new AKG 414's...observations?

[Guest]

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

now that they've been out a while, has anybody drawn a conclusion on
how they sound and perform compared to the last generation of 414's
(brighter, less noise, more noise, more edgy, less edgy, cheaper build
quality, better build quality, military spec components, cheap
circuitry, good diaphragm tensioning, getting sloppy, etc.)

 

[Guest]

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

i have no idea. it's a term that gets thrown around a lot in the
higher end stuff. kind of like "dude, this thing is serious. it's
military spec with a 1/4" aluminum brushed faceplate"

 

[Guest]

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

genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:

> now that they've been out a while, has anybody drawn a conclusion on
> how they sound and perform compared to the last generation of 414's
> (brighter, less noise, more noise, more edgy, less edgy, cheaper build
> quality, better build quality, military spec components, cheap
> circuitry, good diaphragm tensioning, getting sloppy, etc.)

Why do you think components need to be, or gain advantage from being
*military spec* ?

You might be interested to know that the military has a scheme called
COTS. Meaning 'commercial off-the-shelf'.

Because COTS gear is designed to modern industry standards it may actually
*outperform* mil-spec stuff.

Graham

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 22:39:49 -0400, genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote
(in article <1126233589.444480.228670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>):

> now that they've been out a while, has anybody drawn a conclusion on
> how they sound and perform compared to the last generation of 414's
> (brighter, less noise, more noise, more edgy, less edgy, cheaper build
> quality, better build quality, military spec components, cheap
> circuitry, good diaphragm tensioning, getting sloppy, etc.)
>

You remind me that I haven't put my review up on my site yet. Quieter,
another pattern, nice.

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?)

Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Why do you think components need to be, or gain advantage from being
>*military spec* ?

Lower cost! I always use mil spec resistors, because I got a pallet
of 1% types from government surplus years ago for fifty dollars.

>You might be interested to know that the military has a scheme called
>COTS. Meaning 'commercial off-the-shelf'.
>
>Because COTS gear is designed to modern industry standards it may actually
>*outperform* mil-spec stuff.

COTS procurement has been interesting, and if you ask me it has been more
bad than good. The issue here is that military certification takes so long
that by the time any equipment is available for military use, it is obsolete.
In the case of computers, though, COTS procurement is allowing the military
to buy systems that aren't reliable and require constant upgrading.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Guest]

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

JP Gerard wrote:
> "Federico" <plokmichael@tiscali.it> a écrit
> Is it possible to select the pattern while the mic not phantom powered?

> .......why????

Well, for one reason, you might want to set the pattern when you're
placing the mic, and you haven't plugged it in or switched the mixer on
yet. I think it's a fair question. I suspect that the answer is no,
since the switching and pattern indicator are both electrical.

A related question is what pattern does it come up in when you power it
up? The pattern it was set to when it was powered off? Always cardioid?
??

 

[Guest]

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

Is it possible to select the pattern while the mic not phantom powered?
F.

<genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1126233589.444480.228670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> now that they've been out a while, has anybody drawn a conclusion on
> how they sound and perform compared to the last generation of 414's
> (brighter, less noise, more noise, more edgy, less edgy, cheaper build
> quality, better build quality, military spec components, cheap
> circuitry, good diaphragm tensioning, getting sloppy, etc.)
>

 

[Guest]

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

........why????

JP

"Federico" <plokmichael@tiscali.it> a écrit dans le message de
news5hUe.33374$O6.2018684@news3.tin.it...
> Is it possible to select the pattern while the mic not phantom powered?
> F.

 

[Guest]

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

Oh, it's not a mechanical switch, sorry, I missed that completely. Sorry!

Euhm, yes, could be a pain in the ass...

JP

 

[Guest]

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

I reviewed the new AKGs for Audio Media a while ago - you can read my
review at www.themagicofradio.com.

Al

 

[Guest]

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

I should have added re the polar diagram selection that a remote which
works down the mic cable has been promised for quite a while but still
hasn't appeared. I'm very fond of the 414 and use them regularly (for
speech and pop music) but it's fair to say I don't see them much used
in the classical world where Schoeps and DPA have a firm grip on the
market (here in the UK).

Al

 

[Guest]

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

<alistair@themagicofradio.com> wrote in message
news:1126340898.428357.86960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> I reviewed the new AKGs for Audio Media a while ago - you
> can read my review at www.themagicofradio.com.

