Dayton Audio EMM-6 and the dubious calibration file

[dasdoing]

ever since this mic came out the calibration files was questioned, e.g.: http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php?34520-The-ECM-8000-is-now-the-EMM-6-and-comes-calibrated

whatever the accurancy is, this suggests the file is calibrated to anechoic conditions: https://mnaganov.github.io/2019/12/understanding-microphone-calibration.html

meaning that in a reverbarant room it will actualy meassure less HF than there realy is.
the artice suggest using it without the calibration.
I modified my file like this though:

original

the "anechoic fall" (= rise on a correction) seams to be visable above 6860-ish

So I created an eye-balled correction in wordpad:

and "convolved" (a times b) it with the original

finaly, since my sub/room has output down to 10Hz-ish I eyeball extended the rolloff (and guess-extended to 24Khz, too)

that LF extension makes a lot of sense in my meassurements since I have a resonance around 11Hz-ish which now looks much more like you would expect a resonance to look like


thoughts?

 

[mightycicadalord]

Part of me thinks it doesn't matter too much since as the guy in the linked article says at the end, you usually end up customizing the target anyways. I am curious though so I might measure my system again without the Dayton EMM6 cal and see how that compares to it being on.

What's your cal file say for the dayton? I've got two big ones at 17 and 18khz but I don't see correction in the cal file that would line up with the rise in your HF response.

 

[dasdoing]

Part of me thinks it doesn't matter too much

it doesn't, since the affected area is above the crucial mids...So if you hear "too much cymbals", you adjust, yea.
I still like the idea of having a (hopefully) more acurate graph.

What's your cal file say for the dayton?

my original cal is the first graph.
You thougt it was my meassurement, right?

So I am not sure if I get the folowing

I've got two big ones at 17 and 18khz but I don't see correction in the cal file that would line up with the rise in your HF response.

 

[mightycicadalord]

Oh well dang, that seems like you have some major corrections if those all just calibrations.

How does one plot this calibration file?

 

[dasdoing]

How does one plot this calibration file?

you can simply import them to rew as "frequency response".
would be intresting to see yours.
how old is yours?

 

[mightycicadalord]

you can simply import them to rew as "frequency response".
would be intresting to see yours.
how old is yours?

Oh wow it's that easy, of course.

I think my measurement mic is about 1.5 years old?

Here's my cal.

 

[dasdoing]

Oh wow it's that easy, of course.

I think my measurement mic is about 1.5 years old?

Here's my cal.

View attachment 186233

wow. so diferent from mine. mine was bought in 2019. your graph would suggest it is calibrated to difuse field or reverberant room, so should be good for in room meassurements. funny

 

[mightycicadalord]

I can't say I've had any off results with it. It does however have a way of telling me things I don't like, like how I don't like the Amiga speakers I made and will probably redesign the xover and swap the woofer...

 

[dasdoing]

I can't say I've had any off results with it. It does however have a way of telling me things I don't like, like how I don't like the Amiga speakers I made and will probably redesign the xover and swap the woofer...

we should swap the mics lol, as mine would be the one to use to meassure loudspeakers semi-anechoic.
funny to see the resonances kind of matching. can you share you cal (if you don't mind)? So I can overlay them

here is mine:

 

[dimezis]

Mine looks pretty much like yours and I also have some doubts that it's correct in high frequencies, at least based on what I'm hearing.