# Rode NT1 okay for measuring?



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

I have a very small home recording studio which I acoustically treated last year with DIY rockwool panels according to Ethan Winer's and others' guidelines. The room is 10'x6.5'x8'.

I recently bought a Radio Shack 33-4050 SPL meter in order to measure the rooms acoustics / frequency response using REW. I have since discovered through reading some posts on this forum that this meter is only good for measuring the low frequencies. I presume that is not enough for my room and that I need something that will cope with the whole spectrum(?). As you can tell, I haven't used REW before.

I have a Rode NT 1 which is a good quality cardioid capacitor mic with a frequency response of 20Hz-20kHz. Will this suffice for taking the measurements or do I need to go out and buy a special measuring mic?

Thank you.


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

Do you have a calibration file or graph of the microphone? If so, you can create a calibration file that will work with REW. 

brucek


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

Hi brucek. Thanks for your reply. That's good news but no, I don't have the file or graph. Is that something I can generate myself or do I have to get one from somewhere? How do I go about doing that? I will try and find this out myself by looking at the help files etc. but I would be grateful for any further help if possible.

Mark


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

Well, a calibration file something is that will come with a microphone to show it's frequency response.
If you use a mic or meter that we have tested on the site, then you can get away with using those calibration files (if you own one of those), with an assumption that they're accurate enough for home use. We have cal files for all the Radio Shack meters, Galaxy CM-140 meter and the ECM8000 microphone. The Radio Shack meters shouldn't be used much beyond 1000Hz as it seems as they aren't accurate past that. The ECM and Galaxy are full range. The ECM requires a preamp though.

If you don't have a cal file for the microphone you own, then you have no way of knowing its accuracy I'm afraid.

brucek


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

Hmm. I'll see if I can locate a cal file through Rode. Alternatively, I may pick up an ECM8000. I want to measure the room mainly to see how effective the treatment I have used is but also to find if there are any problem frequencies needing further attention, particularly in the lower end. I have a lot of bass trapping as it stands. Would you happen to know how necessary it would be to measure beyond the 1000Hz or would the fact that the RS meter will give me a good idea of what's happening in the lower frequencies be a good enough test for my purposes? 

Thanks again.


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

Well, my understanding is that treatment doesn't do much above ~500Hz and does little for modal problems below ~80Hz (where eq is usually employed), so I see no reason not to use the Radio Shack meter. They're suitable for that area..........

brucek


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

That's great brucek. I'll do that and maybe post the results to get some help interpreting them. Meanwhile, I'll try and hunt down a file / graph for the NT1 to maybe compare the results obtained with both the mic and the meter.

many thanks,
Mark


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

Actually, I'm having a bit of a job finding a fre. resp. graph or a cal file for the NT1. The Rode website has one for the NT1A but it's a different design with an improved response so I don't think it's any good re. the NT1. I wonder if anyone knows where I can find one?

I will use the RS meter as brucek suggests but I would like to test a wider fre. band if possible as well without buying another mic.

Thanks, Mark


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

You can always have your microphone calibrated if you feel it's a decent mic. It can be expensive though. I suspect you could get a Galaxy meter for the same price. Sometimes stage mics don't make great measurment mics if the response is set for voice. I guess it needs external biasing, so some type of preamp is needed?

brucek


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

I don't think it's an option to get the mic calibrated. I could buy the Behringer or the Galaxy at that rate. The NT1 is a very good mic and is regarded as fairly flat; not sure what you mean by a 'stage' mic except it is of course a recording mic and is not specifically for vocals; it works well with most applications. I imagine it would do the job well if I could get a cal file together.

I'm going to contact Rode by phone just as soon as the time zone brings them into opening hours and do my best to get a graph. If not, I may have to work within the limitations of the RS meter.

Thanks brucek. I do appreciate your help with this.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

Mark DuBerry said:


> Actually, I'm having a bit of a job finding a fre. resp. graph or a cal file for the NT1. The Rode website has one for the NT1A but it's a different design with an improved response so I don't think it's any good re. the NT1. I wonder if anyone knows where I can find one?


