What’s striking for me is the cheapo Behringer is very close to the reference between 50-4000hz. That’s pretty incredible for such a low cost mic that doesn’t even benefit from a calibration file. For locating and treating problems in a home or project studio the Behringer will give you enough information to work with, and for such a job we’re only really interested in what’s going on in the bottom third of the frequency range. Reverb time measurements are critical and they will be as accurate on the Behringer as any other. For other critical measurements where you need absolute accuracy in the higher octaves you will need to spend more, but my take home from this video is that measurements for acoustic treatment can be done confidently with the Behringer. Thanks a lot for this thorough and clear comparison 🙏
Very good episode. I want to add that there is a big difference in distortion measurements. Cheap microphones are not suitable for measuring driver distortion, which can be as low as -80dB. Joseph Crowe made an episode about it. In his findings Shure SM58 was better at measuring distortion than USB mics.
If you still have those measurements, you can use them to create calibration curves to adjust the older mikes. Just use REW's features for that purpose. I use a USB mike. For measuring vented boxes, I tend use the transfer function method - close mike woofer with port closed off, measure again @1M, open port, measure again without moving the mic, use the first two measurements to derive the transfer function, add the transfer function to the third measurement. Best performed in the garage so you don't have to deal with room modes :-). Most times though I just assume that if the impedance curve matches the sim, the output will likely match the sim'd output as well.
Closing off the port changes the tuning of the box and compliance of the driver. Splicing or normalizing based off this will give incorrect results. Isolating the port with a baffle may be a better option, if I’m understanding your method correctly.
@@jtmcfarland3512 The port needs to be sealed off for a good close-mike measurement. The only purpose of this part of the process is to derive the transfer function, so it doesn't matter if the tuning of the box is changed. Sometimes I use an entirely different speaker of approximately the same size to derive the transfer function if it's not possible to seal the vent of the speaker that I want to measure (e.g. if the speaker is a passive radiator, rather than a vented, alignment.). The transfer function basically describes the change between the measurement with the mic at point A and then at point B, so if you do any subsequent measurement at point B, you can calculate what the measurement would be at point A by subtracting the transfer function.
@@Grommet2007 I understand the second paragraph, but I’m not sure I agree with the first. My amateur experience in WinISD suggests the “tuning” of the box (size, order, compliance, damping material, etc) directly effects the transfer function. The ideal way to measure would be to have the port on the other side of an IB (simulated obviously) from the driver in order to get near field measurement of the transfer function without the port & vice versa. With a large enough baffle, you should be able to get an accurate gated response of each. Then you can do whatever comparison you like. However, each time you change the port dynamics and certainly the driver itself, you’ve changed the transfer function of the system and will need to take new measurements at BOTH locations.
@@jtmcfarland3512 Nope - the transfer function is simply the difference between the measurements at point A and point B, due to the delta difference from the device being measured and whatever impact the environment has on the measurement. You're talking about the transfer function of the system - I'm talking about the transfer function of the measurement environment :-).
Sound engineer here, they are just different, usb for portability and do RTA since I do not any alignment on the venues, and the xlr one for when I need to do a system alignment, I love the UMIK1 for that is just so simple to use and the noise floor is so low, and then for alignment I user whatever the contractor or venue have at hand, honestly idk why so much hate can complaining for a tool that was not design for that use case.
so you would say the umk1 would be good beginner one for measure my hifi speakers and headphones or is the cheap Behringer ECM8000 enough? hm but then I need a sound interface and a notebook in my living room
Very informative. It would have been interesting to compare the acoustic timing reference to the loopback reference to see how accurate the acoustic ref is.
If you tick "Adjust clock with acoustic reference" option in preferences - a recent addition to REW - it will compensate for clock differences between the input and output by adding a reference timing signal at the end of the sweep. This will take care of "most" of the clocking deviations inherent to USB mics.
I own an ECM8000 - in bottom line I need to see the behavior of the speaker, what you should it proves that in my case the cheaper the better. small tip - take a cheap microphone - measure a speaker with it and with expensive mic then use the expensive mic - to prepare a calibration file for the cheap one . now you can use you cheap mic like the expensive one :D
Thanks for the informative test. I didn't know calibration mics need to be replaced every 5 years. I make so many measurements, I usually break them before that though :)
@@AudioJudgement Awesome video besides the matter of Interface selection. Isn't that most important specifically when going for XLR Microphone and the one that does 5hz-30khz. Because if the frequency response of Interface not being flat would negate the benefit of XLR Mic being absolutely flat in response. Please look into Audio Interfaces and make video on that as well. Which is absolutely flat and is the best.
