new AKG 414's...observations?

[Guest]

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

"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HrudnUPif7AS8LzeRVn-rA@comcast.com...
> 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.

And that extra pattern is extremely useful and nice !

geoff

 

[Guest]

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

<alistair@themagicofradio.com> wrote in message
news:1126363611.401900.97430@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 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.


Just fixed a C426 the other month. It is essentially 2 x C414.

geoff

 

[Guest]

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1126354821.920619.78810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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.

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

geoff

 

[Guest]

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

Geoff Wood wrote:
> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> news:1126354821.920619.78810@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>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.
>
>
> Yeah, but I didn't think it was a very strong reason, and I had the benefit
> of already knowing you couldn't.

Huh? So you answer questions based on your rating of the question? Odd.

 

[Guest]

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

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1126388683.924789.302920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
> 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.

But the promised remote controller won't do a hardware switch. Mind you,
it's been priomised nearly a year now....

geoff

 

[Guest]

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

"Dr. Dolittle" <pdo@spamblaster.not> wrote in message news:6gKUe.48369$

>>
>> Yeah, but I didn't think it was a very strong reason, and I had the
>> benefit of already knowing you couldn't.
>
> Huh? So you answer questions based on your rating of the question? Odd.

I reserve the right to be odd.

geoff

 

[Guest]

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

In article <4322e0c4$0$16796$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>,
"JP Gerard" <jpgerard@skynet.be> wrote:

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



I really like the sound of my 87's in omni.




David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

 

[Guest]

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

david correia <cassette1@comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <4322e0c4$0$16796$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>,
> "JP Gerard" <jpgerard@skynet.be> wrote:
>
>> I don't think I'd use an 87 in omni unless I really, really had to.
>
>I really like the sound of my 87's in omni.

They aren't very omni, though.

I have had customers who pretty much demanded spaced omni U87s for classical
recording. The imaging is really bizarre. But it's their money...
--scott


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

 

[Guest]

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

I know you do, and I agree that it can be a useful sound for spot mic'ing
BUT it's definitely not a great omni when you have multiple sources in the
same area and/or a reverberant environment. You get great presence at 0 and
180° but as you move towards 90 and 270° you start to loose treble and the
midrange gets wiggly... less so than in cardioid but still... and to make
things worse, in an unpredictable way. Makes area micin'g a nightmare, and
if you use a pair, the interaction between the mics gives weird room
colouration, weird phase response and an odd stereo image.

You mentionned drums OH once, and tehy can work for that, mainly because
you're focusing on one source.

I have a C414E and a C414EB and they both suffer from a little bit of treble
loss on the sides but not as much as the 87 and most importantly, the
midrange remains realtively stable. They just work better as omni mics. Of
course, a good small diaph. will be better than either...

I just can't get used to the K87 polar response. I know I'll end up with an
87 in the kit at some point, but I still prefer the 414 in most situations.
Of course, if you want the U87 sound for a lead vocal, a 414 won't do!!!

JP

"david correia" <cassette1@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:cassette1-BAEEA8.23102711092005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <4322e0c4$0$16796$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>,
> "JP Gerard" <jpgerard@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> > I don't think I'd use an 87 in omni unless I really, really had to.
>
>
>
> I really like the sound of my 87's in omni.
>
>
>
>
> David Correia
> www.Celebrationsound.com

 

[Guest]

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

In article <4325518e$0$26920$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>,
"JP Gerard" <jpgerard@skynet.be> wrote:

> Makes area micin'g a nightmare, and
> if you use a pair, the interaction between the mics gives weird room
> colouration, weird phase response and an odd stereo image.

I recently recorded a vocal ensemble w/some instruments, including
organ, in a nice, old Providence church. Used my pair of 87's in omni.
Both client and I are happy with what we got.

As the mics were set up about a third of the way back, the stereo image
is more of the space, rather than the performers. The prime directive
for the recording was to capture the sound of their performance in their
space. (Picky folks, too.)

I don't know if it makes any difference for ya, but I have the 80's U87,
not the current one.


> You mentionned drums OH once, and tehy can work for that, mainly because
> you're focusing on one source.


I use the 87's in cardiod as overheads. Haven't found anything better
for this app. And I got a great room for drums.



> I know I'll end up with an
> 87 in the kit at some point, but I still prefer the 414 in most situations.
> Of course, if you want the U87 sound for a lead vocal, a 414 won't do!!!



Lately I've been using Soundelux U195's and, believe it or not, 414buls
(on male vocals), even more than 87's on vocals.

