There are two main aspects here.

Firstly, if you are interested in the phase of the microphone measurements w.r.t. the test tones, the general rule is that you should try to use a microphone that has a -3dB point approaching one decade below the frequencies of interest. That is why the Earthworks measurement mic goes down to 5Hz. That said, most room responses are amplitude measurements only, so a measurement mic whose response goes down to only a couple of octaves lower than the nominal speaker response would give acceptable results.

Secondly, the sonic quality of the mic may be of interest if your tests are other than with sinusoidal waveforms. In that respect, the ECM8000 does not score well.

Have you looked at Ethan Winer's measurement mic page? He identifies the Dayton EMM-6 as being better value than the ECM8000 at the low end of the range, simply because each mic comes with its own calibration curve.

In my early days, I thought a low-cost measurement mic would make a good audio room mic. I was wrong - I got room sound drowned in noise.

Thanks Bos! I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I will definitely take a look at the Dayton EMM6.

:)

When I first started my studio I attempted many mesurement with the ECM8000 and many softwares.
The problem is, those affordable mics aren't perfectly flat.
Renowned measurement systems use tunned mics and softwares that are calibrated together. The results are far more acurate.

I'd certainly consider something like this :
https://www.sweetwa…
But I'm sure better solutions exists.

In the end I think most solutions assume we have a very transparent pre and converters which most of us don't have. This makes the affordable measurement game bound to fail in my opinion..

pcrecord, post: 448176, member: 46460 wrote: When I first started my studio I attempted many mesurement with the ECM8000 and many softwares.
The problem is, those affordable mics aren't perfectly flat.
Renowned measurement systems use tunned mics and softwares that are calibrated together. The results are far more acurate.

I'd certainly consider something like this :
https://www.sweetwa…
But I'm sure better solutions exists.

In the end I think most solutions assume we have a very transparent pre and converters which most of us don't have. This makes the affordable measurement game bound to fail in my opinion..

I understand what you're saying Mon Ami'... and you're right, most of us don't have perfectly flat/transparent preamps, or mics for that matter, either ... but my thought is, that if I can even get close - at least closer than what I could get using just my ears - that it might give me a basic foundation to at least start with ?

I have thought about the ARC 2 system - I don't personally know anyone who has used it, I wish I did so that I could get an honest, unbiased opinion.
On one hand, I'm dubious ... which I think is natural. But on the other, I'm a proponent for new modeling technology, and I've been amazed over the past few years at what this technology has given us - high quality drums, sims of analog gear ( some of which gets pretty damned close), reverbs that can put you into fantastic and natural sounding spaces... so why wouldn't it be possible that room correction couldn't also be a part of this? ( audiokid dvdhawk kmetal Boswell )

Kurt Foster @Brien Holcombe
I'm pretty sure that Kurt and Brien would likely feel that this system was not a viable answer ( If I'm mistaken, then I apologize for being presumptuous) - I've included their names in this post because I have a great deal of respect for both of them - and again, I totally understand the hesitancy of those who would be dubious.

But it does make you wonder... what if it did work?

Hmmmm......

DonnyThompson, post: 448180, member: 46114 wrote: I have thought about the ARC 2 system - I don't personally know anyone who has used it, I wish I did so that I could get an honest, unbiased opinion.

Yeah, I'm not sure what to think about it either.. you'd say for 149$ (was299$) it would be very cheap right ?.
Thing is, they thought about having mic profils (depending on which code you get on the one included) and they use multiple takes to calculate phasing and reflections etc..
On paper it seems amazing ! I tried a demo a few years bac and I used the ECM8000. The results were far off because I was using an uncalibrated mic. But the adjustment process seemed nice and logical.

I know it's not what your looking for. The ARC is a calibration system that makes your monitors adapt to the room. Not ment to tune your room.
But you can pull out the frequency response and see how it evolves with each change in the room.

I think the real deal is to hire a pro with top notch equipement... Meanwhile, if you record and mix better, you already know you've done something right !

I see Boswell beat me to it on suggesting the Dayton from right there in your backyard.

Unless you're willing to drop thousands of dollars on one, these cheaper analyzer mics are less about fidelity than they are having a predictable curve. I sometimes use Dayton's calibrated iPad mic. Dayton tests and catalogs the response of each mic as it goes through final testing, then you enter the serial# on the website and they send you the calibration file for that specific mic.