You might try the Tape OP Message Board. I doubt many people here are familiar with this mic.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

Hi Wayne. I'll check out that link. Meanwhile, here's a copy of the spec page for the NT1 and the fre. resp. graph for the more recent version, the NT1A. I spoke to a guy in Rode and he said the two mics are similar enough to use this graph with reasonable accuracy. He said the main difference is in the noise level and that the frequency response is similar. Also, it is not flat but I gather from reviews like this one http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/aug97/rodent1.html (see the section immediately under the heading ¨Rode test¨) that the enhancements are quite subtle, which seems to be reflected in the graph.

Spec sheet:

View attachment 6192


Frequency response graph:

View attachment 6193


Does it look like I could use this mic? If so, can you tell me how to create a cal file from this graph, or else point me to where I might find that out?

Thanks a lot,
Mark


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

It's very simple Mark. 

It's up to you what type of frequency divisions you want to use because REW extrapolates between. 

At the extremes REW will extend the last values. 

If the mic reads low a negative value is entered and positive for positive.

You create a .txt file (with notepad) with frequency and decibel level. Then save the file and rename the extension to .cal 

You'll have to decide from the graph what the values are.

For example here is a small sample of a cal file.


```
10.00 -9.23
12.50 -6.64
16.00 -4.68
19.95 -3.09
25.12 -2.08
31.62 -1.30
39.81 -0.83
50.12 -0.41
63.10 -0.14
79.43 0.00
100.00 0.15
125.89 0.22
158.49 0.22
199.53 0.26
251.19 0.26
316.23 0.26
398.11 0.22
501.19 0.20
630.96 0.14
794.33 0.07
1000.00	0.00
1258.93	-0.07
1584.89	-0.13
1995.26	-0.23
2511.89	-0.27
3162.28	-0.13
3981.07	-0.22
5011.87	-0.30
6309.57	-0.25
7943.28	-0.17
10000.00 -0.15
12589.25 -3.77
15848.93 -7.48
19952.6 -9.01
```
So decide what the vertical divisions on the graph are and use those values.

I would simply enter at the logarithmic values from the graph for the frequency divisions.

For example :

20 -2.00
30 -1.50
40 -0.50
50 0.00
60 (I'm sure you get what I mean):
70
80
90
100
200

create the file, and name it NT1.cal and load it into REW and see what it looks like. You'll see if it looks like your graph or not....

Questions?

brucek


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

That's excellent thanks brucek. Very detailed and clear. 

I think I've got the idea. I opened up the cal file for the RS meter in notepad. Do I copy the format there in terms of spacing between the 2 values? Also, that file goes from 7.00 to 200.00 Hz. I presume I enter in all the values between 20Hz and 20kHz in the new file, using the divisions you suggest from my graph? 

Does it look to you like I should be able to use this cal file ok with my mic to go ahead and take the measurements?

Many thanks again,
Mark

P.S. The other thing the guy from Rode said was that if I wanted more accuracy, I could test the mic myself and generate my own graph. How would I do that and would it be easy enough / worth it? I know this is being picky but I just want to get it right though I imagine the graph above would be good enough to use. Thanks.


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> Do I copy the format there in terms of spacing between the 2 values?


You simply need a space between the frequency and amplitude values.



> I presume I enter in all the values between 20Hz and 20kHz in the new file, using the divisions you suggest from my graph?


Yeah, just use the log values from the graph. That would be accurate enough. When you're done, and you take a look at it in REW, if you want more resolution, just add it, no problem.
At the extremes, REW will continue the last value. For example, if at 20Hz you have a -2.00, then that value is used down to 0Hz. Above the highest value it will also continue the last value - but after 20Khz, you don't really care.



> Does it look to you like I should be able to use this cal file ok with my mic to go ahead and take the measurements?


Definitely.

brucek


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

Great! I'll get down to it tomorrow, given it's 1.30 am here. 

Again, I am very grateful for your help brucek. :T

No doubt I'll be back again with more questions when I've done the measurements!

