Which AKG C414 model recommended for rec. acoustic guitars ?

[Tunewolf]

Not long ago I thought that I recalled reading (-in SOS Editor Paul Whites 2012 "The Producer's Manual") that Paul had more often than not found good results recording acoustic guitars with a single AKG C414. -I was asked what the specific model & year the AKG C414 was that he was tracking acoustics with, -as apparently some don't think all of them are so very appropriate for recording acoustic guitars.

I got hold of the book again and found that actually he mentions that virtuoso guitarist Gordon Giltrap uses the AKG C414 at home, (successfully.) -under this, there's a photo of a AKG C414 TL II, -although on page #68 he also has a picture of a C414 XL II.

What Paul actually says in the book is, "Over the years I've tried many options but always come back to the same set up: A single high quality mic placed in the best position possible."

I wonder if anyone can tell me the specific AKG C414 that Gordon Giltrap uses at home ?

-And as it's a good bet that Paul has also successfully used AKG C414s of some kind when recording acoustics, what sort of C414 would he use?

"The Producer's Manual" is pub. 2011/2012 -the XL II & XLS were here since 2009 and they could of been using the B-ULS, B-P48,or B-TL II etc.

[Jack Ruston]

Personally I prefer the B-ULS for acoustic guitars - The 'nicest' ones are often the older EB's but they can be noisy, so for acoustics the B-ULS is nice. 414's fall into that'underwhelming on most things but hugely useful' category...In the same way that U87's are almost never the best possible option, but so often really usable, the 414 has similar traits in that respect. It's quite ordinary sounding, but just seems to work well on a lot of stuff - that said I think acoustic guitar is certainly where the 414 really shines the most, in the same way that 87's tend to shine on smaller amps. Anyway, if you see a B-ULS floating around the classifieds it's well worth a look

J

[Wonks]

The Elf is working on some Gordon Giltrap tracks at the moment, so if he pops in here, he should be able to get the answer for you.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I've brought your question to the attention of PW who should be along shortly to respond...

Personally, I wouldn't generally use the TLII and related versions as I find them a bit fierce at the top end. I'm very happy to record acoustics with my 414B-ULS models.

H

[Mike Stranks]

Gordon G hasn't used the AKG 414 for several years now... In fact he's sold it.

When he records himself - which isn't too often recently apart from getting ideas down - he's using a small-body SDC from Schoeps in one of these: Giltrap Signature H-clamp

Over the past couple of years or so the Elf and I have been working with Gordon on various miking technques including using two SDCs on neck and below-bridge body, and MS based very loosely around fret 12. For all I know the Elf may have tried some other stuff too.

It's always interesting working with Gordon. A very pleasant man indeed, but like all pros knows exactly what sound he wants. Of course, what works for one piece won't work for another as Gordon will have swapped to a guitar with a completely different sound characteristic!

[Tim Gillett]

It's always interesting working with Gordon. A very pleasant man indeed, but like all pros knows exactly what sound he wants. Of course, what works for one piece won't work for another as Gordon will have swapped to a guitar with a completely different sound characteristic!

What's the implication here for the recording microphone?

[Bob Bickerton]

One consideration is whether you wish to record in stereo or not. I prefer to, if the guitar part is exposed.

I once owned a C414 TLII and as Hugh says, not a great choice with it's quite severe high end lift. I haven't had the pleasure of owning the B-ULS, but the Neumann TLM 193 has a similar response in cardioid mode, so maybe an equivalent, and they do come up second hand. A really nice mic for all sorts of sources.

But my prefered choice would be stereo SDCs, which at a budget level could be Rode NT5s, maybe NT55s with Omni capsules if you have a kind acoustic to work in. I've also recently delved into M/S recording of guitars which is fascinating territory and a method I'm really enjoying, but I'm using an expensive set up, so probably out of budget.

Bob

[Hugh Robjohns]

Gordon G hasn't used the AKG 414 for several years now... In fact he's sold it.

Damn!

PW tells me: "I don’t know which model as it was Gordon’s mic... I’ll ask him when I get a chance..."

H

[Mixedup]

I once owned a C414 TLII and as Hugh says, not a great choice with it's quite severe high end lift. I haven't had the pleasure of owning the B-ULS

I once owned a TL version and couldn't find anything I preferred to use it on over the B-ULS so got rid... The B-ULS has remained in my possession and always will! I've not tried the old brass-capsule models which everyone says are nicer still...

[Hugh Robjohns]

I once owned a TL version and couldn't find anything I preferred to use it on over the B-ULS so got rid... The B-ULS has remained in my possession and always will! I've not tried the old brass-capsule models which everyone says are nicer still...

It's a confusing and myth-laden topic!

