# Sonarworks Calibration Mic Question



## Jeremy Spencer (May 27, 2020)

I've been trying out Sonarworks Reference 4, and used an Apex 220 (linear measurement microphone) to perform the speaker calibration. I am really liking the sonic results, and I now have a very flat graph. 

My question is....would buying the official Sonarworks mic be worth it? Would the results be noticeable? Just wondering if anyone else has tried a similar comparison. I suppose if I buy the software, the mic would be a good investment as well.

Thanks


----------



## gst98 (May 27, 2020)

I had the same experience where I tried the demo using the flattest mic I had.

The mic I used got me in the ballpark but when I got the sonarworks mic everything was more extreme. 

Now I'm not sure how your mic will be in comparison to the reference mic, but I would say don't use sonarworks without the real mic. You'll never know until you try with the ref mic whether it was accurate or not, and my view was I didn't want to trick my self into blindly thinking it was accurate room correction.

I also looked at the cheaper behringer ref mics but in the end I thought may as well pay the extra just for the peace of mind

Turns out my room sounds awful and sonarworks has been night and day for me, so in hindsight I would pay anything to get these results.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 27, 2020)

gst98 said:


> Turns out my room sounds awful and sonarworks has been night and day for me, so in hindsight I would pay anything to get these results.



Thanks for the reply! That was my reaction after I heard the difference, I couldn't believe the clarity I had been missing. I took the plunge and ordered the SW mic from a local shop, at least I'll have it forever, and I'm sure I'll need it down the road.


----------



## gst98 (May 27, 2020)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Thanks for the reply! That was my reaction after I heard the difference, I couldn't believe the clarity I had been missing. I took the plunge and ordered the SW mic from a local shop, at least I'll have it forever, and I'm sure I'll need it down the road.



I think you'll find it absolutely worth it once you've made a new profile. For me I had a 14 db boost at 142hz and the immediately after a 12 db cut at 170 - I always wondered why I had these horrible resonant frequncies, and now they're magically gone!

The thing I didn't think about until I actually got it is the phase relationship between the speakers. The stereo image is so much better now and there is so much more clarity.

No sure if you've played around with it yet, but I playing around with the speaker curves/ boosting and cutting the high and low end. The completely flat response was a bit sterile to me, so the b&k curve helps warm the lows and soften the highs so its still enjoyable to listen to


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (May 27, 2020)

Getting their mic won't really make a difference. Trust me, I've tried  I have their mic, the similar Behringer one, and a pair of Earthworks. They essentially measure the same. Within +/- 1dB which is much more linear than anything you'll get from your speakers and room. I also never use the calibration files. They mostly just account for the high frequency shelving down. Nowadays I use the Earthworks for all of my measurements but I think I'd be fine with any of the cheaper mics.

With more complicated correction tools the higher resolution of the Earthworks may have a noticeable difference but Sonarworks is nothing more than a basic EQ so you really don't need that. If you do a recalibration, the differences that you'll end up are greater than the differences between these mics considering how you move the mic around the room when calibrating.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 27, 2020)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Getting their mic won't really make a difference. Trust me, I've tried  I have their mic, the similar Behringer one, and a pair of Earthworks. They essentially measure the same. Within +/- 1dB which is much more linear than anything you'll get from your speakers and room. I also never use the calibration files. They mostly just account for the high frequency shelving down. Nowadays I use the Earthworks for all of my measurements but I think I'd be fine with any of the cheaper mics.
> 
> With more complicated correction tools the higher resolution of the Earthworks may have a noticeable difference but Sonarworks is nothing more than a basic EQ so you really don't need that. If you do a recalibration, the differences that you'll end up are greater than the differences between these mics considering how you move the mic around the room when calibrating.



sent you a PM


----------



## snarfie (Dec 30, 2020)

Hi all i have a Superlux ECM999 mic does it matter if i use a 0-90 degree calibration file from another Superlux ECM999 or do you have to make a specific custome made file for each mic. If you use the other file will the results be neglecteble.? Somebody with such file...


----------



## twincities (Dec 30, 2020)

snarfie said:


> Hi all i have a Superlux ECM999 mic does it matter if i use a 0-90 degree calibration file from another Superlux ECM999 or do you have to make a specific custome made file for each mic. If you use the other file will the results be neglecteble.? Somebody with such file...


calibration files are always per mic (which is why mics that give you a choice between calibrated and non-calibrated will cost a few bucks different - someone had to bust it out of the box and bring it to their test setup). it's not just a secret file they're not showing you unless you pay. the offset file just wasn't ever made in their lab.

without a whole can of worms being opened, calibration files are normally doing the bulk of their corrections in the upper register, say above 8k. that is a region that i don't trust measurement mics to do the work for me anyway. i'll look at what the data is saying, but will always knock that last octave in by ear. waves up there are ~an inch long, and effected more heavily by temperature and humidity. 

for anyone unaware, this is what a calibration file looks like. quite literally just a text table of values that show the offset between your actual microphone, and their golden standard reference for how one should respond under their test conditions. if you don't agree with something, or know something about your mic you can easily go make your own text file to offset data in whatever app is using it. 

;Frequency[Hz] rel. Level[dB]
50 0.6
60 0.5
70 0.4
80 0.4
90 0.3
100 0.3
110 0.3
120 0.3
130 0.3
140 0.3
150 0.3
160 0.3
170 0.3
180 0.3
190 0.3
200 0.3
210 0.3
220 0.3
230 0.3
240 0.3
250 0.3
260 0.3
270 0.3
280 0.3
290 0.3
300 0.3
310 0.3
320 0.3
330 0.3
340 0.3
350 0.2
360 0.2
370 0.2
380 0.2
390 0.1
400 0.1
420 0.1
440 -0.0
470 -0.1
500 -0.1
530 -0.1
570 -0.1
600 -0.1
640 -0.0
680 0.0
720 0.1
770 0.1
820 0.0
870 -0.0
920 -0.0
980 -0.0
1050 0.0
1110 0.2
1180 0.3
1260 0.2
1340 0.1
1420 0.1
1510 0.1
1610 0.0
1710 -0.0
1820 -0.1
1930 -0.2
2050 -0.4
2180 -0.6
2320 -0.8
2470 -0.8
2630 -0.9
2790 -0.8
2970 -0.6
3160 -0.3
3360 0.3
3570 0.6
3800 0.8
4040 0.7
4290 0.1
4570 -0.6
4860 -0.8
5160 -0.7
5490 -0.4
5840 0.4
6210 0.6
6610 0.9
7030 0.9
7470 0.9
7950 1.2
8450 1.9
8990 1.9
9560 2.0
10160 2.7
10810 3.0
11490 2.8
12220 3.2
13000 3.8
13830 3.8
14700 3.9
15640 4.4
16630 4.4
17690 4.4
18810 4.2
19980 3.8


----------



## snarfie (Dec 30, 2020)

twincities said:


> calibration files are always per mic (which is why mics that give you a choice between calibrated and non-calibrated will cost a few bucks different - someone had to bust it out of the box and bring it to their test setup). it's not just a secret file they're not showing you unless you pay. the offset file just wasn't ever made in their lab.
> 
> without a whole can of worms being opened, calibration files are normally doing the bulk of their corrections in the upper register, say above 8k. that is a region that i don't trust measurement mics to do the work for me anyway. i'll look at what the data is saying, but will always knock that last octave in by ear. waves up there are ~an inch long, and effected more heavily by temperature and humidity.
> 
> ...


Thans for your response the file i'm looking for is a 0 an 90 degree file for horizontal or vertical measurnents. Thought that is a different file.


----------



## styledelk (Dec 30, 2020)

So far I'm having trouble with their own mic and the software. It insists my speakers aren't far enough apart and misreads their distance, and I can't even continue through it. But I shall persist.


----------



## wst3 (Dec 30, 2020)

*TL;DR*

If you are using Sonarworks to correct errors in your room then I'm not convinced the results will be better enough to justify purchasing a better microphone. I do believe that a microphone with a calibration file is important, but for this particular application I suspect it is not required.

*The rest...*

tough call actually. Measurement microphones have a tendency to be noisy, or at least noisier than microphones designed for recording or performance. Turns out the noise floor is seldom a consideration in acoustical measurements. Frequency and phase response, and especially off-axis response, are more important.

Building a microphone is not the same as performing brain surgery, but there are costs associated with building really good microphones. While it is not universally true, price can be an indicator of how long a microphone will perform well, for example. Price may also indicate the accuracy of the calibration file.

My experience only, but I purchased an Earthworks M30 years ago, when I was finding it difficult to duplicate measurements using an inexpensive measurement microphone. It made a big difference, for me. Then again I was making measurements, not feeding data to a program, and that may make a difference.

By and large any frequency or phase response errors in your microphone's on-axis response will likely be minuscule compared to the errors you are trying to correct. Off-axis errors can still be a problem, especially since most of us have major problems in the lower couple of octaves, where sound is somewhat omnidirectional, and the wavelength is often greater than the room dimensions (let alone the capsule dimensions<G>).

*Conclusion to long winded post:*

If it seems I am fence sitting I suppose I am. A better microphone may provide more reliable data, especially in the lower octaves. The value of the improvement in measurements may, or may not have any practical value.

If you were capturing impulse responses for room analysis I'd say get the better microphone. If you expect to be called into court I'd say get the better microphone. 

If you are simply treating one room - your room - then I'm not convinced it is worth it. I think the fact that you have already realized an improvement makes that case. The delta in the room correction is likely to be fairly small.

In fairness, it is well known here that I am extremely skeptical about tools like Sonarworks. And that does play into the conversation.


----------



## twincities (Dec 30, 2020)

snarfie said:


> Thans for your response the file i'm looking for is a 0 an 90 degree file for horizontal or vertical measurnents. Thought that is a different file.


sorry i hadn't had my coffee yet 
0 and 90 will either be different files, OR the manufacturer will recommend one position only without the alternative (i'm not familiar with the specific mic). it won't be the same file for both positions though, and will still be from them directly for your specific serial number if it exists.


----------



## twincities (Dec 30, 2020)

wst3 said:


> TL;DR



one of the more eye opening demo's i've seen done in a measurement class was taking 5 reference mics, ranging from a $70 behringer to a $1300 earthworks, putting them all as close to the same point as possible with some fancy mic stand work, level matching, and watching 5 measurements on screen overlay to show nearly identical data. until you got up to that 8khz+ region, there was no practical, or actionable difference between mics with a nearly 2000% price jump. 

i regularly (well, pre2020) align PA systems with ~$120 mics. the results are the same, and i won't have a heart attack when someone trips over my mic cable and knocks the mic down to the concrete floor.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 1, 2021)

For what it’s worth, I’ve tried calibrating my room with different mic’s....the SW mic worked the best for me.


----------



## Leigh (Jan 1, 2021)

Would an Earthworks QTC-40 omni mic work for this? I have a pair I use for live event recording.

**Leigh


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 1, 2021)

Honestly, don’t use anything except the SW mic. It’s calibrated specifically for its software.


----------



## jcrosby (Jan 1, 2021)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> I've been trying out Sonarworks Reference 4, and used an Apex 220 (linear measurement microphone) to perform the speaker calibration. I am really liking the sonic results, and I now have a very flat graph.
> 
> My question is....would buying the official Sonarworks mic be worth it? Would the results be noticeable? Just wondering if anyone else has tried a similar comparison. I suppose if I buy the software, the mic would be a good investment as well.
> 
> Thanks


The correction is tailored to your specific mic. You have to download a calibration file for yours. Like headphones there are variances, no mic model is consistently/perfectly flat... Can't say how big the differences would be, but considering they go to the trouble of incorporating unique correction for every mic I'd imagine it's a big enough difference to make it worth the effort on their end..