@@KING_DRANZERYou have to calibrate the interface separately. Just use the loop cable and recalibrate as needed. No need to have a perfectly flat interface. I’d be more concerned with other features.
Interesting Video, well done. and i want to take a minute to point out the high Production Quality of your Videos in general, as well as the lighting concept in particular. Someone has done some reserch about Teal and orange lighting and complementary colours, you did a very good job on that one, i highly appreciate that! ❤
Great info . extra info ,make sure you dont enable hardware monitor and you are sticking phantom power up the output jack by using an XLR to RTS loopback cable (unless you can turn off 48v on ch2) its best use the line input jack to output jack)
Very informative video. I would just like to add. I bought a Bheringer emc-8000 test mic about 15 years ago. Although it was not a calibrated mike I was able to download a generic calibration curve for it that basically boosted its bass and treble. It seemed to work well enough for my purposes.
Behringer mic has a calibration file on the website, not perfect as it is a generic for all ECM800 mics, but would probably take it so much closer to your reference ???
I got 3 Dayton UMM-6 mics for work. The difference between them from day1 was too much for professional work. They had deviatons in frequency response and noise floor around 3dB. I recommend Minidsp, or if you want accuracy in different measurement condition for long time, get B&K or Grass, which is also in my work office. But they are above 1000€, without amp.
That seems like a VERY high noise floor. It should be around -95 dB. Are you sure it wasn’t the setup or cables or something? I do agree that if you’re using multiple microphones at once they all need minimal variation if you’re only using one calibration file. For most people and many companies, a single calibrated mic even with
@@jtmcfarland3512 Hi. I tried every microphone with the same cable and same measurement program. REW. I’ve also used 3 different calibration file for each microphone. While playing constant noise, SPL values I measured was around 65 dB for 1 microphone, in the other It was 66.5 and other was 63.5. I corrected the other microphone by changing the calibration gile gains and eqs myself. There was a little bit bigger difference in the Noise floor.
@@AliBekirKlckaya That’s interesting. I don’t remember REW having an option to calibrate SPL separately for each input. Separately adjusting gains to match for each input device would be necessary and is recommended by multiple manufacturers. For the types of uses in this RUclips channel, we’re generally not concerned with absolute dB and really only need relative dB data. Likewise, noise floor really isn’t an issue for our purposes either as long as it’s not ridiculously high. Our measurements are ideally taken at 80 dB, so even a 30 dB noise floor is easily filtered out since dB is not a linear scale. YMMV
@@jtmcfarland3512 I calibrated each calibration file by using one at a time, from the same position. It should be noted that as the noise floor changes, the distortion graph in the lowest levels changes as well. Its like you cant measure below 0.2 percent distortion because of the higher noise floor in one microphone compared to other. Yes, dB relative data would be unfeffected. However, I’ve noticed frequency response difference up to 3 dB between microphones. Especially around higher frequencies, such as 9,-15kHz. I can provide the calibration file number of each microphone. .UMM 6 microphones are good for average consumers. But I’m a loudspeaker tuning guy, and tuning 3dB off will sometimes makes or breaks the speaker in the eyes of reviewers nowadays..
@@AliBekirKlckaya You’re clearly working on higher accuracy stuff than me, but my noise floor is currently around -35 dB (not great, but usable). With measurements at 80 dB that’s a 115 dB difference. That means even a 3 dB variation in my noise floor only shows up as a teeny tiny fraction of a dB at my measurement level. (110 is 10^11 times louder than the floor) 3 dB from 0-3 is not the same as 3 dB from 100-103. Very different.
Since DIY xovers are ultimately tuned by ear anyhow what difference does the accuracy of the mic really make? The final sound is going to be adjusted to taste/room no matter how accurate the mic is. You're going to end up with the same xover topology no matter the mic. Only with a poor mic you will need to tweak the component values by ear. I think for most DIY'ers any of these mics can get the job done.
