View Single Post
Old 7th August 2019
Lives for gear
Puffer Fish's Avatar
My thoughts on M300 vs M310...

The M300 has a sweeter sound. It really just sounds so lovely and if you are familiar with the mic, you already know that.

The M310 sounds, well, less sweet! LOL! But reviewing the frequency plots the high frequency bump on the M300 is what I am hearing as the difference, I suppose. The M310 is pretty darned flat and is a feature I really appreciate for booming for film/ TV.

An interesting thing about the M310 is it is NOT overly aggressive in its hyper-cardioid pattern. I have not made direct comparisons, but I suspect the MKH50 has a tighter pattern, but this is supposed to be an M300 vs M310 thing, soooo... Yes, the M310 has a more tight pattern than the M300, but not strikingly so.

That is about as far as I am willing to take the comparison at this point as I only acquired my M300 stereo set (Thank you VK!) in June and have NOT had ample time to put the set to use.

As I mentioned earlier, the off-axis response of the M310 is what I really fell in love with. Of course it just sounds fantastic, or rather, captures sound in a fantastic way that appeals to my sense of hearing (I must be accurate on GS or else someone will call me out, silly, I know.) I always love hearing the sound captured via my M310.

Oh, something I have not mentioned before: the M310 requires more gain than my MHK60 mic. Probably a solid 3 to 6 dB more to achieve the same performance/ output/ level. So it is current hungry and requires a bit more gain than some of the other contenders we have for boom work for film/ TV. I find the M300 eats current and requires gain in a similar fashion, which is of course no surprise... I expect the electronics inside each mic body (M300 and M310) are the same with the only difference being the physical construction in the head basket---no one at Microtech-Gefell told me any of that, I am making an assumption based upon use and observation.

The weight, fit and finish of the M310 is identical to the M300. In fact, even the slots for the forming the cardioid/ hyper-cardioid pattern look the same. I have taken to storing my M300 and M310 mics with the tiny cardioid/ hyper-cardioid pattern facing up in their wooden boxes so I can know at first glance which mic I am retrieving from its storage case. It would be REALLY easy to accidentally grab the wrong mic if one owned some of each. The M320 (omni) does not have the slots in the mic body so it would be an easier model to differentiate.

On the mic body weight: if you are accustomed to using MKH50 or MKH8050 mic bodies, you may feel like the Gefell M310 is a heavy microphone. I just feel like the M310 is a typical mic body weight, given its size and that the MKH mic line is an unusually light weight mic body... Sennheiser was clearly thinking of boom use when they designed the MKH line.

I have NOT try using my M300 in RF busy environments yet, but I can tell you the M310 has performed with no flaws in busy RF land. I have a lot of wireless in play sometimes (Comteks, Lectro on talent, Zaxcom wireless for camera hops and even wireless for BETSO time code boxes) and the M310 has always delivered without interference. That includes up to 100' cable runs for the boom op. And yes, one needs long cables to run to the boom op if using the M310 since it does not play well with plug on wireless transmitters, like my Lectro HM and HMA. On a side note, I prefer wired boom anyway, so this is not a bid deal for me.

I should add on that RF interference thing... for bag use, I am running a coiled cable attached to the boom pole. The boom poles I use are cabled carbon fiber Ktek poles. On long cable runs when I have a boom op, I use quad cable and/ or heavily shielded cable. So for the most part, I am employing the best RF protection I can. But a lesser RF protected microphone would not fare well in my wireless transmitter-heavy world. I know because I have tried some other mics that had problems. : ) I fully expect the M300 to behave like the M310, but as I already implied, I can't say as of yet that it has the same level of RF protection based upon experience since I have not used it much in the field.

Okay, so I did have some more things to add. I hope that was useful to someone.