Mic compare: Gefell M300 vs Schoeps MK41 + others

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I've been hearing about the Gefell mics for ages, I know rick-slo uses them, anton posted some good sounds with his, and we had a nice demo and discussion from Michael Watts here last week. I finally had a chance to check out a pair of M300s, and spent some time comparing to the Schoeps mics I often use. I added them to a multi-mic setup I had already been messing with, with the Schoeps, Brauner VM1s and AEA NS22 ribbon mics. With the Schoeps and Gefell's I was able to place the mics in as close to the same position as possible (spaced pairs, similar to the setup Michael posted earlier) and use the same preamps (channels of an Apogee Ensemble). Note that the Shoeps are hypercardiod, vs the Gefell cardiod.

The Brauner's and AEA's I recorded just to see how they differed, even tho I'm using different preamps, and didn't even try to get the same mic positions - these are just where these mics have been sounding good to me.

Here's a few bars of some simple chord changes with the Schoeps (first) then the Gefells. No EQ other than a high pass filter at 40Hz and no reverb. I tried to level match all of these as close as I could, tho it's interesting how different notes leap out differently with the different mics.



To be able to hear the differences more easily, I assembled just the first couple of seconds of each mic. Here's Schoeps, Gefell, Brauner, NS22 in sequence with the shorter samples. With the last two, there's a noticeable change in stereo image. I found it pretty interesting to hear both the similarities and the differences between these - haven't done this kind of compare in a while.

Oh, another difference here: the Brauners are thru a Great River preamp, and the NS22s thru an AEA RPQ ribbon preamp. I said "no EQ", and that's true in the DAW, but the RPQ has a treble shelf that was engaged, bringing up the high end of the ribbons a little bit.



Here's what the mic setup looked like:
Attachment 13192

I think the Gefell's sound very nice, tho the difference with the Schoeps is pretty subtle to my ear. Curious what others hear.

Gee Doug, I think you need a few more mics (grin).

Fran

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

Gee Doug, I think you need a few more mics (grin).

Fran

I know! but I can't cram any more into that space... :-)

[Fran Guidry]

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. ...

We humans have a tendency to think that "more expensive" equals "better" but I'm not sure that's the case when microphones are the subject.

As a thought experiment, I wonder how we would value the AT4050 if it had been made in the 50s, manufactured in the hundreds instead of the thousands, and used on some iconic recordings with some iconic artists. People pay five figures for vintage Neumanns even though the components have aged far beyond spec and no two of the mics sound the same or remotely like they did when they were new and used on those iconic recordings.

The AT4050 is quiet, clean, flexible, and consistent. The fact that it's reasonable in price shouldn't be a negative (grin).

Fran

[rick-slo]

I agree with Fran to not get carried away about what microphone to use. Some mikes I would not use but for the most part there are many mikes in most price ranges that will give excellent results. Also, it's not just the mike, but how you use it, etc..

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

We humans have a tendency to think that "more expensive" equals "better" but I'm not sure that's the case when microphones are the subject.

As a thought experiment, I wonder how we would value the AT4050 if it had been made in the 50s, manufactured in the hundreds instead of the thousands, and used on some iconic recordings with some iconic artists. People pay five figures for vintage Neumanns even though the components have aged far beyond spec and no two of the mics sound the same or remotely like they did when they were new and used on those iconic recordings.

The AT4050 is quiet, clean, flexible, and consistent. The fact that it's reasonable in price shouldn't be a negative (grin).

Fran

Case-in-point: I was doing a session for a very popular video game soundtrack. We rented 3 vintage Neumann M50s. We got maybe 3 cues recorded when the M50s started sputtering and popping. Could have been the tubes, maybe the power supplies...whatever. We were in a remote location (rented a church to record in) & had 15 or so singers on the clock and couldn't futz around. The nearest rental place was a good 30 minutes away, but my house was 2 minutes away. I ran home & grabbed my AT4050s & replaced the M50s with AT4050s and we redid cue #3 and finished the rest of the cues with those.

After the fact the music director & I were going through the takes and he turned to me to say "I really don't feel like we lost anything going to the other mics".

Now, that soundtrack has been heard by probably millions of people and not a single person had commented that the first 2 cues sound different than the rest.

The lesson is: price is not the defining factor...the sound is.

[AcousticDreams]

Fran and Rick have valid points...

However, What I have noticed is some mics make more of a difference on certain players and their styles. And some people say, it is all in the player and not the mic or the guitar. That argument, it is the player, the user, and not the equipment, is an age old debate.