Informative video !! Might any of the differences in the FF frequency response measurements be due to differing mic patterns (sidelobes, backlobes) picking up room reflections ? Did the NF measurements show similar FR differences?
yes, a valid point.. in 'uncontrolled conditions' at such high frequencies the wavelengths are so small that everything counts, from exact positioning of the equipment to even the position of the person doing the measurements.. that being said, for all practical reasons super accurate measurements of the high fqs are not needed since healthy ppl over the age of adolescence can't hear much of the second half of last octave plus there's v little acoustic information there anyways :)
I think this is good reference information, as I plan test and development on audio products. Not aware that mic need to calibrate each 5 years, mmm. Thank you.
Great vid! Just measured my first own build. Big Floorstanding 3 way. After following your course on udemy. Except my emm6 is probably like 10 years old 😂 Maybe need to recalibrate it.
If, with acoustic reference, a measurement is made of the frequency response in (let's say) the drivers of a two-way speaker (the measurement is made to be used when simulating crossover filters with e.g. Vituixcad). Can the frequency responses be used directly, or are there additional steps that must be performed after the measurement, for example on the impulse response? By the way, it would be very helpful if you make a video about measuring with acoustic reference. This seems to be something that is misunderstood by a lot of people and for me and many others, REW's manual is not very helpful. Thank you in advance.
Hey, nice video. I'm planning to buy the dayton emm-6 to replace my old ecm8000 i used with a generic cal file. On the forums they say that the factory cal file that dayton provides is unusable. If thats the case, I may just stay with my old mic. Whats your opinion on that? Did you used the manufacturer provided cal file for this video? It looks good for me. Thanks.
Do you know if Audient ID4 (Mk1) can be used in the same way for loopback timing reference using similar analogue cable? I would greatly appreciate your advice as I am confused and cannot figure it out.
Hahah I've bought years ago umic mic as my first thing after listened bloggers . A week after sold it as realized time alignment was impossible. Most other yappers kindly keep the mouse shut. Scott was good btw and his writing. Thank you for the good lessons and an open mind. :)
Interesting. It seems that's a generic calibration file. One that fixes some major response flaws that every behringer mic has. However, a true calibration file is made specifically for your mic. And you need to download a calibration file based on your mic's serial number.
Hello , please tell me , after you make changes and additions to your courses , will they be presented as a separate course , will they completely replace the old course , or will there be several courses on the same topic old and updated ? I want to buy your courses and I would like to understand when they will be updated )
as shown in 6:32. i think we can connect one of 3.5mm output (Left channel or Right channel) to 3.5mm mic input (of the same) may be with some resistor in series. and we can use that for "use loop-back for timing reference" with USB mic.
I don’t remember anything about loopback in the Udemy 202 lessons. Does this option negate the IR Window section? Can the same results from the tests in this video be found with the methods in the lessons or is this a better update?
Yes, the udemy course needs an update, as there is no mention of the loop-back. All the measurements in the course are valid with the single exception of nearfield measurements of ported enclosures (where a loopback is necessary). I'm currently working on a new updated course (complete overhaul), but it will take several months until it's finished.
This is great info. It seems there’s not only a delay in the port resonance (which seems to be solved by the loopback method), but there’s also an acoustical offset as well as unique baffle diffraction which will change depending on the location of the port relative to the driver. 😅
Great video. 👍 Maybe someone can help me. What exactly is meant by a stereo when it says the output is X volts and 10k ohms? So the output impedance is 10,000 ohms or does whatever I plug it into need to have a 10k load on it? I'm having trouble understanding that. I was using my xlr phantom power unit with an rca adaptor to measure a head units frequency response by playing pink noise. Some headunits have flat output, some have a noticeable curve to it. I think I need to add some resistance maybe. If any guru's can help me out, I'd sure appreciate it.
Late to the party, interesting that no-one seemed to be able to answer. The essence of the spec is that the specified frequency response and tolerance will be optimal at a load of 10k, typically a lower impedance load will cause a premature roll-off of the bass as the output amp impedance and DC blocking capacitor network acts as a HPF. Generally though higher impedance loads will have negligible effect on frequency response.
@@AudioJudgement The email response was this: “UMIK-2 calibrated response is 10Hz to 20kHz.” (Link to owners manual that I am omitting in this quote) “please read for more details. Maybe the next step would be to read a bit details from the manuals/product datasheet so you can learn a bit more about our products? We'd be happy to help answer any questions you may have.” “Hoping this info helps and feel free to contact us if you have further questions.” So, they are saying 10 HZ to 20 KHZ, but I see no documentation of that in the user manual or any of the links or charts anywhere in their documentation. By pointing me to the user manual one might expect to see those numbers listed somewhere or perhaps a chart in REW but I had already read that and the data sheet before emailing. This time I checked the link on Home Theater Calibration, found in the user manual, and read through the docs at that link. Still, I would like to see it in print but they claim in their email it is calibrated to measure down to 10 HZ.
