Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: easyed on October 29, 2012, 11:43:55 AM
-
The TM190 - capsule and body are separate: http://www.microtechgefell.de/index.php/en/microphones/livesound-a-installation/table-a-ceiling-microphones/443-tm1902 (http://www.microtechgefell.de/index.php/en/microphones/livesound-a-installation/table-a-ceiling-microphones/443-tm1902) I asked and the cable between the capsule and the body could be up to 15 meters long, you specify length you want when you order. I wonder how these would compare to Schoeps MK4s, Milab VM44s, Beyerdynamic CK930s and Neumann KM140s? Manual: http://www.microtechgefell.de/dmdocuments/TM%20190.2%20eng.pdf (http://www.microtechgefell.de/dmdocuments/TM%20190.2%20eng.pdf)
The KEM970 - eight capsules in one housing, outputs to one channel, for miking choral and orchestral music: http://www.microtechgefell.de/index.php/en/microphones/livesound-a-installation/table-a-ceiling-microphones/439-kem970
(http://www.microtechgefell.de/index.php/en/microphones/livesound-a-installation/table-a-ceiling-microphones/439-kem970)
-
They've had the KEM mic for a while... very expensive.
They refer to the TM190 as primarily a speech mic, but I think that is more to do with marketing, than it is physical characteristics. The response curve looks pretty similar to the M20 card cap for the M200 series. I wouldn't be surprised if they were similar capsules. You would think it would really hyped looking at the graphs, but I own M20's, and it doesn't sound that way to me. It sounds smoooooth. Yes there is plenty of high end clearity, but it's not over the top.
-
They've had the KEM mic for a while... very expensive.
They refer to the TM190 as primarily a speech mic, but I think that is more to do with marketing, than it is physical characteristics. The response curve looks pretty similar to the M20 card cap for the M200 series. I wouldn't be surprised if they were similar capsules. You would think it would really hyped looking at the graphs, but I own M20's, and it doesn't sound that way to me. It sounds smoooooth. Yes there is plenty of high end clearity, but it's not over the top.
The person at the Gefell booth told me the TM190 had the same capsule as the small condenser mic next to it in the display, which I assume was the M300. And some people think that is a very fine mic, hence my excitement that there is an equivalent mic where cap and body are separate.
-
The KEM970 - eight capsules in one housing, outputs to one channel, for miking choral and orchestral music: http://www.microtechgefell.de/index.php/en/microphones/livesound-a-installation/table-a-ceiling-microphones/439-kem970
(http://www.microtechgefell.de/index.php/en/microphones/livesound-a-installation/table-a-ceiling-microphones/439-kem970)
The KEM 970 is a great mic. - cardioid in the horizontal plane, but with a very narrow pick-up angle vertically.
As has been said, it has been around for quite a while.
But with eight top quality capsules, it's certainly not cheap - I think it's about $12,000 in the USA.
-
The TM 190 microphones look nice, but they are just extension cables, not true actives like the Schoeps. It would be great if they could release a bodyless microphone system with a true active cable but this does not look like it's in the offing.
-
The TM 190 microphones look nice, but they are just extension cables, not true actives like the Schoeps. It would be great if they could release a bodyless microphone system with a true active cable but this does not look like it's in the offing.
Forgive my ignorance - what's the difference between 'just extension cables' and 'true actives'?
-
The TM 190 microphones look nice, but they are just extension cables, not true actives like the Schoeps. It would be great if they could release a bodyless microphone system with a true active cable but this does not look like it's in the offing.
Forgive my ignorance - what's the difference between 'just extension cables' and 'true actives'?
Only Schoeps have "active cables" and I think it's patented.
There are several ways of separating the capsule from the body.
The old way was just to separate the head from the body and join it with a cable or extension tube - because of the very high impedance of the capsule this would result in high frequency loss and the cable/extension should be as short as possible. The old AKG C451 series and old Neumanns were like this (amongst others).
A better way is to have some extra circuitry in the capsule, so you don't get such a loss. This cable would be an extension cable and not an "active cable" but would do the same job as the "active cable".
