[adam79]

I've been looking into the AKG 414. In my research, I've learned that
there were several versions of the 414, prior to it being discontinued
for the XLS/XLII models. Did the 414 follow the same path as the
Sennheiser 421 (the older version being superior to the new)?

My basic question is which is the best model? Is it the C414EB (the last
pre-nylon version with the 3 position attenuator and bass roll-off
switches)?

Thanks,
-Adam

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 wrote:
I've been looking into the AKG 414. In my research, I've learned that
there were several versions of the 414, prior to it being discontinued
for the XLS/XLII models. Did the 414 follow the same path as the
Sennheiser 421 (the older version being superior to the new)?

There are probably a couple dozen different versions at this point.

My basic question is which is the best model? Is it the C414EB (the last
pre-nylon version with the 3 position attenuator and bass roll-off
switches)?

I have liked the C414/EB, but you can't get them at any price, really.
It uses a different capsule than the rest of them.

Another thing I liked was the C414/TL, which is actually a B/ULS with the
transformer removed and replaced with two resistors to make it
transformerless.

The B/ULS seems godawfully bright to me.

The C414/TLII doesn't use the same capsule as the others, and it is really
nasty sounding to my ears. It's not any relation to the TL.

I have not used any of the current generation, but if your customer absolutely
demands a C414, get the TL, or barring that the B/ULS. Because you cannot get
the EB.

There are also plenty of variations on these major ones with different
connectors, etc. Don't be afraid of them just because they have a funny
connector.

Note that there are a lot of hackjobs on the used market also. Plenty of
folks put the B/ULS capsules in their EB when the original capsule failed.
Plenty of folks modified their B/ULS to be a TL. So what it says on the
case may not indicate what is really inside.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On 2/21/2011 5:54 AM, adam79 wrote:
I've been looking into the AKG 414. In my research, I've
learned that there were several versions of the 414, prior
to it being discontinued for the XLS/XLII models. Did the
414 follow the same path as the Sennheiser 421 (the older
version being superior to the new)?

Not at all. The acoustic part (capsule and grill) are pretty
much the same so frequency response and polar patterns are
pretty similar across the board, but the differences are in
the electronics. Perhaps the biggest difference is between
the transformer output and transformerless output models.
There are different phantom powering schemes (some models
will work on as low as 12V) which may make a difference in
the basic headroom of the mic.

Like anything else in audio, if you're critical, "best" is
relative. Better to try an individual mic that you can get
your hands on, and buy it if you like it, don't buy it if
you don't like it. Seek out legitimate, full time dealers,
not a random seller on eBay who won't take it back if you
don't like it.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be
operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although
it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge
of audio." - John Watkinson

http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and
interesting audio stuff

[adam79]

On 2/21/11 8:56 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/21/2011 5:54 AM, adam79 wrote:
I've been looking into the AKG 414. In my research, I've
learned that there were several versions of the 414, prior
to it being discontinued for the XLS/XLII models. Did the
414 follow the same path as the Sennheiser 421 (the older
version being superior to the new)?

Not at all. The acoustic part (capsule and grill) are pretty much the
same so frequency response and polar patterns are pretty similar across
the board, but the differences are in the electronics. Perhaps the
biggest difference is between the transformer output and transformerless
output models. There are different phantom powering schemes (some models
will work on as low as 12V) which may make a difference in the basic
headroom of the mic.

Like anything else in audio, if you're critical, "best" is relative.
Better to try an individual mic that you can get your hands on, and buy
it if you like it, don't buy it if you don't like it. Seek out
legitimate, full time dealers, not a random seller on eBay who won't
take it back if you don't like it.


I found a great thread on this topic over on the gear page:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-...-xls-xlii.html.
To summarize, the CK12 capsule used in the earlier models is the key to
the sound. The AKG CT12 (the 414's predecessor) is highly regarded on
that forum. Apparently the 414 is inconsistent from mic to mic.. it's
hit or miss, with the occasional diamond in the rough. Since the CT12
and C414EB are out of production, it's impossible to try out every mic
in a store's stock (to find one of the good ones). Someone makes a
capsule modeled after the CK12 capsule for $330. I'm probably gonna pass
on buying one of these mics due to the risk involved (especially on the
internet without hearing it first).

-Adam

[Scott Dorsey]

adam79 wrote:
To summarize, the CK12 capsule used in the earlier models is the key to
the sound. The AKG CT12 (the 414's predecessor) is highly regarded on
that forum.

It's the key to WHAT sound? The CK12 does have a very distinctive sound,
it's true. Is that the sound you want? I don't know.

Apparently the 414 is inconsistent from mic to mic.. it's
hit or miss, with the occasional diamond in the rough.

