The 414 is not bright!

[excellrec]

I don't know where exactly but i heard long ago that the 414's where generally bright.... and so it went. Just recently i've been looking for a new mic and the 414 came up as a canidate. I went to a studio and put up the following mics to test on a few different sources.. at4060, 441, 421, at4041, at4050, sm7, sm57, akg414 and the re20. The 414 was easily the darkest of all these. The model we used i believe was just a normal old 414 of about 5-10 years of age. I tried it in both cardiod and omni, both fairly dark.. i'd say probably about 4db down past 2khz compared to maybe an sm57 or an at4050.

I thought it could be a fluke but then i checked it out on my 3d audio mic comparison cd's and it was darker to, more noticeably on the female voice. It practically sounds like a ribbon... so what's the deal. why do people consider these bright? I actually found that the sound was exactly what i was looking for, so i was pleased.. and plan on getting one.

[ToddF]

It could need repair or a cleaning? Todd F.

[GMR]

I too find the 414, b-uls not bright compared to the new breed of mics I hear. And it doesn't need to be cleaned. Although now it is modified but it is not a bright mic!

[tINY]

A lot of the mics you list have a noticeable peak at 3-6kHz. The B-ULS is pretty flat. The 414 has more extreme high-end response, though. Try it on a splash cymbal and you'll hear the difference.



-tINY

[PaRaNoId]

In my experience with B-ULS's, they sound very accurate in the sense that bright sources sound "bright" and bassier sources sound "duller". I guess in any case it also it depends alot on your source, the room and placement ( ). However, I wouldn't use this mic too often as when i say "dull" and "bright" I definitely mean it...(not detailed and resonant, or clear and thick, or crystalline and punchy)

[doorknocker]

Exactly my impression too, I would describe my 414 B-ULS as 'unspectacular' and 'unhyped' sounding, very often perfect for vocals. Very easy to fit into a mix. I never liked the 414 for acoustic guitar but I guess that's an application where you normally DON'T want a 'natural' sound. Try to isolate a common acoustic guitar in a 'commercial' mix and compare that to what you would hear live in the room.
I also like the 414 B-ULS for compressed room sounds w/amps and drums.

Andi

[Fletcher]

A "normal 414" that is 5-10 years in age might not be "bright" by modern brightness war standards... which would make some of the old classic war horses like C-12's and ELA M 251's seem like they're exceptionally dark sounding... or you might just have a 414 in dire need of a capsule cleaning.

It should be significantly brighter than [somehow I wouldn't call that "forward in the upper midrange thing bright... but OK, we'll work with that description] the RE-20... and very "un-ribbon-esque" in nature... so the one you're using may have some "issues".

FWIW, I have often found 414's to work like a charm on female vocals... but each situation is always a wee bit different from the last so as always, it's application dependent, and YMMV.

Peace.

[excellrec]

it's definetly not just the one I used, when I listen to it on the 3daudio mic comparison cd's it sounds the same. I think it is possible that what i am hearing though is a lack of boost rather than a cut. it does seem to have more common 5k^ response, just not the 2-3k boost. I like it though, i'm not complaining, it sounds mellow, not murky.

[Andy Sneap]

thats interesting, I came to exactly the same conclusion on the last album I was doing, I was shocked at how dark it was.

[dejacky]

dim light,
nice recording, but i think i hear what fletcher was mentioning about accentuated highs...i seem to feel it in the sound more than hear it so obviously if that makes sense. Also, how do the new 414 XLS/XL akg mics sound compared to the standar 414b-uls series? I completely agree with 414b-uls sounding mellow and not murky..and i'm a big fan of that unhyped mellow/natural sound . I wonder if the 414 XLS/XL are annoyingly brighter like the Sennheiser MD421 II...

[enharmonic]

Most of the 414's I have used over the years had enough top end sizzle to kill small woodland creatures at 150 yards.

There were two incredible sounding C 414's I had access to back in the day. They were old...probably from the mid to late 70's, and they sounded so nice. Another one of those times I just kinda scratched my head and wondered "why mess with perfection"...lol...especially when setting up a newer 414 later during that session...totally different sound from the pair of older 414's.

As always, just my limited experience and humble opinion.

[tINY]

I've only spent time with the newer 414's, but there is two distinct flavors. The B-ULS and the B-XLS are the flat, boring, bi+chin ones. The TL and XLII have a peaked response, but not as peaked at 3-6k. The "sizzle" comes from the elevated response at 10-15kHz (thus vaporizing the vermin at 150 yards).

I belive the older (C-12?) capsules were more like the XLII's in their response.




-tINY

[Phil Buckle]

I did a lot of recording with my 414 but I always thought it was really dull. I'm thinking about getting it cleaned.
What exactly do they do when cleaning?
Is it just a dust off or do they pull the capsule apart and use chemicals?

[Dot]

The 414 is a bright mic with a boost from around 5K through 15K in cardioid. What the 414 is not is "hyped". It doesn't have that mid presence bump that a lot of mics have around 2-3K. The 414 actually has a slight dip at 2K.

