The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Gefell m296 vs Dpa 2006 or 4006
Old 7th March 2017
  #1
Gear Maniac
 

Gefell m296 vs Dpa 2006 or 4006

Looking for guys that have experience with both.

it´s for record flamenco guitar (nylon).

I discarded the m295 because the roll off frequency on the low end, so asked dpa for demo units on omni.

Price for m296 is much better , 2500 euro matched pair a local dealer price last year.

- Dpa 4006, around 3700 euro, he can send me demo units aswell as Gefell.
I told him that probably will not need the demo so I probably should go for the m296 for it´s price, then he called me about the cardioid, 4011a, that´s cheaper and used a lot in recording, and to suggest me the 2000 series, (around 1700 pair) that are having good comments.

All I have read about Gefell m296 and it´s 1uf nickel capsule puts me in that direction, even at lower price than the Dpas.

I should like to know your opinions, specially if you have worked with both.

Have consider Schoeps aswell, but I consider it more warm, maybe a bit less detail as the other two.
Preamp is a Millennia Hv-3c.

Thank you in advance.
Old 7th March 2017
  #2
Lives for gear
 
sdelsolray's Avatar
 

The bass response of the M296 is different than the bass response of the M295 in three ways. First, the response is flat for the M296 and there's an intentional gentle rolloff with the M295. Second, the M296 does not exhibit a proximity effect like the M295 does. Third, the M296 will capture more of the room than a M295 due to the different polar patterns. I suspect you already know these points.

I've owned pairs of each and records solo fingerstyle acoustic and classical guitar, which is close to your application. With identical mic placements, the differences are apparent. At optimal relative placements, the frequency capture differences diminish (e.g., a bit closer for the M295) and the room capture increases.

Some posts in older threads here comparing the M295, DPA 4006 and Schoeps CMC62 complaint that the M296 has a HF lift that is undesirable. That's not my experience at all. IMO, the small HF lift in the M296 is certainly present with closer mic placements and is quite smooth. For farther placements (which I suspect you would tend to use with recording highly dynamic Flamenco guitar), that small HF lift compensates for the higher loss of HF as the distance increases, resulting in a flat response at a certain distance.

Yes, Gefell lowered their prices, at least in the USA, a couple of years ago due to the dollar/euro exchange rate changes. DPA hasn't done so and Schoeps has only done so for certain capsules (e.g., MK41).

Good luck on your choice and use.
Old 7th March 2017
  #3
Lives for gear
 

I've used all of the mics you are looking at. The big question is what kind of recording space are you recording in. The 4000 series DPA will be the most detailed and for flamenco guitar, I'd go with the 4011. If you have a great room, go with the 4006 but that omni will pick up everything in the room. So you need great acoustics for the space if using the 4006.

The 2000 series DPA have more self-noise than the 4000. Depending on the quietness of the room and what you plan to do with the recording (mix), it may or may not matter. If the room is dead silent, then choosing the 4000 is more critical. If the room isn't dead silent or you'll be mixing with other instruments, the difference in self-noise between the 2000 and 4000 won't matter. Also, how close you are micing will matter; if you are doing close micing, the 2000 or 4000 won't matter much but distant micing I'd want the 4000.

The DPAs are more precise/detailed than the Gefells. The Gefells are more "tuned" for their tasks (which is why they have their frequency responses.) The "roll off" in the m295 is specifically there to get a "flat" response in close recording much like the high end lift/bump in the m296 is meant for far recording. Using them contrary to their purpose is defeating their design. On the other hand, the DPAs can be used anywhere and for the 4006 you can tailor the response for far/distant recording with an accessory. Just different philosophies. If using the m295 as spot mics in orchestral recordings, that roll off comes off as a "natural" response and is useful.
Old 7th March 2017
  #4
Gear Maniac
 

Thank you for your replies.

Yes, I already knew that m295 response is intentional.
I have a very good treated room, but the onmi/cardioid dilema has pros and cons each other not that easy to decide.
In one hand, cardioid allow you more easy setup, and omni allow more options about experiment with the natural reverb.
Last year Gefell sent me a pair of m296 demo units, one of them was not ok, so only worked with the pad on -10db, so had to increase the gain of the preamps.
On that time I haven´t had the Millennia yet, so maybe I didn´t experiment it fully performance.
The guy who sold me the Millennia told me that nickel capsules loose performance along the years, I never eared it, so I was some confusing, and I think if the demo units maybe don´t sound as good as a new ones? or maybe that occurs with a 50 years old mic (like the one he mentioned).

