I don't dare to recommend anything but Sonarworks XREF 20 should be okay with limited budget.
Needs also mic stand, mic clamp, balanced mic cable and (balanced) loop cable for reference channel and sound card with two I/O channels and phantom of course. Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 3rd Gen is probably okay but I don't know how much cross-feed or DC-offset that model has.
I have XREF20 and Scarlett 2nd gen for technical support purposes only. Main gear is CLIO 12.
Needs also mic stand, mic clamp, balanced mic cable and (balanced) loop cable for reference channel and sound card with two I/O channels and phantom of course. Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 3rd Gen is probably okay but I don't know how much cross-feed or DC-offset that model has.
I have XREF20 and Scarlett 2nd gen for technical support purposes only. Main gear is CLIO 12.
Do I understand correctly, according to you, the XREF-20 is better than UMIK-1, Dayton EMM-6, Behringer ecm 8000 etc ????
That one I cannot say anything
but:- Umik-1 is single channel USB device without integrated output so it's invalid. Clearly banned in my measurement instructions.
- EMM-6 have had coarse response in calibration file so calibration method is suspicious, though could be okay as smoothed.
- ECM 8000 does not have calibration at all, and variation and error of raw individuals has been too big for speaker desining. Quality of ECMs calibrated by other party depends on selected individual. Could be okay above top octave or drop like a stone.
XREF 20 is not perfect either. I have one which has extra hump and S-curve in calibration file producing a bit low level at HF compared to CLIO MIC-01.
Line Audio Design - Made in Sweden
-more expensive though..
This one is well suited to dual-channel measurements (of course change to appropriate Thomann website as needed):
Behringer U-Phoria UMC204HD – Thomann United States
-more expensive though..
This one is well suited to dual-channel measurements (of course change to appropriate Thomann website as needed):
Behringer U-Phoria UMC204HD – Thomann United States
Last edited:
If price is not a problem then
GRAS 46AM
With CLIO12 it is usable as is as CLIO can power it also. With other soundcards you would also need some CCP Power Module
Not a cheap solution but would not really need a calibration file and is flat to around 30kHz
GRAS 46AM
With CLIO12 it is usable as is as CLIO can power it also. With other soundcards you would also need some CCP Power Module
Not a cheap solution but would not really need a calibration file and is flat to around 30kHz
Attachments
This is a LOT of money (..though mic.s alone can easily run 5k plus depending on what you are looking for):
IF using *"Phantom" (XLR):
ACO 7012 and have it independently/lab measured with a calibration file for class 1.
Aco Pacific, Inc. - Microphone specifications
ACO Pacific Microphones
Also, use a class 1 mic. calibrator with both 250 Hz and 1 kHz calibration at both 94db and 114db:
ex.
GRAS 42AG Multifunction Sound Calibrator, Class 1
*there are also some very nice IEPE mic.s out there that require either adapters or dedicated input to the audio interface.
Last edited:
Back to topic. The latest revision is mostly maintenance upgrade which does not have much visible changes and features. Response calculation of active blocks is simplified and unified, and digital biquad coefficients of shelfs are by textbook.
Rev. 2.0.30.1 (2019-11-18)
Main
* Frequency response of active filter blocks calculated directly with complex numbers and transfer function in s-plane when DSP system=Analog or block is FIR.
* Calculation of biquad coefficients updated: 2nd order shelving filter according digital filter cookbook by RBJ. 1st order shelving filter without a2 and b2 to be actual 1st order. Both were approximations with LT.
* Response shape (Q) of Phase EQ active FIR block depends on selected DSP system to get equal shape (by Q) to Gain EQ.
* 'Copy Biquad coeffs' command disabled when DSP system=Analog.
Convert IR to FR
* Added official support for pir files of ARTA 1.9.3.
* Far 1 and Near buttons accelerated by calculating and refreshing curves after settings are changed.
Rev. 2.0.30.1 (2019-11-18)
Main
* Frequency response of active filter blocks calculated directly with complex numbers and transfer function in s-plane when DSP system=Analog or block is FIR.
* Calculation of biquad coefficients updated: 2nd order shelving filter according digital filter cookbook by RBJ. 1st order shelving filter without a2 and b2 to be actual 1st order. Both were approximations with LT.
* Response shape (Q) of Phase EQ active FIR block depends on selected DSP system to get equal shape (by Q) to Gain EQ.
* 'Copy Biquad coeffs' command disabled when DSP system=Analog.
Convert IR to FR
* Added official support for pir files of ARTA 1.9.3.
* Far 1 and Near buttons accelerated by calculating and refreshing curves after settings are changed.
Great stuff, I for one am very happy you are as passionate as you are. I have LEAP installed but never got around to it, figured why when I have VituixCAD which is much more intuitive to use. Not only that, but you listen to feedback, user requests and so forth, that is worth a million in my book.
So thank you for all the work, in the past and future
So thank you for all the work, in the past and future
Not always. I can also burn bridges, be impolite and disrespectful. Quite strict opinions what is good and what is worthless or even harmful to me and others combined with limited lifetime and some laziness does not always lead to positive outcome.
^I'm really tired to repeat that. Maybe I should not care a bit what the others know or (can) do, but that amount of disinterest could also be the end of public free VituixCAD.
It's clear that everyone is free to make own decisions, but individual cannot do much alone to change traditions repeated by ten others. Limited tools and poor methods probably stay alive no matter what is quality and coverage of alternatives. Queue of first timers is endless and instruction stickies guide them to swamp.
It's clear that everyone is free to make own decisions, but individual cannot do much alone to change traditions repeated by ten others. Limited tools and poor methods probably stay alive no matter what is quality and coverage of alternatives. Queue of first timers is endless and instruction stickies guide them to swamp.
I think everyone can see that measuring will do better.
Without measurement is where we started, this experience is valuable even when we become advanced.
The most challenging task a loudspeaker engineer faces is to understand what it is he/she is looking at (objective data). If the software and associated equipment is up to the task, then this is not at fault if the data is not on par with what the engineer desire. Failing to recognize where the fault originates from must then be attributed to the engineer, who have still much to learn.