Anyone try the new UMIK-2 yet ?

[jschwender]

I actually did that. They replied:
The UMIK-2 gain on the OS is indeed digital gain. That is setup for optimal level in 90% of applications when doing speaker testing.
I think you will not notice this if you run 1 W sine wave tests in 1 m distance, as most speakers don't reach clipping SPL this way.
Personally i disagree with the opinion that it is fine like it is shipped: it is by definition a defect, as it does not meet the given specs.
I think the implementation of a level adjust on application interface that is nothing but numeric multiplication is confusing, as i would expect that a level adjustment is done before AD converter.
Nevertheless, the gain tweak makes it a perfect microphone for me.

 

[jschwender]

s

 

[Andrew Slater]

for anyone who wants to turn down the umik2 because of it’s polar plots on 1/2” end

listen , I’ve been measuring my umik2 a lot , and you have to point the mic away from the speakers before any polar change is even noticed at all….

who in the world measuring with mic pointed away from the speakers. That’s silly

It’s just silly to even think the polar response is poor or a reason to not upgrade (and yes it’s a huge upgrade) from a umik1

Umik2 produces better results

I’ve tuned about 8 systems now with it

and have tuned my system about 10 times with umik2….. it’s better hands down.

I ran a tune with my umik1 and it’s grainy sounding (on Dirac) compared to umik2

 

[AustinJerry]

for anyone who wants to turn down the umik2 because of it’s polar plots on 1/2” end

listen , I’ve been measuring my umik2 a lot , and you have to point the mic away from the speakers before any polar change is even noticed at all….

who in the world measuring with mic pointed away from the speakers. That’s silly

It’s just silly to even think the polar response is poor or a reason to not upgrade (and yes it’s a huge upgrade) from a umik1

Umik2 produces better results

I’ve tuned about 8 systems now with it

and have tuned my system about 10 times with umik2….. it’s better hands down.

I ran a tune with my umik1 and it’s grainy sounding (on Dirac) compared to umik2

I have both the UMIK-1 and the UMIK-2. I have been using the latter since it was first released. In my comparisons (using REW measurements), I find very little difference between the two. Since you are claiming that the UMIK-2 is better, and a huge upgrade, do you have any data to support your claim? And what exactly is "grainy sound"?

 

[Andrew Slater]

I have both the UMIK-1 and the UMIK-2. I have been using the latter since it was first released. In my comparisons (using REW measurements), I find very little difference between the two. Since you are claiming that the UMIK-2 is better, and a huge upgrade, do you have any data to support your claim? And what exactly is "grainy sound"?

It’s a Dirac thing …..

How Dirac auto target sounds….

The umik1 sounds grainy (like too much 2.5k or something) I used grainy to describe the end result as I don’t know exactly what frequencies are affected

Also , umik2 gives smoother sound and more defined center and better detail
(All response issues)

Minute , but definitely there and to me it matters


Edit ; also when I move the mic , umik2 doesn’t freak out the LF sub bass area as umik1 does doing MMM live rta

 

[DanDan]

My UMIK-1 died after years of good service. I would love to try the UMIK2. I do think that MiniDSP could make more use of us Beta Volunteers..... Ahem...... The standard diameter means it would fit my B&K Calibrator. But I have a PMIK-1 which also has the correct diameter. Looking at the Cal File 0 Degrees the corrections seem very small increasing gradually with HF as one would expect. From this I would expect a 90 degree file to have very very little corrections. Pointing upwards while using the 90 degree file is of course necessary for Surround purposes. The PMIK seems to work happily with iOS apps from StudioSixDigital and Faberacoustical. Also with a HP Laptop I used for a recent Dirac Cal. Gone now, but IMO that was a very nice product. Visuals suggest it is the same capsule as the UMIK-2.

 

[Andrew Slater]

My UMIK-1 died after years of good service. I would love to try the UMIK2. I do think that MiniDSP could make more use of us Beta Volunteers..... Ahem...... The standard diameter means it would fit my B&K Calibrator. But I have a PMIK-1 which also has the correct diameter. Looking at the Cal File 0 Degrees the corrections seem very small increasing gradually with HF as one would expect. From this I would expect a 90 degree file to have very very little corrections. Pointing upwards while using the 90 degree file is of course necessary for Surround purposes. The PMIK seems to work happily with iOS apps from StudioSixDigital and Faberacoustical. Also with a HP Laptop I used for a recent Dirac Cal. Gone now, but IMO that was a very nice product. Visuals suggest it is the same capsule as the UMIK-2.

yeah I’ve been looking at S6 prouducts awhile now , the 1000$ class 1 usb mic has peaked my interests

I really want to try one….. I hear the iAudiointerface2 is the cats meow for xlr interfaces…

anyhoo , yeah the CSL umik2 is the one I have and my goodness it’s repeatable and what I really like is Dirac auto target sounds stellar with it , the auto target on umik1 I’m always fiddling with and can’t ever be happy with outcome.

 

[DanDan]

yeah I’ve been looking at S6 prouducts awhile now , the 1000$ class 1 usb mic has peaked my interests

I really want to try one….. I hear the iAudiointerface2 is the cats meow for xlr interfaces…

anyhoo , yeah the CSL umik2 is the one I have and my goodness it’s repeatable and what I really like is Dirac auto target sounds stellar with it , the auto target on umik1 I’m always fiddling with and can’t ever be happy with outcome.

Glad you are enjoying the UMIK2.... I like my PMIK which I think is the same Capsule. I suspect that better quality mics.... phase response etc. will cause Dirac to make better filters. Dirac's Mathias has told me that there are users reporting this.