Having been involved in several sports, and art based endeavors such as music, Traditional Archery, Photography throughout my life, and having known a reasonable amount of notable people in their fields...I can safely say that equipment always matters to all of them. True Some can still perform better than the average individual(and certainly myself) with most any equipment. But to Win, that is a different story. Winning always involves a preferred equipment.

Bottom line, yes, maybe for the majority of people it will not make a hill of beans difference. But for some, and their styles of playing...it can make All the Difference. Just like a certain body shape, wood species, or a certain luthier, can make all the difference between average and above average.

Since I am not a great player, I look for that magic guitar and mic that will let me shine through. In Reality, Maybe I should spend more time trying to be a better player, than trying to find that magic mic? haha...so True. So why don't I then? Cause I also enjoy the search.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

Fran and Rick have valid points...

However, What I have noticed is some mics make more of a difference on certain players and their styles. And some people say, it is all in the player and not the mic or the guitar. That argument, it is the player, the user, and not the equipment, is an age old debate.

Having been involved in several sports, and art based endeavors such as music, Traditional Archery, Photography throughout my life, and having known a reasonable amount of notable people in their fields...I can safely say that equipment always matters to all of them. True Some can still perform better than the average individual(and certainly myself) with most any equipment. But to Win, that is a different story. Winning always involves a preferred equipment.

Bottom line, yes, maybe for the majority of people it will not make a hill of beans difference. But for some, and their styles of playing...it can make All the Difference. Just like a certain body shape, wood species, or a certain luthier, can make all the difference between average and above average.

Since I am not a great player, I look for that magic guitar and mic that will let me shine through. In Reality, Maybe I should spend more time trying to be a better player, than trying to find that magic mic? haha...so True. So why don't I then? Cause I also enjoy the search.

Not to throw a wrench into the works, but after 30+ yeas of recording I believe a good preamp is a much better investment than super high-end mics. A good mic through a great preamp is a great sound. A great mic through a good preamp is a good sound.

If I had to choose, I'd get a great pre and a good mic.

Not saying a great mic through a great pre isn't a thing of beauty...just if you have to choose.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

Not to throw a wrench into the works, but after 30+ yeas of recording I believe a good preamp is a much better investment than super high-end mics. A good mic through a great preamp is a great sound. A great mic through a good preamp is a good sound.

If I had to choose, I'd get a great pre and a good mic.

Not saying a great mic through a great pre isn't a thing of beauty...just if you have to choose.

What stereo preamps do you recommend for acoustic guitar? Budget is always a concern and the other problem is I do not have a great interface as well. Or do you believe that the preamp is still more important that converters?

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

What stereo preamps do you recommend for acoustic guitar? Budget is always a concern and the other problem is I do not have a great interface as well. Or do you believe that the preamp is still more important that converters?

Converters are definitely important. Would you consider a new interface with really nice preamps? If so, check out the Audient iD22 (around $500) or iD14 (around $300) as a budget friendly, but still high quality preamp/interface. They actually use the same preamps in these interfaces that go into their $20k console.

[Doug Young]

Glad this demo is prompting so much discussion. I once ask Pete Huttlinger for some advice on recording. I was expecting something concrete, like "buy these mics" or something. But he came back with "everything matters" :-) Totally true, tho I think it ignores that some things matter more than others. It's all relative, and there's sort of a Maslow's hierarchy. If you have a terrible preamp, or converters, or mics, then getting a better one will make an immense difference. But at some point, the differences get small. Doesn't mean you shouldn't focus on on each detail and try to improve them, but there is a diminishing return, and if some other larger factor is missing, a small improvement may not matter.

One interesting example is in these mic samples - the Gefell's and Schoeps are going thru a pretty solid preamp - the Apogee Ensemble, but the other mics are going thru much "better" preamps, and I doubt you can call out the contribution of those preamps separate from the mics, even tho they should be significantly better, at least just based on price. So do the preamps matter the most, or are they trumped by mics and mic placement?

For what it's worth, my experience is that of the recording chain aspect, what matters most is the room acoustics and mic placement. Everything else is minor in comparison, even tho there are differences.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

Converters are definitely important. Would you consider a new interface with really nice preamps? If so, check out the Audient iD22 (around $500) or iD14 (around $300) as a budget friendly, but still high quality preamp/interface. They actually use the same preamps in these interfaces that go into their $20k console.

Yes I have considered the ID22 and now there is a 44 as well. Besides the touted better preamps ....a feature that these two have, that is not available in other interfaces in this price range, is to insert a hard piece into the chain before hitting the DAW. It has In's and outs for two channels.

This really appeals to my old school way of doing things. In the days when we always inserted a compressor before the Tape. Very, very appealing feature for myself. As this is not possible with most other interfaces.

However, the one thing that holds me back on the Audient is that some claim the Audient converters are not up to par with some of the newer interfaces such as Antelope Audio Discrete 4.While with the Antelope you can not insert hard wired compressors..I believe it has the unique ability to insert a plug in compressor before DAW. Yet I like the Audient's simplicity and individual controls and where the Antelope is one knob for everything.

Out of curiosity, has any of you experimented with Tube preamps? Does anyone feel that Tube preamps offer something more with acoustic guitars.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Glad this demo is prompting so much discussion. I once ask Pete Huttlinger for some advice on recording. I was expecting something concrete, like "buy these mics" or something. But he came back with "everything matters" :-) Totally true, tho I think it ignores that some things matter more than others. It's all relative, and there's sort of a Maslow's hierarchy. If you have a terrible preamp, or converters, or mics, then getting a better one will make an immense difference. But at some point, the differences get small. Doesn't mean you shouldn't focus on on each detail and try to improve them, but there is a diminishing return, and if some other larger factor is missing, a small improvement may not matter.

One interesting example is in these mic samples - the Gefell's and Schoeps are going thru a pretty solid preamp - the Apogee Ensemble, but the other mics are going thru much "better" preamps, and I doubt you can call out the contribution of those preamps separate from the mics, even tho they should be significantly better, at least just based on price. So do the preamps matter the most, or are they trumped by mics and mic placement?

For what it's worth, my experience is that of the recording chain aspect, what matters most is the room acoustics and mic placement. Everything else is minor in comparison, even tho there are differences.

Your experience is worth a lot! Sincerely, So very helpful. And I love that this conversation keeps going and going. Eye opening.

I need to go back and listen to Michaels Watts very recent video, How I record..but he does address that he has tried out other "Sexy microphones" ( I believe those were his terms) and yet he comes back to the Gefells. And wow...it is pretty hard to deny his result...it sounds so very good.

This leads me right back to the possible theory that those mics are the best mics for his Guitar Tone, and his dynamic playing style.

For others the chain might be different. For Doug, I do like the Sound of the Schoeps better in this Comparison test he made. Yet...his stereo AT4050 sure has some real smoothness as well. No complaints there.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

Your experience is worth a lot! Sincerely, So very helpful. And I love that this conversation keeps going and going. Eye opening.

I need to go back and listen to Michaels Watts very recent video, How I record..but he does address that he has tried out other "Sexy microphones" ( I believe those were his terms) and yet he comes back to the Gefells. And wow...it is pretty hard to deny his result...it sounds so very good.

This leads me right back to the possible theory that those mics are the best mics for his Guitar Tone, and his dynamic playing style.

For others the chain might be different. For Doug, I do like the Sound of the Schoeps better in this Comparison test he made. Yet...his stereo AT4050 sure has some real smoothness as well. No complaints there.

It would be a good idea to not indulge the concept of "best" as it is almost meaningless outside of extremely narrow contexts and circumstances.
It's pursuit will lead one astray and foster dissatisfaction.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

It would be a good idea to not indulge the concept of "best" as it is almost meaningless outside of extremely narrow contexts and circumstances.
It's pursuit will lead one astray and foster dissatisfaction.

Yeah, "best" gets you in trouble, other that very specific applications - like "between these two takes, I like that one best". I've run into the problem of dialing in a sound I like, choosing mics, placement, the guitar, then coming back the next day and finding it's totally different, and I don't like the sound. Could be I move an inch, could be humidity, or more likely, I'm hearing it different. I could probably do this example over again, maybe with a different guitar, or just another musical snippet, and your impressions might very well change. For me, I sort of still prefer the Brauners, tho I know I didn't provide enough of a sample here for you to really listen to those.

I used to have a tube preamp, UAD something or other. It was dual topology, so I could switch between solid state, tube, or even blend them. I never really got a sound out of the tube side that was anything special, or even all that different. But that's a sample of 1, its hard to avoid believing in the tube mystique. Maybe... (The Brauner's are tube mics, tho)

[Ty Ford]

I think I forgot to mention the Gefell M296 omni with nickel membrane.

Pretty amazing sound on guitar and vocal from that puppy.

Regards,

Ty Ford