It's most likely true. When I googled for this spec I saw a graph comparing the response of UMIK-1 and UMIK-2. The range of 10-20 Hz of the UMIK-1 rolls off quite significantly compared to UMIK-2. My guess is that UMIK-2 does have an extended frequency response and you should buy it if you want an affordable mic that can measure below 20 Hz.
@@williamhicks2763Open the calibration file as text. Please let us know what the min and max frequencies are. I assume there are some zeros and not only values for non-zero offsets. Idk.
@@jtmcfarland3512 I will when I get it. I saw I could save a few dollars by ordering directly from miniDSP and then realized it was being shipped from Hong Kong. I guess that I can let you know if it ever gets here. Three days after the order the status only says “Confirmed.”
What’s striking for me is the cheapo Behringer is very close to the reference between 50-4000hz. That’s pretty incredible for such a low cost mic that doesn’t even benefit from a calibration file. For locating and treating problems in a home or project studio the Behringer will give you enough information to work with, and for such a job we’re only really interested in what’s going on in the bottom third of the frequency range. Reverb time measurements are critical and they will be as accurate on the Behringer as any other. For other critical measurements where you need absolute accuracy in the higher octaves you will need to spend more, but my take home from this video is that measurements for acoustic treatment can be done confidently with the Behringer.
Thanks a lot for this thorough and clear comparison 🙏
Very good episode. I want to add that there is a big difference in distortion measurements. Cheap microphones are not suitable for measuring driver distortion, which can be as low as -80dB. Joseph Crowe made an episode about it. In his findings Shure SM58 was better at measuring distortion than USB mics.
FYI Scarlett Solo is not single channel.
You can run loopback with a simple TS guitar patch cable. Have done it for years.
If you still have those measurements, you can use them to create calibration curves to adjust the older mikes. Just use REW's features for that purpose.
I use a USB mike. For measuring vented boxes, I tend use the transfer function method - close mike woofer with port closed off, measure again @1M, open port, measure again without moving the mic, use the first two measurements to derive the transfer function, add the transfer function to the third measurement. Best performed in the garage so you don't have to deal with room modes :-). Most times though I just assume that if the impedance curve matches the sim, the output will likely match the sim'd output as well.
Awesome, I'd love to see a practical example of the transfer function method. cheers.
Closing off the port changes the tuning of the box and compliance of the driver. Splicing or normalizing based off this will give incorrect results. Isolating the port with a baffle may be a better option, if I’m understanding your method correctly.
@@jtmcfarland3512 The port needs to be sealed off for a good close-mike measurement. The only purpose of this part of the process is to derive the transfer function, so it doesn't matter if the tuning of the box is changed. Sometimes I use an entirely different speaker of approximately the same size to derive the transfer function if it's not possible to seal the vent of the speaker that I want to measure (e.g. if the speaker is a passive radiator, rather than a vented, alignment.).
The transfer function basically describes the change between the measurement with the mic at point A and then at point B, so if you do any subsequent measurement at point B, you can calculate what the measurement would be at point A by subtracting the transfer function.
@@Grommet2007 I understand the second paragraph, but I’m not sure I agree with the first. My amateur experience in WinISD suggests the “tuning” of the box (size, order, compliance, damping material, etc) directly effects the transfer function. The ideal way to measure would be to have the port on the other side of an IB (simulated obviously) from the driver in order to get near field measurement of the transfer function without the port & vice versa. With a large enough baffle, you should be able to get an accurate gated response of each. Then you can do whatever comparison you like. However, each time you change the port dynamics and certainly the driver itself, you’ve changed the transfer function of the system and will need to take new measurements at BOTH locations.
@@jtmcfarland3512 Nope - the transfer function is simply the difference between the measurements at point A and point B, due to the delta difference from the device being measured and whatever impact the environment has on the measurement. You're talking about the transfer function of the system - I'm talking about the transfer function of the measurement environment :-).
