Oh The Variables When you consider the variables in play when dealing with audio, it amazes me that we’re able to create anything that sounds even half-decent to someone else. Author-End Variables. How the authorship software processes audio. Digital-to-analog conversion quality.

• Calibration File For Ecm8000

Unbalanced monitors / headphones. The acoustic space. Monitor placement. Mix position. Your ears.

Your brain User-End Variables. End format (likely compressed). End user device software processes. End user device hardware limitations (e.g. In-built compressor). Digital-to-analog conversion quality.

Consumer monitor / headphones. Untreated space. Extraneous interference (e.g. City noise). Monitor placement. Listening position. Their ears.

Calibration File For Ecm8000

Their brain As a result of all of this, the only thing you can be sure of is that no one will ever hear your music or sound the way you do. This is why dubbing mixers or mastering engineers often are heard saying something along the lines of, “that’ll be the last time anyone hears it as it’s meant to sound”. It’s easy to quickly turn to despair in the face of all this, but there are steps we can take to minimize the influence of some of these variables. Steps such as using more transparent gear, learning the various biases of our existing equipment and account for them, acoustic treatment and extensively testing final mixes under a variety of conditions. Aside from all of those, there’s something else you might try The Package Sonarworks Reference 3 is a software/hardware solution that attempts to account for the combination of your monitors, the space they’re in, their placement and your mix position. It does this by taking numerous measurements around the mix position with a calibrated measurement microphone, then generating a preset for their plugin that makes EQ, delay and level adjustments in an attempt to calibrate your system to either a flat, emulated or desired response curve.

Sonarworks were kind enough to send DesigningSound a copy of Reference 3 and their calibrated microphone to review. Other reviews have been broadly positive so I was excited to give it a go and see how it could help improve the sound of my home studio space. The package I got included their XREF 20 measurement microphone which is bundled with a free trial of Reference 3. I’m not sure if the Software suite & Mic Bundle pictured above comes with any documentation, but there was none to speak of in the microphone-only package. Whilst Reference 3 is designed to be intuitive and simple to use, I did have some questions which were only partially answered by the online FAQ. Unfortunately trying to access the help menu from the software itself didn’t well, help. The mic itself is well-built and individually calibrated so any bias towards certain frequencies are accounted for by the software by way of a calibration file.

The FAQ online says that, so you need not use the Sonarworks microphone if you have your own. On the software side, Reference 3 is only Mac compatible currently, with older versions still available for PC users. The plugin comes in the following formats, VST/AU/RTAS/AAX, so you could conceivably borrow a mac to run the calibration component and then use the plugins on a windows machine if needs be.

Testing, Testing, One, Two, Three Before I begin, a little context about my space and the work I do. I’m primarily a composer and sound designer. I do some of my sound work at a post-production facility with treated rooms, but my home rig is a pretty average setup with an MBox 3 Pro, feeding both a pair of small, powered 5-inch bookshelf monitors and a separate Crown amplifier feeding higher-end 4-way monitors in a A/B setup (both pairs are calibrated to 79dB). My room measures roughly 13ft/8ft/7.5ft with a mix of flat surfaces, and furniture and limited treatment. My higher-end monitors claim to track +/- 3dB 20hz-20kHz and from my own testing, they do so from 500Hz and up.

Anything below 500Hz is a bit of a crapshoot due to the room so that’s where I’m hoping Reference 3 can help me out. I went through the calibration process seven times in all, five with my high-end monitors to test the influence of various settings and to track consistency, and twice more with my 5” bookshelf monitors. I’ll start by talking about the process of calibrating itself, and then I’ll discuss my results. The calibration process is straightforward with onscreen prompts guiding you clearly though every step. You start by selecting a microphone and a calibration profile. In this case it was the XREF 20 with the associated calibration file that relates to the serial number on the microphone.

You then select your input and output channels. Next Reference 3 checks the signal level coming from the mic to make sure it’s at an appropriate level. Then Reference 3 does a series of tests to determine how far apart the monitors are from each other, and how far back the listening position is. Next is the measurement process itself which has an optional tutorial that describes how the process works. Essentially, through emitting sounds from the stereo monitors and picking up those signals on the microphone, the software is able to somewhat accurately determine the position of the microphone in the room, guide you to where the next measurement zone is, at which point you leave the mic stationary at ear level while sweeps are played back to analyse frequency response.

The standard test uses 24 measurement locations around the listening position. Once the test is complete you’re shown a frequency response chart with data lines for both left and right channels, as well as any level bias or delay between the two channels.

