The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
DPA 4006 For Solo Piano
Old 24th October 2018
  #31
Lives for gear
 
Don S's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
Thanks Don ! It seems to go plenty tall enough, but I seem to recall complaints that the telescoping lock collars become loose over time, and that the stand (though lightweight) dents easily...and is generally not as good as its predecessor the S15, in terms of ruggedness and reliability ? Also, it's not available in black....
You're welcome! I did own it for a couple months and sold it favoring the quality of Bogen. The twist connectors are not friendly to work with, and to my knowledge is only available in silver, not black.
Old 24th October 2018
  #32
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don S View Post
You're welcome! I did own it for a couple months and sold it favoring the quality of Bogen. The twist connectors are not friendly to work with, and to my knowledge is only available in silver, not black.
Yes I'm not a fan of twist collar locks on telescoping poles or stands...much prefer thumb push-down cam locks, if they're not overly bulky and if they 'bite' well.

Last edited by studer58; 24th October 2018 at 09:09 AM..
Old 24th October 2018
  #33
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
Though I am looking forward to trying the new Gefell M102 (1" capsule) when they come out.
Can you tell us more about these?
Do they use the same capsule as the M296?

Thanks
Old 24th October 2018
  #34
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by bremusound View Post
Can you tell us more about these?
Do they use the same capsule as the M296?

Thanks
What about the 300 series...they could be contenders also ?

Microtech Gefell M320 |

Hey...now here's a familiar face...you floored the interviewer with that 'optical phantom' information, John
His recovery question immediately after was very banal and automatic sounding....
YouTube
Old 24th October 2018
  #35
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
Though I am looking forward to trying the new Gefell M102 (1" capsule) when they come out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bremusound View Post
Can you tell us more about these?
Do they use the same capsule as the M296?
The new M 102 uses the MK102 measurement capsule - spec sheet HERE and the body of the M 221 omni microphone.

The only difference is that the capsule will have a dark bronze finish (like the MK221 used on the M 221).

That mic. has a polarising voltage of 200V - upped from the 48V phantom supply by a DC/DC converter.

I'm not sure if the capsule is the same as the M296, though the plots do look similar, but not identical. Even if it is the same, the polarisation voltage may be different as the 221body supplies 200V to the capsule.

A German university were experimenting with 3D recording and came up with a mic. array that uses 4 x M 221 microphones above 5 x M 102 microphones in an array that Gefell showed at IBC in Amsterdam and at the Neumann 90th anniversary celebrations in Hof last month (Neumann's original 1928 company own Microtech Gefell, it is Neumann's later 1946 company that is owned by Sennheiser - full history here). They tried the measurement capsules first, but when Gefell realised that the 1" capsule was really also an excellent recording mic., they decided to release it as a recording mic., as well on a body that is powered by Phantom power, rather than the measurement body.

This was shown at the 90th celebrations, which is why I am talking about it. They are still writing the data sheet (which will be here as soon as it's available) and they will be reviewed as soon as they can get a pair over for Sound On Sound to review.

I hope this helps.
Old 24th October 2018
  #36
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
What about the 300 series...they could be contenders also ?

Microtech Gefell M320 |
That link is to the SOS review of the M 320 which is locked for non subscribers - the unlocked PDF of the review is HERE and the spec sheet is here.

There is an error in the review - in that the M320 does *not* actually have a ceramic capsule like the M 300 and M 310 do.
Old 24th October 2018
  #37
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
That link is to the SOS review of the M 320 which is locked for non subscribers - the unlocked PDF of the review is HERE and the spec sheet is here.

There is an error in the review - in that the M320 does *not* actually have a ceramic capsule like the M 300 and M 310 do.
Interesting principle, the high-intensity LED and associated photocell...my main worry would be if they (either component) underwent any deterioration over time...as light emitting devices in the domestic setting are inclined to do !

For example, if there was a decline in the output of either the emitter or collector in the longer term, what would be the result of that ? How would one suspect... or know.... it was happening ? Being a guinea pig for a new operating principle is a little unsettling...at least for me.

