John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum Archive

Hello,

I am seriously considering buying the UMIK-1 mic, and read in a lot of places that the ones calibrated by Cross Spectrum Labs have a much better calibration file as compared to the stock provided by miniDSP. But saw that Cross Spectrum ones are out of stock. Are they worth waiting for? How much is the difference in the calibration files?

Would be glad to hear some experiences.
Thank you.

That depends what you want to do with it! If you just need it to do some basic testing and acoustic analysis for a home studio, for example to figure out how much isolation you need, or get a baseline data set for your room, or design initial treatment, then you are fine without it. But if you want to do high precision pro room tuning, with a set objective of "flat response +/- 3dB", or "flat plus B&K curve", or "fully meets ITU BS.1116-3", or some other goal that needs perfect accuracy, then yes, it would be worthwhile getting an individually calibrated mic, as well as a calibrated sound level meter, and a calibrator.

For example, if your goal is to get the same results as this room: www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20471 then you'd need a properly calibrated mic, and a properly calibrated (end to end) sound system (and assuming that your room is large enough to achieve such results). But if your goal is more along the lines of a typical home studio for hobby use, then there's no need for the extra expense.

What is it that you are aiming to do? What is your goal, in terms of precision?

- Stuart -

Hi Soundman,

That studio looks great! And thanks for the help. I understand their uses now and looks like the CS Labs mics are better tuned since you say they are used when more precision is required.

Soundman2020 wrote:What is it that you are aiming to do? What is your goal, in terms of precision?

Well I am a musician/producer with a home studio, but it is more than a hobby. I have done a few music and mixing projects but really suffer on the mix side because of the room. So really want to tighten the room to make, if not amazing, good mixes.

My goal in terms of precision is the get the best out of this room. So I thought if spending some extra bucks can take me a little further, why not? Moreover, I dont know when will I again invest in a measurement mic. And when the time comes to make a proper studio there will be already be a well tuned measurement mic ready to use. And it wil be great to contrast and compare the CS lab calibrations and the stock. Dont want to take any chances with an L shaped room.

My goal in terms of precision is the get the best out of this room.

I think you answered your own question!

I'm not sure if you have seen it already, but here's the procedure you'll need for doing your testing: http://www.johnlsayers.com/phpBB2/viewt ... =3&t=21122

And it wil be great to contrast and compare the CS lab calibrations and the stock.

That would be interesting, yes! It would be great if you could post both curves here, for comparison. To be honest, there's probably not going to be a huge difference, but if high precision is your goal, and you really want to take your studio to the max, then it's worth investing a bit more, and waiting a bit more. For example, with teh Studio Three tuning, we took it the absolute limit of the equipment. In the final rounds, we ended up making minuscule changes to the filters that were fractions of 1 Hz and fractions of 1 dB, and we hit the wall. I still wanted higher precision, but the gear wouldn't go any more than that. I'm not saying you should (or even could) do the same, but if you think you might want to do that, you would need the precision instrument. Also, take into account that those changes are absolutely inaudible: you cannot hear any difference at all when adjusting something by 0.1 Hz and half a dB. Your ears and brain simply are incapable of noticing that. But you can measure it, and you can see the difference on the graphs. If you want bragging rights to say your room is absolutely as good as it possibly can be, limited only by the laws of physics and your bank account, then you can do that. That's what Rod wanted with his place, so we pushed until we hit the wall. He knew we didn't have to do that, but he still wanted to. He challenged me to get it among the top 1% of studios in the world. I can't prove that we did, but I suspect that we sure got darn close! And it sounds incredible...

So that's the situation. If you really do want high precision, then yes, the few extra bucks and the few extra days wait will be worthwhile, and will be needed for the final tuning. But you could still get really good results without that.

Dont want to take any chances with an L shaped room.

Ooops! That's not good at all!

Now you peaked my interest! I'm looking forward to seeing your thread on the forum, about your room and how you treat it. L shaped is a big challenge! First priority: get it symmetric, and get the geometry laid out properly... Sounds like fun! You are going to have your hands full...

Maybe you could post a diagram, and some photos?


- Stuart -

Hey,

Yes I went through that post a couple of times and I will surely go through them again. Thanks for that post btw.
I dont know if will be able to get an SPL meter and calibrator, but I read in a lot of places that the UMIK1 also doubles up as a reliable SPL meter. Will not having an independent SPL meter and calibrator be a problem to measure the room? Yes the bank accounts are drying up fast.

Soundman2020 wrote:For example, with teh Studio Three tuning, we took it the absolute limit of the equipment..

