@kimmosto, i'm sorry if you already responded to this question, but if not, could you please provide a definitive response on this?
Thank you in advance!
I'm using REW to calculate the PEQ filters to equalize a driver using the Active PEQ filters provided by VituixCAD.
I must be doing something wrong, as the filters from REW do not generate the same target response on VituixCAD.
The driver in question is the TPL-150H, which i'll be using in a near future, and i've found the FRD file on parts-express forum, and can be downloaded here.
So, i import the FRD to REW, and use the EQ option to produce the PEQ filters:
I then use the PEQ filters, introducing the same values in VituixCAD:
The filters are exactly the same as the ones calculated by REW.
But, for some reason, the end result is not the same, the REW calculate response is almost flat, which is not the case when i apply the same filters on VituixCAD.
As can be seen above, i've used the same scale on both tools, but the end result on VituixCAD is not the same as predicted by REW.
What am i missing?
I must be doing something wrong, as the filters from REW do not generate the same target response on VituixCAD.
The driver in question is the TPL-150H, which i'll be using in a near future, and i've found the FRD file on parts-express forum, and can be downloaded here.
So, i import the FRD to REW, and use the EQ option to produce the PEQ filters:
I then use the PEQ filters, introducing the same values in VituixCAD:
The filters are exactly the same as the ones calculated by REW.
But, for some reason, the end result is not the same, the REW calculate response is almost flat, which is not the case when i apply the same filters on VituixCAD.
As can be seen above, i've used the same scale on both tools, but the end result on VituixCAD is not the same as predicted by REW.
What am i missing?
Member
Joined 2003
Thank you for your response!
On REW i've used the filters for miniDSP-2x4HD, i would assume they are the same (?)
Given that the FRD file was obtained through tracing, i'll assume that's where the problem lies.
I will be able to take real measurements in a near future, so if the problem was indeed the FRD file, there's no need to worry for now
On REW i've used the filters for miniDSP-2x4HD, i would assume they are the same (?)
Given that the FRD file was obtained through tracing, i'll assume that's where the problem lies.
I will be able to take real measurements in a near future, so if the problem was indeed the FRD file, there's no need to worry for now
Perfect, that was it, thank you very much for pointing it out
After matching the DSP options, now it behaves exactly as REW predicted.
Last edited:
I don't fully understand how this relates to VituixCAD. Measurement program can produce timing signal to secondary/reference output, and therefore measurement program alone can calculate locked timing and phase. In some cases primary/measurement output can include also timing signal, but secondary/reference output can not include measurement signal.
Acoustical timing reference must be installed to constant distance from mic capsule so natural place would be mic boom because mic is moved for different drivers. Possible problem is that reference radiator can occasionally send also mechanical feedback which is much faster than sound.
User can use any timing reference, but electrical feedback to reference channel is recommended due to simplicity and reliability. USB mics are not cheaper than conventional, (separate) sound card is needed anyway and usability of mic alone is limited so that product is stupid imo. No one really have to buy and use them to produce measurement data for simulation.
@kimmosto:
Thank you for the answer.
You are right: the question is not directly related to VituixCAD itself. However, VituixCAD needs valid data to simulate correctly. I think that's why the document "Preparation of response measurements for crossover simulation with VituixCAD" exists in versions for different measurement programs. So my question refers rather to this document in the version for REW.
I am not asking for me either. As I already wrote, my setup is semi-two-channel. However, I often encounter people who don't want to do without their USB microphone. For them I ask.
To the answer: that the small loudspeaker for the timing signal must not change its position, I have already written. But I forgot to mention that I meant the position relative to the measurement microphone.
I would also not attach the small speaker to the microphone stand to avoid mechanical feedback. To avoid having to change the height and thus the position of the microphone, I would instead change the height of the DUT to bring the individual drivers to microphone height.
Than it shoud work, right?
Thank you for the answer.
You are right: the question is not directly related to VituixCAD itself. However, VituixCAD needs valid data to simulate correctly. I think that's why the document "Preparation of response measurements for crossover simulation with VituixCAD" exists in versions for different measurement programs. So my question refers rather to this document in the version for REW.
I am not asking for me either. As I already wrote, my setup is semi-two-channel. However, I often encounter people who don't want to do without their USB microphone. For them I ask.
To the answer: that the small loudspeaker for the timing signal must not change its position, I have already written. But I forgot to mention that I meant the position relative to the measurement microphone.
I would also not attach the small speaker to the microphone stand to avoid mechanical feedback. To avoid having to change the height and thus the position of the microphone, I would instead change the height of the DUT to bring the individual drivers to microphone height.
Than it shoud work, right?
Last edited:
Yes, assuming that elevation of DUT is adjustable.
In real life mic stand is adjustable almost without limits and exceptions, but DUTs not so much. For example heavy floor standing speaker on rotating table is quite difficult without extra hands and muscles. Modular heavy weight stand with few constant elevations is simpler than adjustable e.g. hydraulic or screw jack.
Can anyone recommend a reasonably priced calibrated Mic to use with VituixCAD in Europe?
