Sunday, December 24, 2006

Anthony Capener EM-158 vs. Sound Pro Lavaliere

EM-158 vs. Sound Pro Lavaliere

Test number one, station two (T1-2) was one of the recordings that attracted me the most (for test one), mainly because I compared it to station number five's Sound Pro Lavaliere microphones. The Primo EM-158 high sensitivity condenser microphones used at station two sounds more exact or more realistic than the Sound Pro Lavs. The recording has a more metallic feel and that characteristic of the nails is continued throughout the decay. -Anthony Capener







2 o'clock position strikes only

Left: Primo EM158 Capsules; Spread 13"; front-facing with Baffle

Right: Panasonic WM-61A's Capsules; Spread 13"; front-facing without Baffle

1 comment:

us said...

Hi Anthony C.

You made good choice in taking your two samples from the same test so that the capsules' responses to the exact same strikes could be studied. I added a sonogram of just the 2 o-clock strikes from the two rigs/capsules to add to the data.

The folks at Sound Professionals use the Panasonic WM-61A capsules in their mics so I substituted the manufacturer's model number to be more precise. Both mics are powered from the Hi-MD's PIP input.

They sound pretty similar to me despite the baffle discrepancy. The greatest difference I hear between the mic capsules is in the low frequencies where the WM-61A's have a stronger response. The lessened response to low frequencies with the EM-158's might have contributed to your impression of the strikes standing out more. After studying the sonogram, I put on the headphones and listened to the #2 strikes. It was easy to hear with the aid of this suggestion that the WM-61A's do indeed have more high frequency brilliance which is indicated in the right sonogram with louder (dark blue) harmonics at 5.6KHz, 8.5KHz and 12KHz and a little more (red) at 18Khz as well.

To what extent is the lack of or presence of the cardboard baffle responsible for the subtle tonal differences? Its hard to say with the data we have to work with, but I suspect not very much. The two mic stations are about 8 feet from each other with the EM158's being perhaps three feet closer to the sound source. If anything, this placment would favor the EM158's being brighter, but they are not. The WM-61A's have a reputation for very flat frequency response which is also consistent with their edge in high frequency repsonse in this test. Rob D.