The sound of AKG C-414 B-ULS

[Kalle L.]

Hello there,

After some serious lurking, there are some questions that have been in
my mind for some time...

I have AKG C-414 B-ULS mic, which I've been using for recording almost
everything through my Mackie 1202 VLZ mixer. But often for some more
uptempo, rockish material my SM-57 has seemed to suite my voice
better. I have a kind of muddy (some would say soft) voice, not a rock
voice at all, although that's what I seem to sing with it :) It just
seems that it benefits from Shure's presence and straightforward
treble end. Then again, I don't think SM-57 works too well on slow
songs, which would demand more accuracy, softness and details from the
mic.

Yesterday I made some tests, recording my singing with both mics on my
Mackie 1202 VLZ mixer, and compared the results. I truly find the AKG
to sound a little flat with my voice. The sound doesn't have much
treble or punch, it's a little boomy and even bassy compared to SM-57.
Which to me seems strange, since 414 is supposed to be suitable for
various recording purposes, and it's supposed to be more sensitive
(which in theory would be a quality which would suit my voice better).

I tested with & without 75hz bass cut and various polar patterns, and
distances (proximity effect) with my 414 with similar results.

So my questions are as follows:

1. Has any of you have had experiences with recording male vocal with
C414 B-ULS with similar results (the voice not coming out with enough
treble or presence)
2. Do you use 414's bass cut options with male voices? 75 or 150 hz?
3. Is my main problem my Mackie (hiding some main character that the
414 has?), and could it be solved with a better mic preamp?
4. Do you have any suggestions as what could be a good vocal mic
(within the $100-500 price range) for my type of (soft, deep, not very
powerful) voice. Unfortunately my town has a very poor selection of
mics so I cannot really try out too many, otherwise I would of course
take a listen to them.


Any advice & opinions would be appreciated! Thanks :)

Kalle

[Ty Ford]

In Article >,
(Kalle L.) wrote:
>Hello there,
>
>After some serious lurking, there are some questions that have been in
>my mind for some time...
>
>I have AKG C-414 B-ULS mic, which I've been using for recording almost
>everything through my Mackie 1202 VLZ mixer. But often for some more
>uptempo, rockish material my SM-57 has seemed to suite my voice
>better. I have a kind of muddy (some would say soft) voice, not a rock
>voice at all, although that's what I seem to sing with it :) It just
>seems that it benefits from Shure's presence and straightforward
>treble end. Then again, I don't think SM-57 works too well on slow
>songs, which would demand more accuracy, softness and details from the
>mic.
>
>Yesterday I made some tests, recording my singing with both mics on my
>Mackie 1202 VLZ mixer, and compared the results. I truly find the AKG
>to sound a little flat with my voice. The sound doesn't have much
>treble or punch, it's a little boomy and even bassy compared to SM-57.
>Which to me seems strange, since 414 is supposed to be suitable for
>various recording purposes, and it's supposed to be more sensitive
>(which in theory would be a quality which would suit my voice better).
>
>I tested with & without 75hz bass cut and various polar patterns, and
>distances (proximity effect) with my 414 with similar results.
>
>So my questions are as follows:
>
>1. Has any of you have had experiences with recording male vocal with
>C414 B-ULS with similar results (the voice not coming out with enough
>treble or presence)

Only when you get too close to it. There's plenty of top end on a 414.

>2. Do you use 414's bass cut options with male voices? 75 or 150 hz?

Many vocals benefit from LF cut during recording or mixing.

>3. Is my main problem my Mackie (hiding some main character that the
>414 has?), and could it be solved with a better mic preamp?

Maybe. The mic/preamp combination is very involved.

>4. Do you have any suggestions as what could be a good vocal mic
>(within the $100-500 price range) for my type of (soft, deep, not very
>powerful) voice. Unfortunately my town has a very poor selection of
>mics so I cannot really try out too many, otherwise I would of course
>take a listen to them.

Which of the four patterns on the 414 are you using? Figure of eight and
hypercardioid will give you more bass boost, especially when set less than a
foot away.

