When researchers measured 8,384 production MEMS microphones one by one, the sensitivity spread fit inside a 95% confidence interval of just ±0.39 dB, with phase inside ±0.82 degrees (Wijnings et al., IEEE ICASSP 2021). That tight matching is why phones, earbuds and smart speakers can combine several of these tiny silicon microphones into directional arrays. The noise side is less flattering: next to a measurement-microphone array listed below 6.5 dB(A) of noise, a six-microphone MEMS array listed at 35 dB(A) collected almost 11 times fewer insect sound samples (9,221 vs 98,648) in the same experiment (Branding et al., PLoS One 2026). At the loud end, a 2025 piezoelectric research design pushed the acoustic overload point to 147 dB SPL (Yan et al., Micromachines 2025). This page covers performance, not sales: market size and unit growth live in our microphone market statistics roundup, and silicon loudspeakers in our MEMS micro-speaker statistics. We aggregated data from IEEE conference and journal papers, PLoS One, Communications Engineering, HardwareX, Acta Acustica, Micromachines, Sensors and Scientific Data, and set them against datasheets and application notes from Infineon, Knowles and TDK InvenSense, which we label as vendor claims throughout.
TL;DR
- 8,384 MEMS microphones showed a ±0.39 dB sensitivity spread (95% CI) at 1 kHz (Wijnings et al., IEEE ICASSP 2021).
- Top consumer datasheet SNR we verified: 73 dB(A), with a 135 dB SPL overload point, a vendor claim (Infineon IM73A135 Datasheet V1.20, 2021).
- A laboratory measurement microphone is listed at 87.5 dB(A) SNR, against 59 dB(A) for a low-cost array MEMS part (Branding et al., PLoS One 2026).
- Bare microphones measured (72.10 ± 0.11) dB(A) SNR against a 72 dB datasheet value (Wasisto et al., Communications Engineering 2024).
- A finished IM73A135 measurement microphone measured 23.25 dB(A) self-noise vs 21 dB(A) for the capsule on paper (Huber and Toth, HardwareX 2025).
- A research piezoelectric microphone reached a 147 dB SPL overload point and 107.5 dB dynamic range (Yan et al., Micromachines 2025).
- A MEMS readout chip used 245 to 438 µW for peak SNDR of 74 to 80.3 dB-A (IEEE Sensors Journal 2023).
- A hybrid capacitive-piezoelectric microphone reached 66.7 dB SNR after signal fusion (Guan et al., Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2026).
- 7 of 10 MEMS noise-monitoring application reports gave minimal data on long-term stability (Ramos de Mello et al., Acta Acustica 2026).
- High-frequency calibration deviation reached -2 dB at 16 kHz when referenced at the MEMS diaphragm (Saba et al., Sensors 2025).
1. SNR: Where Datasheets Put the Noise Floor
SNR (signal-to-noise ratio) on a MEMS datasheet is not a measure of how clean a recording will sound in a room. It is the gap between the microphone’s own electrical noise and a fixed 94 dB SPL test tone at 1 kHz, usually A-weighted over 20 Hz to 20 kHz. That makes datasheet SNR a fair way to rank parts, and a poor way to predict a finished product.
The best consumer parts we could verify cluster in the low 70s, and a laboratory-grade condenser measurement microphone is still listed 14.5 dB above the best consumer MEMS claim (87.5 dB(A) minus 73 dB(A)). Older, cheaper parts, such as those on the ReSpeaker Core v2.0 developer board, sit far lower, at 59 dB(A). Knowles adds a practical correction for buyers: when comparing an analog microphone with a digital PDM (pulse density modulation, the one-bit digital output) microphone, reduce the analog SNR by about 1.5 dB to account for the noise of the external converter (Knowles MEMS Microphone Selection Guide 2022).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| SNR of the Infineon IM73A135 analog MEMS microphone, normal mode | 73 dB(A) | Infineon IM73A135 Datasheet V1.20, 2021 (vendor claim) |
| SNR of the Knowles Raptor SPK01A0LR5H-1 analog MEMS microphone | 72 dB(A) | Knowles MEMS Microphone Selection Guide 2022 (vendor claim) |
| SNR of the TDK T5838 digital MEMS microphone | 68 dB | TDK InvenSense T5838 press release 2021 (vendor claim) |
| SNR of the Vesper VM3011 piezoelectric MEMS microphone used in an Arctic field recorder | 64 dBA | Chwalek et al., Scientific Data 2025 |
| SNR listed for Knowles SPU0414HR5H-SB array MEMS microphones vs a Bruel and Kjaer Type 4955 laboratory measurement microphone | 59 dB(A) vs 87.5 dB(A) | Branding et al., PLoS One 2026 |
| SNR and AOP of a research capacitive MEMS microphone (Sant et al.) described in a 2024 review | 72 dB(A), with 130 dB SPL AOP | Wang et al., Micromachines 2024 review |
Context: research prototypes are now reaching the same SNR class as the best commercial parts; see the parameter tables in the Wang et al. 2024 review and the field recorder specification in Chwalek et al., Scientific Data 2025.
2. Equivalent Input Noise and Self-Noise: Datasheet vs Measured
Equivalent input noise (EIN) restates the noise floor as a sound level: it is the sound pressure that would produce the same output as the microphone’s own noise, and it equals 94 dB minus the SNR (TDK InvenSense AN-1112, Microphone Specifications Explained, Revision 1.1, 2016). Most recent available data: that application note dates from June 15, 2016, but its definitions are still the reference terms used on current datasheets.
The good news for buyers is that the independent measurements we found land close to the datasheet for the bare part. Infineon IM72D128V01 microphones measured (72.10 ± 0.11) dB(A) SNR against a 72 dB datasheet value (Wasisto et al., Communications Engineering 2024). The gap opens once the microphone goes into a product: a protective mesh in front of the sound port cost (2.05 ± 0.16) dB(A) of SNR, and a measurement microphone built around a 21 dB(A) capsule measured 23.25 dB(A) once its preamplifier was included (Huber and Toth, HardwareX 2025).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Equivalent input noise formula | EIN = 94 dB minus SNR | TDK InvenSense AN-1112, 2016 (vendor application note) |
| Measured SNR of bare Infineon IM72D128V01 microphones vs 72 dB on the datasheet | (72.10 ± 0.11) dB(A) | Wasisto et al., Communications Engineering 2024 |
| Measured A-weighted noise of the same bare microphones vs -108 dBFS on the datasheet | (-108.23 ± 0.07) dBFS | Wasisto et al., Communications Engineering 2024 |
| SNR lost after adding a nanofibrous protective mesh over the sound port | (2.05 ± 0.16) dB(A) | Wasisto et al., Communications Engineering 2024 |
| Measured self-noise of a complete IM73A135 measurement microphone (capsule plus preamplifier, 200 Hz to 20 kHz) vs 21 dB(A) capsule noise on the datasheet | 23.25 dB(A) | Huber and Toth, HardwareX 2025 |
| Measured sensitivity at 1 kHz of the same microphone vs -38 dBV on the datasheet | -37.3 dB (13.62 mV/Pa) | Huber and Toth, HardwareX 2025 |
| Listed noise floor, MEMS array microphones vs laboratory measurement microphones | 35 dB(A) vs below 6.5 dB(A) | Branding et al., PLoS One 2026 |
| Quietest insect sound sample captured, MEMS array vs measurement-microphone array | 38 dB vs 5 dB | Branding et al., PLoS One 2026 |
Note: dBFS means decibels relative to the digital full-scale output, so it applies to digital microphones only. The insect-recording authors caution that the MEMS array values may be overestimated by up to 10 dB, which would put its real lower bound near 28 dB, still far above the 15 dB they consider useful for recognising insect sounds.
3. Acoustic Overload Point and Dynamic Range
The acoustic overload point (AOP) is the loudest sound a microphone can take before its output distortion reaches 10% total harmonic distortion (THD), the convention in every vendor document we reviewed. Distortion does not jump at that point, it climbs steadily: AN-1112 notes that THD roughly triples with every 10 dB increase in input level. That is why Knowles lists two levels for its Raptor part: 122 dB SPL at 1% THD and 130 dB SPL at 10% THD.