The early 414comb (with the very triangular base) came directly from the CK12 heritage and shared the same capsule, which had a distinct brightness to it, well suited to surviving the rigours of tape recording in the 60s and early 70s.

That was the brass-ringed capsule that went into the 414EB in the mid-70s, and is the version 'collectors' still favour most.

However, in the very late 70s or early 80s AKG switched to a teflon-surround capsule (2072-Z-0005) in the 414EB which was a little less bright in comparison. This capsule was much easier for AKG to make, and it has remained the production model ever since. There were a couple of other subsequent variants of the EB, including the first phantom-powered model (EB-48) and a remotely-controlled pattern selection model (E1).

The B-ULS version (ultra-linear series) came out in the mid-80s and had greatly improved electronics, making it noticeably quieter than either of the EB variants, and it retained the output transformer... and I think it's the best-sounding (or least-compromised!) C414 version... There was also a B-TL version later, which removed the output transformer...

However, customer pressure encouraged AKG to bring out a model with a brighter sound more closely aligned to the early CK12 capsule types, and that appeared first as the TL-II in the early 90s, and then the XL-II in the mid-2000s.

The capsule in these models was the 2072-Z-0009, and it was also used in the C12VR -- but it shares a similar construction to the Z-0005 model, with teflon surround.

The new XLS model which came out in the mid-2000s brought a very major circuit revision with electronic switching for polar pattern, filter, and pad. The XLS replaced the B-ULS/B-TL models, and the XL-II variant replaced the TL-II. Both of these newer models are considerably quieter again than the B-ULS -- but they lack the output transformer, and the sound can become a little too sterile for my tastes -- although they are still extremely good mics and I wouldn't refuse if someone offered me a stereo pair! The design was revised in the late 2000s to add additional polar pattern options (totalling 9, I think), and had a few other small revisions, including an upgraded internal capsule mount.

H

[Tim Gillett]

The BXLS replaced the B-ULS/B-TL models, and the XL-II variant replaced the TL-II. Both of these newer models are considerably quieter again than the B-ULS -- but they lack the output transformer, and the sound can become a little too sterile for my tastes --

By "sterile" do you mean accurate? If so isnt it the source that is too sterile for your tastes?

[Hugh Robjohns]

By "sterile" do you mean accurate? If so isnt it the source that is too sterile for your tastes?

No and No.

You want to play that game again, huh? I have a weird vision of you scrutinising every forum post just waiting to pounce on your pet topic...

I don't see how a source can be 'too sterile' -- the source is whatever the source is!

However, a recording can -- I think -- be 'too sterile', meaning lacking in some desired or aesthetic quality or character.

Sound recording is like painting in many ways -- its an art that involves some degree of interpretation and representation, as well as as range of technical skills.

H

[Mike Stranks]

Gordon G hasn't used the AKG 414 for several years now... In fact he's sold it.

Damn!

PW tells me: "I don’t know which model as it was Gordon’s mic... I’ll ask him when I get a chance..."

H

Don't worry; it's not gone far... I'll get back to you...

[Tim Gillett]

Tunewolf, I'm wondering if there is a practical application for you implied in your post. Are you looking at trying or purchasing a mic to record your acoustic guitar or someone else's?

[Sam Spoons]

Just to avoid some duplication of advice, the OP asks much the same question in this thread over in the recording techniques forum Dynamic Cardioid or Condenser Microphone for Vocals & Acoustic Guitar in a noisy, acoustically untreated room; .

[Tunewolf]

I once owned a TL version and couldn't find anything I preferred to use it on over the B-ULS so got rid... The B-ULS has remained in my possession and always will! I've not tried the old brass-capsule models which everyone says are nicer still...

The B-ULS version (ultra-linear series) came out in the mid-80s and had greatly improved electronics, making it noticeably quieter than any of the EB variants, and it retained the output transformer... I think it's the best-sounding (or least-compromised!) C414 version out there...
H

Thank you for pointing me to the "B-ULS" AKG C414 version (ultra-linear series), -I'll certainly keep an eye out for a used B-ULS.

I've been told that the slightly less expensive CAD E-100s (US version)-is also quite good for acoustic guitars (& vocals) -some say it even holds a candle to the C414 ?

It's unfortunate (perhaps) that I'm presently quite budget-bound, -as I see the somewhat more expensive AEA N22 ribbon microphone as a likely worthy direction for my needs & environmental circumstances.

[Jack Ruston]

Well it'd be interesting to try an N22...It's voiced especially for close in stuff, but IME people generally expect something from ribbons that they don't always deliver. If you had a 414 (let's say) you'd be more likely to get the sound on the record you like, so to speak.

There are lot's of cheaper microphones that might work very well for you. They just might not work so consistently well...It's the same across the board in terms of the 'industry standard' microphones...57 on amps or snare, 421 on toms, D12 on kick, 414's on percussion, piano or acoustic guitars, U87's on vocals or as a room mic etc etc...None of them are necessarily the best, but they might be the most consistent across a wide variety of different instruments and scenarios, and in many studios that makes them the wisest choice....the excellent being the enemy of the good and all that.

J

[Mixedup]

I've been told that the slightly less expensive CAD E-100s (US version)-is also quite good for acoustic guitars (& vocals) -some say it even holds a candle to the C414 ?

I have a CAD Equitek E200. It's a really nice-sounding mic. Though bulky! Doesn't sound *the same as* my 414 B-ULS but very good. They crop up second hand for not too much - £100-150. Highly recommended if you're on a budget. I've notbused the newer Equiteks. Though I gather they're similar but with lower noise.

[ronmac]

Here is a mic fairly close to you to consider. I have no affiliation with the seller.

http://www.kijiji.ca/v-view-details.htm ... 1131304007

[The Elf]

I can tell you that Gordon used to own an AKG C414 B-ULS, but that mic is now part of my collection!

As Mike Stranks had mentioned, Gordon has an amazing collection of guitars, and that keeps me on my toes. I really don't have a fixed plan from one session to the next. It really is a case of using my ears and being sensitive to what combination of mic's and placement will allow each instrument to shine. Beyond this I also have to take into account what Gordon is trying to say with a given piece of music - maybe one piece needs to sounds strident, but in an other case it may need to have intimacy. All of these considerations have to play their part in my choice of mic(s) and placement.

We do still use the C414, though not so often. I sometimes use it in an M/S combo with a U87. Omni NT55s, U87, KM184 and Beyer M201 are frequent favourites, and I also like to throw the dice with other mic's, since I'm always open to being pleasantly surprised. With a larger body guitar I do like to hear some subtle stereo width, so I will try two mic's from various angles, but I'm only looking to make the guitar 'bloom' between the speakers - not produce anything obviously 'wide'.

I hope something here helps. Gordon has some beautiful music in progress right at this moment. Speaking as a long-time fan, I consider this new work to be his very best to date. It is a privelege to be able to work with this wonderfully talented and self-effacing gentleman.

I may be able to discuss some of the specifics once the world gets to hear it...

[Tim Gillett]

Well it'd be interesting to try an N22...It's voiced especially for close in stuff, but IME people generally expect something from ribbons that they don't always deliver. If you had a 414 (let's say) you'd be more likely to get the sound on the record you like, so to speak.

There are lot's of cheaper microphones that might work very well for you. They just might not work so consistently well...It's the same across the board in terms of the 'industry standard' microphones...57 on amps or snare, 421 on toms, D12 on kick, 414's on percussion, piano or acoustic guitars, U87's on vocals or as a room mic etc etc...None of them are necessarily the best, but they might be the most consistent across a wide variety of different instruments and scenarios, and in many studios that makes them the wisest choice....the excellent being the enemy of the good and all that.

J

This seems reasonable as far as it goes, but I feel it would be even better if more often, it could be explained why such and such a mic consistently works better across a range of sources, and why occasionally it doesnt. A bit like Ethan Winer perhaps, I dont understand why it seems to remain so mysterious.

[Jack Ruston]

Sure.. mics are subject to some degree of bumpy unevenness in terms of their frequency response and the way they distort at certain frequencies. The most consistent tend to be fairly well mannered in this respect. There's less chance that the mic is going to bring out an unpleasant aspect of the source. I'd also say that the brighter the mic, the less consistently useful it becomes. It might be impressive on the right source, sounding very hifi, but there's also more chance that it will sound sibilant, spitty or thin on others. The more natural microphones tend to avoid those potential 'wrong mic' moments.

J

[Tim Gillett]

Agreed. I was assuming high quality, well mannered mics. I was more thinking of the case where that same high quality, well mannered mic (allegedly) doesnt cut it on vocal A or instrument B compared to another mic and why that might be.

[Jack Ruston]

Well, maybe if we take some examples...

A really common one would be an 87 on vocals. Let's assume we don't have anything that's obviously likely to be better, like a 67 or a 47. But there is an 87. The reasons you would not use it are most likely, for me, going to be headroom issues - It's not a mic that can take a belter, so in that scenario it's probably going to have to be something else. You could move back, but then you're getting a different sort of room sound and no proximity effect. For that same reason the 87 is limited as an overhead and on louder guitar amps, but amazing on smaller amps - perhaps better than anything.

J

[Hugh Robjohns]