R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Gefell M296 Question  (Read 24423 times)

davebl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Gefell M296 Question
« on: March 17, 2007, 05:09:32 pm »

Please could some one describe the sound of a Microtech Gefell M296 for me comparing it to say a Schoeps Omni or Sennheiser MKH20 if thats possible to do.

How would a pair perform as a main spaced pair for orchestral work. Perhaps point me to a known recording using them ?

I know I need to borrow some to listen for my self but there are none around localy to where I am.

thanks,

Dave Blackham
UK
Logged

Schallfeldnebel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 816
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2007, 06:44:28 pm »

This 296 model is directly derived from the 1 inch measuring capsule MK102.1 you can find on the website of Microtech-Gefell.

There is only made a compromise, instead of polarizing it with the standard 200V, it gets only 80V. This probably gives a bit more of presence peak than when 200V is used. The 296 has a max peak of 2 dB, the MK102.1 has about 0.5 to 1 dB max.

I use myself the B&K 4145 which is to the ANSI specs the equivalent of the MK102.1. The sound is very much comparable with the Schoeps MK2 or the Sennheiser MKH20 with the HF switch in the flat position, but it less omni directional in the higher regions. I assume the Microtech 296 will sound a little bit more bright with it's +2dB of rise.

There can be a negative side when using measuring microphones, especially the one inch has some unpredictable behaviour above 20Khz. I enclosed a file with a recording I made in 1994 using the 4145 as a test. As soon as the voice goes up to the higher octaves and gets loud, I hear a pressure on my eardrums, I do not know if MP3 is good enough to show you that. This recording was made with a small A-B of two 4145's.

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/eriksikkema/Soprano.mp3


Erik Sikkema



Logged
Bill Mueller:"Only very recently, has the availability of cheap consumer based gear popularized the concept of a rank amateur as an audio engineer. Unfortunately, this has also degraded the reputation of the audio engineer to the lowest level in its history. A sad thing indeed for those of us professionals."

davebl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2007, 05:10:54 am »

Erik,

Thank you for your advice and the sample which was very useful and also very pleasant to hear.

I am interested in the Gefell since may people seem to rate the Nickel capsuels, I do hear that some others regard them as 'metalic' sounding whcih may be a function of the high detail they seem to resolve. I guess only listening will answer the question properly.

Best regards,

Dave
UK
Logged

Schallfeldnebel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 816
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2007, 11:34:37 am »

"I am interested in the Gefell since may people seem to rate the Nickel capsuels, I do hear that some others regard them as 'metalic' sounding whcih may be a function of the high detail they seem to resolve."


I do not think one can generalize and say that metal diaphragms sound more metallic, and users who have that opinion may have heard the bad designs.

Think about the famous aluminum Neumann M50, and the Sanken CU44X cardioids, .
.
Here's a soundfile of piano-solo (N.B. the Yamaha, S. Richter used in Holland to play his concerts on) recorded with ONLY two Sanken CU44X double membrane(titanium), two way microphones.

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/eriksikkema/Bach%2DYamaha.mp3

Erik Sikkema
Schallfeldwebel


Logged
Bill Mueller:"Only very recently, has the availability of cheap consumer based gear popularized the concept of a rank amateur as an audio engineer. Unfortunately, this has also degraded the reputation of the audio engineer to the lowest level in its history. A sad thing indeed for those of us professionals."

Arf! Mastering

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 889
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2007, 09:16:06 pm »

The metallic character of the MTG 295/296 is something I can personally confirm.  It's not due to the use of nickel, however, my Neumann nickel capsuled KM254s and KM56s are not at all metallic sounding yet they have great presence.  The problem with the 295/296 is that there are some nasty resonances in the upper mids.  They are still very useful mics though, just not as glorious as the Neumann nickel KMs.
Logged
“A working class hero is something to be,
Keep you doped with religion and sex and T.V.”
John Lennon

"Large signals can actually be counterproductive.  If I scream at you over the phone, you don’t hear me better. If I shine a bright light in your eyes, you don’t see better.”
Dr. C.T. Rubin, biomechanical engineer

Schallfeldnebel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 816
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2007, 04:57:16 am »

This confirms there are good designs and bad designs, and both might find their use in recording.

Do not forget the Neumann KM254s and KM56s are small diameter membranes, and the Gefell 294-295 are large membrane designs. I do not think Neumann could fix the problem with resonances either when they would come up with a nickel U87.

Also cardioids tend more to a metal sound than omni's. So the 296 omni is quite another beast than his brothers the 294-5.

Erik Sikkema


Logged
Bill Mueller:"Only very recently, has the availability of cheap consumer based gear popularized the concept of a rank amateur as an audio engineer. Unfortunately, this has also degraded the reputation of the audio engineer to the lowest level in its history. A sad thing indeed for those of us professionals."

davebl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #6 on: March 19, 2007, 06:40:57 am »

This is very usefull and informative, I think the only way is to have a listen to them. I wonder if the 1" 296  is any better (or worse) than the 1/2" version used ont he josepheson 617 pre amp.

Dave
UK
Logged

Schallfeldnebel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 816
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2007, 08:47:01 am »

The Josephson 617 uses standard the Microtech-Gefell MK221 1/2 inch capsule, which is the equivalent of the discontinued B&K 4165. In fact those capsules are successors of the 1 inch version 4145. B&K has discontinued the production of 1 inch measuring microphones, although they might have some on stock.

