>> If they're from a Beijing factory that makes Chinese copies of German
>> copies
>> of a Danish adaptation of the Western Electric measurement capsule, then
>> they
>> come with xerox copies of someone else's calibration curve.
>
>Most admit it's just a "typical" curve, without actually claiming it's even
>for the mics they make.

The vendor I am speaking of does not, they assure you that it's the plot
for your microphone.

>A real calibration curve has to be done for each
>individual mic using proper test equipment and procedures. Something which
>costs far more than the typical Chinese microphone. That said, they do have
>their uses if you understand the limitations.

When you buy a real measurement microphone, you're paying as much money for
the calibration as for the microphone, sometimes more. And, if you want to
do real measurements, that's often worth it.

If it doesn't come with a calibration plot, it's not a real measurement mike.
No, the ECM-8000 is not a real measurement mike.
--scott

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

[hank alrich]

Ron C > wrote:

> On 6/6/2013 9:52 PM, Mark wrote:
> >
> >
> > its a little amusing that some people will use mics that have their
> > favorite (non-flat) EQ curve built in, in order to get the sound they
> > want ...... but think it is blasphemous to apply electronic EQ to get
> > the sound they want.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> Only one of the above has three dimensional implications.

Excellent point, important consideration, often lost in the
one-track-at-a-time approach.


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, June 6, 2013 4:53:50 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Many measurement mikes give you flat frequency response on and off-axis,
> at the expense of noise floor.

Yes, though better "measuring" microphones are plenty quiet. I've used my own DPA 4090 and a friend's Earthworks (forget the model) for both recording and measuring with great success.

--Ethan

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
<snip>
> No, the ECM-8000 is not a real measurement mike.


It's frequently an interesting recording mic, though.

1) A person should have at least one omni 2) The
ECM-8000 is more or less an omni.
3) A Panasonic omni capsule is cheaper but housings
are useful.

> --scott
>

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
><snip>
>> No, the ECM-8000 is not a real measurement mike.
>
>It's frequently an interesting recording mic, though.

One of the problems is that there are actually two microphones sold as
an ECM-8000. One of them has a transformer inside, the other does not.
The transformerless one is entirely usable as a cheap omni.

>1) A person should have at least one omni 2) The
>ECM-8000 is more or less an omni.

Agreed.

>3) A Panasonic omni capsule is cheaper but housings
>are useful.

The ECM-8000 has a capsule in it that is a Chinese copy of the standard
Panasonic design. If you replace the capsule with an original Panasonic
one, the noise floor may be reduced considerably. The FET-IC in the capsule
is still the dominant noise source on these, though, as they are designed
to be cheap at the expense of being quiet.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 7 Jun 2013 14:31:48 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Les Cargill > wrote:
>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>><snip>
>>> No, the ECM-8000 is not a real measurement mike.
>>
>>It's frequently an interesting recording mic, though.
>
>One of the problems is that there are actually two microphones sold as
>an ECM-8000. One of them has a transformer inside, the other does not.
>The transformerless one is entirely usable as a cheap omni.
>
>>1) A person should have at least one omni 2) The
>>ECM-8000 is more or less an omni.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>3) A Panasonic omni capsule is cheaper but housings
>>are useful.
>
>The ECM-8000 has a capsule in it that is a Chinese copy of the standard
>Panasonic design. If you replace the capsule with an original Panasonic
>one, the noise floor may be reduced considerably. The FET-IC in the capsule
>is still the dominant noise source on these, though, as they are designed
>to be cheap at the expense of being quiet.
>--scott

So to sum up, the housing is quite useful, but put your own capsule
and electronics in there. I think I'd go along with that.

d

[HIO]

On 6/7/2013 6:17 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Les Cargill > wrote:
>>>> Nothing has truly flat response. They should come with a
>>>> calibration curve.
>>>
>>> If they're from a Beijing factory that makes Chinese copies of German
>>> copies
>>> of a Danish adaptation of the Western Electric measurement capsule, then
>>> they
>>> come with xerox copies of someone else's calibration curve.
>>
>> Most admit it's just a "typical" curve, without actually claiming it's even
>> for the mics they make.
>
> The vendor I am speaking of does not, they assure you that it's the plot
> for your microphone.
>
>> A real calibration curve has to be done for each
>> individual mic using proper test equipment and procedures. Something which
>> costs far more than the typical Chinese microphone. That said, they do have
>> their uses if you understand the limitations.
>
> When you buy a real measurement microphone, you're paying as much money for
> the calibration as for the microphone, sometimes more. And, if you want to
> do real measurements, that's often worth it.
>
> If it doesn't come with a calibration plot, it's not a real measurement mike.
> No, the ECM-8000 is not a real measurement mike.
> --scott
>