I could live with any, cardioid or onmi. When I tried the demos the distance of the guitar I used was no so high to get room problems, that´s because I didn´t have a preamp good enough, I mean, when recording farther, sound level is lower, so if the preamp is not good enough have a less natural sound.
The Millennia seems more precise, but I usually stay at around 60cm or so from the mics, maybe between 50-70. More than 70 I feel the sound too "thin", distant, less then 50cm too much low end.
On that distances (I maybe should change, o correct if you think are not properly), haven´t problems with the onmis regarding the room , and I don´t think should have too much problem of proximity effect on cardioid, maybe I´m wrong.


What confuses me, is that the Dpa is more detailed than Gefells? that includes the m295 and m296? I´m quite confused with this because every comment I have read about the m295 or the m296 , even reviews was that the nickel ultra thin capsule is the most "real" feeling of a mic have heard. Have read posts about a guy on tapersection that as anecdote recorded a friend, burned to cd, and when the guy listened to the cd at home the wife was thinking he was playing live downstairs.
The first who recommended me the m295 m296 was Fletcher, and also have read posts from RayBullard about selling his Schoeps to get more Gefells, he also had Dpa, and meny mentions about the ultra think capsule of this two mics from Gefell that "touched my heart" on many posts.
Unfortunately there are very low shootouts, and clips, so maybe I should need to get a demo for both.

I found the Hv-3C really warm, so I´m not afraid about the HF on the Gefell nor of the clinic sound of DPA, seems that the Millennia sounds warm even with a km184, so.. I´m looking for a detailed, realistic pair of mics. I suspect the differences may be really very small on that range.
I have an Usbpre2 from Sound Devices, that even don´t is as good as high preamps, sounds really really nice, I mean, consider as better mic, the one that will make less important the preamp used, does it make sense? of course is not the main worry but if one mic puts out more detail, more signal on any preamp makes it also more versatile.

I suspect that, maybe onmi and cardioids also perform different maybe?

The more I read I see it less clear, maybe the only way is to test both, I just suspect the differences may be minimal, or maybe I´m wrong again.

thank you for your help a lot.
Old 7th March 2017
  #5
I think the only solution for mics at this price/quality level is for you to find a way to test them for yourself. I so happen to be partial to the M295/296 for classical guitar work (and have done 1 flamenco session with the 295), and in particular love the quality of the high end. But I'd happily use a 4006 or a Schoeps. I can hear the differences between them, but am not confident that language would easily allow me to communicate their differences in any meaningful way (i.e. I'm not sure I'd argue that one mic is more "detailed" than the others, even as all 3 sound different in the high frequencies). It just comes down to aesthetic preferences, not relative quality.
Old 7th March 2017
  #6
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oudplayer View Post
I think the only solution for mics at this price/quality level is for you to find a way to test them for yourself. I so happen to be partial to the M295/296 for classical guitar work (and have done 1 flamenco session with the 295), and in particular love the quality of the high end. But I'd happily use a 4006 or a Schoeps. I can hear the differences between them, but am not confident that language would easily allow me to communicate their differences in any meaningful way (i.e. I'm not sure I'd argue that one mic is more "detailed" than the others, even as all 3 sound different in the high frequencies). It just comes down to aesthetic preferences, not relative quality.
That has really much sense, I think I finally will try them both Dpa and Gefell.

It´s a pity that there is not many info and no shootouts about this Gefells, Schoeps, Dpa, should be very useful.
Old 7th March 2017
  #7
Lives for gear
 

I would grab them and see. And don't forget to try multiple positions -- each mic will like a different placement; one of those things I hate about shootouts is clustering the mics together vs trying to find the best position for each mic (like you would do if you owned the microphone.)

And if you are not totally focused on SDC mics, I'd also throw in the Royer R121/R122 in your test. If anything, it'll give you something to think about even if you go with an SDC.
Old 7th March 2017
  #8
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pentagon View Post
I would grab them and see. And don't forget to try multiple positions -- each mic will like a different placement; one of those things I hate about shootouts is clustering the mics together vs trying to find the best position for each mic (like you would do if you owned the microphone.)

