Dayton Audio EMM-6 as good as UMIK-1 for someone who already has an audio interface?

[staticV3]

I may try do some measurements in cardiod mode too and compare.

Tbh, the SC 1100 with its large diaphragm and multiple polar patterns is just really not suited to measurement work.

For gathering usable data on a budget, the Primo EM258 has served me very well: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/.../could-use-some-101-advice.45592/post-1626833

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yes I first thought that too...
But then I also realized this as well:



Beats me too, especially since the other two graphs don't have that...
I may try do some measurements in cardiod mode too and compare.

Thanks for the reply.

Would help if they took 2 seconds to clearly label their graphs. Usually in a directional mike you might see two curves at and below 200 hz or so with the lower frequencies boosted by proximity effect for up close response. Looking at some graphs for their single pattern microphones I think that is what the blue line is about. The two lower lines I think are with and without the low cut filter engaged. Don't know why they would have the blue line for their omni. In any case I'd use the flattest line for omni ignoring the one with the filter in and the elevated blue line. So the red line ignoring the blue and orange lines.

You see in the graphs the blue line is more elevated for figure-8, less so for cardioid and least for omni which is what you'd expect for proximity effects.

 

[bgravato]

Tbh, the SC 1100 with its large diaphragm and multiple polar patterns is just really not suited to measurement work.

For gathering usable data on a budget, the Primo EM258 has served me very well: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/.../could-use-some-101-advice.45592/post-1626833

I know the SC-1100 is the best for measurements, but it's just a matter of using what I have.
Apparently even measurement mics with calibration files provided by the manufacturer aren't that accurate either, so I rather use what I have.
For my use cases accuracy isn't of the most utter importance, but if I can make it a slightly bit more accurate it won't hurt

Thanks for the suggestion on the mic. I've put it on my shortlist of models to consider if I ever decide to buy one.

 

[bgravato]

Would help if they took 2 seconds to clearly label their graphs. Usually in a directional mike you might see two curves at and below 200 hz or so with the lower frequencies boosted by proximity effect for up close response. Looking at some graphs for their single pattern microphones I think that is what the blue line is about. The two lower lines I think are with and without the low cut filter engaged.

Ah yes the low cut filter, that must be it! I pretty much never use it, so I totally forgot it was there... but it makes total sense that's what the lower line is for.
Mistery solved!

Don't know why they would have the blue line for their omni. In any case I'd use the flattest line for omni ignoring the one with the filter in and the elevated blue line. So the red line ignoring the blue and orange lines.

You see in the graphs the blue line is more elevated for figure-8, less so for cardioid and least for omni which is what you'd expect for proximity effects.

I see. I need to read more about it the proximity effect.
At what distances do you think that proximity effect comes into play?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Good explanation and illustration of proximity effect. The exact distance varies a bit with design and diaphragm size. Typically significant at 300 hz or less. It is why radio announcers have this deep voice when they talk into the microphone from an inch away.

Proximity effect in microphones explained

Proximity is when a microphone produces more bass by getting closer to the sound source (a point - or line source). This article takes you through some of the basics of proximity – and introduces a more advanced perspective on the phenomenon.

www.dpamicrophones.com

The blue line with the omni is probably kind of proximity. True omni's don't have proximity effect. Those multi-pattern mikes Are actually a pair of cardioids back to back. In phase is an omni. Out of phase a figure 8. Just the front cardioid. With two cardioids front to back for the omni pattern, those become nearly omni-directional at lower frequencies. So combining those actually causes a mild rise in low frequencies.

 

[bgravato]

Good explanation and illustration of proximity effect. The exact distance varies a bit with design and diaphragm size. Typically significant at 300 hz or less. It is why radio announcers have this deep voice when they talk into the microphone from an inch away.

Proximity effect in microphones explained

Proximity is when a microphone produces more bass by getting closer to the sound source (a point - or line source). This article takes you through some of the basics of proximity – and introduces a more advanced perspective on the phenomenon.

www.dpamicrophones.com

The blue line with the omni is probably kind of proximity. True omni's don't have proximity effect. Those multi-pattern mikes Are actually a pair of cardioids back to back. In phase is an omni. Out of phase a figure 8. Just the front cardioid. With two cardioids front to back for the omni pattern, those become nearly omni-directional at lower frequencies. So combining those actually causes a mild rise in low frequencies.

That makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification and link!

