Replaced my UMIK-2 mic with an Earthworks M23R... I'm confused

Urs

New Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Jan 20, 2021
Posts
14
I have a 2.0 setup in a difficult but acoustically well treated room. I wanted to improve or at least confirm my previous measurements done with a UMIK-2 USB microphone with a better measurement mic, that's why I bought an Earthworks M23R.
My audio interface is rather nice and robust, it's a RME Digiface AES (contains a Mic preamp).
With the UMIK-2 I used these devices in Audiolense: RME Digiface WASAPI for Playback and miniDSP ASIO for microphone input.
With the Earthworks I use RME Digiface ASIO for Playback as well as for microphone input.

I am using since quite some time two or three Target curves, which I like, also a few slightly different correction procedures.

After two days of careful measurements and trying different targets and correction procedures, I am confused and disappointed by the Earthworks M23R, but maybe I am missing a thing or two? All my correction filters based on measurements with the M23R are significantly (!) worse than those based on the UMIK-2. They are lifeless, rather veiled and dull.

I think the reason for this is the "hill" between 200 Hz and 10 kHz in the M23R measurement(s). This "hill" causes a large "valley" in the correction filter, which in the end might not help the sound. But I am only guessing and as I said... rather confused ;-)

(For both microphones I used the appropriate calibration files. Without using the calibration file the situation remains basically the same)
 

Attachments

  • 1 Filtered Measurement.jpg
    1 Filtered Measurement.jpg
    567.9 KB · Views: 48
  • 2 Filtered Measurement_ Simulated Result.jpg
    2 Filtered Measurement_ Simulated Result.jpg
    682.4 KB · Views: 50
  • 3 Correction and Target.jpg
    3 Correction and Target.jpg
    501.2 KB · Views: 48

e1guapo

New Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2022
Posts
13
More  
Other Amp
Drop THX AAA 789
DAC
Merging+Anubis, Denafrips Ares II, SPL Phonitor One d
Computer Audio
HQPlayer Embedded / Desktop, Roon
Streaming Equipment
iFi ZEN Stream
Streaming Subscriptions
Qobuz, Tidal, Apple Music
Front Speakers
PreSonus E5 XT
Center Channel Speaker
PreSonus E44
Surround Speakers
PreSonus E3.5
Rear Height Speakers
PreSonus E3.5
Subwoofers
PreSonus E8
Other Speakers
Sennheiser HD820, HD650, Beyerdynamic DT880 Pro
Other Equipment
Audiolense XO, SoundID Reference
The USB mic gain / sensitivity vs 48v-powered mic pre's gain are not the same so you can't compare it this way... find another 48v-powered measurement mic and put it together and see.
 

Urs

New Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Jan 20, 2021
Posts
14
The USB mic gain / sensitivity vs 48v-powered mic pre's gain are not the same so you can't compare it this way... find another 48v-powered measurement mic and put it together and see.
"The USB mic gain / sensitivity vs 48v-powered mic pre's gain are not the same..." I agree, but this does not explain the big difference in the SHAPE of the two frequency curves, specifically in the range 200 Hz - 10000 Hz.
Or in other words. why are all the following ratios for the Earthworks M23R so much greater than the same ratios for the UMIK2:
f(x2)/f(x1) or f(x3)/f(x1) or f(x4)/f(x1) or f(x5)/f(x1)... ?
 

Attachments

  • 1 Filtered Measurement.jpg
    1 Filtered Measurement.jpg
    574.9 KB · Views: 18

e1guapo

New Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2022
Posts
13
More  
Other Amp
Drop THX AAA 789
DAC
Merging+Anubis, Denafrips Ares II, SPL Phonitor One d
Computer Audio
HQPlayer Embedded / Desktop, Roon
Streaming Equipment
iFi ZEN Stream
Streaming Subscriptions
Qobuz, Tidal, Apple Music
Front Speakers
PreSonus E5 XT
Center Channel Speaker
PreSonus E44
Surround Speakers
PreSonus E3.5
Rear Height Speakers
PreSonus E3.5
Subwoofers
PreSonus E8
Other Speakers
Sennheiser HD820, HD650, Beyerdynamic DT880 Pro
Other Equipment
Audiolense XO, SoundID Reference
Like I mentioned the best way is to find another 48v-powered mic or another mic pre-amp / audio interface to verify your result. If not remember wrong the RME interface needs TotalMix to control everything so you have to verify all EQ for mic is flat and also no pre-processing.
 