Mark


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

Hi brucek

I've created the cal file but when I load it into REW I can't see how to adjust the frequency and amplitude values so they look the same as my graph. Also, the 0 amplitude point seems to be fixed at 75 and I can't see how to change that. How do I change the horizontal and vertical values so they look the same as my graph? Sorry if I'm being slow here; it's just I can't see if the graph matches my own in order to confirm whether or not I've created the cal file correctly.

Thanks,
Mark

Edit: I thik I've got it working well enough now. I tried to delete this post but couldn't see how..


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> Also, the 0 amplitude point seems to be fixed at 75


And so it should. It revolves about the target level. If the target is 75, then that is zero. 




> how to adjust the frequency and amplitude values


I guess you figured it out. The Graph Limits icon popup can be used to set any X or Y axis....

Remember when actually taking measures and posting graphs to use a standard of 45dB-105dB vertical.

brucek


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

> It revolves about the target level. If the target is 75, then that is zero.


I don't understand that, i.e. what the 'target level' actually means but I probably just need to dig further into the programme and the help files to find out. I'm working on it tonight and in my spare time so hopefully I'll get to the actual measuring soon!



> Remember when actually taking measures and posting graphs to use a standard of 45dB-105dB vertical.


Will do. I'll read through all the faqs etc. on the forum to find out the guidelines and do my best to apply them.

Thanks brucek,
Mark


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

Hi brucek, or whoever else is reading this. I have done some measurements using both the RS 33-4050 meter and my Rode NT1 mic. Here are the results. I hope they're in the correct format; I used a wide frequency range, 20Hz - 20kHz in order to cover the full spectrum.

RS meter:

View attachment 6217



NT1 mic:

View attachment 6218


I didn't apply any smoothing. I'm not sure if that would have been a good idea or not(?)

I'm also not sure how to interpret these results so I would be grateful for any help. It looks to me like there are quite a few dips and peaks but I've no idea how good or bad a response this is. I won't be applying any eq; this is to find out how my already-treated room is responding and to make any necessary changes to that treatment. So once again, any recommendations around that would be welcome.

If I need to go back and change the format / appearance of these graphs and upload them again, please let me know. Also, would it be useful for me to post the impulse response graphs or waterfalls as well?

Many thanks,
Mark

Actually, I decided to post the waterfalls as well since the low frequency behaviour of my room is of particular interest, given I have put up quite a lot of bass traps.

RS meter:

View attachment 6219


NT1 mic:

View attachment 6220


How do these look?


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> How do these look?


Just a few comments first on the graphing itself.
You're being kind to yourself by using such a large vertical scale. When you redo them and use a vertical scale of +45dB-105dB, you'll see they actually appear a bit worse.

Then you can see that the NT1 mic is better (no typical rise at 5K). Stick to the NT1 for these full range. It's a much better mic. Don't bother with the RS meter other than to set the general 75dB target level to get started with a calibration of REW's meter.

You can see the low end response is actually meaningful from your speakers down to about 18Hz where it drops into the noise. The information below that is not useful (it's noise), so use a horizontal scale of 20Hz-20KHz.
Change the waterfall to log scale. (the horizontal axis from 20Hz-200Hz is perfect).

Now, I would say that if you didn't apply any smoothing to these plots, you have an amazingly well treated room with very little reflection. It shows almost no comb filtering, and between 60Hz-200Hz the waterfall is great. This is the area that usually responds well to treatment as you've obviously done. 

From 60Hz down to the bottom end, you have some modal issues that would only respond to EQ as treatment would be too large. 

You do have a pesky dip at 100Hz though.

brucek


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

> When you redo them and use a vertical scale of +45dB-105dB, you'll see they actually appear a bit worse.


I thought I'd used the default vertical and horizontal scales that load with REW and as specified in the guidelines here. I didn't notice that they had changed, though it's obvious now that you point it out. Not sure how that happened.. When you say redo them, I presume you mean change the scales on the existing graphs rather than re-doing the actual measurements? 

In case you meant the former, here are the two graphs for the mic only, scaled to the specified resolution (I hope!)

