Do you agree with the AKG "applications guide" for the C 414 B-XLS and C 414 B-XL II?

[666666]

AKG has provided an "application guide" for their C 414 B-XLS and C 414 B-XL II. Check out page 12 of the AKG 414 brochure PDF file located at the below link.

http://www.akg.com/mediendatenbank2/...5c0ffc4faf.pdf

According to their "guide", one would take it that the C 414 B-XLS transformer version would be a better choice for overall percussion applications. However, I've heard people here stating that they use the transformerless C 414 B-XL II for drums etc with excellent results.

As well, somewhere else in the AKG literature it is suggested that the XL II version is better for overheads. ??? Or are drum overheads not considered "percussion" because it is more of an "ambient room" task as opposed to a high SPL close mic percussion task?

I'm looking to get a pair of 414s, specifically for potential drum overheads, drum room and/or close miking percussion instruments. Just not sure which version of the 414 to get. I have no easy way of obtaining / comparing before buying. I'm sure I cannot go TOO wrong either way, but... would like to make the "best" decision possible regardless.

I've noted the difference in the frequency response curves in each version, but that of course is not adequate information in terms of making a decision here.

What is it about the transformer itself in the XLS version that makes it better or worse for percussion applications? I wonder how the transformer (or lack there-of) may effect the transients, dynamics, quickness of attack, etc...???

Has anyone compared the two? What would you guys recommend for general percussion duties, drum overheads, etc? I wonder if you guys will agree with what is listed in the official AKG user application guide?

Any thoughts, comments etc would be appreciated.

http://www.akg.com/mediendatenbank2/...5c0ffc4faf.pdf

[sekim]

The new models are both transformerless. The XLII has a fairly hefty rise in the 9K region due to the capsule tuning whereas the XLS is flater there. Other than that they're the same mic.

[666666]

Originally Posted by sekim

The new models are both transformerless. The XLII has a fairly hefty rise in the 9K region due to the capsule tuning whereas the XLS is flater there. Other than that they're the same mic.

Thanks.

The new ones are both transformerless? Oops. I guess I missed that. I'm still stuck in 1993.

I did note the following in the AKG PDF brochure, page 4:

Re: the "TL II" version:

"the TL II is also useful in distant micing vocal and instrument applications where some of the sonic timbre is lost as high frequencies propagate in air."

So, I guess the decision is based on whether or not the rise at 9k or so in the XLII version is favorable or not.

Tough decision because sometimes a little boost in the upper region is welcomed, and sometimes it isn't. Some say it is easier to add frequencies later with eq than to subtract them later with eq. At the same time, when recording to digital, I feel it might actually be better to go in a little hot on the upper frequncies and then reduce them if need be later... as opposed to trying to boost the high end AFTER it's written to disk / digital. I guess, as usual, YMMV.

[JP66]

Originally Posted by 666666

Thanks.
Some say it is easier to add frequencies later with eq than to subtract them later with eq.

really? I've always heard that you can't add more of what isn't there... Basically if you don't capture it well then it's really hard to add it in with eq.

sorry for the off topic post.

[666666]

Actually, I just went back and studied the frequency response charts a little more closely.

In cardioid mode:

The XLS is indeed "flatter" overall. The only time it rises over +2db off its straight "0" line is in the 9k to 15k area. I generally like a little boost up in the 9k+ area.

The XLII rises up about +2db on everything from 2k and up, and then has an additional +2.5k bump between the 4k and 9k marks for a total peak of about +4.5db around 5.5k. From memory, on drum overheads, 5.5k is usually not a frequency that I want to boost... I'm usually pulling in the 2k - 5k area, and if anything, boosting a tad way up high like at 9k or 10k for a little extra sizzle.

So, from studying the cardioid charts, my initial impression is that, at least for drum overheads, the XLS might be a better choice (for me) than the XLII.

However, for close miking percussion, such as bongos or even toms, whatever, I can see why the TLII would probably be better... because I know I occasionally do find myself boosting a tad in the 5k - 8k area on close miked percussion things for extra attack.

So... I guess I just need to get a pair of BOTH the XLS and TLII

Still would like to hear comments from anyone who has more experience with these mics... thanks.

[666666]

Originally Posted by JP66

really? I've always heard that you can't add more of what isn't there... Basically if you don't capture it well then it's really hard to add it in with eq.

That is indeed true... you cannot boost what isn't there. But in the case above, we are talking about a microphone either boosting or not boosting frequencies that ARE there.

If you find that you are needing to boost something that isn't there, the problem is most likely in the source that was recorded. Either that, or it was recorded so poorly, or through such poor gear, that essential frequencies never made it to tape. But... MOST often, it is an issue of a bad source.

Like if you are wondering why you cannot add more low-end to your kick drum in the mix, it's most likely because the kick drum never MADE those low frequencies to begin with... which is why it is SO critically important to make certain that your sources sound good before you push the red button.

In many cases, too much time is spent "gear-slutting" , and not enough time spent on upgrading / properly tuning instruments and playing them "well" in order to send optimum source signals INTO the microphones.

Great mics, pres etc mean nothing if the source is poor. It all starts with the source... of course. You would ultimately be way better off with a great source and cheap recording gear, than with a mediocre source and all the finest recording gear. Unfortunately, for many, spending $ on good recording gear is easier than improving the source... and thus the desired improvement does not happen.

[DavieB]

Yes I agree that the source is the most important thing to get right. The the mic choice / position as this will affect the balance of the sound. Then the pre etc etc until you reach tape / DAW. More often than not the eq / compression can be adjusted by the choice / setup of instrument position of the mic and selection of the first pre stage. I am in agreement that the use of hi-end gear cannot fix a bad source. The gear you choose at each stage in the process is critical in getting the final result. A bad stage will ruin the stages coming later in the process.

instrument -> mic -> pre -> (eq/comp) -> (DAW/Tape)

Know your gear and set it up right for what you want to track, is my view.

It's interesting to know how they did it in the olden days with one mic, one amp, straight to record. There were no mixing desks so they'd mix the music by moving the musicians around in the room. They had so little to work with but understood how to get the best from the band with one mic in one room. Fascinating stuff.

It might be interesting to try that today to see what can be achieved. What mic would you choose? What pre would you use? What room would you choose? How would you mix it?