choice of omnis for classical
jnorman
mics in the studio to see how they sounded compared to my cardioid
mics for cello, flute, violin, harp, piano, etc. i immediately liked
the way omnis sound compared to cardioids, and am looking to get
another couple of omnis. i have pairs of akg c480s w/ck61 caps,
AT4051s, and schoeps cmc64s. i plan to reserve the schoeps for use as
a main ORTF pair out front, as they are the flattest mics i have for
diffuse field work. so, i thought i might pick up a pair of ck62 omni
caps for the akgs, or a pair of 4049 omni caps for the at4051 bodies,
or just pick up another pair of the little DPAs. for my applications,
which of those options might be better? or, are the DPA 4006s SO much
better than any of the choices above that i really should just save my
money for them and not mess around with the akg or AT systems?
thanks. (btw, preamps are HV-3)
Mike Clayton
jnor...@comcast.net (jnorman) wrote:
For what it's worth a friend of mine did a shoot out with a pair each of
Schoeps and DPA omnis on a small chamber choir in a nice room, recording
them through a Midas Venice console. He sent me the samples and without
knowing what the mics were on my monitors and in my room I consistently
chose the tracks made with the Schoeps as sounding best to my ears and
aging brain.
For all practical purposes I don't think there's a lot in it between these two.
I also own the AKG 480 with the omni, cardioid and hyper capsules and have
had good results with them too. But the Schoeps mics, of which I have the
MK2 omni and the MK41 supercardioid are definitly a better microphone than
the AKG. I think, if you compare value for money between the Schoeps and
the DPA, then the Schoeps are the better deal.
Your mileage will more than likely vary quite a bit. In the end the best
course is to try them both and keep the ones you like.
Let's know how you go.
Suso Ramallo
Earthworks QTC1
Cheers
"jnorman" <jnor...@comcast.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:e340b423.04012...@posting.google.com...
Ivo
already on the way) for similar applications you mention. After
shortly testing MK2H (which I am now changing for flat and natural
MK2) I too can say that for instruments I like more the omni sound,
even in a small room with a close pick-up
Richard Kuschel
>
>Earthworks QTC1
>
>Cheers
>
If you can deal with the self noise.
They aren't all that quiet, but work fine for close miking.
Save up the money, get the Schoeps, you won't regret it.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty
Arny Krueger
news:20040128083636...@mb-m27.aol.com
>"Suso Ramallo" <jram...@worldonline.es> wrote in message
>news:bv82rf$oj4fq$1...@ID-91146.news.uni-berlin.de
>> Earthworks QTC1
> If you can deal with the self noise.
> They aren't all that quiet, but work fine for close miking.
> Save up the money, get the Schoeps, you won't regret it.
A well-known local choral group - the Detroit Concert Choir use a QTC1
matched pair mounted on a high stand. That plus spot mics for the soloists.
If you want to listen to some real-world evidence of how noisy QTC1s really
are, here's where you can get their recordings for a nominal charge:
http://www.detroitconcertchoir.org/ . You can probably email them and find
out which mics were used for which recordings.
I'm using what I thought are the far noisier ECM8000s, and the noise that
shows up on my recordings is basically the room, not the mics. (see
additional comments below).
Here's a recent technical discussion of the self-noise of the ECM8000's from
one of our sister NGs.
From: Norbert Hahn <ha...@hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>
Message-ID: <lvquuvcvafp6gv381...@4ax.com>
"Today I did some measurements with some of my mics, AKG Body C 480 B
with CK61 ULS capsule (Equivalent noise level (IEC 651 A weighted)
13 dB, Sennheiser MKH50 (Equivalent noise level 12 dB) and the
Behringer ECM-8000. Microphone preamp was a Behringer UB802.
"Hm, well the ECM-8000 has about 10 dB more noise than the Senn and the
AKG, which measure the same when reduced to a single number.
As I read this, these measurements put ECM8000 self-noise in the 22-23 dB
range. But there are some other relevant issues that are discussed in more
detail about 2/3 through this post.