No, not at all. These were very reliable microphones and very well made
and they were and remain very consistent. You can pick up two B/ULS mikes
off the shelf and be sure they will sound the same. If they don't, AKG
will fix them.

What is inconsistent is the fact that there are a lot of 414/EB mikes
out there with CK12 capsules that are broken, or have been repaired by
people who don't know how to do the job properly. Or they have been
modified by a well-known microphone technician who has a habit of screwing
up those capsules in a particular way.

Do not consider this to be typical of the 414. This is typical of a
product that has not been made in many years, which is no longer supported
by the manufacturer, which is poorly understood, and which is often modified
by people with big reputations but little sense. This is what causes the
inconsistency in the 414/EB.

Since the CT12
and C414EB are out of production, it's impossible to try out every mic
in a store's stock (to find one of the good ones). Someone makes a
capsule modeled after the CK12 capsule for $330. I'm probably gonna pass
on buying one of these mics due to the risk involved (especially on the
internet without hearing it first).

Basically, they don't exist. You cannot buy a 414/EB and have any assurance
that it really is a 414/EB and that it's in any decent condition. There are
some people who have them in their cabinets, but they are not going to sell
them.

There are probably a dozen folks out there making CK12 copies. Some of them
are better than others. Some of them are pretty damn awful. But much of
the sound of the 414/EB comes from the grille and the mounting rather than
the capsule, too. So just having a capsule buys you nothing.

But there are plenty of other 414 variants using the four newer capsule
designs too, and they are also 414s.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

adam79 wrote:

On 2/21/11 8:56 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 2/21/2011 5:54 AM, adam79 wrote:
I've been looking into the AKG 414. In my research, I've
learned that there were several versions of the 414, prior
to it being discontinued for the XLS/XLII models. Did the
414 follow the same path as the Sennheiser 421 (the older
version being superior to the new)?

Not at all. The acoustic part (capsule and grill) are pretty much the
same so frequency response and polar patterns are pretty similar across
the board, but the differences are in the electronics. Perhaps the
biggest difference is between the transformer output and transformerless
output models. There are different phantom powering schemes (some models
will work on as low as 12V) which may make a difference in the basic
headroom of the mic.

Like anything else in audio, if you're critical, "best" is relative.
Better to try an individual mic that you can get your hands on, and buy
it if you like it, don't buy it if you don't like it. Seek out
legitimate, full time dealers, not a random seller on eBay who won't
take it back if you don't like it.


I found a great thread on this topic over on the gear page:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-...-c414-xls-xlii
.html. To summarize, the CK12 capsule used in the earlier models is the
key to the sound. The AKG CT12 (the 414's predecessor) is highly regarded
on that forum. Apparently the 414 is inconsistent from mic to mic.. it's
hit or miss, with the occasional diamond in the rough. Since the CT12 and
C414EB are out of production, it's impossible to try out every mic in a
store's stock (to find one of the good ones). Someone makes a capsule
modeled after the CK12 capsule for $330. I'm probably gonna pass on buying
one of these mics due to the risk involved (especially on the internet
without hearing it first).

-Adam

Be careful with Internet opinions, especially on GSlutz. AKG's QC is
very consistent. The only thing to take away from those opinions is that
the original model with teh Cik12 cap is killer, and no, you won't find
one cheap. They are held dear for good reason.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

The B/ULS seems godawfully bright to me.

Not by today's standards !

I have a B-ULS and a B-XLS.

SOS gave them some sort a 'award' at NAMM evidently. BBC seem to use them
extensively. Yes, looking out for a cheap 'real' EB, but not holding my
breath ;-)

geoff

[david correia]

In article ,
"geoff" wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

The B/ULS seems godawfully bright to me.

Not by today's standards !

I have a B-ULS and a B-XLS.

SOS gave them some sort a 'award' at NAMM evidently. BBC seem to use them
extensively. Yes, looking out for a cheap 'real' EB, but not holding my
breath ;-)

geoff


It ain't godawfully bright when plugged into a good pre. My U87 sounds
like crap plugged into an older Mackie. Oh ya, Scott hates 87's too.

I am a B-ULS fan, again, with the caveat of a good pre.

(I used a 414, a Beyer 160 & an 87 together for hours today, recording a
female solo artist, acoustic gtr & vocal - 87 on the vocal, the other 2
on the gtr.)

For acoustic gtr I typically pair a 414 with either a 160, a great
sounding re20 or a U195 if it needs to get fatter, or an 87.

The 414 in particular has a *really* tight pickup pattern in figure 8.
Had virtually no vocal on the 414 gtr track. Same for the 160. (The 414
was plugged into a Rupert Amek 9098 pre/eq, the 160 into a Rupert Amek
CIB. btw, the 414 went in flat. No eq.)

