Mic compare: Gefell M300 vs Schoeps MK41 + others

[AcousticDreams]

Another capsule that interests me is the 21 for Schoeps. It has a slightly wider cardiod pattern.

Has anybody tried this combination?

Wide cardiods interest me. Have no experience with them...but in theory, you should be able to mic a little bit closer with a wide cardiod and have less proximity effect. Plus their off axis sound is closer to that of an omni. The Sanken Cu-55 is a wide cardiod and supposedly has great off axis sound. And that particular one is around $1100 each. Certainly less expensive than Schoeps but more than a pair of Gefells.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

Another capsule that interests me is the 21 for Schoeps. It has a slightly wider cardiod pattern.

Has anybody tried this combination?

Wide cardiods interest me. Have no experience with them...but in theory, you should be able to mic a little bit closer with a wide cardiod and have less proximity effect. Plus their off axis sound is closer to that of an omni. The Sanken Cu-55 is a wide cardiod and supposedly has great off axis sound. And that particular one is around $1100 each. Certainly less expensive than Schoeps but more than a pair of Gefells.

I have the MK2s (omni) which you can definitely place very close. I've not had a chance to try the MK21s. For really close, the AEA N22s that I also included here are a very interesting option. You can literally go 2-3 inches away from the guitar with them, and that sounds pretty good.

[RRuskin]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Interestingly Brauner doesn't publish frequency specs, they apparently don't believe in them - they say "just listen".

A little known fact about frequency graphs is that flattering results can be fudged by how fast the graph paper is set to move past the pen during the test. The faster it moves, the flatter the results. Without knowing all parameters, including this one, frequency graph comparisons are pretty useless.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I have the MK2s (omni) which you can definitely place very close. I've not had a chance to try the MK21s. For really close, the AEA N22s that I also included here are a very interesting option. You can literally go 2-3 inches away from the guitar with them, and that sounds pretty good.

All of this is such a great help, as you are a wonderful guitarist with real time experience.

So would love to hear your opinion on the difference in sound and accuracy between the MK2's and your 41. Obviously, there should be a room issue with the MK2's...but if you were to properly isolate, in theory the MK2's and 21's should be similiar in sound. The graph shows that the 21's have a tiny high frequency bump.

When I hear your lovely recording with the 41 cap....it does sound very open, but maybe a tad thinner? The gefells M300 sounded like meat and potatoes...strong and firm...but with no openness. And I do love openness. So do you find any advantages with your MK2's in a stereo recording? Or do you find that the wider pattern shortens the stereo width in stereo mode?

I hope to experiment with a jeklin disc as well.

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by RRuskin

A little known fact about frequency graphs is that flattering results can be fudged by how fast the graph paper is set to move past the pen during the test. The faster it moves, the flatter the results. Without knowing all parameters, including this one, frequency graph comparisons are pretty useless.

Reputable mic makers base their frequency and polar graphs on an average of the particular mics results, based on many data sets from those mics tested in an aneorlic chamber with hundreds of data points. Their published graphs are not "slow moving graph paper" but a smoothed composite/average of the many data sets. Schoeps, Gefell, Neuman Berlin, 3 Zigma CHI, among others, have their own internal testing equipment and space to do this.

Here is an example of a pair Gefell M296 mics I sent to the Elves at Gefell in Germany for service several years ago, tested after a small problem with one of the mic amps was fixed and the capsules were cleaned:

https://i.imgur.com/nDe1ohm.png

Note the numerous data points. Note also how well matched the two capsules are. Also note the differences between this frequency response graph and the published graph on Gefell's website:

http://www.microtechgefell.de/dmdocu...%20296_ENG.pdf

Here is another example of a pair Gefell M295 mics I sent to Gefell last year, tested after both capsules and all capacitors were replaced:

https://i.imgur.com/rp6WIDh.png

The generic Gefell published frequency graph for the M295 is above in my earlier post. Again, the individual highly detailed graphs are quite similar to the generic graph.

