Measurement Microphones

[Gary Eickmeier]

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-audio-emm-6-electret-measurement-microphone--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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

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-audio-emm-6-electret-measurement-microphone--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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Sean Conolly]

"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

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[Sean Conolly]

"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

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[Sean Conolly]

"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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[Frank Stearns]

"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

--

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

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.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

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.

[Trevor]

"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.

[Trevor]

"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.

[gregz]

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

[Trevor]

"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.

[Sean Conolly]

"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-detail.aspx?categoryId=4&partnumber=POM-2738L-R

In stock at Digi-Key, too.

Sean

[Gary Eickmeier]

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-detail.aspx?categoryId=4&partnumber=POM-2738L-R
>
> In stock at Digi-Key, too.
>
> Sean
>
>
>

[Frank Stearns]

"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
--

[Sean Conolly]

"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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[hank alrich]

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

[[email protected]]

There are a lot of good inexpensive omni electret capsules....Panasonic for example...

Anybody find a decent uni or cardioid electret capsule?


Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

> 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."

[Frank Stearns]

"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
--

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

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! :D

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

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. :)

[Gary Eickmeier]

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

[Gary Eickmeier]

"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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Gary Eickmeier]

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

[None]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
> I sure hope these measurement microphones are good for recording,

Did you look at the noise spec?

[Scott Dorsey]

None > wrote:
>"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
>> I sure hope these measurement microphones are good for recording,
>
>Did you look at the noise spec?

It doesn't matter, they don't always meet it anyway.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gary Eickmeier]

Tried to find it - what is it, 60 or 70 dB? Not sure exactly how they
specify that. I will just listen and see what it does.

Gary


"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> None > wrote:
>>"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
>>> I sure hope these measurement microphones are good for recording,
>>
>>Did you look at the noise spec?
>
> It doesn't matter, they don't always meet it anyway.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote:
>> None > wrote:
>>>"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I sure hope these measurement microphones are good for recording,
>>>
>>>Did you look at the noise spec?

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Tried to find it - what is it, 60 or 70 dB? Not sure exactly how they
> specify that. I will just listen and see what it does.

Electret capsules are usually listed as about 60 dB, more-or-less. Just
that alone can make getting a clean recording a challenge. Also, you will
also have limited headroom of about 105-110 dB.

You need a source loud enough, and place the microphone at just the right
distance to maximize the SPL at the mic while avoiding overload.

A few times I've had luck by using a noise reduction plug-in on the
track. If you can get it to work, you might be quite happy with the
results! If not, try reviewing the prices for Shoeps and DPA mics. :)

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Jay Ts" > wrote in message
...
>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote:
>>> None > wrote:
>>>>"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I sure hope these measurement microphones are good for recording,
>>>>
>>>>Did you look at the noise spec?
>
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> Tried to find it - what is it, 60 or 70 dB? Not sure exactly how they
>> specify that. I will just listen and see what it does.
>
> Electret capsules are usually listed as about 60 dB, more-or-less. Just
> that alone can make getting a clean recording a challenge. Also, you will
> also have limited headroom of about 105-110 dB.
>
> You need a source loud enough, and place the microphone at just the right
> distance to maximize the SPL at the mic while avoiding overload.
>
> A few times I've had luck by using a noise reduction plug-in on the
> track. If you can get it to work, you might be quite happy with the
> results! If not, try reviewing the prices for Shoeps and DPA mics. :)

Yes, thanks, you live and you learn I suppose. I just thought it would be a
normal microphone but with very flat response, one that is slimmer and
lighter than the AT2050s that I have.

Gary

[None]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
> you live and you learn I suppose.
You learn as little as possible, apparently, you suppose.

> I just thought
Just barely.

Maybe you could find a grownup to read the manual to you.
If that works out, you could have them try reading you that Yamaha
book that you’ve been avoiding.

Or you could just continue blundering around in the dark. Yeah, that's
the ticket!

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> None > wrote:
>>"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
>>> I sure hope these measurement microphones are good for recording,
>>
>>Did you look at the noise spec?
>
> It doesn't matter, they don't always meet it anyway.

Do they actually publish a noise spec?

Trevor.

