Thanks very much for these links! I've read many good critics about this new josephsons, but also a few bad... I haven't heard them, but highly appreciate gefell anyway.
How are they compared to your Gefell mk250? and to the m296? by the way do you know how does the m270 sound?

I think many here are looking forward to getting some new omni comparison, but Gefell only this time!!! :wink:

vincent

These are nice samples tonally, but the sound is too close and dry for this music, IMHO. If the mics were placed further back, I suspect that they would produce a much too dark sound, where the Schoeps/DPA/KM130's would be a better choice with more air. I added some reverb to these recordings and was starting to get a better result although the voices were still to close and not well blended.

But as a close omni, these are very nice. I imagine they would be particularly good on piano for example.

These MK221s and MK250s are very similar..so similar, in fact, that I cant pick them apart...the 296 are a touch more colored, and the 270s are a bit more than the 296 as far as coloration, but you cant go wrong with any gefells...Ive never heard a bad thing about the mk221. They are the epitome of an omni microphone to my ears..

I will do a comp soon.

xxm wrote: Thanks very much for these links! I've read many good critics about this new josephsons, but also a few bad... I haven't heard them, but highly appreciate gefell anyway.
How are they compared to your Gefell mk250? and to the m296? by the way do you know how does the m270 sound?

I think many here are looking forward to getting some new omni comparison, but Gefell only this time!!! :wink:

vincent

TeddyBullard wrote: These MK221s and MK250s are very similar..so similar, in fact, that I cant pick them apart...the 296 are a touch more colored, and the 270s are a bit more than the 296 as far as coloration, but you cant go wrong with any gefells...Ive never heard a bad thing about the mk221. They are the epitome of an omni microphone to my ears..

I will do a comp soon.

You refer to the M296s as more colored.......in what way?

I find the 296 to be as smooth and accurate as any omni I've ever used.

(Bear in mind, they are corrected for mid-field and thus benefit from a little distance. If used up close a shallow dip centered between 5 and 8 k makes them ruler flat).

J

I also own the 296s. The 296 are also clean, but have a bit more high-mid coloration(dark) than the measurement series. the mk221, mk202, and mk250 are pretty much invisible(as is appropriate for measurement tasks). Not that it is a bad thing, I love my 296s.

Cucco wrote: [quote=TeddyBullard]These MK221s and MK250s are very similar..so similar, in fact, that I cant pick them apart...the 296 are a touch more colored, and the 270s are a bit more than the 296 as far as coloration, but you cant go wrong with any gefells...Ive never heard a bad thing about the mk221. They are the epitome of an omni microphone to my ears..

I will do a comp soon.

You refer to the M296s as more colored.......in what way?

I find the 296 to be as smooth and accurate as any omni I've ever used.

(Bear in mind, they are corrected for mid-field and thus benefit from a little distance. If used up close a shallow dip centered between 5 and 8 k makes them ruler flat).

J

Well, you can only do so much with a Millennia in the chain.:shock:

DavidSpearritt wrote: These are nice samples tonally, but the sound is too close and dry for this music, IMHO. If the mics were placed further back, I suspect that they would produce a much too dark sound, where the Schoeps/DPA/KM130's would be a better choice with more air. I added some reverb to these recordings and was starting to get a better result although the voices were still to close and not well blended.

But as a close omni, these are very nice. I imagine they would be particularly good on piano for example.

TeddyBullard wrote: Well, you can only do so much with a Millennia in the chain.:shock:

I don't think Millennia's all bad. In fact, I'm a recent convert myself. My only previous experiments were with the HV3Bs. I must admit, I like the sound of the HV3Ds. Quite nice. I don't know what changes they made, but the bottom end is smoother and the overall sound is more open (which is what they were good at to begin with.)

Cucco wrote: [quote=TeddyBullard]Well, you can only do so much with a Millennia in the chain.:shock:

I don't think Millennia's all bad. In fact, I'm a recent convert myself. My only previous experiments were with the HV3Bs. I must admit, I like the sound of the HV3Ds. Quite nice. I don't know what changes they made, but the bottom end is smoother and the overall sound is more open (which is what they were good at to begin with.)

I was just being cheeky, J. I am not fond of them really, find them to be rather sterile and boring(sort of like Grace , which I also dislike)..BUT they do have a reputation for being great(which is why I bought two HV-3Cs) which I cant deny. they just arent my thing. I converted from Millennia to DAV and Pendulum (20 of DAV, 4 ch of Pendulum MDP1) and have found my euphonic nirvana..

The two amps are completely different, for sure. really evident in percussion..

http://www.savita.cz/show/MIL44.wav

http://www.savita.cz/show/DAV44.wav