Urs

New Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Jan 20, 2021
Posts
14
Yes, with the RME Interface one has to use TotalMix and having EQ unintentionally activated for the Mic Input or for the hardware output would be a problem and could cause what I observe. Good point, but I was aware of this and checked that EQ is deactivated at all places in TotalMix.

By the way both measurements were done at exactly the same position, including height. Also nothing was moved around in the room.

I will order another 48v powered mic (isemcon EMX-7150, but delivery time is really long, 8-12 weeks). In the mean time I remain feeling puzzled...
 
Last edited:

whoareyou

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2021
Posts
211
More  
Main Amp
Benchmark AHB2
Additional Amp
ATI AT525NC
DAC
Exasound E38
Computer Audio
JRiver
Front Speakers
Psb synchrony one
Center Channel Speaker
PSB synchrony one C
Surround Speakers
Revel m105
Is the UMIK-2 using miniDSP's provided configuration file or is this a calibrated microphone from 3rd party?
 

Urs

New Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Jan 20, 2021
Posts
14
Is the UMIK-2 using miniDSP's provided configuration file or is this a calibrated microphone from 3rd party?
It's using the miniDSP provided calibration file.

Without using calibration files for the two mics, the discrepancy for the two measurement charts remains.
 

whoareyou

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2021
Posts
211
More  
Main Amp
Benchmark AHB2
Additional Amp
ATI AT525NC
DAC
Exasound E38
Computer Audio
JRiver
Front Speakers
Psb synchrony one
Center Channel Speaker
PSB synchrony one C
Surround Speakers
Revel m105
I had a UMIK-1 purchased from Cross Spectrum. Their calibration files had some significant differences from one provided by miniDSP. Unfortunately, I no longer have that microphone so I can't comment further on differences but I trusted the cross spectrum numbers over the miniDSP provided file (maybe other people have different opinions). I thought I read somewhere that UMIK-1's are not individually calibrated at factory (I could also be wrong about that). Perhaps someone else will chime in regarding that.

I eventually switched over to Isemcon and trusted their calibration file because each microphone is individually measured, and their company's reputation is stellar.
 

juicehifi

Audiolense
Staff member
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Posts
796
I have a 2.0 setup in a difficult but acoustically well treated room. I wanted to improve or at least confirm my previous measurements done with a UMIK-2 USB microphone with a better measurement mic, that's why I bought an Earthworks M23R.
My audio interface is rather nice and robust, it's a RME Digiface AES (contains a Mic preamp).
With the UMIK-2 I used these devices in Audiolense: RME Digiface WASAPI for Playback and miniDSP ASIO for microphone input.
With the Earthworks I use RME Digiface ASIO for Playback as well as for microphone input.

I am using since quite some time two or three Target curves, which I like, also a few slightly different correction procedures.

After two days of careful measurements and trying different targets and correction procedures, I am confused and disappointed by the Earthworks M23R, but maybe I am missing a thing or two? All my correction filters based on measurements with the M23R are significantly (!) worse than those based on the UMIK-2. They are lifeless, rather veiled and dull.

I think the reason for this is the "hill" between 200 Hz and 10 kHz in the M23R measurement(s). This "hill" causes a large "valley" in the correction filter, which in the end might not help the sound. But I am only guessing and as I said... rather confused ;-)

(For both microphones I used the appropriate calibration files. Without using the calibration file the situation remains basically the same)
Hi Urs,

I am not able to make much out of these screendumps. But I would like to take a look at one or ideally two measurements. Ideally two made on the fly, with different sweep duration. You can send me one or two measurement files if you want me to take a look.
 

Urs

New Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Jan 20, 2021
Posts
14
Thank you Bernt
I attach three measurement files, two were done with the M23R and one with the UMIK2. All were done with a 10 seconds sweep. If it would be helpful, I can make another measurement with a different sweep duration on the weekend.
 

Attachments

  • Measurements (M23R and UMIK2).zip
    6.7 MB · Views: 5,485

juicehifi

Audiolense
Staff member
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Posts
796
Thank you Bernt
I attach three measurement files, two were done with the M23R and one with the UMIK2. All were done with a 10 seconds sweep. If it would be helpful, I can make another measurement with a different sweep duration on the weekend.
Hi Urs,

I finally got around to look at your files.

The timing looks good on all three, so I do not really see any of the usual suspects here that can cause serious problems with the time domain correction.

But the frequency response is very different between the umik and the M23R. Either you have flipped one of the calibrations around or the umik is very much off. FYI, the mic calibration that you load into Audiolense should be the measuremed response of the microphone, not the inverse. Audiolense will inverse it. So perhaps check that the calibration file you loaded for the earthworks was the actual measurement and not its inverse. With that under control I am confident that you will experience a very good correlation between simulated responses and what you hear.
 

