• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Umik 1 Vs umik 2

The Umik 1 does have some issues at low levels and distortion as measured. Is it enough to matter in terms of audibility? At best it would be borderline to say yes. OTOH, the Umik 2 is a larger capsule and will become a bit directional at higher frequencies. In this respect it is inferior to the Umik 1. I go with the Umik 1, the fact it is cheaper is a cherry on top.

Yes, as abdo123 says it might be better with the Umik 2 if you also wanted to record music with it.
Starting from which frequencies UMIK-1 lack of directionality has an advantage over UMIK-2?

For subs calibration - would UMIK-2 be better (so for example up to 350hz)?

Thanks
 
As is noted above, the smaller umik-1 capsule gives better omnidirectionality than umik-2.
Could you write a bit more about it in context of EQing a couple of subs up to 350hz? Would in this range lesser omnidirectionality of UMIK-2 be a factor or in that range the directionality would not be affected and different for either?
 
Starting from which frequencies UMIK-1 lack of directionality has an advantage over UMIK-2?
Here's each microphone's 90° off-axis response, referenced to on-axis:
Screenshot_20240721-183410_Chrome.png

For subs calibration - would UMIK-2 be better (so for example up to 350hz)?
I don't think so.
 
Here's each microphone's 90° off-axis response, referenced to on-axis:
View attachment 382215


I don't think so.
Thanks for prompt response.

The graph - I wonder how to read the way the measurement was taken. Was the microphone pointing the source of sound or was it in vertical position like for HT room EQ purposes with multiple speakers in the room?

And if it was not in vertical position - how would the graph look if it would? Would the differences be different? Like a quicker onset of rolloff?
 
Thanks for prompt response.

The graph - I wonder how to read the way the measurement was taken. Was the microphone pointing the source of sound or was it in vertical position like for HT room EQ purposes with multiple speakers in the room?

And if it was not in vertical position - how would the graph look if it would? Would the differences be different? Like a quicker onset of rolloff?
The graph shows the microphone's anechoic response of a sound source 90° off axis, relative to the same sound source directly on-axis.
 
The graph shows the microphone's anechoic response of a sound source 90° off axis, relative to the same sound source directly on-axis.
I understand that part but these mics come with 90' calibration files. So I wonder how is the directivity affected by applying 90' cal file and placing mic in vertical position. Hope you understand what I am asking.
 
I understand that part but these mics come with 90' calibration files. So I wonder how is the directivity affected by applying 90' cal file and placing mic in vertical position. Hope you understand what I am asking.
Not quite.

Directivity isn't affected by applying a cal file or by tilting the mic.

For in-room response measurements, the slightly narrower directivity of the UMIK-2 isn't really a factor I would say.
 
Where UMIK-2 would be better is by not having time drift problems of UMIK-1 (because of UMIK-2 internal clock).
I have a Umik-1 since 2015. It works well. I use Dirac DLBC for a 5.1 sytem with 2 subs. Would you recommand me to invest in a Umik-2? Would it help DLBC with Group delays optimization when clculating a filter?
 
I have a Umik-1 since 2015. It works well. I use Dirac DLBC for a 5.1 sytem with 2 subs. Would you recommand me to invest in a Umik-2? Would it help DLBC with Group delays optimization when clculating a filter?

I've been wondering about the same, haven't found an answer yet.

Also, instead of Umik-2, are there better alternatives? Beyerdynamic MM1 perhaps? With a small audio interface such as Zoom U-22?
 
My UMIK1 died recently for no apparent reason. It is still detected by PC, measures nothing, but if i tap the mic tube, there is some signal. I didn’t think it’s repairable, nor worth trying to repair.

I went on a hunt for a replacement. I’ve settled on a Topping E2x2 OTG with Superlux ECM999 microphone. Fantastic replacement. Much lower noise floor compared to my old UMIK measurements.

Total cost is about the same as one UMIK2. I gained more flexibility in having the E2x2OTG connected to my PC.
 
I've been wondering about the same, haven't found an answer yet.

Also, instead of Umik-2, are there better alternatives? Beyerdynamic MM1 perhaps? With a small audio interface such as Zoom U-22?
I've had trouble using non-minidsp mics with dirac's software. .02
 
I've had trouble using non-minidsp mics with dirac's software. .02

Would you care to elaborate? What sort of trouble? Calibration files, sensitivity/volume calibration before measurements, noise, distortion?
 
I wish I knew. Currently chasing an issue with Dirac live, and after using the Dayton microphone unsuccessfully, I was advised to try the umik.
 
Currently chasing an issue with Dirac live, and after using the Dayton microphone unsuccessfully

How does the failure manifest itself? Is Dirac unable to find the Dayton, or do you get the exclamation mark error during measurements, or are the measurement results wrong?
 
It's annoying because all the levels look fine, Dirac appears to record plenty of signal volume... then throws an error about signal to noise ratio. I think the mic is fine, but minidsp doesn't want to support non-minidsp mics for Dirac live
 
I have both the UMIK-1 and UMIK-2.
I have never done direct side by side comparison. I quite honestly find the differences between the two so minor that it's easy to confuse the two :D . I loaned the UMIK-2 to a friend and can't seem to get it back:mad:! I will try again to retrieve it, in the meantime here are some measurements of the UMIK-1 compared to a Nakamichi CM300 with CP-3 "super omnidirectional" capsule.

I made measurements of a speaker using the UMIK-1 at 1 meter, on-axis and 90 degree, with and without using the calibration file. I was careful to keep the microphone distance and setup the same for each run, better than 1cm or so.
1724603297453.png


The uncalibrated measurements (dotted traces) at 0 and 90 degrees are quite different above 4kHz, even more so above 10kHz. The solid traces are the measured response with the 0-degree and 90-degree calibration files applied to each configuration. The calibrated responses match for 0- and 90-degree configurations to better than 1dB. I can't say this is an accurate standard, but the two configurations match with good precision.

I have some old Nakamichi mics:
1724606682934.png

I made a calibration file for use with the CM300 / CP-3 combo. The CP-3 capsule is omni-directional. So is the CP-2 but with a larger capsule... Maybe at some point I will see how much difference the larger capsule makes.

Using the CM300 calibration file, I get results very close to the calibrated UMIK-1. The CM300/CP-3 requires more EQ above 10kHz to address the falling response, but less EQ from 4kHz to 10kHz.
1724606913806.png

The Nakamichi works well, and is intrinsically flatter in the 3kHz - 11kHz region even if it lacks high frequency extension. Not sure how much actual advantage this is. With calibration, both UMIK and CM300/CP-3 are within ~ 1dB.

I also tested the two mics nearfield with a woofer in a sealed box, no calibration files. I tried to get the mic position to within a few millimeters for both runs.
1724607882305.png


Both mics are equivalently useable. The Nakamichi has lower distortion measurement result. I'm not sure if this is due to noise. The UMIK-1 is a ~2x noisier than the Nakamichi setup, and the noise is similar magnitude to the distortion components I am measuring:
index.php


The Nakamichi CM300 / CP-3 is slightly behind the UMIK-1 in uncorrected frequency response above 10kHz. Flatter in mid frequencies. Within 1dB at low frequencies. With correction, both are nearly equivalent. The Nakamichi is lower noise. This may be useful in some circumstances. For most measurements, either will work fine. For some timing sensitive measurements, USB mics like the UMIK have issues.

I'll try to get my UMIK-2 back to compare. I also have a few other mics I can compare.
 

Attachments

  • 1724608508245.png
    1724608508245.png
    45.9 KB · Views: 684
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom