Are those curves the response or the calibraton correction?
The ECM-8000 is now the EMM-6 and comes calibrated
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Chuck got one of the 'good old' Behringers before they changed mic capsules. Mazeroth's looks better than many of the new ones though. Herb Singleton posted this pic of 40 Behringers he had calibrated. He said assembly QC seemed to have something to do with it. The HF peak varied with how far the mic capsule was pressed into the wand.
- Bottom
Comment
-
Well mine showed up, looks like I got #7, too bad they folded the paper right on the graph line. I still have the ECM-8000, I can run a sweep w/o a cal file loaded to see the difference in response.
I have a few questiosn about REW, what's the trick to stopping nasty reverb? I have a lot of hard surfaces in my room, when I placed the mic came within 4ft of the speaker, it went haywire. Also, when calibrating the mic and software to 75dB, which is most preferable to raise the dB, increase the mic gain, increase AVR volume, or increase output from the M-Pre? Thanks.
- Bottom
Comment
-
I have a few questiosn about REW, what's the trick to stopping nasty reverb? I have a lot of hard surfaces in my room, when I placed the mic came within 4ft of the speaker, it went haywire.- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dennis HAre you talking about a feedback squeal? If so, you need to disable monitoring of the mic input. Not sure how you do that with the M-Audio but nothing the mic picks up should be coming out of the speakers. The only output should be from wav files. Uncheck everything else in the output mixer.- Bottom
Comment
-
As well as source settings in the software mixer, many pro sound cards have a switch (either a button or a software switch) to allow direct analog monitoring of what the mic is picking up so you can listen to what you are recording with no A/D/A latency.- Bottom
Comment
-
The PE provided graphs get pretty choppy near the top end. Notice how the Kim G. cal files only correct for major trends and are quite smooth. My guess is that the Kim G. approach will be better in the end. I would guess that, just like in speaker design, correcting for each and every little dip or bump can be counterproductive and that only major trends should be actually corrected for in the cal file. Of course if the graph really is unique for each mic, and the response can be corrected with that level of detail, perhaps my gut feeling is wrong.
Anybody else know which is better: high rez cal file OR highly smoothed cal file?
-Chad- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by ch83575
Anybody else know which is better: high rez cal file OR highly smoothed cal file?
-Chad- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by chasw98I am not sure which is better but I prefer receiving an electronic cal file from Kim rather than SPL tracing my own. That is the only downfall of the new mics that I see. They could have included a small cd with the cal file on it but then cost would go up.
I would prefer one too, if for no other reason, how one would make it from this piece of paper completely escapes me! :huh:
CllessuR- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by CllessuRI would prefer one too, if for no other reason, how one would make it from this piece of paper completely escapes me!
IB subwoofer FAQ page
"Complicated equipment and light reflectors and various other items of hardware are enough, to my mind, to prevent the birdie from coming out." ...... Henri Cartier-Bresson- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by CupCak3I did not see anything on my mic (serial number or otherwise) which would identify it as unique or match it to the graph.
I'll gladly send my mic to someone for testing to verify the included graph does truly belong with the mic if any able person is interested.
Offer is good for the first person to respond. Go to the site in my username, and go to the "Contact" tab to email me directly and I'll tell you where to ship the mic.
edit: scratch the "first come, first served," if there are multiple people with EMM-6s who would like a free cal, go ahead and contact me. I''d like to get a few good samples.- Bottom
Comment
-
sent u an email per your instructions above. Email c...250 please pm me if you didnt receive it.- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by anechoicIf you (or anyone else) wants to send me an EMM-6, I'll test it for free. I'd like to see what I'm up against.
Offer is good for the first person to respond. Go to the site in my username, and go to the "Contact" tab to email me directly and I'll tell you where to ship the mic.
edit: scratch the "first come, first served," if there are multiple people with EMM-6s who would like a free cal, go ahead and contact me. I''d like to get a few good samples.
Edit: I'm guessing that PE OEM'd them from Superlux, just like Behringer, but they spec'd a bit of EQ to flatten out the high frequencies.- Bottom
Comment
-
SoundOfNothing: I responded to your email (PM me if you didn't get the response).
Dennis H: I looked into getting wholesale pricing on the ECM8000 from a few vendors including PE and you can't get any kind of decent discount for less than hundreds of units. I got a quote directly from an Asian OEM and the shipping costs basically eat up any discount at the quantities I deal in.
