Thanks Lojzek, valuable input as always.
It does get to the price point of Clio pocket system if you will add up the costs of the items I linked above.
It does get to the price point of Clio pocket system if you will add up the costs of the items I linked above.
Last edited:
saw this article at audioexpress comparing Clio pocket system with the DIY route we are discussing here:
Practical Test & Measurement: Sound Cards for Data Acquisition in Audio Measurements (Part 7) - Pitting the CLIO Pocket Against a Sound Card | audioXpress
Practical Test & Measurement: Sound Cards for Data Acquisition in Audio Measurements (Part 7) - Pitting the CLIO Pocket Against a Sound Card | audioXpress
Clio pocket is sort of a "dead-end" solution: easy to use but not versatile enough. Really, it's not as versatile as a *UMIK-1 with REW and a DATS v3.
BTW, a lot of the ease with respect to almost half of of loudspeaker measurement (specifically of T/S parameters), can be easily handled by a DATS v3 (..or SL Woofer Tester 2). This can also be done with an impedance testing "jig" (DIY'ed) for Arta or other programs that offer this measurement capability, but for ease of use it's tough to beat a DATS v3.
*Note: I wouldn't recommend a UMIK-1 alone either. Neither the Clio Pocket nor the UMIK-1 have capability for dual-channel measurements for really good phase and **distortion testing. HOWEVER, if all you want is a quick single driver freq. response measurement than both can be very useful, but the Clio Pocket is a lot more expensive (even when considering the addition of the DATS v 3).
**..and I wouldn't trust the Mic. on the Clio Pocket for good distortion testing either: its spec'ed at "maximum" of 130 db without any Distortion results. So I find the overload characteristics for near-field non-linear distortion testing suspect (particularly if you are testing for higher levels than simply a single 2.83 volt test). The EMX-7150 has a 145 db at 3% distortion. The OM1 from Line Audio has only .5% THD at 133 db (with is quite likely better than the 7150 at any level), this is because it has a larger capsule/diaphragm than a typical 1/4" mic. (and is actually closer to a 1/2" mic. in size). The noise level is also quite a lot better on the larger capsule mic.: about 12 db LOWER than the 7150.
BTW, a lot of the ease with respect to almost half of of loudspeaker measurement (specifically of T/S parameters), can be easily handled by a DATS v3 (..or SL Woofer Tester 2). This can also be done with an impedance testing "jig" (DIY'ed) for Arta or other programs that offer this measurement capability, but for ease of use it's tough to beat a DATS v3.
*Note: I wouldn't recommend a UMIK-1 alone either. Neither the Clio Pocket nor the UMIK-1 have capability for dual-channel measurements for really good phase and **distortion testing. HOWEVER, if all you want is a quick single driver freq. response measurement than both can be very useful, but the Clio Pocket is a lot more expensive (even when considering the addition of the DATS v 3).
**..and I wouldn't trust the Mic. on the Clio Pocket for good distortion testing either: its spec'ed at "maximum" of 130 db without any Distortion results. So I find the overload characteristics for near-field non-linear distortion testing suspect (particularly if you are testing for higher levels than simply a single 2.83 volt test). The EMX-7150 has a 145 db at 3% distortion. The OM1 from Line Audio has only .5% THD at 133 db (with is quite likely better than the 7150 at any level), this is because it has a larger capsule/diaphragm than a typical 1/4" mic. (and is actually closer to a 1/2" mic. in size). The noise level is also quite a lot better on the larger capsule mic.: about 12 db LOWER than the 7150.
Last edited:
I agree with ScottG, Clio pocket makes no sense.
Honestly, get a cheap ECM8000 and a cheap UMC 204 or 404.
They will totally exceed your capability to make make discerning measurements, for probably a few years.
Experience matters, and when gained, you will know what you need further, and why.
And have money in the bank to go there
Honestly, get a cheap ECM8000 and a cheap UMC 204 or 404.
They will totally exceed your capability to make make discerning measurements, for probably a few years.
Experience matters, and when gained, you will know what you need further, and why.
And have money in the bank to go there
Hi Scott,
I have to admit after reading conflicting arguments here and elsewhere the Clio Pocket is starting to sound enticing. A complete kit with just everything you need to do basic measurements, something that will work right away without hassle. No need to research and look for feedbacks on individual items if you do the diy open system route.
But I value versatility, and your argument about the quality of the mic is reasonable. I am considering the Line Audio OM1 now, great feedbacks and reviews everywhere. Can you suggest a reliable audio interface to go along with it?
Thanks for your input.
I have to admit after reading conflicting arguments here and elsewhere the Clio Pocket is starting to sound enticing. A complete kit with just everything you need to do basic measurements, something that will work right away without hassle. No need to research and look for feedbacks on individual items if you do the diy open system route.
But I value versatility, and your argument about the quality of the mic is reasonable. I am considering the Line Audio OM1 now, great feedbacks and reviews everywhere. Can you suggest a reliable audio interface to go along with it?
