CHN70 ain't the only wonky one under the roof. A7P follows same exact 600Hz to 7kHz plateau and then has a 20dB tall peak at 16khz at 30deg off axis, whereas the CHN70 falls off at higher frequencies. Data measured at 0.5m with 4ms gate applied. CHN70 in black.
Attachments
Last edited:
A7.3 and even more so the A7.3eN is one of the best FR drivers available despite anything you or anyone say XRK's measures or subjective listening tests imply. Come by and have a listen.
A7p is not as good, darnright painful out of the box, but seems to calm down considerably after 1000+ hrs. To long for most to wait.
dave
A7p is not as good, darnright painful out of the box, but seems to calm down considerably after 1000+ hrs. To long for most to wait.
dave
He has not said so… and when presented with FR of the evolved unit had no comment. Perhaps he can present his most recent cal? (i don't believe he has gotten the Zoom calibrated)
dave
The complete second sentence taken as a whole is not true. If he wants to know the microphone responses of his Zoom H4, he has several paths that will do this.
Without measuring his Zoom H4 it is true that he does not know what the frequency response of its microphones are. So practical assumption is made that the microphones have flatter/smoother response than any of the speaker drivers under test. If he accidentally recorded a speaker with NIST level of flatness using Zoom H4, chances are very high that it would be a leader in one of his blind comparisons.
In the first blind comparison thread I posted a sound clip as the convolution of the TC9FD IR with one of the provided reference clips. The full IR with reverberation tail was used; and I applied a correction filter based on his UMM-6 calibration data. The convolution method allowed easy construction of stereo recording. It sounds very good. His Zoom recordings are of single speaker, its crossed cardioid microphones bring out the very worst of his small highly reflective room, yet this factors out across his recording set, and in any case listeners sorted out their preferences and voted accordingly.... And flattest response drivers came out with highest rankings.
The only evidence seen is a FR of the H4n which has 6 & 8 dB peaks at 4 & 7.5 kHz. It is not a measuring mic (althou the cals on some of my cheap measure mics show 5 dB peaks not much higher)
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...-blind-auditioning-drivers-5.html#post4393291
Certainly not flatter than many speakers, and the 2nd peak would exacerbate (close todoubling it) a peak measured by XRK on at least one particular driver.
dave
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...-blind-auditioning-drivers-5.html#post4393291
Certainly not flatter than many speakers, and the 2nd peak would exacerbate (close todoubling it) a peak measured by XRK on at least one particular driver.
dave
Show me someone who uses calibrated mics for music recording. So they have to post process their music with the mics cal file??? That is just crazy ridiculous. It isn't done - are you ever going to stop with this? So tiresome.
I go back to my paraphrase quote of OPC: "when subjectivists feel that they are losing control they will make all sorts of objective excuses. "
Last edited:
It usually isn't, but you are using it as a measuring mic are you not? Any non-flatness skews the results.
dave
No! I use purely for sound clips. Like music recording. The measurement mic is the calibrated UMM6.
But the sound clips are being used to evaluate a speaker. You are not recording music, you are recording the output of a loudspeaker playing music with the goal of evaluating the speaker.
The frequency réponse of the speaker is claimed to be the most important attribute, but what you are getting in your clips is their FR (ignoring the room for now) + the FR of the mic. If the mic deviates substantially from flat you are substantially skewing the results with the non-flat response of the mic.
dave
The frequency réponse of the speaker is claimed to be the most important attribute, but what you are getting in your clips is their FR (ignoring the room for now) + the FR of the mic. If the mic deviates substantially from flat you are substantially skewing the results with the non-flat response of the mic.
dave
Comparison of UMM-6 and H4 mics with Pink Noise
Pink noise generated using generator in REW. Recorded from Visaton B80 driver in Nautaloss at 0.5m distance.
Looks like the mic used in the Zoom is pretty close the the one used in the UMM-6. I have always suspected that most manufacturers are probably spec'ing their mic capsules from Panasonic WM-61. There is some deviation at 15kHz, wonder if some of that is effect of 45 deg angled XY mic arrangement of the Zoom.
Can you lay off the Zoom's mic's calibration now? It's within a few dB of the UMM-6.
Pink noise generated using generator in REW. Recorded from Visaton B80 driver in Nautaloss at 0.5m distance.
Looks like the mic used in the Zoom is pretty close the the one used in the UMM-6. I have always suspected that most manufacturers are probably spec'ing their mic capsules from Panasonic WM-61. There is some deviation at 15kHz, wonder if some of that is effect of 45 deg angled XY mic arrangement of the Zoom.
Can you lay off the Zoom's mic's calibration now? It's within a few dB of the UMM-6.
Attachments
Last edited:
Is that before or after you added the calibration of the UMM6?
The Zoom shows a significant 6 dB or so variation 5-8k, right where many FRs have issues.
But, even if it was ruler flat, the very act of passing the signal thru another transducer significantly degrades the amount of information in the signal.
dave
The Zoom shows a significant 6 dB or so variation 5-8k, right where many FRs have issues.
But, even if it was ruler flat, the very act of passing the signal thru another transducer significantly degrades the amount of information in the signal.
dave
Just making a point. Now can you post your UMM6 cal?
Or apply it to the UMM6 curve above -- without it the compare to the Zoom means nothing.
dave
Or apply it to the UMM6 curve above -- without it the compare to the Zoom means nothing.
dave
This is the B80 with cal'd mic. The black line is the factory calibration curve. Not much correction needed.
Attachments
Last edited:
Dave what is it you are asking for specifically? The mic cal curve is shown in the above measurement.
Or are you wanting xrk to run a pink noise stimulus, measure the result with the calibrated UMM6, then measure the result with the Zoom and compare those two? All things being equal this should show us, roughly, how flat the Zoom is.
Or are you wanting xrk to run a pink noise stimulus, measure the result with the calibrated UMM6, then measure the result with the Zoom and compare those two? All things being equal this should show us, roughly, how flat the Zoom is.
No its not, that is a B80 measured with the cal file imbedded in the measurement software. We need to see what the cal file looks like if we have any hope of knowing what the response of the Zoom is.
dave
dave
Look carefully it's the black line with 1.5dB correction is the cal curve. I gave you the curve you asked for the least you can do is take a look at the legends before saying I am not providing what you asked for.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.