AUDIO INTERFACE. (..ignore everything else.)
Behringer 204 being the cheapest from Thomann.
(..not the 202. ..this has to do with getting a good dual-channel connection.)
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/software-tools/76977-arta-78.html#post5741625
IF you just can't afford an Audio Interface then use the Dayton IMM-6 & your on-board (motherboard) soundcard's mic. input (which has enough power for that mic. and of course has its own pre-amplifier).
Last edited:
It is easy to be confused and sometimes it comes down to the language being used. Is a buffer and a line driver a pre-amplifier, you could mount an argument of semantics either way
timpert has provided a very good explanation in essence the mic provides what is needed to drive the cable to the mic preamp in the interface which amplifies it further to get the level high enough to feed the AD at the right level.
The line level, right? But a mic-in of a regular PC sound card should be sensitive enough to pic up the mic signal proper, which was the question mefisto asked. He should only need a phantom power adapter and can run the cable 5 to 6 yards long as requested, without any problems. Later amplification happens in the sound card. Is money saved when a phantom power plug instead of a cheap interface is bought, though? Is loss of versatility worth the margin?
Sure, if it's a PC sound card with balanced XLR connects. (and you also get a separate phantom source)
Are there many of such PC soundcards around?
Dunno, never looked... my vote is just get an inexpensive external USB interface...
Sounds like you might be leaning the same way ...?
Shifting gears. Regarding what to call the circuitry in the mic itself....(I figure it has to vary mic by mic.)
My simple way of looking at things says, if the capsule voltage is increased, well...it was amplified....... along with whatever else was going on for all condenser mics, in terms of buffering/balancing/polarization/etc.
Greetings all,
thank you once again. It all now makes sense especially after reviewing the reference CharelieLaub posted and the attached schematics. My confusion was caused by the inconsistent terminology; to wit even Rod Eliot calls it "an internal FET preamp".
I am grateful for all your patience.
Kindest regards,
M
thank you once again. It all now makes sense especially after reviewing the reference CharelieLaub posted and the attached schematics. My confusion was caused by the inconsistent terminology; to wit even Rod Eliot calls it "an internal FET preamp".
I am grateful for all your patience.
Kindest regards,
M
All the info about microphones has been brought. You have electret and condenser microphones and a lot of them are of the former type BUT do require external power for the buffer amp, which often is provided by the phantom power originally meant for polarizing 'real' condenser mikes, which -in acoustics and noise control- often use +200V instead of +48V. Confusing? Yes, likely so. Even more: long ago I used to work with a Neutrik 3300 which had +15V but that worked very well with the MBM/Haun550 it was combined with... which actually was rated for +48V.
One consideration about the sound card is left. The one in your computer might or might not be sensitive enough for microphone signals, often it' s line input. However the more modern laptops with tip-ring-ring-sleeve 3,5mm jack are prepared for (phone) headsets and will do microphone signals just fine. The only drawback is that the input is not a symmetric (balanced) input. That means that longer cables (>3m) inevitably will bring noise and stray signals. The phantom power unit won't cure that.
One consideration about the sound card is left. The one in your computer might or might not be sensitive enough for microphone signals, often it' s line input. However the more modern laptops with tip-ring-ring-sleeve 3,5mm jack are prepared for (phone) headsets and will do microphone signals just fine. The only drawback is that the input is not a symmetric (balanced) input. That means that longer cables (>3m) inevitably will bring noise and stray signals. The phantom power unit won't cure that.
Last edited:
Not funny markbakk, do not complicate again!
Now that m's needs are satisfied hope it is appropriate to add stray questions: mark100 showed that he could find only negligible difference between a Dayton EMM-6 with individual correction and Behringer ECM-8000 without. Thomann sells the Behringer for only 36 euros, I need a mic to set up an active crossover. Sonarworks XREF 20 (Dayton equivalent) is 59e, only advantage a individual correction. On other forums the deviations in Behringer production line where shown and seemed to be considerable. Should I still save the money and simply get the Behringer?
Now that m's needs are satisfied hope it is appropriate to add stray questions: mark100 showed that he could find only negligible difference between a Dayton EMM-6 with individual correction and Behringer ECM-8000 without. Thomann sells the Behringer for only 36 euros, I need a mic to set up an active crossover. Sonarworks XREF 20 (Dayton equivalent) is 59e, only advantage a individual correction. On other forums the deviations in Behringer production line where shown and seemed to be considerable. Should I still save the money and simply get the Behringer?
Do you need it just once? Go for it!
Will you use it again in a few months or years? Don't.
Why? See my earlier post above.
Consider this first. IBF akustik, now merged to iSEMcon, had similar results. YMMV, though I had one ECM that did the job very well without calibration.
Greetings all,
since as sheeple notes above, my questions re microphone have been answered, and the general consensus was to get an audio interface, I started to do some research, as I know nothing about them, and the first article called something like "What to look for in audio interface" had links to examples and one of them was MOTU 4M.
The interface is a little overkill vor measurement only, as it has two microphone inputs but it also has 4x4 I/O and USB connection to a computer. So, I had another "brilliant" idea - could the interface be also used as a multi-channel DAC. That is, could I run a multi-channel converter, e.g., on a computer and route the filtered channels via the interface and amplifiers to drivers?