The 414's also not colored, and is more neutral.

Hyped mics may sound "brighter" to some people than the more neutral 414, but that's because the former produce more mids. "Bright" is used to describe more top end – not mids.

414 TLII in cardioid


You can hear an example of a 414 TLII through a John Hardy M-1 used on all tracks at http://studioforums.com/eve/ubb.x?a=...24&m=473100166

[Bob Olhsson]

The different versions of the 414 are all over the map brightness-wise. I don't even think of them as being the same mike so there is really no way you can generalize about them.

[Ahellam]

414s in my experience have given me a pretty flat honest representation of the natural sound. I know sevral R&B producers tha swear by the 414 for main vocals because it gets the low end of the vocal really well while not sacrificing the high.

[dlmorley]

Originally posted by Ahellam
414s in my experience have given me a pretty flat honest representation of the natural sound. I know sevral R&B producers tha swear by the 414 for main vocals because it gets the low end of the vocal really well while not sacrificing the high.

I love my TL II. I did a demo of an album and that was my main mic. In the end we used most of my vocal tracks (414 TL II -> Fostex B16 !!!! :-)
No one complained about the vocal sound.
On the other hand, we did have sibilance problems on some tracks, so had to re record those ones, but most ended on the album. I think it's not too kind on sibilance, but overall, I've used it for everything with good enough results. Mine is so beat up, I'm tempted for a new pair, but there is that money thing......

[Slider]

Compared to most modern LDC's the 414's I have are much warmer.
10 years ago everyone complained about how bright these were.
Not mine.
Next to the c12 reissue the silvers sound flat on top.

[jumpnyc]

FWIW - I have had the good fortune to record many successful singers. Without fail the TLII has been the "wow, I've never gotten such a great sound from my voice before." I use it through an API 312 into a distressor with about 4-5 db reduction into Pro Tools. Reliable, inexpensive as far as this kind of quality goes, neutral to my ears (neither too bright nor too dark) a little ''hard' sounding, but that has worked for me. Beat out a U87 for a particular male singer.

[lucey]

what Bob said

4-6 versions i can think of right off



none of them are my faves but oh well

[chadly]

I've used the older EB's and brand new TLII's- The older ones were WAYYYYY darker then the TLII. Thats not saying I don't use the TLII. . . . but it's brighter then the older 414's.

I will say it has a little more high end then my other mics. I put it up in front of vocalists and it almost never wins. . . Even when I can't see what mic I'm running it against.

Not a bad one at all, though.

[button]

Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
The different versions of the 414 are all over the map brightness-wise. I don't even think of them as being the same mike so there is really no way you can generalize about them.

Pre-1985 C414s (pre ULS etc etc) may have 2 types of capsule, with good condition non-Teflon capsules generally being thought of as "better"
It's easy to identify the type of capsule you have, even without removing the metal screen halves from the mic's head:
Go into a dark room, shine a flashlight with a focussed beam sideways into the capsule area (i.e. from the narrow side of the screen) and look at the front or rear of the capsule which is now illuminated by the light coming in from the side:
you will either see small slot screws mounted all around the perimeter of the capsule's diaphragm mounting ring or you will see no screws but a bright white ring around the perimeter of the capsule.

In the former case you have a CK12 (old style, C12- type), in the latter case you have a new-style "Teflon" capsule (picture below)

[WildCowboys]

dunno, I never liked the B-ULS, but I used a TL-II for some years as my main vocal mike, but it never made it into the mix without heavy EQing, especially when the singing style was soft stuff. to me it is a combination of too much proximity effect and too soft highs. I always preferred the frequency balance of mics like manley ref cardioid, rode classic or blue B6 for this type of singing, needs WAY less eqing. the TLII works on "screamers" and when used not as close up as let´s say a U87 - which I believe has too soft highs for vocals as well, but the proximity effect is not as strong as with the 414 series. At least the TLII has more "life" in the mids than the ULS, which I really found unusable on most vocals. sold my pair of TLIIs some years ago...it is really not a must have vocal mic for my taste. A 451 or C60 or C28 with CK1 capsules (and at least 2 popper stoppers upfront) sounds much more useable, though it looks kinda gay, haha, maybe Bush will ban it "I believe vocal recording is between a man and a large diaphragm condenser, and I think we ought to codify that one way or another!"

Rock on!
P.

[BrianK]

TO condense what everyone is saying here; I say a typical 414 is one of the FLATTEST mics in most lockers.


...and it has EXTREME High end extension (as well as great subsonic low end!) So - you could say it is bright compared to old tube mics and dynamics/ribbons. It is much darker than modern hyped mics.

This is why it is so little a favorite - it doesn't add much of the colour people want in music. But it is also a workhorse - positioned right, it can work on anything, but will only translate what you have (pretty literally). I used to use them on orchestras a lot - you got what was in the room, good or bad.

For the money - they are pretty good!