Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DAYTON AUDIO IMM-6 vs YPAO microphone

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DAYTON AUDIO IMM-6 vs YPAO microphone

    OK. I've messed with audio electronics, especially speaker systems, most of my life. I recently built a pair of speakers, partly for nostalgia and partly because I really liked the speakers at the time I had purchased them, some 40 years ago. I've previously built speaker systems. But more for fun and not really understanding too much of what I was doing at the time.

    So, I have a YPAO mic which came with my YAMAHA 5.1 receiver. I don't really use it other than to calculate distance to each speaker. I disregard the rest of the automatic results and set everything by ear.

    I have a real-time sound analyzer app which I downloaded onto my Windows 10 laptop.. I will be taking measurements of speaker response. I'll do the best I can to roughly simulate Quasi-Anechoic readings and I'll use Near-Field placement for low-end readings under 200Hz. Nothing crazy exact. Just a ballpark idea of my project's response.

    I was going to use the YPAO mic. But I find no data online regarding this mic's accuracy, calibration, etc. So, I decided to order the imm-6 Dayton Audio mic. I don't have much money to throw around, so please do not suggest a better more expensive mic. That will not happen.

    It's late in the evening. I decided to experiment a little and record sounds from a bluetooth speaker. I have a BOOM-2 bluetooth speaker. I set the built-in equalizer to FLAT (not that it really matters that much with the tiny speakers and amp in this device). This would become my sound source.
    I wished to test the two mics, the Dayton Audio imm-6 and my YPAO mic. Honestly, they look virtually identical in size (the condenser mic (capsule)).

    I connected the imm-6 Dayton mic to my Window's 10 laptop mic jack. I placed said speaker within a few mm of the Dayton mic. The mic is pointing directly at the speaker. I streamed 20Hz-20Khz correlated pink noise (Sheffield Labs MY DISC). I took a screenshot of the resulting graph.

    I then connected my YPAO mic, same way. Same distance from the exact same spot on said speaker. Also aimed directly at the speaker. I streamed the exact same pink noise. I took a screenshot of the resulting graph.

    The graphs I am posting are not weighted. They are linear. I did not use A/B/C weighting. Also, if anyone is going to suggest the sound card is at fault, please keep in mind that both of the posted graphs are much wider than the mic response obtained using the laptop's built-in mics. So I know the limited range sound card response for the built-ins was bypassed. Also, regardless of whether or not a sound card is adversely affecting the outcome, the two graphs are virtually identical nonetheless. Therefore, the potential of both mics seems to be about the same.

    There is very little difference between the two mics. See the graphs below.
    The imm-6 is approx flat from about 125Hz-1.25Khz A -10dB dip at 4K. a -14dB dip at 9-10Khz. -12dB at 16Khz. -19dB at 18Khz. -26dB at 20Khz.
    -20dB at 80Hz. -30dB at 63Hz. -38dB at 45Hz.
    The YPAO is approx flat from about 112Hz-1.4Khz. A -14dB dip at 6.3Khz. -10dB at 9-10Khz. -9dB at 16Khz. 15dB at 18Khz. -23dB at 20Khz.
    -18dB at 80Hz. -26dB at 63Hz. -29dB at 45Hz.

    The imm-6 calibration file consists of very small adjustments, most within +/- 1 dB or less. So, the response graphs I am posting are more or less accurate, without any calibration, within +/- 1 dB.

    I'm sorry. I like PE. I've purchased from PE many times over the years. But, I just don't see it when it comes to this highly touted microphone. As I see it, from the results of my simple test, either the Dayton Audio imm-6 mic is overrated, or, the YPAO mic is better than most give it credit. Just putting it out there for anyone interested in this sort of thing.

    Also, with regard to calibration, I think the YPAO mic is probably fairly accurate as-is and it's calibration file is probably not much different from that of the imm-6 calibration file. I'm guessing the overall response of the YPAO mic is 20Hz-20Khz.

    As I said, the two mics look about the same. I can't really see any magic making the imm-6 mic much better, if better at all, than the YPAO mic. That's my opinion anyway.
    Attached Files

  • #2
    CLARIFICATION: The first pic is a graph of the imm-6 mic. The second pic is a graph of the YPAO mic

    Comment


    • #3
      They're not really identical at all by my standards. But you're complaining about a $20 microphone?

      Hint: Put both graphs on a 1db/div graph, overlayed.
      Francis

      Comment


      • #4
        Hint: Put both graphs on a 1db/div graph, overlayed.
        Francis

        Comment


        • #5
          One other thing. You need a standard of comparison for a meaningful test. Simply comparing two unknown microphones doesn't mean much. You would have to get a calibrated mic and repeat your test to see which of your mics is the better one.
          Francis

          Comment


          • #6
            The above graphs are not informative. Better to stuff the data into Excel and calculate the difference to see the delta, not overlaid on a not very flat source. But we see your point. What are you paying for?

            A complication of quite a few Behringer mics showed there is not a huge amount of difference even between them. If you read Linkwitz on the subject, you will see a generic Panasonic capsule is not too bad. Actually a lot better than the above graphs. So use a unknown mic as close enough? Better than nothing. I wish my Anthem mic cal file was not encrypted. Someday I'll compare it to my calibrated Behringer. I don't have phase for it, but as I understand, condensers are pretty flat in that respect. If I did this for a living, I would pay for a complete cal with phase.

            So what are you paying for? Not the hardware, but the ASSURANCE of it's performance. The labor to make it so.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm certain your YPAO and the iMM6 are using similar omnidirectional microphone elements. With the iMM6, you're getting a tested device and that calibration data. I'm not sure if Yamaha does any testing and saves adjustment into the receiver with the mic, or if they just call it close enough. Generally for our purposes, give or take a couple dB isn't an issue. Measurements are not a super exact science, I'm interested in the ballpark and relative verifications for crossovers and what not. I'm not going outside on a 10' ladder to eliminate reflections or setting up an anechoic chamber to get repeatable results. Instead, I do it inside with all the room interactions causing all kinds of issues to compromise with.

