No announcement yet.

DAYTON AUDIO IMM-6 vs YPAO microphone

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

  • #16
    I am not illiterate I comprehend basic electronics and audio. I understand the imm-6 is better due to calibration. But the margin of improvement is small at best.

    The efforts put forth by many of you, exhalting the imm-6, ignore the fact the YPAO response is quite close. Much closer than expected, I imagine.

    When I decided to conduct my little audio experiment, I honestly expected huge fluctuations via the YPAO mic as opposed to a very solid flat response via the imm-6. Obviously, this was not the case at all. Hence, the disagreements, here.

    Others have already commented positively, stating they decided to try other mics, as an extension of my post. Their conclusions only reinforce my findings. These 'other' mics are not equal-to, but are reasonably close in performance. Enough so, as to be useable when something better is not available, or financially out-of-reach. For non-critical messurements, of course.

    You can find reasons to promote the imm-6 as much better than the YPAO. I can do the same. I beg to differ with the reasoning against the YPAO mic. In fact, the YPAO mic, in my graphs, is actually flatter, overall, as compared to the imm-6. I am more surprised by this result than any other.

    To be fair, the only way I would be willing to recant my findings would be to redo my test. Only, I would require a certified higher-end mic with which to reference. Then, and only then, could I ascertain whether or not the imm-6 is much better, or better at all, as compared to the YPAO. All three would have to be tested at the same time under the same exact conditions.

    As-is, the imm-6 mic may or may not be better than the YPAO, calibration file not considered.

    I never once stated the YPAO mic is acceptable for precise measurements. But the graphs I posted clearly show the two mics are close in performance.

    I believe my results have ruffled the feathers of those who wish to believe they are infallible, and their test equipment or beliefs thereof, undeniable.

    To examine the imm-6 vs the YPAO, quality, dimensions and basic design are very similar. I don't know if I am more disappointed with the imm-6 (following so many great reviews), or, surprised by the performance of the YPAO. (following so many forums discrediting the YPAO).

    Too many times, I have read of "unknown" and "secret" calibrations, vehemontly guarded by manufacturers such as Yamaha and Pioneer. Such talk discoursges the use of YPAO mics as their performance cannot, in any way, be trustworthy or remotely accurate, without the appropriate calibration files. Now, however, I have learned such talk is more rhetoric than logic. It is my suspicion the YPAO mics may require only slight calibrations, as does the imm-6 mic. Such calibrations may improve response accuracy by a minute 1% or so. Not enough of a difference to discourage its use in non-critical applications.

    I hope my post reaches out to others with more open minds.


    • #17
      I have done the EXACT same thing but found the YPAO mic to be VERY close up to a few thousand Hz.

      But that is the issue, its great if you want an accurate picture (sound wise) of up to maybe 3-4 Khz, but after that it was off more than a couple db, but more in the 5-6 db range.
      IT showed a very rising response, on a speaker that is known to have a very flat upper range.

      When used for YPAO adjustment, it gave the sound a very dull character, due to the 5-6 db of boost in the upper frequencies.

      Still fun to use, but not accurate at all frequencies.


      • #18
        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"?
        Almost identical to what I found Chris. Albeit with some "differences" in the highs.
        Very close up to a certain point, but quite off at higher frequencies.

        My sound card was verified by measurement to be within about .25 db from 20-20,000 hz so it was for sure the Yamaha mic.

        I think I even started a thread way back when about "Why not" use the yamaha mic, but quickly found out why!


        • #19
          When I experimented with my YPAO mic, I noticed a large fluctuation in response, in the upper treble range, if the top-of-the-mic was not aimed directly at the source of sound. My conclusion then, is regardless of the YPAO mic being omni-directional, upper frequencies, above 10Khz dropped sharply if the YPAO mic (capsule) was not angled exactly towards the transducer.

          Regarding the graphs I posted, I marked the exact spot on my BOOM 2 speaker and directed both mics directly at that spot, placing the mics within a distance of less than 1 cm. At that point, the YPAO mic's upper range and sensitivity came very close to that of the imm-6, as can be seen on the graphs.