Sound engineer here, they are just different, usb for portability and do RTA since I do not any alignment on the venues, and the xlr one for when I need to do a system alignment, I love the UMIK1 for that is just so simple to use and the noise floor is so low, and then for alignment I user whatever the contractor or venue have at hand, honestly idk why so much hate can complaining for a tool that was not design for that use case.
so you would say the umk1 would be good beginner one for measure my hifi speakers and headphones or is the cheap Behringer ECM8000 enough? hm but then I need a sound interface and a notebook in my living room
Very informative. It would have been interesting to compare the acoustic timing reference to the loopback reference to see how accurate the acoustic ref is.
If you tick "Adjust clock with acoustic reference" option in preferences - a recent addition to REW - it will compensate for clock differences between the input and output by adding a reference timing signal at the end of the sweep. This will take care of "most" of the clocking deviations inherent to USB mics.
I own an ECM8000 - in bottom line I need to see the behavior of the speaker, what you should it proves that in my case the cheaper the better.
small tip - take a cheap microphone - measure a speaker with it and with expensive mic then use the expensive mic - to prepare a calibration file for the cheap one .
now you can use you cheap mic like the expensive one :D
This is what I'm planning on doing.
Thanks for the informative test. I didn't know calibration mics need to be replaced every 5 years. I make so many measurements, I usually break them before that though :)
You need a new calibration file, not a new mic. Although, I don’t know any company that calibrates mics as a service.
@@AudioJudgement Awesome video besides the matter of Interface selection. Isn't that most important specifically when going for XLR Microphone and the one that does 5hz-30khz. Because if the frequency response of Interface not being flat would negate the benefit of XLR Mic being absolutely flat in response.
Please look into Audio Interfaces and make video on that as well. Which is absolutely flat and is the best.
@@KING_DRANZERYou have to calibrate the interface separately. Just use the loop cable and recalibrate as needed. No need to have a perfectly flat interface. I’d be more concerned with other features.
You don't need to do that. They're just trying to make you a "subscription" customer.
Isn't the Behringer microphone a diffuse field microphone? If so, wouldn't the high frequency buildup be justified?
Interesting Video, well done. and i want to take a minute to point out the high Production Quality of your Videos in general, as well as the lighting concept in particular. Someone has done some reserch about Teal and orange lighting and complementary colours, you did a very good job on that one, i highly appreciate that! ❤
Great info . extra info ,make sure you dont enable hardware monitor and you are sticking phantom power up the output jack by using an XLR to RTS loopback cable (unless you can turn off 48v on ch2) its best use the line input jack to output jack)
Very informative video. I would just like to add. I bought a Bheringer emc-8000 test mic about 15 years ago. Although it was not a calibrated mike I was able to download a generic calibration curve for it that basically boosted its bass and treble. It seemed to work well enough for my purposes.
😢
Behringer mic has a calibration file on the website, not perfect as it is a generic for all ECM800 mics, but would probably take it so much closer to your reference ???
Thanks for nice explanation of the timing reference problem with usb microphones
I got 3 Dayton UMM-6 mics for work. The difference between them from day1 was too much for professional work. They had deviatons in frequency response and noise floor around 3dB. I recommend Minidsp, or if you want accuracy in different measurement condition for long time, get B&K or Grass, which is also in my work office. But they are above 1000€, without amp.
That seems like a VERY high noise floor. It should be around -95 dB. Are you sure it wasn’t the setup or cables or something? I do agree that if you’re using multiple microphones at once they all need minimal variation if you’re only using one calibration file. For most people and many companies, a single calibrated mic even with
@@jtmcfarland3512 Hi. I tried every microphone with the same cable and same measurement program. REW. I’ve also used 3 different calibration file for each microphone. While playing constant noise, SPL values I measured was around 65 dB for 1 microphone, in the other It was 66.5 and other was 63.5. I corrected the other microphone by changing the calibration gile gains and eqs myself. There was a little bit bigger difference in the Noise floor.