----------



## jcrosby (Jan 1, 2021)

wst3 said:


> *TL;DR*
> 
> If you are using Sonarworks to correct errors in your room then I'm not convinced the results will be better enough to justify purchasing a better microphone. I do believe that a microphone with a calibration file is important, but for this particular application I suspect it is not required.
> 
> ...


Speakers aren't identically flat, rooms are never perfectly symmetrical though... In my case I found SW made a difference. It centered my stereo image pretty substantially. The difference between each channel was surprisingly bigger than I would have imagined. I.e. it didn't re-center my image due to poorly set speaker levels, it corrected the imbalances between them. I always experienced this as a center image that seemed a little _wobbly_ and it corrected this...

It also had a pretty substantial impact on the Schroeder frequency... Despite having a ton of bass management evenly distributed across my room I had a 6 dB dip around 120 on my main speakers, an 8 dB hole on another set. Low end sounds kind of hollow and mushy with it off..

IME it's money well spent if you've already invested in treating your room.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 1, 2021)

jcrosby said:


> The correction is tailored to your specific mic. You have to download a calibration file for yours. Like headphones there are variances, no mic model is consistently/perfectly flat... Can't say how big the differences would be, but considering they go to the trouble of incorporating unique correction for every mic I'd imagine it's a big enough difference to make it worth the effort on their end..


Yep, you are right. I bought the SW mic from a forum member who lives near me. It made a huge difference.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 2, 2021)

jcrosby said:


> It also had a pretty substantial impact on the Schroeder frequency... Despite having a ton of bass management evenly distributed across my room I had a 6 dB dip around 120 on my main speakers, an 8 dB hole on another set. Low end sounds kind of hollow and mushy with it off..


I don't want to drag this out, but I am genuinely curious. The low frequency correction, does that work throughout the room or only where you measured?

Thanks!


----------



## wst3 (Jan 2, 2021)

twincities said:


> i regularly (well, pre2020) align PA systems with ~$120 mics. the results are the same, and i won't have a heart attack when someone trips over my mic cable and knocks the mic down to the concrete floor.


It is a difficult call, at least for me. I've used $120 measurement microphones, and as long as I wasn't due in court<G>, or terribly concerned with the extreme octaves I agree, the $120 microphone is sufficient.

While it is working properly!

I have had cases where the response has drifted far enough to cause problems. In one case we made our measurements and went home. The client wanted to make a change to the space, and wanted before and after measurements, and was not satisfied with the measurements we had already made because they were old. (You can not make this stuff up!)

We returned, same microphone, as close to the exact same spot as we could, and the results were markedly different. At first we suspected changes in the room, but we were assured that was not the case.

So I dragged out my Earthworks M-30 and we made another measurement, which agreed very nearly exactly, with the original measurements.

Since that little adventure I am much more likely to take the M-30 along for critical measurements.

If it is setting up a sound reinforcement system in a hall for one or two nights I still use the $120 microphone, because if it has drifted a lot someone will hear it.

If it is making measurements for documentation purposes I use the Earthworks.

Funny thing is, until my mis-adventure I was going to sell the M-30 because I was to scared to take it out on site. I mean why keep it, right???


----------



## jcrosby (Jan 2, 2021)

wst3 said:


> I don't want to drag this out, but I am genuinely curious. The low frequency correction, does that work throughout the room or only where you measured?
> 
> Thanks!


The correction SW does is intended for a small radius around the sweet spot. (It measures about a 6 foot area so the correction's obviously ideal for that whole region). However I've noticed it improved my room in general. That said I have some fairly tight dimensions with my sidewalls and a cathedral ceiling so it's hard to say if the same could be said in a typical box shaped room.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Jan 3, 2021)

jcrosby said:


> The correction SW does is intended for a small radius around the sweet spot. (It measures about a 6 foot area so the correction's obviously ideal for that whole region). However I've noticed it improved my room in general. That said I have some fairly tight dimensions with my sidewalls and a cathedral ceiling so it's hard to say if the same could be said in a typical box shaped room.