          Whether or not the YPAO mic is more directionally sensitive with respect to high frequencies, I cannot say. It is quite possible.


          • #20
            I will do some more experimenting. I am thinking the YPAO mic may be much more directional, which may adversely affect the outcome.

            When I initially set up my little experiment, I did notice a difference of about 6-8dB above about 8Khz. I was certain the YPAO mic was quite inferior.

            However, as I stated above, when I made certain both mics aimed exactly at the same point on the speaker, both mics picked up frequencies up to 20Khz. The graphs clearly indicate the results..

            The YPAO mic seems slightly less sensitive. But. The YPAO mic also has a 20ft attached cord, to which I connected another cable, with a TRRS male plug. The length of cord may very well explain the difference in sensitivity, as it may offer signicant resistance. I don't know if the cable length could also weaken the mic's ability to transmit much lower treble input, thus giving a possible false sense of poor treble response.


            • #21
              Originally posted by Stash View Post
              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.
              Originally posted by Stash View Post
              The efforts put forth by many of you, exalting the imm-6, ignore the fact the YPAO response is quite close. Much closer than expected, I imagine.
              I'm not sure how your come to the conclusions in bold. The product reviews on the Parts Express product page may highly tout the microphone, but not many users do on the Tech Talk forum. But most users on the product page are NOT using it for measurements for crossovers, but live sound tests. If I Google search the iMM-6 and measuring for crossovers, the typical response is that it is not appropriate or capable. That is not true, as Wogg points out; The iMM-6 is an inexpensive option compared to the EMM-6 or UMM-6 and can do a "reasonable" job, especially if you are trying to save money. I would actually say that rather than being highly touted, it is widely disparaged for crossover work almost exclusively by people who have never actually used it or tried to use it.


              • #22
                I think it's kind of amazing you can get a calibrated mic for $20.


                • #23
                  The IMM-6 calibration dept.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	imm calibration.jpg
Views:	134
Size:	41.6 KB
ID:	1456788


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by djg View Post
                    The IMM-6 calibration dept.

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	imm calibration.jpg
Views:	134
Size:	41.6 KB
ID:	1456788
                    Those guys don't work for peanuts! Oh, well, maybe they do...


                    • #25
                      I'm going by PE claims. PE advertises this mic as such. PE claims were the reason I decided to buy the imm-6 in the first place. PE advertises this mic as an inexpensive tool capable of professional measurements, more or less. I never said persons on this forum claim the imm-6 mic is a professional tool.

                      However, I did say the imm-6 has many positive reviews, here. I made the point specifically, because many people on audio related forums, not only tech talk, have stated the unknowns with regard to the YPAO mic. The unknowns regarding the YPAO make such a mic all but useless for anything other than its intended purpose. The point being, the imm-6 has a good deal of positive support whereas the YPAO mic is matter-of-factually dismissed as useless.

                      My original post insinuates the comparable build quality, components and response of the YPAO is much closer to a respected low-priced well regarded mic as the imm-6, than suggested on this, or several other audio forums. Therefore, the YPAO mic may be much more useful than its reputation implies.

                      Several members of tech talk sarcastically commented on my post, presenting the impression I expected a. $100 mic performance for under $20. That is incorrect. I never made any such assumption. But I did suggest that the YPAO mic may be much closer in performace characteristics to the imm-6. Therefore, the imm-6 may be a waste of money. And that premise seems to have pushed several members off their kilter, thus mocking my post.

                      I presented two graphs, one representing a seemingly well regarded low-end mic and another graph depicting a generally disregarded inexpensive mic. And I stick by their results. The large differences or discrepancies which I expected, given all the rhetoric regarding the YPAO, did not occur. The two graphs are much closer than I ever expected. The YPAO mic clearly detected all the same frequencies, as high and as well as the imm-6. Members have suggested the YPAO mic is off by several dB, stating maybe that's ok with me. Let's get real. The YPAO mic registered readings all the way up to 20Khz. From about 100Hz through 1Khz, both mics were about equally flat. The YPAO mic did not drop off nor drop-out in the high end as suggested and anticipated. The YPAO mic can, and will, measure speaker output and is able to offer comparitive data to some extent.

