or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Measurement Mic Shootout (EMM-6, WM-61A, RS 33-2055, Audyssey)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Measurement Mic Shootout (EMM-6, WM-61A, RS 33-2055, Audyssey) - Page 2

post #31 of 375
Looking at the graph below the blue is the digital RS SPL meter set to C-Weight with no calibration file loaded into REW and the C-Weighted SPL meter checkbox unchecked in REW. The green is with the cal file from HTS loaded (the one notnyt mentioned above) and C-Weighted SPL meter checkbox checked in REW (this only has an effect below the range of the .cal file though).

I believe when notnyt mentions C-weighted he means SPL meter on C-Weight and C-weighted SPL Meter checkbox checked in REW. I didn't check that configuration but it can be derived from what I did measure (it would be about 7dB low at 10hz and about 3dB low at 20hz).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricci View Post

RS meter...This is more confusing than ever.

When we say C weighting was used are we all on the same page that this means there was no cal file used with it and that the meter itself was set to C weighting, not inside of the audio program as some like REW allow( that should be unchecked)? This is how I understand it. Notnyt has shown that the RS is reasonable for bass measurements if setup in this manner. Lennon68 is this exactly how yours was setup for the measurement that shows a big discrepancy? What are each of you using digital or analog versions? I find it hard to believe that there would be that much of a variation between units.

Bosso was Illka implying that only the digital version behaved in that way?! Sheesh what a mess if that is the case.

With all of these meters getting shipped around if someone wants to send me one I will check it out.
post #32 of 375
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricci View Post

RS meter...This is more confusing than ever.

When we say C weighting was used are we all on the same page that this means there was no cal file used with it and that the meter itself was set to C weighting, not inside of the audio program as some like REW allow( that should be unchecked)? This is how I understand it. Notnyt has shown that the RS is reasonable for bass measurements if setup in this manner. Lennon68 is this exactly how yours was setup for the measurement that shows a big discrepancy? What are each of you using digital or analog versions? I find it hard to believe that there would be that much of a variation between units.

Bosso was Illka implying that only the digital version behaved in that way?! Sheesh what a mess if that is the case.

With all of these meters getting shipped around if someone wants to send me one I will check it out.

The RS meter outputs on a C weighted curve, this means in REW you have to check the C-weighted box. If you use a calibration, it will be used INSTEAD of C-weighting, they do not stack.

I simply turn on the meter, hook it up to REW, and check the C-weighted box for the mic settings in REW.

I'm guessing they changed mic capsules at a certain point in production.
post #33 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricci View Post

RS meter...This is more confusing than ever.

When we say C weighting was used are we all on the same page that this means there was no cal file used with it and that the meter itself was set to C weighting, not inside of the audio program as some like REW allow( that should be unchecked)? This is how I understand it. Notnyt has shown that the RS is reasonable for bass measurements if setup in this manner. Lennon68 is this exactly how yours was setup for the measurement that shows a big discrepancy? What are each of you using digital or analog versions? I find it hard to believe that there would be that much of a variation between units.

Bosso was Illka implying that only the digital version behaved in that way?! Sheesh what a mess if that is the case.

With all of these meters getting shipped around if someone wants to send me one I will check it out.

With my RS (digital) meter set to C weight (not REW) my meter was close but still a little high (most are low) for the below 20hz material. Per everything that I have read you were supposed to use C weighting and the correction table. Doing that gave me ridiculously high below 20hz readings.

Per REW at Theater Shack:
"An SPL meter with a line level analogue output. The Radio Shack meter is perfectly adequate for low frequency room acoustics work, either the analogue or digital display version. The Galaxy CM-140 meter has better tracking of the C-weight curve and better behaviour above subwoofer frequencies than the RS meter, but is more expensive. Calibration files for the various models of the RS meter and the CM-140 can be found in the Downloads area of the subwoofer equalization and calibration forum at www.hometheatershack.com/forums/"

"Your SPL meter's range should be set to the value normally used for speaker level calibration and must not be altered while using REW. If you are using the Radio Shack meter, select the 80dB range if you calibrate your system at 75dB (this is the standard level recommended by DolbyTM).