I would import a calibrated EMM6 from Cross Spectrum (around 110€ even with taxes and shipment), but they seem to be out of stock since 2019.
I would import a calibrated EMM6 from Cross Spectrum (around 110€ even with taxes and shipment), but they seem to be out of stock since 2019.
Member
Joined 2003
The Audiomatica MIC-01, MIC-02, MIC-03 should be readily available in Europe.
I've been using Line Audio OM1 which is a nice flat mic that need no calibration file, it is just flat. From factory the condenser capsules are individually selected and passively compensated to meet the specs. Not advertised as a measurement mic, but compared against Dayton Omnimic within 1dB. Line Audio operates in Sweden.
For low cost solution you can look for Sonarworks SoundID mic.
I'm sure there are mic calibration services on your side of the pond as well if you want to purchase a non-calibrated condenser mic and send it for calibration. Might not be cheaper alternative to a decent quality calibrated mic like Neumann MA 1 however. Neumann is a German company.
I've been using Line Audio OM1 which is a nice flat mic that need no calibration file, it is just flat. From factory the condenser capsules are individually selected and passively compensated to meet the specs. Not advertised as a measurement mic, but compared against Dayton Omnimic within 1dB. Line Audio operates in Sweden.
For low cost solution you can look for Sonarworks SoundID mic.
I'm sure there are mic calibration services on your side of the pond as well if you want to purchase a non-calibrated condenser mic and send it for calibration. Might not be cheaper alternative to a decent quality calibrated mic like Neumann MA 1 however. Neumann is a German company.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2003
The Audiomatica and the Neumann MA should be around 300€ when adding shipping
The Sonarworks SoundID is by far the cheapest at 66€, but is it good enough?
The Sonarworks SoundID is by far the cheapest at 66€, but is it good enough?
Last edited:
What does "reasonably priced" mean?
At the moment I use an iSEMcon EMX-7150, which is very linear even without a calibration file. It is also suitable for very high level measurements, but is not quite cheap.
Previously I used an IMG ECM-40, for which I had a calibration file made at Hifi-Selbstbau. You can buy it there also ready calibrated.
I have compared both microphones here (for translation try Deepl). I think you can achieve good results with both.
With kind regards
Azrael
At the moment I use an iSEMcon EMX-7150, which is very linear even without a calibration file. It is also suitable for very high level measurements, but is not quite cheap.
Previously I used an IMG ECM-40, for which I had a calibration file made at Hifi-Selbstbau. You can buy it there also ready calibrated.
I have compared both microphones here (for translation try Deepl
). I think you can achieve good results with both.With kind regards
Azrael
Member
Joined 2003
The Audiomatica and the Neumann MA should be around 300€ when adding shipping
The Sonarworks SoundID is by far the cheapest at 66€, but is it good enough?
Define good enough. Do you need laboratory grade absolute precision or just something reasonably accurate for DIY projects. Most non-linearity in a mic occurs at high frequency, using a point of reference of a reasonably flat tweeter like Vifa XT25 on a large board could get you most of the way there on frequency calibration, but is it "good enough"? Even with calibration, nearby objects such as the mic clip and boom stand can throw off the high frequency result, so the long stick mic like Audiomatica look more appealing with this in mind.
Sonarworks looks rather similar to Dayton EMM-6, and like Dayton, it provides no accuracy specification. "calibration" could mean +/- 10dB for all you know. Perhaps the Sonarworks is good enough for frequency response, but I wouldn't trust the results of these cheap condenser capsules for distortion analysis. My EMM-6 was way out to lunch for distortion use, so OM1 was the replacement upgrade.
Quality and guarantee of accuracy come with a cost. Line Audio OM1 comes in at 120 euro if I've converted the currency correctly by the way.
You could reach out to calibration services in Europe on cost. Perhaps buying some cheap uncalibrated mic like Superlux ECM999 and sending it for calibration is a good option.
Last edited:
100-150€ would be ideal
I'm looking at it for designing a crossover for a DIY TPL-150H + AE TD12M project, and performing the measures required by VituixCAD.
I already have a calibrated Cross Spectrum Umik-1, but i want to follow VituixCAD instructions as close as possible to avoid errors, so i'm now looking for a conventional calibrated mic.
Thank you for your very useful responses!
Member
Joined 2003
Since you already own a calibrated mic, assuming you trust its accuracy just build your own calibration file for whatever mic you purchase, like that inexpensive Superlux ECM999. Simply take a measurement of one of your complete speakers with the UMIK, carefully swap the mic for your new one keeping same location in the clip and distance from speaker, measure again with your new mic and without cal file loaded of course. Now subtract one measurement from the other to create your calibration file. Apply some smoothing so small differences from noise etc are removed.
With the newly generated calibration file loaded, take another measurement with each mic and compare the result. You may be surprised to see how close they can be with this simple method.
With the newly generated calibration file loaded, take another measurement with each mic and compare the result. You may be surprised to see how close they can be with this simple method.
Last edited: