Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What Are These AKG Tube Mics?

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
January 11, 2005 9:23:25 PM

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

I was watching some clips from The Beatles "Let It Be" and kept
noticing the small mikes they were using on vocals. I am told they were
some kind of small AKG tube mic, made for broadcast (so as not to
obscure the singer view). Anyone know what they are and if they are
still around?

Thanks
TH

More about : akg tube mics

January 12, 2005 12:12:04 AM

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

Hey thanks guys. The video clips are in "The Beatles Anthology," and
the mics are used for the vocals. I was listening to the DVD under
headphones and was knocked by the vocal quality from these little mics.
Tom H
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 7:03:47 AM

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

<tom@aerovons.com> wrote in message
news:1105496605.068720.102900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I was watching some clips from The Beatles "Let It Be" and kept
> noticing the small mikes they were using on vocals. I am told they were
> some kind of small AKG tube mic, made for broadcast (so as not to
> obscure the singer view). Anyone know what they are and if they are
> still around?

I don't have that video to reference, but when you say "small" and "tube"
and "AKG" in the same sentence regarding that era, I would have to guess
c-60's

Neil Henderson
Related resources
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 7:19:20 AM

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

in article 1105496605.068720.102900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
tom@aerovons.com at tom@aerovons.com wrote on 1/11/05 9:23 PM:

> I was watching some clips from The Beatles "Let It Be" and kept
> noticing the small mikes they were using on vocals. I am told they were
> some kind of small AKG tube mic, made for broadcast (so as not to
> obscure the singer view). Anyone know what they are and if they are
> still around?

If they were tube it would be the original AKG CMS system -

C60 preamp, probably the CK1 cardiod capsule
and VR-2 extension tube between the capsule and preamp.
http://www.akg.com/products/powerslave,mynodeid,15,id,7...,
EN.html

The C61 preamp was a nuvistor version of the pre
The C451 pre was a fet transistor version of the pre
CK capsules and VR extension tubes worked on all these preamps

Not made anymore. capsules and preamps easy to find.
Extension tubes not so easy.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 8:32:58 AM

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

in article 1105506724.349754.323000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com,
tom@aerovons.com at tom@aerovons.com wrote on 1/12/05 12:12 AM:

> Hey thanks guys. The video clips are in "The Beatles Anthology," and
> the mics are used for the vocals. I was listening to the DVD under
> headphones and was knocked by the vocal quality from these little mics.
> Tom H
>

Well, I dig Aerovons
Looky what's up on eBay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...
&rd=1
January 12, 2005 10:04:11 AM

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

"Well, I dig Aerovons
Looky what's up on eBay"
Hey thanks for the kind words and the link!

TH
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 12:36:34 PM

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

In article <1105496605.068720.102900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<tom@aerovons.com> wrote:
>I was watching some clips from The Beatles "Let It Be" and kept
>noticing the small mikes they were using on vocals. I am told they were
>some kind of small AKG tube mic, made for broadcast (so as not to
>obscure the singer view). Anyone know what they are and if they are
>still around?

That sounds like the AKG C-60.

The basic evolution is that the C-60 was replaced with the solid state
C-451, which used the same capsules. Those got replaced with the C-460
which used a slightly different capsule design and transformerless electronics
that had some problems. This has recently been supplanted by the C-480
which has much cleaner transformerless electronics.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 5:42:21 PM

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

tom@aerovons.com wrote:
> I was watching some clips from The Beatles "Let It Be" and kept
> noticing the small mikes they were using on vocals. I am told they were
> some kind of small AKG tube mic, made for broadcast (so as not to
> obscure the singer view). Anyone know what they are and if they are
> still around?
>
> Thanks
> TH
>

I think that was a C-28

Hans

--




This is a non-profit organization;
we didn't plan it that way, but it is

=====================================


(remove uppercase trap, and double the number to reply)
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 7:10:10 PM

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

But the 460 had a transformer... And Phantom power was recovered from the
center tap.

JP

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:cs3cli$d5s$1@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <1105496605.068720.102900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> <tom@aerovons.com> wrote:
> >I was watching some clips from The Beatles "Let It Be" and kept
> >noticing the small mikes they were using on vocals. I am told they were
> >some kind of small AKG tube mic, made for broadcast (so as not to
> >obscure the singer view). Anyone know what they are and if they are
> >still around?
>
> That sounds like the AKG C-60.
>
> The basic evolution is that the C-60 was replaced with the solid state
> C-451, which used the same capsules. Those got replaced with the C-460
> which used a slightly different capsule design and transformerless
electronics
> that had some problems. This has recently been supplanted by the C-480
> which has much cleaner transformerless electronics.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 7:10:11 PM

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

JP Gerard <jpgerard@skynet.be> wrote:
>But the 460 had a transformer... And Phantom power was recovered from the
>center tap.

I had to dig the schematic out of the files, but you're right.

Hmm. What WAS the improvement from the 451 to the 460 supposed to be?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 7:32:14 PM

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

State Of The Art IC technology!

I guess they were really proud of the design.
An opamp in a mic, wow.

But IMHO, that was the problem, right there...

JP

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:cs3evp$sor$1@panix2.panix.com...
> JP Gerard <jpgerard@skynet.be> wrote:
> >But the 460 had a transformer... And Phantom power was recovered from the
> >center tap.
>
> I had to dig the schematic out of the files, but you're right.
>
> Hmm. What WAS the improvement from the 451 to the 460 supposed to be?
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 7:32:15 PM

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

What problem are you referring to? I've got a C460B/CK1 and I've noticed no
problems/distortion/wierdness.......at all. I have heard others refer to
these *problems* but have never heard them specified.

DJ

"JP Gerard" <jpgerard@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:41e54317$0$2644$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> State Of The Art IC technology!
>
> I guess they were really proud of the design.
> An opamp in a mic, wow.
>
> But IMHO, that was the problem, right there...
>
> JP
>
> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:cs3evp$sor$1@panix2.panix.com...
> > JP Gerard <jpgerard@skynet.be> wrote:
> > >But the 460 had a transformer... And Phantom power was recovered from
the
> > >center tap.
> >
> > I had to dig the schematic out of the files, but you're right.
> >
> > Hmm. What WAS the improvement from the 451 to the 460 supposed to be?
> > --scott
> >
> > --
> > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
>
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 7:32:16 PM

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

Animix wrote:
> What problem are you referring to? I've got a C460B/CK1 and I've noticed no
> problems/distortion/wierdness.......at all. I have heard others refer to
> these *problems* but have never heard them specified.

The best way to hear it is to borrow a C480B (or a modified C460B) and compare with your own capsule.

$175 to Audio Upgrades will get you a *much* cleaner sounding microphone.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 7:32:16 PM

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

Animix <animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote:
>What problem are you referring to? I've got a C460B/CK1 and I've noticed no
>problems/distortion/wierdness.......at all. I have heard others refer to
>these *problems* but have never heard them specified.

Harshness in the top octave. Worse at higher sound levels. Try the
key jingle test and see if you don't notice it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 7:51:28 PM

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

Hal Laurent wrote:
> "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
> news:1gqa0qg.ryhled1tm7mciN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
>
> > The Schoeps sound fabulous, but perhaps slightly euphonic.
>
> Hank, that's a curious wording...it seems to imply that you think
"euphonic"
> is a bad thing. What exactly do you mean when you say "euphonic"?
>
> Hal Laurent
> Baltimore

Has anyone tried the mohave audio tube conversion kit for the mxl 603?
I've heard a lot of good things about the tube conversion kit for the
mxl 2001, but have to wait for my next paycheck to get the kit.
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 8:23:05 PM

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

I suggest you AB that mic vs. a Schoeps of any (reasonable) vintage with an
MK4 capsule (flat cardioid).

I think the difference will be quite obvious, especially as soon as the
ambient SPL crosses the 100dB mark...

Also, if you talk in each mic, you'll notice a slightly weird, hard to
describe effect with the 460, not present with the Schoeps - much more
direct and natural.

JP

"Animix" <animix_spamless_@animas.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:cs3h1n05em@enews2.newsguy.com...
> What problem are you referring to? I've got a C460B/CK1 and I've noticed
no
> problems/distortion/wierdness.......at all. I have heard others refer to
> these *problems* but have never heard them specified.
>
> DJ
>
> "JP Gerard" <jpgerard@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:41e54317$0$2644$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> > State Of The Art IC technology!
> >
> > I guess they were really proud of the design.
> > An opamp in a mic, wow.
> >
> > But IMHO, that was the problem, right there...
> >
> > JP
> >
> > "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> a écrit dans le message de
> > news:cs3evp$sor$1@panix2.panix.com...
> > > JP Gerard <jpgerard@skynet.be> wrote:
> > > >But the 460 had a transformer... And Phantom power was recovered from
> the
> > > >center tap.
> > >
> > > I had to dig the schematic out of the files, but you're right.
> > >
> > > Hmm. What WAS the improvement from the 451 to the 460 supposed to be?
> > > --scott
> > >
> > > --
> > > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 8:23:06 PM

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

JP Gerard wrote:

> I suggest you AB that mic vs. a Schoeps of any (reasonable) vintage with an
> MK4 capsule (flat cardioid).