                      As far as I can tell, the YPAO mic, which is readily available to many, is fine for general non-critical audio messurements. I'm not going to fool myself into believing I can perform accurate semi quasi anchoic measurements in my living room and as such require a finely calibrated mic with which to measure. That is ridiculous. If one cannot afford to professionally soundproof a large enough room (and most of us cannot), designated solely for professional audio analytic studies, then reality sets in and extreme accuracy is a matter of conjecture. So, in my opinion, the YPAO mic is ok to use for the average audio enthusiast, if he/she has one available. Which brings me 360° around to my original post. Why buy a imm-6 mic when you may have a similarly performing mic in your possesion?


                      • #26
                        A question that I have is why YOU want to use your YPAO mic when you've got an IMM-6 in Your possession?

                        And if for some reason you do, that's fine. Why not re-test then w/your IMM-6 cal file loaded, and then calibrate your Yamaha mic to it?
                        That's what I'd do.


                        • #27
                          Hahahaha. Good question!

                          Money is tight at the moment. Out of boredom, I purchased the imm-6. I took a gamble it would be well worth the price. I felt guilty spending the 20 bucks, if that tells you anything.

                          I recently built a pair of old-school MACH ONE speaker systems, using better components, mostly from PE. The project began when one of my nephews bought a pair of the GRS replacement MACH ONE woofers as a gift. My nephews know I've always spoje highly those speaker systems. After receiving a few more gift cards, I designed and built a new version of the MACH ONE. They sound great!

                          I wanted to measure their response, etc. Hence, the whole imm-6 fiasco.

                          When I received the imm-6, it looked more like a toy than a mic. It reminded me of my YPAO mic. So I compared them. The results did not impress me. I decided to return the imm-6. The refund was used by my wife to buy a gift for my stepson.

                          Therefore, I am now stuck with the YPAO, for better or for worse lol.


                          • #28
                            funny you mentioned that. I was just looking over the imm-6 file and the imm-6 graph, wondering if I can try to calibrate the YPAO by comparison.

                            I will work on this idea. Try to salvage a little sanity.

                            Then, when no one is home and it is quiet, I'll take some measurements and post them, for the heck of it.


                            • #29
                              I can appreciate the budget situation. And back to the top of the thread, your RTA shots do indicate that particular YPAO mic is pretty solid, stick with it. The example from Chris shows a lot more variability, but that was whatever YPAO mic he had and however he measured it so there's that.

                              For me the $20 was worth it, I had nothing at the time. It skips the creation of the TRRS adapter to get the mic into the system and the calibration file is useful to me, regardless of the monkeys who made it

                              When I have a project in the hopper, I end up spending a lot more than $20 for each of the multiple hardware store to get screws, glue, another piece of wood or metal, sandpaper, stain, new bit or blade for the tools... and everything else I forgot about the last time I was just there.

                              Those Mach One's are sweet BTW...
                              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


                              • #30
                                Thx. I enjoyed building them. Listening to them right now. They take me back to the old days. Sound is very clean.

                                I was considering the possibility of some YPAOs being better than others, even from the same manufacturer. Differences in parts, design from year to year or just plain dumb luck.

                                lol, I didn't have a readily available TRRS plug either. I keep a collection of odds'n ends cables, some well outdated for use. I happened to find a cable with a TRRS plug on one end. I know not from where it came. I spliced the TRRS plug onto another cable with a 1/8th mini female jack. And that's how I connect my YPAO. A lot of sphagetti. But it works. The lengthy cable does allow me to move well away from the mic, avoiding additional body reflections.

                                i took a few quick measurements earlier today, using the fracture app on my laptop and the YPAO. But I forgot to set the app speed to 25ms. It was set to turtle slow. Will redo next time I happen to have a free quiet moment.