AKG C 414 B-XL II

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Has anyone tried this mic on a solo acoustic instrument.
If so what was your impression in comparison with some of your other mics
using the same equipment?
Are there any online tests that have been published about it?
I'm considering getting it for solo Classical Guitar recording.
Of course I would like to be able to get a matched set but that's out of the
picture.

Thanks

IS

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <7LDde.341$1o3.88@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, IS <y@y.com> wrote:
>Has anyone tried this mic on a solo acoustic instrument.
>If so what was your impression in comparison with some of your other mics
>using the same equipment?
>Are there any online tests that have been published about it?
>I'm considering getting it for solo Classical Guitar recording.
>Of course I would like to be able to get a matched set but that's out of the
>picture.

I think Paul Stamler did a review of the things in Recording not too
long ago.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 3 May 2005 01:12:35 -0400, IS wrote
(in article <7LDde.341$1o3.88@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>):

> Has anyone tried this mic on a solo acoustic instrument.
> If so what was your impression in comparison with some of your other mics
> using the same equipment?
> Are there any online tests that have been published about it?
> I'm considering getting it for solo Classical Guitar recording.
> Of course I would like to be able to get a matched set but that's out of the
> picture.
>
> Thanks
>
> IS
>
>

Yah, I reviewed both new ones. The XL II is brighter and, therefore, should
be used far field.

The B XLS would be better for near field.

Both sound quite good WITH THE RIGHT PREAMP. They don't match well with
bright preamps. Try a GML or something at least as neutral or slightly
darker.

Ty Ford


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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:


> Yah, I reviewed both new ones. The XL II is brighter and, therefore, should
> be used far field.
>
> The B XLS would be better for near field.

Ty, how does these 2 microphones compare to the previous models they
replaced?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks for that. I need to check it out the review.
I'm having a dilemma about this mic versus the KM 184. I don't like the
charts I've read so far from the 184 it seems to have go up around 10Khz
which is the opposite of what I like for a classical guitar playing. I get
more nail noise, string squeaks etc with a high end peak like that.
I know the 184 works well with steel strings though.
Looks like I may have to get both and return one.

Thanks, I'll read your review.

IS

> Yah, I reviewed both new ones. The XL II is brighter and, therefore,
> should
> be used far field.
>
> The B XLS would be better for near field.
>
> Both sound quite good WITH THE RIGHT PREAMP. They don't match well with
> bright preamps. Try a GML or something at least as neutral or slightly
> darker.
>
> Ty Ford
>
>
> -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other
> audiocentric
> stuff are at www.tyford.com
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <lLMde.1981$Vz4.560@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, IS <y@y.com> wrote:
>I'm having a dilemma about this mic versus the KM 184. I don't like the
>charts I've read so far from the 184 it seems to have go up around 10Khz
>which is the opposite of what I like for a classical guitar playing. I get
>more nail noise, string squeaks etc with a high end peak like that.

The frequency response tells you only a tiny part of the story. Take a look
at the plot on the C1000... it is nice and flat looking, but the top end
is horrible. Look at the difference in the KM84 and KM184 response plots...
they are very minor, but the difference in sound is considerable.

>I know the 184 works well with steel strings though.
>Looks like I may have to get both and return one.

I suggest getting several other mikes as well. Try the Josephson Series
Four mikes and try a decent omni. Any good dealer will let you take home
a big box of mikes and return all but one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

IS wrote:

> Has anyone tried this mic on a solo acoustic instrument.
> If so what was your impression in comparison with some of your other mics
> using the same equipment?
> Are there any online tests that have been published about it?
> I'm considering getting it for solo Classical Guitar recording.
> Of course I would like to be able to get a matched set but that's out of the
> picture.
>
> Thanks
>
> IS

In my experience with classical guitar nothing beats ribbons. I like Beyer M
160s. Spaced, XY or distance nothing beats 'em.
Could also be Royer 121s but you need a good pre. You could get by with a Grace
101 or start saving for something really good.


Greg Steele

Derek Studios

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"IS" <y@y.com> wrote in message
news:7LDde.341$1o3.88@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> Has anyone tried this mic on a solo acoustic instrument.
> If so what was your impression in comparison with some of your other mics
> using the same equipment?
> Are there any online tests that have been published about it?
> I'm considering getting it for solo Classical Guitar recording.
> Of course I would like to be able to get a matched set but that's out of
> the picture.

The XL-II ( similar old TL-II) is a 'character mic" (love it or hate it)
and less likely to be suitable for instrumental recording than the B-XLS
(similar old B-ULS).

I have a B-XLS and find the 'wide cardioid' pattern really great for
guitars. Picks up more sound from the whole top than straight cardioid, and
doesn't seem to boom unduly if you move it back from the soundhole.

geoff

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 3 May 2005 11:27:13 -0400, IS wrote
(in article <lLMde.1981$Vz4.560@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>):

> Thanks for that. I need to check it out the review.
> I'm having a dilemma about this mic versus the KM 184. I don't like the
> charts I've read so far from the 184 it seems to have go up around 10Khz
> which is the opposite of what I like for a classical guitar playing. I get
> more nail noise, string squeaks etc with a high end peak like that.
> I know the 184 works well with steel strings though.
> Looks like I may have to get both and return one.
>
> Thanks, I'll read your review.
>
> IS


You probably don't want a KM 184. You probably want a Schoeps cmc641.

Ty Ford


>>
>
>



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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 3 May 2005 11:57:04 -0400, Joe Sensor wrote
(in article <3dpl6lF6rauduU1@individual.net>):

> Ty Ford wrote:
>
>
>> Yah, I reviewed both new ones. The XL II is brighter and, therefore, should
>> be used far field.
>>
>> The B XLS would be better for near field.
>
> Ty, how does these 2 microphones compare to the previous models they
> replaced?
>
>

Similar sound, less selfnoise, more features.

Ty Ford



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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 3 May 2005 15:58:55 -0400, Studio A wrote
(in article <4277D788.21987F3B@verizon.net>):

>
>
> IS wrote:
>
>> Has anyone tried this mic on a solo acoustic instrument.
>> If so what was your impression in comparison with some of your other mics
>> using the same equipment?
>> Are there any online tests that have been published about it?
>> I'm considering getting it for solo Classical Guitar recording.
>> Of course I would like to be able to get a matched set but that's out of the
>> picture.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> IS
>
> In my experience with classical guitar nothing beats ribbons. I like Beyer M
> 160s. Spaced, XY or distance nothing beats 'em.
> Could also be Royer 121s but you need a good pre. You could get by with a
> Grace
> 101 or start saving for something really good.
>
>
> Greg Steele
>
> Derek Studios
>

I've never heard a ribbon I've liked on an acoustic guitar, m160 included.

Regards,

Ty Ford


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

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"IS" <y@y.com> wrote:
>
> I'm having a dilemma about this mic versus the KM 184. I don't like
> the charts I've read so far from the 184 it seems to have go up
> around 10Khz which is the opposite of what I like for a classical
> guitar playing.



Do not, I repeat, do NOT ask Ty to send you the snippet of a Martin
recorded with a Schoeps CMC6/41. It will ruin you for all other mics.
Damn, it sounded creamy and rich and well-defined and smooth, WITHOUT
all that airy-fairy exaggerated top-end silliness.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:

> I've never heard a ribbon I've liked on an acoustic guitar, m160 included.

Well, I have. So there.

--
ha