Behringer ECM8000 calibration file

[Urbanized]

I am planning to buy the Behringer ECM8000 to measure room acoustics (music production). A calibration file can be downloaded from the Behringer website. But is such a file useful if the microphones are not identical in terms of frequency curves from the factory?

If that is indeed the case, could the Sonarworks measurement mic be a more reliable option?

 

[KikoKentaurus]

I can't provide you with the file, but I saw once the image where was shown a difference between a massive amount of these microphones layered. About 100 ECM's showed unbelievable variation; I instantly thought about dumping my mic into a trash bin...

Completely no sense in getting a measurement microphone which does not have a specific calibration sheet and also measures extremely unreliable. So yeah - sonarworks would be a go to option here.

P.S. I've also read that Line Audio CM4 showed very constant frequency response and were used by DIY audio enthusiast as a reference. Check it on groupdiy, user named "kingkorg" talked about it.

 

[fpitas]

Do yourself a favor, get a decently calibrated microphone: https://www.cross-spectrum.com/

 

[dualazmak]

Recently I could cross-calibrate my "specially selected in 2008" ECM8000 in reference to calibrated Earthwork M50. If you would be interested, please visit my post here #831 on my project thread.

 

[KikoKentaurus]

Nuff said

 

[dualazmak]

Nuff said

Yes, I also referred to the similar information in my post #831 on my project thread; you can find the cumulative info on 125 units of ECM8000 here;

 

[staticV3]

Akulap in Germany also sells individually calibrated ECM8000 mics:

Behringer ECM8000 calibrated

Behringer ECM8000 calibrated (Code: 7710) Zoom image Zoom image Zoom image Zoom image Old price: 0.00 EUR Price: 99.00 EUR Incl. 19 % TAX plus shipping Ask a qu...

www.akulap.de

 

[Daverz]

I bought a Behringer with calibration file from Audiovero.de when I bought Acourate:

Microphone - AudioVero

www.audiovero.de

The calibration file was then made available for download at a personalized link.

 

[Urbanized]

Recently I could cross-calibrate my "specially selected in 2008" ECM8000 in reference to calibrated Earthwork M50. If you would be interested, please visit my post here #831 on my project thread.

I have read it and it is far too complicated and I also need a second mic. Unfortunately, it is of little use to me.

 

[Urbanized]

Nuff said

Wow, that's pretty unreliable.

What I don't understand from Behringer is why did they make a calibration file available on their website if no two EMC8000s are the same? Do you think that the current ECM8000 has now been adapted and improved?

What about the Presonus PRM1 vs Sonarworks measurement microphone? They are both under the 100 Euro.

 

[Urbanized]

Yes, I also referred to the similar information in my post #831 on my project thread; you can find the cumulative info on 125 units of ECM8000 here;
View attachment 342080

I'll believe you if you've tested more than 1000 microphones .

By the way, what about reflections of sound (walls/ceiling etc) while measuring a microphone. Don't those false waves cause confusion? Or do you measure in an acoustically treated room?

 

[Urbanized]

Akulap in Germany also sells individually calibrated ECM8000 mics:

Behringer ECM8000 calibrated

Behringer ECM8000 calibrated (Code: 7710) Zoom image Zoom image Zoom image Zoom image Old price: 0.00 EUR Price: 99.00 EUR Incl. 19 % TAX plus shipping Ask a qu...

www.akulap.de

How reliable are they?

Unfortunately, I think the price is too much. Uncalibrated they cost 35 Euro (Thomann). For the price of 99 Euro there are other variants that sure are reliable. Behringer should have done it right when it put the microphone on the market. Once something gets a bad name it is difficult to get rid of it. They are probably lucky that many people are not aware. Fortunately I came across this website, because my choice is no longer this mic.

 

[Urbanized]

Anyway, the ECM8000 is not going to be it. Which of the following would you advise me:

- Sonarworks (€ 77)
- Presonus PRM1 (€ 89)
- Superlux ECM999 (€ 39) Don't know if it has a calibration file.

 

[DVDdoug]

A calibration file can be downloaded from the Behringer website. But is such a file useful if the microphones are not identical in terms of frequency curves from the factory?

I assume you give them the serial serial number and they send you a file for your particular mic. They should not be interchangeable.

By the way, what about reflections of sound (walls/ceiling etc) while measuring a microphone. Don't those false waves cause confusion?

Yes, but that's part of what you're trying to measure.

