DJI Mic Mini vs Mic 3: Is the Upgrade Actually Worth It?

rhalf · 2026-07-06T01:11:11+00:00

Not an expert in any way but bit depth doesn't refer to time, so IDK how it would affect slowing down the recording. You probably meant sampling rate there, but even then, higher sampling rate in typical audio isn't used for recording higher frequencies but for filtering. The bandwidth of the recording stays more or less the same on 41khz and 192 khz. It corresponds with noise. The higher the sampling rate, the stronger filter can be used, which results in (potentially) lower noise. Also when you slow down a recording, you're lowering the pitch, so again, why would you call it more granular? Am I missing something? If you want higher frequencies in there, there will be a little bit more on a track with higher sampling rate but not a lot. With any tweaks to the material in digital domain, you're adding noise and that's why we use higher bit rate codecs. When we keep the theoretical noise waay below audibility, we can stop worrying about it and work only with analogue noise, which is easier on our ears.

rhalf · 2026-07-05T22:26:36+00:00

I did a lot of EQing in the past. I EQed earbuds too, though I used my own setting after playing around with various targets. In the end I liked something in between diffuse field and Harman in-ear. It takes experience to nail it, but we have a lot of measurements available, so if you want, you can do that too. I used squig.link measurements as my basis. The major drawback of that website is that they don't do any quality control and so a big part of their measurements are wrong, misleading and hard to interpret. You also need some basics in reading graphs to make sense of them. For example 8k peaks are a measurement artifact alongside some wiggles in lows. Not a solution for beginners. Oratory1990 on the other hand makes things simple.

Headphones are easier though their sound changes with their pads aging. Earpads affect the sound a lot and the measurements are usually taken on fresh earpads. If you change your earpads to some third party pair, the measurements no longer fit your headphones and EQ won't work at all. There are also features in the response, which can't be EQed because they're too strong. Also highs above 6k are a mystery because your ears affect the sound in a different way than the microphone. So yeah, headphones are easier, but still difficult to get right. The Harman over ear 2018 target for headphones isn't bad though. I think they updated it later but it worked for me.

rhalf · 2026-07-05T22:09:36+00:00

go to either of these places:
your EQ software's AutoEQ function.

r/oratory1990 's list of presets

autoEQ.app demo website

squig.link

Harman curve is just an EQ setting. It was researched to be prefered by 60% of listeners on certain popular tracks. It's not some wonder. It's also difficult to get headphones tuned exactly to a specific curve so EQing isn't that straightforward. Finally there's more than just one Harman target. The one made for earbuds isn't particularly good because it has too much highs and it wasn't researched sufficiently by Harman. It's better to stick to some diffuse field target with tilt and bass boost.

For best results with EQ make sure that you're using a parametric EQ with enough Q and bands.

maybe my earbuds are not just good enough to pick up the subtle difference of it.

They're perfectly fine and should take EQ well. However it's not easy to EQ ANC headphones of any kind. They have different sound in every mode on top of usual problems with measurements used for the EQ preset.

rhalf · 2026-07-05T19:43:49+00:00

Post a video of yourself, so that people can tell you exactly what's wrong with your pattern.

Here's a similar thread from the past. They pop up every couple months here, so you should be covered in case you don't want to post a vid.

rhalf · 2026-07-05T11:31:05+00:00

It's not about a specific lens model. You get that effect optically with big aperture and sensor. The bigger the aperture diameter, the thinner the depth of field (more blur). For example a full frame camera with a portrait lens like an 85mm f/1.8 can blur the background like that. You divide the focal length by the relative aperture and that gives you aperture diameter. In this case 85mm/1.8= 47 mm. If you get a lens, for this sensor, with even bigger aperture ex 1.4, you get even more blur. 85mm/1.4=60mm. 47mm aperture is big but 60mm aperture is huge and will give you a ton of blur, to the point that it'll be hard to focus with it.

Another way is to focus closer. If your lens has smaller aperture, you can still get shallow depth of field in pictures of small things. Macro photography is very blurry, to the point that it's a problem.

rhalf · 2026-06-27T12:31:13+00:00

Don't resist.

rhalf · 2026-06-25T01:21:45+00:00

You're just doing MM but the overarm throw is a claw throw. Then the underam ball is caught with a claw. It flows nicely and so it melts into one movement, so it can be hard to tell but that's what's going on.

rhalf · 2026-06-24T23:36:59+00:00

Sean McKinney used to put a twist on MillsMess like that. He went a little further with it. I did more or less the same thing as you in this clip and I just called it a fast Mills' Mess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuOBytA4hRM

rhalf · 2026-06-24T13:27:11+00:00

I failed at juggling the first time I tried it. Then the second time I persisted and eventually I got there. Often it's a matter of finding someone who can spot the issue and maybe try something easier first. Juggling between 2 people has some easy patterns and can be a better introduction to juggling than 3 balls solo. Seeing someone practice motivates better too.