If not ceramic, what is the new capsule skinned with ?
Old 24th October 2018
  #38
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
Interesting principle, the high-intensity LED and associated photocell...my main worry would be if they (either component) underwent any deterioration over time...as light emitting devices in the domestic setting are inclined to do !

For example, if there was a decline in the output of either the emitter or collector in the longer term, what would be the result of that ? How would one suspect... or know.... it was happening ? Being a guinea pig for a new operating principle is a little unsettling...at least for me.

If not ceramic, what is the new capsule skinned with ?
The optical principle is not a new operating principle now - Gefell have been making the M300, M310 and M900 for many years and the technique is proven and reliable.

The omni capsule is a standard design - the ceramic capsule was designed as a directional capsule and they used a more standard design for the omni, which is a sealed design, rather than a press-gradient.
Old 24th October 2018
  #39
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
I have plenty of experience with KM183's as a main suspended pair over a stage with a Steinway D. I'll post some samples...due to the nature of the suspension's location, the mics are generally always working in the diffuse field. The HF lift isn't bothersome, though others may feel differently ?
2 samples for you: same stage, same piano, same overhead suspension with mics at identical heights and spacing, different concerts. Only KM183 overhead pair used, no additional spot mics, no additional reverb, no compression
Ist sample (below)... piano only
2nd sample (next posting)...piano and oboe
Attached Files
Old 24th October 2018
  #40
Lives for gear
2nd sample...piano and oboe: recording conditions as above
Attached Files

Bel Canto transcription segment.mp3 (11.06 MB, 1666 views)

Old 24th October 2018
  #41
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
2nd sample...piano and oboe: recording conditions as above
Thank you indeed for both samples. May I ask, approximately how far was the suspended KM 183 pair from the piano (assuming to edge of curve) and how far, in the second, from the oboist? In terms of frequency response, what I'm hearing suggests that the hf lift baked in to the 183s is compensating nicely for the hf roll-off inherent in their being that distance away, hence my interest in the distance.
Old 24th October 2018
  #42
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Pk View Post
Thank you indeed for both samples. May I ask, approximately how far was the suspended KM 183 pair from the piano (assuming to edge of curve) and how far, in the second, from the oboist? In terms of frequency response, what I'm hearing suggests that the hf baked in to the 183s is compensating nicely for the hf roll-off inherent in their being that distance away, hence my interest in the distance.
12 foot high above stage and the piano is about 9 foot back from stage front... my trigonometry is not saving me here, but I'd guess the mic pair is about 16 foot from the piano curve...so both higher and further away than you would sensibly place an AB omni pair, if you were using a stand.... I can't swear that the piano was in the same place exactly for both concerts (you can hear it sounding a little closer and moved slightly to the left in the oboe sample)

In fact, you'd either wheel the piano in closer to the front of stage, or use a pair of closer spots in conjunction with the overheads, and leave the piano where it is. You can hear the hall ambience just starting to predominate...on both solo piano and oboe/piano combo. However, it's a lovely hall acoustic...so we can be forgiving

If you brought the OH's in closer, I doubt they would sound brighter...and if they did, you could either tilt the mics upward to be more off-axis (and thus duller).... or roll off treble in the recording afterwards. For illustrative purposes (ie how the mics hold up when located "in the aqueous zone" ) I think it serves the purpose very well !

Check the PDF review of the Gefell 320 that John Willett has linked a few posts above here...they seem to constantly cross-reference that mic against the KM183 in the review, making frequent mention of the HF rise/bump in both mics, and what it means in practice.

Last edited by studer58; 25th October 2018 at 08:51 AM..
Old 24th October 2018
  #43
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
I hope this helps.
Thanks a lot. Great information!
Old 24th October 2018
  #44
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
12 foot high above stage and the piano is about 9 foot back from stage front... my trigonometry is not saving me here, but I'd guess the mic pair is about 16 foot from the piano curve...so both higher and further away than you would sensibly place an AB omni pair, if you were using a stand....

In fact, you'd either wheel the piano in closer to the front of stage, or use a pair of closer spots in conjunction with the overheads, and leave the piano where it is. You can hear the hall ambience just starting to predominate...on both solo piano and oboe/piano combo. However, it's a lovely hall acoustic...so we can be forgiving

If you brought the OH's in closer, I doubt they would sound brighter...and if they did, you could either tilt the mics upward to be more off-axis (and thus duller).... or roll off treble in the recording afterwards. For illustrative purposes (ie how the mics hold up when located "in the aqueous zone" ) I think it serves the purpose very well !

