The Pocket Clio doesn't make much sense on a comparative basis.
The only reason it does make sense is ease of use, and even then it's largely a matter of opinion. Arta? REW? DATS v3 (for T/S parameters)? Pocket Clio?
-and then of course ease-of-use is still subject to the limitations already mentioned, you are NOT going to "get-around" that with the Pocket Clio.
BTW, you almost always end-up with multiple sound card issues and system settings (regardless of Pocket Clio or an Audio Interface or a UMIK-1 or a DATS v.3).
The reason is that most computers already have on-board sound (especially laptops and tablets).
You would have to use the other high-ohm input on the front panel for your Dual Channel use (..1st if for mic., 2nd is for dual-channel input).
I do believe that the inputs and outputs are Balanced though - so there shouldn't be a miss-match.
I do believe that the inputs and outputs are Balanced though - so there shouldn't be a miss-match.
Attachments
To my knowledge most if not all discussed microphones here are of the electret type, as in having a prepolarized back/front plate or diaphragm. Of course aging can be an issue, although I rather suspect the electronics involved instead of the capsule itself. And most aging issues have been dealt with, these mikes have been around since the seventies. I do have a Nakamichi CM-300 with all capsules lying around that still worked pretty well last time I checked. Earthworks M50 and DPA 4006 are electret types too.What makes you think the Earthworks won't have the same problems over time?
Typical lab -true condensor- mikes of course are an exception, they are polarized with an external source (often up to 200V to increase sensitivity). B&K and others also manufacture integrated sound measuring equipment for field use that make use of capsules that need the external polarization. And there sure will be microphones that use the well known 48V for polarization for this (combined with Voltage step-up), but in lab conditions external phantom powering of up to 200V rules. This being not a serious option for us DIY folks, I'd stick to the electret types.
Yes, most are pre-polarized and those that are - are generally under $600 a *capsule are pre-polarized diaphragm. The more expensive versions usually have a pre-polarized backing on a metal diaphragm. The later expensive versions are largely immune to environmental effects. (..and it makes me wonder if enviornmental problems were the source of mbrennwa's mic. problems.)
*not the mic. cost, but rather just the capsule that goes into the mic..
*not the mic. cost, but rather just the capsule that goes into the mic..
Last edited:
Funny thing is, the well-known WM61A was specified as a back electret type. Dunno if that $600 tag makes the difference here.
Cool! I looked into it a bit more and it seems like even the pre-polarized backing is common.
I wonder what the spacing (in-between the diaphragm) is like (and venting of the back-plate) between the more expensive capsules and the less expensive capsules..
Might not be much difference at all.
At some point you've got to wonder where all your money is going for the expensive stuff..
I looked into it a bit more and it seems like even the pre-polarized backing is common.I wonder what the spacing (in-between the diaphragm) is like (and venting of the back-plate) between the more expensive capsules and the less expensive capsules..
Might not be much difference at all.
At some point you've got to wonder where all your money is going for the expensive stuff..
I want to misuse this thread because I don't know where my question belongs and we have been talking about measuring microphones before. If the OP still has a share in the fate of his thread and does not want to see this happen, just tell me. What I want to ask:
I recorded audio playback from my provisional speaker and was wondering whether my microphone recording levels are lower than they should be. I use a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 1gen, gain set at 70 percent and the microphone was about a meter from the speaker. The speaker was running at aproximately 60 dB at this distance and I still had to amplify the recording for +18 db to reach reasonable levels (between -12 to -6 dB). If I apply more gain at the interface I get a lot of noise, but my subjective impression is that the recording should be louder anyway. I changed the mic, connected a Rode NT1-A to check functionality, the levels were marginally higher as would be expected because of membrane surface but not a big difference. Now I wonder whether recording levels at such a relatively small distance are generally as low or if I have some sort of technical issue here. Some complaints can be found on the internet about low levels with this interface but I cannot aprove that something is wrong, it could just be normal. Could I have an interference of software/drivers here or can I not expect any better? I deinstalled any equalizers (APO, PEACE), reinstalled focusrite drivers, ASIO, tried to check if REW, Audacity or Audition cause any problem but could not find one.
The farfield of this speaker only begins with quite some distance, probably 2 meters minimum, and if I want to record its in-room spectrum faithfully, I cannot put the microphone close. What can I do?
I recorded audio playback from my provisional speaker and was wondering whether my microphone recording levels are lower than they should be. I use a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 1gen, gain set at 70 percent and the microphone was about a meter from the speaker. The speaker was running at aproximately 60 dB at this distance and I still had to amplify the recording for +18 db to reach reasonable levels (between -12 to -6 dB). If I apply more gain at the interface I get a lot of noise, but my subjective impression is that the recording should be louder anyway. I changed the mic, connected a Rode NT1-A to check functionality, the levels were marginally higher as would be expected because of membrane surface but not a big difference. Now I wonder whether recording levels at such a relatively small distance are generally as low or if I have some sort of technical issue here. Some complaints can be found on the internet about low levels with this interface but I cannot aprove that something is wrong, it could just be normal. Could I have an interference of software/drivers here or can I not expect any better? I deinstalled any equalizers (APO, PEACE), reinstalled focusrite drivers, ASIO, tried to check if REW, Audacity or Audition cause any problem but could not find one.
The farfield of this speaker only begins with quite some distance, probably 2 meters minimum, and if I want to record its in-room spectrum faithfully, I cannot put the microphone close. What can I do?
I ran a measurement today with my Scarlett 18i20 with the output volume set to give a reading of about 70dB (at 1m) and REW set to output the sweep at -12dBFS, I have the mic gain turned all the way up and get readings of somewhere around -25dB back into REW. It needs to be at this level to leave headroom to record at a louder SPL, with it set like that I can measure up to 95 dB SPL. The levels do not need to be up at -12 to -6dB for REW to measure correctly. You will get a warning if the recording level is too low.
Reading it again it makes sense. Acoustic noisefloor under normal conditions will be around 30-40dB (flat). So the mic inputs don't have to be much more sensitive and with recording you'll need headroom up til 110dB or more. Measuring at 60dB isn't the best either, it only leaves you about 20-30dB S/N ratio, so measuring distortion or acoustic slopes becomes unreliable. Speakers should easily do 90dB on 1m. So turn up the volume.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.