R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Gefell M296 Question  (Read 23644 times)

Plush

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 264
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2007, 10:49:26 pm »

The 296 was asked for by Gotham Audio in NYC.
It was to be an M50 imitator because it too had increased
directivity at higher frequencies.

The above was told to me by Jerry Graham at Gotham.
Logged
Hudson Fair
Atelier HudSonic, Chicago

http://www.myspace.com/hudsonek

davebl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2007, 04:58:26 am »

Plush wrote on Tue, 20 March 2007 02:49

The 296 was asked for by Gotham Audio in NYC.
It was to be an M50 imitator because it too had increased
directivity at higher frequencies.

The above was told to me by Jerry Graham at Gotham.


This is very interesting to me, if anything I had wanted a M50 acousticly styled mic and thought of using a ball arangment behind the capsule. The M50 is an SDC really rather than a larger capsuel may be the 296 can be regarded as Mic DC in this respect.

Teddy, tells me the best example is the Josehson/Gefell 211 combination which is SDC and Id hope very low noise.

I note the comments about the metalic coloration, or not depending on your view, from the Gefell Nickle capsuel and this does still concern me a little.

Logged

Schallfeldnebel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 816
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2007, 04:08:49 pm »

The M50 is an SDC really rather than a larger capsuel may be the 296 can be regarded as Mic DC in this respect.

I see the M50 as a mix between a large membrane and small membrane microphone, but the capsule itself is off course a small diaphragm.

You cannot compare the Josepson with the M50 or Gefell 296, the Josephson is very omni directional, the M50 because of the sphere is very directional for higher frequencies, and the 296 will be somewhat in between the other two.

hello erik,
do you have experience with the mk102/4145 capsule with non-tube mic bodies? - i´d like to learn more about the sound of these capsules.


Yes, I have, I would call the sound present in the midrange for an omni, and silky for the HF part. I have made a link to my website with a music sample of soprano and lute.

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

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.

The B&K 4145 and Gefell mk102 are very alike the Schoeps MK2, ONLY the Schoeps is more omni directional for higher frequencies, and I think the Schoeps has a better phase characteristic. The 4145 sounds like it has lower distortion altogether, but that could also be caused by the limitations of phantom powered systems like the Schoeps. The Gefell 296 where this thread is about may come more close to the Schoeps MK2H than to the MK2.

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."

davebl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2007, 04:52:10 pm »

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

Hi Erik,

This is very pleasant, and interesting to listen to, what was the mics configuration, Im assuming it ia a 4145 pair ?

Dave
UK
Logged

Schallfeldnebel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 816
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2007, 05:46:40 pm »

Small A-B approx. 65-75 cm, 2x B&K 4145.

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."

ioaudio

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2007, 01:18:38 pm »

Logged
-max

davebl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #21 on: March 27, 2007, 01:42:56 pm »

Erik, You expertees and advise again please.

Does the Gefell MK102 and the B&K 4145 measurement capsuels sound near identical. and are there any reasons to select one manufacturer over the other ? Also is there a prefered preamp for these measurement capsuels ? It seem that 1/2 to 1" convertors can be found and 1/2 caps could be used as an alternative for some work.

Also how comparible to the Gefell M296 is the Mk102 or 4145. I know theres an HF lift on the M296.

From what I hear the M296 has a very silky top end and Id welcome your view as to its use in preference to the 102/4145's discussed.

thanks again,

Dave
Logged

Schallfeldnebel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 816
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #22 on: March 27, 2007, 06:18:03 pm »

The sound samples I made a link to are made with B&K 4145 not the Microtech 296. I do not think the 296 will have that "silky" sound in the top end.

To choose between 296 or 102/4145 depends on if you look for the round sound as heard in my example, and if you like the sound of microphones like the SCHOEPS mk2.

The decision between Gefell 102 or  B&K 4145 depends very much on what you want to spend on them. The 4145 are discontinued, but probably still on stock, but cost about the double of the Gefells.

About the quality, my friend Kostas Metaxos used many equivalent capsules from B&K and Gefell, and always preferred the B&K's in terms of sound quality, but this is very personal.

To go back to the 296, this microphone is a modified 102, works with a lower polarization voltage, not to accomodate a special sound, but just for the easiness of the fact this preamplifier is used for more existing Gefell microphones and runs on 48V.
The effect of the lower polarization voltage is the presence peak, and indeed it gets a bit the characteristic of a microphone placed in a sphere like the Neumann M50, but the fact the shape of the 296 is not spherical, it will never sound like a M50.