Dynamic range is the distance between AOP and EIN. Using Infineon’s own figures for the IM73A135, the math is 94 - 73 = 21 dB SPL of EIN, and 135 - 21 = 114 dB of dynamic range (our calculation from the Infineon IM73A135 Datasheet V1.20, 2021). That is 23 dB more (114 - 91) than the 91 dB dynamic range AN-1112 used as its worked example in 2016, the clearest sign of how far the overload ceiling has moved. Research designs are pushing further: a 2025 aluminium-scandium-nitride piezoelectric microphone reached 147 dB SPL (Yan et al., Micromachines 2025), above the roughly 135 dB that a 2024 review gives for the loudest recorded human voice (Zheng et al., Micromachines 2024).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| AOP (10% THD) of the Infineon IM73A135, normal mode vs low-power mode | 135 dB SPL vs 130 dB SPL | Infineon IM73A135 Datasheet V1.20, 2021 (vendor claim) |
| Knowles Raptor overload level at 1% THD vs at 10% THD | 122 dB SPL vs 130 dB SPL | Knowles MEMS Microphone Selection Guide 2022 (vendor claim) |
| Dynamic range of the INMP504 worked example (AOP 120 dB SPL, EIN 29 dB SPL) | 91 dB | TDK InvenSense AN-1112, 2016 (vendor application note) |
| THD at the acoustic overload point of a VCO-based MEMS readout chip | 1.5% at 128 dB SPL | IEEE Sensors Journal 2023 |
| Dynamic range of the same readout at full performance | 108 dB | IEEE Sensors Journal 2023 |
| AOP of an Al0.8Sc0.2N piezoelectric bimorph research microphone | 147 dB SPL | Yan et al., Micromachines 2025 |
| Dynamic range of the same research microphone (AOP + SNR - 94) | 107.5 dB | Yan et al., Micromachines 2025 |
| Highest sound level at which a hybrid research microphone was tested for THD (instrument limit, not an overload point) | 145.6 dB SPL | Guan et al., Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2026 |
Outlier note: the 147 dB SPL piezoelectric design trades noise for headroom, with an SNR of only 54.5 dB, so its 107.5 dB dynamic range is lower than the 114 dB derived for the IM73A135 above. A high AOP alone does not make a better microphone. The readout figures come from the IEEE Sensors Journal 2023 VCO-ADC paper.
4. Sensitivity and Phase Matching for Beamforming Arrays
Beamforming means combining several microphones so the array listens in one direction and rejects others. It only works if each microphone responds almost identically, and datasheets rarely say how identical. Vendors publish a tolerance window (see the table) but not the actual distribution of parts inside it, which is the gap the Eindhoven University of Technology study set out to fill (Wijnings et al., Characterization of MEMS Microphone Sensitivity and Phase Distributions, IEEE ICASSP 2021). Most recent available data: 2021.
The measured spread (±0.39 dB at 95% confidence) sits well inside even the tightest ±1 dB datasheet tolerance window, and its effect on a delay-and-sum beamformer was a gain variation of only -0.13/+0.10 dB. For mainstream arrays, the microphones themselves are rarely the weak link; geometry, enclosure and processing matter more. Our far-field smart speaker beamforming roundup covers what happens after the signals are combined. Scale is no longer exotic either: a 2026 modular research array runs 1,024 TDK ICS-52000 microphones (Moreno et al., Sensors 2026).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Microphones characterized in one batch study (Knowles SPH0641LM4H-1) | 8,384, in 131 arrays of 64 | Wijnings et al., IEEE ICASSP 2021 |
| Sensitivity and phase spread at 1 kHz, 95% confidence interval | ±0.39 dB and ±0.82 degrees | Wijnings et al., IEEE ICASSP 2021 |
| Delay-and-sum beamforming gain variation caused by that spread, 95% confidence interval | -0.13/+0.10 dB | Wijnings et al., IEEE ICASSP 2021 |
| Sensitivity tolerance range across TDK InvenSense microphones | ±1 dB to ±3 dB | TDK InvenSense AN-1112, 2016 (vendor application note) |
| Microphones in a full-scale modular research array (16 modules of 64) | 1,024 | Moreno et al., Sensors 2026 |
| Timing residuals after synchronizing that array | below 125 µs | Moreno et al., Sensors 2026 |
5. Power Consumption and Low-Power Modes
Power is where vendors make their most aggressive claims, and the trade-off is visible inside each datasheet: low-power modes buy battery life with noise and bandwidth. Infineon’s IM66D130M drops from 540 µA to 170 µA in low-power mode, but its minimum SNR in that mode is 64.5 dB(A) over a narrowed 20 Hz to 8 kHz band (Infineon IM66D130M Datasheet V1.1, December 3, 2025). TDK pitches modes starting at 20 µA for always-listening devices (TDK InvenSense T5838 press release, January 11, 2021).
Peer-reviewed circuit work shows where the budget goes. A 2023 readout chip connected directly to a MEMS sensor delivered 74 to 80.3 dB-A peak SNDR on 245 to 438 µW, and a 2026 preprint reports 114.3 dB dynamic range on 399 µW (Granizo et al., arXiv 2026). Arrays multiply the cost: one 64-microphone research module draws about 0.5 W.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Current of the Infineon IM73A135, normal mode vs low-power mode (typical) | 170 µA vs 70 µA | Infineon IM73A135 Datasheet V1.20, 2021 (vendor claim) |
| Current of the Infineon IM66D130M, normal mode (3.072 MHz clock, 1.8 V) vs low-power mode (768 kHz) | 540 µA vs 170 µA | Infineon IM66D130M Datasheet V1.1, 2025 (vendor claim) |
| TDK T5838 current: acoustic activity detect mode, low-power mode, high-quality mode | from 20 µA, 130 µA, 330 µA | TDK InvenSense T5838 press release 2021 (vendor claim) |
| Power of a VCO-based MEMS microphone readout for peak SNDR of 74 to 80.3 dB-A | 245 to 438 µW | IEEE Sensors Journal 2023 |
| Power and dynamic range of a companding MEMS readout ASIC in 0.13 µm CMOS (preprint) | 399 µW, 114.3 dB | Granizo et al., arXiv 2026 |
| Current and SNR of a triple-sampling digital capacitive MEMS microphone (Lee et al.) | 520 µA at 62.1 dBA | Wang et al., Micromachines 2024 review |
| Estimated power of one 64-microphone array module | about 0.5 W | Moreno et al., Sensors 2026 |
Context: SNDR (signal-to-noise-and-distortion ratio) counts distortion as well as noise, so it is a stricter figure than the datasheet SNR in section 1. Acoustic activity detect is a mode in which the microphone listens on a tiny current budget and wakes the main processor only when sound arrives.
6. The Research Frontier: Piezoelectric and Hybrid Designs
Capacitive MEMS microphones, which sense sound as a change in capacitance between a membrane and a fixed backplate, dominate the microphone field and hold a large market share (Wang et al., Micromachines 2024 review). Piezoelectric designs generate their own voltage from membrane strain, which helps with robustness, but the shipping piezoelectric part in this roundup is specified at 64 dBA, below the best capacitive claims in section 1. The 2026 hybrid work tries to have both: fusing the two signals lifted SNR to 66.7 dB, against 59.8 dB from the capacitive mode alone (Guan et al., Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2026).
Robustness is the other selling point: in the 2025 aluminium-scandium-nitride study, every tested device survived a 10,000 g shock without a sensitivity change beyond ±3 dB. The 2024 Zheng et al. review lists one piezoelectric research design at 82.4 dB SNR, a value no shipping MEMS part in this roundup approaches, though research figures are rarely measured under the same conditions as datasheets.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| SNR of a hybrid capacitive-piezoelectric MEMS microphone after signal fusion vs capacitive mode alone | 66.7 dB vs 59.8 dB | Guan et al., Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2026 |
| SNR of the same device in piezoelectric mode alone | 65.7 dB | Guan et al., Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2026 |
| Minimum detectable pressure of the fused signal at 1 kHz (re 20 µPa) | 27.3 dB | Guan et al., Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2026 |
| Highest SNR among piezoelectric research designs in a 2024 review table | 82.4 dB | Zheng et al., Micromachines 2024 review |
| Al0.8Sc0.2N piezoelectric microphone devices surviving a 10,000 g shock test | 25 of 25 (100%) | Yan et al., Micromachines 2025 |
| Frequency range in which the Infineon IM73A135V01 showed the highest sensitivity among four tested differential MEMS microphones | above 70 kHz | Falkhofen and Wolff, Sensors 2023 |
Context: the near-ultrasonic comparison by Falkhofen and Wolff in Sensors 2023 recommends two Knowles parts for 20 to 70 kHz and the Infineon part above 70 kHz, a reminder that a ranking by audio-band SNR does not carry over to other bands.
7. Calibration, Standards and Long-Term Stability
The weakest part of the MEMS evidence base is not the microphone, it is how little anyone reports about what happens after months outdoors. A 2026 Acta Acustica review of 45 studies found that 7 of 10 application reports gave minimal information on long-term acoustic stability, and none offered comprehensive environmental characterization (Ramos de Mello et al., Acta Acustica 2026). The same review documents one commercial MEMS instrument with Class 1 type approval (Class 1 is the precision grade for sound level meters), which shows that formal conformity is feasible in a specified configuration. Our sound level meter monitoring roundup covers how those instrument classes are used at work.
Calibration itself gets harder at high frequencies. Italy’s national metrology institute INRiM found that the reference point matters: the deviation was about -0.3 dB at 16 kHz at the circuit-board port opening, but -2 dB at the MEMS diaphragm (Saba et al., Sensors 2025). The cost argument is real, though: a do-it-yourself MEMS measurement microphone comes in two orders of magnitude cheaper than a conventional one.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Studies on MEMS microphones for sound level measurement included in a 2026 structured review | 45 | Ramos de Mello et al., Acta Acustica 2026 |
| Application reports giving minimal information on long-term acoustic stability | 7 of 10 | Ramos de Mello et al., Acta Acustica 2026 |
| Application reports offering comprehensive environmental characterization | 0 of 10 | Ramos de Mello et al., Acta Acustica 2026 |
| Commercial MEMS instruments with documented Class 1 type approval cited in the review | 1 | Ramos de Mello et al., Acta Acustica 2026 |
| Calibration deviation at 16 kHz, reference at the PCB port opening vs at the MEMS diaphragm | about -0.3 dB vs -2 dB | Saba et al., Sensors 2025 |
| Sound field correction at 20 kHz in the least favourable source configuration | greater than 1.4 dB (absolute value) | Saba et al., Sensors 2025 |
| Hardware cost of an IM73A135-based measurement microphone vs a typical conventional measurement microphone | 8 to 10 euros vs about 1,000 euros | Huber and Toth, HardwareX 2025 |
| Frequency response deviation of that MEMS measurement microphone, 10 Hz to 10 kHz | -3.9 dB to +4.9 dB | Huber and Toth, HardwareX 2025 |
Summary: MEMS Microphone SNR & Acoustic Overload Point by the Numbers
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity spread across 8,384 production MEMS microphones (95% CI, 1 kHz) | ±0.39 dB | Wijnings et al., IEEE ICASSP 2021 |
| Highest consumer datasheet SNR and AOP verified (normal mode) | 73 dB(A), 135 dB SPL | Infineon IM73A135 Datasheet V1.20, 2021 (vendor claim) |
| SNR of a laboratory measurement microphone vs low-cost array MEMS microphone | 87.5 dB(A) vs 59 dB(A) | Branding et al., PLoS One 2026 |
| SNR of a shipping piezoelectric MEMS microphone (Vesper VM3011) | 64 dBA | Chwalek et al., Scientific Data 2025 |
| Measured SNR of bare MEMS microphones vs 72 dB datasheet value | (72.10 ± 0.11) dB(A) | Wasisto et al., Communications Engineering 2024 |
| SNR lost behind a protective nanofibrous mesh | (2.05 ± 0.16) dB(A) | Wasisto et al., Communications Engineering 2024 |
| Measured self-noise of a finished MEMS measurement microphone vs 21 dB(A) capsule spec | 23.25 dB(A) | Huber and Toth, HardwareX 2025 |
| Quietest sound sample, MEMS array vs measurement-microphone array | 38 dB vs 5 dB | Branding et al., PLoS One 2026 |
| Overload level at 1% THD vs 10% THD, Knowles Raptor | 122 vs 130 dB SPL | Knowles MEMS Microphone Selection Guide 2022 (vendor claim) |
| Dynamic range of the 2016 AN-1112 worked example | 91 dB | TDK InvenSense AN-1112, 2016 (vendor application note) |
| AOP of a research piezoelectric MEMS microphone | 147 dB SPL | Yan et al., Micromachines 2025 |
| Microphones in a modular research array | 1,024 | Moreno et al., Sensors 2026 |
| Readout power for peak SNDR of 74 to 80.3 dB-A | 245 to 438 µW | IEEE Sensors Journal 2023 |