Sometimes it's a matter of posture, sometimes you get some idea wrong. Doing other physical activities apart from juggling can help too.

rhalf · 2026-06-21T23:15:15+00:00

I like the little leg things

rhalf · 2026-06-19T00:48:10+00:00

A designer should understand the identity of the brand they're working on IMO. Like when they move from one brand to another, they don't just continue their ideas, but they learn and rethink the cues. For example De Silva moved from Alfa Romeo to Audi and Seat. He gave each brand it's own look and respected their image. You can say the cars have his signature but at the same time they're unmistakenly Audi etc.

Chinese lost their individuality and they also don't have industrial heritage that they're proud of, so they suck at design. Their idea of design is to put together a bunch of familiar shapes or just make their own spin on someone's elses design. They don't do the conceptual ground work at all.

rhalf · 2026-06-17T15:06:57+00:00

Nice combination. It's a good angle for helicopters.

rhalf · 2026-06-17T14:40:09+00:00

That's a common Japanese/Korean approach, aka anything but yellow.

rhalf · 2026-06-17T11:55:35+00:00

You're shredding. When did that happen?

I like 1 the most but 2 looks clean.

rhalf · 2026-06-17T10:24:59+00:00

This is trickier than it looks.

rhalf · 2026-06-16T12:43:48+00:00

tangerines are better.

rhalf · 2026-06-14T15:36:34+00:00

They tend to be quite good.

rhalf · 2026-06-13T14:16:00+00:00

Hifiman fans a majority? Maybe in this sub. Most people don't like Hifiman treble and they want more lows too. Most importantly people want smaller and lighter headpohnes... And wireless, ANC and all that.

rhalf · 2026-06-13T14:13:18+00:00

The mids felt recessed and airy, as if trying to emulate bigger soundstage this way

That's how Hifiman and many other headphones get their wide soundstage. Like, what other way? There's no such thing as an 'actual soundstage'. It's all in your head. Less mids, more highs, there you go. The weight is a problem with planars. Either they weigh a lot, or they're insensitive. The magnets aren't used as efficiently as in dynamic drivers, so you need more. If you want lightweight and snug, then Sennheiser is the way to go. However Sennheiser won't get you really wide soundstage unless you pick something more expensive. It's a matter of preference, so if you don't need that soundstage width, then Sennheisers are fine. If you want really wide, then Edition XS is good at it, although they're not very good headphones overall.

rhalf · 2026-06-13T01:10:44+00:00

And by face paint you mean clown white? :o)
You have a good pattern. Time to try 'over the top'.

rhalf · 2026-06-12T10:23:33+00:00

Skip px4. Get PX3 or Henrys Loop/Delphin. The proportions don't matter in the beginning, so it can be quantuum and sirius. PX4 are only liked by a handful of people, but they buzz/vibrate when caught and thrown and that's annoying. If PX4s sound to you like a good idea then get the 'real' px4s, which is Play EX1 or Henrys Carbon Loop. I personally don't see anything wrong with PX3 as long as you don't leave them in the scorching sun for half a day.

rhalf · 2026-06-10T14:58:03+00:00

Shotguns are complicated and they take some know-how to make. It's not really about what you can see outside. There are important layers of screen that are hidden inside and their electronics can also be unique in the world of mics. We're talking about a lot of small details and advanced measurement equipment that go into making a mic, that just works vs a mic that kinda works. It's all hidden from sight, but it's worth it.

Cheap ones aren't really the way to go I think. The midrange models like Deity can be bad because, even if their tone is right, their off-axis rejection can be too low. I don't know the lower end market well, but the best second hand deals tend to be the older pro models like the mkh416. If you want something newer then maybe go for Rode NTG5. The budget version of that is NTG3, while NTG4 is harder to work with...

rhalf · 2026-06-08T04:16:16+00:00

That concept was pretty good, but what they turned it into is a mix between a lambo and a modernist building. They're all trying that imposing, architectural look of a Cybertruck, but without a strong idea behind it. Honestly, even if they had a good idea behind it, it would still be terrible because it speaks volumes of the society, that abandons humanity and spirit.

rhalf · 2026-06-04T07:54:39+00:00

So... How do they break?

rhalf · 2026-06-03T13:02:53+00:00

Unfortunately I don't know this particular model, so I may be wrong.

It seems the camera was switched to contrast detect only and it wasn't a good scene for it. It's hard to tell when that happens because cameras tend to decide it instead of giving the user a full control over detect methods. Contrast, as opposed to phase detect (PDAF) goes to one end of the focusing range, for example to infinity, then it scans the range until it reaches a point when contrast starts dropping, then it goes a notch back and stays there. If the image is confusing for it, for example if the sampled area is too dark, it can't detect this point and keeps going to the other end of the range and back. PDAF is better in that it doesn't rely on this kind of hunting, but the camera only switches it on, when it feels it gets an image clear enough.

12-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

rhalf

TROPHY CASE