Well correcting one part of the room will correct others at the same point in the "wavelength" of the mode around the room. At the same time, spots that aren't on that same point will likely be made worse. If you have 2 listening positions and they're at corresponding positions then you're in luck otherwise you're sacrificing one of them. If you're sitting in the center in terms of left/right then the position that has x distance to the front wall will sound similar to the position that has x distance to the back wall. Basically if you're sitting 1/3 of the way back in the room then you'll probably get a similar response at 2/3 back (1/3 from the back wall...).


----------



## jcrosby (Jan 3, 2021)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Well correcting one part of the room will correct others at the same point in the "wavelength" of the mode around the room. At the same time, spots that aren't on that same point will likely be made worse. If you have 2 listening positions and they're at corresponding positions then you're in luck otherwise you're sacrificing one of them. If you're sitting in the center in terms of left/right then the position that has x distance to the front wall will sound similar to the position that has x distance to the back wall. Basically if you're sitting 1/3 of the way back in the room then you'll probably get a similar response at 2/3 back (1/3 from the back wall...).


Pretty much figured that's the case...


----------



## wst3 (Jan 4, 2021)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Well correcting one part of the room will correct others at the same point in the "wavelength" of the mode around the room. <snip>


I think it is a bit more complicated than this. I have not worked in enough rooms to be statistically relevant, but my experience suggests that this only holds true in rooms where all three dimensions are equal, or possibly multiples/factors of each other.

What I think is happening is that at some point x,y,z you have corrected any room generated errors (along with whatever else needs to be corrected). If we assume that the "whatever else" is in fact uniform throughout the room (not sure that's all that likely) we still have a physical problem when we move to x','y',z'.

Lets say a room is 10 ft wide, 20 ft front to back, and 8 ft high.

If I place the listening position in the center of the width, and 9 feet from the front wall (almost enough to get that magical 12 feet behind me, but I don't want two 8 foot dimensions!) I can then correct on each axis. If I move along any one axis I am still correcting for the other two, and that should be reasonable until you hit the null that corresponds with the peak at the listening position. Or if you are really unlucky at any peak or null.

But as soon as I move in two, or three (say I stand up) directions the odds of reasonable correction become much smaller.

I am not suggesting that tools like SW are snake oil, but I am suggesting that you learn a little bit about the limitations.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Jan 4, 2021)

wst3 said:


> I think it is a bit more complicated than this. I have not worked in enough rooms to be statistically relevant, but my experience suggests that this only holds true in rooms where all three dimensions are equal, or possibly multiples/factors of each other.
> 
> What I think is happening is that at some point x,y,z you have corrected any room generated errors (along with whatever else needs to be corrected). If we assume that the "whatever else" is in fact uniform throughout the room (not sure that's all that likely) we still have a physical problem when we move to x','y',z'.
> 
> ...


I should clarify my statement. By "correcting" I didn't mean the full spectrum. I mean by correcting one specific mode then you will be changing all points in the room at the same wavelength position (we can call it phase...) to the same level. 

So if we're talking about just moving in a room front to back, the corrections for side to side and floor to ceiling modes will be the same. If you then sit at the symmetrically opposite side the corrections will essentially all be the same except for a few things that change not related to modes.

Pretty much any other sets of points in a room that don't have the symmetry will need different corrections. Having said that, if certain problems in your room are worse then others, you could potentially greatly improve the bigger problem at both positions while making a smaller problem better in one position and worse in the other. That may be better than not correcting at all.


----------



## PaulieDC (Jan 4, 2021)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Thanks for the reply! That was my reaction after I heard the difference, I couldn't believe the clarity I had been missing. I took the plunge and ordered the SW mic from a local shop, at least I'll have it forever, and I'm sure I'll need it down the road.