> I think the difference will be quite obvious, especially as soon as the
> ambient SPL crosses the 100dB mark...

> Also, if you talk in each mic, you'll notice a slightly weird, hard to
> describe effect with the 460, not present with the Schoeps - much more
> direct and natural.

My own perception is that the C460 actually sounds worse than the C451,
while the C480 sounds better than either. OTOH, the Jim Williams
modified C460 is a sleeper, and often cheaper than a C480.

--
ha
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 9:46:02 PM

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

I agree.

I've also had good success replacing the ceramic caps in my 451s with PP or
PE types; also, you can (OK, it's fiddly) change the FET for a better one,
after rebias you can get a slightly better S/N ratio.

JP

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:1gq9qea.736jygw8pfzoN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
> JP Gerard wrote:
>
> > I suggest you AB that mic vs. a Schoeps of any (reasonable) vintage with
an
> > MK4 capsule (flat cardioid).
>
> > I think the difference will be quite obvious, especially as soon as the
> > ambient SPL crosses the 100dB mark...
>
> > Also, if you talk in each mic, you'll notice a slightly weird, hard to
> > describe effect with the 460, not present with the Schoeps - much more
> > direct and natural.
>
> My own perception is that the C460 actually sounds worse than the C451,
> while the C480 sounds better than either. OTOH, the Jim Williams
> modified C460 is a sleeper, and often cheaper than a C480.
>
> --
> ha
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 9:46:03 PM

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

JP Gerard <jpgerard@skynet.be> wrote:
>
>I've also had good success replacing the ceramic caps in my 451s with PP or
>PE types; also, you can (OK, it's fiddly) change the FET for a better one,
>after rebias you can get a slightly better S/N ratio.

I think a lot of the problems with the 451 are in the transformer. Is there
room in there to shoehorn one of the Lundahl ones?
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
January 12, 2005 10:38:51 PM

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

Hohoho... I don't think so.
Remember, there are two coils around the tranny, one on each side,
components before, components after...

Maybe an open frame OEP... nah, probably not.

JP

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:cs3pck$6uk$1@panix2.panix.com...
> JP Gerard <jpgerard@skynet.be> wrote:
> >
> >I've also had good success replacing the ceramic caps in my 451s with PP
or
> >PE types; also, you can (OK, it's fiddly) change the FET for a better
one,
> >after rebias you can get a slightly better S/N ratio.
>
> I think a lot of the problems with the 451 are in the transformer. Is
there
> room in there to shoehorn one of the Lundahl ones?
> --scott
>
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
January 13, 2005 1:11:39 AM

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

tom@aerovons.com wrote:
> I was watching some clips from The Beatles "Let It Be" and kept
> noticing the small mikes they were using on vocals. I am told they were
> some kind of small AKG tube mic, made for broadcast (so as not to
> obscure the singer view). Anyone know what they are and if they are
> still around?

The following is a Letter to the Editor from Mix magazine, May 2004. The
letter was written by Chad Shapiro. he sheds some light on the subject.
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_letters_mix_33/index.htm...

"MYSTERY MIC

In the January 2004 issue of Mix, the article “Let It Be…Naked” states
that The Beatles' last concert used the Neumann KM84i for vocal mics.
They wouldn't have [had] a KM84i, as the “i” stands for a U.S. export
version of the mic with an XLR connector instead of Tuchel. Those are
AKG C28s, which also offered a capsule extension rod. The available
Neumann extension rod was not nearly as long as some of the available
AKG C28 extensions. You see the AKG C28 in quite a few Beatles sessions
from this era. If you look at pictures from the rooftop concert, the mic
body is about twice as long as a Neumann KM84.
Chad Shapiro"

--
Eric

www.Raw-Tracks.com
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 1:19:34 AM

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

JP-
I've thought about recapping mine, too. How do you get it open?
Thanks
Kurt


JP Gerard wrote:
> I agree.
>
> I've also had good success replacing the ceramic caps in my 451s with
PP or
> PE types; also, you can (OK, it's fiddly) change the FET for a better
one,
> after rebias you can get a slightly better S/N ratio.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 11:16:49 AM

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

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cs3cli$d5s$1@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <1105496605.068720.102900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> <tom@aerovons.com> wrote:
>>I was watching some clips from The Beatles "Let It Be" and kept
>>noticing the small mikes they were using on vocals. I am told they were
>>some kind of small AKG tube mic, made for broadcast (so as not to
>>obscure the singer view). Anyone know what they are and if they are
>>still around?
>
> That sounds like the AKG C-60.
>
> The basic evolution is that the C-60 was replaced with the solid state
> C-451, which used the same capsules. Those got replaced with the C-460
> which used a slightly different capsule design and transformerless
> electronics
> that had some problems. This has recently been supplanted by the C-480
> which has much cleaner transformerless electronics.
> --scott