Unfortunately there’s no zoom function so what you see is what you get in terms of detail. From here you can save a preset based on these results to use in your DAW in the Reference 3 plugin. All in all, with the standard settings, the whole process takes anywhere from ten to twenty minutes. Plug Me In The plugin is intended to be put on the monitor path out from the DAW to your monitors, so don’t leave it active in a record path as the idea is that it is calibrating your room, not the recording. In the top right corner there’s a switch that changes it from the Monitor to the Headphone plugin. The Headphone plugin can be used if you own a.

Alternatively, you can send off your headphones to be measured by Sonarworks and get a calibration file back from them to use with your headphones, or purchase a new pair of headphones directly from Sonarworks including a calibration file for that pair. In the plugin form, we’re afforded some more options in the graph as we’re able to see both the preexisting response curves, our target curve (in this case “Flat”), the correction being applied as well as the end result. The plugin allows you to switch the EQ function between three phase options, Minimum, Mixed and Linear, with Minimum being the most CPU intensive and Linear having the most latency.

It’s great to have this option as depending on what you’re doing as you can adjust depending on your needs between CPU efficiency and acceptable latency. The “Simulate” function essentially models the curve to sound like other popular monitors or headphones. It seems potentially powerful for people working for different end use formats who may want to test their mixes on different Monitor or headphone profiles, but with only six on offer at the time of writing this review (only two of which are monitors, the other four being headphone profiles), it felt like it had limited potential use. All About Results The testing process is certainly streamlined, but I for one had no success in getting accurate measurements for the distance between the monitors and the location of the listening position.

On one test it assumed my monitors were 4ft7in or so apart. Another with slightly different settings estimated the distance was 3ft3in when in fact they’re 4ft1in apart. The listening position also was consistently off by about five inches. Fortunately you can manually adjust these values, but only around a limited range from Reference 3’s initial estimate. I read these errors be due to my working in 48kHz or having a reflective environment, but I tested at 44.1kHz to the same effect. As this product is designed for people who don’t already have an ideal calibrated space, I was left a little concerned that one of it’s tests may not be effective in such a space.

Personally I’d rather just have entered in the values manually from the very start. When it came to the measurement phase, I had mixed results.

When setting the “Location Fixing Duration” to “Fast”, I felt like the diagram and space within which I had to move the mic related to one another. However, when set to “Slow” (which results in tests taking about twice as long) it seemed to be sending me much further out from the listening position. At one point it had me place the microphone just an inch away from the screen and that wasn’t even for the furthest forward position. Unfortunately, without any documentation, I was unsure what the significance of these settings were. Overall the default setup proved to be the most consistent. In terms of the end results, I feel like Reference 3 did a decent job picking up on the most glaring errors and I saw fairly consistent results between repeated tests.

Here are the results I got from the five tests I conducted with my main monitors. I would be intrested also, like Alex in more real world experience. The conclusion here was that it might help depending on yoru space but doesnt really give an notion of whose space it would workf. More testing with different scenarios would be interesting. Also comparing it to a manual calibration or a more regular RRTF analysis by hand and adjusting by hand.

Even more interseting would be comparing it to various hardware solutions (dynaudio air) but also acoustic adjusments. Thanks for an intersting read now please give us more and in more depth:D. Hi Anton, I’m sorry the interview didn’t answer all of your questions. I’d say Reference 3 would be most useful to those who have un/poorly treated environments.

If you’re working in a good environment with treatment and a calibrated monitor setup, you may see a less drastic improvement, though I can’t speak directly to this. As far as more extensive testing is concerned, I’m afraid we won’t be able to commit to that. DesigningSound is a free site without advertisements run by volunteers like myself. Such extensive testing would take a great deal of time and resources which we can’t always commit to.

I’m sorry that in this instance the review wasn’t up to your high standards. I suggest you consider reading the following reviews by other sites.

If you don't trust it, it's significantly cheaper to buy a new one. As a matter of speech, for a lab unpacking and packing your mic will cost about as much as buying a new one. If it's about absolute level, it doesn't matter that much since your measurements are mainly relative. If you want a frequency response correction that's to be found via: But that does not solve individual deviations specific to your mic. But your mic is discussed there and has some correction file for download if recalling correct.