              That iMM6 can be used with proper measurement programs too, Holm, ARTA, REW, etc. That will get you into being able to make gated quasi-anechoic measurements, and spit out FRD files for use in crossover design. That's what I use, because I'm cheap. My designs haven't suffered anything due to the lack of a more expensive mic. I have a very detailed write up on how to use that mic for measurements in ARTA on my site here. Scroll down to "Measurement Setup on the Cheap"

              I use the RTA features in Audio Tools on Android, but the RTA is primarily for quick verifications in the room and not for detailed measurement.

              Electronics engineer, woofer enthusiast, and musician.
              Wogg Music
              Published projects: PPA100 Bass Guitar Amp, ISO El-Cheapo Sub, Indy 8 2.1 powered sub, MicroSat, SuperNova Minimus

              Comment


              • #8
                I guess I'm still confused what the OP thinks is wrong with the IMM-6.
                Francis

                Comment


                • tvrgeek
                  tvrgeek commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Maybe he does not know what to expect from a $16 mic with a generic cal file rather than a real mic with a cal file for that mic. ( $100 +) But +/1 a dB is plenty good for speaker design. Best of course if it is reasonable smooth 1K to 5K.

              • #9
                Just looking at PE offerings. If using a plug in or USB mic, how can you set levels for programs like RightMark who expect very specific levels? HOLM, TrueRTA you can set the output level, but without a preamp, no way to set the input level. Big difference between nearfield and room measuring!

                Comment


                • #10
                  Click image for larger version

Name:	IMMrVsYg.jpg
Views:	193
Size:	104.0 KB
ID:	1456711

                  Imm-6 in red, Yamaha in green:

                  In the 2/3rds octave from 4k to 6kHz, I'd say you're looking at a potential "swing" of 7-8dB.
                  That might not even be "listenable"?

                  Comment


                  • #11
                    Originally posted by tvrgeek View Post
                    Just looking at PE offerings. If using a plug in or USB mic, how can you set levels for programs like RightMark who expect very specific levels? HOLM, TrueRTA you can set the output level, but without a preamp, no way to set the input level. Big difference between nearfield and room measuring!
                    Amplifier level. In ARTA I fire up the pink noise and adjust the amp for a good input level on the meter.
                    Electronics engineer, woofer enthusiast, and musician.
                    Wogg Music
                    Published projects: PPA100 Bass Guitar Amp, ISO El-Cheapo Sub, Indy 8 2.1 powered sub, MicroSat, SuperNova Minimus

                    Comment


                    • #12
                      Originally posted by Chris Roemer View Post
                      Click image for larger version

Name:	IMMrVsYg.jpg
Views:	193
Size:	104.0 KB
ID:	1456711

                      Imm-6 in red, Yamaha in green:

                      In the 2/3rds octave from 4k to 6kHz, I'd say you're looking at a potential "swing" of 7-8dB.
                      That might not even be "listenable"?
                      Yeah, it's not at all "virtually identical". Although I'm not sure what it would mean even if they were.
                      Francis

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Inspired me to see if I could generate a calibration file for my Anthem mic. Took some fiddling, but using True RTA I was able to get a reasonable cal.
                        Behringer is flatter and has wider response, but for a quick and dirty, the Anthem mic will do in a pinch.

                        It seems LibOffice does not import from text. Had to use real Excel.

                        While I was set up, I had RightMark do a sweep for total system distortion. THD is below .06% from 100 to 20K at listening levels. Barely out of the background noise. And people wonder why I like my Seas drivers. The sub was off so I did not look lower. I then tweaked my tone control and sub level to balance things out finally with all the new stuff in place.

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Nice! Your experience is a good example of why I decided to post in the first place.

                          Until I actually compared real response curves, I too, was hesitant to use my YPAO mic for any measurements, regardless of how non-critical my intentions. Much of my hesitation stemming from so much forum talk disregarding such mics as being unreliable due to unknown criteria.

                          Despite many replies to the contrary, my YPAO mic will give me a reasonable idea of speaker performance. The only true difference, IMO, between the imm-6 and the YPAO mic, is the calibration file. Not build quality, general response range nor sensitivity. The calibration file is the one and only significant difference.

                          However, keep in mind, the calibration file is, more or less adjustments of approx +/- 1 dB, or less. If one is to measure a speaker at typically accepted standard SPL levels of 90dB, at 1 meter on-axis, then one must conclude the inclusion of the calibration file only increases the accuracy of the measurement by a factor of barely over 1%.

                          In the real world, measuring speakers at home, in one's basement, living room or garage, one will see much greater margins of error due to real world obstacles. I personally do not see the use of a YPAO mic, or other reasonable mic, to be a huge problem for general measurements.

                          Therefore, for future reference, I feel confident in the use of my YPAO mic for simple approximations of speaker response.

                          I have to laugh. Several replies have mocked my post, making light of the fact the imm-6 costs only about $20. In my defense, I'd rather keep the $20. I now know I am able to use a mic I not only have on-hand, but which cost me nothing! 'Free', is always an acceptable price. I am sure I am not the only person on this forum who would rather save, then spend, hard earned cash.

                          Thank you for your positive input and experience.

                          Comment


                          • #15
                            We all explained why the IMM-6 is better: it's calibrated. There's a large and sonically significant discrepancy in measurement between the microphone measurements you showed us (see Chris's post). If you don't care, well ok. Great!
                            Francis

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X