I use the standard Falcon preamps from B&K to match it with my Lake-People V25 preamps, using a mechanical adaptor.

Hope this helps,

Der Schallfeldwebel
Nur f
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."

Gunnar Hellquist

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 206
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2007, 03:07:27 pm »

This Sunday I did a recording using two M296 as the L and R mics in a (homebrew) Decca tree. I will try to post some samples up, towards the weekend is my guess.

Gunnar
Logged
Gunnar Hellquist
unafiliated

RichS

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2007, 03:13:12 pm »

To clear up any possible confusion...

Although listed as "M296 large diaphragm 1" omnidirectional condenser" on the Microtech Gefell website, the M296 capsule size is approx. 19.5mm (3/4 inch). The outside diameter of the head (which is listed in the specs) is 24mm, a little less than 1 inch.

There is a M296S model, which is intended for measurement and instrumentation applications.

I have a matched pair of M296 and use them mainly for organ/orchestra.

Logged

RichS

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #25 on: March 29, 2007, 03:31:12 pm »

Schallfeldwebel wrote on Sat, 17 March 2007 18:44

I enclosed a file with a recording I made in 1994 using the 4045 as a test. As soon as the soprano 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 4045's.

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



The "pressure effect" you've described is not a problem with the mic's... after more than 30 years experience singing with "straight-tone" (no vibrato) cathedral choirboys and early music sopranos, I can attest to the "pressure effect" being easily heard in performance. Those sounds are almost pure sine wave in quality, and will drill through you head... even at the back of a cathedral!

Shocked
Logged

Schallfeldnebel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 816
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #26 on: March 29, 2007, 04:56:40 pm »

Rich,

I know what you refer to, but that is not the effect I mean. I hear it also with stringquartett and plucked instruments like guitars and lutes, when recorded with measuring microphones having phase anomalies. (e.g.B&K 4065)

Most measuring microphones are optimized for certain aspects in the measuring field. Either for noise, then often the phase characteristic is poor, or for bandwidth, then the noise floor is too high. For music we want a flat frequency response, extended bandwidth, smooth phase response and low noise.

The 296 and e.g. the much more peaky DPA4041 belong to a group of special purpose omni's. I have also made very succesful recordings with the 4041, even organ, but it would not be my first choice. What just stays a fact with these "larger" diameter measuring capsules, the mechanical distortion compared to their half inch brothers and sisters is higher.

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."

kostavox

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2007, 07:45:56 pm »

I tried a pair of the "8 micron" 296 briefly and compaed them to my Neumann TLM50s [pair of titanium and pair of nickel-which I prefer] and they weren't in the same league. They sounded more like an instrumentation mike - and I've have a lot of experience with all the B&K and Gefell instrument mics [which I own].

My favourite instrumentation mikes are B&K 4135 [1/4"] or for an even "sweeter" sound, the equivalent GEFELL MK301s. The only problem is the noise floor. Although with large scale loud orchestral or Jazz, you wouldn't know.

These mics are my "reference point" for recording what is really happening in space [and I use them with heavily modified Stellavox Tape machines].

The 4133s 4145s MMK202s are not in the same class.

But my musical preference is for the Neumann TLM50s and M150s. The TLM50s are VERY fussy with 48V powering. I use 5 X 9V DURACELLS in  series per channel to get their best sound.

You can hear samples of these recordings at www.metaxas.com or on this BBS
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/230249/16812/?s rch=metaxas#msg_230249

rgds

Kostas Metaxas  
Logged

kostavox

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #28 on: March 30, 2007, 07:49:12 pm »

I forgot to mention I just purchased a pair of the 4micron 296 versions which I want to experiment with their "electronics" to modify them in a similar way that the folks at Polyhymnia modify the guts of their Neumanns.

I looked inside my M294 [very easy to get into] and saw that the circuit is a pretty basic one - capacitor coupled FET input etc...
Logged

davebl

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
Re: Gefell M296 Question
« Reply #29 on: March 31, 2007, 05:20:01 am »

Hi Kostas,

Is the 4 micron 296 the 296S or is the other way round ?

I had thought the TLM 50-S had to be phantom powered and there was no other means of powering the mic. I am assuming that this is a custom modification that you have made ?

Thanks for your samples, Im going to ahve a listen now.

Dave Blackham
UK
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up