Check the PDF review of the Gefell 320 that John Willett has linked a few posts above here...they seem to constantly cross-reference that mic against the KM183 in the review, making frequent mention of the HF rise/bump in both mics, and what it means in practice.
Thank you for this; also to Mr Willett for posting a pdf of the Sound on Sound review. I'm sorry to be the curmudgeon but am I alone in finding Hugh Robjohn's SoS reviews to have an add-water-and-mix quality that carefully avoids getting within a mile radius of any useful insight into a microphone intended for the (semi-) neutral recording of acoustic instruments? Every time a MG mic is reviewed, there is apparently a need to repeat the same dropdown about the history of MG (though perhaps that's the editor's decision). Much more importantly, I could write a Hugh Robjohns review of a new mic based upon the stated specs for the mic and get 90% of it spot on. Crucially for the intended readership of his review for the new MG omni: *why* would/should an engineer be interested in buying this mic as opposed to the standard competing mics with hf lift in the 'affordable' category.

Hugh Robjohns writes:

"When used as an accent or spot mic, pointing at and close to a source, the M320’s diffuse-field equalisation inevitably imparts a bright and hyper-detailed character, as would be expected. However, it’s not quite as pronounced an effect as that of the Neumann KM183. Of course, this added detail and brightness is often useful in providing extra definition and focus within a mix, but if it becomes distracting the rising response can be tamed simply by pointing the mic skywards, so that the direct sound arrives at 90 degrees to the capsule instead of directly on-axis — a trick that works with all diffuse-field omnis."


So the hf lift baked in to the new M320 - this being +5dB at 8kHz - renders an effect in the properties of the sound that is...exactly what one would expect from a mic that has a peak of +5dB lift at 8kHz. And, furthermore, this is less than the effect that...you would expect from a mic (183) that has a higher hf lift of maximum +8dB at 10kHz...


The going gets tough when any reviewer has to turn from the objective to a subjective but, in terms of the end product deriving from the use of such mics as the M320 and KM 183 (i.e. classical CDs), reviewers do have to grapple with the hairy necessity of providing subjective judgements. If, say, a critic in Gramophone says that Horowitz's 1948 Liszt Sonata has greater voltage, sweep and emotional impact than Hamelin's Hyperion recording, whilst the latter has more structural coherence, I can at least use this comparative opinion as a guide to what might be the relative strengths and weaknesses of each recording, whether or not I happen to agree with the opinion.


Perhaps SoS takes the view that anyone buying a relatively high-end (neutral) mic will audition all the contenders and come to their own view. That's the ideal, but not everybody has the access to high quality instrumental set-ups, acoustics and the mics themselves (concurrently!) to do so. If they do, they don't need to buy SoS...


This is where a SoS review could provide useful insight. Is there a policy on the part of SoS of avoiding the 'subjective' outside the wantonly subjective arena of mics designed for duty in music where mics and amplification are a fundamental part of the process, referring to mics with a designed-in 'character' - LDC vocal mics etc (such that it's open season on subjective opinions)?
Old 25th October 2018
  #45
Lives for gear
Yes I get the feeling that, unfortunately, Mr Robjohns' reviews are getting increasingly superficial and less informative as time advances. He briefly mentions that he used them in 2 or 3 field settings, with no elaboration on their performance there.

I get the impression that he simply felt they did nothing wrong, that they're substantially similar to the KM183....then padded out the remainder of the piece with historical company info and physical description straight off the product description sheet. The review seemed as much an endorsement of the KM183 as of the MG320....such that by the end I was little wiser about the character of the mic than at the beginning.

Like yourself, I wished for much more incisive comparative analysis than we were given, considering the reviewer's years of recording and writing for SOS. For myself, the 'absence of complaint' about about a product is not equivalence with endorsement...and product description plus potted history simply = padding, not insightful review.
Old 25th October 2018
  #46
Comparing any mic to a KM183?