View attachment 6226



View attachment 6227



Yeah, I can see much more detail now. That is a nasty dip at 100. Also, 3kHz to 20kHz looks disastrous to me. Is that to do with the room or the mic, or a limitation in measuring up that far? Anything to worry about? 



> Now, I would say that if you didn't apply any smoothing to these plots, you have an amazingly well treated room with very little reflection. It shows almost no comb filtering, and between 60Hz-200Hz the waterfall is great. This is the area that usually responds well to treatment as you've obviously done.


This is good news and confirms both the effectiveness of the existing treatment and (hopefully) the relative accuracy of the measurements.



> From 60Hz down to the bottom end, you have some modal issues that would only respond to EQ as treatment would be too large.
> 
> You do have a pesky dip at 100Hz though.


Not so good news; not sure what to do about those two issues but I will enquire further.

This is very helpful anyway brucek and is more positive than I thought it would be. 

Thanks again and apologies for the incorrect scaling of the original graphs,
Mark


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> scaled to the specified resolution (I hope!)


Perfect....



> That is a nasty dip at 100. Also, 3kHz to 20kHz looks disastrous to me. Is that to do with the room or the mic, or a limitation in measuring up that far? Anything to worry about?


Usually full range measurements require smoothing (at least 1/3 octave) to reveal the underlying trend of the response. As I said, you have treated it well and an unsmoothed response shows that, but there's nothing wrong with adding some smoothing to get a better feel for it. 

I suspect the mic is fine, and I suspect your speakers are fine and any problems (as usual) are attributed to the room. You could take one of your speakers into the middle of a large room (or even better outside) and do a near field response to get a better idea of your speakers response without the room influence. A foot or so away would be fine for the mic.

Are you measuring two speakers with the system in stereo, or is this just one speaker?

The dropping off after 10Khz though is likely the speakers response (don't you think?).

As this is a studio, where are you measuring from? I suppose it's somewhat near field? as opposed to a home theater that would be measured back much further on a couch. You must have the mic near the mixer chair fairly close to your monitors? Can you move the monitors around at all to try and clean up the 100Hz dip at least?

brucek


----------



## groundie (Feb 7, 2008)

mark
i too have a Rode NT1 but did not use it.
can you post the cal file you created for it?
as noted, you'd expect NT1 to be a far superior mic.
i do not have BFD but their crossover product DCX2496;
anyway, after quick initial round of measurements,
i experimented with couple of filters but ended up liking
no EQ at all.

i plan to re-measure and replay with NT1 cal file to
get the full range response.
cheers ...
g


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

> Usually full range measurements require smoothing (at least 1/3 octave)


Okay. So here's the graph again with 1/3 octave smoothing:

View attachment 6230




> do a near field response to get a better idea of your speakers response without the room influence.


Great idea. I'll consider that, though it would mean moving a load of gear around. I just checked the monitor specs. They are Dynaudio BM5A's in case you know them, very good quality flat near-fields. Their stated fre. resp. is 50Hz - 21kHz. Could that be the reason for the problems from 60Hz down rather than modal issues in the room (I'm forever hopeful!)? The drop off after 10kHz - well, should they not be good up to higher than that if they state 21kHz as the upper fre.? Or perhaps they do begin to drop off at the top end more gradually. Either way, yes, it would a good idea to test them independently of the room.



> Are you measuring two speakers with the system in stereo, or is this just one speaker?


This is both speakers with the same signal routed to each of them. I connected the right output only from the computer's soundcard to one channel (with the pan pot centred) of my mixer which then feeds the 2 monitors in stereo, though this is obviously a mono signal. I did this because I am attempting to measure what I am actually hearing when I am mixing. Would I be better to measure with each speaker separately?



> As this is a studio, where are you measuring from? I suppose it's somewhat near field?


It's very near-field actually. I have established my listening position at a point 38% into the room, which is the recommended spot. Given the room is only 10' long, that's only 116cm away from the front wall. Because of this and because of the fact that there are front corner bass traps pretty much immediately behind the speakers at an angle, I have had to position them only 80cm apart in order to have an equilateral triangle with my listening position. I placed the mic as exactly as I could at that position, forming an equi. triangle with the monitors in order to simulate the setup when I am mixing etc. 



