gold vs. silver AKG 414s

[johnS]

The AKG 414 comes in two flavors: gold and silver. They recommend the gold one for vocals and "up front" stuff, and the silver one for acoustic instruments. From what I can tell, the main difference is the freq curve. The gold has your typical bump around 5-6K, and silver one is flatter.

Has anyone compared them sound-wise? I'm leaning toward the silver one but I've only played with the gold one (which I like a lot). I don't really care for the "hyped" sound of many vocal-oriented large diaphram condensers--seems like an unnecessary relic of the tape days, when you needed some pre-emphasis to cut through. (This theory is pure speculation on my part, but I think it might have some merit.) I only record digital these days, and I just want a nice, high-quality, transparent mic I can use on lots of different souces--including vocals. Would the silver 414 fit the bill?

[clineaudio]

Originally Posted by johnS

The AKG 414 comes in two flavors: gold and silver. They recommend the gold one for vocals and "up front" stuff, and the silver one for acoustic instruments. From what I can tell, the main difference is the freq curve. The gold has your typical bump around 5-6K, and silver one is flatter.

Has anyone compared them sound-wise? I'm leaning toward the silver one but I've only played with the gold one (which I like a lot). I don't really care for the "hyped" sound of many vocal-oriented large diaphram condensers--seems like an unnecessary relic of the tape days, when you needed some pre-emphasis to cut through. (This theory is pure speculation on my part, but I think it might have some merit.) I only record digital these days, and I just want a nice, high-quality, transparent mic I can use on lots of different souces--including vocals. Would the silver 414 fit the bill?

Hey John, I'm actually placing an order for the XLII (Gold screen). The XLII is based on the c12 capsule (as you said, a little more of that upper mid freq bump). The XLS is the sonic signature that we conventionally associate w/ the 414. Very flat, in some cases too flat, wonderful capsule design though, very clear, switchable patterns is a great thing.

I"m choosing the XLII because I always kind of thought the XLS/ULS etc was great, but a little "flat" sounding. Even on live orchestral stuff where typically you'd think you'd want "flat" I've found them a bit ...uninspiring, is a good word. I have had wonderful results with the "flatter" 414 on an acoustic guitar that sat VERY well in a mix, nice woody overtones, not as "agressive" or "bright" or as say a u87 or another with that character would be.

The XLII should (for me)
1) present a little more excitement on a stereo pair (and AKG claims it will help them "reach" a bit at distance),
2) be a great spot mic for orchestral stuff, also sounds phenomenal on guitar cabs, and acoustic guitar too.
3) Gives me a nice mic for Voice over, etc as needed (and that little upper mid bump will be what I'd desire in this case)

Also, engineering stuff, technically they're both transformerless, BUT the XLII has a xfmr in a side chain in the circuit. The AKG rep I spoke with, said they tend to have a little more bottom.

Good news is, I think you're getting a relatively flat mic either way, so you're safe. If you have any doubts, you can always buy both, just add another color to your palette

Hope this helps.

[johnS]

Wow. Awesome info. Thanks, Cline.

Just out of curiosity, what's the "side chain" all about in a mic circuit?

[clineaudio]

Originally Posted by johnS

Wow. Awesome info. Thanks, Cline.

Just out of curiosity, what's the "side chain" all about in a mic circuit?

Sorry for the confusion, I guess I should have said this clearer... AKG says it is not "transformer coupled" which means that they strap a xfmr over the ouputs. This DOES have a xfmr in it, but it is not used in the conventional "strap it over the outputs" manner. ...as a general rule of thumb: Transformers=fat ...some say they also make signals too "slow" (which of course is part of the reason they are "fat") which is part of the reason that some people choose or don't choose to use xfmrs on the circuit. Neve is a xfmr geek, enough said.

[lukedavo]

I used the silver one bought from the BBC on several occasions. I didn't think there was any real difference untill I had to use both on a stereo pair. The silver was much richer and slightly less deffined, and I found the gold almost too sensitive compared to the silver. Gold seemed really harsh, but very accurate. Could have been the pres I was using, but at the same settings the level was slightly hotter on the gold. Thats what I've noticed the difference in the mics are. I'm not sure but I think the gold was a newer one, and the silver was a few years older.

[dagosto]

Originally Posted by clineaudio

Sorry for the confusion, I guess I should have said this clearer... AKG says it is not "transformer coupled" which means that they strap a xfmr over the ouputs. This DOES have a xfmr in it, but it is not used in the conventional "strap it over the outputs" manner. ...as a general rule of thumb: Transformers=fat ...some say they also make signals too "slow" (which of course is part of the reason they are "fat") which is part of the reason that some people choose or don't choose to use xfmrs on the circuit. Neve is a xfmr geek, enough said.

Hmmm. . . isn't it impossible to strap a transformer across the outputs of a condenser if you want to be able to use phantom power to charge the element.

[clineaudio]

Originally Posted by lukedavo

I used the silver one bought from the BBC on several occasions. I didn't think there was any real difference untill I had to use both on a stereo pair. The silver was much richer and slightly less deffined, and I found the gold almost too sensitive compared to the silver. Gold seemed really harsh, but very accurate. Could have been the pres I was using, but at the same settings the level was slightly hotter on the gold. Thats what I've noticed the difference in the mics are. I'm not sure but I think the gold was a newer one, and the silver was a few years older.

lukedavo, if you're talking about the silver cased BBC 414s at the studio we used to work at...those are 70's models which are more based on the c12 capsule, so they would be more like the current XLII, I believe. The gold face, black body 414 (which they began calling the ULS, I believe) has a slightly different capsule. Our discussion here is about the XLS/ULS versus TLII/XLII (c12 capsule)

And Dagosto, you're absolutely correct... my minimal knowledge of microphone circuit design is showing, yes? Someone explained it to me before, but my memory of the discussion has grey-ed a bit. Do you have any opinions, favorite uses for the 414s, mr. agosto?

[dagosto]

Originally Posted by clineaudio

Do you have any opinions, favorite uses for the 414s, mr. agosto?

I have grown into a spot where I stray away from the Hyped sound of large diaphram mics on everything except for vocals. I believe this is because I record digital almost exclusively and theses mics tend to jive less with that medium. Even on vocals I tend to err more towards the dull mics. Currently I am using the BLUE 8-ball to record to record the vocalist of my band. It is just more musical than the 414 or any other large diaphram.

The hyped sound of the gold 414 is very nice for voice overs though, even when recording digitally. I usually end up using my TLM 103 most of the time for this application but the gold 414 will do the job as well. The silvers work well as drum overheads as do the older ULS's.

[lukedavo]

I apologize for my unnerddiness. When I see a 414, I kinda know what to expect. Thats how I play the game.

"Glayyvin"

[clineaudio]

I just got em today...haven't even plugged 'em in yet. Just wanted to share my excitement. Beautifully packed...only weird thing is, the K in AKG didn't get the gold paint one of the mic bodies... but they're factory matched, almost identical on the freq plot.