The actual performance of the raw mic isn't all that important as long as you have a correction curve. The place I go now has a warehouse close to me which means I can get units next day without paying express shipping charges and it seems to be the best deal I've been able to find.
Quite frankly, I'll admit that I can't beat the Dayton pricing. If it's the real deal, I'm giving up the mic party of my business. I am curious as to how they actually do their testing though.- Bottom
Comment
-
You get what you pay for. Save $30 and get a paper calibration curve that you have to trace and isn't as accurate. Spend a little more, and you can get a calibration file on a CD. Pretty simple.- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by ---k---You get what you pay for. Save $30 and get a paper calibration curve that you have to trace and isn't as accurate. Spend a little more, and you can get a calibration file on a CD. Pretty simple.
CllessuR- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by anechoicQuite frankly, I'll admit that I can't beat the Dayton pricing. If it's the real deal, I'm giving up the mic party of my business. I am curious as to how they actually do their testing though.- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dennis HI wouldn't quit selling calibrated mics although these may cut into sales. Some people are still going to want an independent calibration that goes higher and lower than the Dayton curve and has better resolution than the .2dB or so the paper graph appears to have.
I need to get my hand on a few units to see what's going on. Once I've seen the data I'll be better able to figure out what I need to do.
*warning: shameless self-promotion ahead*
In the meanwhile I am offering a discounted rate ($5-$10 off) on calibrated ECM8000's to compensate for slow shipping caused by supply problems.- Bottom
Comment
-
SoundOfNothing's EMM-6 arrived via FedEx today.
Here's the data sheet that came with the mic:
Image not available
Here's the factory curve plotted on the same graph with my measurements (0-deg and 90-deg).
Image not available​
There's another EMM-6 on it's way, so I'm going to withhold comment for now (unless people have questions).
SoundOfNothing, I'll email you the data later tonight and ship the mic to you tomorrow.
edit: Full Disclosure just in case someone doesn't know - I sell a competing calibrated mic and mic calibration service so feel free to look at my results in that context.- Bottom
Comment
-
Looks like using SPLtrace or whatever to make a file from the factory
curve isnt going to be worth doing, assuming that one is representative
of course. 8O Hopefully this will at least be the same quality as the Behringer unit. I think PE has a 30 day return policy if it turns out to be less quality,
or am I freaking out for nothing if i have a cal file from Kim as was recommended to me? :B
CllessuR- Bottom
Comment
-
SoundOfNothing's EMM-6 arrived via FedEx today.
Here's the data sheet that came with the mic:
Image not available
Here's the factory curve plotted on the same graph with my measurements (0-deg and 90-deg).
Image not available​
There's another EMM-6 on it's way, so I'm going to withhold comment for now (unless people have questions).
SoundOfNothing, I'll email you the data later tonight and ship the mic to you tomorrow.
edit: Full Disclosure just in case someone doesn't know - I sell a competing calibrated mic and mic calibration service so feel free to look at my results in that context.
Hi Herb,
It sure looks a lot like the response you measured on my ECM8000 late last year
- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Hi Herb:
Feel free to post my (significantly different) ECM8000 too, so folks can see the range of responses (mine's a couple years old).
Obviously the piece of paper in the box is no substitute for actual calibration . . .- Bottom
Comment
-
I've mentioned this over on Home Theater Shack but it might be worth mentioning here. I think that one of the biggest contributors to unit-to-unit variation among the ECM8000-type microphones is the position of the mic capsule in in the mic body. If you take one apart you'll find that the mic capsule is friction-fit into the mic body and is not always at the tip of the body as it (presumably) should be. When I measure mics with wildly different high-frequency responses, I can generally see that the mic capsules have visually different positions in the body. When the responses look similar, the position looks similar.
I'm starting to wonder if jostling during shipping might be the cause of the difference mic response between what Dayton provided and what I got for the one (and I stress, one!) unit I measured. The one I got was shipped direct to me from PE and the packing was decent but when you shook the shipping box you could hear it rattling around. Similarly, when I get my ECM8000's there tends to be lots of rattle in the shipping box. I'm wondering if excessive rattle might be altering the position of the mic capsule in the mic body.