Urs

New Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Jan 20, 2021
Posts
14
Thanks Bernt for looking into it.
I double checked the calibration files I used for the UMIK-2 measurement and for the M23R measurement:
I did use the file named "Earthworks_M23R_8946Q_ECF_Audiolense.txt" for the M23R measurement, while I used the file "miniDSP UMIK-2 8100207.txt" for the UMIK-2 measurement.
I attach both files here, hoping you could have a quick loo into these, to check if the structure and values are reasonable.
My OS settings define "." as decimal separator. File extension "txt" instead of "cal" should work from what I read.
 

Attachments

  • 2 calibration files.zip
    5.2 KB · Views: 14

juicehifi

Audiolense
Staff member
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Posts
796
Here's the Earthworks calibration. As expected it doesn't do much. The Earthworks' tend to be very precise even before calibration.


1730104512497.png



Here's the UMIK

1730105047038.png


This calibartion file looks clean, and does not have typical reflection artifacts from the environment that sometimes can be found in lesser calibration.

Nevertheless, something is off with one of the calibrated microphones. My vote goes for the Earthworks.

To quote your sound quality asessment:
After two days of careful measurements and trying different targets and correction procedures, I am confused and disappointed by the Earthworks M23R, but maybe I am missing a thing or two? All my correction filters based on measurements with the M23R are significantly (!) worse than those based on the UMIK-2. They are lifeless, rather veiled and dull.

I think the reason for this is the "hill" between 200 Hz and 10 kHz in the M23R measurement(s). This "hill" causes a large "valley" in the correction filter, which in the end might not help the sound. But I am only guessing and as I said... rather confused ;-)

Your uncorrected speaker has low energy in the lower midrange and by comparison too much energy in the kHz area, centered around 1-2 kHz. When you take down the high energy and fill in with energy in the lower midrange, the sound will typically be experienced as less transparent - at least immidiately. And the sound stage can be perceived as having become smaller. But in the long run, you may notice nuances that has been masked before ... and perhaps that colorations/distortion you thought were on the recordings disappear.

Here's a correction of the stereo sample, which happens to be a pair of speakers I am still using :-)

1730107577808.png


The off-balance here before correction is somewhat similar to what you measure with your speakers. Before correction there is too little energy below 1 kHz and clearly too much above. But I was used to it, and it sounded great on some recordings. Without correction the speaker had a good and strong bass and a great deal of perceived transparency. But it could be a bit straining on recordings with a lot of hf energy.

It took me some time to get adjusted to the corrected sound. First it was less transparent, more veiled and more "cellar-like" where it had an "outdoor transparency" before. But when I got used to it, the perception flipped around. The pitches and the air came back to me.

Especially male voices and rhythm instruments (who has a lot of energy in the 100 Hz-es took on a more realistic body ... and the sound of "microphones and electronics" which we are used to hear on live venues and most domestic rigs completely disappeared on most of the recordings. Everything just sounded and still sounds more organic. And the bass became much faster, much more rhythmic. Actually the whole speaker became more rhytymic. The leading edge of bass notes need midrange energy to shine...

And eventually I started to hear nuances in the ambience that I hadn't heard before. The speaker behaved much more chameleon-like and discriminated between different recording ambiences like I'd never heard before. This was particularly beneficial on classical recordings and other high quality recordings. At some recordings the ambience became extremely deep an wide and long, at others there was hardly any ambience at all. But all of this was a reflection of the recordings and not the speaker + room.

My point is this: When you change the voicing so much during correction, and especially when you add energy to the lower midrange and remove energy from the presence / treble, the speaker will immediately sound less engaging. But if you have corrected towards a more neutral presentation, the sound will likely grow on you within a few days.

Quick A-B comparisons can be a bit misleading here, since your perception needs time to recalibrate.

Lastly it needs to be said that people prefer different voicing. I prefer a rasor straight target that falls a few dB. But many users - also seasoned users - prefer a gentle lift in the bass of a few dB and, by comparison to everything else, a slightly recessed lower midrange. So you need to figure out what your preferences are.

Perhaps you prefer some variation ofver this theme:
1730109616970.png

If you don't make too sharp curves along the target, you may be able to avoid colorations that are clearly audible and get an overall voicing that sounds really big and transparent etc.

But that will be easier with a microphone that you can trust and my money is on the Earthworks.
 

