Four KM-84 Clones - Blind Test

[MicUlli]

Then aren’t you just trading one set of anomalies for another? The amount of proximity effect depends on the capsule construction, i.e., dual diaphragm has reduced proximity effect. It also depends on the incidence direction, e.g. there’s no proximity effect at 90°. I thought quasi-anechoic measurements work by windowing the impulse response before the first reflection?

You have got it, thanks to nature that it obeys the rules of windowed FFT.
The claim that cardioids measure better when using a cardioid ref mic is bullshit, because it holds only true when the polar patterns are identical...

 

[museric]

You might want to borrow (if you can) or just buy an inexpensive calibrated measurement mic, so that you can do reasonable frequency response measurements and not just relative ones.

Does that studio have one you can use, I wonder? If not, the Dayton Audio EMM-6 is only $55 right now w/free shipping at Amazon.

I can vouch for the EMM-6 for - I’d buy it again - very useful. Gonna get it out here soon to make sure my room is ready for the next mix project.

 

[molke]

Even though I do not agree with all points, thank you for the detailed explanation.

So i don't use single bakplate reference for dual backplate DUT.

For single diaphragm, Line Audio or similar is probably fine. Can you say what your reference is for the dual diaphragm?

 

[joulupukki]

I love that you guys know so much about this stuff! Hopefully you don’t laugh too hard when I post info/graphs about what I’m seeing with these mics.

So … for simpletons like myself, if I wanted to evaluate these DIY mics myself “at home” I would need to find a reference mic that’s cardioid, correct? I don’t know if I’ll go that route since, in the end, if I can get a great-sounding recording out of them, that’s really what I’m mostly after. But, it’s good to be able to visually see what the differences are between the two microphones.

 

[kingkorg]

I love that you guys know so much about this stuff! Hopefully you don’t laugh too hard when I post info/graphs about what I’m seeing with these mics.

So … for simpletons like myself, if I wanted to evaluate these DIY mics myself “at home” I would need to find a reference mic that’s cardioid, correct? I don’t know if I’ll go that route since, in the end, if I can get a great-sounding recording out of them, that’s really what I’m mostly after. But, it’s good to be able to visually see what the differences are between the two microphones.

You are not doing anything wrong, you are interested in comparative measurements between the mics you built. This is legit way to do it. You are better off doing that, than adding another reference mic to add to the confusion.

Make measurements with REW of km184 and one of your mic at same exact spot, each at a time, say 20cm away from the speaker. Forget about 1 meter distance, just believe me, i don't have life time of arguing to spend with mathematicians here that black and white are two different colours. Than use trace arithmetic tab in REW and do the calculation where you divide the measurement of your mic by KM184. So mic A is your mic, mic B is KM184. Resulting curve is how different your build is to KM184. Combine mics at will.... Use 1/6 smoothing if you like to look at ''pretty'' graphs, but i'd rather see anything you measure unsmoothed than anything else. I'll delete my previous posts in this thread, as it seems everyone who wanted to listen has read them.

 

[kingkorg]

Worth keeping in mind that measurement mics are mostly omnidirectional, so using that as a reference can be so-and-so, for cardioids.

I just changed my mind, I think using omnis as a reference for cardioids is the best idea since the invention of the wheel. So OMNIS all the way!!!