![]() I would think there is a dramatic calibration difference. How did you orientate the microphone? The high frequency response on an nt1-a is very much in the front and center. Which brings me back to the loudness part. I thought that the various positions would help it recognize direction though. I thought maybe the EQ manufacturers took that into account due to measurements at various seating arrangements? But perhaps that isn’t possible for the mic to discern, not knowing which direction it came from, but merely how loud it is and how long it took to get there. I agree that our hearing is not omnidirectional (mainly due to the shape of our ears), so what you’re saying makes sense. If the mic's response pattern doesn't match our hearing, it will in some cases show a response that doesn't "reflect" what we hear. This makes me wonder why we use omnidirectional mics for room tuning when our hearing isn't omnidirectional. The NT1A showed less of a dip and matched closer to my perception. ![]() The UMIK1 (being omni) showed it as a steep null, but playing tones through that range, perceptually the dip was there but more slight, wasn't nearly as deep as the UMIK1 showed it to be (human hearing isn't fully omnidirectional, the reflected wave, coming from behind, is perceived at a lower level than the incoming front wave). ![]() My room had a dip at 74 Hz which was caused by a reflection from the wall behind the listener. Also, the NT1A has lower distortion than the UMIK1 and the difference shows in measurements, if your speakers have low enough distortion.Įxample of omni vs. Which is not unlike the response of cardiod mics like the NT1A. Of course it is more cardiod at high frequencies, approaching omni at low frequencies. Here's the resulting NT1A calibration, relative to the calibrated response of the UMIK-1.Ĭlick to expand.From what I read, human hearing is not omnidirectional, but more cardiod shaped. However, the NT1A response curves aren't even close to what Rode publishes for these mics, and it has a suspiciously large peak around 75 Hz, which makes me question the UMIK-1's accuracy or calibration in this range. That sanity-checks the calibration process. Applying these corrections to the NT1A, their curves match exactly to the UMIK-1 in REW. That said, I'm not entirely sure of the results. ![]() This means the NT1A's response is +9 dB at 60 Hz, so you would subtract 9 dB to get "neutral". For example, in the files the value is about 9 dB at 60 Hz. I exported the response data from REW and differenced them in a spreadsheet, so if you apply the given deltas to the NT1A, their response exactly matches the UMIK-1. I took 2 runs of each and averaged them, for consistency. How I created these: I measured my in-room system using Room EQ Wizard, at the same position & level with all 3 mics (using the UMIK-1's calibration file). If you want a generic NT1A calibration curve just take the average. I have a pair and each measures slightly differently, so I created individual files for each. I created detailed calibration files for these mics, so I can now use them for room tuning. These mics have lower noise and distortion than the UMIK-1, but they have non-flat frequency response and they don't have individual calibration files. I have a pair of Rode NT1A mics that I use for recording local acoustic music events.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |