Home Theater Forum and Systems banner

521 - 540 of 887 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
First batch UMIKs end at the serial #188 and second batch UMIKs are serial #190-539... there is no serial #189 :huh: appears third batch is serial #540-???

I suspect the biggest difference you'll find between files in the first batch is below 20Hz response. With the second batch it is any thing below 990Hz and basically gets worse the lower you measure.
I've only tested one of the two I have so far, although it appears both are from batch one. From what I'm looking at there is only a slight difference in the lower octaves. The old cal file seems to bring the response down a bit.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
There must be some confusion here... I'm not sure which two files you are referring to. Your old file should have gone down to 5Hz, whereas the new file that replaced it only goes down to 20Hz. Both files you've plotted above appear to go down to 10Hz. What's the serial numbers on your UMIKs?

The second batch UMIKs have a wicked climb to like 4dBs or so above the older calibration and then plummets to absurd levels by 10Hz... where the old files just ended at 20Hz. Its at the point now where even if they suddenly decided to change the calibration files this time to something that looked reasonable I couldn't bring myself to trust it wasn't just some shenanigans. If they could have generated a good file honestly don't you think they would have done so by now?... after all they did it for the third batch UMIKs, so why not with the second batch using the same script. I think these second batch UMIKs need to have the reworked board assembled into the mic housing first and THEN measured on the factory floor (same rig as the third batch UMIKs)... until that happens I won't believe any new files that just magically turn up with yet another explanation of how its fixed. I paid for my UMIK back in January and so that make it now 2 and half months and three calibration files and numerous postings later and still I have not gotten what was being promised back when I paid for it. Yet they have the nerve to make and be shipping out third batch UMIKs without mentioning to us. By doing a serial # count there are 350 of us second batch UMIK owners who are getting taken advantage of... I can't believe there isn't more outrage being shown.... what? is it cognitive dissonance?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
This was done with a first batch UMIK, serial number 024. The green line is with the original cal file ending at 4.6hz and the yellow or gold line is with the newer cal file which ends at 20.3 I believe.

I haven't tested the old cal file vs new cal file on my other UMIK, serial number 145 yet.

The above measurement was of a subwoofer, 1m away, no smoothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
First batch UMIKs end at the serial #188 and second batch UMIKs are serial #190-539... there is no serial #189 :huh: appears third batch is serial #540-???
They must have grabbed #189 from the top of the stack as the "reference mic". :D I'm certainly glad I went with the UMM-6 from CSL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,298 Posts
I paid for my UMIK back in January and so that make it now 2 and half months and three calibration files and numerous postings later and still I have not gotten what was being promised back when I paid for it. Yet they have the nerve to make and be shipping out third batch UMIKs without mentioning to us.
It has been 2.5 months, so why aren't they sending the third batch to replace the problem second batch mics? Didn't you ask this from them?

I see that Herb has received several UMIKs, saw on a thread.
So some people have sent and known of the problems which is good news.
 

·
miniDSP Director
Joined
·
10 Posts
Dear All,

As mentioned above in my last email few weeks ago, I very rarely go on forums due to time constraints. Sonnie just mentioned that I should follow up what's going on here so just had a quick look today. The following announcement is actually a post which has been in preparation for some quite some time now (see the length..) It summarizes issues discovered over time and the best way to deal with them if you're affected. Hoping this answers most of your questions.
http://www.minidsp.com/forum/18-umik-questions/8868-umik-1-update

As a general note, please consider miniDSP forum as a the official channel for communicating with us. Our team receives a lot of daily request (emails/forums)and we're happy to answer all of them. However we're unfortunately unable to also allocate resources for all forums.

So if you have a question/concern, feel free to send it our way as our team is happy to help clarify potential misunderstandings/misinterpretations.

Best Regards
Tony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
This was done with a first batch UMIK, serial number 024. The green line is with the original cal file ending at 4.6hz and the yellow or gold line is with the newer cal file which ends at 20.3 I believe.

I haven't tested the old cal file vs new cal file on my other UMIK, serial number 145 yet.

The above measurement was of a subwoofer, 1m away, no smoothing.
Ah yes, I get it now. I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention.

I've really been extremely busy this week and so haven't had time to post much.

Choice in scaling can make a big difference in the appearance of things on a graph so one needs to concentrate on the actual numbers when viewing graphs. Most REW graphs tend to use a 45dB to 105dB scale covering a 60dB span... just makes it a little easier to decipher the differences. Looking up your current file for #700-0024 it would appear your UMIK is down 4dB at 20Hz and will default to 0dB for anything below 20Hz... since I don't have access to your old file I'll have to use the graph to ascertain those values (however you obviously still have the old file). From your graph it would appear it was about -3 down at 10Hz since it can clearly be seen that your new file is 3dB above the old file. If you look at the CSL composite (which only displays to 20Hz) you'll see the majority of those mics being -3 to -4dB down at 20Hz... these are most common values for the ECM8000 on that composite graph. Now if one is to go by the example calibration file on the CSL website and assume they selected a 'typical' ECM8000 response to use as their example then at 10Hz down -6 to -7dB would be quite normal. That would be 3dB down from your old calibration file and 6 to 7 dB down from the new calibration file. But the difference grows exponentially if you now go down to 5Hz... the first batch UMIK composite show the responses get no worse while the CSL has response dropping to around -13dB down at 5Hz, so... Which seems more reasonable to you? I tend to believe the CSL calibration trend which would make a 10dB difference from your old calibration file (if I go by the UMIK composite graph) and 13dB difference from your new calibration file at 5Hz which is defaulted (@0dB).

Realistically I'm guessing most of us do not have subs with 'useable' SPL available at 5Hz... more likely 10Hz is enough and for many of us 15Hz would suffice. So looking at your graph there is a 3 dB (possibly 4 dB) difference between your old and new calibration files and a 6 or 7dB difference between CSL sample file and your new file. Consider this... to get a 3dB increase you'll need a 10X increase in power... the difference between 100-watts and 1000-watts... or the addition of another identical sub. When one does such upgrades, it is noticeable... however that's now your "slop factor" between your old and new files. Now consider twice that to 6dBs if you believe the CSL sample is a typical, more believable calibration file for those Panasonic capsules.

I feel these UMIKs calibration files are pretty accurate for above 20Hz system measurement work but if you are interested in below 20Hz, because of the way these capsules appear to drop off below 30Hz, in my opinion, it is not trustworthy at all for below 20Hz measurements. With the second batch UMIK files, the new files are obviously bogus but looking at the differences between first batch new vs old files I can't tell you which would be the more accurate above 20Hz and that's the problem right now. Which do you trust? Can you really trust either of them? I don't know. If you are satisfied they are similar enough for your purposes then problem solved... take your pick and go with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
They must have grabbed #189 from the top of the stack as the "reference mic". :D I'm certainly glad I went with the UMM-6 from CSL
Yes, I believe you are right... once you pointed it out I can see how that really makes sense. Unfortunately that "Golden" mic was flawed according to the DevTeam explanation of what went wrong... sigh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts


It has been 2.5 months, so why aren't they sending the third batch to replace the problem second batch mics? Didn't you ask this from them?...
I've been trying to give them the benefit of the doubt all along and taking their word about earnest efforts being made to fix all the defects because I really wanted this UMIK to be a good purchase but after seeing that they'd been shipping third batch UMIKs with reasonable calibration files and revised sensitivity and no 1kHz spikes for a couple weeks and had yet to tell us second batch UMIK owners there was a fix, that just burned me and pushed me over the edge. I PMed them with an ultimatum back on Sunday. I demanded an exchange for a third batch UMIK or I'd start "second batch UMIK" threads on every audio forum I belong to, outlining all the issues concerning these UMIKs and what has transpired... and then I put a deadline on this 'threat' of Thursday (Wednesday Hong Kong time). Two days later (Tuesday) they respond with their current offer to accept returned UMIKs from the first two batches for a FULL refund. (This should also put minidsp's posting above into perspective, I'm referring to the part about their forum being the only "official channel for communication".)