Although the MOTU 4M seems to have stellar reviews and a very reasonable price, it has only 4 outputs and does not work with real (UNIX-like) OS.
Am I on the right path?
Kindest regards,
M
since as sheeple notes above, my questions re microphone have been answered, and the general consensus was to get an audio interface, I started to do some research, as I know nothing about them, and the first article called something like "What to look for in audio interface" had links to examples and one of them was MOTU 4M.
The interface is a little overkill vor measurement only, as it has two microphone inputs but it also has 4x4 I/O and USB connection to a computer. So, I had another "brilliant" idea - could the interface be also used as a multi-channel DAC. That is, could I run a multi-channel converter, e.g., on a computer and route the filtered channels via the interface and amplifiers to drivers?
Although the MOTU 4M seems to have stellar reviews and a very reasonable price, it has only 4 outputs and does not work with real (UNIX-like) OS.
Am I on the right path?
Kindest regards,
M
Yes, the M4 can be used as a multichannel DAC, or ADC+DAC, with software running on the computer that implements DSP for a crossover. This is how I plan to use it. It's probably best done under Linux. See my answer HERE as well.
As Charlie said yes it can and I think that is actually a very good idea, I have used my Scarlett 18i20 in that way. The Scarlett is good but not as nice as my standalone ESS DACS.
If I was choosing an interface for that purpose today I would probably get this one from MOTU if price was not a major factor
MOTU.com - Overview
For Unix make sure to check that the interface is USB2.0 class compliant. Otherwise you might have issues accessing all the channels if it needs a closed source driver.
I like what Henrik is doing with CamillaDSP but I use Jriver on windows as it is a complete solution for everything I do. I use a few VST plugins and they run much better on Windows.
Hi CharlieLaub, fluid,
thank you for the replies. I was thinking about Linux mainly because I know that there are several multi-channel convolver implementations available, e.g., BruteFIR, jcconvolver, and there are a lot of very helpful people on the forum, who prefer to use Linux. Furthermore, it might be easier learning curve for me going from BSD to Linux.
There was a plugin for Foobar that I use on my Windows machine, but it is not multi-channel and I think the development stopped.
Kindest regards,
M
thank you for the replies. I was thinking about Linux mainly because I know that there are several multi-channel convolver implementations available, e.g., BruteFIR, jcconvolver, and there are a lot of very helpful people on the forum, who prefer to use Linux. Furthermore, it might be easier learning curve for me going from BSD to Linux.
There was a plugin for Foobar that I use on my Windows machine, but it is not multi-channel and I think the development stopped.
Kindest regards,
M
Jriver has built in multi channel convolution handled through a text script. Often used for multichannel Acourate convolver files. Anything can be done within either architecture but I find Jriver does everything in one and controlling the whole thing from a tablet is awesome. If you have a windows machine give Jriver a try, it's free for a month and doesn't cost that much for a licence. There is also a Linux version if the operating system is the concern.
I have tried to use Linux and Unix for audio for over 20 years and I find it disappointing that it is still such a work in progress.
I moved my home server to Windows because I found it to be more stable for the way I use it than any Unix variant YMMV.
I really don't like Foobar
Hi everyone
Hi M and everyone here,
I am on the same boat as you M, looking for advice in purchasing measurement equipment as well. As I understand from the replies here that going for the expensive mics will not make much of a difference in terms of performance for home measurements and speakers design. And going ultra cheap is not advisable either as mbrenwa said.
From the last few posts Isemcon mics and Motu M4 has been recommended and seemed no one has objections on both. I am looking for something that I know I will use every so often and for sure this acquisition will not gather dust in the shelf.
To summarize, these 2 items linked below and some cables, a pc and software and we're good to go?
EMX-7150 Measurement microphone Kit - AcousticShop
MOTU M4 – Thomann Ireland
Will appreciate your replies. Thanks.
Hi M and everyone here,
I am on the same boat as you M, looking for advice in purchasing measurement equipment as well. As I understand from the replies here that going for the expensive mics will not make much of a difference in terms of performance for home measurements and speakers design. And going ultra cheap is not advisable either as mbrenwa said.
From the last few posts Isemcon mics and Motu M4 has been recommended and seemed no one has objections on both. I am looking for something that I know I will use every so often and for sure this acquisition will not gather dust in the shelf.
To summarize, these 2 items linked below and some cables, a pc and software and we're good to go?
EMX-7150 Measurement microphone Kit - AcousticShop
MOTU M4 – Thomann Ireland
Will appreciate your replies. Thanks.
Regarding mics, I have the possibility to borrow expensive B&K mic + mic amps from work, and it seems I get lower distortion readings using that compared to some cheap condenser mics. I think S.Linkwitz modified some mic capsule for distortion improvement too?
Regarding multichannel sound cards and active filters, check out EQ APO for windows. It does the trick. You can even try it on the cheap using HDMI output to a multichannel receiver.
Regarding multichannel sound cards and active filters, check out EQ APO for windows. It does the trick. You can even try it on the cheap using HDMI output to a multichannel receiver.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.