Recording - August 2017 - 62

In use: vocals

Microtech
MD 300
Gefell
Announcer Microphone
Definitely not your usual dynamic mic
REVIEW BY SCOTT DORSEY

hen I think of "broadcast microphones," I think of
radio announcer microphones like the Electro-Voice
RE-20, Sennheiser MD 421L, or Shure SM7. These
are all intended for very close-working voice, and all are of great
use in the recording studio, even though they were never
marketed for that application.
The MD 300 dynamic microphone from German firm
Microtech Gefell is not at all like that. It's a television announcer
microphone, intended to sit on a desk a few feet away from
the mouth and give a natural tone at that position. Happily, it
also turns out to be very useful in the recording studio!

The MD 300

This looks like a very fat version of the "stick microphone"
configuration common for live sound microphones. What
makes it fat is its extensive internal shockmounting, which
dramatically reduces handling noise... to the point where it can
be used as a handheld microphone or used in the studio without
an external shockmount. The charcoal-black NEXTEL® finish
also does quite a bit to reduce handling noise; you can rub
your hands across the sides without anything being picked up
in the mic, something you will notice isn't possible with, say, the
Shure SM57. It comes with a ring mount; for a bit more money
you can get it with a turntable-style swivel mount or an elastic
suspension mount with built-in popscreen; see the photos.
What does it sound like? It's very forward in an exaggerated
way that tends to pull sounds to the front of the mix, something
that can be attributed to a small but broad presence peak and
a small midrange boost. It has a very narrow polar pattern,
nearly as narrow as that of the Sennheiser MD 441 dynamic,
with a substantial proximity effect. The low end is tailored
down for a natural sound at about 18"; if you get closer you
can get some bass boost (which you might like if you're a TV
announcer or a baritone singer), but you can work the microphone without having it directly in your face.
Unlike a lot of really narrow microphones sold as cardoids,
this one really is a cardioid. There's no rear lobe picking
sound up at all; while it's designed to sit on a desk stand or a
lectern mount without much trouble from tabletop reflections, it
can also be used as a top snare mic without picking up noise
from the cymbals.
62

RECORDING August 2017

Mike Metlay says I spend too much time taking microphones
apart and not enough time using them in the studio [Yes I do. I regret
nothing-Ed.], so I spent as much time as I could using this one.
Before I got it into the studio, though, I had a live choral recording
with a soloist who was a little weak. I put a Sennheiser MD 441 on
her just to add a little into the mix and bring her forward. I put the
MD 300 next to the 441 for comparison. Aside from the matte-black
MD 300 being nearly invisible from the balcony (vs. the glaring
silver 441), the sonic difference was interesting. Both microphones
had very little leakage into them, and the MD 300 track was much
more present and forward. I could have used either of the two mics
in the completed mix, but I found that if I used the MD 300, I wound
up needing to put less of it into the mix to get the desired balance.
I tried the mic on a tenor who pops his Ps and a soprano who
holds back from the microphone; it gave a fair and clean yet forward vocal tone on both of them. I was shocked at how good a
job it did up close with rejection of breath noise, wind, and P-popping.
In both cases, it brought the vocal way up to the front of the mix
without needing EQ other than a little lower-midrange tweaking, and
without the glaring harshness of typical pop music vocals.
The rejection of nearby sounds was fairly good; a vocalist
playing guitar could be arranged so the guitar leakage was
not a problem. The microphone being fairly flat in the midrange
and with a rolled-off top made it more versatile, much in the
way that the RE20 is such a versatile mic that works on a
wide variety of vocals. The presence boost was a problem for
backing vocals, though, and I could see it being problematic in
a more sparse mix.

In use: instruments

On electric guitar the MD 300 sounded great (but then, I've
never used a mic that didn't sound great on electric guitar).
It did continue to have that same forwardness, which in the
case of the electric guitar was an issue because it increased
the degree to which the guitar tended to step on the vocals.
I wound up doing aggressive EQ in order to take away that
forwardness and pull out the presence peak... but then, to be
fair, I would have done even more of that if I'd been using an
SM57. It was a good clean sound without being bright, one
that might have been a great pick for plenty of other arrangements
with so much EQ... just not the one I was working on.
On fiddle? Don't do it-the last thing you need on a closemiked fiddle is that forwardness. I didn't expect it to work, but
it was there, and so was the fiddle player, so we had to try it.
The tight pattern and forward sound makes this a very interesting
drum spot mic. As a lower snare mic, it brought the snare way up
to the front of the drum mix without having a lot of other drums
leaking into it. As a tom mic, it could be positioned to keep most
of the snare out; the lack of a deep null (as on a figure-8 or
hypercardioid) was a handicap in keeping leakage down, but
it did a remarkably good job of pinpointing individual drums.
I didn't use it as a top snare mic for fear that a stray drumstick would mar the finish, but I think it would be an excellent
choice for that. The extensive shockmounting internally would
probably make this microphone extremely rugged in an abusive
environment like the snare. If this was my mic and not a review
mic, I'd be using it that way often.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Recording - August 2017