Didnt you just do a calibration in those facilities, using the B&K mics as reference?
Hope you kept the data. Would not the new cal for the EW just be B&K response - EW (uncorrected) response?
If you send it back for cal, would they not simply use a reference mic of some sort and do the same?
Hope you kept the data. Would not the new cal for the EW just be B&K response - EW (uncorrected) response?
If you send it back for cal, would they not simply use a reference mic of some sort and do the same?
Last edited:
Not technically a calibration in those facilities. I just compared speaker measurements and I no longer have those speakers and even if I did, I don't trust that the FR didn't change over time.
If the two B&K measurements agreed with each other and the speaker was appropriate for calibration using substitution, yes I would use the data to calibrate my EW mic. But that was then and recent measurements indicate that my EW mic FR has changed.
EW uses spark gap calibration for their mics. The do not use a reference mic for calibration AFAIK.
I'm torn between having EW calibrate it or calibrate it myself using substitution with a B&K recently calibrated mic or ?
If the two B&K measurements agreed with each other and the speaker was appropriate for calibration using substitution, yes I would use the data to calibrate my EW mic. But that was then and recent measurements indicate that my EW mic FR has changed.
EW uses spark gap calibration for their mics. The do not use a reference mic for calibration AFAIK.
I'm torn between having EW calibrate it or calibrate it myself using substitution with a B&K recently calibrated mic or ?
Unfortunately you can only use the substitution method for the EW mikes. And the substitution method is intrinsically less precise. Going after the +/-.1 dB that you can get with a B&K on an electrostatic actuator is nice but less relevant in the real world. The acoustic performance in the real world is compromised by the grid and mounting and etc.
At what frequencies are you getting the differences? At higher frequencies it doesn't take much to get substantial differences. The EW mikes use plastic diaphragms so they do age and can shift.
EW actually used a Microtech MK301 to verify their test setup. Not quite substitution but close. I have been trying to duplicate their efforts but we are short on details to duplicate their setup. I'm not getting the really short impulses I was hoping for, Mother Nature has different ideas.
My fallback is a Pioneer ribbon tweeter that seems to get to maybe 70 KHz.
At what frequencies are you getting the differences? At higher frequencies it doesn't take much to get substantial differences. The EW mikes use plastic diaphragms so they do age and can shift.
EW actually used a Microtech MK301 to verify their test setup. Not quite substitution but close. I have been trying to duplicate their efforts but we are short on details to duplicate their setup. I'm not getting the really short impulses I was hoping for, Mother Nature has different ideas.
My fallback is a Pioneer ribbon tweeter that seems to get to maybe 70 KHz.