Review for Gefell M296 posted

Discussion in 'Location Recording' started by Cucco, Jun 15, 2005.

  1. Cucco

    Cucco Distinguished Member

    Well, I finally finished it and you can find it here:

    If you're interested in samples, the Beethoven I reference is the same that I referenced in my earlier post in this forum on my new demos.


    J. :D
  2. ghellquist

    ghellquist Member

    You obviously love that mic Cucco! Your review surely wets my appetite as well, although I am not quite in that class.

    Small detail only, from your review:
    "Currently, Gefell is the only microphone manufacturer producing a solid nickel diaphragm for recording purposes."
    I might be wrong there, but I believe DPA uses nickel as well. From their home page:
    "We have chosen a nickel foil for our diaphragm material in our pressure microphones."

  3. Cucco

    Cucco Distinguished Member


    True, DPA uses nickel in their diaphragms, but the purity of Gefell's, from what I've read and been told actually surpasses DPA's and is truly a "pure" nickel. Often, nickels (an alloy anyway) are diluted with other metals to make them more maleable or stable while working with them. This is one of the things that sets MG's measurement division apart from so many others is the absolute purity of their nickel diaphragms. This is one of the main reasons they cost SOOOO much - they're hard to work with and get right.

    Thanks for helping point this out.

  4. Plush

    Plush Guest

    The MG 296 was suggested to Gefell by Jerry Graham at the old
    Gotham Audio company. The idea was to make a mic that imitates the M50.

    It's an outstanding mic that used to be quite affordable. ($650.00)
    Now, with the new distributors acting like pirates, it is still a good mic with the price padded.

    Check http://

    for the real German price.
  5. Cucco

    Cucco Distinguished Member

    Hey Hudson.

    Glad to see you back around here again (IOW, I'm glad I didn't scare you off...)

    Thanks for the insight - this is a fact that I was unaware of regarding the roots of the 296. I certainly see (err, hear) some of the traits of the M50 in it (obviously not overt traits). Something I didn't touch on too much in the review, but kind of alluded to is that it does exhibit some of the directional characteristics in the higher frequencies much like the M50. This is one of the reasons I'm able to use it in less than beautiful rooms with a moderate level of success.

    Thanks for the info!
  6. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    The review is now showing on the Reviews side bar as well ... just click and read. Great job on the review Cucco ... now I gotta save some dough for one of those mics ...dammit! It never ends! crap!
  7. John Stafford

    John Stafford Well-Known Member

    Hey Jeremy!
    A mic that's so realistic it freaks the singer out? I LIKE IT!!!

  8. DavidSpearritt

    DavidSpearritt Well-Known Member

    Jeremy thanks for the excellent review, I definitely need to listen to these especially considering their price point.

    One small point, you mention that Gefell is the only manufacturer making solid nickel diaphrams, while most others are sputtered gold on mylar or PVC. The Neumann TLM-50 has a solid titanium diaphram, as does one of the Brauner's I think.

    I also thought some of the DPA's had solid metal diaphrams as well, will find out. Are they better I wonder. Presumably the plastic is lighter.
  9. Cucco

    Cucco Distinguished Member

    Thanks for the note Dave.

    I should point out that the wording I chose in the review was actually specific in that I stated that they are the only "pure nickel" used in recording microphones. Many companies produce pure nickel in T&M mics and you're dead right, there are many companies who do use other solid metals with great success. The original C12 capsule was metal as well. (If I recall correctly)

    I hope that helps to clarify.

    J. :)
  10. Sonarerec

    Sonarerec Guest

    DPA diaphragms that are nickel and the capsules that the diaphragms are “welded” to are of an identical coefficient so they achieve perfect stability. This design and manufacturing philosophy comes from the B&K test and measurement background. The designs using nickel are still produced for DPA by B&K and are manufactured in a manner so that the diaphragms do not change in tension due to temperature or humidity variations (this, among other reasons).

    Are they better? Who knows? At this level of manufacturing I doubt it. Pay your money, choose your sound.

  11. ghellquist

    ghellquist Member

    I just ordered a pair. I will hold you personally responsible if I will not get perfect recordings without even trying. :lol:

  12. Cucco

    Cucco Distinguished Member

    Sounds good to me dude!!

    Just let us know how long you can go without tweaking your nipples in excitement after hooking these beauties up!

  13. Cucco

    Cucco Distinguished Member

    Just a heads up - I'm also currently working on a review of the Dynaudio BM15s which I'll hopefully have done within a week or so. Soon to the list are hopefully:

    M-Audio Monitors
    Summit Mic Pre
    Others yet to be determined.

    I'll keep you posted.

  14. foldedpath

    foldedpath Guest

    Active or passive?

    I've been thinking about the passive BM15's as a possible future upgrade. I have a couple of amps here that might work for a while until I can afford something like a Bryston. I'm looking for a "far nearfield" pair that won't require a subwoofer. I'm really starting to hate subwoofers.
  15. Jeemy

    Jeemy Well-Known Member

    Just a side note on the metals tip, SE just brought out a titanium-diaphragm mic the Titan. My opinion is not positive on these guys, but others have sung their praises, so it bears a mention,

  16. Cucco

    Cucco Distinguished Member

    The straight BM15s (passive). My logic behind these is that I have 2 very fine amplifiers and I can't see the expense of higher priced units that include amplifiers when that's not what they design in the first place.

    As for the requirements, I believe all of your items will be addressed in the review.

    J. :D
  17. DavidSpearritt

    DavidSpearritt Well-Known Member

    But isn't this the precise reason to buy active monitors, they have amps in them that are designed uniquely for driving the drivers. This is the reason I prefer actives every time. Sorry if I have missed the point.
  18. David French

    David French Well-Known Member

    Another thing to consider is the crossover; the passive uses a 6 dB/octave filter, whereas the active uses a 30.
  19. ptr

    ptr Active Member

    Sorry about my lack of knowledge in abbreviated microphone manufacturers names, who is "SE"..

    :oops: / ptr
  20. foldedpath

    foldedpath Guest

    Yeah, that's the theory. And it's probably valid, up to a point. There are several strikes against the standard theory though (IMO).

    First, if the difference in cost between a given set of passive and powered monitors is $500, and I have a $1,500 stereo power amp, then it's possible I'll get better results than with the built-in amps, however optimized and tweaked they may be. Until you get into the insanely expensive powered monitors, these things are built to a price point, with compromises in the amp quality.

    Second, many mastering engineers seem to still prefer passive speakers with the amp of their choice. I don't know how relevant that is to the sub - $2,000 monitors I can afford, but it makes me think that a separate amp might not be a bad idea.

    And a third strike against the idea... for me, anyway... is that I have an old McIntosh amp that's sitting here doing nothing, so it might as well have a shot at driving a nice pair of passive monitors.

    I'm ready to spend the big bucks where it makes sense. I'm about to drop a lot of money on new A/D-D/A converters because the older stuff I'm using just doesn't cut it anymore. But if there is a place where I can still keep old but good gear running, I'll use it.

Share This Page