Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Denny Jagard]

I may try that, much as I love the sound of the sm98s when the cymbals aren't ringing.

I have used OM7s for that same purpose on vocals, but there is a bit of a tradeoff in the sound quality.  But sometimes it's worthwhile to lose a little vocal quality in order to lose a lot of cymbal bleed.

[Tim Padrick]

Michael 'Bink' Knowles wrote on Mon, 27 March 2006 15:04

Yes, it really cures clicking. The 333 microsecond Look Ahead window that helps the G4 predict when to open means that your lowest frequency signals will have a certain amount of silent ramping-up envelope synthesized for them at the gate open event. 333 microseconds isn't long enough to be able to encompass your entire LF wavefront and preserve the low level parts of the attack. For instance, a 31 Hz sine wave takes about 2000 microseconds to ramp a third of the way up (assuming your threshold is set there.) That means your extreme LF sine wave signals will have a smooth but abbreviated attack envelope at the beginning--the original will NOT be preserved. Lucky for us a 5-string bass guitar pluck is a steeper, quicker envelope than a sine wave and is passed in satisfying fullness by the G4. They'll take my G4 from my cold dead hands. -Bink

If my calculator's workin': If the G4 has a rise time of 333us, and a 31Hz signal ramps up 33% of the way in 2000us, then the G4's rise time is 16.65% of 33% of the 31Hz's rise time, or 5.55% of the total rise time.  Not much effect here.  As to a 3.1kHz click of a kick, 1/3 of the rise time will be 200us, in which case the 333us would take a big chunk out.  This does not seem to be the case, so maybe Andy can tell us where we are off.  

[Tim Padrick]

Denny Jagard wrote on Tue, 28 March 2006 21:25

I may try that, much as I love the sound of the sm98s when the cymbals aren't ringing. I have used OM7s for that same purpose on vocals, but there is a bit of a tradeoff in the sound quality.  But sometimes it's worthwhile to lose a little vocal quality in order to lose a lot of cymbal bleed.

I find the OM7 to be very smooth, and very revealing of the nuances of a voice.  I prefer it to the Shure's I've tried.

[Michael 'Bink' Knowles]

Quote:

...If my calculator's workin': If the G4 has a rise time of 333us, and a 31Hz signal ramps up 33% of the way in 2000us, then the G4's rise time is 16.65% of 33% of the 31Hz's rise time, or 5.55% of the total rise time.  Not much effect here.  As to a 3.1kHz click of a kick, 1/3 of the rise time will be 200us, in which case the 333us would take a big chunk out.  This does not seem to be the case, so maybe Andy can tell us where we are off.

The G4 doesn't have a rise time of 333us. It has a Look Ahead window of that length. This means its latency is 333us longer than it would have been with simple AD/DA conversion and a bit of DSP. Total i/o latency of the G4 is only 1.62ms. Without Look Ahead it would have been 1.29ms but the product would be deprived of its main purpose for existing.

The actual rise time for most signals coming through the G4 is essentially instantaneous and unchanged from the original because the unit has looked ahead at the coming attack. It is opening up in advance, as it were. A kick drum hit takes about 200us to go from zero to its first peak and in practice, you can set the G4 threshold pretty high and still catch every single kick attack in absolute, unchanged fullness. Same with most bass guitar plucks. Only the very lowest frequency signals without clicky or plucky beginnings have an artificially quick rise time synthesized for them by the G4. Real world results are musical and appropriate to any situation where you would have been considering a gate.

A 3.1kHz 'click' signal rises so quickly the G4 easily passes it with no changes. I think your calculator added a zero.

-Bink

[Denny Jagard]

I've used the OM6 and OM7 quite a bit, more as a singer than an engineer.  

I think that if you AB it with an SM58, the 58 sounds more open, more natural.  But it is amazing how the Audix mics kill drum bleed, and are great if you get a singer who stays right on mic.

Another Audix drawback is it seems they don't hold up as well over time... I feel like all my OM7s need new capsules, while my Shures sound nearly the same after 10 years.

Right now I'm using Sennheiser 935s, which sound cleaner than SM58s in the high end, and have a tighter low mid.

cheers,
denny

[Tim Padrick]

Denny Jagard wrote on Thu, 30 March 2006 20:28

I've used the OM6 and OM7 quite a bit, more as a singer than an engineer.   I think that if you AB it with an SM58, the 58 sounds more open, more natural.  But it is amazing how the Audix mics kill drum bleed, and are great if you get a singer who stays right on mic. Another Audix drawback is it seems they don't hold up as well over time... I feel like all my OM7s need new capsules, while my Shures sound nearly the same after 10 years. Right now I'm using Sennheiser 935s, which sound cleaner than SM58s in the high end, and have a tighter low mid. cheers, denny

My experience is quite the opposite - more natural and much more nuance with the Audix.  I bought all of mine used, and have had no troubles, nor reason to believe that they have deteriorated (since they sound better than most every mic I've compared them against.  On the other hand, I've heard SMs that looked ok but were pretty pooped out.  Luck of the draw, perhaps.

[Tom Shannon]

Dave,

I'm interested in this unit and enjoyed reading your review. Have you spent any time using one on vocals? That's where I plan to use one and would like to hear your opinion (or anyone else's, for that matter).

Regards,
Tom

[Bennett Prescott]

A new record for this month! Resurrecting a nearly four and a half year old thread.

[Tom Shannon]

Past? Isn't it still 1955?  

[Jordan Wolf]

It's okay, Tom...we've all done it...

Just not as bad as you.  


If the G4 is anywhere near as good at gating as the C4 is at compressing (assuming "yes" here), then I'd buy one if I had the money to spare.  The only "downside" of either unit is that you only get 4 channels of comp or gate in 2U.  I, however, prefer this, as it doesn't feel as cramped and there is actually usable metering available because of that extra real estate.

Out of curiosity, why are you planning to use a gate on vocals?  Are we talking sound reinforcement or recording?  Speech or singing?  Typically, using gates on singers is frowned upon, namely due to the side effects they tend to have (not allowing soft phrasing to pass through, etc.).  If there's any standalone gate that can be tweaked to minimize those side effects, the G4 would probably be it.