Its great to hear your personal experiences in treating a room. And inspiring to hear how you people went in the details. Yes it is sort of a personal interest that I want to compare both the stock and CSL calib mics. But as far as I can tell from the comparisons I have seen till now, is that there is some noticeable deviation above 1kHz and below that they are pretty much the same. I get it when you say that the stock files will work pretty well too. I will surely post the curves. Moreover CSL just started shipping again. Yes I have been refreshing their page

Soundman2020 wrote:First priority: get it symmetric, and get the geometry laid out properly... Sounds like fun! You are going to have your hands full...
Maybe you could post a diagram, and some photos?

Yes I can't wait to measure the room and get my hands full! I will definitely share it here as my measurement and treatment pregresses. I have been making a lot of sketches of the room and here is one attached with the measurements and is to scale . This is the room and where I sit right now. How does it look? I will try post some photos too tomorrow.

As a side question - Do XLR type mics have a benefit over USB measurement mics? XLRs can be run all over the room is the only advantage I see over USB.

I dont know if will be able to get an SPL meter and calibrator, but I read in a lot of places that the UMIK1 also doubles up as a reliable SPL meter.

Supposedly, yes, but I wouldn't count on it... And since you need to have a USB mic hooked up to a computer in order to take measurements, it wold be rather uncomfortable to drag that setup around the room, and around the outside world, to measure levels at various places for isolation.

I'm not a big fan of USB mics.

Will not having an independent SPL meter and calibrator be a problem to measure the room?

You could skip the calibrator, but I'd really suggest getting a hand-held meter. They aren't that expensive: maybe US$ 100 or so for a decent one (stay away from the cheap Chinese junk "toys" that you can get for around US$ 25...)

Yes the bank accounts are drying up fast.

The cost of a decent mic and meter is only going to be a small fraction of the cost of tuning your room.

I have been making a lot of sketches of the room and here is one attached with the measurements and is to scale . This is the room and where I sit right now. How does it look?

The layout of the speakers and mix potion is not good. It's a small room, so the speakers will need to be tight up against the front wall, not spaced away from it. The mix position also seems to be too far forward, at around 25% of the room depth... which is the quarter-wave null and peak location for all room modes! I'd move that to a better point. I'd also seriously consider building a wall on the left rear, to cut off that heavily asymmetric "L" shape.

Do XLR type mics have a benefit over USB measurement mics? XLRs can be run all over the room is the only advantage I see over USB.

The also make great instrument mics. I've used them in unexpected places, with surprisingly good results. On a hi-hat, for example, or simply as a room ambient mic for many types of acoustic instrument. I'd like to see how a USB mic could do the same job.... It might be hard to balance the computer on the high tom, so the USB mic can be in the right position over the hi-hat!


- Stuart -

Soundman2020 wrote:I'm not a big fan of USB mics.

I have also always preferred xlr type mics for instruments and wanted to get an xlr mic for measuring too. But I thought if can't move around with a USB mic, I can atleast measure what is happening at the mix spot, and it comes with a calibration file. I can get a Presonus PRM1 wihch comes without a calibration file, but am now wondering how useful those calibration files are which comes with some usb and even with xlr mics like the EMM6?

Soundman2020 wrote:The layout of the speakers and mix position is not good. It's a small room, so the speakers will need to be tight up against the front wall, not spaced away from it. The mix position also seems to be too far forward, at around 25% of the room depth... which is the quarter-wave null and peak location for all room modes! I'd move that to a better point. I'd also seriously consider building a wall on the left rear, to cut off that heavily asymmetric "L" shape.

So should I try facing some other wall first and measure? In the current mix spot, I have to deal with two different distances from the left wall, and if I face the window, I have to deal with two different distances from the rear wall. Is one of them a better choice?

The mix spot is around the 38% mark between the front and rear wall. Maybe I made it look like 25% in the diagram. Room length = 4m, mix spot from front wall = 1.5m
I can shift the speakers further behind tight up against the wall and use the bass-tilt feature on the Genelec 8040 which is meant to compensate when the speakers are close to the wall. But that will put the mix spot at arond 1m (25% of 4m) which will be a problem I am guessing.
And if I continue to sit at 1.5m while putting the speakers tight against the wall, I will have to spread them further apart to make an equilateral with them, which will make the rear ports face the corner, which will again be a problem. I am not sure if I should depend so heavily on the bass tilt feature.

About your suggestion of building a wall on the left side rear for symmetry, I have a frame which is 6'x4' in size which I was planning to put there as sort of a "wall" in continuation with the existing wall. I can fill the frame with rockwool and have a reflecting front surface and make it work very close to the existing wall in terms of absorption and reflection. Will that help in anyway? I will not be able to construct a wall there as of now due to a few reasons.

Soundman2020 wrote:The also make great instrument mics. I've used them in unexpected places, with surprisingly good results.

Since most of my work involves mixing and sample based production, I very rarely get a chance to use the instruments mics I have. Guess I would'nt mind my measurement mic not doubling up as an instrument mic.

Thanks for the help Soundman. Just trying to figure out the best spot to start measuring.
Hope I get to them soon.