Problem with the 50mV 1/2 capsules is, the lower noisefloor can only be achieved by using some mechanical acoustical tricks, what one has to accept is a rather low bandwidth for a 1/2 inch capsule (only 20kHz max), and you pay it with unpredictable behaviour above 20 Khz, there are some very strange bumps and dips before the final roll off.

In a way the 1 inch and 1/2 inch 50mV types are quite alike, and using them for music recording is a bit questionable. The main difference between them is that the 1/2 inch version stays omni directional for much higher frequencies.

Both Sonodore and Josephson use the limited bandwith 1/2 inch versions, Josephson uses Gefell MK221 and Sonodore is a bit mystical where they get the capsules from, but I think they use ACO Pacific titanium diaphragms.

Both designers probably know the phase characteristic is not that smooth as with the low output 4133 12.5 mV type of 1/2 inch capsule, but probably there is a demand from the market to produce these models.

It is no coincidence B&K (DPA) did (re)design one of their measuring microphone concepts to the 4006(3) model in the early eighties. If the phase issue was not serious, they would have never done that. Designing new models costs a lot of research money.

I use my 4145 1 inch capsules for very specific situations, and if I could decide today again, I would not buy them. I use them only very few, and it is not worth the investment.

Even when you try-out a microphone of this type, you may have other opinions some day in future. To sell off these odd 1 inch models may take a while.

Erik Sikkema




Logged
Bill Mueller:"Only very recently, has the availability of cheap consumer based gear popularized the concept of a rank amateur as an audio engineer. Unfortunately, this has also degraded the reputation of the audio engineer to the lowest level in its history. A sad thing indeed for those of us professionals."

Robert Castiglione

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2007, 09:00:56 am »

I use two Gefell 296s regularly.

My experience is that they are rather "specialty" omnis if that makes any sense. I wish I had bought the Schoeps MK2s first.

Having said that and having worked hard getting used to their particular characteristics, I have used them successfully in many applications from close micing (turned off axis) on vocals and acoustic guitar,  to diffuse field omnis for a choir,  and even the mid element in an M/S array to record nature recordings.

They are extremely articulate and just have a staggering ability to capture great detail.

Yes, I enjoy using these mics.

Rob
Logged

davebl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2007, 10:36:36 am »

Hmmm, From what I hear I think that I would prefer the Schoeps MK2s or the Sennheiser MKH20 by first choice.

I am in a slight dilema betwen the two as I use CCM 4's and like these mics a great deal. But I also have alot of MKH mics and two 'spare' MKH30's  so could create an Omni/8 pair if needed. The MKH mics are absolutly quiet and have a good deal of detail.

I once put up a 30/40 MS pair agains a 414 EB AB pair and it was so much more defined that I was very pleasantly supprised.

I have always thought that the Schoeps have a sort of more 'musical' quality to them which I find hard to describe but equaly like the MKH mics.

Do you have used the MKH 20 v the CK2s  in a spaced tree configuration ?
Logged

Schallfeldnebel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 816
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2007, 10:53:53 am »

Hmmm, From what I hear I think that I would prefer the Schoeps MK2s or the Sennheiser MKH20 by first choice.

There is quite a difference between the Schoeps MK2s and the Sennheiser MKH20. The last one is in the neutral switch position rather dark, while the Mk2s has quite a presence boost. (+3dB?)

What makes the difference here is the 296 has because of it's larger membrane, a much less omni characteristic in the HF range, which makes it very suiteable for creating detail even on a larger distance, without getting a sharper sound.

Erik Sikkema
Logged
Bill Mueller:"Only very recently, has the availability of cheap consumer based gear popularized the concept of a rank amateur as an audio engineer. Unfortunately, this has also degraded the reputation of the audio engineer to the lowest level in its history. A sad thing indeed for those of us professionals."

ioaudio

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2007, 01:20:36 pm »

Logged
-max

Schallfeldnebel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 816
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2007, 01:53:20 pm »

The model MK102 is the one running on a full polarization voltage of 200V, and has a flatter frequency curve than the "music" type 296. The MK102 is equivalent to the B&K 4145.

No experience with tube versions of these models.

Erik Sikkema

Logged
Bill Mueller:"Only very recently, has the availability of cheap consumer based gear popularized the concept of a rank amateur as an audio engineer. Unfortunately, this has also degraded the reputation of the audio engineer to the lowest level in its history. A sad thing indeed for those of us professionals."

Robert Castiglione

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2007, 06:58:18 pm »

To choose the MKH series omnis or the Schoeps.

Sorry I have been trying to refer to the Schoeps MK2 (and have added the s inadvertently). I am referring to the Schoeps omni suitable for close applications. there are many sound samples of the MK2 on the 3D Bulletin Board (look for threads by IVO who has several). The good thing is that he has used them on many instruments and the sound clips are WAV and not compressed formates.

I have had MK30 and still have MKH40. This is totally subjective I know but there was something about the electronically extended nature of the MKH series which got on my nerves. I used to use the MKH30/40 in midside then decided to sell the MKH30 and get go for a Schoeps M/S instead generally using the cardiod as a centre. Much prefer the Schoeps which is capable of really good stereo imaging when the two capsules are aligned.

The MK2 is a very beautiful sounding omni!

Sorry, all these subjective descriptions are of course of little use to you. Just my journey with MKH series and Schoeps.

Rob
Logged

ioaudio

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #14 on: March 19, 2007, 10:28:02 pm »

Logged
-max
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up