How close are you? You should be at least a foot away from the mic.

How much foam do you have on the walls? Too much will make your sound dull
and lifeless.

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> 1. Has any of you have had experiences with recording male vocal with
> C414 B-ULS with similar results (the voice not coming out with enough
> treble or presence)

The few times I've tried mine on a male voice (because it was at
hand), I've almost always switched to something else. But I find that
it seems to work pretty well on many female voices.

> 3. Is my main problem my Mackie (hiding some main character that the
> 414 has?), and could it be solved with a better mic preamp?

Probably not. I've been listening to a few different preamps lately
(something that I don't do much) and find that the Mackie is pretty
typical of transformerless input preamps. Ones with transformer input
are decidedly different, but among those broad categories, the
differences are fairly small. So yeah, if you get a Great River
or other preamp with an input transformer, you might find that it
sounds better on your voice. And while another transformerless preamp
might have some qualities that you like better, I doubt that there
would be quite as noticable a difference from your Mackie as with the
transformer.

An SM57 has a frequency response that's nicely shaped to bring vocals
out in a typical rock mix and it's probalby about as good as you're
going to get without picking out something by listening that's a good
match to your own voice.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[ScotFraser]

<< 1. Has any of you have had experiences with recording male vocal with
C414 B-ULS with similar results (the voice not coming out with enough
treble or presence)>>

Yes. The proximity of the 414B-ULS is something I find very unnattractive, &
causes a very woolly response in the 150Hz region. Some male vocals sound
fantastic on this mic, some suck. It's almost never my first choice.

<<2. Do you use 414's bass cut options with male voices? 75 or 150 hz?>>

No. I use other means to get around the problem range.

<<3. Is my main problem my Mackie (hiding some main character that the
414 has?), and could it be solved with a better mic preamp?>>

Don't know. A 414 can sound very good through certain preamps, as well as not
very good at all with some high end preamps.

<<4. Do you have any suggestions as what could be a good vocal mic
(within the $100-500 price range) for my type of (soft, deep, not very
powerful) voice. >>

Voices are way too individual to know what mic will compliment your sound.
Trial & error is indispensible.


Scott Fraser

[Wayne]

><<3. Is my main problem my Mackie (hiding some main character that the
>414 has?), and could it be solved with a better mic preamp?>>
>
>Don't know. A 414 can sound very good through certain preamps, as well as not
>very good at all with some high end preamps.

Take the $500. and get a FMR RNMP or Grace and try your 414 again or the SM57.
A better preamp might do more good than a different mic. :>)

><<4. Do you have any suggestions as what could be a good vocal mic
>(within the $100-500 price range) for my type of (soft, deep, not very
>powerful) voice. >>
>
>Voices are way too individual to know what mic will compliment your sound.
>Trial & error is indispensible.
>
>
>Scott Fraser
>
>
For your voice and price point I suggest you try the following mics if you're
gonna use the Mackie:

Chinese knockoffs - MXL's or Studio Projects.
AT4040
EV RE-20
Sennheiser MD421


--Wayne

-"sounded good to me"-

[willp17]

(Kalle L.) wrote in message >...

> 1. Has any of you have had experiences with recording male vocal with
> C414 B-ULS with similar results (the voice not coming out with enough
> treble or presence)

FWIW, I've felt that the 414 sounds good on higher male or female
voices. For instance, I work with a singer/songwriter who sounds
somewhat like Don Henley, kinda high and airy, and it's great on his
voice.

> 4. Do you have any suggestions as what could be a good vocal mic
> (within the $100-500 price range) for my type of (soft, deep, not very
> powerful) voice.

Beyer M500? You could probably pick one of those up for maybe two
hundred. But, as others have said, if there's any way possible to try
it first I would highly recommend that.

[WillStG]

> (Kalle L.)