Note that the mic preamp used was hardly SOTA, but the mics in question are
pretty sensitive so the mic pre wasn't seeing terribly low-level signals.
Ironically 22-23 dB noise puts ECB-8000s in the same range of self-noise as
the spec on the QTC1 per http://www.earthwks.com/ns/qtc1.html . Yes, this is
pretty stinky by the standards of some large-diaphragm mics.
Note that the ECM8000 is flat up to about 25 KHz, while the QTC1 is flat up
to about 40 KHz. It's probable that the QTC1 has a far smaller diaphragm,
which makes the modest self-noise spec more impressive.
Returning to the comments of the person (Norbert Hahn) who tested various
mics for self-noise:
"However, the frequency curve of the unfiltered self noise is quite
different: The ECM 8000 has almost white noise between 300 Hz
and 15 kHz, dropping then with 6 dB per octave. Between 300 Hz and
30 Hz the self noise rises by 18 dB at lower frequencies. Thus, the
self noise of the ECM 8000 sounds like a mixture of pink and white
noise.
"The frequency curve of the self noise of the AKG looks like pink noise
between 30 Hz and 3 kHz and like white noise between 3 kHz and 45 kHz.
"The frequency curve of the self noise of the Sennheiser MKH 50 is
quite different. Between 30 Hz and 4 kHz is looks pretty much like
pink noise (a little more rise at lower frequencies though), but above
6 kHz the noise rises by 8 dB within one octave, peaking at 18 kHz.
Above that the noise drops by 18 dB/octave. So that mic has the
least amount of noise in the same octaves where the ear is most
sensitive.
This is one of those things that doesn't seem to show up on many spec
sheets - the spectral content of noise very much affects how we perceive it.
Spectral content is much of the difference between the sound of wind
blowing, the sound of sea crashing on rocks, and a 150 psi air hose hissing
its heart out given that the 20-20 KHz or A-weighted SPLs were the same.
My own take on this issue is that small-diaphragm omnis can get a bad rap
for noise because they are so truly omni. If there's a noise in the room
they'll probably pick it up. For example, many of my recordings include
trivial but personal comments made by the musicians and people in the
audience, made in low voices and whispers while they are waiting for things
to start. Not so with cardioids in the same general vicinity.
I still lust after a pair of QTC1s, but its probable that I am getting a
fair simulation of them with my ECM8000s. Probably good enough of a
simulation to judge a number of relevant issues, like "Are small omnis for
me and my application?"
Suso Ramallo
I have a pair, isn't the quietest mic, but works fine for classic recording
(I have too the more noisy brother Earthworks M30, and works well like a
spot mic).
The self noise is the price that you need to pay for a very small capsule,
but you win in other aspects.
Cheers
"Richard Kuschel" <rickp...@aol.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:20040128083636...@mb-m27.aol.com...
Len Moskowitz
jnorman <jnor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>i just picked up a pair of DPA 4061 miniature omnis to use as close
>mics in the studio to see how they sounded compared to my cardioid
>mics for cello, flute, violin, harp, piano, etc.
The 4060s, with their lower self noise, might have been a slightly
better choice for studio work. They're both fine sounding mics, in my
opinion the best sounding miniature mics in the world.
>or, are the DPA 4006s SO much better than any of the choices above that
>i really should just save my money for them and not mess around with
>the akg or AT systems?
The 4006 (and the higher voltage 4003) are among the world's great
mics. If you can afford them, you should get 'em.
[Disclaimer: Core Sound is a full-line DPA dealer.]
--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
mosk...@core-sound.com Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912
Ty Ford
I was extremely impressed with the Microtech Gefell M296 1/2"+ omni. I have
a short recording in my audio archives. It's not classical, but it may give
you an idea.
Regards,
Ty Ford
**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
Benjamin Maas
time. I like changing the grills on them to change the mic sound- black for
diffuse field where the high-frequency rise is needed, silver for
all-purpose and I've been experimenting with taking the grills off which I
find really opens up the sound on them. I also really like the Sennheiser
MKH-20s.