The Schoeps "active cable" puts circuitry in the cable instead of the capsule (making the active cable expensive) but you don't get the HF loss problems.
Others, like the Sennheiser MKH 8000 series puts all the circuitry in the capsule - the cable has no active components and the XLR section is just an adaptor.
-
my old mbho had extension cables. the electronics were in the barrel that screwed onto the capsule
-
I thought I read somewhere on this board that the Schoeps patents were expiring, so I was originally surprised they didn't go that route. I would love to have KC5 type cables designed/built by Gefell for my M200's, but it's still not that easy.
Global patent law is confusing as hell, and I'm not an expert. I have some patents for gas turbine engines (owned by my employer of course). I'm in the US which is where they where originally filed, then they file them in the EU and in places like Chile and Japan if they want in effect there. While the original patent might expire in Germany, they might still be in force in other parts of the world. For someone like Gefell to use that design, if they can only sell those products in some countries but not others, they are apt to say "screw it, let's do something else".
-
I thought the new Neumann KK series had true Active cables just like Schoeps
-
I thought the new Neumann KK series had true Active cables just like Schoeps
The Neumann KK series are just passive cables as far as I am aware.
But - talking of cool Gefell mics - my favourite new Gefell is definitely the M221.
-
SmokinJoe, the Schoeps/Wuttke patent on active accessories was granted in the mid-1970s, and ran its course several years ago.
I do wish to point out that Neumann, back in the 1970s/80s when they were still an independent small company themselves, acted in a most honorable way with regard to this patent, even to the detriment of their potential financial profit. Their KM 100 microphone series (introduced a few years after Schoeps introduced the "Colette" microphone series with active accessories) offered extension cables, tubes and goosenecks, too--but in the Neumann design, the first-stage electronics were placed in a small cylinder bolted to the back of each capsule, rather than being built into the extension devices themselves. That works just as well technically as the Schoeps approach, and as a bonus, makes the extensions simpler and less expensive.
As a customer, if you know that you will only ever want one capsule type (e.g. cardioid only or omni only), then the difference between the Schoeps and Neumann approaches didn't create a necessary difference in the price of a system that includes extensions of some kind. Unfortunately for people who want a pair of Neumann microphone bodies and multiple capsules with different patterns plus extensions, their approach increased the total cost considerably, since each time you buy one of their "active capsules" you are also re-buying some of the same electronics that you already have. (This is why there is also a Neumann KM 180 series.)
By respecting the Schoeps patent, Neumann gave up some market share that they might otherwise have had, and I really have to respect the ethics of their choice to do so. A larger company with fewer ethical compunctions might have (in effect) dared Schoeps to sue them and risk exhausting themselves in a protracted court battle.
--best regards
-
I finally heard back from the person at Gefell, with this info:
"I talked with my technicians about your questions.
I was not correct with the capsule type. The M 70 capsule is in the table sets. That is a metal diaphragm which is also in our M 294/295 series.
You are right. Our capsule construction is different compared to Schoeps. We have a FET installed directly behind the capsule beside the preamplifier in the metal foot which is separated to the capsule housing. On that way we can solve the problem with HF loss."
Comments from those of you who know something about any of this?
-
The active cable option for Gefell's isn't as far off as it once was. I like the sound of this, but the true test would be in the hearing and how they would work in actual field applications rather than in a studio.
-
The active cable option for Gefell's isn't as far off as it once was. I like the sound of this, but the true test would be in the hearing and how they would work in actual field applications rather than in a studio.
I agree in so far as how well they would hold up. If I had experience with the m2x series in the studio, I'd be ok with hearing studio samples to compare, but I don't have that experience so it doesn't help me.
"You are right. Our capsule construction is different compared to Schoeps. We have a FET installed directly behind the capsule beside the preamplifier in the metal foot which is separated to the capsule housing. On that way we can solve the problem with HF loss."
It is promising that they put the FET behind the cap as that means it's just supplying it with proper voltage and connections to get rid of the bodies.
-
Marking the spot where MG might be doing what we have wanted them to do for many years...carry on.