MiniDSP begins selling upgraded Umik-2 and 'Umik-X' array

[napilopez]

MiniDSP just sent a newsletter email detailing a fancier Umik-2 ($195) and Umik-X ($200). Hadn't seen it shared here yet.

The Umik-2 has a larger capsule with lower noise and distortion, which could make it better for measuring distortion and at high SPLs. It also supports more sample rates from 44kHz to 192 kHz. Could be handy as sometimes I come across sample rate issues with DSP speakers. It also, mercifully, uses USB-C instead of the godawful mini-USB I always feel is about to break.

That said, I wish MiniDSP provided a linearity graph. No clue how flat it actually is. A CSL-calibrated Umik-1 is still cheaper.

It also has a lower rated max SPL at 125dB vs 133dB, which is a bit disappointing as I was hoping it'd be able to handle higher SPLs. One issue I would often run into when doing quasi-anechoic spins is that I couldn't measure the woofer and/or port at the same SPL as my far-field measurement. It's part of the reason I typically do my speaker measurements at low 75 dB/1m; I have enough headroom to not change the volume when I place the mic against the low frequency units.


The Umik-X uses multiple MEMS microphones for multichannel measurements and seems to be primarily intended for quick and consistent room correction measurements.

Relatedly, REW now has a one-time Pro upgrade($99) that offers multi-channel measurements to start, with more to come later.

 

[daftcombo]

Thanks for the heads up.

But unless I miss something it basically does the same as v1 but for much more money.
Not worth it if you just plan to EQ out room modes or apply a house curve IMHO.

 

[Sancus]

$550 for the Umik-X with 8 microphones. Not cheap. So I guess the question is whether that has any benefits over using MMM with a single mic?

I would honestly like to buy the Umik-2 just to get USB-C if it is at least as accurate as a CSL umik-1

 

[Haint]

RTing rigs up an array of 16 UMIK-1's for their soundbar review measurements. I wonder how they interface that many with the software.

 

[TimVG]

Relatedly, REW now has a one-time Pro upgrade($99) that offers multi-channel measurements to start, with more to come later.

Where is this available?

 

[ernestcarl]

$550 for the Umik-X with 8 microphones. Not cheap. So I guess the question is whether that has any benefits over using MMM with a single mic?

I would honestly like to buy the Umik-2 just to get USB-C if it is at least as accurate as a CSL umik-1

It's easier to setup and will likely be more convenient -- esp. for people who calibrate for a living i.e. people who take hundreds of measurements. Also, since it's fixed in place, the high frequencies aren't going to change and will be more reliable than hand-holding the mic. You also get to keep phase information and a bunch of other stuff intact. With multiple seats and/or rows, more than one will be needed. From what I remember, pro rigs that are similar to this cost thousands.

 

[hardisj]

**Cross-posted from my other thread**

I received (2) pair of MiniDSP's new UMIK-X for review yesterday. This recently hit the market so for those who aren't up to speed on things, the UMIK-X is an arrayed microphone setup that is designed to provide an averaged response across its four corners.

This would make taking spatial averages or measuring in various seats a more reproducible, accurate and time-saving task compared to the standard moving mic method (MMM) or moving mic average (MMA). There are many uses for this kind of thing.

Some quick notes:
The cost is $550 for a pair of microphone arrays, a USB adapter and a license to REW Pro ($100 value; necessary to use REW with an array microphone). Each pair means you get (2) arrays. Each array has (4) microphones; one at each corner of the array. So each pair then comes with (8) total arrayed microphones. You also get (2) stands and extension poles to set them up however you desire. This means you can attach the pair together on a single fixture as I have shown below OR you can place each individual mic array at different locations. Ideal for measuring different locations such as different seats in a car, multiple seats in your home theater, or possibly even used in lieu of the "subwoofer crawl" (I'm going to test this idea). Or, you can simply pair multiples to provide a more distributed array in a single seated position. Or, you can simply pair multiples to provide a more distributed array in a single seated position. You can also just use the array without a stand, in which case it takes up less than 7x7 inches and is paper thin. As I said, there are many uses for something like this.

Four arrays can be combined for a total price of $750, netting you 16-channels of recording.

Not sure when I'll get the proper review completed but hopefully it will be soon. Make sure to subscribe to my YouTube page and click the notifications button because I'll be doing a YouTube video review rather than typing one up (easier to demo). Link: https://www.youtube.com/c/erinsaudiocorner

Until then, you can read more about the UMIK-X here: https://www.minidsp.com/products/acoustic-measurement/umik-x-multichannel-mic


Some photos:

Below is a photo of the 4 arrays I received, individually wrapped, with one of the arrays out of the packaging. You can see the single array here is quite small (6.25in x 7in) and practically paper thin.

Two arrays connected together. Again, these can be configured in pairs or you can mount a single array to the mic holder. Depends on what you're trying to measure.

Here are some photos of the USB converter box, where the mic arrays connect and are then sent via USB to your computer.

 

[richard12511]

Got my Umik-2 in a couple days ago. Spent all day today, and most of yesterday, dialing in my living room system using it. IMO, it's far better than the Umik-1, and well worth the upgrade. I was a little worried that the larger 1/2 inch capsule would mess with the high frequency extension, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Went back and forth several times with both MM and still mic and every time it was identical. Actually, the only real difference I could find was in the low frequency extension. The Umik-2 reports considerably less output below 20Hz.

No idea which is more accurate(or if either of them really are that low), but it's a difference I noticed.

