Skip to main content
Content Management System

Organ Sample - Gefells

A lot of people have been asking for me (off-list) to post some clips of either the Gefell M296 mics or the recent organ recording which I had mentioned a couple months ago (or in some cases both). it is.

This is a short clip of the live Bach organ festival that I recorded a short time back. This particular clip is of nothing but the two Gefell M296 microphones and no effects have been added to this recording.

The mics were raised approximately 18.5' and were placed roughly 15' from the center of the arc of main pipes. They were spaced at around 3 feet apart and angled slightly (roughly 15 degrees off center axis each) outwards.

A slight dehisser was used to help eliminate the pipes' air handlers.

Comments are welcome.

(Dead Link Removed)

I should mention - this is intended to ultimately be a surround recording. In addition to the standard 16/44.1 CD release, this will also be going out as DVD-Audio 24/96 4.0 or 5.0 (yet to be decided if center channel to be utilized.) The rears (not played in this sample) were provided by Schoeps CMC6 Mk2s spaced 12 feet apart and placed roughly 2/3rds back in the hall. They pick up a great sense of the room as well as the antiphonal pipes.




Boswell Thu, 05/17/2007 - 14:38

OK, we're convinced.

Sounds a great recording, Jeremy. I happened to try this excerpt on headphones before trying it on my studio monitors, and the sense of space is amazing.

Just as a matter of interest, how did you decide to use the Gefells at the front and the Schoeps on the rear pipes?

Cucco Thu, 05/17/2007 - 15:01

Hmm....why the Gefells instead of the Schoeps....
A couple of reasons.

1 - the bass response of the Gefells is more linear (flat to pretty much 1 Hz give or take) and there were a couple 32' pipes (albeit 16' pipes that are "folded" to 32').

2 - Overall, the Schoeps are "warmer" mics and the Gefells are very, shall I say, clinical... The organ mixed with the hardwood and the marble was very euponic. I wanted less warmth and more accuracy in this case.

Oh...and btw...woops. I accidentally did have a HPF on for the sample, but it was a gentle slope starting at 30 Hz.


Cucco Thu, 05/17/2007 - 16:42

dementedchord wrote: good work jer... would'nt happen to have done a take of G min little fugue???? that's my fav...


6 hours of Bach organ work....I think I did a couple takes of it.

It hasn't yet been identified as a track to be released though so I can't put up a sample yet.


Cucco Fri, 05/18/2007 - 06:00

DavidSpearritt wrote: ...I think any of the top omnis from the big 4 or 5 manufacturers would have sounded great in that room with that acoustic and that instrument.

Oh, I absolutely agree! I just had access to the Schoeps and the Gefells, so I chose the Gefells. I think DPAs would have been great too although I generally don't like DPAs (a little too clinical for me in most situations). Nuemanns would have been great too. Senns....I don't know. I just still don't dig them - though I'm sure someone else without my (probably unwarranted) prejudice would probably have made them work beautifully under such occassions.


Cucco Fri, 05/18/2007 - 13:03 here's a better clip.

It's longer, and it's in full 16 bit, 44.1kHz glory. In other words - it's big. I was going to try to post the 24/96 file, but it was around 250 MB. I don't know that anyone would download that!

The low end on this piece is particularly powerful. My first instinct was to reign it in a bit. However, on second approach, I decided to leave it as it was. This particular organ is so deep and powerful, this is an accurate deptiction of the work. Plus, I got the chance to hear the organ from the audience position and the low pipes simply filled the room.

(Dead Link Removed)


Please do NOT consider this "trivia time" or "name that tune." I have not gotten permission to release this track yet though I'm certain that I will, hence my willingness to post it.

While I'm sure many of you are familiar with the name of the piece, let's leave that out of this for the time being. Otherwise, if it is named, I will feel obliged to remove the clip.

Furthermore, if anyone on the list feels that I should NOT post this clip for the above or any other reason, please let me know immediately and I will remove it.