>I have AKG C-414 B-ULS mic, which I've been using for recording almost
>everything through my Mackie 1202 VLZ mixer. But often for some more
>uptempo, rockish material my SM-57 has seemed to suite my voice
>better. I have a kind of muddy (some would say soft) voice, not a rock
>voice at all, although that's what I seem to sing with it :) It just
>seems that it benefits from Shure's presence and straightforward
>treble end. Then again, I don't think SM-57 works too well on slow
>songs, which would demand more accuracy, softness and details from the
>mic.

If you sound good on an SM57, you sound good on an SM57. You have
plenty of Rock & Roll company in that, many rock singers have used them to
record their vocals although Neumanns and mics costing more were available.
Maybe you should consider yourself lucky you sound good on a cheap mic?

As for the 414BULS, most people around here don't really like them much
anyway. The original 414's were very different sounding. If you want a
condenser for more subtle songs though, the MXL mics like the V67 are cheap
enough around $100, the AT4050 is decent around $500 - maybe you'll get lucky
again... <g>


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Ty Ford]

In Article >,
(ScotFraser) wrote:
>Voices are way too individual to know what mic will compliment your sound.
>Trial & error is indispensible.
>
>
>Scott Fraser

Truer words were never spoken.

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Chris Seifert]

I've got to say I love my pair of 414 buls se mics. I use them often
but rarely for vocals.
Evryone here has given some great advice for other mics but I want to
really drive the point home that each person's voice has so many
qualities that what works for one person may or may not
work well for another. You really, must audition various mics to find
what will work for you.

One of the advantages of well equiped pro facilities is that they can
often line up a bunch of
mics and pre's and do a quick test of your voice on each then you can
know at least in that room, what combo captures your voice most
favorably. You may consider booking an hour of time at a few studio's
as the time you save by being able to audition the mics may be worth
it to you, not to mention all the info you may get from a good
engineer during your mic shootout.

good luck on your search
and by the way a good vocal mic that often gets overlooked and that is
affordable is the AKG C535. You'll not regret having it around for
other instrument later on to if your mic budget grows.

Chris
wavetrap



(WillStG) wrote in message >...
> > (Kalle L.)
>
> >I have AKG C-414 B-ULS mic, which I've been using for recording almost
> >everything through my Mackie 1202 VLZ mixer. But often for some more
> >uptempo, rockish material my SM-57 has seemed to suite my voice
> >better. I have a kind of muddy (some would say soft) voice, not a rock
> >voice at all, although that's what I seem to sing with it :) It just
> >seems that it benefits from Shure's presence and straightforward
> >treble end. Then again, I don't think SM-57 works too well on slow
> >songs, which would demand more accuracy, softness and details from the
> >mic.
>
> If you sound good on an SM57, you sound good on an SM57. You have
> plenty of Rock & Roll company in that, many rock singers have used them to
> record their vocals although Neumanns and mics costing more were available.
> Maybe you should consider yourself lucky you sound good on a cheap mic?
>
> As for the 414BULS, most people around here don't really like them much
> anyway. The original 414's were very different sounding. If you want a
> condenser for more subtle songs though, the MXL mics like the V67 are cheap
> enough around $100, the AT4050 is decent around $500 - maybe you'll get lucky
> again... <g>
>
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Kalle L.]

Hi,

First of all, I really want to thank everyone who answered my
questions, you've given me some valuable information. I've asked
advice a couple times here, and I've always received great answers.

I would love to be able to test mics somewhere near (or even far), but
that just isn't possible. I live in a small country & a small town,
and the selection of mics in the local shops & towns nearby is very
very limited.

I gather that it's a fact that for my type of voice 414 isn't too
good. My voice is exactly the opposite from Don Henley's by the way :)
Someone asked for the proximity that I record with...I am usually
around one feet away from the mic, using a pop shield. And I mainly
use cardioid pattern.

But I guess I'm lucky that SM57 can deliver the goods for me at least
in faster, rocking songs. But I have a firm belief that there is a
deeper quality to my voice, that's yet to be captured by it, so I'll
keep on looking. When checking out the specs of Studio Projects v67 it
looks like it could suit my voice very well. I've been also looking at
SE Electronic mic line, mostly the Z5600 model.... they might not be
that good, but heck: with them it doesn't cost too much to try,
either! :)

Have a good one!

