ProSoundWeb Community

Sound Reinforcement - Forums for Live Sound Professionals - Your Displayed Name Must Be Your Real Full Name To Post In The Live Sound Forums => SR Forum Archives => Product Reviews: Sound Reinforcement FUD Forum Archive => Topic started by: Denny Jagard on March 25, 2006, 11:41:32 pm

Title: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Denny Jagard on March 25, 2006, 11:41:32 pm
The quad gate sounds like the best thing since sliced bread.  Anyone have any experience based reviews?

Does it really cure clicking and preserve the attack?

Is it smooth and colorless, such that I could use it for ducking keyboards and or guitar during lead vocal...even for a client with golden ears (who is playing the ducked guitar)?

I want one, but may go digital console soon so I don't want more outboard gear unless it's great.

thanks,
denny


Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Dave Dermont on March 26, 2006, 02:43:41 am
Looky Here:

http://www.livesoundint.com/archives/2004/may/fieldreport.pd f
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Alexandre Richer on March 26, 2006, 01:07:01 pm
Well, if you buy a Digidesign Venue:
http://www.serato.com/products/rane_series/#Dynamics
You can even download a demo for free if you have a protools rig.
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Tim Padrick on March 26, 2006, 09:51:48 pm
I like mine a lot. A friend really likes his as well.  I don't think you can go wrong with one.  (The C4 either.)
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Denny Jagard on March 27, 2006, 12:48:39 am
Funny you mentioned that, since I want one.

And somewhere I read (probably an obsolete post) that the gate feature was not available as a plug in.

Thanks for that tip.
denny
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Michael 'Bink' Knowles on March 27, 2006, 04:04:32 pm
Denny Jagard wrote on Sun, 26 March 2006 21:48

Funny you mentioned that, since I want one.

And somewhere I read (probably an obsolete post) that the gate feature was not available as a plug in.

Thanks for that tip.
denny


Actually, you get both gates and comps in the Serato Dynamics plugin.

Serato Rane Series Dynamics

Personally, I love my 2U hardware G4 and use it all the time on both musical sources and industrial speech-only gigs. The way you can control gate depth on it is great and the way the display shows input level relative to threshold setting is brilliant.

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. Smile

-Bink
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Denny Jagard on March 28, 2006, 07:26:25 pm
Cool.  I ordered one today, as well as an SPL TD4... those drums are gonna sound nice.  Also I can't wait to try it to duck the keyboards a little when the lead vocal is present.
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: John Chiara on March 28, 2006, 08:05:59 pm
Denny Jagard wrote on Tue, 28 March 2006 19:26

Cool.  I ordered one today, as well as an SPL TD4... those drums are gonna sound nice.  Also I can't wait to try it to duck the keyboards a little when the lead vocal is present.



A word of caution. As SPL recommends I would follow the TD4 with a decent compressor as the TD4 can generate some pretty intense output. I have found that after the Transient Designer I can use a comp with a basic expander/gate function and with the release control the drums ringing are not a problem.
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Denny Jagard on March 28, 2006, 08:28:29 pm
Thanks for the tip Johnny.  I am a little concerned that adding attack to the toms with the SPL will add too much attack to the cymbals, so I assume I need a gate first...  I suppose that is a big issue with the high hat if I use the SPL on the snare.

Your thoughts?

thanks,
denny
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: John Chiara on March 28, 2006, 09:27:35 pm
Denny Jagard wrote on Tue, 28 March 2006 20:28

Thanks for the tip Johnny.  I am a little concerned that adding attack to the toms with the SPL will add too much attack to the cymbals, so I assume I need a gate first...  I suppose that is a big issue with the high hat if I use the SPL on the snare.

Your thoughts?

thanks,
denny


Try some Audix D2's/D4's on the toms..pickup pattern just about perfect for the task...I use them in the studio and am amazed at how much less ambience they pick up than other choices.


Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Denny Jagard on March 28, 2006, 10:25:52 pm
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.

Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Tim Padrick on March 30, 2006, 03:17:46 am
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. Smile

-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.  
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Tim Padrick on March 30, 2006, 03:20:37 am
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.
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Michael 'Bink' Knowles on March 30, 2006, 07:59:39 am
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
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Denny Jagard on March 30, 2006, 09:28:54 pm
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
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Tim Padrick on April 01, 2006, 03:52:06 am
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.
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Tom Shannon on September 27, 2010, 09:52:37 am
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
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Bennett Prescott on September 27, 2010, 11:32:52 am
A new record for this month! Resurrecting a nearly four and a half year old thread.

index.php/fa/32741/0/
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Tom Shannon on September 27, 2010, 11:47:02 am
Past? Isn't it still 1955?  Very Happy
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Jordan Wolf on September 28, 2010, 12:17:52 am
It's okay, Tom...we've all done it...

Just not as bad as you.  Razz


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.
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Tom Shannon on September 28, 2010, 09:46:24 am
What can I say? I'm a history buff Rolling Eyes Nothing like scouring the archives for the next Dead Sea Scrolls to ponder. I hope to try one soon - I'll post my experience afterwards.

Btw - how've you been?
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: John Roberts {JR} on September 28, 2010, 11:04:41 am
I may be a little contrarian about this but I see no problem with posting comments to an old thread when it makes sense to.

it saves some of us from answering the same questions over and over, and keeps the posts in one place for later searchers to find.

JR
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Jordan Wolf on September 28, 2010, 01:20:27 pm
I'll agree with you on that, JR.
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Michael J Brown on September 28, 2010, 11:31:43 pm
John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Tue, 28 September 2010 10:04

I may be a little contrarian about this but I see no problem with posting comments to an old thread when it makes sense to.

it saves some of us from answering the same questions over and over, and keeps the posts in one place for later searchers to find.

JR


+1

Keeps stuff organized, makes the search more coherent and useful... 100x better than a new thread....

Just don't try to reply/argue with the past.
Title: Re: Rane G4 Quad Gate reviews, anyone?
Post by: Tim McCulloch on October 01, 2010, 03:46:41 pm
Michael J Brown wrote on Tue, 28 September 2010 22:31

John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Tue, 28 September 2010 10:04

I may be a little contrarian about this but I see no problem with posting comments to an old thread when it makes sense to.

it saves some of us from answering the same questions over and over, and keeps the posts in one place for later searchers to find.

JR


+1

Keeps stuff organized, makes the search more coherent and useful... 100x better than a new thread....

Just don't try to reply/argue with the past.


The bold text is why I generally discourage folks from replying back to old posts.