There is much to be said for, "Ignore the graphs and just listen with your ears". Equally, there is much to be said for, "Accurate graphs provide important empirical data". Using both our ears and accurate empirical data would seem to be more helpful. Excluding one or the other seems silly.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

So would love to hear your opinion on the difference in sound and accuracy between the MK2's and your 41. Obviously, there should be a room issue with the MK2's...but if you were to properly isolate, in theory the MK2's and 21's should be similiar in sound. The graph shows that the 21's have a tiny high frequency bump.

It's been quite a while since I've used the MK2s for anything. I have a reasonably treated recording space, so I don't notice a room sound issue, and that is often made up for by the ability to close-mic anyway. The N22's in the posted example are not omni, but figure-8, so they also pick up the room, so you can see if you notice anything there. Part of AEA's pitch for the N22s is that they're good for home recording, since, even tho they are figure-8, you can close-mic to make up for poor room acoustics.

When I hear your lovely recording with the 41 cap....it does sound very open, but maybe a tad thinner? The gefells M300 sounded like meat and potatoes...strong and firm...but with no openness.

That may be the increased proximity effect that is being pointed out, creating more bass. Not necessarily a bad thing in small doses.

And I do love openness. So do you find any advantages with your MK2's in a stereo recording? Or do you find that the wider pattern shortens the stereo width in stereo mode?

I hope to experiment with a jeklin disc as well.

As I say, it's been a while, but from what I recall, using spaced pairs of the MK2s was not as distinct a stereo image, and I guess it wasn't something I felt was a keeper. The MK2s don't get much use. I can also set the Brauners to omni, and I recall trying that a few times, but not finding anything to keep me using it.

A Jecklin disk can be quite nice and is a good reason to use the omnis. Here's an example using the MK2s and a Jecklin that I seem to have online, dating from 2007! I uploaded this to soundcloud just now for easier listening. I have no memory of this, so other than it's labeled as being the Schoeps+Jecklin I don't know any other details of the recording:

[AcousticDreams]

I am so much enjoying this thread. Lots of questions I have always had that are slowly being revealed by everybody's input.

I am currently in Kentucky visiting my brother(I live in California)and have been away from any guitar for 20 days! Way to long, so not only does this thread answer many of the questions I have always had, it serves as a pasafier while I am missing my guitar... ha ha

1. Doug, how far way are the Schoeps and Gefells from you guitar?

2. What differences do you find between the 41 and 4 capsules, which are a standard for many modern acoustic performances? Do you find the 41's easier for closer micing? Less proximity?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

I am so much enjoying this thread. Lots of questions I have always had that are slowly being revealed by everybody's input.

I am currently in Kentucky visiting my brother(I live in California)and have been away from any guitar for 20 days! Way to long, so not only does this thread answer many of the questions I have always had, it serves as a pasafier while I am missing my guitar... ha ha

1. Doug, how far way are the Schoeps and Gefells from you guitar?

2. What differences do you find between the 41 and 4 capsules, which are a standard for many modern acoustic performances? Do you find the 41's easier for closer micing? Less proximity?

Since I only ever had the MK-4...... I can't answer what the logistical advantage or proximity difference might be... But from a design standpoint the MK 4 is Cardioid, and the 41 is a Supercardioid so I am guessing would equal less "room" in the 41 at the same relative position ?

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Since I only ever had the MK-4...... I can't answer what the logistical advantage or proximity difference might be... But from a design standpoint the MK 4 is Cardioid, and the 41 is a Supercardioid so I am guessing would equal less "room" in the 41 at the same relative position ?

Yes, this is what I would assume also, less room sound. But that also means that it should pick up more specific areas of the guitar. And that is what I am trying to determine, if having a mic that captures a more specific area of the guitar is better as it gives us a more defined stereo image.

However as with anything, if you get something in one area you often loose something else in another.

In guitars, if you get more attack time you might loose some sustain, and vice versa. I believe it is possible to obtain both though through careful manipulation.