It looks interesting...reminds me of using a graphic equalizer back in the day.

In a well tuned room it may work...I have to admit the things I keep buying for my guitars are still not ready for prime time but I understand how each item can be an improvement in texture and musical quality....so I buy them...lol

Bos makes a lot of sence.

I got my kit with the Event Opals which was calibrated for them.

For me, the ARC technology might be an OK final finish-coat on a room that is already pretty smooth. I don't know if I'd use it for the sandblast and putty phase. So where do you feel like you are on that scale with the things you've done this week? ARC might do a wonderful job of correction, but is it only going to sound great in the 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" space the mic was in during the analysis?

dvdhawk, post: 448185, member: 36047 wrote: but is it only going to sound great in the 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" space the mic was in during the analysis?

It uses up to 16 measurment points so we are suppose to be able to make it work for the mixing position and the surroundings.

From the manual :

A setup from a normal user :
I'm doubting the clean preamp affirmation but.. we can see the process ;)

pcrecord, post: 448187, member: 46460 wrote: It uses up to 16 measurment points so we are suppose to be able to make it work for the mixing position and the surroundings.

From the manual :

I tried a few very expensive systems and including some top level mics.

Then I got the inexpensive Event kit and trust it to be as good as it gets when used as it is designed. I would only use the mic for Calibrating the x area.

As the images Marco posted suggest, I mark an X where I sit and where my ears will be, put the omni there and it does its thing.

I also use ny daw spectral analyzer to compare which gives me an overall common sense approach. Precisely what Boulder did in your last critique you posted.
I'm a bit of old school so I really don't go all crazy with this because I know my hearing is compromised from age and I don't have the perfect room either.

I think we can over think a lot of this stuff and need to use some common sense.
If you don't have adequate space, you need to find the additional ways to help you guess easier which takes us out of the professional market.

Small speakers, mixing in mono, avoiding subs and using spectral graphs helps .

audiokid, post: 448191, member: 1 wrote:

I think we can over think a lot of this stuff and need to use some common sense.
If you don't have adequate space, you need to find the additional ways to help you guess easier which takes us out of the professional market.

Small speakers, mixing in mono, avoiding subs and using spectral graphs helps .

There's no way I could ever compete in the "pro" market anyway - if by pro we are talking about The Hit Factories, Ocean Ways, Criteria's, etc.
They've got a LOT more on me than just balanced mixing spaces. ;)
That being said, I've heard some pretty fantastic mixes coming out of rooms where a Focusrite or Presonus pre was used, with a handful of good Mics, a well balanced space
and talent and experience at the craft were the key elements. I'm not saying that gear doesn't matter or that it doesn't make a difference. But I have heard stuff coming out of home studios that sometimes sound better to me than some of the current "pro" releases I hear on the radio.
My goal is to get a space that can sound as good as possible, and turning out mixes that make my clients (and me) smile - given what I have to work with. If that means upping my converter quality, or adding treatment, or even gambling $150 on a speaker correction system, then those are things that are within the realms of possibility for me.
I don't really care how the technology or workarounds work, as long as I can improve what I do. ;)
IMHO of course.

I'm not pooh-poohing the technology in theory. I'd rather get as much accomplished with physics, before resorting to electronics. After all that is said and done, then I'd be more inclined to spend the $150 for the software and a mic tailored specifically for it, rather than laying out $50-$100 for a random RTA mic and hoping it works.

My JBL LSR-4328 monitors come with an analyzer mic and have a Room Mode Correction function that notches out what it detects to be the most offensive low frequency standing wave. There are times it seems like it helps, other times I toggle it on/off a few times and end up leaving it off. Yes, I realize that's apples / oranges comparing it to the ARC which is full spectrum, but still a testament to the fact I'm not completely sold on the seemingly simpler task done with the JBL's RMC.

What was that monitor company that claimed they made a monitor that would work for almost any room? It had some computer part to it, DSP thing going on. They were going to send me some, then fell off the map. It would be interesting for you to try those right now, Donny. Maybe they would send you a pair to try if I contact them again.