 

[dasdoing]

Proximity effect in microphones explained​

Proximity is when a microphone produces more bass by getting closer to the sound source (a point - or line source). This article takes you through some of the basics of proximity – and introduces a more advanced perspective on the phenomenon. www.dpamicrophones.com

So is a directional mic stable after 1m? I don't think so, else they could be used for in-room measurements and I never saw a measurement mic that wasn't omni

 

[Blumlein 88]

So is a directional mic stable after 1m? I don't think so, else they could be used for in-room measurements and I never saw a measurement mic that wasn't omni

You can use any microphone for measurements. Taking into account various factors it has more or less utility. I have in fact made measures with a large diaphragm omni vs small diaphragm measurement omni, and there is little difference. I've made measures with a cardioid and those are okay until about 200 hz. So using the mic you have has usefulness as long as you know its limitations. And yes, beyond the range of proximity effect you'll get repeatable reliable measures with a directional microphone. I assume that is what you mean by stable after 1 meter. Down where we care the most, below the Schroeder frequency for a room, almost any omni is fine large or small with or without a cal file.

 

[sam_adams]

Since you have a Motu M2, consider the purchase of a measurement mic that can be used with that interface. The Audix TM1/TM1PLUS or a slightly higher-end product like the Earthworks m23. Both are excellent mics that will serve you well.

 

[bgravato]

Since you have a Motu M2, consider the purchase of a measurement mic that can be used with that interface. The Audix TM1/TM1PLUS or a slightly higher-end product like the Earthworks m23. Both are excellent mics that will serve you well

Those are totally out of my budget... Besides it seems to be US brands and I'm in Europe, so definitely not a viable option for me... But thanks for the suggestion...

 

[bgravato]

You can use any microphone for measurements. Taking into account various factors it has more or less utility. I have in fact made measures with a large diaphragm omni vs small diaphragm measurement omni, and there is little difference. I've made measures with a cardioid and those are okay until about 200 hz. So using the mic you have has usefulness as long as you know its limitations. And yes, beyond the range of proximity effect you'll get repeatable reliable measures with a directional microphone. I assume that is what you mean by stable after 1 meter. Down where we care the most, below the Schroeder frequency for a room, almost any omni is fine large or small with or without a cal file.

Exactly! For now, I don't care much if it's 100% accurate... I just want to see if there's differences between different set ups... (different speaker/mic positions, or between different speakers, or adding some improvised room treatment and see what changes, etc...).

With my mic I can get fairly consistent frequency measurements over 30-40Hz (depending on which speakers I'm using), all the way up to 20-25kHz.
I can see changes (consistently) if I change speaker position or mic position.
I can see clear differences in freq. response between different speakers.
I can even calculate the distance of where the main reflections happen and see some disappear when I hang a blanket on wall.
I can also confirm there's little to no difference between 2 different DACs.

Some people here seem to fail to understand that I'm not trying to build a audio certification lab at home... nor that I'm not willing to spend a lot of money on a fancy measurement mic. I'm just experimenting with REW and trying to understand how things work for now.

@Blumlein 88 thanks for baring with me and for all your patience and valuable tips!

I borrowed some mics from a friend and I'm going to do some measurements with them tomorrow... curious to see how big of a difference I'll see (in frequency response) between those mics...
And... for the despair of those obsessed with accurate measurements... neither of those is a measurement mic! (I got a ribbon, a LDC cardioid and a dynamic one).
It'll be a wild mic party!

 

[Sam Ash]

So the question remains, is the Dayton Audio EMM-6 as good as the UMIK-1?

Dayton Audio may have resolved all known issues by now. Any idea?

 

[bgravato]

I didn't buy any measurement mic yet, so I can't answer that yet...

Here's some graphs of my experiences with a few very different mics:

Frequency Response:

Distortion:

RT60:

My take on this is that regardless of the mic used, I could clearly see a trend of the characteristics of the speaker and the room acoustics (at least between 40 and 10.000 Hz).

Of course having a properly calibrated measurement mic is important for accurate measurements, but I'd say that even with a non-calibrated non-measurement mic you can get a rough idea of how bad reflections in the room are, which frequencies are more problematic, or how your speakers behave frequency wise.

So I guess it all depends on what are your trying to achieve/measure. Does it really need to be that accurate?

 

[voltronic]

So the question remains, is the Dayton Audio EMM-6 as good as the UMIK-1?

Dayton Audio may have resolved all known issues by now. Any idea?

I can't speak to the accuracy of its calibration, but I bought an EMM-6 recently and the results I've gotten using it with REW have been very good.

 

[Sam Ash]

I can't speak to the accuracy of its calibration, but I bought an EMM-6 recently and the results I've gotten using it with REW have been very good.

Thank you for sharing your experience @voltronic - any idea if they provide 90 degrees calibration files with each mic?

 

[voltronic]

Thank you for sharing your experience @voltronic - any idea if they provide 90 degrees calibration files with each mic?

They do not, but the custom calibrated ones sold by Cross Spectrum Labs (linked earlier by StaticV3) include 45 and 90 degree files.