 

[JStewart]

I suspect that better quality mics.... phase response etc. will cause Dirac to make better filters. Dirac's Mathias has told me that there are users reporting this.

Did Mathias also say that users were reporting this because the mic is better (as opposed to placebo effect)?

I know very little about mics. My observation is there appears to be two groups of room correction users though. Group 1says a UMIK (or similar) calibrated mic is good enough and Group 2 the other says that better quality calibrated mics produce better audible results. I've never seen Group 2 evidence to support the claim though. Slightly different I can understand, but more right? Considering by and large our rooms are far more of a mess than seemingly insignificant (to me, anyway) quality/measurement/calibration differences, I struggle with this. At the same time I'd like to be wrong, acquire a better mic, and get more preferable results.

 

[AustinJerry]

Once again, a comparison of the UMIK-1 and UMIK-2 mics based on personal experience.

First, a comparison of custom CSL cal files for both mics:

Second, a comparison of actual REW measurements. I have two UMIK-1 mics, the "old" UMIK-1 has both CSL and web cal files, while the "new" UMIK-1 has only the web cal file. The UMIK-2 has both the CSL and the web cal files. The measurements are actually quite similar, with the CSL UMIK-2 being a bit flatter in the low end and a bit higher in the top end. Regardless, with my Dirac Live calibrations, I can't hear any obvious differences using either mic with any of the cal files.

 

[JStewart]

Once again, a comparison of the UMIK-1 and UMIK-2 mics based on personal experience.

First, a comparison of custom CSL cal files for both mics:

View attachment 54828

Second, a comparison of actual REW measurements. I have two UMIK-1 mics, the "old" UMIK-1 has both CSL and web cal files, while the "new" UMIK-1 has only the web cal file. The UMIK-2 has both the CSL and the web cal files. The measurements are actually quite similar, with the CSL UMIK-2 being a bit flatter in the low end and a bit higher in the top end. Regardless, with my Dirac Live calibrations, I can't hear any obvious differences using either mic with any of the cal files.

View attachment 54830

Thanks Jerry. I am hoping Mathias at Dirac has some data to back up what he relayed to DanDan. Otherwise he's just relaying what Dirac users have said. Being one, I'll hypothesize we are not a reliable source for accurate information.

 

[Andrew Slater]

I keep hearing the word placebo

and feel a bit outraged by That statement and the Polar response argument…

both are just silly.

umik2 (from CSL) absolutely has a better Dirac outcome. And it’s not hard to hear the difference. It’s pretty obvious!

I love that my minidsp has 4 configurations , and I have 4 mics on it all tuned in the same session, same heat , weather , used the same output level (mic gain was different but made to match other mics at -12db from noise test) , same target, and all have different tonal attributes. Umik2 having the most smooth and true to the target sound of all of them.

it’s pretty easy to make some REW sweeps and call them the same. So stop posting comparisons of REW sweeps when talking about Dirac.

I wish I know exactly what Dirac was doing…… then we could post screenshots that actually mean something.

The only thing placebo I can see is these REW screenshots that are not the DLCT

 

[Mike-48]

This long discussion confirms my view that one of the weak spots of consumer DRC is the unknown accuracy of the microphones. Perhaps the way around it is to use an expensive, professional measurement mic. That of course is a rather large expenditure for the home user.

 

[AustinJerry]

This long discussion confirms my view that one of the weak spots of consumer DRC is the unknown accuracy of the microphones. Perhaps the way around it is to use an expensive, professional measurement mic. That of course is a rather large expenditure for the home user.

Home audio is not as complicated as sending someone to the moon, where a slight inaccuracy can result in completely missing the target. The mics we are discussing are certainly "good enough" for the average home user. I doubt whether the typical user who is presented with two calibrations, one using a UMIK, and one using an expensive professional mic, would be able to hear a significant difference. Chasing perfection in home audio is a futile endeavor.

 

[Andrew Slater]

Home audio is not as complicated as sending someone to the moon, where a slight inaccuracy can result in completely missing the target. The mics we are discussing are certainly "good enough" for the average home user. I doubt whether the typical user who is presented with two calibrations, one using a UMIK, and one using an expensive professional mic, would be able to hear a significant difference. Chasing perfection in home audio is a futile endeavor.

you can only imagine what us car audio ppl have to deal with lol ‍‍‍☺☺

 

[Mike-48]

Home audio is not as complicated as sending someone to the moon, where a slight inaccuracy can result in completely missing the target. The mics we are discussing are certainly "good enough" for the average home user. I doubt whether the typical user who is presented with two calibrations, one using a UMIK, and one using an expensive professional mic, would be able to hear a significant difference. Chasing perfection in home audio is a futile endeavor.

Jerry, thanks for your thoughts. Often I have agreed with you, but not on this point.

Shouldn't we aim higher than the "average home user"? The average user is happy with low-rate mp3s heard through cheap earbuds.

My experience when getting a better calibrated microphone (LinearX) for my old TacT 2.2X was that the timbre of instruments in corrections improved and there was less listening fatigue. I guess the TacT-supplied mic was poorly calibrated in the treble. I later heard a report (unconfirmed) that TacT calibrations were done on the factory floor.

Likewise, my experience is that deviations of a half dB (or less) in response can be clearly audible, depending on the material and the nature of the response differences. Since mic calibration reflects directly into the generated DRC filters, it is a key factor in getting the best results.

From all that, I believe home-audio DRC will never reach its full potential until the mics are more reliably -- and transparently -- calibrated. Not only should that give better filters, it should allow us to compare DRC systems more meaningfully, which one would hope will lead to progress.