I was wondering if anyone has experience with both Gefell M200 & the M300. I need to know which of this mics will perform better as a spot microphone in a classical recording. I might also use a pair occasionally in an ORTF setup.
I've heard all the samples I could find, and read pretty much everything on this forum concerning this two mics. Looking at the frequency response graphs it would seem like the M300 has a more pronounced presence peek and a more extended bass. The question is, which of this mics sounds more natural/true to the source.
I have a matched pair of M300's but I can't really help with your question since I've never tried the M200's and I don't do classical recording.
I use my M300's mainly for percussion but they sound great on just about anything, especially piano (My test recording) and classical guitar. As you've noticed there is an HF lift - generally frowned on by the classical fraternity where flatter Schoeps and DPA are more usually found, albeit at double the price of the Gefells.
Are you guys talking about MV200 with interchangable capsules? That microphone is really awesome. Cardioids have a gentle presence bump around 5Khz, which contributes to a very nice off axis response. That's one of the most important things when choosing a spot mic imo. I did hear them side by side with neumann 140's and while 140's sounded more natural, 200's were a little brighter with a tighter pattern, thus less roomy, and overall more pleasant. With 200 you can later buy onmi and hyper capsules too. I have never heard an M300 and I am very curious about it too.
i've been using the m300's for years. it's extremely detailed. sometimes when i use them on certain sources, i feel like i'm inside the instrument. used it on a finger picked acoustic guitar recently, and it turned out perfect. have used them for hats and ride cymbals on rock records with excellent results. i mostly work on pop and rock records, so the slight lift in the high's has never been an issue.