> Can you move the monitors around at all to try and clean up the 100Hz dip at least?


Due to the above, I am very restricted. I can't move them further apart and back towards the front wall because of those traps being 'in the way'. If I move them forward into the room, I lose the triangle and/or the 38% position, which I have been told is very important to preserve in a room this size. So as far as I can see I'm pretty much stuck with this speaker placement. I'd love to be able to do what you suggest though so if you can see a way I could make that work then great. 

Here is a photo of the front of the room taken a year ago wth my old monitors but it's pretty much the same setup now. That should give you an idea of what I'm dealing with. I have since put a plasterboard sheet up in front of that door behind the left monitor and at the same place that the wall should be in order to equalise the two sides some more and to give the bass frequencies that pass through the traps a similar surface (and same distance) to 'bounce' off:

View attachment 6229


Pretty ain't she?! Actually it's not as bad / narrow as it looks. As you can see there's a fair amount of treatment. It's similar at the rear, without the 'cloud'.

One more thing: I decided to measure my room because of the lack of satisfactory translation of my mixes to other systems. I noticed they were sounding good in my room but muddy and indistinct elsewhere. That perhaps indicated problems somewhere in the lower frequencies, which would confirm the discovery of that 100Hz dip and perhaps the issues from 60Hz down(?)

That's it for now!

Thanks,
Mark


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

Hi groundie

Just saw your post after I put up my last one. I generated the cal file from the frequency response graph for the mic, which was hard to locate given the age of the mic. I made 3 attempts to get as close to the graph as possible (the 'b' in the file name is the 3rd attempt) so you may want to experiment a bit though I think the file is accurate enough. Here are both the graph and the cal file. The graph is in the bottom left corner of the 2nd page of the datasheet. I simply enlarged that part of the sheet and worked from there:

View attachment 6231


View attachment 6232


Good luck with it! Any probs opening or downloading those files, just post your email address and I'll send them to you.

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> Their stated fre. resp. is 50Hz - 21kHz. Could that be the reason for the problems from 60Hz down rather than modal issues in the room (I'm forever hopeful!)?


Yeah, I thought you had larger monitors and so with this new information, I would guess that the response is dropping off at 60Hz as a result of the speakers themselves, and the peak at 25Hz is a mode (although the room size doesn't really support that).



> Would I be better to measure with each speaker separately?


No, you're doing the correct thing. Just be sure to never have any wacky soundfield or effects turned on. The mono signal from REW won't respond well.



> I placed the mic as exactly as I could at that position, forming an equi. triangle with the monitors in order to simulate the setup when I am mixing etc. .........................
> Due to the above, I am very restricted.


Yeah, seems correct and that's what I expected as far as movement.. 



> Pretty ain't she?!


Looks pretty cool to me. Lots of treatment. I do think you have some wiggle room in your measurement / seating location in the forward-backward plane. Even if you weren't planning on moving it, it would be interesting to measure at least in different spots to reveal the differences. You need to work on the 100Hz problem.
Actually the next version of REW in beta test now has an RTA. This will allow you in real time to move the mic and watch the response dynamically on the screen (as opposed to measure once and observe after). It will be ideal for you.

brucek


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

> the peak at 25Hz is a mode (although the room size doesn't really support that).


Hmm.. I confess to not really understanding the ins and outs of modes, standing waves etc. Must read up some more. I wonder could that mode be due to some incorrect or over-treatment if it doesn't fit with the room size itself? 



> Just be sure to never have any wacky soundfield or effects turned on.


No, I kept it all as flat and neutral as possible, apart from any artifacts the mixer etc. itself might add.



> Looks pretty cool to me. Lots of treatment.


Good to hear. It's not oppressive once you get used to it. Just cosy!



> Even if you weren't planning on moving it, it would be interesting to measure at least in different spots to reveal the differences. You need to work on the 100Hz problem.