As far as I'm concerned that is an acceptable offer and the honorable thing to do... for that I will applaud them. I actually would have accepted an exchange for a bonafided third batch UMIK. I realize I could still do that by returning my second batch UMIK for a full refund and then ordering another UMIK ...EXCEPT that I'm sure they will take these second batch UMIKs and replace the board at their facility, give them a new serial # and then resell them again without an expensive trip back to the factory for recalibration... I'm just afraid they will not send them back to the factory floor test rig to be recalibrate as a new completed assembly and thus the files will still be untrustworthy however with a new serial # no one would be the wiser. I do notice there has already been a few responses over there seeking an exchange to a third batch and I would assume they are getting many more emails in privately inquiring about doing the same thing. Personally I would be leery of any UMIK purchase once those older batch UMIKs begin flowing back into their facilities... it becomes a craps-shoot at that point as to which batch UMIK and file you'll actually be receiving. Also they have stated that all calibration will only go to 20Hz so I assume that will mean all files will get truncated to 20Hz. For those of us that are not willing to accept results that could be off by 6dBs or more below 20Hz, these UMIKs would have to then be professionally calibrated which would add another $60 or so to the cost.

In the end, I believe the best I can do at this point is to just return my UMIK for full refund and then purchase a UMM-6 (with 5Hz professional calibration file) from CSL... in hind sight, its what I should have done 2-1/2 months ago and I could have avoided all the drama, inconvenience and wasted time. This has been a very frustrating experience to say the least.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
purchase a UMM-6 (with 5Hz professional calibration file) from CSL...
I've been laying in the weeds monitoring how this would get resolved and with all the returns that would logically be going back and thus creating unidentified "refurb" mics in the not too distant future.. I think this lends itself for an easy decision - unfortunately, I think of those customers completely unaware of this situation... thanks for all your efforts and staying on top of it ~ it has been greatly appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
I have a first batch Mic and while I know its probably better than the second batch I think I'm going to return it also and go with the CSL umm-6. They just can't seem to give any straight answers over there. I do love my miniDSP though!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,838 Posts
I also applaud MiniDSP for "manning up" to their difficulties and accepting returns of the older UMIK-1 mics for full refund, as stated in the update on their forum. It is the right move, and a good start to restoring overall confidence in the brand.

Edit: The following post answers quite clearly any question about MiniDSP's intentions to dispose of the returned mics and not refurbish them. MiniDSP is doing all the right things to correct the UMIK-1 situation.
 

·
miniDSP Director
Joined
·
10 Posts
@ monomer,

I appreciate that you're upset and you've been a bit of a "voice" of this thread, however there are some wordings and some misinterpretations that you're making on our company that I'd like to point out for the sake of communicating with the HTshack community. I've been blamed by some of you to not respond to this thread and being silent. Truth is much simpler, I don't have much time for forum readings these days and my team really uses the miniDSP forum as a way to communicate for all issues. If there is some issues/questions you'd like to raise, easiest is to contact miniDSP directly. We're more than happy to answer all inquiries as we've done since the company's inception. Thanks for your understanding.

1) The talks of product recalls have been made for quite a while. People in the know our board of advisors (including John @ REW), management team and the microphone supplier can tell you as much. For you to imply that we only responded to your threat is a bit of an overestimation I guess... It took long for a simple reason, because we were trying to see if we could work something out with our supplier. That's really ALL there is to read here I'm afraid.

2) We proposed complete refund, including all shipping cost. In other words, this story will not cost you a cent. I'm really not sure what else at this point we can do to help? Did you send you request for a refund yet? Your previous email mentioned that you wanted a new mic instead...