@@AliBekirKlckaya That’s interesting. I don’t remember REW having an option to calibrate SPL separately for each input. Separately adjusting gains to match for each input device would be necessary and is recommended by multiple manufacturers. For the types of uses in this RUclips channel, we’re generally not concerned with absolute dB and really only need relative dB data. Likewise, noise floor really isn’t an issue for our purposes either as long as it’s not ridiculously high. Our measurements are ideally taken at 80 dB, so even a 30 dB noise floor is easily filtered out since dB is not a linear scale. YMMV
@@jtmcfarland3512 I calibrated each calibration file by using one at a time, from the same position. It should be noted that as the noise floor changes, the distortion graph in the lowest levels changes as well. Its like you cant measure below 0.2 percent distortion because of the higher noise floor in one microphone compared to other. Yes, dB relative data would be unfeffected. However, I’ve noticed frequency response difference up to 3 dB between microphones. Especially around higher frequencies, such as 9,-15kHz. I can provide the calibration file number of each microphone. .UMM 6 microphones are good for average consumers. But I’m a loudspeaker tuning guy, and tuning 3dB off will sometimes makes or breaks the speaker in the eyes of reviewers nowadays..
@@AliBekirKlckaya You’re clearly working on higher accuracy stuff than me, but my noise floor is currently around -35 dB (not great, but usable). With measurements at 80 dB that’s a 115 dB difference. That means even a 3 dB variation in my noise floor only shows up as a teeny tiny fraction of a dB at my measurement level. (110 is 10^11 times louder than the floor)
3 dB from 0-3 is not the same as 3 dB from 100-103. Very different.
Since DIY xovers are ultimately tuned by ear anyhow what difference does the accuracy of the mic really make? The final sound is going to be adjusted to taste/room no matter how accurate the mic is. You're going to end up with the same xover topology no matter the mic. Only with a poor mic you will need to tweak the component values by ear. I think for most DIY'ers any of these mics can get the job done.
Informative video !! Might any of the differences in the FF frequency response measurements be due to differing mic patterns (sidelobes, backlobes) picking up room reflections ? Did the NF measurements show similar FR differences?
yes, a valid point.. in 'uncontrolled conditions' at such high frequencies the wavelengths are so small that everything counts, from exact positioning of the equipment to even the position of the person doing the measurements..
that being said, for all practical reasons super accurate measurements of the high fqs are not needed since healthy ppl over the age of adolescence can't hear much of the second half of last octave plus there's v little acoustic information there anyways :)
I think this is good reference information, as I plan test and development on audio products. Not aware that mic need to calibrate each 5 years, mmm. Thank you.
That tiny difference between the old and new microphone is likely a tiny deviation in placement.
Why I hate non USB microphones: I can't be bothered to calibrate it
Great vid! Just measured my first own build. Big Floorstanding 3 way. After following your course on udemy. Except my emm6 is probably like 10 years old 😂
Maybe need to recalibrate it.
If, with acoustic reference, a measurement is made of the frequency response in (let's say) the drivers of a two-way speaker (the measurement is made to be used when simulating crossover filters with e.g. Vituixcad).
Can the frequency responses be used directly, or are there additional steps that must be performed after the measurement, for example on the impulse response?
By the way, it would be very helpful if you make a video about measuring with acoustic reference. This seems to be something that is misunderstood by a lot of people and for me and many others, REW's manual is not very helpful.
Thank you in advance.
If the port is on the rear, it certainly seems he should be adding an offset. I’m a little confused about this method.
Hey, nice video. I'm planning to buy the dayton emm-6 to replace my old ecm8000 i used with a generic cal file. On the forums they say that the factory cal file that dayton provides is unusable. If thats the case, I may just stay with my old mic. Whats your opinion on that? Did you used the manufacturer provided cal file for this video? It looks good for me. Thanks.
Do you know if Audient ID4 (Mk1) can be used in the same way for loopback timing reference using similar analogue cable?
I would greatly appreciate your advice as I am confused and cannot figure it out.
good work
Hello, we are asking for a course on udemy from the latest rew and vituixcad
I do have in plan to make a complete overhaul of my courses, But it will take some time.
👍👍👍
Nice job on your video. What measurement software are you using?
Room EQ Wizard
Hahah I've bought years ago umic mic as my first thing after listened bloggers . A week after sold it as realized time alignment was impossible. Most other yappers kindly keep the mouse shut. Scott was good btw and his writing.
Thank you for the good lessons and an open mind. :)
can someone explain what's with the tiny cow from the desk? :D
can anyone guide on how make a proper polar measurement with Daytons Omnimic Polar plotter?How to assign angles?thanks
Wow, is there some tutorial online than can help out with the USB mic 'mumbo jumbo? Great video
I saw that beheinger now offers the calibration file for downloading. In that case will it do the job?