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 22:10:43 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> "Jay Ts" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote:
>>>> None > wrote:
>>>>>"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I sure hope these measurement microphones are good for recording,
>>>>>
>>>>>Did you look at the noise spec?
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>> Tried to find it - what is it, 60 or 70 dB? Not sure exactly how they
>>> specify that. I will just listen and see what it does.
>>
>> Electret capsules are usually listed as about 60 dB, more-or-less. Just
>> that alone can make getting a clean recording a challenge. Also, you
>> will also have limited headroom of about 105-110 dB.
>>
>> You need a source loud enough, and place the microphone at just the
>> right distance to maximize the SPL at the mic while avoiding overload.
>>
>> A few times I've had luck by using a noise reduction plug-in on the
>> track. If you can get it to work, you might be quite happy with the
>> results! If not, try reviewing the prices for Shoeps and DPA mics. :)
>
> Yes, thanks, you live and you learn I suppose. I just thought it would
> be a normal microphone but with very flat response, one that is slimmer
> and lighter than the AT2050s that I have.

Don't give up on it yet. You are right in that it has a flat response,
and it's smaller and lighter. The AT2050 isn't perfect, either.

You may find applications for using a "measurement mic" or other
electret. For example, recording a percussive sound (e.g., claves). If
you don't need the track to be very present in the mix, you can drop its
level down to the point where it sits nicely in the mix, and with luck,
the noise will drop to inaudibility.

Many years ago, after I made an electret mic from Scott Dorsey's magazine
article, my living room was graced with a very loud cricket. I decided to
take the opportunity to record it with the electret mic, and when I
played it back at a level that sounded good, like you would expect to
hear a cricket, the noise was not much of a problem.

Also, you can try using a noise gate or other type of expander.

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Trevor wrote:
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
>> None > wrote:
>>>"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
>>>> I sure hope these measurement microphones are good for recording,
>>>
>>>Did you look at the noise spec?
>>
>> It doesn't matter, they don't always meet it anyway.
>
> Do they actually publish a noise spec?

These comments motivated me to take another look at the spec sheet for
the Dayton EMM-6. They say:

Max. SPL for 1% THD @ 1000Hz: 127 dB
S/N ratio: 70 dB A-weighted

That looks pretty optimistic to me, but I went to the Primo website (a
result of Scott's mentioning of them) and they have some electret
capsules with much better specs than the average electrets I'm used to.
For example:

http://www.primomic.com/php/get_products_details.php?model=EM173

The Dayton and Primo specs both look a little too good to believe. I
contacted Primo to see if I can get some of their capsules to try out.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> None > wrote:
>>>"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
>>>> I sure hope these measurement microphones are good for recording,
>>>
>>>Did you look at the noise spec?
>>
>> It doesn't matter, they don't always meet it anyway.
>
>Do they actually publish a noise spec?

Yes, but like the other numbers on the datasheet it's just a random value
that bears no connection to actual performance.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Jay Ts > wrote:
>> Do they actually publish a noise spec?
>
>These comments motivated me to take another look at the spec sheet for
>the Dayton EMM-6. They say:
>
>Max. SPL for 1% THD @ 1000Hz: 127 dB
>S/N ratio: 70 dB A-weighted

Personally I think it would be miracle if you managed to get either one of
those numbers consistently.

>That looks pretty optimistic to me, but I went to the Primo website (a
>result of Scott's mentioning of them) and they have some electret
>capsules with much better specs than the average electrets I'm used to.
>For example:
>
>http://www.primomic.com/php/get_products_details.php?model=EM173
>
>The Dayton and Primo specs both look a little too good to believe. I
>contacted Primo to see if I can get some of their capsules to try out.

The Primo specs can be believed, and the reason why the quiet ones are
quiet is mostly because they use a conventional FET with external biasing
resistors rather than using a "FET-IC" with diodes fabricated on the surface
to act as bias resistors.
--scott

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jay Ts wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 22:10:43 -0400, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>> "Jay Ts" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote:
>>>>> None > wrote:
>>>>>> "Gary Eickmeier" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I sure hope these measurement microphones are good for recording,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you look at the noise spec?
>>>
>>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>>> Tried to find it - what is it, 60 or 70 dB? Not sure exactly how they
>>>> specify that. I will just listen and see what it does.
>>>
>>> Electret capsules are usually listed as about 60 dB, more-or-less. Just
>>> that alone can make getting a clean recording a challenge. Also, you
>>> will also have limited headroom of about 105-110 dB.
>>>
>>> You need a source loud enough, and place the microphone at just the
>>> right distance to maximize the SPL at the mic while avoiding overload.
>>>
>>> A few times I've had luck by using a noise reduction plug-in on the
>>> track. If you can get it to work, you might be quite happy with the
>>> results! If not, try reviewing the prices for Shoeps and DPA mics. :)
>>
>> Yes, thanks, you live and you learn I suppose. I just thought it would
>> be a normal microphone but with very flat response, one that is slimmer
>> and lighter than the AT2050s that I have.
>
> Don't give up on it yet. You are right in that it has a flat response,
> and it's smaller and lighter. The AT2050 isn't perfect, either.
>
> You may find applications for using a "measurement mic" or other
> electret. For example, recording a percussive sound (e.g., claves). If
> you don't need the track to be very present in the mix, you can drop its
> level down to the point where it sits nicely in the mix, and with luck,
> the noise will drop to inaudibility.
>