You have been most humorous in your posts as of late Scott but let us
not give out false information. The ECM-8000 *is* an Omnidirectional
Measurement Microphone. I know because I own one and a Mastering
Processor that kind of goes with it and I paid dearly for an engineer
flown in to do room treatment, set-up, wiring and calibration in my studio.

Six weeks no less!

Don't you remember years ago me asking you how long should this audio
engineer take calibrating my room, and you said something like, and kind
of giving him the benefit of the doubt, that you know some studios that
are never quite content and are in some kind of perpetual
measurementitus (sic). I am paraphrasing of course.

At the time I was questioning whether this guy was milking me dry
because he was taking so long on this and there was this horrid low
frequency coming from my woofers (subs) for days that made my whole
studio rattle.

Oh, and I wasn't born yesterday as you well know.

Maybe last week you say? Not even!

--
Here In Oregon

Twitter: I don't tweet, I leave that to the birds.
MySpace: Then put a lock on it.
Facebook: Ever hear of the term identity theft?

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, HIO > wrote:
>
>You have been most humorous in your posts as of late Scott but let us
>not give out false information. The ECM-8000 *is* an Omnidirectional
>Measurement Microphone. I know because I own one and a Mastering
>Processor that kind of goes with it and I paid dearly for an engineer
>flown in to do room treatment, set-up, wiring and calibration in my studio.

If it doesn't come with a calibration plot, it's not a measurement mike.

You send it to Wyle with a couple hundred bucks and they send it back
to you with a plot, THEN it's a measurement mike. Not one that will
meet IEC Type I specs, but one that is useful.

What makes the mike useful is as much the calibration as the mike.

>Don't you remember years ago me asking you how long should this audio
>engineer take calibrating my room, and you said something like, and kind
>of giving him the benefit of the doubt, that you know some studios that
>are never quite content and are in some kind of perpetual
>measurementitus (sic). I am paraphrasing of course.

It's true.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/7/2013 3:55 PM, HIO wrote:

> You have been most humorous in your posts as of late Scott but let us
> not give out false information. The ECM-8000 *is* an Omnidirectional
> Measurement Microphone. I know because I own one and a Mastering
> Processor that kind of goes with it and I paid dearly for an engineer
> flown in to do room treatment, set-up, wiring and calibration in my studio.

It depends on how deeply you define "measurement microphone." Most any
off-the-shelf omni mic is flat enough to measure and tune a room.
PreSonus sells one for $100 as an accessory to their StudioLive mixers
which now come with a version of the SMAART room equalization software.
It looks just like the Behrmiger ECM-8000 only it's black. It may be the
same guts at heart. It works fine.

Where a measurement microphone's calibration is important isn't only its
frequency response, but its sensitivity. For making measurements where
it's important to know the SPL accurately, you need to be able to
convert millivolts out of the mic to SPL to an accuracy and
repeatability good enough to check a design, or to stand up in court
when the little old lady sues the high school because the screaming fans
in the new stadium that they build adjacent to her back yard are keeping
her from her soap operas. That's what you don't get with a $100, or $39
measurement mic.



--
For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[gregz]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> No, the ECM-8000 is not a real measurement mike.
>>
>> It's frequently an interesting recording mic, though.
>
> One of the problems is that there are actually two microphones sold as
> an ECM-8000. One of them has a transformer inside, the other does not.
> The transformerless one is entirely usable as a cheap omni.
>
>> 1) A person should have at least one omni 2) The
>> ECM-8000 is more or less an omni.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> 3) A Panasonic omni capsule is cheaper but housings
>> are useful.
>
> The ECM-8000 has a capsule in it that is a Chinese copy of the standard
> Panasonic design. If you replace the capsule with an original Panasonic
> one, the noise floor may be reduced considerably. The FET-IC in the capsule
> is still the dominant noise source on these, though, as they are designed
> to be cheap at the expense of being quiet.
> --scott

Here is a measurement of a batch of old Panasonic capsules. You could say
there is an average response, and I think that's given.

http://www.pitt.edu/~szekeres/mic/plot.htm

Greg szekeres

[HIO]

On 6/7/2013 1:35 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> If it doesn't come with a calibration plot, it's not a measurement mike.


