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.)

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

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"

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 22:39:49 -0400, wrote
(in article .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

Pooh Bear 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that by the time any equipment is available for military use, it is obsolete.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."

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

ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.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.)

JP Gerard wrote:
"Federico" a =E9crit
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?
??

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

Al

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

wrote in message
ups.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.

wrote in message
oups.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

wrote in message
oups.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

"Mike Rivers" 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

"Federico" wrote in message
...
Is it possible to select the pattern while the mic not phantom powered?


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

geoff

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 22:39:49 -0400, wrote
(in article .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

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.

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.

wrote in message
ups.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

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
ups.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

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.

Geoff Wood wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
ups.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.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
oups.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

"Dr. Dolittle" 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

In article ,
"JP Gerard" 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

david correia wrote:
In article ,
"JP Gerard" 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."

In article ,
"JP Gerard" 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

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?

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

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

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