(PS - it's uploading right now - 1600 EST. Give it a few minutes. Try at 1630 EST.... -5 hours GMT)

hughesmr Fri, 05/18/2007 - 16:21

Hey Jeremy,

I'm out in Seattle at the moment (sister-in-law's wedding) and was checking up on the group when I saw this thread. Needless to say, I am anxious to hear your result but the PC I'm on has no playback system worth listening to...

I'm particularly interested because I have a recording gig in NE Ohio next week on a restored Skinner organ. Your choice of mics and array is very similar to what I was envisioning as my first shot as a setup: I was thinking Earthworks QTC1 as a 3' A/B main pair, and either my Schoeps MK2S or MK21 as a widely spaced (maybe 7-10') ambience pair. My questions to you are:

1. Does the 296 have an HF rise, and if so, is it as pronounced as the MK2S? The QTC1s plot flat (a la MK2), but as you state with the Gefells, the LF just doesn't stop. I am wondering if it might be more frugal to first try MK2S as mains instead, as Skinner organs are not nearly so bright with upperwork as are most "American Classic" style organs. If so, do you think a "flat" omni way back in the room will make things "wooly"?

2. Did you put delay on your ambience pair? I am always leery of putting my rear pair more than 20-25' or so further back than the mains, but you've obviously gone further than that.

Cheers and can't wait to hear your work,

Cucco Fri, 05/18/2007 - 17:05

Hey Michael -

I'll answer in order -

1 - Yes, the 296s that I use are the ones equalized for midfield and thus have a slight rise. I find the whole mic to be more open on the top than the Schoeps so I find it hard to say whether it's a bigger or smaller peak. I found their clear and open top end to be a very strong benefit to this otherwise relatively bright organ.

2 - Nope, I did not delay them. However, I flew them specifically for the purpose of being able to mix in surround. I may wind up doing some delay or messing with the timing a little (as my first mixing in surround came earlier today and I found the imaging to be a tad off - too much delay. I have to be careful though as there is much use of the antiphonal pipes.)

3 - The MK2s's were aimed up at the cieling. Considering the height of the ceiling (around 40' feet) I am not really running the risk of early reflections tainting the sound. Plus the off-axis sound is what I was after as the rear pipes are rather bright on this particular organ.)

I'm very curious to hear your results with the Earthworks. I'm considering a pair eventually!



hughesmr Fri, 05/18/2007 - 19:16

Thanks mucho for the info. I've used a QTC1 mains with MK21 ambient pair setup in the past with great results, but it was in a very reverberant space (~5.5 sec). My gig next week is in not so lively a space (it's a music hall, not a church) but I do have to deal with an antiphonal division. I'm thinking I'll keep with my Earthworks as my mains, and I'll be sure to offer a sample for RO.

Oh, and never use HPF on a recording of a large organ. The purists will never forgive you! 8)

larsfarm Sat, 05/19/2007 - 01:17

Cucco wrote: here's a better clip.

Thank you. I liked this one much more. I suppose the slower and softer piece is a better match to the live acoustics. Here the music comes through clear and beautiful.


Cucco Tue, 05/22/2007 - 12:25

Thanks Plush!

I know you were being sarcastic bout the romantic Bach, but in many respects, I have to admit, I find much of Bach's music to be very romantic in nature (romantic as in era and style, not mushy know what I mean.)

Most say that Bach was the father of classical music, I say Bach was the father of Romantic music.

Of course, this organ is obviously a little big for Bach, but it certainly ain't bad.

dementedchord Tue, 05/22/2007 - 13:29

Cucco wrote: I find much of Bach's music to be very romantic in nature (romantic as in era and style, not mushy know what I mean.)

Most say that Bach was the father of classical music, I say Bach was the father of Romantic music. .

couldn't disagree more.... bach is baroque... although he gave impetus to guys like mozart where classical clomes to fruition... the father of romanticism is beethoven.... the thicker/darker textures he used as well as the extensions of harmony that bach and mozart would never have dreamed of using gave rise to chopin and the like.... beethoven was transitional in this....