Low bar

D.
Old 25th October 2018
  #47
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tourtelot View Post
Comparing any mic to a KM183?
I had a KM 183 pair on loan for a few days and compared it with Schoeps MK 21 on piano at home.
Attached Files

Schoeps CMC6-MK21 - 16October2013.mp3 (8.51 MB, 1552 views)

Neumann KM 183 23October2013.mp3 (8.24 MB, 1523 views)

Old 26th October 2018
  #48
Lives for gear
 
jimjazzdad's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Pk View Post
...I'm sorry to be the curmudgeon but am I alone in finding Hugh Robjohn's SoS reviews to have an add-water-and-mix quality that carefully avoids getting within a mile radius of any useful insight into a microphone intended for the (semi-) neutral recording of acoustic instruments? Every time a MG mic is reviewed, there is apparently a need to repeat the same dropdown about the history of MG (though perhaps that's the editor's decision). Much more importantly, I could write a Hugh Robjohns review of a new mic based upon the stated specs for the mic and get 90% of it spot on...

The going gets tough when any reviewer has to turn from the objective to a subjective but, in terms of the end product deriving from the use of such mics as the M320 and KM 183 (i.e. classical CDs), reviewers do have to grapple with the hairy necessity of providing subjective judgements. If, say, a critic in Gramophone says that Horowitz's 1948 Liszt Sonata has greater voltage, sweep and emotional impact than Hamelin's Hyperion recording, whilst the latter has more structural coherence, I can at least use this comparative opinion as a guide to what might be the relative strengths and weaknesses of each recording, whether or not I happen to agree with the opinion.

Perhaps SoS takes the view that anyone buying a relatively high-end (neutral) mic will audition all the contenders and come to their own view. That's the ideal, but not everybody has the access to high quality instrumental set-ups, acoustics and the mics themselves (concurrently!) to do so. If they do, they don't need to buy SoS...This is where a SoS review could provide useful insight. Is there a policy on the part of SoS of avoiding the 'subjective' outside the wantonly subjective arena of mics designed for duty in music where mics and amplification are a fundamental part of the process, referring to mics with a designed-in 'character' - LDC vocal mics etc (such that it's open season on subjective opinions)?
Well, that was quite a screed! SoundOnSound is certainly not the only publication that puts the objective over the subjective in its reviews. When you consider that a very significant amount of its revenue stream comes from advertising by the very manufacturers of the equipment under review, this is hardly surprising. I tend to browse SOS more like a catalogue, to discover what's out there and what's new. I almost never read subjective reviews by themselves, but rather attempt to synthesize the opinions of multiple users, like the denizens of GS. I always find subjective reviews, such as one finds in Consumer Reports, trite and coming from a different set of priorities than mine. You seem to have a bone to pick with Hugh Robjohns. I am certain he doesn't need me as his apologist, but I have always found him to be technically savvy, helpful, and courteous in his on-line persona (I don't know him personally). If you really want his subjective opinions, I suggest you head on over to one of the appropriate SOS forums, where you can ask away; I think you will find in that setting he is quite generous with his opinion. Well, now I've had my own screed...
Old 26th October 2018
  #49
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimjazzdad View Post
Hugh Robjohns. I am certain he doesn't need me as his apologist, but I have always found him to be technically savvy, helpful, and courteous in his on-line persona (I don't know him personally). If you really want his subjective opinions, I suggest you head on over to one of the appropriate SOS forums, where you can ask away; I think you will find in that setting he is quite generous with his opinion. Well, now I've had my own screed...
I *do* know him personally.

He was BBC trained and, yes, is technically very savvy.

He really *does* "know his stuff" and is very fair and honest in his reviews.

He is one of the very few reviewers I really trust.
Old 27th October 2018
  #50
Lives for gear
I've been reading and enjoying SOS since the 90's and always felt that Hugh knew his stuff, because he practised location recording....and these experiences informed his "how to" guides on specific topics, such as how to record a choir, a piano etc.