And if you are not totally focused on SDC mics, I'd also throw in the Royer R121/R122 in your test. If anything, it'll give you something to think about even if you go with an SDC.
Thank your for the suggestion.
I have a pair of 414 uls, don´t know how they compare with the Royer, compared with the m296 both sounded good, but the Gefells sounded better for this source.
Don´t know about the Royers.
Old 7th March 2017
  #9
Lives for gear
 

Royers are modern ribbon mics which is why they sound good on acoustic guitars (and quite frankly, violins.) And the figure 8 pattern gives enough "air" between the direct sound source and reverberant field. The R121 (if your Millennia has the high gain set up) or the R122 which is phantom powered and doesn't need the high gain is why I mentioned both. About the same price as the DPA/Gefells.

Completely different sound than LDCs like the 414. If you've never recorded yourself with a ribbon on acoustic guitar, it's worth trying at least once.
Old 8th March 2017
  #10
Gear Maniac
 

I have been listening to (no very good) samples on Thomann, and have realized, doesn´t matter if are Schoeps or Dpa, cardioid sounds more focused, more defined, maybe because of less reverb, but I´m guessing if my initial thinking about the m296 because of it´s more linear response may be wrong.
Last year I started a similar topic, a guy advised me that the m296 because of it´s size and head, it´s more directional on the high frequencies, and also y medium diaphragm (no LCD no SCD), so it could more easy to get a stereo image then with other onmis. So that may be an exception, seems it´s not total onmi.
So I´m tempted about the Dpa 4011 instead of the 4006,
but on the Gefell, doubt between the m295 and the m296.
I know that comparing the Dpa 4011 to the m296 should be compare apple to oranges, but may also be the m295.

Do you have preferences regarding cardioid/onmi? some guys say that something is lost with cardioids, others say it´s very hard to get a focused sound with onmis, the m296 with directional on the highs seems in between.
The m295 roll off, understand that is intentional, but that should mean I have to take care about proximity effect (maybe same as 4011).
I´m quite confused.
Old 8th March 2017
  #11
Lives for gear
 

With all cardioids you have to take care of "proximity" effect but on flamenco guitar that isn't much of an issue. Proximity effect isn't a bad thing; it's just another tool to use.

I don't know what the weird advice you got on the m296. It is a small diaphragm. It isn't a "medium" diaphragm. You can look at polar patterns for directionality; Gefell and DPA both publish them. There are other polar pattern mics that exist (wide cardioid, for instance) that are made by Schoeps and DPA and Sennheiser/Neumann, etc. that give the 1/2 way between cardioid and omni.

For multi-miking guitar, I prefer to do 3-1 A/B (three times the distance between mics than the sound source, one on body, one on neck) cardioid pair if I need an intimate feel. If I'm doing classical, NOS arrangement with cardioids on a stereo bar out in front of the player (height and angling also make a difference!) with possibly a single omni placed far distant (blended to taste to get the early reflections of the room (low-end) and also some reverb field.) That takes 3 mics. I have used ORTF on cardioids but that creates a really wide stereo image; only good when I want to track someone else in the same 3-d space later and overdub. For single-mic'ing, I like the ribbon R122V since the front part of the figure-8 lobe gives great directionality and the rear lobe gets the room. And ribbons have a different pickup on transients which is very pleasing on certain styles of playing.

But 90% of the time it is 3-1 or single R122V. You need a great room to do NOS/ORTF. 3-1 and the single ribbon are the most life-like from a player's perspective (though not the audience's perspective.) It's the one that players listen and think "yeah, that's exactly how it sounded to me." And they're also easier to mix with other instruments/music later.

And if you are doing spaced A/B omni setup for stereo, I would only do it in a large room due to the coverage area and phase relationships/timing relationships between the two mics and the sound source (and the reflections off the side walls/back wall/ceiling.) I wouldn't do it in a space under 6m x 6m. Really only for concert halls/venues/churches/outdoors/etc. In a small room, I'd use a single omni.
Old 8th March 2017
  #12
Gear Maniac
 

Thank you for all that info,
Didn´t understand some points.