Thanks for your input.
Hi Mark,
The ECM8000 and the UMC404 will cost 155 euro total. That is cheaper than the Isemcon mic alone.
If you say this will be enough for starters and gain experience with, then what is the argument for more expensive mics from the others as mentioned here? Is it build quality? Capsule quality?
I would like to understand. Again, I am willing to spend on better quality products that will last and perform at the same level longer.
Thanks for your input.
The ECM8000 and the UMC404 will cost 155 euro total. That is cheaper than the Isemcon mic alone.
If you say this will be enough for starters and gain experience with, then what is the argument for more expensive mics from the others as mentioned here? Is it build quality? Capsule quality?
I would like to understand. Again, I am willing to spend on better quality products that will last and perform at the same level longer.
Thanks for your input.
I agree with ScottG, Clio pocket makes no sense.
Honestly, get a cheap ECM8000 and a cheap UMC 204 or 404.
They will totally exceed your capability to make make discerning measurements, for probably a few years.
Experience matters, and when gained, you will know what you need further, and why.
And have money in the bank to go there
Last edited:
Hi a3cervo, i think the main reason for a better mic is the confidence it inspires that it is accurate.
I just haven't seen enough difference in expensive mic transfer functions, vs the cheaper mics, to warrant paying up.
That said, i do use the Isemcon 7150 as my routine mic, but that's just because i already have it (and sometimes need to measure very loud).
The UMC404 is totally adequate in my strong opinion. Nothing better is needed at all. I use either it or a RME babyface pro interchangeably.
That said, the one feature that's missing from the UMC is recallable gain settings. That is valuable for keeping SPL level calibrated, if such matters to you.
I really do recommend starting cheap, and finding out how much precision in a mic you think you need. When folks see how much measurements vary from slightest mic movements, i think it's a wakeup call to how much is really precise to begin with...
Behringer 204 HD
-it actually measures better than the 404HD, though in a full dual-channel setup that's rather meaningless. The 404HD however has additional outputs for trying-out an active digital *crossover. Note that you do NOT want the 202HD.
*I have a different sound card (Echo Layla) just for this with more outputs (up to 4-way in stereo) for use with Soundeasy. I use the 204HD for distortion and phase measuring and also have a UMIK-1 (calibrated from Cross Spectrum) for quick general purpose freq. response measurements (and particularly spl referencing between 200-1kHz). I also have a DATS v2 for T/S parameter testing. I still need to purchase the OM1 (..my Dayton mic.s can't handle higher spl testing), and I'll likely send it to Cross Spectrum for calibration: Cross·Spectrum Labs - Sound | Vibration | Engineering
IF I was going to spend more just to have better spec.s than the 204 HD I'd look to the Motu M4.
If you look to the Arta manual you'll see on page 9 the voltage probe for the 204 or 404. Probe compensation is really only needed for non-linear distortion testing.
For good phase testing between 2 or more drivers then semi-dual-channel is good enough as seen on page 10 (figure 1.8).
https://www.artalabs.hr/download/ARTA-user-manual.pdf
Note that fig. 1.7 is all either the UMIK-1 or Clio Pocket can perform.
Additionally, for ease of use I'd still recommend the DATS v3 in addition to the Audio Interface + Mic..
Last edited:
Why would one not want 202? What does 204 offer over it, besides four channel outputs - asking as a Scarlett 2i2 user (functionally same as 202), so not a brand-related question, but in context of the soundcard use for (semi) dual channel measurements.
I am not saying your statement is wrong, but what am I missing?
Hi Mark,
You nailed it with this statement
The UMC404 is now at the top of my shortlist for audio interface.
Thanks again and I appreciate the response.
You nailed it with this statement
The UMC404 is now at the top of my shortlist for audio interface.
Thanks again and I appreciate the response.
Hi Scott,
I am considering the UMC204HD, the UMC404HD and your last pick the Motu M4.
Both the UMC204HD and Motu M4 are USB-Bus powered while the UMC404HD has its own wall wart psu.
Is there an advantage to having an external power supply vs getting it from the USB bus? like usb noise messing with the performance?
Thanks again. I appreciate the help.
I am considering the UMC204HD, the UMC404HD and your last pick the Motu M4.
Both the UMC204HD and Motu M4 are USB-Bus powered while the UMC404HD has its own wall wart psu.
Is there an advantage to having an external power supply vs getting it from the USB bus? like usb noise messing with the performance?
Thanks again. I appreciate the help.
It's all in the spec.s (which of course include bus-power).
Technically speaking the *USB-C is superior for power and latency (relative to any other USB), so the Motu is better designed and its spec.s show that.
*..of course you need USB-C to get that level of performance. (..which could be a limiting factor unless you have a more recent computer w/ USB-C; it was for me because I also use my older Windows Tablet with it on occasion - that doesn't have USB-C.)