I'm not as much of a fan of the Schoeps as I've mentioned before because
they can really show you the deficiencies in performance as well as room-
much more than other mics can. With a great room and performance, it is
great to have, but with my work, that isn't always the case.
--Ben
--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com
Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies
"jnorman" <jnor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e340b423.04012...@posting.google.com...
WillStG
>i immediately liked
>the way omnis sound compared to cardioids, and am looking to get
>another couple of omnis.
If you like omni's (and I know I do), it is worth buying a couple or three
Behringer ECM8000's. They are extremely flat/pretty 4006-ish I think, they are
a tad bit noisy but that won't matter if you're close micing or the if the
environment is noisy. And they're a very inexpensive addition to the mic
collection...
Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Arny Krueger
news:20040129124747...@mb-m28.aol.com
>> jnor...@comcast.net (jnorman)
>> i immediately liked
>> the way omnis sound compared to cardioids, and am looking to get
>> another couple of omnis.
> If you like omni's (and I know I do), it is worth buying a
> couple or three Behringer ECM8000's. They are extremely flat/pretty
> 4006-ish I think,
From about 100 Hz to 15 Khz the differences between the samples I compared
were within the calibration limits of the 4006. Below 40 Hz and above 25 KHz
the 4006 is considerably flatter. You get what you pay for. The 4006 also
has a stated sensitivity that historically could be taken to the bank.
>they are a tad bit noisy but that won't matter if
> you're close micing or the if the environment is noisy.
Measurements suggest that they have self-noise in the 23 dB range. The noise
spectra is kinda pinkish, so it's hard to find a room where their self-noise
would be intrusive.
> And they're a very inexpensive addition to the mic collection...
Change from $50 almost without regard to where you buy them.
Suso Ramallo
The ECM8000 are super-noisy, far from flat response, and big distortion over
100dB SPL (Is a Panasonic capsule based mic).
Frec. response of the ECM8000 against Earthworks M30:
http://www.lasalademaquinas.com/behrin.jpg
Cheers
"WillStG" <wil...@aol.comnospam> escribió en el mensaje
news:20040129124747...@mb-m28.aol.com...
Arny Krueger
> The ECM8000 are super-noisy,
Compared to what?
> far from flat response,
Even your own plot suggests otherwise, see below.
> and big distortion over 100dB SPL (Is a Panasonic capsule based mic).
I've clipped out Panasonic omni capsule based mics many times, but I've
never clipped out any of my ECM8000s. I've definitely subjected ECM 8000's
to SPLs > 100 dB.
On balance, the element in the ECM8000 is a ca. 1/4" two-terminal electret
element that looks a lot like a Panasonic. But looks could be deceiving.
> Frec. response of the ECM8000 against Earthworks M30:
> http://www.lasalademaquinas.com/behrin.jpg
I suspect that a lot of the roughness shown in this plot is at last
partially due to the procedures used to make it. It would be interesting to
see a similar plot comparing two M30s.
If you smooth the plot it shows response that is about +0, -1.5 dB 32-16
KHz.
The ECM8000 is mostly reading low in the 8 KHz to 16 KHz range in this
comparison.
http://www.earthwks.com/ns/m30.html# shows that in that range, the M30
should be reading up to 0.5 dB high.
IOW, the non-flat response shown is partially due to a combination of test
procedures and the fact that the "reference" microphone is a tad hot.
WillStG
>>"Suso Ramallo" <jram...@worldonline.es> wrote
>> The ECM8000 are super-noisy,
SNIP
>> Frec. response of the ECM8000 against Earthworks M30:
>> http://www.lasalademaquinas.com/behrin.jpg
>I suspect that a lot of the roughness shown in this plot is at last partially
due to the procedures used to make it. It would be interesting to see a similar
plot comparing two M30s.
>If you smooth the plot it shows response that is about +0, -1.5 dB 32-16 KHz.
>The ECM8000 is mostly reading low in the 8 KHz to 16 KHz range in this
comparison.
>http://www.earthwks.com/ns/m30.html# shows that in that range, the M30 should
be reading up to 0.5 dB high.