| Dynamic range of a 399 µW readout ASIC (preprint) | 114.3 dB | Granizo et al., arXiv 2026 |
| Hybrid capacitive-piezoelectric SNR after fusion vs capacitive alone | 66.7 dB vs 59.8 dB | Guan et al., Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2026 |
| Highest SNR among piezoelectric research designs in a 2024 review table | 82.4 dB | Zheng et al., Micromachines 2024 review |
| Application reports with minimal long-term stability data | 7 of 10 | Ramos de Mello et al., Acta Acustica 2026 |
| Calibration deviation at 16 kHz at the MEMS diaphragm | -2 dB | Saba et al., Sensors 2025 |
Methodology and Sources
- Wijnings, Stuijk, Scholte and Corporaal, Characterization of MEMS Microphone Sensitivity and Phase Distributions with Applications in Array Processing, IEEE ICASSP 2021
- Branding et al., Why we need dedicated insect microphones, PLoS One 2026
- Wasisto et al., Acoustically semitransparent nanofibrous meshes appraised by high signal-to-noise-ratio MEMS microphones, Communications Engineering 2024
- Huber and Toth, MEMS measurement microphone compatible to P48 amplifiers, HardwareX 2025
- Yan et al., Piezoelectric Bimorph Microphone with High Reliability and Dynamic Range Based on Al0.8Sc0.2N, Micromachines 2025
- Guan et al., A capacitive-piezoelectric hybrid MEMS microphone with signal fusion for enhancing signal-to-noise ratio, Microsystems and Nanoengineering 2026
- Zheng et al., Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems Microphones: A Brief Review Emphasizing Recent Advances in Audible Spectrum Applications, Micromachines 2024
- Wang et al., MEMS Acoustic Sensors: Charting the Path from Research to Real-World Applications, Micromachines 2024
- A VCO-Based ADC With Direct Connection to a Microphone MEMS, 80-dB Peak SNDR and 438-µW Power Consumption, IEEE Sensors Journal 2023
- Granizo et al., A 399uW 114.3 dB DR Companding Readout ASIC for MEMS Microphones, arXiv preprint 2026
- Moreno et al., MxArray: A Modular, Multiplexed, and Massive MEMS-Based Acoustic Array, Sensors 2026
- Saba et al., Effectiveness of Sound Field Corrections for High-Frequency Pressure Comparison Calibration of MEMS Microphones, Sensors 2025
- Ramos de Mello et al., An Overview of MEMS Microphones for Accurate Sound Pressure Level Measurements in the Context of Urban Noise Monitoring, Acta Acustica 2026
- Chwalek et al., Acoustic data collection in arctic environments during the midnight sun using multi-channel SoundSHROOMs, Scientific Data 2025
- Falkhofen and Wolff, Near-Ultrasonic Transfer Function and SNR of Differential MEMS Microphones Suitable for Photoacoustics, Sensors 2023
- Vendor documents, labelled as vendor claims in every table: Infineon IM73A135 Datasheet V1.20, July 7, 2021; Infineon IM66D130M Datasheet V1.1, December 3, 2025; Knowles MEMS Microphone Selection Guide 2022; TDK InvenSense AN-1112 Revision 1.1, June 15, 2016; TDK InvenSense T5838 press release, January 11, 2021.
- Data watch: datasheet SNR and AOP are vendor claims measured at 1 kHz and 94 dB SPL, and analog and digital (PDM) figures are not directly comparable without the roughly 1.5 dB adjustment Knowles suggests. The 114 dB dynamic range for the IM73A135 is our own arithmetic from the datasheet (94 - 73 = 21 dB EIN; 135 - 21 = 114 dB), not a vendor figure. The 147 dB SPL piezoelectric paper reports 54.5 dB SNR in its abstract but 55.5 dB in one later section; we use 54.5 dB, which matches its stated 107.5 dB dynamic range. The insect-microphone noise floor and SNR values are the listed specifications in that paper’s comparison table, not new measurements. The 2021 array-matching study, AN-1112 (2016) and the T5838 launch figures (2021) are the most recent available data of their kind. The 399 µW readout is a preprint that had not completed peer review when we read it. We deliberately left market size out; our market roundup covers that angle.
Last updated: November 7, 2026. We update this roundup quarterly, and the next refresh is expected when the IEEE Sensors Journal and Acta Acustica publish their first 2027 issues on MEMS microphone measurement.