Mic compare: Gefell M300 vs Schoeps MK41 + others

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

R many engineers are not specifically guitar oriented ...they are recording engineers recording a vast number of instruments and vocals.

Yeah, I find that too. One of my favorite anecdotes that I may have told before is that I came across an article a while back in one of the recording magazines on how to record acoustic guitar, by a pro engineer with lots of credits. He had all kinds of suggestions, and I was taking notes excitedly. Then I got to the last paragraph, where he said something along the lines of "these techniques will all work great, unless you're doing something totally crazy that absolutely no one ever does, like recording solo instrumental guitar". Sigh. So indeed, AGF is a better place to discuss this stuff :-)

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Yeah, I find that too. One of my favorite anecdotes that I may have told before is that I came across an article a while back in one of the recording magazines on how to record acoustic guitar, by a pro engineer with lots of credits. He had all kinds of suggestions, and I was taking notes excitedly. Then I got to the last paragraph, where he said something along the lines of "these techniques will all work great, unless you're doing something totally crazy that absolutely no one ever does, like recording solo instrumental guitar". Sigh. So indeed, AGF is a better place to discuss this stuff :-)

Yeah, like mono versus stereo and the 3 to 1 "rule and carving a frequency space via equalization and …

[AcousticDreams]

That said I often like the final output to be somewhat "bigger" and "better" than the guitar itself sounds. Also some of my
favorite guitar recordings have a pick up of some sort mixed in with the mikes - .[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. A recording is forever. There are a number of stories how an engineer enlarged the sound of a guitar to benefit the whole of the recording.

In the Beatles "A Day in the Life" I have heard that there was a combination of 8 pianos & organs just for the last note. And boy do I love how last note ends that tune.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

No one here has talked about DPA's? I have heard some nice recordings with them.

Anybody have any thoughts about DPA, as compared to Schoeps and Gefells?

I mentioned them quickly earlier in the thread. More or less saying that the DPA 4006 or 4011 is IMHO about the only equal of the Schoeps.

I've used DPAs & Schoeps side by side. They are both superlative mics by any measure. I can't say one is "better" than the other. But there are slight differences between the 2. I think the high voltage DPAs might edge out the Schoeps by a hair...but it also depends on what the source is. I generally prefer Schoeps on stringed instruments & ensembles. I think DPAs might be better on voices/choirs.

Of course, that can all change from day to day based on how I'm feeling when I setup for any particular session

[Trevor B.]

The real value of this thread to me is the incentive it provides to give my Gefell M300s another whirl. Earlier efforts at recording with them didn't get me close to the results I'm after. I've had much better success with a pair of Sennheiser MKH 800 P48s.
That said, I've never been of the opinion that the Gefells were really the problem. My own lack of expertise and patience were clearly the real handicaps. The Gefell M300 clips in this thread confirm the quality of the these mics so it's back to the drawing board for me. And that's a good thing, so thanks to Doug Young and Michael Watts.

[AcousticDreams]

Thanks for your video. I also watched your comparison test between the 641 and the 4018. Most Excellent!

Well now you guys have me thinking a bit more about the Hyper cardiod,verses Cardiod & Wide cardiod.

Currently I just have a pair of At4050's..a large diaphragm of medium quality. Playing around with the different patterns I did feel like the Omni presented some advantages. One being the less proximity and possible smoother off axis response.

Previously, I was assuming that a wide cardiod like the Schoeps 21 cap or the Sanken Cu-55 might offer me the best of both worlds. But after reviewing the polar patterns of the Hyper on both the Schoeps and DPA Hyper cardiods, and their smooth off axis response..I realize I need to re-evaluate and give them a try as well. Funny that DPA 4018 measures flat at 30cm...which is the same as the Sanken Cu-55 at 30Cm as well. A little over 11 inches. Have not checked...but I assume the 641 is relatively the same. Especially since Doug mics at about 10inches away. Hmmm..this is a game changer. I believe that Cardiods need at least 16 to 18 inches.

I hold my guitar a little bit differently, and angle it up towards my head in most situations. Measuring from my ears to the soundhole comes closer to that 11 to 12 inches.

The confusion Grows. The amount of tests I will need to perform magnifies.

[rick-slo]

I would not get hung up on a totally flat frequency response. Measurement mikes (for example like those from Earthworks) have an extremely flat frequency response curve but are rarely chosen for actual music recording work.

Most mikes (especially those for vocals) purposely have a non flat response curve. For various reasons there may be more of a low frequency response drop off or an higher frequency treble boost.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

I would not get hung up on a totally flat frequency response. Measurement mikes (for example like those from Earthworks) have an extremely flat frequency response curve but are rarely chosen for actual music recording work.

Agreed, I only mentioned it because of the idea that Schoeps are "colored". I'd say they're very uncolored. But what matters is if a mic sounds good, not specs. Our guitars don't have flat frequency response either :-)

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

Currently I just have a pair of At4050's..a large diaphragm of medium quality. Playing around with the different patterns I did feel like the Omni presented some advantages. One being the less proximity and possible smoother off axis response.