Are you familiar with the concept of technical content?

Here's an outline of your "review"

(1) bragging about giving a presentation somplace I don't
care about.

(2) A summary of part of the manufacturer's blurb.

(3) An anecdote involving name-dropping.

(4) Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's the entire content
of your review that relates to your experiences with the
product:

"I felt that the new mics in comparison to my well cared for
414ULS manged to be smoother at the bottom end, lacking the
slight boxiness of the older mic while enjoying better
definition at HF without any sense of aggressiveness -
smooth yet crisp really."

Outlining this massive run-on sentence we get:

(1) Bragging about your toy collection and how much you
dearly love it

(2) A back-handed knock on the old product

(3) and here's the pay-off: "smooth but crisp".

Is that all there is?

Final comment on the alleged review: charming but not
brilliant, to say the least.

 

[Guest]

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

Geoff Wood wrote:

> > Is it possible to select the pattern while the mic not phantom powered?
> No. Why would you want to do that ?!!!

I already suggested one reason, which I know you saw because you
replied to part of that post.

 

[Guest]

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

Years ago we had an AKG stereo large capsule mic (it must have been a
426 though I remember it as a 424) permanently slung in the local
concert hall and we used 414s all the time as stereo pairs for much of
our classical stuff. I think the early 414s displaced Neumann SM69
stereo mics from music but the 69 (fondly known as the "honk stick")
continued to be used to record stereo speech in studio for many years
after. I've probably got the chronology wrong but I think it was the
arrival of the B+Ks (or it might have been the Schoeps sphere) that
first displaced the large capsule mics from the classical music end but
certainly there's been no going back.

 

[Guest]

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

Geoff Wood wrote:

> >> > Is it possible to select the pattern while the mic not phantom powered?

> Yeah, but I didn't think it was a very strong reason, and I had the benefit
> of already knowing you couldn't.

I had the suspicion that you couldn't. You could have confirmed that
with one letter fewer than "why."

As to whether it's a strong reason or not, I can tell you that
sometimes it's difficult, logistically, to get back to a microphone
after you've put it in place. It might be hanging, it might be on a
stand surrounded by people, it may be on a union stage where only a
local stagehand can touch anything. Just try to explain how to switch
patterns to someone whose experience is limited to pointing an SM57 in
roughly the right direction.

When rushed for a setup (or even when not) it would be an inconvenience
to plug a mic in to a source of phantom power, check or set the
pattern, and then hope that the "memory" is reliable.

I like hardware switches myself.

 

[Guest]

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

<genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126235664.923732.254810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>i have no idea. it's a term that gets thrown around a lot in the
> higher end stuff. kind of like "dude, this thing is serious. it's
> military spec with a 1/4" aluminum brushed faceplate"


That means that the marketing division feel a need to somehow bolster the
aura of the product by dropping buzz-words.


geoff

 

[Guest]

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

<alistair@themagicofradio.com> wrote in message
news:1126341574.470519.287220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I should have added re the polar diagram selection that a remote which
> works down the mic cable has been promised for quite a while but still
> hasn't appeared. I'm very fond of the 414 and use them regularly (for
> speech and pop music) but it's fair to say I don't see them much used
> in the classical world where Schoeps and DPA have a firm grip on the
> market (here in the UK).


Well, the 414 is a large -diaphram mic. The mics used in the classical
world ( to my limited knowledge) are almost exclusively small-diameter.
Certainly so for anything but close-miking.

That said, I do plan to try my ULS and XLS together on a grand next month.

geoff

 

[Guest]

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

> Well, the 414 is a large -diaphram mic. The mics used in the classical
> world ( to my limited knowledge) are almost exclusively small-diameter.
> Certainly so for anything but close-miking.

You know, the C414 has a better polar response than the U87 yet you'll see
the U87 used on classical recording sessions.

I wouldn't use the 87 but would use the 89.

I would probably use a good 414, especially in omni.

I don't think I'd use an 87 in omni unless I really, really had to.

JP

 

[Guest]

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message

>A related question is what pattern does it come up in when you power it
>up? The pattern it was set to when it was powered off?

Yes


geoff

 

[Guest]

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

"Federico" <plokmichael@tiscali.it> wrote in message
news5hUe.33374$O6.2018684@news3.tin.it...
> Is it possible to select the pattern while the mic not phantom powered?


No. Why would you want to do that ?!!!

geoff