So his reviews of mics and other hardware had high credibility for me...because I knew they were filtered through that solid field experience background. My criticism was mainly levelled at that recent Gefell review, and heaven knows everyone's allowed a few lapses and ordinary moments in an otherwise vaunted career history ! I'll also echo Jim's praise of Hugh's thoughtful and attentive contribution to the forums at SOS, I've appreciated his guidance on several occasions
Old 27th October 2018
  #51
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
I've been reading and enjoying SOS since the 90's and always felt that Hugh knew his stuff, because he practised location recording....and these experiences informed his "how to" guides on specific topics, such as how to record a choir, a piano etc.

So his reviews of mics and other hardware had high credibility for me...because I knew they were filtered through that solid field experience background. My criticism was mainly levelled at that recent Gefell review, and heaven knows everyone's allowed a few lapses and ordinary moments in an otherwise vaunted career history ! I'll also echo Jim's praise of Hugh's thoughtful and attentive contribution to the forums at SOS, I've appreciated his guidance on several occasions
The review was a fair one IMHO, the only problem was that SOS did not give Hugh all the information he needed and he assumed they had a ceramic capsule and that there were not a matched pair (they *were* a matched pair).
Old 27th October 2018
  #52
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
The review was a fair one IMHO, the only problem was that SOS did not give Hugh all the information he needed and he assumed they had a ceramic capsule and that there were not a matched pair (they *were* a matched pair).
I've now read through some of Hugh Robjohn's responses to queries at the SoS forums and his previous reviews. I'm only happy to join your praise for his expertise and good nature in being willing to help readers with questions. It's reassuring that SoS have as their technical editor someone of Mr Robjohn's technical nous and experience in recording acoustic and classical music. Evidently from what you've written here, SoS rather let him down on this occasion by not furnishing him with all the relevant details, which probably explains why he was reluctant to put forward relative judgements - referring to views that are ultimately subjective but from which one can glean worthwhile insights - versus the other main contenders (amongst affordable flat omnis with hf lift for diffuse field placement).
Old 27th October 2018
  #53
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Pk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
The review was a fair one IMHO, the only problem was that SOS did not give Hugh all the information he needed and he assumed they had a ceramic capsule and that there were not a matched pair (they *were* a matched pair).
I've now read through some of Hugh Robjohn's responses to queries at the SoS forums and his previous reviews. I'm only happy to join your praise for his expertise and good nature in being willing to help readers with questions. It's reassuring that SoS have as their technical editor someone of Mr Robjohn's technical nous and experience in recording acoustic and classical music. Evidently from what you've written here, SoS rather let him down on this occasion by not furnishing him with all the relevant details, which probably explains why he was reluctant to put forward relative judgements - referring to views that are ultimately subjective but from which one can glean worthwhile insights - versus the other main contenders (amongst affordable flat omnis with hf lift for diffuse field placement).
A reviewer has to be very careful with subjectivity as what one person finds desirable, others may find disagreeable.

EG: some people love transformers in a mic. for the "colour" they give, while other people hate them for the distortions they have.

In the M320 review, Hugh did give the essentials and did say what they sound like in use:- "Its tonality is intentionally neutral and accurate with a very smooth and extended bass response, combined with a smooth and quiet noise floor.".

This is exactly what people need to know.
Old 27th October 2018
  #54
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
A reviewer has to be very careful with subjectivity as what one person finds desirable, others may find disagreeable.

EG: some people love transformers in a mic. for the "colour" they give, while other people hate them for the distortions they have.

In the M320 review, Hugh did give the essentials and did say what they sound like in use:- "Its tonality is intentionally neutral and accurate with a very smooth and extended bass response, combined with a smooth and quiet noise floor.".