The 4050 should be nice, I have the 4050st - stereo version, and have been using it for you tube videos, in part because it's visually less in the way. One recent example:

I believe that Cardiods need at least 16 to 18 inches.

I wouldn't be locked on that. Proximity effect is just a tone control, there's nothing right or wrong about any given distance, it's just useful to understand the physics of what's going on. And it varies with mics - ribbon mics can have a lot of proximity effect, for example, but the N22s can sound really good at even 2-3 inches away, because they are compensating for the proximity effect. But with a cardiods, as you get closer, you get more low end, and less room sound/more guitar. Back up, you get less bass, more room sound/less guitar. It's just a tool you can use to dial in the sound. You can also use EQ to offset whatever - add more bass if the mic is too thin from being too far away, or cut bass if there's too much proxmity effect. There's no good to remove room sound, tho. Always tradeoffs.

[AcousticDreams]

WOW! Gorgeous song, and such an incredibly sweet tone you got! Sincerely Just beautiful.

Yes the 4050's are decent. And certainly on this song you have played using the stereo version...it sounds more than just o.k..it sounds great. There is another player who has Celtic albums from Costa Rica...I forget his name right now...but he uses 4050's as well...Wide spaced and farther out. One of the reasons why I got those mics is because I liked the tone he was getting..And I had gotten an offer for a trade for a pair of 4050's for some of my custom knives( I am retired now, but was a custom knife maker for many years...among other things. Was also a pro Photographer for Guitar brochures back in the 80's and 90')

However I do not have good room acoustics...which is part of the problem. While in many ways I play similarly to your style...using a thumpick(propik) and fingers...I also do a lot of strumming and hard attack. I use the Propik thumpick for strumming and the rest of my fingers for fingerstyle. In reality I am a song writer. My solo moments are few in a song but sometimes stand out. However the finger style is always present between and among the strumming. And I have been known to have a heavy hand in attack. And that is where I yearn for some SDC's to pick up that heavier-faster attack times.

But again, sometimes what we think we need and what we actually need are two different things. You would laugh if you knew just how little of time I have actually spent recording in the last year...Probably would not add up to more than an hour or so. And that is because I have been writing and working on my sound and touch...which has changed a bit over the past couple of years.

I am hoping to get some time to experiment with different mic positions. First I wish to build my own version of a Jeklin type disc. I have some ideas...so it would be an off shoot of that design. And I would not really be using the typical ORTF type spacing on the Jeklin..or what ever spacing is used.

By the way, what is the lower bout width on that guitar? 16teen? More? That guitar has such a nice smooth low end. Very present and full.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

WOW! Gorgeous song, and such an incredibly sweet tone you got! Sincerely Just beautiful.

Thanks, glad you like it. I've been happy with the 4050 (stereo)

However I do not have good room acoustics...which is part of the problem.

That's perhaps the most important thing. Funny thing is tho, that video was shot in a spare bedroom where I do my videos, not my music studio. Just a typical bedroom, untreated, carpet, hard walls, 11x10 or something like that. A tight fit for setting up cameras. But it seems to work well enough for you tube.

By the way, what is the lower bout width on that guitar? 16teen? More? That guitar has such a nice smooth low end. Very present and full.

His site says the lower bout's 15.5. It does have a really nice bass response.

[AcousticDreams]

Been having a nice conversation with one of the members...and I thought I should bring up a couple of factors that might be of interest to our conversation.

Many of the engineers I have known(not that I have known that many) could give a hoot about graphs or any scientific data on microphones. They only care about what they hear. And further, they only care how they want the guitar to sound in a mix of other instruments. Science is the furthest thing from their minds.

[INDENT]I, myself, need a bit of science combined with something I value above science= LOGIC..

Not that I truly understand these theories correctly, but I would like to bring up two factors that effect recordings and the mics we use. The inverse Square law, and the fact that Low frequency waves are longer than Higher frequency waves.

While I was a profession photographer way back in the day, I used the inverse square law for photography. I will use a direct example here= Using artificial light(Flash) If I am photographing a model that is 10 feet from myself, and there is second model that is 10 feet from the first model(for a total of 20 feet from the camera) There will be NOT half the amount of light, but 1/4 the amount of light on the second model. Twice the distance, invert and squared for 1/4 the light.

I believe that there are now people who believe that the inverse square law applies to sound as well. I always did going back to the early seventies. This may be the primary reason why Compression, will make a recording sound more realistic and tolerable at the same time. Compression if properly used, will capture the dynamics yet even out the volumes.

My next explanation is not probably correct in my scientific explanation..so please excuse me. This is something that I really know very little about and only recently began to understand. Since Low frequency waves are bigger-longer they will travel at different times and or be influenced by room more than higher frequencies are. Bass traps are considered mandatory for many engineers.