The most humble of these - the ECM8000 - makes a perfectly
fine recording mic. There's not that much noise.

Whether it works on really shrill electric guitars is another matter.

https://myspace.com/bigbananariverband

Guitars (2) were done with an ECM8000 apeice. I'm pretty sure that's
just what those amps sounded like.


> Many years ago, after I made an electret mic from Scott Dorsey's magazine
> article, my living room was graced with a very loud cricket. I decided to
> take the opportunity to record it with the electret mic, and when I
> played it back at a level that sounded good, like you would expect to
> hear a cricket, the noise was not much of a problem.
>
> Also, you can try using a noise gate or other type of expander.
>


Best done in post, IMO.

--
Les Cargill

[Gary Eickmeier]

Well, aflame with curiosity, I obtained the second ECM8000 and made a stereo
recording of a rehearsal of the wind band that I record for. It sounded
pretty good. The only noise I heard was from the air conditioning, I do
believe. I set the Phantom power to 24 volts. I wonder if the phantom power
settings make much difference. Mikes on stands about 3 ft apart. Great
sound, great stereo.

Gary Eickmeier

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Jay Ts > wrote:
>>> Do they actually publish a noise spec?
>>
>>These comments motivated me to take another look at the spec sheet for
>>the Dayton EMM-6. They say:
>>
>>Max. SPL for 1% THD @ 1000Hz: 127 dB S/N ratio: 70 dB A-weighted
>
> Personally I think it would be miracle if you managed to get either one
> of those numbers consistently.
>
>>That looks pretty optimistic to me, but I went to the Primo website (a
>>result of Scott's mentioning of them) and they have some electret
>>capsules with much better specs than the average electrets I'm used to.
>>For example:
>>
>>http://www.primomic.com/php/get_products_details.php?model=EM173
>>
>>The Dayton and Primo specs both look a little too good to believe. I
>>contacted Primo to see if I can get some of their capsules to try out.
>
> The Primo specs can be believed, and the reason why the quiet ones are
> quiet is mostly because they use a conventional FET with external
> biasing resistors rather than using a "FET-IC" with diodes fabricated on
> the surface to act as bias resistors.

That's probably a 2SK596, and I've been reading the datatsheets for it.

I was very suspicious of the "resistor" that the manufacturers show in
the schematic, and guessed that they were using reverse leakage current
from diodes to bias the gate. But I haven't found any confirmation of
that idea. Scott, are you sure that's what's going on?

I was trying different things with the CUI capsule, and the 2SK596 in it
did not respond as any jFETs I'm used to using. I was disappointed by it.

Anyway, I'm really interested in the Primo products now, and I hope I can
get them to sell me a few! The datasheets suggest that *maybe* they can
be made into pretty nice small-diaphragm mics, and I'll have to build up
a few to try them and learn how good they can be. There won't be any DPA
or Schoeps killers coming out of this, but maybe some decent, much lower
cost and useful microphones.

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

On Fri, 13, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> Well, aflame with curiosity, I obtained the second ECM8000 and made a
> stereo recording of a rehearsal of the wind band that I record for. It
> sounded pretty good. The only noise I heard was from the air
> conditioning, I do believe. I set the Phantom power to 24 volts. I
> wonder if the phantom power settings make much difference. Mikes on
> stands about 3 ft apart. Great sound, great stereo.

Congratulations! Now turn off the air conditioning. :)

About the phantom power, my experience so far designing a phantom-powered
electret capsule (Panasonic and CUI) is that they work the best with
about 2-4 volts -- that's all!

When I used a higher voltage (about 10 volts), they both sounded awful,
full of noise and distortion. I asked CUI tech support about that, and
was told that although the FET in the capsule can handle up to 10 volts,
they list 10 volts as a maximum because the noise and distortion makes
them basically unusable for higher voltages.

To get my power supply for the electret cartridge, I use a common method
of dropping the 48v phantom power voltage down to whatever I need using a
zener diode. This is extremely simple, and works just as well with P24 or
P12 phantom power.