>IOW, the non-flat response shown is partially due to a combination of test
procedures and the fact that the "reference" microphone is a tad hot
Maybe you could post your ECM8000 vs. B&K4006 plots on your website for
a comparison to Suso's "Test data" Arny. Mine haven't clipped on me either,
and aren't what I would call "super-noisy", so I wonder exactly how he made his
comparisons and how much experience he has in testing gear.
Scott Dorsey
>
>The ECM8000 are super-noisy, far from flat response, and big distortion over
>100dB SPL (Is a Panasonic capsule based mic).
No, it's not a Panasonic capsule in there.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
David Satz
> After shortly testing MK2H (which I am now changing for flat and
> natural MK2) ...
Hello again, Ivo. For this type of microphone, "flat and natural" depends
on the mixture of direct vs. reverberant sound at the point in space where
you place it. If you are picking up mainly direct sound on axis, then yes:
the Schoeps MK 2 capsule comes extremely close to having flat response.
But no microphone of this size (20 mm diameter) can possibly have the same
high-frequency response on-axis as it has off-axis. That is a matter of
basic acoustical physics. The major dimensions of the microphone, for some
given range of high frequencies, form a significant fraction of the sound
wavelengths. The microphone then begins to bend the sound field around it.
20 mm = 1/2 wavelength just above 8 kHz, so that is where the on-axis peak
tends to be. But if there is no on-axis peak, then for a microphone of that
size there must be a corresponding reduction in response off axis--and the
Schoeps MK 2 has just such an off-axis rolloff, as physics would require.
As a result, if you record sound which is an equal mixture of direct and
reverberant energy, the MK 2 can begin to sound dark, because the sound
which arrives from off axis will be picked up with a falling high-frequency
response; only the direct sound arriving on axis will be picked up "flat."
This is why Schoeps offers four different omni capsules. They are designed
for use [a] with the intention of getting flat overall response with various
styles of miking (i.e. different distances, with different mixtures of
direct/on-axis and reverberant/off-axis sound) and/or [b] different tastes
and expectations for the high-frequency response overall.
The directional response of all four capsules is essentially identical,
because that is mainly determined by their (identical) physical size. In
an earlier message you mentioned this as an "opinion" of mine, but I would
really like you to understand that this is not subject to anyone's opinion.
If you use some other medium than air to carry sound, you can change this
relationship--but otherwise you cannot.
It certainly is possible to build very small pressure microphones which
are flat at all angles of incidence, and which therefore don't require a
range of different high-frequency characteristics for the sake of purpose
"[a]" just mentioned. (Purpose "[b]" will always be with us.) However,
such microphones tend to be too noisy for many modern applications. In
addition, many people simply don't like the way they sound.
That's not a defect of the microphone; more often, I think, it is because
of the hall. Many modern halls are supposedly "multi-purpose" in their
acoustical design, but in fact are not really suitable for any purpose
whatsoever! They are too muddy for theatre, but too thin and dry for music.
In particular, not every recording venue has adequate sound absorption at
high frequencies; the reverberant sound may have a rather harsh character.
In such halls it is quite helpful when a microphone is directional at high
frequencies--even though that doesn't correspond to the Platonic ideal of
an omnidirectional transducer. In fact some engineers pay huge premiums
for exotic, small-capsule pressure microphones in which the capsule is
embedded in a larger sphere (e.g. the Neumann M 50 as used in the classic
"Decca Tree"). This causes a presence boost, but also an even further
narrowing of the high-frequency response. The users of those microphones
don't object to that--and having used some M 50s myself, I tend to agree.
I apologize if this is more than you wanted to know, but it's important to
understand that the relative importance of a microphone's on-axis response
depends greatly on how the microphone is being used. This is true all the
more with omnidirectional microphones, where in many applications, a great
proportion of the sound which you are picking up will arrive off-axis.