I didn't have a reference mic handy so I went for the SW bundle, and naturally the results were superb. I had to cal a pair of iLoud MTMs which come with cheapo ref mics, and the speakers have a built-in calibration. It lasts 6 seconds and does 4 whoops and that's it. Sounded good afterwards. But with the SW mic and using Reference 4, WOW, it nailed my room and the difference is huge, being that the mic profile is known prior to the process. What comes out of my iLoud MTMs after the SW Mic/software is quite close to the SW preset profile for my 650s. I saw that you ordered one, I don't think that was a waste. If you get the same results as from your Apex 220, return it.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 5, 2021)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Pretty much any other sets of points in a room that don't have the symmetry will need different corrections. Having said that, if certain problems in your room are worse then others, you could potentially greatly improve the bigger problem at both positions while making a smaller problem better in one position and worse in the other. That may be better than not correcting at all.


As a rule I prefer to use geometry, a tape measure, absorption, diffusion, and reflection to correct problems. But that is just one person's opinion, worth about what you paid for it. 

Why?

First, I like to work in larger control rooms where there is no glass between me and the performer(s). That means all of us are moving around the room. If we are wearing headphones then no big deal, but if we aren't it can pose a problem.

Second, even in a conventional control room I would find it awkward to have to place the guest's couch at some specific spot simply to hit the "right spot".

And last, based on a couple of rooms that were treated with software and numerous demonstrations I found the room difficult to work in, my ears grew weary very quickly. When the correction software was turned off low frequency problems became apparent, but it was still easier on the ears.

It is always possible that the users simply had no clue, but that probably does not apply to the demonstrations<G>.

I do understand what the software is trying to do. I wish it worked better.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 5, 2021)

PaulieDC said:


> I didn't have a reference mic handy so I went for the SW bundle, and naturally the results were superb. I had to cal a pair of iLoud MTMs which come with cheapo ref mics, and the speakers have a built-in calibration. It lasts 6 seconds and does 4 whoops and that's it. Sounded good afterwards. But with the SW mic and using Reference 4, WOW, it nailed my room and the difference is huge, being that the mic profile is known prior to the process. What comes out of my iLoud MTMs after the SW Mic/software is quite close to the SW preset profile for my 650s. I saw that you ordered one, I don't think that was a waste. If you get the same results as from your Apex 220, return it.


I actually bought the SW mic from a forum member in my area, I got lucky! And the results were noticeably different from the Apex I rented. Glad you had good results.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Jan 5, 2021)

wst3 said:


> As a rule I prefer to use geometry, a tape measure, absorption, diffusion, and reflection to correct problems. But that is just one person's opinion, worth about what you paid for it.


I'm certainly not implying that those things aren't necessary. They are but IMO room correction is still necessary in even the most treated room. In my case I have over 40 diaphragmatic absorbers in my room but I'd still never go without digital correction. 

Yes, a demonstration in an untreated room will sound awful. Tuning with an EQ has nothing to do with treating the room. They are completely different things, both necessary if you want the best. 

If you do use multiple locations in the room then that needs to be factored into whichever acoustician is tuning the room so that one used location doesn't get compromised by EQing another. 

In my room my chair is the main priority but I still keep the couch in mind when making changes digitally. Acoustically the back of the room also works for recording since like being in the same room but that's always on headphones so digitally I don't care about that area.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 5, 2021)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Yes, a demonstration in an untreated room will sound awful.


If one reads their marketing materials one can infer that one should be able to do just that. Perhaps they went overboard on their marketing?


Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Tuning with an EQ has nothing to do with treating the room. They are completely different things, both necessary if you want the best.


In my experience one can correct frequency response errors in the electrical signal, but once it is converted back to air EQ does very little. Unless I am misunderstanding this last comment - are you referring to tools like SW as treating the room?


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Jan 5, 2021)

wst3 said:


> Unless I am misunderstanding this last comment - are you referring to tools like SW as treating the room?


No, just the opposite. Those correction tools (Frequency and phase EQ, time alignment) aren't part of room treatment but IMO are necessary tools to finish setting up a room (which you could call "treating" the room in a broader sense). When I design rooms I strongly encourage clients to include that as part of their budget (whether it be a software tool like SW, one of my custom units, something from miniDSP, Trinnov, DEQX...). Normally my acoustician services include the setup of those units which is a crucial part in finalizing a room. Of course those tools also allow you to adjust to the listener's personal taste in terms of high and low end rolloff etc.


----------