3) The statement that you're making that we're "refurbishing" microphone is so far of that it's quite offensive to our standards. For the past 4 years that this startup operates, we haven't shipped a SINGLE product that is refurbished. Not One. You're more than welcome to come for a visit if you'd like to see by yourself :). The ONLY reason why we're asking the microphone body to be returned (in a padded envelope if you read the thread correctly so very much prone to damage in other words) is because we want the mics to not end up being resold in the field. I don't see how that's not standard practice for any manufacturers to ask a product to be returned? That's ALL there is to read here once again. Microphones will be trashed when returned as we don't wan't to pay for additional cost. Little to know for most of you is that this product runs with very low margins. We really did it to help the miniDSP and REW community get an affordable microphone. Anybody with a bit of math, electronic and manufacturing knowledge can do the math on the tiny profit we did here. Doing a "refurb" doesn't even make sense.

As always, we're happy to answer any questions you have but I'd appreciate if you would first try to please not misinterpret some facts and such as "UMIK-1 will refurbished". We're happy to tell you why that will not be the case, just ask..It's a bit counter-intuitive to get ask by HTshack moderators to get involved in this thread, yet when we read the comments and misinterpretations, it's hard to keep our cool... :unbelievable:

That's all for today, wishing you all a good week end,

Best Regards
Tony
MD @ miniDSP
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
This matter has been settled for the most part with your offer of a full refund. I have not 'applied' for one just yet only because I've been quite busy this week. I teach for a living and we are winding up the semester, that is a time of increased work load for me. Suffice it to say I will send in my request this weekend but will not be able to actually go to the post office until Thursday next week. I am pleased you are offering a full refund to your customers as I believe it is the right thing to do. I had no idea you were planning this for a while now since you don't tell us these things, they just spring up seemingly out of nowhere. I believe it was mere coincidence that just so happened to follow my terse email to you... but you should be able to understand from my perspective of how this all looked. What you don't seem to grasp is the position you place your customers in when you don't respond regularly to emails and postings in your own help forums. What else are we to do? You have our money, there are major issues with the product you sent to us... we waited patiently so long that any recourse of dispute through the credit card company or paypal has since expired... you've basically got us over a barrel. We are out the money and didn't get what we paid for and can't get anyone to respond... surely you can see how frustrating that is. All that's left at our disposal is to make some noise on the Internet. To find out that you've been shipping what seems to be properly working UMIKs (at least 100 of them so far) without addressing the defective ones we have been forced to hang on to doesn't sit well with me and I had to do something, thus I sent you that threatening email with a deadline and it just so happens that was exactly before you released the resolution options publicly. You can see how that looks don't you? and why I misinterpreted it to mean I forced your hand. My mistake as you apparently had already planned to do this. I apologize.

During this whole issue with these second batch UMIKs I chose to use postings both here and on your UMIK help forum to make you aware of the problems and in seeking answers... only three times have I resorted to direct emails. The first email was only paritally answered (having to do with below 20Hz response) the other question about a return wasn't address by you at all. The second email went unanswered. The final email, the one I sent Sunday, I got a reply directing me to your just released announcement of a refund option. And for that I thank you.

We are all busy people and have jobs to do but in your case answering your customers in a timely fashion IS your job... or I think at least it should be viewed as such. If you see it the same way, then there really are no excuses... and failing to do so can lead to misunderstandings... so who is to blame if that turns out to be the case? your customers?

I specifically added a section entitled "My Thoughts" to that posting over on your help forum seeking to find out if it was your intention to 'recycle' the UMIKs you receive... do you remember your response? did you deny it then? did you make your intentions for those UMIKs known? This is what I'm talking about... only after the fact, when you are forced into a corner do you offer up information that your customers would like to know and need in order to make decisions. I apologize since recycling those UMIKs was apparently not your intention after all but I did make the effort to find out first. So what you are saying is first and second batch customers could get a full refund on their returned UMIKs and then place an order for another UMIK and receive a properly calibrated third batch UMIK guaranteed? If so, then why didn't you simply offer to cross-ship an exchange in the first place? ...remember? this was what I asked for. Its very confusing... so if I make statements that you don't agree with then you need to respond with a correction when I ask the question otherwise what else am I to think?