I have a C460, but no capsule. Haven't bothered with a capsule because it
"has some problems' but wonder if there is anything to do that can address
those 'problems'. Or is it fundmental ?

geoff
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 11:16:50 AM

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

Geoff Wood <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:cs3cli$d5s$1@panix2.panix.com...
>> In article <1105496605.068720.102900@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> <tom@aerovons.com> wrote:
>>>I was watching some clips from The Beatles "Let It Be" and kept
>>>noticing the small mikes they were using on vocals. I am told they were
>>>some kind of small AKG tube mic, made for broadcast (so as not to
>>>obscure the singer view). Anyone know what they are and if they are
>>>still around?
>>
>> That sounds like the AKG C-60.
>>
>> The basic evolution is that the C-60 was replaced with the solid state
>> C-451, which used the same capsules. Those got replaced with the C-460
>> which used a slightly different capsule design and transformerless
>> electronics
>> that had some problems. This has recently been supplanted by the C-480
>> which has much cleaner transformerless electronics.
>
>I have a C460, but no capsule. Haven't bothered with a capsule because it
>"has some problems' but wonder if there is anything to do that can address
>those 'problems'. Or is it fundmental ?

There are reports here (some earlier in this thread, even) that Jim Williams
from Audio Upgrades has a fix for them.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 11:16:51 AM

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Geoff Wood <geoff@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> I have a C460, but no capsule. Haven't bothered with a capsule because it
>> "has some problems' but wonder if there is anything to do that can address
>> those 'problems'. Or is it fundmental ?
>
>
> There are reports here (some earlier in this thread, even) that Jim Williams
> from Audio Upgrades has a fix for them.

Unless "has some problems" mean it doesn't work right now. One of the bodies I bought had a broken former on its power supply transformer (tiny little switching coil.) $42 for the part plus freight from AKG. Jim installed when he was doing the upgrade.
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 11:16:51 AM

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

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> There are reports here (some earlier in this thread, even) that Jim Williams
> from Audio Upgrades has a fix for them.

So I'll say it again, that the JW mod'd 460's seem more accurate to me
than my new Schoeps CMC6 MK4 mics. The Schoeps sound fabulous, but
perhaps slightly euphonic. Mind you, if one sounds no better than I do
this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Jim WIlliams is a pretty open guy and might even just tell someone what
he does. I think he rips out the tranny and stuffs new electronics into
the 460. Whatever, it works and for what it costs to buy a used C460 and
get his mod, it's a bargain bigger than all eBay. <g>

--
ha
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 11:16:52 AM

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

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
news:1gqa0qg.ryhled1tm7mciN%walkinay@thegrid.net...

> The Schoeps sound fabulous, but perhaps slightly euphonic.

Hank, that's a curious wording...it seems to imply that you think "euphonic"
is a bad thing. What exactly do you mean when you say "euphonic"?

Hal Laurent
Baltimore
Anonymous
January 13, 2005 1:18:19 PM

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

Look at the XLR end: you'll see a little ring; it comes out if you slide a
tiny flathead screwdriver on the edge between the ring and the body and lift
it. Be careful, it might just fly through the room when it pops out. Then
you slide the guts out...

JP

"godcity" <godcity@aol.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1105597174.864713.269890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> JP-
> I've thought about recapping mine, too. How do you get it open?
> Thanks
> Kurt
>
>
> JP Gerard wrote:
> > I agree.
> >
> > I've also had good success replacing the ceramic caps in my 451s with
> PP or
> > PE types; also, you can (OK, it's fiddly) change the FET for a better
> one,
> > after rebias you can get a slightly better S/N ratio.
>
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 9:14:54 AM

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

Hal Laurent wrote:

> "hank alrich" wrote:

> > The Schoeps sound fabulous, but perhaps slightly euphonic.

> Hank, that's a curious wording...it seems to imply that you think "euphonic"
> is a bad thing. What exactly do you mean when you say "euphonic"?

I mean that they seem to me to have some kind of beneficial coloration,
beneficial in the sense of slightly enhancing something about the
source, kind of like the difference between the Millennia preamps and
the Great River NV series.

And like I said, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I really like them.
If the dollar ever grows up again against the Euro (yeah, riiiiight) I'd
like to get another pair of bodies and the MK41 caps. "Dream along with
me..."

--
ha
!