Interesting. It seems that's a generic calibration file. One that fixes some major response flaws that every behringer mic has. However, a true calibration file is made specifically for your mic. And you need to download a calibration file based on your mic's serial number.
Hello , please tell me , after you make changes and additions to your courses , will they be presented as a separate course , will they completely replace the old course , or will there be several courses on the same topic old and updated ? I want to buy your courses and I would like to understand when they will be updated )
Hello! It will be one large course to replace 4 of my old courses. It will be finished in 6-12 months
as shown in 6:32. i think we can connect one of 3.5mm output (Left channel or Right channel) to 3.5mm mic input (of the same) may be with some resistor in series. and we can use that for "use loop-back for timing reference" with USB mic.
Like you made zig for measuring T/S parameters using sound card and REW.
Makes sense. He seems to imply that doesn’t work by suggesting an audio interface is better. I’d be curious to know more too.
Is behringger mic that bad ?
I don’t remember anything about loopback in the Udemy 202 lessons. Does this option negate the IR Window section? Can the same results from the tests in this video be found with the methods in the lessons or is this a better update?
Yes, the udemy course needs an update, as there is no mention of the loop-back. All the measurements in the course are valid with the single exception of nearfield measurements of ported enclosures (where a loopback is necessary). I'm currently working on a new updated course (complete overhaul), but it will take several months until it's finished.
This is great info. It seems there’s not only a delay in the port resonance (which seems to be solved by the loopback method), but there’s also an acoustical offset as well as unique baffle diffraction which will change depending on the location of the port relative to the driver. 😅
Great video. 👍
Maybe someone can help me. What exactly is meant by a stereo when it says the output is X volts and 10k ohms?
So the output impedance is 10,000 ohms or does whatever I plug it into need to have a 10k load on it? I'm having trouble understanding that.
I was using my xlr phantom power unit with an rca adaptor to measure a head units frequency response by playing pink noise. Some headunits have flat output, some have a noticeable curve to it. I think I need to add some resistance maybe. If any guru's can help me out, I'd sure appreciate it.
Late to the party, interesting that no-one seemed to be able to answer. The essence of the spec is that the specified frequency response and tolerance will be optimal at a load of 10k, typically a lower impedance load will cause a premature roll-off of the bass as the output amp impedance and DC blocking capacitor network acts as a HPF. Generally though higher impedance loads will have negligible effect on frequency response.
is the UMM-6 good mic
Any idea on the frequency response of the UMIK-2? I’d like to measure down to 10hz but really don’t want to spend the $500 for the Earthworks.
Couldn't find information regarding umik-2 frequency response. Maybe send minidsp an e-mail. Let us know as well if you find out.
@@AudioJudgement The email response was this:
“UMIK-2 calibrated response is 10Hz to 20kHz.”
(Link to owners manual that I am omitting in this quote) “please read for more details.
Maybe the next step would be to read a bit details from the manuals/product datasheet so you can learn a bit more about our products? We'd be happy to help answer any questions you may have.”
“Hoping this info helps and feel free to contact us if you have further questions.”
So, they are saying 10 HZ to 20 KHZ, but I see no documentation of that in the user manual or any of the links or charts anywhere in their documentation. By pointing me to the user manual one might expect to see those numbers listed somewhere or perhaps a chart in REW but I had already read that and the data sheet before emailing. This time I checked the link on Home Theater Calibration, found in the user manual, and read through the docs at that link. Still, I would like to see it in print but they claim in their email it is calibrated to measure down to 10 HZ.
It's most likely true. When I googled for this spec I saw a graph comparing the response of UMIK-1 and UMIK-2. The range of 10-20 Hz of the UMIK-1 rolls off quite significantly compared to UMIK-2. My guess is that UMIK-2 does have an extended frequency response and you should buy it if you want an affordable mic that can measure below 20 Hz.
@@williamhicks2763Open the calibration file as text. Please let us know what the min and max frequencies are. I assume there are some zeros and not only values for non-zero offsets. Idk.
@@jtmcfarland3512 I will when I get it. I saw I could save a few dollars by ordering directly from miniDSP and then realized it was being shipped from Hong Kong. I guess that I can let you know if it ever gets here. Three days after the order the status only says “Confirmed.”
'xlr needs phantom power to work'
Maybe for your application; but far from the general truth. Needless misinformation
Did you steal the mic?😆