Says so on the box. :p

--
Here In Oregon

Twitter: I don't tweet, I leave that to the birds.
MySpace: Then put a lock on it.
Facebook: Ever hear of the term identity theft?

[HIO]

On 6/7/2013 2:33 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:

Snip.../
> or to stand up in court
> when the little old lady sues the high school because the screaming fans
> in the new stadium that they build adjacent to her back yard are keeping
> her from her soap operas. That's what you don't get with a $100, or $39
> measurement mic.


She just needs a hearing aid adjustment. Finicky little creatures!

--
Here In Oregon

Twitter: I don't tweet, I leave that to the birds.
MySpace: Then put a lock on it.
Facebook: Ever hear of the term identity theft?

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> No, the ECM-8000 is not a real measurement mike.
>>
>> It's frequently an interesting recording mic, though.
>
> One of the problems is that there are actually two microphones sold as
> an ECM-8000. One of them has a transformer inside, the other does not.
> The transformerless one is entirely usable as a cheap omni.
>

Even the transformerful ones are handy.

>> 1) A person should have at least one omni 2) The
>> ECM-8000 is more or less an omni.
>
> Agreed.
>

.... and for fifty bucks....

>> 3) A Panasonic omni capsule is cheaper but housings
>> are useful.
>
> The ECM-8000 has a capsule in it that is a Chinese copy of the standard
> Panasonic design. If you replace the capsule with an original Panasonic
> one, the noise floor may be reduced considerably. The FET-IC in the capsule
> is still the dominant noise source on these, though, as they are designed
> to be cheap at the expense of being quiet.


They're not bad anyway. Room tone dominates the mic
noise in most cases.



> --scott
>

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

gregz wrote:
> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
>> Les Cargill > wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> No, the ECM-8000 is not a real measurement mike.
>>>
>>> It's frequently an interesting recording mic, though.
>>
>> One of the problems is that there are actually two microphones sold as
>> an ECM-8000. One of them has a transformer inside, the other does not.
>> The transformerless one is entirely usable as a cheap omni.
>>
>>> 1) A person should have at least one omni 2) The
>>> ECM-8000 is more or less an omni.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> 3) A Panasonic omni capsule is cheaper but housings
>>> are useful.
>>
>> The ECM-8000 has a capsule in it that is a Chinese copy of the standard
>> Panasonic design. If you replace the capsule with an original Panasonic
>> one, the noise floor may be reduced considerably. The FET-IC in the capsule
>> is still the dominant noise source on these, though, as they are designed
>> to be cheap at the expense of being quiet.
>> --scott
>
> Here is a measurement of a batch of old Panasonic capsules. You could say
> there is an average response, and I think that's given.
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~szekeres/mic/plot.htm
>
> Greg szekeres
>


interesting. There are worse things than rising to a 15KHz hump.

We're talking fast food, not fine dining. For that....

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Trevor >
> wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>>> Les Cargill > wrote:
>>>>Nothing has truly flat response. They should come with a
>>>>calibration curve.
>>>
>>> If they're from a Beijing factory that makes Chinese copies of German
>>> copies
>>> of a Danish adaptation of the Western Electric measurement capsule, then
>>> they
>>> come with xerox copies of someone else's calibration curve.
>>
>>Most admit it's just a "typical" curve, without actually claiming it's
>>even
>>for the mics they make.
>
> The vendor I am speaking of does not, they assure you that it's the plot
> for your microphone.

Then I presume it's not the Chinese manufacturer quoted above.


>>A real calibration curve has to be done for each
>>individual mic using proper test equipment and procedures. Something which
>>costs far more than the typical Chinese microphone. That said, they do
>>have
>>their uses if you understand the limitations.
>
> When you buy a real measurement microphone, you're paying as much money
> for
> the calibration as for the microphone, sometimes more.

Exactly.


>And, if you want to do real measurements, that's often worth it.

Critical if the measurements are to have any legal standing.


> If it doesn't come with a calibration plot, it's not a real measurement
> mike.
> No, the ECM-8000 is not a real measurement mike.

Exactly, but even that is better than nothing in some cases if you
understand the limitations.

Trevor.