Attachments

  • 1730109351239.png
    1730109351239.png
    22.5 KB · Views: 15

Urs

New Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Jan 20, 2021
Posts
14
Hi Bernt,

Big thanks for your detailled answer, the thoughts and knowledge you put into it. I am really amazed and read it more than once or twice. Grateful for the time and energy you spent for this!

If I go slowly through your post:

Both calibration files are ok, so there's no issue here, neither with file structure nor with usage.

"Nevertheless, something is off with one of the calibrated microphones."
That's also what I think. But my vote goes for the UMIK-2. It's not a vote against Earthworks mics, it's a vote against my M23R in my rig/room. Your vote is based on experience and knowledge while mine is based on what I currently hear in my setup. This brings me to your next paragraph:

"Your uncorrected speaker has low energy in the lower midrange and by comparison too much energy in the kHz area, centered around 1-2 kHz. When you take down the high energy and fill in with energy in the lower midrange, the sound will typically be experienced as less transparent - at least immidiately. And the sound stage can be perceived as having become smaller. But in the long run, you may notice nuances that has been masked before ... and perhaps that colorations/distortion you thought were on the recordings disappear."
I completely agree. It's very true for what I experience with my actual correction filter, but only the one which is based on the UMIK measurement.

Regarding the Frequency Response of a pair of your speakers:
"The off-balance here before correction is somewhat similar to what you measure with your speakers. Before correction there is too little energy below 1 kHz and clearly too much above. But I was used to it, and it sounded great on some recordings. Without correction the speaker had a good and strong bass and a great deal of perceived transparency. But it could be a bit straining on recordings with a lot of hf energy."
The same is surely valid for my speakers and I would even add: my room takes to much control around 100 Hz and below and "overwrites" the speakers (That's why I use Audolense :-))

"Everything just sounded and still sounds more organic." My experience, too.

"My point is this: When you change the voicing so much during correction, and especially when you add energy to the lower midrange and remove energy from the presence / treble, the speaker will immediately sound less engaging. But if you have corrected towards a more neutral presentation, the sound will likely grow on you within a few days."

I am really with you here and I am patient enough (with nearly 70 years, I better should be ;-)) to let the sound grow on me. Exactly what I am doing and what also happens with the UMIK measurement. Though I tried the M23R based correction repeatedly for hours it's too far off for me (my ears, my speakers, my room).

Also many thanks for the target curve you provided. Looking forward to create a variation of my correction filter with it.

My thoughts for the time being:
- happy with my ears (still), speakers and room (see attached, in the corners: active bass traps)
- happy that I can improve the excellent sound even more with my Audiolense Roon correction filter
- unhappy that I had to create this correction filter with the wrong microphone ;-)
- actions:
- sent the Earthworks M23R back (trust my ears, speakers and room more than the mic)
- ordered an isemcon EMX-7150 mic (I don't give up yet)
- enjoy the music now

Urs
 

Attachments

  • 2024-10-25 23-22-41.JPG
    2024-10-25 23-22-41.JPG
    252.3 KB · Views: 22

Chuck Gerlach

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Posts
81
For another data point, I have an Earthworks M30 [very recently factory recalibrated and I have an electronic cal file] and a bunch of other much less expensive mics [but each with their own cal files]. The most substantive measurable differences between them [when each is used with the attendant mic calibration file] is in the lowest octave. Other than that, for the purposes for which they are used, each is "good enough".
 

Urs

New Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Jan 20, 2021
Posts
14
Please keep us posted!
Hi @juicehifi and all interested
I received my iSEMcon EMX-7150 last week, did the measurement with the new mic the day after.
For this measurement I used exactly the same software settings (Audiolense, RME Totalmix) and the same mic position as for the previous measurement sessions.
Looking at the result, I am glad that the iSEMcon measurement is much (!) closer to the UMIK-2 measurement than to the measurement done with the M23R. The Earthworks M23R I bought initially was not usable for creating a good correction filter. The M23R frequency response has an overall upward bent between ca 300Hz and 10kHz which looks extremely strange and is not what I am hearing with my speakers in my room.
After all I would say: my M23R was faulty.
@juicehifi in case you would like to have a look into the measurement done with the iSEMcon mic using its individual calibration file, please see attached ZIP file.
 

Attachments

  • e_i.jpg
    e_i.jpg
    641 KB · Views: 12
  • i_u.jpg
    i_u.jpg
    613.5 KB · Views: 12
  • _bernt.zip
    3.1 MB · Views: 0

juicehifi

Audiolense
Staff member
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Posts
796
THe comparison says it all, really. There's no reason to trust your M23 measurements after this.
And my compliments for your hearing skills!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Urs
Top Bottom