Kalle
from Finland

[willp17]

(Kalle L.) wrote in message >...
> Hi,
>
> First of all, I really want to thank everyone who answered my
> questions, you've given me some valuable information. I've asked
> advice a couple times here, and I've always received great answers.
>
> I would love to be able to test mics somewhere near (or even far), but
> that just isn't possible. I live in a small country & a small town,
> and the selection of mics in the local shops & towns nearby is very
> very limited.
>
> I gather that it's a fact that for my type of voice 414 isn't too
> good. My voice is exactly the opposite from Don Henley's by the way :)
> Someone asked for the proximity that I record with...I am usually
> around one feet away from the mic, using a pop shield. And I mainly
> use cardioid pattern.
>
> But I guess I'm lucky that SM57 can deliver the goods for me at least
> in faster, rocking songs. But I have a firm belief that there is a
> deeper quality to my voice, that's yet to be captured by it, so I'll
> keep on looking. When checking out the specs of Studio Projects v67 it
> looks like it could suit my voice very well. I've been also looking at
> SE Electronic mic line, mostly the Z5600 model.... they might not be
> that good, but heck: with them it doesn't cost too much to try,
> either! :)
>
> Have a good one!
>
> Kalle
> from Finland

Kalle:

I hate to go cross forums on you, but this may be helpful. Over on
Pro Sound Web (recpit.prosoundweb.com) there is at least one AE from
Finland who posts regularly. (Check either Fletcher's forum or
Mixerman. Or, better yet, check E. Shaun's forum under "Team Europa".
I know, I know the Recpit used to be fairly rough & tumble, but these
days you can "feel the loooove" - really!) There's an AE that goes by
"skwaidu". Sounds like he works in a fairly well equipped studio and
by his posts he seems like a knowledgeable guy (I don't know him).
But, he IS in your country and is a working AE. Maybe that would be a
place to inquire. Who knows, he may be right in your backyard and may
be willing to help with auditioning some mics or steering you to a
place near you for further help. Or, you may find a place to record.
Who knows? Probably wouldn't hurt to ask. Hope that helps.

BTW, by pointing out that the singer I work with has a voice similiar
to Don Henley and uses a 414 very successfully, I had hoped to convey
that the 414 was exactly the wrong mic for your voice as you described
it. Sorry if that fell flat.

To my r.a.p. colleagues, sorry to refer him elsewhere, but personally,
I haven't run across too many AE's posting from Finland, so I thought
this was info to be shared. Hey, just trying to help a guy out.

[Junkmetal]

I've been trying to use my 414 ULS for vocals for 10 years and have
never been happy. The high end peak on it is too high to help with
vocals. The presence peak should be lower (4000 - 8000 khz). Also it
is so sensitive to proximity effect, that an inch or two difference
changes the whole sound of the mic (in cardiod). The wooley sound can
be lost if you place the mic just the right distance from the singer
(I've found 9 inches to be best), but what singer holds that still?

I am now using a Studio Pro C3 (large diaphram, multi pattern) with
much more success. It's only $325. It's wonderful sounding on
voices, as well as drum overheads, accordions, clarinets (and probably
a lot of other instruments).

[Ty Ford]

In Article >,
(Junkmetal) wrote:
>I've been trying to use my 414 ULS for vocals for 10 years and have
>never been happy. The high end peak on it is too high to help with
>vocals. The presence peak should be lower (4000 - 8000 khz). Also it
>is so sensitive to proximity effect, that an inch or two difference
>changes the whole sound of the mic (in cardiod). The wooley sound can
>be lost if you place the mic just the right distance from the singer
>(I've found 9 inches to be best), but what singer holds that still?
>
>I am now using a Studio Pro C3 (large diaphram, multi pattern) with
>much more success. It's only $325. It's wonderful sounding on
>voices, as well as drum overheads, accordions, clarinets (and probably
>a lot of other instruments).