By far the biggest difference between the two, and why I recommend it, is that the USB C connection is 84 times more secure and stable than the mini usb connection in the gen 1 mic. Umik-1 is fine for sweep measurements, but for MM measurements I find that it's almost impossible to to keep the cable and connection from jiggling around and causing huge clipping. To do a MM measurement with the Umik-1, I have to turn off "abort if excess clipping occurs", otherwise the measurement aborts the second the connection jiggles. Even with that setting turned off, I often end up with measurements that make no sense, like this

It also often reports the measurements at 140dB.

For me, the USB C connection on its own completely justifies the upgrade, and measurements seem near identical, other than the LF extension.

 

[napilopez]

Got my Umik-2 in a couple days ago. Spent all day today, and most of yesterday, dialing in my living room system using it. IMO, it's far better than the Umik-1, and well worth the upgrade. I was a little worried that the larger 1/2 inch capsule would mess with the high frequency extension, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Went back and forth several times with both MM and still mic and every time it was identical. Actually, the only real difference I could find was in the low frequency extension. The Umik-2 reports considerably less output below 20Hz.

View attachment 98902

No idea which is more accurate(or if either of them really are that low), but it's a difference I noticed.

By far the biggest difference between the two, and why I recommend it, is that the USB C connection is 84 times more secure and stable than the mini usb connection in the gen 1 mic. Umik-1 is fine for sweep measurements, but for MM measurements I find that it's almost impossible to to keep the cable and connection from jiggling around and causing huge clipping. To do a MM measurement with the Umik-1, I have to turn off "abort if excess clipping occurs", otherwise the measurement aborts the second the connection jiggles. Even with that setting turned off, I often end up with measurements that make no sense, like this

View attachment 98905

It also often reports the measurements at 140dB.

For me, the USB C connection on its own completely justifies the upgrade, and measurements seem near identical, other than the LF extension.

Thanks for sharing! You don't have a CSL calibrated Umik-1, do you? For me the main question is whether it's better than the CSLs. Still, I'm seriously thinking of getting it just for the USB-C..,.

 

[richard12511]

Thanks for sharing! You don't have a CSL calibrated Umik-1, do you? For me the main question is whether it's better than the CSLs. Still, I'm seriously thinking of getting it just for the USB-C..,.

No, I don’t.

 

[hege]

By far the biggest difference between the two, and why I recommend it, is that the USB C connection is 84 times more secure and stable than the mini usb connection in the gen 1 mic. Umik-1 is fine for sweep measurements, but for MM measurements I find that it's almost impossible to to keep the cable and connection from jiggling around and causing huge clipping.

Have you actually inserted the Umik-1 usb FULLY the to bottom? It requires considerable force to make it click. There's absolutely no jiggling or problems here, when it's inserted properly.

 

[PierreV]

Actually, the only real difference I could find was in the low frequency extension.

Wow. Thanks for posting this. If those different behaviors are confirmed on several microphones, that puts measurements and room EQ under a completely different light, firmly into the realm of technical placebo in at least one of the measurement scenario

 

[Blumlein 88]

There has to be a problem with one of the microphones. You need a third one to know which. I'm going to attach the measurements of 3 microphones. One is the standard Umik-1, one is an Avantaone CK-1 omni pencil condenser, one is a CAD M179 LDC set to omni. There are some differences at higher frequencies especially past 4 khz. However there just isn't much difference below 200 hz. Omni's should agree there more than anywhere.

For the Umik I used the supplied cal file. For the other two, I took published FR graphs by the manufacturer and created a cal file. They are in very fine agreement below 200 hz. I create these by doing a sweep with a speaker, and then putting the next microphone in the same exact position and repeating. I believe much of the variance at higher frequencies is the lack of precision in my placing of the microphone diaphragm.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Same graph with 1/24th smoothing. Still close below 200 hz.

 

[hege]

Wow. Thanks for posting this. If those different behaviors are confirmed on several microphones, that puts measurements and room EQ under a completely different light, firmly into the realm of technical placebo in at least one of the measurement scenario

It's known that UMIK-1 factory calibration isn't as good as it can be. Which is why many opt for CSL calibrated one etc.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Here I'm graphing a pair of Avantones, and a pair of CADs (bottom graphs). Just to show how consistent such things are made these days. The CAD's weren't even purchased at the same time. About 6 months apart. Not matched pairs just luck of the draw.

I done this with a dozen or so various mikes and this is normal.

 

[akarma]

It's known that UMIK-1 factory calibration isn't as good as it can be

It would be interesting to see real comparision.

 

[Blumlein 88]

What a dummy I am. I wasn't looking carefully. The difference in the Umik 1 and 2 was mostly below 20 hz. That probably is real. Might even be filtered on purpose at that point.

Shure mikes have a filter at 17 hz hi-pass. Just to filter out rumble and noise that can cause trouble, but isn't part of the music.

 

[PierreV]

What a dummy I am. I wasn't looking carefully. The difference in the Umik 1 and 2 was mostly below 20 hz. That probably is real. Might even be filtered on purpose at that point.

Shure mikes have a filter at 17 hz hi-pass. Just to filter out rumble and noise that can cause trouble, but isn't part of the music.

Ah, yes, same here. Assumed "standard" scale without looking. I am relieved

 

[thewas]

What a dummy I am. I wasn't looking carefully. The difference in the Umik 1 and 2 was mostly below 20 hz. That probably is real. Might even be filtered on purpose at that point.

I also read the plot wrongly thinking it was going to 20Khz the first time I saw it.