Suso Ramallo
My two M30's:
http://www.lasalademaquinas.com/m30vsm30.jpg
M30 against DIY made Panasonic mic with the Linkwitz mod:
http://www.lasalademaquinas.com/panasoniclinkwitz.jpg
Photo of the DIY Panasonic:
http://www.lasalademaquinas.com/panasonic.jpg
Cheers
"WillStG" <wil...@aol.comnospam> escribió en el mensaje
news:20040130102918...@mb-m28.aol.com...
Suso Ramallo
Calibration Certificate of the M30 (Used against Behringer)
http://www.lasalademaquinas.com/earthwks.jpg
Metod of test:
-The two capsules in coincident mode like XY, but close angle (>45º).
-Speaker with noise for excite the mics (Mics on axis).
-The final ajust between mics made with the "impulse mode" for close the two
in perfect axis.
-Measured by transfer mode
-Long samples (128)
Devices:
-Sound card Sound Devices USBpre 1.5, 2.5.3 driver, 24/48 mode.
RightMart test of USBpre:
http://www.lasalademaquinas.com/USBPre%20Miic%20in.htm
-Dell CHxP P3@500 Windows 2000
-Siasoft Smaart 5.1
Cheers
"Suso Ramallo" <jram...@worldonline.es> escribió en el mensaje
news:bve6h5$rsqm1$1...@ID-91146.news.uni-berlin.de...
Arny Krueger
>> "Arny Krueger" ar...@hotpop.com
>>> "Suso Ramallo" <jram...@worldonline.es> wrote
>>> The ECM8000 are super-noisy,
>>> Frec. response of the ECM8000 against Earthworks M30:
>>> http://www.lasalademaquinas.com/behrin.jpg
>> I suspect that a lot of the roughness shown in this plot is at last
partially
> due to the procedures used to make it. It would be interesting to see
> a similar plot comparing two M30s.
>> If you smooth the plot it shows response that is about +0, -1.5 dB
>> 32-16 KHz.
>> The ECM8000 is mostly reading low in the 8 KHz to 16 KHz range in
>> this comparison.
>> http://www.earthwks.com/ns/m30.html# shows that in that range, the
>> M30 should be reading up to 0.5 dB high.
>> IOW, the non-flat response shown is partially due to a combination
>> of test procedures and the fact that the "reference" microphone is a
tad hot
> Maybe you could post your ECM8000 vs. B&K4006 plots on your
> website for a comparison to Suso's "Test data" Arny.
I'm usually pretty obsessive about holding onto data like this, but so far I
can't find it. There have been a few recent hard drive crashes on my audio
test work machine, so any data not already uploaded one of my sites may or
may not still be around.
Some of the data I took showed the jagginess above 2 KHz shown by
behrin.jpg. However, I had two 4006's, and when I compared them, there were
the same jaggies. I concluded that the jaggies were mostly due to the test
procedure. BTW, if you do this sort of thing in the electrical domain, the
results are usually pretty smooth if you average enough data. In the
acoustical domain, I got the jaggies, even with quite a bit of averaging.
BTW, I used Spectra Lab, not SMAART. My thinking is that it's not the tool,
it's not the UUTs, it's the way the acoustics of the test works out.
BTW, the 4006s were borrowed, and eventually went back to the large
corporate owner, never to return.
> Mine haven't clipped on me either, and aren't what I would call
"super-noisy", so
IME ECM 8000's seem to be exceptionally noisy because they are pretty
sensitive, and accept acoustical inputs from all directions. My recollection
is that the ECM8000's got attenuated quite a bit during my transfer
function-based measurements. I used my Symmetrix SX-202 mic pre and a
CardDeluxe to capture the data.
> I wonder exactly how he made his comparisons
My (similar) results were made using Spectra Lab's transfer function
analysis. I used a far-field loudspeaker to excite the test (just about
anything reasonably broadband gives similar results, pink noise, white
noise, music, etc ) and calculated the transfer function based on the output
of the ECM8000 divided by the output of the 4006, with both outputs
adjusted for unity at mid frequencies, and the mics acoustically aligned for
zero measured phase shift at midband.
I'm not a SMAART user, but I understand it has similar capabilities.