Yes. I think that is shaping up to be my main issue, which is a great thing to have learned. If I find a spot with a better response I may have to trade off in terms of the ideal theoretical position vs. the actual acoustic reality of the room. It might be difficult to choose between keeping the alleged sweet spot and losing that 100Hz dip.



> It will be ideal for you.


Sounds cool. I presume that's not available yet?

Much appreciated brucek.

mark


----------



## groundie (Feb 7, 2008)

mark
thanks so much for the files, i had no troubles reading them.
i will be measuring in the near future;
i was always interested in knowing what frequency response was
in the listening room, if there were any major issues.
as i stated elsewhere, after doing my initial measures using the
Radio Shack meter and setting a couple of filters per REW,
i went back to using no EQs at all.
so i'm curious if using the better mic will result in anything new;
i'm actually hoping not since i believe in minimum modfication to
the audio signal.


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

You're welcome groundie. I agree with what you say about minimum modification. I guess it depends on what the room is used for. If it's for recording / mixing than I think it's always best to treat the room and leave the sound alone. That may not be so important for a home cinema or other type of purely listening room where some enhancement or modification of the sound itself may be desirable. 

Good luck with it,
Mark


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

Hi brucek. I took one of my speakers out into the garden today to test it along the lines you suggested. The garden is fairly small with quite a few bushes etc. but it is as neutral a space as I can test in, short of going up to the local park!

Here are the fre. resp. and waterfall graphs. They are quite revealing I think, though obviously I am only beginning to understand what I am looking at!

View attachment 6286



View attachment 6287


It looks pretty even to me with the predictable drop-offs at both ends. However, there is still a small peak at 25Hz and a small dip just after 100. I don't know how significant they are but it does look like the mic / speaker combination is contributing somewhat to those two areas. Obviously, the corresponding aspects of the room graph are much more pronounced so I know I do have a couple of room-related issues there. Still, I thought it might tell us something. 

The other thing that strikes me is the huge dip and peak at 4.8kHz nd 6.5kHz respectively. What's going on there? That is pretty much the same pattern as appears in my room graph so again must be at least influenced by the mic / speaker in some way. 

Just out of interest, here is the graph of a measurement I took earlier inside in the middle of our living room which is pretty big; same setup as outside. I did it again outside because I suspected the room was affecting things in some way. I noticed the huge dip at 55Hz and the lack of any peak at 25. Hmm.. 

View attachment 6288


I realise every environment is going to yield somewhat different results but I thought this big room vs. garden might be interesting. The next thing I'll do is the backward / forward testing you suggested re. trying to nail that 100hz dip. Will report back. (Oh no, not more graphs! :no

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> there is still a small peak at 25Hz and a small dip just after 100





> huge dip and peak at 4.8kHz nd 6.5kHz respectively


Interesting. The garden graph shows that you're in good shape below 3KHz when a room isn't involved. You can use that graph as a standard against problems that show up in the studio.

The above 3KHz problems still need to be sorted out. It's hard to say if they're caused by the mic or the speaker. You'll need to determine this. It would be easy enough if you had another model speaker to test outside. If it was smooth above 3KHz, that would reveal the problem (assuming a sample size of two speakers was suffice).
Your speakers appear to be two-way, so the wonkiness can't likely be attributed to a crossover. It has to be the mic or the speaker. I would concentrate on that......

We haven't discussed it, but I'm assuming you've done a proper soundcard calibration and created the file and did a cable loopback test and got a perfect flat response with it before you began.........

brucek


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

> I'm assuming you've done a proper soundcard calibration and created the file and did a cable loopback test and got a perfect flat response with it before you began


Yes. I went through all the setup steps as carefully as I could. Here is the cal and the response from the loopback test:

View attachment 6305


I left the sample rate at 48kHz.



> It would be easy enough if you had another model speaker to test outside.


I do in fact still have my old monitors. They're not as good quality but they do go from 78Hz up to 20kHz so I will definitely test one of them outside to get a comparison.