At high frequencies, you can get variations of several dB just by moving the mic a few inches. If you play high freqeuency test-tones you'll hear the same effect. (We don't usually notice it with regular music, and we are used to it.) Once I was doing some experiments with an SPL meter on a mic stand. I would hear the waves going in-and-out of phase as I moved around, but more surprising moving around behind the SPL meter would change the readings by a few (maybe several) dB.

...Be careful with loud high-frequency test tones... The tweeter in a 100W speaker can't handle 100W and our hearing drops-off at the highest audio frequencies. You can burn-out a tweeter with sounds that don't sound that loud, or sounds that you can't hear or sounds your tweeter can't reproduce.

You can make multiple measurements in different positions and average them (I'm pretty sure REW can automate the averaging). You shouldn't try to correct every-little wiggle.

Or do you measure in an acoustically treated room?

Before and after, if you can do the "before" measurement.

Most "room correction" is done at lower frequencies where the longer wavelengths give more consistent results, and less variation with small changes in listening position. And after you've corrected the gross errors, IMO - it's OK to EQ by ear.

 

[dualazmak]

I'll believe you if you've tested more than 1000 microphones .

By the way, what about reflections of sound (walls/ceiling etc) while measuring a microphone. Don't those false waves cause confusion? Or do you measure in an acoustically treated room?

My post here on my project thread would be of your interest and reference...
- Identification of sound reflecting plane/wall by strong excitation of SP unit and room acoustics: #498

As for the cross-calibration of my "specially selected" ECM8000 in reference to calibrated Earthwork M50 (ref. here), we measured the Fq response of both microphones in exactly the same room (studio) acoustic environments, and therefore any possible "room mode effect" was effectively canceled-out, I believe.

BTW these posts under the spoiler cover would be also of your interest and reference, I assume.

Spoiler

- Frequency response measurements by "cumulative white noise averaging": #392
- Where in my multichannel multi-driver (multi-way) multi-amplifier stereo system should I measure/check frequency (Fq) Responses? #393

- Frequency (Fq) responses in the completed system measured by using “cumulative white noise averaging method” under the present standard crossover configurations and relative gains_Part-1_Fq Responses in EKIO’s digital output level: #394
- Frequency (Fq) responses in the completed system measured by using “cumulative white noise averaging method” under the present standard crossover configurations and relative gains_Part-2_Fq Responses in DAC8PRO’s analog output level: #396
- Frequency (Fq) responses in the completed system measured by using “cumulative white noise averaging method” under the present standard crossover configurations and relative gains_Part-3_Fq Responses in amplifiers’ SP output level before protection capacitors: #401
- Frequency (Fq) responses in the completed system measured by using “cumulative white noise averaging method” under the present standard crossover configurations and relative gains_Part-4_Fq Responses in amplifiers’ SP output level after protection capacitors: #402
- Frequency (Fq) responses in the completed system measured by using “cumulative white noise averaging method” under the present standard crossover configurations and relative gains_Part-5_Fq Responses in actual SP room sound at listening position using one measurement microphone: #403
- Frequency (Fq) responses in the completed system measured by using “cumulative white noise averaging method” under the present standard crossover configurations and relative gains_Part-6_Summary, discussions, and a little step forward: #404, #405-#409
- Frequency response in the new (latest) configuration with four amplifiers plus active sub-woofers: #410
- Frequency response measured under subjectively best fine-tuned gain/volume settings with the four amplifiers plus active sub-woofers: #411

- Precision measurement and adjustment of time alignment for speaker (SP) units: Part-1_ Precision pulse wave matching method: #493
- Precision measurement and adjustment of time alignment for speaker (SP) units: Part-2_ Energy peak matching method: #494
- Precision measurement and adjustment of time alignment for speaker (SP) units: Part-3_ Precision single sine wave matching method in 0.1 msec accuracy: #504, #507

- Measurement of transient characteristics of Yamaha 30 cm woofer JA-3058 in sealed cabinet and Yamaha active sub-woofer YST-SW1000: #495, #497, #503, #507

If you would be interested, you can find here and here Hyperlink Index for the thread of my DSP-based multichannel multi-SP-driver multi-amplifier fully active audio project.

 

[Speedskater]

Over the decades, the Behringer ECM8000 has used completely different designs.

 

[morpheusX]

My ECM8000 was almost as accurate as my CSL Umik-1.
I measured both (tried to set them in the same exact position as much as i could), and they measured very similar:

 

[Urbanized]

I assume you give them the serial serial number and they send you a file for your particular mic. They should not be interchangeable.


Yes, but that's part of what you're trying to measure.

