What Microphone or microphones are you using and why?

[Julian]

I am using the umik-1... on a steeek. I heard it was good

[dumdum]

Umik-1, Dayton Emm6, isemcon emx-7150 and a umic-x when it arrives, the xlr mics are used with a focusrite Scarlett 2i2 usb sound card

[geolemon]

I picked up a EMM-6 for my Basement PC, since I was taking measurements all winter down there.

No reason why other than it being cheap and having an individual calibration (file) for a temporary need - but now that I'm probably not picking up the Dirac version of the MiniDSP (if I go that route at all), it seems fine to keep using. Actually a nice mic, nice case - can just load up that calibration on the laptop and move it into the car.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[blockrocker]

I actually use the Behringer ecm8000 mic.

Pros: Dirt cheap, xlr connection, good build quality.
Cons: No calibration files, phantom power source needed.

I'm not sure I would recommend it for anyone not on a very tight budget. No cal files always leaves you wondering. However, it is tough as nails, consistent, and has served me well for several years now. It will absolutely do the trick for most, but is not as complete of a package as some of the ones mentioned above. Just my opinion, of course.

[Julian]

Umik-1, Dayton Emm6, isemcon emx-7150 and a umic-x when it arrives, the xlr mics are used with a focusrite Scarlett 2i2 usb sound card

Since you have experience with the umik I own and more expensive mics, do you think the upgrade is worthwhile? Or are the improvements in accuracy only appreciated by those with a very experienced "ear" (judges, people named dumdum).

[Justin Zazzi]

Good discussion!

I started with the Behringer ECM8000 with no cal file and some old XLR sound interface like a Scarlett 2i2 (was the Fast Track Pro).

I upgraded to a Dayton EMM-6 from Cross Spectrum Labs since Herb creates a calibration for it, and he's a great guy who answered a lot my questions.

That combo worked for a long time until I wanted to start doing recordings, then I upgraded to a pair of Earthworks M40 and a Sound Devices MixPre-3 so I could do recordings anywhere using a battery pack and an SD card.

I don't think the extra money on the new gear made my measurements much better, however the MixPre-3 sound interface has presets built-in, and also a loop-back feature built-in so it is muuuch more convenient. The three-channel ability on the MixPre-3 seems odd at first but I can do two mics at the same time with a third channel as the loop-back which is pretty useful especially in fancy programs like SMAART. The nicer mics and sound interface made a world of difference in terms of recordings though, no doubt about it.

I'm curious about dumdum's experience with different mics and interfaces in terms of measurements.

[dumdum]

Since you have experience with the umik I own and more expensive mics, do you think the upgrade is worthwhile? Or are the improvements in accuracy only appreciated by those with a very experienced "ear" (judges, people named dumdum).

The umik still gets used, it’s quick easy and works, it’s now either that or the isemcon for smaart use, the isemcon is nice and if I was tuning for the euros I would use the isemcon, the smaller capsule size just means it’s more accurate off axis and it is a fairly flat mic even with no calibration file, which is kinda the gold standard for a precision mic, the same goes for the earthworks and similar mics, very flat response with no calibration file, to me it just means they are more precisely made with very good tolerances initially… I would trust the isemcon more than any mic I’ve owned and it wasn’t as expensive as earthworks or similar pro mics

[dumdum]

Good discussion!

I started with the Behringer ECM8000 with no cal file and some old XLR sound interface like a Scarlett 2i2 (was the Fast Track Pro).

I upgraded to a Dayton EMM-6 from Cross Spectrum Labs since Herb creates a calibration for it, and he's a great guy who answered a lot my questions.

That combo worked for a long time until I wanted to start doing recordings, then I upgraded to a pair of Earthworks M40 and a Sound Devices MixPre-3 so I could do recordings anywhere using a battery pack and an SD card.

I don't think the extra money on the new gear made my measurements much better, however the MixPre-3 sound interface has presets built-in, and also a loop-back feature built-in so it is muuuch more convenient. The three-channel ability on the MixPre-3 seems odd at first but I can do two mics at the same time with a third channel as the loop-back which is pretty useful especially in fancy programs like SMAART. The nicer mics and sound interface made a world of difference in terms of recordings though, no doubt about it.

I'm curious about dumdum's experience with different mics and interfaces in terms of measurements.

the Dayton vs the isemcon were markedly different, I know which one I’d trust more and it’s not the Dayton, I have the measurements saved somewhere, same mic tip position and angle… the smaller tip just reduces off axis differences at higher freq which means reflections (which we do hear in a car) get measured far more accurately also

[Jdunk54nl]

I have a dayton umm-6, emm-6, and the omnimic v2.

I grab the usb microphones if I need to measure something quick. They save like 5 minutes of setup and tear down and less cables running everywhere, so not a big deal, but since I have them why not.

If I am doing a tuning session I go for the XLR emm-6 and a motu m4. That allows me to run open sound meter (Free program) or Smaart (same thing basically as open sound meter but costs $$$, it is worth it though).


IF I were just starting out and didn't need a certain microphone (like the umik-1 for dirac and a minidsp) I would 100% skip the usb microphones and go straight to the xlr and interface. They just allow you to do more, even with REW via loopbacks.