Here is the properly scaled graph for the original measurment I took in the studio using the RS meter. I know it's not reliable in the upper frequencies but it does show a smoother response between 3 and 8kHz despite that 'typical rise' at 5. 

View attachment 6306


Could this indicate that the problem is more likely to do with the mic than the speaker? Rode did some subtle enhancing to the upper frequencies when designing this mic but the cal file I created should compensate for that I'd imagine. If the mic is causing this problem, maybe it's time to invest in an ECM8000? If I do, can I use it with my own pre-amp (it's a Metric Halo ULN-2, very high quality)? 



> the wonkiness can't likely be attributed to a crossover.


The crossover frequency of my Dynaudios is stated as 1500Hz with a crossover slope of 6 dB/oct.

I'll measure that other speaker next.

Thanks,
Mark


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> Could this indicate that the problem is more likely to do with the mic than the speaker?


I just don't trust the RS meter, but yeah the graph says it's the mic. But better to also try the NT1 with a different speaker. I guess the NT1 could be damaged somehow - sure is quite a dip at 5KHz.



> I do, can I use it with my own pre-amp (it's a Metric Halo ULN-2, very high quality)?


Yeah, any standard mic preamp with phantom power will do. You can compensate for any non-linearity by including it in the soundcard cal loop when you make the file....

brucek


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

> You can compensate for any non-linearity by including it in the soundcard cal loop when you make the file


Sorry brucek.. Not sure what you mean by that. Would you mind explaining a bit? Do you mean to include the preamp in the line-out to line-in loop? I didn't do that with the NT1 setup.

Thanks, 
Mark


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> Do you mean to include the preamp in the line-out to line-in loop?


Yep. Since the preamp is part of the microphones response, then to compensate for its response imperfections, it is a good idea to offset it by including it in the soundcard cals correction file. You have to use the line-in and line-out of the preamp and do a bit of fussing with the levels to get the soundcard cal to setup correctly, but it's worth it if it has a poor upper or lower frequency response. Once you've created the soundcard cal file, you remove it from the loop and use it as normal.

brucek


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

Okay that makes sense. Sounds like it would be a good idea to re-do the room measurements with the pre-amp included this way, even with the NT1. The other thing is I did all measurements with both the RS meter and the mic pointing directly (horizontally) towards the speakers. I have just read some other posts recommending that the mic/meter should point upwards toward the ceiling. I'm not sure what difference that would make but I'll do some measurements that way and see. 

I tested one of my other monitors today and got pretty much exactly the same result for the area above 3kHz. So it looks like the problems up there are due to something to do with the mic.



> I guess the NT1 could be damaged somehow


I hope not! I've never dropped or knocked it and I've always kept it in its hard protective case. Also, I haven't used it all that much and love the sound I get from it; I've certainly never noticed any problems with it. So unless it was damaged in the shop or was faulty to begin with.. I'm going to call Rode and run those test results by them and see what they say. Perhaps it could be a characteristic rather than a fault, or maybe that wonkiness is just too bad for that..

Do you think it would be worthwhile going out and buying a Behringer to re-do the measuring? I'm going to hang on to the NT1 unless it becomes clear it is faulty. Also, is it not the lower frequencies that are the most relevant in terms of the room treatment and I already know that the 100Hz dip is a problem there? I suppose the above 3kHz problems could bring that into question, i.e. is my mic really reliable across the rest of the spectrum?

I am conscious this has been going on a while brucek. I do really appreciate your on-going help with this and I hope you don't mind all the posts and replies. I think I'm getting there, once these anomalies can be sorted out. When I'm done, perhaps there is a way that I can show my appreciation (a donation of some kind or whatever?)

Thanks again,
Mark


----------



## Guest (Feb 19, 2008)

It can be quite tricky measuring a typical multiple drive unit loudspeaker as there will usually be dips in the response where the outputs from the various drivers overlap but are out of phase with one another, caused by the path length differences from the drive units' acoustic centres to your meaurement mic position and the phase shifts through the crossover network. With those kinds of cancellations you typically find that moving the mic up or down shifts the frequencies of the dips.