>and how much experience he has in testing gear.
When it comes to acoustical testing, I feel like I still have my training
wheels on.
Suso Ramallo
> -The two capsules in coincident mode like XY, but close angle (>45º).
Sorry: <45º
Cheers
WillStG
>
>http://www.lasalademaquinas.com/earthwks.jpg
>
>Metod of test:
>
>-The two capsules in coincident mode like XY, but close angle (>45º).
>
>-Speaker with noise for excite the mics (Mics on axis).
>
>-The final ajust between mics made with the "impulse mode" for close the two
>in perfect axis.
>
>-Measured by transfer mode
>
>-Long samples (128)
>
>Devices:
>
>-Sound card Sound Devices USBpre 1.5, 2.5.3 driver, 24/48 mode.
>
>RightMart test of USBpre:
>http://www.lasalademaquinas.com/USBPre%20Miic%20in.htm
>
>-Dell CHxP P3@500 Windows 2000
>
>-Siasoft Smaart 5.1
Suso, when you did your tests did you supply phantom power to the ECM8000
from the USB Pre, or did you use an external power supply? They will work with
as little as 12 volts, maybe they aren't getting full phantom power from your
USB Micpre powered test setup and this is affecting their noise spec. Also
sometimes micpres which power one mic well have trouble with supplying full
voltage to two, the USB pre works off it's USB 5volts power to supply phantom
yes? I wonder if that might account for the divergent experiences.
I have played with a couple of ECM 8000's with my Millennia HV3's and
sure they have a little noise, but I wouldn't describe them as "super noisy".
Suso Ramallo
I tested all the microphones with the phamton power of the USBPre (Includes
the two M30, the M30 needs 48 volts and 10mA each), the USBPre have a 48
volts phamton up to 10mA.
http://www.sounddevices.com/tech/usb_earthwks.htm
http://www.usbpre.com/specs.htm
I make some takes with the ECM8000 with a GML and the USBpre with the same
amount of noise, much higher than the M30 (The M30 have a high noise level),
but I didn't measured the noise of the ECM8000.
Cheers
WillStG
>I tested all the microphones with the phamton power of the USBPre (Includes
>the two M30, the M30 needs 48 volts and 10mA each), the USBPre have a 48
>volts phamton up to 10mA.
>
>http://www.sounddevices.com/tech/usb_earthwks.htm
Yeah, but not all micpres supply all the power they claim to, so I was
wondering if that might be the case and account for some noise, also I have
read the USBPre adds about 4 db of "whine" noise at 1k on the output due to the
isochronous sampling rates of the A/D and the D/A's bleeding through.
Contributing noise factor maybe?
But anyway I'm really am not that experienced at acoustic testing, but
your plots look somewhat different than the Behringer's and the Earthworks
published plots, above 5 k your plots seem to roll off slightly comparitively
on both. Could this be because your USBPre only does 16 bit out even at 24/48
in? It has been known to cause problems with some measurement software
resulting in a high end inaccuracies; that's why the "WinMLS" guys recommend
the Digigram cards, but I dunno.
http://www.nvo.com/winmls/discussion1/list.nhtml?profile=discussion1
Scott Dorsey
>
> But anyway I'm really am not that experienced at acoustic testing, but
>your plots look somewhat different than the Behringer's and the Earthworks
>published plots, above 5 k your plots seem to roll off slightly comparitively
>on both. Could this be because your USBPre only does 16 bit out even at 24/48
>in? It has been known to cause problems with some measurement software
>resulting in a high end inaccuracies; that's why the "WinMLS" guys recommend
>the Digigram cards, but I dunno.
I could believe that, but you should also know that the published plots are
usually VERY strongly smoothed by the marketing department.
The thing is that unless you have a calibrated microphone that you know really
is flat, you can't make an accurate narrowband measurement. To do so would
require a sound source that was flat, and that doesn't exist.
A 5 KC rolloff, though, would not surprise me. And you should know that the
capsule the Behringer uses is a Chinese knockoff of the Japanese capsule
design that Earthworks uses. It's a surprisingly good knockoff, though,
considering it probably costs less than a quarter.