Some omni microphones come in a near and far field corrections. Being that one has a high frequency bump. I believe this was designed as such in certain mics for applications of recording symphonies in large spaces from a further distance. Since High and low frequency travel-refelx differently, the high frequency bump is made to correct for this and give us a recorded sound closer to what the instruments would sound like close up. In case you have wondered why so many mics have that high frequency bump. Or at least that is why I think to why they do. Go one step further, and those people who started using mics with high frequency bumps started to think of that as the norm..or they liked how that higher frequency bump made the instrument sound when miced up close. And maybe further yet, the player still hears his higher frequencies imbalanced by the low frequencies returning from the room's reflections.

For my style of playing, that is why I personally are interested in closer micing techniques. I want to capture the higher dynamics that I get from listening closer. Yet, I need to even out that sound to be tolerable as well. Compression might be one of the determining factors to get what I need. In voice recording...it enables a singer to get the benifits of proximity effect, quick transients of a dynamic singer...yet smooth out the volumes as if we were further back.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

Been having a nice conversation with one of the members...and I thought I should bring up a couple of factors that might be of interest to our conversation.

Many of the engineers I have known(not that I have known that many) could give a hoot about graphs or any scientific data on microphones. They only care about what they hear. And further, they only care how they want the guitar to sound in a mix of other instruments. Science is the furthest thing from their minds.

[INDENT]I, myself, need a bit of science combined with something I value above science= LOGIC..

Not that I truly understand these theories correctly, but I would like to bring up two factors that effect recordings and the mics we use. The inverse Square law, and the fact that Low frequency waves are longer than Higher frequency waves.

While I was a profession photographer way back in the day, I used the inverse square law for photography. I will use a direct example here= Using artificial light(Flash) If I am photographing a model that is 10 feet from myself, and there is second model that is 10 feet from the first model(for a total of 20 feet from the camera) There will be NOT half the amount of light, but 1/4 the amount of light on the second model. Twice the distance, invert and squared for 1/4 the light.

I believe that there are now people who believe that the inverse square law applies to sound as well. I always did going back to the early seventies. This may be the primary reason why Compression, will make a recording sound more realistic and tolerable at the same time. Compression if properly used, will capture the dynamics yet even out the volumes.

My next explanation is not probably correct in my scientific explanation..so please excuse me. This is something that I really know very little about and only recently began to understand. Since Low frequency waves are bigger-longer they will travel at different times and or be influenced by room more than higher frequencies are. Bass traps are considered mandatory for many engineers.

Some omni microphones come in a near and far field corrections. Being that one has a high frequency bump. I believe this was designed as such in certain mics for applications of recording symphonies in large spaces from a further distance. Since High and low frequency travel-refelx differently, the high frequency bump is made to correct for this and give us a recorded sound closer to what the instruments would sound like close up. In case you have wondered why so many mics have that high frequency bump. Or at least that is why I think to why they do. Go one step further, and those people who started using mics with high frequency bumps started to think of that as the norm..or they liked how that higher frequency bump made the instrument sound when miced up close. And maybe further yet, the player still hears his higher frequencies imbalanced by the low frequencies returning from the room's reflections.

For my style of playing, that is why I personally are interested in closer micing techniques. I want to capture the higher dynamics that I get from listening closer. Yet, I need to even out that sound to be tolerable as well. Compression might be one of the determining factors to get what I need. In voice recording...it enables a singer to get the benifits of proximity effect, quick transients of a dynamic singer...yet smooth out the volumes as if we were further back.

Couple of things to note
I am not sure exactly what you meaning by " Since Low frequency waves are bigger-longer they will travel at different times and or be influenced by room more than higher frequencies are."

But if by "time" you mean travel "time" then to clarify, all frequencies travel at virtually the same speed . But they definitely have different wavelengths (i.e. length of cycle) which is how we distinguish low from high
If by time you are meaning the time length of cycle, then I supposed that yes that means for any given time frame, you are going to hear more cycles of higher frequencies than low BUT they will arrive at the ear at the same time, so I don't see that as a particular issue .........But yes that definitely means they will reflect differently in any given room which can be an issue particularly as you say , with low frequencies

I am not sure about the "Inverse Square Law" But Compression used properly can help to achieve a more balanced sound and or forward sound ( particularly at lower volume levels) but I suspect it has more to do with the Fletcher Munson curve and Equal Loudness Contour

[alohachris]

Aloha Knives&Guitars,

PM'ed you.

alohachris

[Trevor B.]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

WOW!. There is another player who has Celtic albums from Costa Rica...I forget his name right now...but he uses 4050's as well...Wide spaced and farther out. One of the reasons why I got those mics is because I liked the tone he was getting.

I'm pretty sure you're referring to Stephen Wake. I agree wholeheartedly that the combination of his Larrivee guitar and the 4050s work really well for him.