g7 and sm57 plot compare

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

cwatkins

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2004
Messages
103
Well, I'd show off my second G7 body, the capsule is still out of a nady 1150 (no dale capsule yet)
but I don't have a decent digital camera.. maybe for christmas. :)
( I really wanted to take pictures of the test setup.)

But anyway I have been doing alot of testing/listening tests and this sounds alot like what I'm hearing although the 57 like it had more hyped high end to my ear, but my ear preceived it as 4k or so, so maybe my guessing is just off a few K when listening.

This is a plot of a 57 as close to the G7 as possible gained matched with the chimera I made and a Project studios PS 8 speeaker in front of them about 1 ft. Pointing at the middle of the speaker. Both pink and white noise showed the same variation. Here is the white noise snapshot, the red line is just for reference.
G7 is in cardioid more the ^ looking one. not omni or both sides.
57 is a 57.
57 is one of the better mics I found on the mic comparison CD, that or the gold reference.
so that's one reason why I chose it.
Whether or not the speaker/room had anything to do with it should be accounted for in the comparison,

but here is my question: I thought these looked pretty good, but should I try and change the 4k DIP in the G7 with a grill? I am thinking that I get too much 4kish, sounds usually from hyped mics when used in distortion guitar situations so I might like this DIP, it's kind of that edgy area you hear so well in the 57. but it's also why it's very hard when comparing the two because then the 57 has a more brilliant sound and the 1150 sounds a little scouped in comparison.


1073-g7-57-big.JPG
 
> Both pink and white noise showed the same variation.

They should. But white noise burns your tweeter. Don't do that.

> speaker in front of them about 1 ft. ... Whether or not the speaker/room had anything to do with it should be accounted for in the comparison,

Assuming the room is much-much-much bigger than 1 foot and has some broadband absorption in it, that measurement technique discounts the room well. It might be possible to get in trouble below 150Hz, but there is a lot of sound above 150Hz and that's the main sound of the mike.

The '57 plot looks right, which says your speaker is good, better than I'd expect for something not corrected for mike testing. I remember the first speaker plot I took....

Yes, I think that 4K dip in your mike will "scoop" the sound. It is deep and wide enough to hear. That may be an advantage for some work. I wonder why it does that. I assume you have tried moving the mikes a few inches this way and that, and tried one at a time instead of side by side. Speakers can be very beamy up there, and the defraction field around a mike will affect an adjacent mike.
 
Hey PRR, I always thought I needed that plot from white-noise to get the response right, I can't tell jack with my ear unless I use white-noise, I just can't tell pink noise differences. so what's the duration/info on the whitenoise suggestion?

Ok, no I didn't try moving the mic's like I have in the past, the 57 is not in the dispersion direction of the G7 and they are both equally biased, one on the left and one on the right, but the room isn't totalyl square
kind of _
| \
|__|
like that on purpose, but it's a highly damped vocal room that I mathmaticly did the lenrd's or whatever that acoustical weghting math acronym is for, so the room although only 4x3 is very ofthen commented
on one of the better sounding ones people have used, but people in this area don't know jack so I don't know that that qualifies anything.

I'll take the 57 out and move the G7 in the middle of the speaker throw and see if it's any better, I was just thinking that since I have a VERY transparent mesh, maybe if I put on the one that's more of a inner mesh only, if it would bring everything down such that 4k would be even, that was my maybe thing, but if that doesn't work then I have another complete body and board, but I am laking a similar capsule or i'd test that together too..
But I think I can certainly see it's lack of 4k for some stuff good, especialyl when one if using a bunch of 57's too. :) If you Eq +2db of 4k in a narrow Q it fixes that up right way, but that's EQ and doesn't count. :0



I didn't think about using RMAA, but I use RMAA for everything else, it always got kind of pissy about mono if I remember correctly, but I will try that tonight as making the .jpg's was a paint in the rear.

I had all the other various gear done in RMAA, the pultec, calrec, chimera, etc the plots are on here somewhere.


I had read somewhere that the U47 had a very defined dip at 9k, and that was one of it's features, because it kind of "de-essed", but at 4k, I think it's off the mark, but I'm still thinking that's a body thing, but who knows maybe the nady capsule isn't tuned right and it's making that freq drop and all other things being equal the drop would be at 9k.
 
Back
Top