Listening to all of Dougs recorded examples....all are very nice. The schoepes with 41 gives wonderful stereo separation. With his 2 caps I found a very nice and even representation but less stereo separation and possibly less detail. With previous recording of 4 caps (Soundpure has some nice videos) a very natural sound, but less separation than what Doug gets with his 41's. |But the 4's and the 2's might be more natural?

Thus bringing right back in the continuous circle of discussion, which one delivers the sound that best suits my purpose. I love openness and detail-articulation. But I also have lived long enough to know that sometimes what we thing we want, and what we actually need are two different things.

Then add to the mix the players style and guitar. Michael gets lovely results with his Gefells. He is truly an expressive player. And that might be the key. The Gefells might work best for him because he is so expressive. Also I have noticed that often his rooms have a bit of reverb in them...as they are non treated. In his recently released video, he addresses the fact that he has compared the Gefells and Schoeps and seemingly favors the Gefells.

Many engineers compare the M300 to the long standing favorite, the KM84. This microphone was used in many of our old favorite melodic rock hits. Especially in a mix with other instruments and voices, the Km84 is still a much favored microphone. In some ways it adds a natural compression quality.

In my early years I bought a Neumann U87 back in the 1970's brand new. I always found the microphone a bit boring...yet it always captured voice and guitar well. Just did not have that openness I always dreamed of. I stepped out of music for 30 years and when I got back in I briefly owned a pair of Gefell 295's. Loved the high end openness...but did not have the low end of Schoeps can capture.

I only have the money to buy one time right, and being able to A/B microphones is a very difficult task. So this thread and all the opinion-recording is very helpful

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

2. What differences do you find between the 41 and 4 capsules, which are a standard for many modern acoustic performances? Do you find the 41's easier for closer micing? Less proximity?

Fran Guidry and I compared his MK4s and my 41s back when I got them. We didn't notice any difference. The difference will obviously be a slightly tighter polar pattern on the 41s, but that would only show up subtly in certain situations. It's not clear to me that differences would be audible when close micing an acoustic guitar.

Doug, how far way are the Schoeps and Gefells from you guitar?

About 10 inches.

I am currently in Kentucky visiting my brother(I live in California)

Where are you in CA. I'm in the bay area.

[AcousticDreams]

I live in Northridge, a suburb of Los Angeles. But I do travel up north on occasion. It would be nice to stop by and visit some time.

[AcousticDreams]

Have you ever had any work done by Benny at BJR Guitars?
http://www.bjrguitars.com/

[Doug Young]

No, I'm in the south bay, a bit of a drive. I'm about 2 miles from Gryphon, so I'm a bit spoiled there...

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

Another capsule that interests me is the 21 for Schoeps. It has a slightly wider cardiod pattern.

Has anybody tried this combination?

Wide cardiods interest me. Have no experience with them...but in theory, you should be able to mic a little bit closer with a wide cardiod and have less proximity effect. Plus their off axis sound is closer to that of an omni. The Sanken Cu-55 is a wide cardiod and supposedly has great off axis sound. And that particular one is around $1100 each. Certainly less expensive than Schoeps but more than a pair of Gefells.

Yes - used mk21s as an ORTF pair for a few orchestra recordings. I liked them quite a bit, but you do get more room in them. That can be a good thing or a bad thing...depending on the room

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

Yes - used mk21s as an ORTF pair for a few orchestra recordings. I liked them quite a bit, but you do get more room in them. That can be a good thing or a bad thing...depending on the room

Great to hear. I hope to test out the MK21's some day. My purpose would be for closer micing with acoustic guitar. The Idea would be that even closed miked I would hear more of the entire guitar's vibrations yet still get some rear rejection.

Although, Doug & Michael Watts has proven that you can closer mic with ORTF without the omni like cap using cardiods. The key might be that the ORTF placement misses the majority of the sound hole air movement.

I would like to experiment with a reverse ORTF...so that I am pointed towards the sound hole in a spaced pair but still at that 8 inch spacing.