That linked subforum is dedicated to this kind of questions, but you have to register. Simultaniously you can download REW which is a free, and by many people liked, good measurement tool there. Normally if your mic isn't damaged the response deviations are minor versus what you're looking at/for in your room. Moderator Posts: 2461 Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:29 am Location: Antwerp, Belgium. Bruce, I can't answer your question. Very expensive measurement mics are standard delivered with individual calibration files. A thought is buying a second mic, since it's fun and educational to measure via 2 channels anyhow.

That way you can compare them (put the 2 measurements in 1 graph display) and keep 2 mics close. It helps me understand the room easier by using 2 simultaniously. Only if one is damaged you have a problem, not knowing which one.

Chances that 2 mics giving the same result being off in exact the same manner must be extremely small. Pro Mic: I don't know if this comes with an individual calibration file. If remembering correct this one is used or referred by John the designer of REW.

Budget Mics: Apex220 Omnidirectional Condenser Measurement Microphone Behringer ECM8000 Omnidirectional Condenser Measurement Microphone NADY CM 100 Omnidirectional Condenser Measurement Microphone I have both the NADY and Behringer, and as Terry's experience with his mics, measuring very much alike. Moderator Posts: 2461 Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:29 am Location: Antwerp, Belgium. Downloads at hometheatershack only for registered members Download calibration file for REW ECM8000 Correction Values - newecm.cal. (Professionally calibrated and certified by West Caldwell Calibration Laboratories) I assume (but not sure) this graph represents (about?) the correction of the newecm.cal file. However the file in that graph is called ecm.cal file (hence the download looks newer or more official). Terry does this fit your data? It looks below full range speaker range, but more in the low subwoofer range.

Moderator Posts: 2461 Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:29 am Location: Antwerp, Belgium. Eric.Desart wrote: Pro Mic: I don't know if this comes with an individual calibration file. I'll receive one of these M30's in a few weeks (as a payment for a measurement session in a home-theater, where I will use it for the first time) and I'm curious if it will have a calibration chart. I recently read somewhere on the net that you have to request this as an option to the purchase, too bad I didn't knew that when I placed the order.:bang Don't worry. Earthworks tests all their microphones and keeps the calibrations on file.

Give them the serial number, and you will just have to pay some extra $$$ for them to send it to you. Regards, Terry. Philip bought a b&k, compared it with my B&K 4007 and found some deviations (about 2.5 dB, I think. So he asked DPA to recalibrate my mic (just to be sure which of the mics isn't calibrated right, he needs a good mic when he decides on DSP correction in amps).

It will cost 250 euro, so that's about 60.000 dollars. I've seen SLM's with a type I calibration certificate that we considered to bahave odd. So we examined it and found under the microscope there was a hole in the membrane. Since then I don't trust calibration very much, or I should do it myself. It's 5 minutes since I started this message, so certification will now be about 80.000 $.:mrgreen::mrgreen: Posts: 4566 Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 11:03 am Location: Achterhood, Netherlands. Eric.Desart wrote:I have both the NADY and Behringer, and as Terry's experience with his mics, measuring very much alike.

I've always assumed that the Nady mics were manufactured for them by Behringer, and are simply repackaged ECM8000's. Regards, Terry Terry it's quite possible (I've no way of knowing) they look 95% physically alike but not 100%.

The capsule looks a bit different and the housing has a different finish. One looks sand or steelblasted blasted and the other more polished. Hence it's certainly not just a repacking but it's possible of course (I don't know) that they come from the same manufacturer with some cosmetic changes. They also feel the same and the shape of the mantel is identical (weight too).

I like the looks if the NADY a tiny bit better, but that's bean counting. The box looks 100% the same. That I have both different types is more accidental.

For the first I wanted the traditional Behringer (just since mentioned that often) but they had the NADY stocked. Several months later I wanted a second, asked for the NADY (to keep them the same) via another supplier but they kept the Behringer stocked. Bit fun, in both cases I got the one I didn't intent to buy (but didn't matter). Eric.Desart wrote:I have both the NADY and Behringer, and as Terry's experience with his mics, measuring very much alike. I've always assumed that the Nady mics were manufactured for them by Behringer, and are simply repackaged ECM8000's. Regards, Terry Terry it's quite possible (I've no way of knowing) they look 95% physically alike but not 100%. The capsule looks a bit different and the housing has a different finish.

One looks sand or steelblasted blasted and the other more polished. Hence it's certainly not just a repacking but it's possible of course (but I don't know) that they come from the same manufacturer with some cosmetic changes.

Come on Eric, 5% difference, how much dB is that? All this behringer stuff is made in the People's Republic of China. As is other cheap stuff, so similarity wouldn't surprise me.