Web: www.phasx.com

audiokid, post: 448239, member: 1 wrote: Web: www.phasx.com

I remember when they came out. The only thing I could think of is '' Man they are ugly '' ! :D

audiokid, post: 448206, member: 1 wrote: What was that monitor company that claimed they made a monitor that would work for almost any room? It had some computer part to it, DSP thing going on. They were going to send me some, then fell off the map. It would be interesting for you to try those right now, Donny. Maybe they would send you a pair to try if I contact them again.

That's a very nice offer, Chris... thank you.

I don't think I have room for them - :LOL - my desktop space is very small, so I don't think thes would work for me. My current monitors are on stands and I don't believe they would work for these PhaseX speakers.

But I sure do appreciate the offer!

DonnyThompson, post: 448256, member: 46114 wrote: That's a very nice offer, Chris... thank you.

I don't think I have room for them - :LOL - my desktop space is very small, so I don't think thes would work for me. My current monitors are on stands and I don't believe they would work for these PhaseX speakers.

But I sure do appreciate the offer!

No sweat.

pcrecord, post: 448254, member: 46460 wrote: I remember when they came out. The only thing I could think of is '' Man they are ugly '' ! :D

We think alike ;)

DonnyThompson, post: 448170, member: 46114 wrote: audiokid dvdhawk pcrecord Kurt Foster kmetal Boswell @Brien Holcombe

Hi gang.
I'm to the point where I'm gonna have to pick up an Omni measurement mic to check my mixing room, before I add any more treatment. I've been using my ears up to now, and there is an audible improvement, but I'm to the point where I need to see what an actual test will show.
I'd rather not spend the dough on an EW ($500, yikes!) especially considering that its use is so specialized, and that I'll only be using it for a few days...

So my question is in two parts:

1. Would there be any other use for this type of mic in recording applications that could help me justify getting the EW?
2. Are there cheaper alternatives to the EW that you would still trust to measure your control room(s)..

I've seen that Behringer has a model, ( the ECM8000) and Presonus also has one, the PRM1.

While the EW's frequency response is from 5hz -30khz, the Behringer is 15hz-20khz, and the Presonus specs show 20hz -20khz.
The Behringer retails at $60, the Presonus at $99.

Obviously the EW has better specs, but do I really need a mic that will reach down to 5hz?
The monitors I'm using right now won't even reproduce frequencies that low.

Dave Hawk's Presonus E8's go down to 32hz, the Alesis M1's go down to 40hz; so even if the mic can pick up test frequencies down that far, neither pair of the monitors I'm currently using for the test could even come close to being able to play freq's that low.

Thoughts? :)

Any of the mics mentioned will get the job done. I've used REW (room eq wizard) to do some basic tests in my old home studio room. I used a radio shack digital spl Meter. This software has a calibration process and doesn't require expensive hardware. A sound blaster soundcard and the radio shack meter was all they called for. In that tiny room doing basic measurements an axial room mode was calculated at 78.8hz, and the test graph showed 78.6hz, more than accurate enough for most situations.

You can do the mix calibration process yourself or get the calibration file online if they have one. The whole setup doesn't take very long, maybe half hour from download to actually testing. The calibration compensates for the frequency response of the mic and soundcard.

At Normandy we used an earthworks mic and a rackmount analyzer from the 80's i believe, the name of which escapes me.

I found REW to be much more detailed with the information it can present.

DonnyThompson for you I think this would give you enough information about your trouble spots, and give you a sound meter to keep on your desk or watever. REW is well reguarded by professional acousiticians, and it's free.

There's certain care that should be taken during the testing procedure and with the interpretation of the results.

As far as ARC goes room correction and eq are usually reserved for a couple db on a couple of problem frequencies.

The main issue is they make the response worse other than the sweet spot, making it smaller.

Worse imo is eq/room correction is they can't compensate for the nulls/cancelizations, since there is no way to boost a canceled freqnecy if it is canceled out in the first place.

So ideally if needed eq and correction is best suited if there's a case where there is a mode or boost in a particular frequency at the sweet spot, to tame it down a bit.

In a tracking situation you move the mic or the kit or amp, in a criticall listening room you're limited to the sweet spot of the room, and centered left to right.

By the time you use get the speakers setup in the best spot, and your treatment tuned in, if you still want better response, then is when I'd consider some eq or correction. But you'll hopefully not need or want it.

