new AKG 414's...observations?

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

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.)
37 answers Last reply
More about observations
  1. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

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

    genericaudioperson@hotmail.com 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
  3. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    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.

    Ty Ford


    -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
    stuff are at www.tyford.com
  4. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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."
  5. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    JP Gerard wrote:
    > "Federico" <plokmichael@tiscali.it> a écrit
    > 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?
    ??
  6. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

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

    <genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
    news: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.)
    >
  7. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    ........why????

    JP

    "Federico" <plokmichael@tiscali.it> a écrit dans le message de
    news:P5hUe.33374$O6.2018684@news3.tin.it...
    > Is it possible to select the pattern while the mic not phantom powered?
    > F.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    Oh, it's not a mechanical switch, sorry, I missed that completely. Sorry!

    Euhm, yes, could be a pain in the ass...

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

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

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

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

    <alistair@themagicofradio.com> wrote in message
    news:1126340898.428357.86960@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.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.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

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

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

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

    <genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1126235664.923732.254810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.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
  16. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    <alistair@themagicofradio.com> wrote in message
    news:1126341574.470519.287220@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.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
  17. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    > 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.

    You know, the C414 has a better polar response than the U87 yet you'll see
    the U87 used on classical recording sessions.

    I wouldn't use the 87 but would use the 89.

    I would probably use a good 414, especially in omni.

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

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

    "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> 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
  19. Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

    "Federico" <plokmichael@tiscali.it> wrote in message
    news:P5hUe.33374$O6.2018684@news3.tin.it...
    > Is it possible to select the pattern while the mic not phantom powered?


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

    geoff
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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."
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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?
  32. 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
  33. 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
    news: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?
    >
    > 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?
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Pro Audio Audio Components