I don't wish for this discourse to go on any further as it can only harm any working relationships you might have with sponsors etc and that was never my intention... I only wanted a properly calibrated and working UMIK within a reasonable amount of time. I'm very sorry it had to turn into all of this unpleasantness and the kicker is I'll never know if I was responsible for speeding up the process or not. The only thing any of us have to go by is what you tell us... when you decide to tell us that is. If you wish to continue this conversation, let's agree to do it through the PM system or through email... you've got my address. Now that there is a resolution recourse we should be able to put this all behind and move forward.
 

·
miniDSP Director
Joined
·
10 Posts
Greg,

I guess that it seems like we won't be able to answer all your needs no matter how we try. We're sorry about this... :sad:

Sometimes we don't answer to all details raised in a thread, that's very possible.... Some of the people answering our forum just don't know how we plan to manage the company, future of product recall. My post above just wanted to clarify that we never planned to recycle any boards and never made that assumption. That's all there is to read as we're not being "cornered" and changing our mind... Not sure how you're thinking we're that evil! :devil: I can treat you for a beer at a next tradeshow if you'd like to see that we're not out to get you!! :D

Anyway, as you mention, I indeed believe that it's best that we close the issue. Email us when you get a chance and we'll proceed to the complete refund as promised.

Have a good week end,

Tony
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,298 Posts
I appreciate that you're upset and you've been a bit of a "voice" of this thread, however there are some wordings and some misinterpretations that you're making on our company that I'd like to point out for the sake of communicating with the HTshack community. I've been blamed by some of you to not respond to this thread and being silent. Truth is much simpler, I don't have much time for forum readings these days and my team really uses the miniDSP forum as a way to communicate for all issues. If there is some issues/questions you'd like to raise, easiest is to contact miniDSP directly. We're more than happy to answer all inquiries as we've done since the company's inception. Thanks for your understanding.
As a business probally would make sense to make time and understand/learn customer/service needs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I just received my refund for the UMIK-1. I'm VERY satisfied with the customer support for the recall and will probably do business with this company in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
I just received my refund for the UMIK-1. I'm VERY satisfied with the customer support for the recall and will probably do business with this company in the future.
Okay, so how did you get it over to them? I just got back from our local post office. They said it would cost $25 to ship it by registered mail!!! $12.50 to ship it to Hong Kong from Michigan and ANOTHER $12.50 to send it registered!!! Then they also tell me it can't be send by registered mail in a padded envelope, must be in a cardboard box!! this apparently is USPS rules on sending registered packages. Since miniDSP is asking for it to be send registered and in a padded envelope and the shipping cost to be less than $20, I'm stymied. How were you able to meet their requirements for the return? What's the secret?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
Okay, NOW I think I know what the deal is...

This is from their website:
c) In an effort to prevent a faulty microphone to stay in the field, the old microphone body (not accessories) must be shipped back to us before the refund is processed. It must be send via standard registered airmail (e.g. USPS, AirMail) in a padded envelope. You should take a picture of the receipt for the postage cost (used for refund). In some countries, cost of shipping will not make sense (e.g. higher than 20USD). We ask you to contact us in that case.

This is from their email:
STEP2: Ship the microphone back to us using standard AirMail. In a padded enveloppe, using the local post (E.g. USPS), the shipment cost should be cost effective knowing that the microphone is less than 200gm weight. If the cost is higher than 20USD, please get in touch with us since we it will not make financial sense to get the microphone back. We will provide steps to discard the microphone.


Upon closer inspection I now notice there's been a change from what's on the website and what's in the email they sent me... I bolded the difference. Apparently they have dropped the requirement of sending it as a registered package. So... I'm off on another trip back to the post office... wish me luck.
 
521 - 540 of 887 Posts
Top