Set your meter to C weighting and "slow".
post #34 of 375
I just ran a few sweeps with my ACOPacific mic/pre/PS vs the Audessey mic (no calibration file) and my digital RS meter that's 10 years old:

ACOPacific vs Audessey:



ACOPacific vs RS Digital Meter with C-Weight CHECKED:



Bosso
post #35 of 375
Thread Starter 
Which model RS meter is that? If its the 33-2050 it's completely different from the modern meter, the RS 33-2055. I'm asking since you say 10 years old.

Also, did you perform soundcard calibration for the mic input without the mic amp in line, and with it for the ACO? It's interesting you're seeing the Audyssey mic drift below 20hz and nobody else is. Is it from a MultEQ receiver?
post #36 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post

Which model RS meter is that? If its the 33-2050 it's completely different from the modern meter, the RS 33-2055. I'm asking since you say 10 years old.

Also, did you perform soundcard calibration for the mic input without the mic amp in line, and with it for the ACO? It's interesting you're seeing the Audyssey mic drift below 20hz and nobody else is. Is it from a MultEQ receiver?

It's a 33-2055. The Manual is copyright 2000.

The receiver is MultEQ.

The interface is down -1dB at 3 Hz. No Calibration.

Bosso
post #37 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post

It's interesting you're seeing the Audyssey mic drift below 20hz and nobody else is.

Actually, I have the opposite reaction. If the Audessey mic is any more accurate than this, why are we buying measurement microphones?



Bosso
post #38 of 375
Thread Starter 
opposite reaction?
post #39 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post
opposite reaction?
Yes. Opposite. I find it interesting that the other graphs don't show the Aud mic rolling off at all.

I think my result is more in keeping with the mics spec:

Quote:
Capsule frequency response: 20-16,000 Hz
Calibrated frequency response when used with ARC: 16-20,000 Hz, +/- 1.5 dB
It appears, when compared to the ACO mic, that my Aud mic is flat to around 22 Hz, then rolls off below that, which makes much more sense than seeing virtually no roll off.

As a matter of fact, that's the only reason I did the comparison.

Bosso
post #40 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt
It's interesting you're seeing the Audyssey mic drift below 20hz and nobody else is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post
I find it interesting that the other graphs don't show the Aud mic rolling off at all.
I think nontyt is saying that you agree with him, not that your reaction is the opposite.
post #41 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdome View Post
I think nontyt is saying that you agree with him, not that your reaction is the opposite.
Gotcha. Sorry for the word twist confusion.

Fact is that if someone hadn't pointed out what should be the obvious, one would be left with the impression that an Aud mic is flat to single digits with no calibration file.

The question remains, what is going on that causes that result? Since I've purposely built a measurement system that requires no calibration files, I'm not at all familiar with those systems or the calibration file process and use.

Bosso
post #42 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post
I just ran a few sweeps with my ACOPacific mic/pre/PS vs the Audessey mic (no calibration file) and my digital RS meter that's 10 years old:

ACOPacific vs RS Digital Meter with C-Weight CHECKED:



Bosso


Those results are kind of interesting. The 18 to 28Hz frequency range that has that deep dip on your RS SPL meter sure looks abnormal to me. How much smoothing did you use in your curves? What were your measurement conditions?

Why not try a close mic of a sealed subwoofer with both microphones? That should be more accurate for the low end.

Funny thing is I can make 10 different measurements with the same mic and the FR curves all look different. In the free field a difference of few inches one way or the other (up, down, left, right, forward, back) makes the FR chart reading all look different.

I used the RS Digital SPL meter to close mic measure my NHT speaker's 10" sealed subwoofer driver. The straight SPL C scale factors were used for compensation. While I am not sure of the absolute accuracy of the RS SPL meter, the sealed speakers roll off on my chart does not show any abnormal dips. Then again, I replaced the original microphone element in my meter a few years ago.


post #43 of 375
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

Gotcha. Sorry for the word twist confusion.

Fact is that if someone hadn't pointed out what should be the obvious, one would be left with the impression that an Aud mic is flat to single digits with no calibration file.

The question remains, what is going on that causes that result? Since I've purposely built a measurement system that requires no calibration files, I'm not at all familiar with those systems or the calibration file process and use.

Bosso

Your results seem abnormal to me. The RS meter you tested has an abnormal rolloff and you have not included your mic amp in the loopback calibration.

I have a freshly calibrated mic, and all of the mics I am testing are VERY close from 5-90hz. I just ran some close mic comparisons to further illustrate my point.