Suso Ramallo
I'll reply you between lines.
> Yeah, but not all micpres supply all the power they claim to, so I
was
> wondering if that might be the case and account for some noise, also I
have
> read the USBPre adds about 4 db of "whine" noise at 1k on the output due
to the
> isochronous sampling rates of the A/D and the D/A's bleeding through.
> Contributing noise factor maybe?
I tried the ECM8000 with a GML pre with same results, my conclusion: is
noisy
You can find in other post of this tread the performance of the mic in of
the USBpre, is a loop test in 24 bit mode. The USBpre out are of 16 bit, but
20 by spdif, I use a external DAC (Benchmark DAC1) for test the input,
because I expected results over 96dB, this is the limit of a very good 16
bit output.
PC + Rigthmark to USBpre>spdif>benchmark DAC1>USBpre mic in>PC + Rigthmark.
But in transfer mode between mics I don't use the output of the USBpre.
Simple, Mics connected to the USBpre>USB bus>Analysis software (Smaartlive),
I don't see the use of the USBpre output, only for generate noise to the
speaker, but I didn't measure the speaker, only the mics (With a loudspeaker
acting like stimulus).
The USBpre can't send the inputs to the outputs, need a software for this
(Don't work like a conventional preamp). The reason of the 16 bits out is
because was conceived for monitoring, and is good for a "dropout" free work
(spend less USB bandwidth)
> But anyway I'm really am not that experienced at acoustic testing,
but
> your plots look somewhat different than the Behringer's and the Earthworks
> published plots, above 5 k your plots seem to roll off slightly
comparitively
> on both. Could this be because your USBPre only does 16 bit out even at
24/48
> in? It has been known to cause problems with some measurement software
> resulting in a high end inaccuracies; that's why the "WinMLS" guys
recommend
> the Digigram cards, but I dunno.
Every mic are different, the companies only show a standart graph, and few
manufacturers offer a production range alternative graph +/-1dB over the
regular (I don't seen the Behringer published plots, the ECM8000 don't comes
with any plot). If you see my older posts, you can see the diference between
two M30 (Not is a mached pair), is a difference of +/-0,5dB on the worse
case, very good for me. The diferences between mics of the same brand/model
are the reason of the mached pairs.
I don't use the USBpre outs.
Smaartlive guys recomend the USBpre, different software, different requests.
Cheers
Scott Dorsey
>
>I tried the ECM8000 with a GML pre with same results, my conclusion: is
>noisy
It's noisy, but hell, what do you want for $35? The fact that it works at
all at that price is a miracle.
That said, it should be pretty immune to loading, since it doesn't have
an output transformer, and it should be reasonably immune to variations in
phantom voltage, since it's an electret and doesn't have particularly high
current output stages. So it should work reasonably well with cheap preamps.
It's designed as a cheap measurement mike, for God's sake. This is an
application where low distortion and low noise floor aren't really very
important, but reasonably flat frequency response and good off-axis response
are important. It does a better job of meeting the requirements than you
would expect for a $35 mike. It's no Schoeps, but it's $35.
WillStG
<< I tried the ECM8000 with a GML pre with same results, my conclusion: is
noisy >>
I guess it depends on what you are comparing it to noise-wise, note that
I didn't say they were 4006-ish in terms of noise but in terms of how they
*sound*. As I said originally on loud sources/for close micing/in rooms with
some background noise present I don't think the self noise is that big an
issue.
<< The reason of the 16 bits out is
because was conceived for monitoring, and is good for a "dropout" free work
(spend less USB bandwidth) >>
As a side comment, I should have been more specific, the reason the
WinMLS guys say you can get inaccuracies in the high end of MLS measurements
when you use the USBPre is because the input and output converters are not
clock synchronized, not because they operate at different bitrates per se. But
maybe that doesn't matter here anyway.