87 is nice for female voiceover 'tho.





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

 

[Guest]

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

> I recently recorded a vocal ensemble w/some instruments, including
> organ, in a nice, old Providence church. Used my pair of 87's in omni.
> Both client and I are happy with what we got.
>
> As the mics were set up about a third of the way back, the stereo image
> is more of the space, rather than the performers. The prime directive
> for the recording was to capture the sound of their performance in their
> space. (Picky folks, too.)

And the stuff I've done with the U87 in various pattern settings has been
usable too.
My point is that the capsule itself is not acoustically/technically perfect,
and I understand that it's part of its charm... what I'm saying is that if
you compare a (let's stay with Neumann) KM83 and a U87 in Omni, the realism
of the event will be better captured by the KM83. Wheteher you will prefer
the frequency response of the 83 or the 87 I cannot say, but I'm sure that
you will appreciate the natural ambiance (ambience?) heard through the 83 -
and if you use multiple mics at relatively short distances, the lack of
weird (usually phasey) artifacts, compared to any K87/67 equipped mic.

> I don't know if it makes any difference for ya, but I have the 80's U87,
> not the current one.

I find both versions of the capsule to have the same problem.
Older capsules have a nicer (to my ears, less tizz) frequency response but
usually have the same acoustic behaviour.
Although... I've seen an odd, very old U87 recently that had a nicer
off-axis response than usual. Don't know why.

> I use the 87's in cardiod as overheads. Haven't found anything better
> for this app. And I got a great room for drums.

I like my Schoeps CMT54 or my modified Clarec 1050s. But I have a small
room - if it was bigger, I might mess with LDs.

> Lately I've been using Soundelux U195's and, believe it or not, 414buls
> (on male vocals), even more than 87's on vocals.

The U195 I tried was a bit TOO open/modern for my tastes. But very nice
nonetheless.
I do like the C414E and EB on vocals, but I'm using a recently purchased
(old but cleaned-up) C38b a lot now.
It seems to be my fav lead vocal mic. Sort of the condenser equivalent of
the RE20: works really well on anyone!

> 87 is nice for female voiceover 'tho.

I agree, especially with a WS87 fitted.

JP

 

[Guest]

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

JP Gerard wrote:
>
> And the stuff I've done with the U87 in various pattern settings has been
> usable too.
> My point is that the capsule itself is not acoustically/technically perfect,
> and I understand that it's part of its charm... what I'm saying is that if
> you compare a (let's stay with Neumann) KM83 and a U87 in Omni, the realism
> of the event will be better captured by the KM83. Wheteher you will prefer
> the frequency response of the 83 or the 87 I cannot say, but I'm sure that
> you will appreciate the natural ambiance (ambience?) heard through the 83 -
> and if you use multiple mics at relatively short distances, the lack of
> weird (usually phasey) artifacts, compared to any K87/67 equipped mic.

This would be a good time for me to ask a question/confirm a suspicion
of mine:

1) When you're using a U87 (or other dual capsule large diaprham) in the
omni setting, you're basically recreating an omni-like pattern using two
cardiod capsules mounted back-to-back, yes?

2) And cardiods of this design use a cancellation matrix at the capsule,
leading to irregular response off-axis?

3) And since cardiod has irregular response off axis, the additional
problem is that you're now taking a pair of irregular responses and
summing them at the microphone, right?

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:13:09 -0400, KenLac wrote
(in article <paCWe.26$Yu2.10@trnddc02>):

> JP Gerard wrote:
>>
>> And the stuff I've done with the U87 in various pattern settings has been
>> usable too.
>> My point is that the capsule itself is not acoustically/technically perfect,
>> and I understand that it's part of its charm... what I'm saying is that if
>> you compare a (let's stay with Neumann) KM83 and a U87 in Omni, the realism
>> of the event will be better captured by the KM83. Wheteher you will prefer
>> the frequency response of the 83 or the 87 I cannot say, but I'm sure that
>> you will appreciate the natural ambiance (ambience?) heard through the 83 -
>> and if you use multiple mics at relatively short distances, the lack of
>> weird (usually phasey) artifacts, compared to any K87/67 equipped mic.
>
> This would be a good time for me to ask a question/confirm a suspicion
> of mine:
>
> 1) When you're using a U87 (or other dual capsule large diaprham) in the
> omni setting, you're basically recreating an omni-like pattern using two
> cardiod capsules mounted back-to-back, yes?