Note: I'm not sure what the line input (the ones on the back) ohm value is (the one's that are NOT "Hi Z"), and how that would relate to Arta's probe compensation. If you are interested in it then contact Motu.
Specs | MOTU.com
Note: IF you plan on doing other (non-**speaker) measurements then I would absolutely pay extra for the Motu. ..and then purchase one of these:
The L|A Autoranger | Linear Audio NL
**though note that the DATS v3 can also do basic crossover component testing/matching.
Technically speaking the *USB-C is superior for power and latency (relative to any other USB), so the Motu is better designed and its spec.s show that.
*..of course you need USB-C to get that level of performance. (..which could be a limiting factor unless you have a more recent computer w/ USB-C; it was for me because I also use my older Windows Tablet with it on occasion - that doesn't have USB-C.)
Note: I'm not sure what the line input (the ones on the back) ohm value is (the one's that are NOT "Hi Z"), and how that would relate to Arta's probe compensation. If you are interested in it then contact Motu.
Specs | MOTU.com
Note: IF you plan on doing other (non-**speaker) measurements then I would absolutely pay extra for the Motu. ..and then purchase one of these:
The L|A Autoranger | Linear Audio NL
**though note that the DATS v3 can also do basic crossover component testing/matching.
Last edited:
If you spend 58Euro instand of 36Euro you can get this Sonarworks mic that is individually calibrated for frequency response at 0 degrees.
Sonarworks XREF 20 Mic – Thomann Ireland
If you need a better mic than this you will know why and which to buy, until then buy this and the Behringer and be happy
Yup, they are all very similar. I've got 2 of these with calibration files (..and also 1 of the Behringers w/out a calibration file):
Dayton Audio EMM-6 Electret Measurement Microphone
Note though that the calibration file is a bit suspect in the top 2 octaves. It's sort of a "generic" calibration file to this capsule (..they make it seem like it's done specifically for that exact mic.. it's not, though all the mic.s are exceedingly similar if under the same testing conditions).
It also isn't a mic. I'd recommend for high spl (near-field) testing with regard to non-linear distortion (especially if you need to test higher sensitivity drivers at 2.83 volts or more).
Still, this mic. (be it Dayton, Sonarworks, or some other branding w/ this calibration file) is a good value and will do most of what's required.
Dayton Audio EMM-6 Electret Measurement Microphone
Note though that the calibration file is a bit suspect in the top 2 octaves. It's sort of a "generic" calibration file to this capsule (..they make it seem like it's done specifically for that exact mic.. it's not, though all the mic.s are exceedingly similar if under the same testing conditions).
It also isn't a mic. I'd recommend for high spl (near-field) testing with regard to non-linear distortion (especially if you need to test higher sensitivity drivers at 2.83 volts or more).
Still, this mic. (be it Dayton, Sonarworks, or some other branding w/ this calibration file) is a good value and will do most of what's required.
Last edited:
Both Sonarworks and Dayton claim that they are individually calibrated and Dayton goes into further detail in how they calibrate it. I have no way of verifying this.
Maybe we should compare calibrations to see how individual they are.
Sonarworks use it as part of their overall EQ calibration scheme which is why I picked it as well as being cheaper for me than an EMM6.
It does the job and is a surprisingly nicely made thing.
A cross Spectrum Labs calibrated mic is an option too but it was expensive enough to go without.
I have written this many times, but I am happy to repeat it:
Yes, there are cheap microphones. Yes, you can get an individual calibration curve for those. Go ahead with this, but...
...will your calibration curve still be accurate after a week, a month, a year, 10 years? Maybe it's fine for a week, maybe it's okay for a month, but probably not for longer (been there, done that). This means you'll have to recalibrate the microphone quite frequently. Not fun, and expensive. You can avoid this by getting a good microphone that will not drift much. Such a mic may cost a few more bucks to start with, will save money and time along the road, and brings you peace of mind.
What's wrong with getting proper tools?
Yes, there are cheap microphones. Yes, you can get an individual calibration curve for those. Go ahead with this, but...
...will your calibration curve still be accurate after a week, a month, a year, 10 years? Maybe it's fine for a week, maybe it's okay for a month, but probably not for longer (been there, done that). This means you'll have to recalibrate the microphone quite frequently. Not fun, and expensive. You can avoid this by getting a good microphone that will not drift much. Such a mic may cost a few more bucks to start with, will save money and time along the road, and brings you peace of mind.
What's wrong with getting proper tools?
I have had my mic for about 4 years and it has not drifted I can't speak for others. Given the cost I could buy a cheap one five times or more for the cost of a truly naturally flat mic.
Nothing, most of the mics being suggested are proper tools fit for the purpose of measuring speakers at home. I would like to buy an Earthworks mic but every time I hesitate because I actually don't need it.
No one should ever regret buying a good tool, I have a workshop full of them but sometimes something works just as well for a whole lot less and that is satisfying too.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.