This is the calibrated EMM-6. You can see the loopback calibration for the soundcard and the mic amp, as well as the mic's cal here.




Here is one for the Audyssey mic. No calibration is used other than the loopback calibration for the soundcard.




Here is the RadioShack 33-2055 Digital SPL meter. C Weighted correction was applied, as well as the loopback soundcard calibration.




Here is the WM-61A, RS 33-2055, calibrated EMM-6, and Audyssey mic overlaid.



This is the same graph, zoomed in slightly more.

post #44 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post


I have a freshly calibrated mic, and all of the mics I am testing are VERY close from 5-90hz. I just ran some close mic comparisons to further illustrate my point.

[/IMG]



The close mic measurements are probably the most reliable for the low frequency evaluation. That should eliminate the room effects as much as is practical. Kind of easy to place each mic in a near identical position for a close mic low frequency test.
post #45 of 375
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post

The close mic measurements are probably the most reliable for the low frequency evaluation. That should eliminate the room effects as much as is practical. Kind of easy to place each mic in a near identical position for a close mic low frequency test.

Agreed. I'm actually surprised how close the mics match up. I moved some away from the woofer just to make sure I didn't do something stupid to verify different results

I had to run the tests at lower levels, since I was apparently clipping the EMM-6 at higher levels.
post #46 of 375
Yes, there's definitely something wrong with the RS meter sweep. Probably a near-dead battery. I plan to try again.

But, what you seem to be saying is that you could have saved the $$ and effort and just used the RS meter with a C-Weight cal file, which I ain't buyin'.

Bosso
post #47 of 375
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

Yes, there's definitely something wrong with the RS meter sweep. Probably a near-dead battery. I plan to try again.

But, what you seem to be saying is that you could have saved the $$ and effort and just used the RS meter with a C-Weight cal file, which I ain't buyin'.

Bosso

Sure, for 7-200hz the RS meter is definitely great.

From 5-200hz the WM-61a, and the Audyssey mic stay close to the calibrated mic as well.

I just took these measurements in room with the Audyssey mic and the EMM-6 at the same location.



This is another graph from the previous runs with response to 200hz

post #48 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

But, what you seem to be saying is that you could have saved the $$ and effort and just used the RS meter with a C-Weight cal file, which I ain't buyin'.

Bosso

I'm having a hard time reconciling that as well...
post #49 of 375
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricci View Post

I'm having a hard time reconciling that as well...

From what people are posting, it looks like different RS meters use different mics with different response curves, never know what you'll get.

If you can find fault with my measuring methods I'm all ears. I posted up the graphs with all the calibrations and everything. Hard to mess up a close mic.

I also ran the tests 10db higher just to be sure i wasn't hitting a noise floor or something, and they were all identical, just 10db higher.
post #50 of 375
The way I understand what Bosso is getting at is, if the RS meters measure just as good as other more expense mic setups, why would anyone purchase the more expense ones since the RS meters are just as good?

Example, Ricci is doing all of the hard work measuring the subs as he has been, if the RS is just a good, why would he not use the RS meter instead of the setup he did use?

And just to make sure, I am in no way saying anything bad towards Ricci (or what - how he did those tests since it is past my experience level), just using that a comparison between the setup he used for measurements and why he chose not to use an RS meter.

If I read Bosso's posts incorrectly than I do apologize.

James
post #51 of 375
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by exojam View Post

The way I understand what Bosso is getting at is, if the RS meters measure just as good as other more expense mic setups, why would anyone purchase the more expense ones since the RS meters are just as good?

Example, Ricci is doing all of the hard work measuring the subs as he has been, if the RS is just a good, why would he not use the RS meter instead of the setup he did use?

And just to make sure, I am in no way saying anything bad towards Ricci (or what - how he did those tests since it is past my experience level), just using that a comparison between the setup he used for measurements and why he chose not to use an RS meter.

If I read Bosso's posts incorrectly than I do apologize.

James

Historically they have been off. Perhaps there are some runs with better mic capsules? The unit I have is very close to the calibrated mic. Someone local is going to bring by a 33-2050 for some comparisons/testing in the near future. I will post those results when I have them. MKTheater is also shipping me his 33-2055 to compare as well.
post #52 of 375
wow, great info. thumbs up.

this will be very usefull when i finish my sub builds.

notny, a few questions.