414 sounds great on snare too, especially side stick. And floor toms
too. And some female vocals (although a C12 414 is supposed to be
heaven.) And for male voiceover work. And ...

So how does your buls compare with your B-XLS? I have been curious for a
while about the sound of all the other models that came after it.





David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:53:38 -0500, geoff wrote
(in article ) :

Scott Dorsey wrote:

The B/ULS seems godawfully bright to me.

Not by today's standards !

I have a B-ULS and a B-XLS.

SOS gave them some sort a 'award' at NAMM evidently. BBC seem to use them
extensively. Yes, looking out for a cheap 'real' EB, but not holding my
breath ;-)

geoff



Most of the C414 I have heard are very sensitive to what preamp they like. If
they don't like it it sounds very bright and nasty.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Scott Dorsey]

Ty Ford wrote:

Most of the C414 I have heard are very sensitive to what preamp they like. If
they don't like it it sounds very bright and nasty.

Yes. This is not the case with the TL and the TLII, and it would imply to me
that it's the output transformer ringing.

Still, even the TL is brighter than I'd like for most stuff.
--scott


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

[Scott Dorsey]

david correia wrote:

It ain't godawfully bright when plugged into a good pre. My U87 sounds
like crap plugged into an older Mackie. Oh ya, Scott hates 87's too.

It's not godawfully bright, but it's bright.

As I said earlier, I think the problem with cheap preamps is that the
B/ULS and EB transformers are very sensitive to loading.

For an interesting comparison, try recording something on a U87 and a 414
and slowly pull the source away from the mikes. You'll find that the room
sound on the 414 is a whole lot better than on the U87, which implies to me
that the off-axis response is a lot more even. The 414B/ULS is not a bad mike,
it's just a bright mike.

The 414 in particular has a *really* tight pickup pattern in figure 8.
Had virtually no vocal on the 414 gtr track. Same for the 160. (The 414
was plugged into a Rupert Amek 9098 pre/eq, the 160 into a Rupert Amek
CIB. btw, the 414 went in flat. No eq.)

This is NORMAL. This is what you should EXPECT. There is absolutely no
reason NOT to have that good a null on a figure-8 microphone today. Yeah,
there are a lot of figure-8 mikes for sale with lousy nulls but that is
not acceptable.

414 sounds great on snare too, especially side stick. And floor toms
too. And some female vocals (although a C12 414 is supposed to be
heaven.) And for male voiceover work. And ...

I still find the B/ULS on the bright side. More so than the EB also.

So how does your buls compare with your B-XLS? I have been curious for a
while about the sound of all the other models that came after it.

I'm curious what Stamler thinks about this also.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[PStamler]

On Feb 25, 9:29*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
david correia wrote:



It ain't godawfully bright when plugged into a good pre. My U87 sounds
like crap plugged into an older Mackie. Oh ya, Scott hates 87's too.

It's not godawfully bright, but it's bright.

As I said earlier, I think the problem with cheap preamps is that the
B/ULS and EB transformers are very sensitive to loading.

For an interesting comparison, try recording something on a U87 and a 414
and slowly pull the source away from the mikes. *You'll find that the room
sound on the 414 is a whole lot better than on the U87, which implies to me
that the off-axis response is a lot more even. *The 414B/ULS is not a bad mike,
it's just a bright mike.

The 414 in particular has a *really* tight pickup pattern in figure 8.
Had virtually no vocal on the 414 gtr track. Same for the 160. (The 414
was plugged into a Rupert Amek 9098 pre/eq, the 160 into a Rupert Amek
CIB. btw, the 414 went in flat. No eq.)

This is NORMAL. *This is what you should EXPECT. *There is absolutely no
reason NOT to have that good a null on a figure-8 microphone today. *Yeah,
there are a lot of figure-8 mikes for sale with lousy nulls but that is
not acceptable.

414 sounds great on snare too, especially side stick. And floor toms
too. And some female vocals (although a C12 414 is supposed to be
heaven.) And for male voiceover work. And ...

I still find the B/ULS on the bright side. *More so than the EB also.

So how does your buls compare with your B-XLS? I have been curious for a
while about the sound of all the other models that came after it.

I'm curious what Stamler thinks about this also.
--scott

I can't comment much, since I haven't tested transformer-coupled
models of the 414. It's possible they're load-sensitive, but I have no
data to offer. The only 414s I've messed with in the last several
years have been transformerless, the BXLS and the BXLII.

Peace,
Paul

[geoff]

david correia wrote:

So how does your buls compare with your B-XLS? I have been curious
for a while about the sound of all the other models that came after
it.


B-XLS very similar on-axis, slightly 'different' off-axis ('looser' ?) on
cardiod and hyper. But the 'wide-cardiod' pattern on the XLS makes it a
worthwhile mic just for that !

geoff