<< Every mic are different, the companies only show a standart graph, and few
manufacturers offer a production range alternative graph +/-1dB over the
regular (I don't seen the Behringer published plots, the ECM8000 don't comes
with any plot). >>
There is a spec pdf with a transfer plot at
http://www.behringer.com/02_products/prodindex.cfm?id=ECM8000&lang=ENG&CFI
D=908867&CFTOKEN=79982689
I don't doubt your Earthworks mics are quiet and more accurate, but the
Behringers *sound* pretty good for a cheap mic, and are usable tools I think.
( Maybe yours is broken? One person who complained that the ECM8000 was "really
noisy" turned out to have one that was broken, but many people have agreed they
have found the mic, self noise and all, is still quite usable. )
Bob Cain
either no objects (including mic stand) in the vicinity of
the microphones or they occupy the exact same point in space
in an unchanging environment (which is pretty much
impossible) then the raggedness you see is due to reflection
and refraction. It's amazing how little it takes to create
that kind of "noise" on the response plot and how difficult
it is to eliminate.
This has lots of other implications in recording that follow
rather logcially.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
Suso Ramallo
For 35$ is a big deal, but for 10$ you can DIY a better mic (With a real
Panasonic). The ECM8000 have a transformer.
I agree with you that the noise and distortion aren't important for the
work, but Will said that is a good mic for recording and I don't agree.
Cheers
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:bvf0kt$p5q$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Suso Ramallo
> I don't doubt your Earthworks mics are quiet and more accurate, but
the
> Behringers *sound* pretty good for a cheap mic, and are usable tools I
think.
> ( Maybe yours is broken? One person who complained that the ECM8000 was
"really
> noisy" turned out to have one that was broken, but many people have agreed
they
> have found the mic, self noise and all, is still quite usable. )
For 35$ is ok. I tried two, I don't have a ECM but many friends have one.
You can use this mic with a high SPL source for mask his self noise, but I
have doubts about his distortion over 100dB SPL.
I saw the graph and I agree with Scott, is marketing drawing. Is curious the
need of use big steps (5dB).
Cheers
Suso Ramallo
Is the best measure I can afford with my material (Devices/room), is enough
for getting an idea. I agree with you, to many factors can distort the
measure.
All the mics was prove in the same room (very dead) with the same stand and
same position, the good and the bad affects all the mics equal. You can see
in my graphs, better frequency responses than the ECM8000.
I tested the ECM because I was search a cheap mic for measure. Is good by
35$, but IMMO is not a good mic (No price consideration).
Best regards
"Bob Cain" <arc...@arcanemethods.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:401B3536...@arcanemethods.com...
Scott Dorsey
>
>For 35$ is a big deal, but for 10$ you can DIY a better mic (With a real
>Panasonic). The ECM8000 have a transformer.
Do they? The one I took apart had no transformer and actually drove only
one leg of the output. It was "impedance balanced" more or less. I would
be curious to see if there is more than one model out there.
I would bet that if you have one with a transformer that the frequency
response is very different than the one I got.
>I agree with you that the noise and distortion aren't important for the
>work, but Will said that is a good mic for recording and I don't agree.
It's probably the best under-$50 mike available for recording. Certainly
it beats the C1000 hands-down. It would not be my first pick, personally,
but then I have more than $50.
Ty Ford
<ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>IME ECM 8000's seem to be exceptionally noisy because they are pretty
>sensitive, and accept acoustical inputs from all directions. My recollection
>is that the ECM8000's got attenuated quite a bit during my transfer
>function-based measurements. I used my Symmetrix SX-202 mic pre and a
>CardDeluxe to capture the data.
I would offer that the best way to determine the noise factor would be to
check for it on a a NOT noisy environment.
Hey Arny, anyway you could send one to me for a short time so I could put it
up against some of mine in the studio?
A 23-24 dB A selfnoise is not inconsiderable in today's digital recording.
It was a lot more acceptable years ago with anaolog tape hiss to mask and
"dither" it.
Today, with the quieter moments of a symphony, I'm guessing the selfnoise
would be quite audible. Especially if the recording then undergoes any sort
of gain reduction processing.