Yes
>
> 2) And cardiods of this design use a cancellation matrix at the capsule,
> leading to irregular response off-axis?

Maybe

> 3) And since cardiod has irregular response off axis, the additional
> problem is that you're now taking a pair of irregular responses and
> summing them at the microphone, right?

Possibly

Ty

-- 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?)

AMEN

But you can get a very decent omni pattern using this type of capsule
construction, all you have to do is decrease the size.

The main problem here is the diameter and even though I have no data to back
this up, I've noticed that thinner capsules have a better bahaviour than
thicker ones.
My guess is that the increased distance from diaph. to diaph. is the cause
(the further apart, the worse the phase response and obviously the resulting
omni pattern).
Were the two halves perfect cardioids, the resulting omni would be much
smoother, and it would be even better if the diaph. were closer to each
other.

JP

"KenLac" <ainttellin@nowhere.com> a écrit dans le message de
newsaCWe.26$Yu2.10@trnddc02...
> JP Gerard wrote:
> >
> > And the stuff I've done with the U87 in various pattern settings has
been
> > usable too.
> > My point is that the capsule itself is not acoustically/technically
perfect,
> > and I understand that it's part of its charm... what I'm saying is that
if
> > you compare a (let's stay with Neumann) KM83 and a U87 in Omni, the
realism
> > of the event will be better captured by the KM83. Wheteher you will
prefer
> > the frequency response of the 83 or the 87 I cannot say, but I'm sure
that
> > you will appreciate the natural ambiance (ambience?) heard through the
83 -
> > and if you use multiple mics at relatively short distances, the lack of
> > weird (usually phasey) artifacts, compared to any K87/67 equipped mic.
>
> This would be a good time for me to ask a question/confirm a suspicion
> of mine:
>
> 1) When you're using a U87 (or other dual capsule large diaprham) in the
> omni setting, you're basically recreating an omni-like pattern using two
> cardiod capsules mounted back-to-back, yes?
>
> 2) And cardiods of this design use a cancellation matrix at the capsule,
> leading to irregular response off-axis?
>
> 3) And since cardiod has irregular response off axis, the additional
> problem is that you're now taking a pair of irregular responses and
> summing them at the microphone, right?

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:31:03 +0200, JP Gerard wrote:

> AMEN
>
> But you can get a very decent omni pattern using this type of capsule
> construction, all you have to do is decrease the size.
>
> The main problem here is the diameter and even though I have no data to back
> this up, I've noticed that thinner capsules have a better bahaviour than
> thicker ones.
> My guess is that the increased distance from diaph. to diaph. is the cause
> (the further apart, the worse the phase response and obviously the resulting
> omni pattern).
> Were the two halves perfect cardioids, the resulting omni would be much
> smoother, and it would be even better if the diaph. were closer to each
> other.
>
> JP

It would not be as good as a real pressure-only omni, though. It would
suffer handling noise and pop that are not present in a real,
single-capsule omni.

d

 

[Guest]

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

You mean single diaphragm and you're correct!

But even those can pop...

JP

"Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1qa0w2hn72a63.1ln3i7wul3zsg.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 18:31:03 +0200, JP Gerard wrote:
>
> > AMEN
> >
> > But you can get a very decent omni pattern using this type of capsule
> > construction, all you have to do is decrease the size.
> >
> > The main problem here is the diameter and even though I have no data to
back
> > this up, I've noticed that thinner capsules have a better bahaviour than
> > thicker ones.
> > My guess is that the increased distance from diaph. to diaph. is the
cause
> > (the further apart, the worse the phase response and obviously the
resulting
> > omni pattern).
> > Were the two halves perfect cardioids, the resulting omni would be much
> > smoother, and it would be even better if the diaph. were closer to each
> > other.
> >
> > JP
>
> It would not be as good as a real pressure-only omni, though. It would
> suffer handling noise and pop that are not present in a real,
> single-capsule omni.
>
> d

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:07:27 +0200, JP Gerard wrote:

> You mean single diaphragm and you're correct!
>
> But even those can pop...
>
> JP

But you do have to try quite hard.

d

 

[Guest]

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

LOL OK, OK!

JP

"Don Pearce" <donald@pearce.uk.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1lwla83e282ty.1e8evu9hj9lj9.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 19:07:27 +0200, JP Gerard wrote:
>
> > You mean single diaphragm and you're correct!
> >
> > But even those can pop...
> >
> > JP
>
> But you do have to try quite hard.
>
> d