The supply from the preamp could be as low as about 5 volts and it would
still work just fine.

(I am not trying to say you can always get away with less than 48v, and
if you aren't supplying a high enough voltage or current for a particular
microphone, you may not get full performance from it. But for electrets,
it's pretty easy for me to understand why your mic can work well on 24
volts or even less.)

[Scott Dorsey]

Jay Ts > wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> The Primo specs can be believed, and the reason why the quiet ones are
>> quiet is mostly because they use a conventional FET with external
>> biasing resistors rather than using a "FET-IC" with diodes fabricated on
>> the surface to act as bias resistors.
>
>That's probably a 2SK596, and I've been reading the datatsheets for it.

There are more modern ones than that, and the Chinese are making some very,
very inexpensive ones, but the 2SK596 is a classic one.

>I was very suspicious of the "resistor" that the manufacturers show in
>the schematic, and guessed that they were using reverse leakage current
>from diodes to bias the gate. But I haven't found any confirmation of
>that idea. Scott, are you sure that's what's going on?

Most IC processes use diodes as resistors. Part of what made the Analog
Devices op-amps so much better than their monolithic competitors back in
the seventies was that they could actually make real resistors on chip.

>I was trying different things with the CUI capsule, and the 2SK596 in it
>did not respond as any jFETs I'm used to using. I was disappointed by it.

You'll find a similar device inside the Panasonic capsules, etc.

>Anyway, I'm really interested in the Primo products now, and I hope I can
>get them to sell me a few! The datasheets suggest that *maybe* they can
>be made into pretty nice small-diaphragm mics, and I'll have to build up
>a few to try them and learn how good they can be. There won't be any DPA
>or Schoeps killers coming out of this, but maybe some decent, much lower
>cost and useful microphones.

The Primo capsules are used by a lot of mid-range microphone vendors.
As are the Panasonics for that matter.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:56:52 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Jay Ts > wrote:
>>On Thu, 12 Jun 2014, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> The Primo specs can be believed, and the reason why the quiet ones are
>>> quiet is mostly because they use a conventional FET with external
>>> biasing resistors rather than using a "FET-IC" with diodes fabricated
>>> on the surface to act as bias resistors.
>>
>>That's probably a 2SK596, and I've been reading the datatsheets for it.
>
> There are more modern ones than that, and the Chinese are making some
> very, very inexpensive ones, but the 2SK596 is a classic one.

I really don't trust the Chinese-made parts. There is one in the CUI
electret that I disassembled. I asked CUI for a datasheet for it, and
they sent one. I'm very impressed that they have this level of support at
all, and I'm thankful for it, but the 2SK596 they are using is made by a
company I've never heard of in my life, and doesn't have a website (in
English, at least).

I suppose it "doesn't matter", and it might work as well as a Motorola
part, but I'd like to have more confidence in parts I use. Chinese
quality control seems to be this: "If it works when we sell it, it's good
enough."

>>I was very suspicious of the "resistor" that the manufacturers show in
>>the schematic, and guessed that they were using reverse leakage current
>>from diodes to bias the gate. But I haven't found any confirmation of
>>that idea. Scott, are you sure that's what's going on?
>
> Most IC processes use diodes as resistors. Part of what made the Analog
> Devices op-amps so much better than their monolithic competitors back in
> the seventies was that they could actually make real resistors on chip.

Ok, thanks. One of my first paying jobs was doing IC design, but that was
just digital, and it was a long time ago. I'm always happy to learn more
about analog IC design.

[cedricl[_2_]]

I have a co-worker who had the really expensive Earthworks analysis mic. I bought the Behringer ECM8000 and loaned it to him so he can tell me the differences. He brought it back and said, "I wasted $350".

[Scott Dorsey]

cedricl > wrote:
>I have a co-worker who had the really expensive Earthworks analysis mic. I bought the Behringer ECM8000 and loaned it to him so he can tell me the differences. He brought it back and said, "I wasted $350".

Which of the two totally different models of ECM8000 did you buy? Do you know?
What is the real response of your individual microphone?

The thing about these are... when you are buying cheap uncertified
"measurement" mikes like the Earthworks and the ECM8000, what you are paying
for is not the microphone but the calibration chart.

The calibration chart on the ECM8000 is absent. The calibration chart on the
Earthworks is acceptable but I do not believe it's NBS-traceable.

Is the calibration worth paying $350 for? Depends on what you're doing.
--scott

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