On Sat, 7 May 2005 07:37:40 -0400, Bill Ruys wrote
(in article ):

It was actually a number of posts from Ty himself over the years that
mentioned that the high-end of the C1 was distorted. Just do a google group
search on "c1" and "ty".

Bill.

"Papanate" wrote in message
...
Bill Ruys wrote:

If you've previously been
put off by the distorted high end of the C1, don't be put off.

I think you may have a bad mic or a mismatch on your mic pre if you hear
the top
end of the C1 distorting.

PapaNate

Gentlemen (and Ladies),

Let's make it real simple. Send me a C4 and I'll try to get a m296 back here
to do a real comparison.

Of the C1, C3, T3 mics sent me some years back. The C1 appealed to me more.
All were slightly edgy and more noisy than I like. I spoke about it to the
folks at SP back then.

Mr. Casey and I have spoken on several occasions. It was he who suggested
that his company was putting pressure on the Chinese to manufacture mics
without these flaws and I wished him good luck. I also urged him to continue
hammering the Chinese for the benefit of us all.

I greatly appreciate the attentions drawn to Mr. Casey's comment. He has
stepped over the line before and has apologized. I took it openly and write
his comments off to him having a bad day and seeing my post didn't help.

Having said that, the (more expensie) m296 Gefell omni may be the most
stunning omni I have heard in an end address. Through my GML preamps, I was
not prepared for the purity of this mic.

There is no review of the m296 on my site, either because I couldn't get a
commission to write it, or by accident. I'll have to look into it.
Regardless, for those of you who have found the Schoeps cmc641 as "right
sounding" as I have, the M296 will not disappoint.

Regards,

Ty Ford





-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com