|
Post by alvinthx2 on Apr 1, 2021 4:45:43 GMT
Hi,
Just wondering what would be the advantage (if any) using an expensive Earthworks m30 plus a quality audio interface vs the standard UMIK mics?
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Apr 1, 2021 15:00:29 GMT
Ethan has an article * comparing some mics. He uses a DPA because he's Ethan and had founded an acoustics company. I use the Behringer ECM8000. Ethan summarized the differences by saying something along the lines of, "The higher end mics are like measuring your height to the millimeter." What he meant, based on the his published comparison, is that bass is the problem for most rooms and all of the mics are almost indistinguishable there. It's the high frequencies where they differ. Don't take this as gospel but so long as you have enough absorption to get a decent low end response then, to handle your mid-to-high frequencies, all you have left is putting those panels in the right spots. In other words, having a more expensive mic isn't going to really help you in that regard. I say this with the disclaimer that I am by no means a microphone expert. Having said that, any interface will suffice for measuring a room. An untreated room can have 40dB of variation whereas most interfaces are probably flat to within 0.5dB. *I love how when Ethan takes measurements, it's a documented party whereas when I do it, it's just me crawling around in the dark, dusty and exceedingly cramped netherlands behind my desk.
|
|
gabo
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by gabo on Apr 13, 2021 17:47:59 GMT
The BF and expensive mic will be more accurate. But as Hexpa points out, it's very negligible compared to the normal problems you see in a room.
Getting a room to +-0.5db is going to be very difficult, an error of that magnitude gets totally lost in the mix, pun intended.
gabo
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Apr 13, 2021 18:54:07 GMT
Getting a room to +-0.5db is going to be very difficult Or impossible. How flat is an anechoic chamber? Even if it's within 1dB, a lot of people try to get by with 4-5 panels. Sad but true: the weak point isn't the converters, preamps, or even mics - especially when the room is small and reflective. That said, I don't suggest taking acoustic measurements with an SM57. The ECM8000 is cheaper anyway.
|
|
gabo
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by gabo on Apr 13, 2021 19:29:16 GMT
That said, I don't suggest taking acoustic measurements with an SM57. The ECM8000 is cheaper anyway. haha, fair enough. Although. Add about a 6db/octave shelf boost from 200hz down, and a 6db bell cut around 6.4K with a Q of about 2 and it would work pretty darn good! But yes the ECM8000 would be a better choice. gabo
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2021 9:27:16 GMT
That said, I don't suggest taking acoustic measurements with an SM57. The ECM8000 is cheaper anyway. haha, fair enough. Although. View AttachmentAdd about a 6db/octave shelf boost from 200hz down, and a 6db bell cut around 6.4K with a Q of about 2 and it would work pretty darn good! But yes the ECM8000 would be a better choice. gabo No, it would NOT its a dynamic and cardiod polarn pattern microphone.
|
|
gabo
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by gabo on Apr 19, 2021 20:32:50 GMT
No, it would NOT its a dynamic and cardiod polarn pattern microphone. Was sarcasm man gabo
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Apr 19, 2021 22:25:50 GMT
No, it would NOT its a dynamic and cardiod polarn pattern microphone. Was sarcasm man gabo Whaaat? Nooo!
|
|
|
Post by mickey242 on Apr 20, 2021 8:22:08 GMT
I have to say I'm happy with my Avenson Audio omni's rather then the dBx I had. I fell any type of standing waves in the room would have more of an effect then the mic choice though.
|
|