How big is this room D?

Here's a screenshot from the REW site. Haven't heard of the USB mic they're reccomending. Lol in '08 it was the radio shack / sound blaster combo. Time has moved on lmao.

https://www.roomeqwizard.com/

kmetal, post: 448260, member: 37533 wrote: By the time you use get the speakers setup in the best spot, and your treatment tuned in, if you still want better response, then is when I'd consider some eq or correction. But you'll hopefully not need or want it.

How big is this room D?

The room is trapezoidal shaped... it's a bit hard to describe; the overall dimensions are 12.5' L x 10' W, with a canted ceiling that goes from 7'9" to just under 11'.
In the center of one of the the side walls, is a 1' x 3' soffit ( I'm pretty sure it's the chimney) that runs from floor to ceiling, at which point the height there would be about 8 ft high, none of the walls are parallel to each other...
Actually, the room has no uninterrupted surfaces that face each other.

In this room is a closet that is 7.5' long and 2' deep. It's on the high side of the ceiling cant, so at that point it's at or very near to 11' high.

I'm firing the monitors from the low side of the ceiling into the high side.

The recent treatment I've put in has given me a great deal of improvement. Low end is far more defined, "tighter", with the mids and highs now having greater detail. I'm able to hear things - more nuance and esoteric stuff - a lot better, and I'm really liking the imaging I'm getting, too.

The latest mix I posted has received a "much better" rating from the guys here than the first 2 or 3 mixes I did previous to the treatment.

kmetal, post: 448260, member: 37533 wrote: As far as ARC goes room correction and eq are usually reserved for a couple db on a couple of problem frequencies.

I've ordered the ARC 2 from a major vendor ( I'm not gonna say which at this point, read below to find out why).

The ARC system was on sale this week, $149. It includes the software, instructions, and an omni mic. I'd seriously considered the Sonarworks system, but I just couldn't put that kind of money together.
My sales person at at the music store has said that an exception will be made for me, and if I'm not happy with IK Multimedia's ARC 2 system, they will let me return it.
It's not a product that they'd normally take back, but I've spent a lot of money through my contact there over the last 20 years; so they are being cool about it, and in return, I'm not going to mention the name of the store or the sales person I'm working with, because I don't want this person to get into trouble by making this exception for me. ;)

I'm hoping that the room is now close to where you mentioned at this point, Kyle ... (within a couple db of being "good"), and hopefully, the ARC system will fine tune the rest... (? )
I mean, that's the plan, anyway. If it doesn't work, then I can reevaluate at that time.

:)
-d.

As an update... ( March 5, 2017)

I think that eventually - after I've done what I can do to the space I'm in - whether it's treatment methods, speaker calibration, whatever... At some point I'm just gonna have to start to get acclimated to the surroundings I'm in.

I'll have to do quite a bit of mixing, checking my translation(s) for a few weeks, taking into account the weak spots ( in both the room and my mixing chops) and adjust from there.

As I said, my expectations for this were always realistic; I know I'm never going to have the ideal environment here, and I know that I'm never going to have the acoustics of the control rooms in the big, pro studios... and that's okay.

I'm sure that there have been hundreds ( maybe thousands) of hit records mixed in spaces over the years that were less than "ideal" acoustically, but somehow, the cats who mixed those records managed to do so in a way that was still pleasing for us to listen to. The way I see it, small improvements are still improvements, and if I need to take them in minor increments, then that's just what I'll have to do, with realistic expectations.

Until I have the budget to build the "ideal" space, this one will have to do. When everything is said and done, no matter how much treatment or speaker calibration I do, I know it's always going to be just a spare bedroom in a condo.

I'd like to thank everyone who chimed in on these threads - dvdhawk @Brien Holcombe pcrecord audiokid kmetal Boswell Kurt Foster ... and everyone who tried to help, either through suggestions, or through listening to the various mixes I've put up along the way.

You guys are all great, I really do love RO. ;)

-donny

DonnyThompson, post: 448280, member: 46114 wrote: In this room is a closet that is 7.5' long and 2' deep. It's on the high side of the ceiling cant, so at that point it's at or very near to 11' high.

A closet is simply a bass trap without insulation lol. Plus it's at the rear of the room too!

Best of luck w the arc, i'm curious to see how the results turn out.