Cross·Spectrum Labs - Sound | Vibration | Engineering

Based in East Longmeadow Massachusetts, Cross-Spectrum Labs provides acoustical consulting services including sound and vibration measurements, noise control, home theater design and litigation support

www.cross-spectrum.com

The question is, are those off-axis calibration files really needed? If you are measuring with the mic pointing straight up, then yes. Otherwise, I'm not so sure. Maybe folks more knowledgeable on this will chime in.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Looking at the 0 vs 90 degree files for my Umik 1 the difference doesn't reach .1 db until 1500 hz. Reaches .5 db at 3000 hz. At 4600 hz 1.0 db. Reaches 2 db at 8 khz. And 6 db at 20 khz. Given they are the same diaphragm size (both are 6 mm), you could probably could get a list of the differences and create your own 90 degree file. Most of this is decreased directionality off axis due to diaphragm size. I can send you the list if you wished to do that with a Dayton mic. Now maybe that won't translate perfectly, but I'd think you'll be within 1.00 db which is pretty close. And without any doubt you'd be much closer than doing nothing for 90 degrees.

If someone with a set of cal files for a Cross Spectrum Dayton would share them, you could make even better off axis adjustments to the basic on axis file Dayton provides.

EDIT to add:
I looked at more than one Umik cal file. Each one is different on axis which I already knew. The off axis change is identical for all of them. So they either measured a few and found that to be the case or perhaps are modifying it based upon a formula which they may also have found to be correct. So the bulk of this is directional changes from the diaphragm size. As the Datyon is the same size and appears to be in the same body using the Umik 90 degree adjustment would get you quite close with the Dayton.

 

[Sam Ash]

Looking at the 0 vs 90 degree files for my Umik 1 the difference doesn't reach .1 db until 1500 hz. Reaches .5 db at 3000 hz. At 4600 hz 1.0 db. Reaches 2 db at 8 khz. And 6 db at 20 khz. Given they are the same diaphragm size (both are 6 mm), you could probably could get a list of the differences and create your own 90 degree file. Most of this is decreased directionality off axis due to diaphragm size. I can send you the list if you wished to do that with a Dayton mic. Now maybe that won't translate perfectly, but I'd think you'll be within 1.00 db which is pretty close. And without any doubt you'd be much closer than doing nothing for 90 degrees.

If someone with a set of cal files for a Cross Spectrum Dayton would share them, you could make even better off axis adjustments to the basic on axis file Dayton provides.

EDIT to add:
I looked at more than one Umik cal file. Each one is different on axis which I already knew. The off axis change is identical for all of them. So they either measured a few and found that to be the case or perhaps are modifying it based upon a formula which they may also have found to be correct. So the bulk of this is directional changes from the diaphragm size. As the Datyon is the same size and appears to be in the same body using the Umik 90 degree adjustment would get you quite close with the Dayton.

@Blumlein 88 - that is a fantastic analysis, thank you so much. When you say 'on-axis' you mean 0 degrees and when you say 'off-axis' you mean 90 degrees. Is that correct?

You mentioned the difference between the 0 and 90 degrees on your UMIK-1 does not reach 0.1 dB until 1500 Hz which is interesting. I just opened the 90 degree cal file of my Umik-1 and have noticed that the correction between 22Hz and 1kHz is less than 0.6 dB.

 

[Blumlein 88]

@Blumlein 88 - that is a fantastic analysis, thank you so much. When you say 'on-axis' you mean 0 degrees and when you say 'off-axis' you mean 90 degrees. Is that correct?

You mentioned the difference between the 0 and 90 degrees on your UMIK-1 does not reach 0.1 dB until 1500 Hz which is interesting. I just opened the 90 degree cal file of my Umik-1 and have noticed that the correction between 22Hz and 1kHz is less than 0.6 dB.

Yes, on axis is 0 degree and off axis is 90 degree. I think Cross Spectrum also supplies a 45 degree off axis calibration.

In the few I've looked at there is no correction until a .001 db at 642 hz. It is .0311 db at 1002 hz. .0606 db at 1192 hz. The files I used were from Umiks from a few years ago. I didn't try some more recent ones, so perhaps there is some difference at different times of manufacture. Did you intend to type .06 db rather than .6 db?

 

[Sam Ash]

Yes, on axis is 0 degree and off axis is 90 degree. I think Cross Spectrum also supplies a 45 degree off axis calibration.

In the few I've looked at there is no correction until a .001 db at 642 hz. It is .0311 db at 1002 hz. .0606 db at 1192 hz. The files I used were from Umiks from a few years ago. I didn't try some more recent ones, so perhaps there is some difference at different times of manufacture. Did you intend to type .06 db rather than .6 db?

Thank you for the clarification. No, I checked my 90 degrees cal file and I meant to type 0.6 dB. I have attached it for you to have a look.