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

Yes that makes sense. However, the problems I discovered occurred with almost identical dips and peaks with two different makes of speaker on two separate occasions. That being said, I did have the mic positioned in exactly the same way with both speakers, i.e. pointing towards the tweeter. So I will definitely try some tests with the mic at different orientations as you suggest and see if those dips and peaks shift at all.

Thank you for your input John,
Mark 

Edit: I just spoke to someone in Rode who said that the behaviour above 3kHz was most likely caused by a faulty capsule and that it needs to be replaced. :sad2: The good news is the mic is still under warranty so I should be able to get it repaired for free. I never would have thought there was a fault but hopefully that will explain the wonkiness. Perhaps it was also behind the 100Hz problem(?)

Only one way to find out: I think I'll pick up an ECM8000 tomorrow and see what results that yields. Should be interesting..


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> I think I'll pick up an ECM8000 tomorrow and see what results that yields. Should be interesting..


Yeah it will be interesting. It's actually a pretty good mic for the price. We have the cal file on the download page...

brucek


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

Hi brucek

Well I bought the ECM8000 today and have been experimenting with it. Overall, it seems to produce a more even graph across the whole spectrum. There is no real difference between the graphs with the existing soundcard.cal file and the one made after including the pre-amp in the loop so I think the pre-amp is doing a good job.

Here are the fre. resp. and waterfall graphs for the measurement at the 38% listening position:


View attachment 6329



View attachment 6330



The fre. resp. of the speakers seem to be represented accurately enough, i.e. 50Hz-20kHz. The 100Hz dip is back along with one at 350. The ones at 700Hz, 5 and 10kHz are also striking, though perhaps less severe(?)

Moving the mic backwards and forwards as you suggested in an earlier post makes some slight difference to those dips but they are still there. Here is the graph for the measurement a foot back from the listening position, i.e. further away from the speakers. It shows the biggest change.

View attachment 6331


I can try a few more variations, e.g. moving the speakers further apart etc but as I said before, I am limited as to how much flexibility I have re. the final setup. However, I'll do whatever's necessary to deal with any problem frequencies.

Another option I've just thought of is to place the listening position at 38% from the _back_ wall and to set up the speakers accordingly. That would give me a bigger triangle and may 'spread' the sound some more. I may do that and measure the response again. Could be interesting.. 

I haven’t tested the speaker outside with the new mic as yet. Is this necessary?

I'd be grateful for any comments or thoughts.

Thanks,
Mark


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

> so I think the pre-amp is doing a good job.


If you make a soundcard cal with just a cable, then put the preamp (or any line level device) in the loop and do a measure, it will reveal its frequency response. It's a useful trick to try on all sorts of line level devices to see what their bottom and top ends are. Your preamp is probably so good it simply doesn't need to be in the cal file. Anyway, that's another useful thing REW can do - taking frequency response measures of electronic devices.



> Is this necessary?


I think not. You now have a reliable method of measuring your response, so the only job left is to get the best response in your room. I honestly have no suggestions. This is where acoustic guys in our other forum sections may be able to help. It's getting out of my league. You know what you have to do now anyway. 

brucek


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

> You know what you have to do now anyway.


Yes I do, probably enough for my purposes anyway. That is mostly thanks to your help brucek so once again, many thanks for that. :T

I will look for some advice on what to do next from the acoustics experts. 

All the best,
Mark


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

Just to complete this thread from my point of view, with the help of some expert acoustic advice I was able to move things around til I got a pretty good response with the dips and peaks reduced. The dip at 1 kHz seems to be a 'measuring artifact' rather than a true room response because when I move the mic a few inches to the side, the frequency shifts which isn't the case with the lower frequency ones.

The speakers are much wider apart than before and I have shifted my listening position 6¨ back from 38%. All the room treatment remains in place. So I thought I'd post the graph here in case anyone is interested in seeing how I progressed.


View attachment 6429



View attachment 6430



Mark


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

Well done. The response looks good.


----------



## Mark DuBerry (Nov 24, 2006)

Thanks brucek


----------