First of all, I should like to keep things simple, a pair of mics for stereo track it´s enough. I want to get good quality but not the perfect setup multi micking.

I din´t understand when you referred to multi miking, you refer to a 2 o 3 mics? or did you refer to 3 mics included the onmi?

The R122V seems quite expensive, the 8 figure did you mean mono recording, one mic?

I have a Jecklin disk I built myself when I tried the m296 last year, that cleaned a lot the stereo image since each mic only gets on side of the reflections.

There a lot of things I have to try with those positions 3.1. Just now I have the line audio cm3, that´s wide cardioid, and I still use the Jecklin disk for it, even it may be not needed, I just thought that separating the sides it helps even on the wide cardioid.

Regarding the player perspective, I´m not sure if the player enjoys the sound of the guitar as the listener. I like the listener image.
I suspect that there are things I´m passing over. I tried one time A B separately and didn´t like it, sounded couldn´t get a uniform sound, something was missing. If separate the mics 30 cm or 40, that should mean 10cm from the instrument on 3.1 right? if 40 13cm, I don´t see mics capture the whole instrument and seems too near the guitar, so seems will capture a lot from the neck and the body on the other side but nor uniform between.
Maybe I´m lossing something but if the objective of 3.1 is to avoid cancelations, I think it should even be more useful a Jecklin even with cardioids, I think can play with angles and distance freedom without worry about phases. I poin the center of the Jecklin to the guitar hole aprox, and point the mics with the neck and the body, just move the angle if gets closer or farther the mics.

More o less, that´s the way I feel I get easily a image of the guitar, each mic captures each side both share the guitar hole aprox.

With this setup I don´t feel have to worry about the room, didn´t feel that with the m296 and now with the cm3 wide cardioid, so I still doubt between onmi and cardioid. Maybe I´ll have to try both to find out myself.
The 4011 and m295 cardioids, or 4006 m296 onmis.
Many cds were recorded with the 4011 so I´m tempted for it, maybe a workhorse compared with the other three.
I was inclined for the m296 because of its linear response no proximity effect, and the ultrathin capsule, but now I´m in doubt so maybe the best is try both and decide.
Old 8th March 2017
  #13
Lives for gear
 

You need to get away from the Jecklin disk. I don't think you understand the point of it. That separation is great for binaural recording (and if you only monitor on headphones it will seem natural) but it is not the appropriate thing in most cases for single instrument recording for playback on speakers.
If you have a pair of 414, start by experimenting there. I think the principles of recording have escaped you and once you understand the techniques and pickup patterns you'll really understand the difference between these high-end SDC mics vs the difference in recording technique. Use your ears practicing well-studied techniques: NOS, ORTF, XY, properly spaced AB pair. Follow the spacings exactly (get a ruler out and measure angles) before you start modifying. You'll learn what you like. The 414 is useful because it is multi-pattern so you can do almost all the techniques. Then you can start worrying about the actual mic and its style of pickup. You might need a friend on guitar so you can play the part of only the recording engineer until you get a feel for this (it's hard to modify the mics to where it's best while also trying to be the player)

If you don't have it, you really should get the Handbook of Recording Engineering and start working through the stuff presented in it.
https://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Reco.../dp/0387284702
It'll explain and answer most of your basic questions on microphones and technique. You can also use DPA's Microphone University site (wander the site) to get more understanding:
Microphone Spacing and Angling
And also take advantage of Schoeps Microphone Showroom where you can listen to what different polar patterns and distances will do for a recording
Schoeps Microphone Showroom

Online discussion can only go so far and I think an education on recording will give you more info to guide your decisions than the advice you've been receiving on forums. And if you are working through this, stay off of headphones unless absolutely necessary (for instance, when recording) -- stereo image on headphones vs properly set up speakers is completely different.
Old 8th March 2017
  #14
Gear Maniac
 

I usually don´t take much attention to specs, but have realized that:

Sensitivity:

- Dpa 4011 10mv/Pa
- Gefell m296 15mv/Pa

and Dpa 4006 40mv/Pa ?

That means for times more voltage for same sound, and that should mean, if I´m correct that should be less affected buy the preamp quality used?