Ewww!

Ty

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Wayne]

>In Article >,
(Junkmetal) wrote:
>>I've been trying to use my 414 ULS for vocals for 10 years and have
>>never been happy. The high end peak on it is too high to help with
>>vocals. The presence peak should be lower (4000 - 8000 khz). Also it
>>is so sensitive to proximity effect, that an inch or two difference
>>changes the whole sound of the mic (in cardiod). The wooley sound can
>>be lost if you place the mic just the right distance from the singer
>>(I've found 9 inches to be best), but what singer holds that still?
>>
>>I am now using a Studio Pro C3 (large diaphram, multi pattern) with
>>much more success. It's only $325. It's wonderful sounding on
>>voices, as well as drum overheads, accordions, clarinets (and probably
>>a lot of other instruments).
>
>Ewww!
>
>Ty
>
>

Translation please :>)
And remember, I like the TLII better than the BULS (BULS - - -), especially
thru the GR 2NV.


--Wayne

-"sounded good to me"-

[david]

In article >, Ty Ford
> wrote:

> >4. Do you have any suggestions as what could be a good vocal mic
> >(within the $100-500 price range) for my type of (soft, deep, not very
> >powerful) voice. Unfortunately my town has a very poor selection of
> >mics so I cannot really try out too many, otherwise I would of course
> >take a listen to them.
>
> Which of the four patterns on the 414 are you using? Figure of eight and
> hypercardioid will give you more bass boost, especially when set less than a
> foot away.
>
> How close are you? You should be at least a foot away from the mic.



I am a fan of the current 414, but not for singing. It is my fave
voiceover mic 'tho.

I cut vocals with the singer as close to the mic as I can get him/her,
to get the sound I like. It is always less than a foot. Of course I am
using nice mic pre's.

I think Ty's question of which pickup pattern was one I was also going
to raise. Do you know which pattern you are using?

The original poster said he wasn't getting something bright enough. I
reach for a 414 when I am looking to brighten something up.



David Correia
Celebration Sound
Warren, Rhode Island


www.CelebrationSound.com

[Kalle L.]

Hi there,

> I am a fan of the current 414, but not for singing. It is my fave
> voiceover mic 'tho.

I've noticed also that it sometimes seems to work on voiceovers, even
with my voice. But someone mentioned the "wooly" quality in it. I
agree, 100%, at least that's how it sounded with my vocal. "mud" would
be one term, but maybe too strong.

> I think Ty's question of which pickup pattern was one I was also going
> to raise. Do you know which pattern you are using?

I tested with cardioid and hyper-cardioid. The latter seemed somehow
have less that "woolly" character but it lacked punch at the same
time.

> The original poster said he wasn't getting something bright enough. I
> reach for a 414 when I am looking to brighten something up.

Yeah, I do that too. But with my voice it just...well it sounds
"wooly" :)

'Junkmetal' wrote that he had noticed how proximity effect played very
prominent role with trying to record vocals with 414 and I agree. And
I hate that, cannot seem to correct that with a compressor either.

willp17 wrote:

>BTW, by pointing out that the singer I work with has a voice similiar
> to Don Henley and uses a 414 very successfully, I had hoped to convey
>that the 414 was exactly the wrong mic for your voice as you
described
>it. Sorry if that fell flat.

No you didn't... I got that. :) I guess I didn't achieve very well in
stating that I agree with you: my voice in the opposite from Don
Henley-ish voice (I really don't have highs or air in my voice), and
therefore it makes sense why you succeeded where I failed.

But anyway, I'm happy that I tested my mics really extensively this
time, cause it clearly is better to understand their characters more
before I start my next session... Until now, I've stubled into my
problems usually at session time, and that's not so cool to face them
when I have the best artistic drive on and should get something on
tape.

Again, thanks to everyone for advices & insights. This forum is the
coolest!

Best Regards, Kalle