When I ship out my mics I try to make the box as tight as possible. What I need to do is ship a mic out to the west coast, have it shipped back to me and measure it again to see if this is something to be concerned about.- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by anechoicWhat I need to do is ship a mic out to the west coast, have it shipped back to me and measure it again to see if this is something to be concerned about.- Bottom
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Deward HastingsIs the flattening of response up to 10kHz (at 90 degrees) typical?
I wouldn't use the word "flattening" but the high-frequencies do drop off in the 90-degree orientation. If the mic doesn't have that 10 kHz bump (some don't, if I get a chance, I'll post some plots) you just get even more of a rolloff.- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by anechoicI updated the plot to include your mic.
I wouldn't use the word "flattening" but the high-frequencies do drop off in the 90-degree orientation. If the mic doesn't have that 10 kHz bump (some don't, if I get a chance, I'll post some plots) you just get even more of a rolloff.
So do you think ( I realize a small sample) this mic appears usable with a good calibration file. or do its limitations preclude it from serious use? At least as good/not as good as the Behringer that looks so similar?
Thanks,
CllessuR- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by CllessuRSo do you think ( I realize a small sample) this mic appears usable with a good calibration file. or do its limitations preclude it from serious use? At least as good/not as good as the Behringer that looks so similar?
Thanks,
CllessuR
Herb, what do you think?
PS
Herb,
By the way, I don't think you have anything to worry about. I realize it's only one sample, but I'll bet it is indicatative of the trend. I can't think of any way to add a serious test proceedure to the cost of the mic and get it to market cheaper than ECM8000s being sold without cal curves.- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by lhwidgetWith an accurate calibration file used to correct the mic's response, I think either is fine for serious DIY/hobby work, even general pro work.
Herb, what do you think?
Herb,
By the way, I don't think you have anything to worry about. I realize it's only one sample, but I'll bet it is indicatative of the trend. I can't think of any way to add a serious test proceedure to the cost of the mic and get it to market cheaper than ECM8000s being sold without cal curves.- Bottom
Comment
-
Okay, EMM-6 #2 has been processed.
The factory curve:
Image not available
Here's the factory curve vs my own measurements:
Image not available​
It's closer than the first sample but in my (obviously biased) opinion it's a bit off. Oh, and before I forget, when I made the plot for the first EMM-6 result I posted on Friday, I assumed that the factory graph started at 20 Hz - I was wrong, it starts at 25 Hz, so the factory data should be a little compressed horizontally vs what's there now (but to be honest it doesn't look all that different).
One thing that I do find curious is that the sensitivity of the factory measurements and my measurements are off by about 1 dB. I checked the mic using both of my acoustic calibrators (which in turn have been calibrated by different calibration labs) and got the same result.
So, that's my sample of 2 mics and you may all make of them what you may.
Now given the obvious bias involved here, if I was reading this post, two questions would immediately come to mind:
1. How do we know that this guy isn't lying to protect his profit margins? and
2. Even if he's not lying, how do we know his measurement procedure is any more accurate that Dayton's?
For question #1, I'm going to do the only thing I can think of - I am going to sign this message with my PE credential. I am a registered PE in MA which means I have ethical conduct standards to uphold. If it's shown that I've lied, one could bring a complaint to the board and if an investigation shows that I've violated ethical guidelines, my life very quickly becomes a living h3ll - I've worked on a number state and Federal noise control projects, and I'm an expert witness that has spent a lot of time around lawyers who have dug into every piece of work I've done. Getting kicked around by lawyers is not worth the money I make on my mics.
For question #2, we can look at how my measurements compare against the big boys. I have several professional measurement microphones that are regularly calibrated by 3rd-party NIST-traceable labs (usually Scantek as linked above). So let's look at what the NIST-traceable lab gets vs what I get.
One of my more top-of-the-line microphones is a BSWA MP201. Scantek has calibrated this a couple of time using an electrostatic actuator (to get the pressure response) and then applying a free-field correction per ANSI/IEC standards. One such result is shown below (I do have a more recent cal, but I can't find the plot right now. FWIW, the mic FR didn't change):
Image not available​
So I took the data points off that plot, measured the MP201 using my freefield method (which is basically the substitution method using another calibrated mic) and plotted a comparison:
Image not available​
No tricks, no adjustments, no massaging the data, that's what I got using the same software, hardware and scripts I use to generate curves for all the mics I sell. And yes, that discrepancy at 20 kHz has me a little bothered, but it could be caused by a number of issues including the mic mounting method, the free-field correction curve used by Scantek, etc. Le sigh. However both measurements are will within ANSI/IEC accuracy standards.
