Truerta tutorial professional#

One such result is shown below (I do have a more recent cal, but I can't find the plot right now. Scantek has calibrated this a couple of time using an electrostatic actuator (to get the pressure response) and then applying a free-field correction per ANSI/IEC standards. One of my more top-of-the-line microphones is a BSWA MP201 ().

So let's look at what the NIST-traceable lab gets vs what I get.

Truerta tutorial professional#

I have several professional measurement microphones that are regularly calibrated by 3rd-party NIST-traceable labs (usually Scantek as linked above). Getting kicked around by lawyers is not worth the money I make on my mics.ДЇor question #2, we can look at how my measurements compare against the big boys. If it's shown that I've lied, one could bring a complaint () to the board and if an investigation shows that I've violated ethical guidelines, my life very quickly becomes a living h3ll - I've worked on a number state and Federal noise control projects, and I'm an expert witness that has spent a lot of time around lawyers who have dug into every piece of work I've done. I am a registered PE ( +and+Professional+Land+Surveyors&sid=Eoca) in MA which means I have ethical conduct standards to uphold. Even if he's not lying, how do we know his measurement procedure is any more accurate that Dayton's?ДЇor question #1, I'm going to do the only thing I can think of - I am going to sign this message with my PE credential. How do we know that this guy isn't lying to protect his profit margins? andДў. Now given the obvious bias involved here, if I was reading this post, two questions would immediately come to mind:ДЎ. So, that's my sample of 2 mics and you may all make of them what you may. I checked the mic using both of my acoustic calibrators (which in turn have been calibrated by different calibration () labs ()) and got the same result. One thing that I do find curious is that the sensitivity of the factory measurements and my measurements are off by about 1 dB. Oh, and before I forget, when I made the plot for the first EMM-6 result I posted on Friday, I assumed that the factory graph started at 20 Hz - I was wrong, it starts at 25 Hz, so the factory data should be a little compressed horizontally vs what's there now (but to be honest it doesn't look all that different). It's closer than the first sample but in my (obviously biased) opinion it's a bit off. Here's the factory curve vs my own measurements: What I need to do is ship a mic out to the west coast, have it shipped back to me and measure it again to see if this is something to be concerned about. When I ship out my mics I try to make the box as tight as possible.

I'm wondering if excessive rattle might be altering the position of the mic capsule in the mic body.

Similarly, when I get my ECM8000's there tends to be lots of rattle in the shipping box. The one I got was shipped direct to me from PE and the packing was decent but when you shook the shipping box you could hear it rattling around. I'm starting to wonder if jostling during shipping might be the cause of the difference mic response between what Dayton provided and what I got for the one (and I stress, one!) unit I measured. When the responses look similar, the position looks similar. When I measure mics with wildly different high-frequency responses, I can generally see that the mic capsules have visually different positions in the body. If you take one apart you'll find that the mic capsule is friction-fit into the mic body and is not always at the tip of the body as it (presumably) should be.

I think that one of the biggest contributors to unit-to-unit variation among the ECM8000-type microphones is the position of the mic capsule in in the mic body. I've mentioned this over on Home Theater Shack but it might be worth mentioning here.