|
|
Post by millst on Apr 30, 2015 15:02:45 GMT -5
I don't particularly trust my old ECM8000 anymore so I sent out my EMM-1 for a calibration. Mine is within 2dB of socketman's until 14kHz, where the mic response is dropping off. It's only two data points, but gives some idea of the calibration tolerances. I threw together the attached graph at lunch. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by sandiway on Apr 30, 2015 15:32:54 GMT -5
How does it compare to Emotiva's calibration? Do you have a graph of that?
|
|
|
|
Post by usxplong on Apr 30, 2015 16:10:07 GMT -5
I purchased a UMIK-1 from another source and downloaded the 0 deg & 90 deg cal files from MiniDSP website based on my mics serial number.
It made a noticable difference comparing to Socketman's file the same way Socketman's cal file made a difference in good way from Emo's cal file.
|
|
|
|
Post by millst on Apr 30, 2015 16:18:49 GMT -5
I don't have the Emotiva one here. I'd have to grab it off the computer at home. It won't match up very well since it's not just a calibration file. Emotiva tweaked the parameters to come up with a house curve for Dirac LE. Somebody may have already posted a graph of it here.
-tm
|
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Apr 30, 2015 19:42:14 GMT -5
It seems even though some have found my calibration to be an improvement , your calibration shows just how wide the tolerances are of the EMM-1 so my file and Ansats math file may not work that well on other EMM-1's. Thanks for sharing. BTW I like my UMIK-1 with CS Cal much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandiway on Apr 30, 2015 20:12:06 GMT -5
Yes, the variation is worrying.
Hmm, maybe I should re-run using my CS UMIK-1.
Will Dirac Full accept the CS-supplied calibration file directly?
Thanks,
Sandiway
|
|
|
|
Post by millst on Apr 30, 2015 20:43:48 GMT -5
It seems even though some have found my calibration to be an improvement , your calibration shows just how wide the tolerances are of the EMM-1 so my file and Ansats math file may not work that well on other EMM-1's. Thanks for sharing. BTW I like my UMIK-1 with CS Cal much better. I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least a variation around 1 to 2, maybe even 3dB, for any two mics. I think some people at AVS have looked at the variation for other mics, perhaps even the UMIK-1, and found quite a variance (at least you get an individual cal for those). I'd bet the audyssey mics are worse than the EMM-1. The response is never going to be ruler flat so some deviation isn't a big deal. I wonder why you prefer the calibrated UMIK-1 over the calibrated EMM-1. I would have expected the same results from either one after calibrating. -tm |
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Apr 30, 2015 20:49:54 GMT -5
1 to 2 db well within most tolerances. I would not be worried at all that.
Tony
|
|
|
|
Post by socketman on Apr 30, 2015 21:45:43 GMT -5
It seems even though some have found my calibration to be an improvement , your calibration shows just how wide the tolerances are of the EMM-1 so my file and Ansats math file may not work that well on other EMM-1's. Thanks for sharing. BTW I like my UMIK-1 with CS Cal much better. I'd be surprised if there wasn't at least a variation around 1 to 2, maybe even 3dB, for any two mics. I think some people at AVS have looked at the variation for other mics, perhaps even the UMIK-1, and found quite a variance (at least you get an individual cal for those). I'd bet the audyssey mics are worse than the EMM-1. The response is never going to be ruler flat so some deviation isn't a big deal. I wonder why you prefer the calibrated UMIK-1 over the calibrated EMM-1. I would have expected the same results from either one after calibrating. -tm I cant really tell you why but to my ears the results are much better. I have run Dirac probly 30 plus times and I have it down to a science . I have my boom stand marked so I can set the heights the same every time plus the floor is marked out for placement of the stand itself and my best result with my earOmeter has come from the UMIK-1. |
|
|
|
Post by millst on Apr 30, 2015 21:53:53 GMT -5
Interesting. I was considering the UMIK-1 for a while since I needed a replacement for the ECM8000 with REW. Then, cross spectrum ran out and I figured getting the Emotiva mic would be an interesting data point.
-tm
|
|
|
|
Post by ansat on Apr 30, 2015 22:11:19 GMT -5
I think there is a small difference in diaphragm size from the umik and the emm-1 Small changes in the diaphragm can have other effects on high frequencies, even if they are calibrated the same. Sensitivity to directionality, dynamic range and overall sensitivity are the top three that come to mind. This could be an excellent question to cross-spectrum as my microphone knowledge does not extend very deep in the other differences you might find.
Tony
|
|
|
|
Post by markc on May 1, 2015 1:09:11 GMT -5
Good post millst!
I agree that 2dB of variation is within acceptable limits.
My digital SPL meter, even set to slow response, flicks around -1,0,+1 dB as it can't make up it's mind!
Perhaps a file made of an average of these two may be sensible if you would be kind enough to share your numbers.....
The interesting thing about that is that it looks like a combined file will be an almost flat response across the range, getting rid of Socketman's dip and your hump around 6k
On the other hand, one of the original "problems" reported with XMC-1 Dirac LE and the original calibration file was that it was adding in treble and taking out bass.
Your CSL file is more sensitive to bass than Socketman's, so Dirac will cut it but your treble response does seem more plausibly linear.
Might I add one other suggestion and a possible repost of your graph? Could the horizontal axis be logarithmic to better show the frequencies. As you say in your text, your mic starts to vary from Socketman's at around 14kHz, but that is not really possible to see from the graph as 5000 to 50000Hz is crammed into a small part of the graph.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by nickwin on May 1, 2015 9:33:45 GMT -5
I know this graph sucks, but here is my CS mic data for comparison purposes. It looks closer to Socketmans than millst's. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by millst on May 1, 2015 10:54:09 GMT -5
Here is the chart with the Emotiva curve added. Markc, I'm not sure what you mean concerning the x-axis. It is already logarithmic. I tweaked it so you can more clearly see 22kHz. -tm Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by sandiway on May 1, 2015 11:50:29 GMT -5
Here is the chart with the Emotiva curve added. OMG. How can it be so different? |
|
|
|
Post by millst on May 1, 2015 12:50:00 GMT -5
Emotiva applied a house curve
|
|
|
|
Post by petes on May 1, 2015 12:50:07 GMT -5
Here is the chart with the Emotiva curve added. OMG. How can it be so different? If it's the cal supplied with LE, then it was paired with a target curve since both were fixed - they messed around with cal file and the target until they got a sound they liked. |
|
LCSeminole
Global Moderator 
Res firma mitescere nescit.
Posts: 20,497
|
Post by LCSeminole on May 1, 2015 12:55:25 GMT -5
Yes, the variation is worrying. Hmm, maybe I should re-run using my CS UMIK-1. Will Dirac Full accept the CS-supplied calibration file directly? Yes it will. You just need the file on your computer to import to DIRAC Full. |
|
|
|
Post by nickwin on May 1, 2015 14:09:40 GMT -5
Here is the chart with the Emotiva curve added. OMG. How can it be so different? Exactly why the first thing I say to someone unhappy with there first Dirac attempt is try an accurate 90° cal, even if it's from someone elses emm1. Applying a house curve to the mic file seems weird to begin with but this is pretty damn aggressive, especially considering that LE already had its own pretty typical house curve as default. How that sounded right to Emotiva is beyond me. In my room that massive mid-bass peak followed by the steep base roll off sounded, well, exactly how it looks. |
|
|
|
Post by nickwin on May 1, 2015 14:16:08 GMT -5
Is what we see on that graph the cal file that came with LE or Full?
|
|