There you have it, I report, you decide
Herb Singleton, P.E.- Bottom
Comment
-
Okay, EMM-6 #2 has been processed.
The factory curve:
Image not available
Here's the factory curve vs my own measurements:
Image not available​
It's closer than the first sample but in my (obviously biased) opinion it's a bit off. Oh, and before I forget, when I made the plot for the first EMM-6 result I posted on Friday, I assumed that the factory graph started at 20 Hz - I was wrong, it starts at 25 Hz, so the factory data should be a little compressed horizontally vs what's there now (but to be honest it doesn't look all that different).
One thing that I do find curious is that the sensitivity of the factory measurements and my measurements are off by about 1 dB. I checked the mic using both of my acoustic calibrators (which in turn have been calibrated by different calibration labs) and got the same result.
So, that's my sample of 2 mics and you may all make of them what you may.
Now given the obvious bias involved here, if I was reading this post, two questions would immediately come to mind:
1. How do we know that this guy isn't lying to protect his profit margins? and
2. Even if he's not lying, how do we know his measurement procedure is any more accurate that Dayton's?
For question #1, I'm going to do the only thing I can think of - I am going to sign this message with my PE credential. I am a registered PE in MA which means I have ethical conduct standards to uphold. If it's shown that I've lied, one could bring a complaint to the board and if an investigation shows that I've violated ethical guidelines, my life very quickly becomes a living h3ll - I've worked on a number state and Federal noise control projects, and I'm an expert witness that has spent a lot of time around lawyers who have dug into every piece of work I've done. Getting kicked around by lawyers is not worth the money I make on my mics.
For question #2, we can look at how my measurements compare against the big boys. I have several professional measurement microphones that are regularly calibrated by 3rd-party NIST-traceable labs (usually Scantek as linked above). So let's look at what the NIST-traceable lab gets vs what I get.
One of my more top-of-the-line microphones is a BSWA MP201. Scantek has calibrated this a couple of time using an electrostatic actuator (to get the pressure response) and then applying a free-field correction per ANSI/IEC standards. One such result is shown below (I do have a more recent cal, but I can't find the plot right now. FWIW, the mic FR didn't change):
Image not available​
So I took the data points off that plot, measured the MP201 using my freefield method (which is basically the substitution method using another calibrated mic) and plotted a comparison:
Image not available​
No tricks, no adjustments, no massaging the data, that's what I got using the same software, hardware and scripts I use to generate curves for all the mics I sell. And yes, that discrepancy at 20 kHz has me a little bothered, but it could be caused by a number of issues including the mic mounting method, the free-field correction curve used by Scantek, etc. Le sigh. However both measurements are will within ANSI/IEC accuracy standards.
There you have it, I report, you decide
Herb Singleton, P.E.
Putting doubts listed aside, let's look at it as though everyone knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're dead right. what does this say about the Dayton mic? Its on trial here, no ones doubting you....at least not me! ;x(
CllessuR- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by CllessuRwhat does this say about the Dayton mic?- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by CllessuRPutting doubts listed aside, let's look at it as though everyone knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're dead right. Its on trial here, no ones doubting you....at least not me! ;x(
But you most defiitely should doubt me. I doubt me at times.
what does this say about the Dayton mic?
That said, the Dayton is a pretty decent mic. Certainly the low-frequency response below 100 Hz of the two mics I measured is much better than the typical ECM8000 that I see. If someone wanted to spend $50 and only $50 on a mic, I'd recommend the EMM-6 over the ECM8000 in a hearbeat. However I expect that if someone is buying the EMM-6 thinking they will be able to account for the FR of the mic, they may wind up disappointed.- Bottom
Comment
-
Anechoic and Deward Hastings,
Thank you for the responses, much appreciated. You have told me all I need to know. This little mic will do the job I want, so I wont end this one back. I just need to buy a calibration file for my mic, and I'm good for my purposes.
Thanks,
CllessuR- Bottom
Comment
-
Originally posted by Deward HastingsIt says it's that the EMM-6 is essentially the same as the ECM8000 with a worthless piece of paper in the box. Either one is fine if you get it calibrated . . .
Thankyou, that's good enough for what I need, you summed it up nicely with no BS! :T
CllessuR- Bottom
Comment
Comment