1) which audyssey mic did you use (i assume there are quite a few around). i have one that come with the Integra 9.9

2) did you use the "mic in" input on your motherboard sound? or did you use an external sound card? the sticky over at the HTS suggest using the "line in" and not "mic in" input?

thanks
post #53 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post

Historically they have been off. Perhaps there are some runs with better mic capsules? The unit I have is very close to the calibrated mic. Someone local is going to bring by a 33-2050 for some comparisons/testing in the near future. I will post those results when I have them. MKTheater is also shipping me his 33-2055 to compare as well.

NYT,

I have no disagreements with that part. I have seen many a post in different forums where results are questioned since it was done using a RS meter.

Once I can get REW setup correctly I will try to compare my Omni, RS and Audyssey mics. My Audyssey mic is different than the one you showed a picture of but came with my Onkyo 885.

James
post #54 of 375
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz View Post

wow, great info. thumbs up.

this will be very usefull when i finish my sub builds.

notny, a few questions.

1) which audyssey mic did you use (i assume there are quite a few around). i have one that come with the Integra 9.9

2) did you use the "mic in" input on your motherboard sound? or did you use an external sound card? the sticky over at the HTS suggest using the "line in" and not "mic in" input?

thanks

I ran everything to the mic input. I believe it's an AC97 chipset so line in and mic in are virtually the same. Calibrations were performed with this port and you can see them in the close mic graphs. I used the Audyssey mic from a Denon 5308 which has MultEQ XT.
post #55 of 375
thanks, and you did mentioned that there was not mic cal on the audyssey?
post #56 of 375
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz View Post

thanks, and you did mentioned that there was not mic cal on the audyssey?

Correct. I posted the graph with phase and calibrations for the Audyssey mic. The only calibration used was my soundcard calibration which is nearly flat to 5hz.

http://i.imgur.com/xv26I.png
post #57 of 375
which sound card did you use?

and you mentioned you used HDMI for audio out?
post #58 of 375
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by smokarz View Post

which sound card did you use?

and you mentioned you used HDMI for audio out?

I'm using the on board input from the Realtek ALC889 chipset, and the output from an ATI 5750 over hdmi.
post #59 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post

Sure, for 7-200hz the RS meter is definitely great.

From 5-200hz the WM-61a, and the Audyssey mic stay close to the calibrated mic as well.

Ahhh, you're killin' me, man.

I'm not questioning that you get a similar FR with various electrets through your measurement signal chain/calibration files. That much is obvious.

I'm saying flat out that none of those systems approaches the accuracy of the ACOPacific/Edirol UA1000 system below 20 Hz.

The Aud mic roll off should be evidence enough. Do you really think that if the Aud mic is flat to 7 Hz, they would spec it as being down -3dB at 20 Hz? I used to have the Aud mic FR graphs, but they're gone and I see that Audyssey has removed them from their site, but that's irrelevant. There's no chance in this universe that your rig and the Aud cap are flat to single digits. None.

AV Talk's Slartibartfast uses the LinearX M53 with a calibration file (which includes cap/preamp). Here's the LinearX graph of its uncorrected FR, with the grayed out area representing the variation spectrum from one mic to the next.

I scaled and laid over the ACO 7012 mic uncorrected FR. Each ACO mic comes with a FR graph to 10 Hz, made at the time of manufacture. It will always be ruler flat below 10k Hz. The top end is where the ripple is, down -2dB at 40k Hz.



Of course, his measurements are accurate to 15 Hz, the bottom of his measurements, to within 1dB because his mic/preamp are professionally calibrated and a file created and burned to disc that he loads into his software, but the point here is that the ACO rig does not require a calibration file for subwoofer measurements.

Here are the published specs for the ACO mic, pre, PSU and Edirol UA1000:



I bet a months pay that the Aud mic will not be +/- 1dB with the ACO rig.

Bosso
post #60 of 375
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnyt View Post

This is the EMM-6 vs the Audyssey MultEQ microphone. Many people have this mic and it should do fine for taking measurements without any calibration files. This seems to be the best performer without calibration data, however it is also the most expensive out of the pack if purchased individually.






Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

ACOPacific vs Audessey:




So either the EMM-6 is not calibrated that well or the Audyssey mics can differ.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Measurement Mic Shootout (EMM-6, WM-61A, RS 33-2055, Audyssey)