I have a small Usbpre2, that even don´t sound like the Millennia it sounds really very good for portable unit, and can run standlone usb powered, simply record with a M-audio Microtrack that has spdif, or a small laptop.
I have a Great River Mp-2NV, an Apollo Duo and DAv and Amek 9098 clones, and this little unit sounds really high quality, just a bit below in detail some times.

So I guessed, if these specs about sensitivity, just depends on the mic internal preamp, or the capsule, in short, if this mic (the 4006) takes out 4 more times voltage than the others will be less affected and perform better on any preamp.., I´m wright? maybe that´s why the extra cost compared to the 4011?
does it refer to the lot of detail you told before or I´m just speculating?

Thank you in advance.
Old 8th March 2017
  #15
Lives for gear
 

No. You are not right. Quality of mic pre is not reflected in sensitivity of microphone. There is no correlation. Or cost correlation.

And yes, Sound Devices do make a good, clean mic pre. They are used often in places where dependability (location recording) is key and you don't have time to pay attention to it.
Old 8th March 2017
  #16
Gear Maniac
 

Ok, no cost correlation on cost,

Relation of the preamp correlation, I don´t know if I explained it ok.

As example, lets say that I put a near line-level signal on the Usbpre2 mic inputs, and the gain level to minimum, thats and extreme example I know, but the higher signal makes that the preamp don´t need to be so detailed..., as another more real example,
I play my guitar at 50cm from mics, the Usbpre2 gets enough detail, less gain, now I place farther the mics, 1m, gain of the uspbre2 up, it starts to sound less good, if make same thing with the Millennia Hv-3c, this one still has detail even I put lower signal on his inputs.
As hot as I put a preamp, lets say, a U87, the less precise preamp is more affected to get that detail, or is just that those 40mv versus 10mv are irrelevant?

You said, Quality of mic pre is not reflected in sensitivity of microphone, I wanted to say the opposite,
if more sensitivity on a good mic, reflects on a preamp (in the sense that require not been sooo good since have to amplfy less the signal), since it gets hotter signal and has to amplify it less. don´t have sense?
Old 8th March 2017
  #17
Lives for gear
 

You've made an assumption on mic pre gain of less gain means better sound; this isn't true.
Best operating gain staging is not fixed for everything; equipment design makes these things variable.

A dynamic mic doesn't need a mic pre at all...
Old 8th March 2017
  #18
Gear Maniac
 

I have done a test today, have a U87ai and recorded two mono files at same position as the cm3.
Used, Apollo UAd preamps, Great River Mp-2NV and the Usbpre2 (the Millennia is going to repair now).

I did this because I always felt that every mic on guitar included the m296 didn´t sound full on the River, while the U87 on vocal sound really nice, full, warm.

The result is that, on Apollo both mics sounded quite neutral, different but not so much, may the Apollo preamp was the knock bottle.

The U87 remained his own sound and definicion, on Great River, bigger sounding, and on the SD usbpre2 warmer, but not nigh day change, a normal coloration of the preamp.

The cm3 instead changed a lot, on Apollo sounded ok, on Great River thin ,low detail and hard, and on Usbpre2 sounded too rounded low definition.

Well, in paper sensitivity doesn´t matter, but I have read may matter on low-entry preamp.
cm3 as only 6mv/pa while the U87 has 28mv/Pa, I there was important difference on the gain used on the preamps to get same output, so Im thinking a hotter mic stands their own sound little easier along different preamps, even it gets colored, while a low output mic gets more affected about the preamp.

It could be other factors, like frequency response, but the three preamps are totally different, and with the cm3 seems to increase the "color" of the preamp.

I realized that the U87 sounded really good, quite better than the cm3, so I guess how should it compare with a Dpa 4011?

For the money I could get an extra U87 used, but have never heard about this stereo setup, maybe multi-micking with one U87 and two more farther.

Opinions?

Thank you in advance.
Old 14th March 2017
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Omicron_9's Avatar
 

Greetings.

Have used the Gefell M-29x for years. Have never heard anything that brings their level of detail, and that includes DPA. Fantastic reach and detail; you can practically hear thoughts with those.

Regards,
-0.9
Old 14th March 2017
  #20
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omicron_9 View Post
Greetings.

Have used the Gefell M-29x for years. Have never heard anything that brings their level of detail, and that includes DPA. Fantastic reach and detail; you can practically hear thoughts with those.