At high frequencies, you can get variations of several dB just by moving the mic a few inches. If you play high freqeuency test-tones you'll hear the same effect. (We don't usually notice it with regular music, and we are used to it.) Once I was doing some experiments with an SPL meter on a mic stand. I would hear the waves going in-and-out of phase as I moved around, but more surprising moving around behind the SPL meter would change the readings by a few (maybe several) dB.

...Be careful with loud high-frequency test tones... The tweeter in a 100W speaker can't handle 100W and our hearing drops-off at the highest audio frequencies. You can burn-out a tweeter with sounds that don't sound that loud, or sounds that you can't hear or sounds your tweeter can't reproduce.

You can make multiple measurements in different positions and average them (I'm pretty sure REW can automate the averaging). You shouldn't try to correct every-little wiggle.


Before and after, if you can do the "before" measurement.

Most "room correction" is done at lower frequencies where the longer wavelengths give more consistent results, and less variation with small changes in listening position. And after you've corrected the gross errors, IMO - it's OK to EQ by ear.

"you give them the serial serial number and they send you a file for your particular mic. They should not be interchangeable."

The file is downloadable without any serial number: https://www.behringer.com/behringer/search-results.html?brandName=behringer&queryStr=ecm8000

"Yes, but that's part of what you're trying to measure."

I mean measuring the freq response of a mic, not a room. Because it was said to have measured more than 1000 mics, reffering to dualazmak.

 

[Urbanized]

My post here on my project thread would be of your interest and reference...
- Identification of sound reflecting plane/wall by strong excitation of SP unit and room acoustics: #498

As for the cross-calibration of my "specially selected" ECM8000 in reference to calibrated Earthwork M50 (ref. here), we measured the Fq response of both microphones in exactly the same room (studio) acoustic environments, and therefore any possible "room mode effect" was effectively canceled-out, I believe.

BTW these posts under the spoiler cover would be also of your interest and reference, I assume.

Spoiler

- Frequency response measurements by "cumulative white noise averaging": #392
- Where in my multichannel multi-driver (multi-way) multi-amplifier stereo system should I measure/check frequency (Fq) Responses? #393

- Frequency (Fq) responses in the completed system measured by using “cumulative white noise averaging method” under the present standard crossover configurations and relative gains_Part-1_Fq Responses in EKIO’s digital output level: #394
- Frequency (Fq) responses in the completed system measured by using “cumulative white noise averaging method” under the present standard crossover configurations and relative gains_Part-2_Fq Responses in DAC8PRO’s analog output level: #396
- Frequency (Fq) responses in the completed system measured by using “cumulative white noise averaging method” under the present standard crossover configurations and relative gains_Part-3_Fq Responses in amplifiers’ SP output level before protection capacitors: #401
- Frequency (Fq) responses in the completed system measured by using “cumulative white noise averaging method” under the present standard crossover configurations and relative gains_Part-4_Fq Responses in amplifiers’ SP output level after protection capacitors: #402
- Frequency (Fq) responses in the completed system measured by using “cumulative white noise averaging method” under the present standard crossover configurations and relative gains_Part-5_Fq Responses in actual SP room sound at listening position using one measurement microphone: #403
- Frequency (Fq) responses in the completed system measured by using “cumulative white noise averaging method” under the present standard crossover configurations and relative gains_Part-6_Summary, discussions, and a little step forward: #404, #405-#409
- Frequency response in the new (latest) configuration with four amplifiers plus active sub-woofers: #410
- Frequency response measured under subjectively best fine-tuned gain/volume settings with the four amplifiers plus active sub-woofers: #411

- Precision measurement and adjustment of time alignment for speaker (SP) units: Part-1_ Precision pulse wave matching method: #493
- Precision measurement and adjustment of time alignment for speaker (SP) units: Part-2_ Energy peak matching method: #494
- Precision measurement and adjustment of time alignment for speaker (SP) units: Part-3_ Precision single sine wave matching method in 0.1 msec accuracy: #504, #507

- Measurement of transient characteristics of Yamaha 30 cm woofer JA-3058 in sealed cabinet and Yamaha active sub-woofer YST-SW1000: #495, #497, #503, #507

If you would be interested, you can find here and here Hyperlink Index for the thread of my DSP-based multichannel multi-SP-driver multi-amplifier fully active audio project.

Clear, I understand. Thank you.

 

[Urbanized]

UPDATE:

After further research on the internet and Facebook group for acoustics, opinions seem divided about the ECM800. It is said that the ECM8000 can be used for (non-scientific) work, in my case a home studio environment. Furthermore, it is said that the responses are mostly flat in the low end (which is where are the real problems are in untreated rooms).

So you see that 1 microphone gives different opinions.