This is exactly what people need to know.
I'm afraid I have to disagree... What I believe people need to know is not what they can safely infer from the published stats for a given microphone but how - if at all - that mic's performance diverges in use from what would be expected from those stats and how it compares in the most relevant areas to competing models. I'd reiterate that critics in other areas do not shy away from this *hardest* part of professional reviewing and it's a large element of why people pay to read the judgement of a professional critic who has observed 'due process' in reviewing a mic (testing it on its own and versus at least a few of the competition in side-by-side comparisons). One can read user opinions on a given mic on the web; some will be expert, some will be scattergun. One can read the specs for a mic on the web and elsewhere. The role of the professional critic is surely to bring together technical expertise, experience, the opportunity to observe due process in the testing of a mic, and a feeling for what will be the kind of judgements that will be useful to the readership for a given mic under review. Purely as an invented illustration (I have no experience with the new MG, of course), a judgement such as 'a side by side comparison of the new MG with the KM 183 revealed the Gefell to produce a violin sound of even greater transparency, while the Neuman provided more warmth in the violin's first two octaves' would be useful - it would begin to give a sense of why one might use one instead of the other. Of course, such an opinion should derive from careful listening in a controlled environment (part of 'due process') - it should not be akin to an opinion spouted over a beer after five minutes with a new mic. But this is surely the reason for professional critics to exist: one can agree or disagree with their judgement but, if they have the requisite experience and technical understanding and have followed due process, their judgements can 'add value' in a way that is unlikely to be available from any other source.
Old 26th January 2019
  #55
Gear Maniac
The M102 datasheet (in German) is now online:

https://www.microtechgefell.de/datei...-102_8r45r.pdf

No surprises. A MV225 body with a MK102 capsule and an adapter.
These will sound great. I have some of the old RFT MK102 (and MK221) capsules and use them with Resolabs modded MV102. Highly recommended.


Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
The new M 102 uses the MK102 measurement capsule - spec sheet HERE and the body of the M 221 omni microphone.

The only difference is that the capsule will have a dark bronze finish (like the MK221 used on the M 221).

That mic. has a polarising voltage of 200V - upped from the 48V phantom supply by a DC/DC converter.

I'm not sure if the capsule is the same as the M296, though the plots do look similar, but not identical. Even if it is the same, the polarisation voltage may be different as the 221body supplies 200V to the capsule.

A German university were experimenting with 3D recording and came up with a mic. array that uses 4 x M 221 microphones above 5 x M 102 microphones in an array that Gefell showed at IBC in Amsterdam and at the Neumann 90th anniversary celebrations in Hof last month (Neumann's original 1928 company own Microtech Gefell, it is Neumann's later 1946 company that is owned by Sennheiser - full history here). They tried the measurement capsules first, but when Gefell realised that the 1" capsule was really also an excellent recording mic., they decided to release it as a recording mic., as well on a body that is powered by Phantom power, rather than the measurement body.

This was shown at the 90th celebrations, which is why I am talking about it. They are still writing the data sheet (which will be here as soon as it's available) and they will be reviewed as soon as they can get a pair over for Sound On Sound to review.

I hope this helps.
Old 26th January 2019
  #56
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by bremusound View Post
The M102 datasheet (in German) is now online:

https://www.microtechgefell.de/datei...-102_8r45r.pdf

No surprises. A MV225 body with a MK102 capsule and an adapter.
These will sound great. I have some of the old RFT MK102 (and MK221) capsules and use them with Resolabs modded MV102. Highly recommended.
Information in English is also on-line now, including the English data sheet.

The web page is HERE and includes quite a few pictures.

The English data sheet is HERE and gives a bit more more information than the original German version.

Gefell may change the German version of the data sheet now, as they describe the M 102 as a "small diaphragm condenser" and I would not describe a 1" measurement capsule with a 23.8mm diaphragm as a "small diaphragm".
.

Old 26th January 2019
  #57
Gear Maniac
Thanks John!
Old 26th January 2019
  #58
It looks like maybe you can get the adaptor and capsule separately. I love my M221s, and having another set of capsules for the MV225 bodies would be great. I don’t need them, but...
Old 26th January 2019
  #59
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by avillalta View Post
It looks like maybe you can get the adaptor and capsule separately. I love my M221s, and having another set of capsules for the MV225 bodies would be great. I don’t need them, but...
There are two versions of the A63 adapter, only the newer one is still available. The reason for that is the old RFT MK102 has a metrical thread, the MTG version has a 60 UNS thread. Both adapters should fit to the M221 bodies.
Old 26th January 2019
  #60
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 

Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by avillalta View Post
It looks like maybe you can get the adaptor and capsule separately. I love my M221s, and having another set of capsules for the MV225 bodies would be great. I don’t need them, but...
Yes, they are available separately - should be no problem.
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