Regards,
-0.9
I´ll will have try both, Dpa and Gefell (demo) soon.
Gefell sent me m296 will arrive this week.

Nice to read that, do you have any preference regarding the 295 versus 296?
Thank your for the feedback.
Old 14th March 2017
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Adebar's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagoausente View Post
That has really much sense, I think I finally will try them both Dpa and Gefell.

It´s a pity that there is not many info and no shootouts about this Gefells, Schoeps, Dpa, should be very useful.
I think there are shootouts with Gefells, DPA, Schoeps and other omnis.
From Gefell also the MK221 capsule would interesting in this field.
Old 14th March 2017
  #22
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lagoausente View Post
...do you have any preference regarding the 295 versus 296?
One is cardioid and the other is omni, so you would choose the polar-pattern that you want/need.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Adebar View Post
From Gefell also the MK221 capsule would interesting in this field.
Thsi is my favourite omni.
Old 14th March 2017
  #23
Gear Maniac
 

I know the m295 is cardioid, and the m296 y omni, just asked because I think they both are special.
M295 has a a roll off frequency response to compensate the proximity effect, and the m296 seems to be quite directional in the high frequencies, just that.

Regarding shootout, have found only one male vocal with Gefell m296 and Schoeps, and other with dpa 4060 m296, but the dpa 4060 is quite different from the 4006 and was distant recording of orquesta if I remember ok.

Thank you for your posts.
Old 14th March 2017
  #24
Lives for gear
 

If I recall correctly the M296 is also available with a flat response without the slight HF bump.
Old 15th March 2017
  #25
Lives for gear
 

You should consider the Josephson C617
(with MG MK221 capsule). very sensitive:
66mv/Pa, very clean, terrific transient
response, in my experience sounds like
being there.
Old 15th March 2017
  #26
Lives for gear
 
sdelsolray's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sd270 View Post
If I recall correctly the M296 is also available with a flat response without the slight HF bump.
IIRC, that is the M296s, which is no longer a normal production model. Dunno if it can be special ordered.
Old 15th March 2017
  #27
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Folkie View Post
You should consider the Josephson C617
(with MG MK221 capsule). very sensitive:
66mv/Pa, very clean, terrific transient
response, in my experience sounds like
being there.
That seems interesting, but I´m in Europe, and Josephson in USA. Oficial Retailers price here are 2437 euro one unit, and 138 euro only the C617 boddy.

A pair of m296 from official retailer here in Spain was about 2500 for the pair of mics, so it´s double price, I guess because Gefell is in Germany and there a no import taxes and so all.
I suppose Gefell may will not sell that Josephson combo.

I bought a Sytek on reverb.com and its held from 28 february,so I don´t want to import anything else myself anymore, just buy from a retailer here, but prices of that combo seems double price a m296, so really doubt the difference worth so much price difference?

Thank you for your suggestions.., have head very good reviews from that combo.
Thank you.
Old 15th March 2017
  #28
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lagoausente View Post
That seems interesting, but I´m in Europe, and Josephson in USA. Oficial Retailers price here are 2437 euro one unit, and 138 euro only the C617 boddy.

A pair of m296 from official retailer here in Spain was about 2500 for the pair of mics, so it´s double price, I guess because Gefell is in Germany and there a no import taxes and so all.
I suppose Gefell may will not sell that Josephson combo.

I bought a Sytek on reverb.com and its held from 28 february,so I don´t want to import anything else myself anymore, just buy from a retailer here, but prices of that combo seems double price a m296, so really doubt the difference worth so much price difference?

Thank you for your suggestions.., have head very good reviews from that combo.
Thank you.
In Europe you can get the Gefell version:
M221. Almost as good? as the Josephson with same capsule.
Old 15th March 2017
  #29
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Folkie View Post
In Europe you can get the Gefell version:
M221. Almost as good? as the Josephson with same capsule.
Sorry for my English but I´m not sure if did understand what to mean.

You mean get the M221 complete mic from Gefell?

Nobody have suggested it over the m296, what should be the differences? advantages from the m296?

Thank you a lot.
Old 15th March 2017
  #30
Lives for gear
 

The Gefell M221 is the proper competitor to the DPA 4006TL. Including their response and accessories (passive equalisation abilities)
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump