AKG C1000s

T

Tnglwd_Stu

New member
So I've read a lot of hostility towards AKG's C1000s, but I can't help liking the sound quality of the 'One Giant Leap' project:

http://www.1giantleap.tv/

If you haven't seen it - blag, beg, borrow or steal the DVD and watch it, preferably in Dolby Digital 5.1 surround.

My point, which I'm getting to is: A lot of this was recorded with an AKG C1000s. Which according to the manual is ideal, when acoustics are less than satifactory.

I already own one and have drawn my own opinions. So what do you guys think?
 
If the source (the thing you're recording) doesn't excite the peaks in the mic's response, it'll work fine. When you use it on a bright source, the peaks will create excessive treble, which can sound extremely harsh.

On a dark sounding source, the peaks won't usually be a problem, but it's not the best way to get some high end boost, which is what you're doing when you use that mic.
 
Tnglwd_Stu said:
So I've read a lot of hostility towards AKG's C1000s, but I can't help liking the sound quality of the 'One Giant Leap' project...
...I already own one and have drawn my own opinions. So what do you guys think?
Click to expand...
I've read about the hostility towards AKG's C1000s too, but like yourself, I think it’s a good sounding mic. However, my own experience was only with one that I tried out for a weekend and is thus, very limited. I mostly used it on acoustic guitar running through a new Mackie mixer. I didn’t hear ANY of the harsh high end everyone speaks of. Now, maybe the one I tried was an exception – I don’t know, but it sounded very natural. Or maybe my guitar didn’t “excite the mic’s peaks” like Harvey said. I just don’t know – again, my experience was limited. The only reason I didn’t keep it was because for the money (~$175 new) there was a better choice for what I needed at the time (SP B3). Someday, I’d still like to get one for live use on acoustic instruments. I have friends who use them like this and they sound great.

Now, in contrast, I compared it to a borrowed Rode NT3. The result? Well, the NT3 sounded natural in the lows and mids, like the C1000, but in the treble range they parted company. The NT3 had an extremely brittle high-end (we’re talking “pick-click” city and ping-gy sound, no matter what position it was in) while the C1000 was MUCH smoother. Funny I hear people complaining about the C1000’s “harsh” high end, but never the NT3’s. Goes to show that you just have to try ‘em and see what works for you.

My $0.02
 
http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/?aid=2037/singles

(tune: Santa Palabra - intro)

I uploaded an intro of the demo my salsa band made last summer. The drumset was recorded with 2 C1000's and a kick mic (I'm not sure anymore, but I guess it was a D112). At the moment it sounded great, with only the two overheads, while monitored on NS-10s (which I disliked listening to btw).
When I listen to the demo now on my set of monitors, a year later, more experienced, I find it to sound cold, too sharp.
The kick drum is not sounding super either, but that's something all recordings I heared made in that studio have.. :(

(signal chain was: mics-Studiomaster mixing desk-Tascam DA98
-> bounced to and mixed on ProTools 888|24, pro studio)


Herwig
 
I wouldn't pay even $50 a C-1000--and definitely not $200--not when I can get a Marshall MXL 603s for $80 or an Octava MC012 (3-pattern) for $150 or an AT 4041 (bulk) for $200.
 
I have a pair of them. About the only thing I use them for any more is to tight mic toms and as a snare mic where I think they sound great. There not bad in front of an amp either.
 
To me it's become pretty obvious over the past few years, especially with the boom in home recording. Manufacturers have turned to where the money is.... the ever growing, high turnover home studio market!

They are targeting, in the main, 'unexperienced ears' who are starting out and need to buy gear.

And what do untrained ears generally like.... bright, crispy 'apparently' detailed sounding mics at cheap prices.

So open a factory in Asia and start the production line rolling.

They could all produce less hyped mics if they wanted to, but why should they as long as the hyped mics sell... and sell THEY DO!

AKG's answer was of course the C1000 and the thoroughly disgusting C3000.

Neumann didn't drop their pants as far and brought out 'budget' models such as the TLM103.

I guarantee that mosts newbies will prefer the sound of an AKG C1000 to a Neumann KM84. Why? Because in comparison the KM84 will sound dull and unexciting.

Sure in time as more listening experience is gained opinions will invariably change... but in the meantime there's been a shitload of bright crispy mics sold because that's what the market wanted. ;)

"Ssssssixxx ssssilly ssssissssterssss ssssat on the ssssseassshore!"

"SSSSHIT!!... Now where'sss my de-essssssssssssser?!!" :D
 
http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=1247&alid=-1

On the song "Mute" the guitars were recorded with C1000s' in X/Y. Both guitar parts were- the main rythm and banjo-esque picking in the background.

I like them, but my ears don't do too well with the high pitches that this mic reportedly has trouble with. I *really* like that they can run on batteries for remote recording. I've done some scratch work in hotel rooms with my laptop, a c1000s, and whatever guitar I could dig up while travelling.

Now that I have a couple MXL 603's, though, the AKG's only come out when I'm doing a large project and need more than 2 small diaphram mics.

Take care,
Chris
 
pundit said:
They are targeting, in the main, 'unexperienced ears' who are starting out and need to buy gear.

And what do untrained ears generally like.... bright, crispy 'apparently' detailed sounding mics at cheap prices.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. However, it doesn't change the fact that they were used on One Giant Leap and sound good. We're not talking inexperienced ears here either. Jamie Catto, film maker and founding member of Faithless and artist/producer Duncan Bridgeman.

Of course most of the album was recorded outside or in places where acoustic conditions weren't good.
 
Tnglwd_Stu said:
I agree with that. However, it doesn't change the fact that they were used on One Giant Leap and sound good. We're not talking inexperienced ears here either. Jamie Catto, film maker and founding member of Faithless and artist/producer Duncan Bridgeman.

Of course most of the album was recorded outside or in places where acoustic conditions weren't good.
Click to expand...

While I'm not famliar with the recording you mention, I think Harvey covered the point that any mic with a certain characteristic can work well in the situation where it's own coloration compliments the source.

This is the catch when choosing one mic for a general 'one size fits all' situation. Most of us can remember our first real condenser mic and how we dreamt about it for weeks as we saved our pennies and, at the same time, wondered if we would ever find a Neumann U47 at a garage sale for $10!

Of course this first studio condenser was going to be used to record everything from vocals to guitars, percussion, harmonicas, kazoo's etc. you name it.

It's common for a newbie to choose the brightest mic in his/her budget. Although I wonder if most women entering the recording arena are as forgiving of bright mics as we males are?

The catch with any excessively colored piece of gear is that it will sound GREAT on very few things and CRAP on most!

So before long you no longer record harmonicas or kazoos or violins with it, or anything that doesn't like an 8db boost above 6khz!

It's really just a case of 'horses for courses'.

The more money you've got, the more 'horses' you can afford to suit all those different courses!!;)
 
Last edited:
Okay. I'll ask again. A lot of the complaints about the C1000S seem to come from people working with digital systems. So has anyone used them with an analog system and had the same annoying results? For the record I'm using the Tascam 388 which records eight tracks on quarter inch tape running at seven and a half inches per second. The frequency response peaks at 15k and then starts falling (ie: a 15 dB boost at 15K will produce a 12 dB boost at 20). Where I live the C1000S is one of the only two small diaphragm condensors (the other being a Rode NT3) I can try before buying. I've asked about other makes (MK012, 603S, even ECM8000s) but the shop won't order something unless they know they're going to sell it to someone. That someone being me. And I can't make that guarantee until I know that it's the right choice for my set up.
As I said my other choice is the NT3, but I've read that this mic commits similar sonic sins to the C1K. How true is that? Which would be the best out of the two?
 
I'm not familiar with the NT3.

You have somewhat of a hardcall with your choice of mics and your ability to audition anything else.

My feelings are you shouldn't choose your mics based on whether you are going to record to digital or analog.

The mic itself and the type of recording you intend doing should be the determining factor.... apart from the price.

The bottom line is what do you intend recording with it?

Imagine someone in the studio singing or playing through it without being recorded. There you are listening back on your very expensive, highly accurate monitoring system. ;)
Do you like what you hear? How does it pickup the room acoustics etc? Can you position the mic differently to make it sound better? Is it too bright or dark without any eq?

Personally I wouldn't buy a C1000... but I have managed to collect a few resonably good mics over the years so I guess I'm biased!

I'll let some others post their views.;)
 
Quote:

I'm not familiar with the NT3.

Which is odd considering where you are. I'd have thought Rode mics would be as "Cheap as chips" down there. Haven't you ever been tempted to buy or borrow one. Just to see if it's "fair dinkum" or not!? <g>

Anyway,all joking aside, I'm looking for a mic that can be used for acoustic stringed instruments, percussion and drum overheads. I recently bought an M201 and tried it out on acoustic guitar and percussion. It sounded good on the guitar, tambourine, maraccas, shaky thing that looks like a plum (!) and wooden bell-shaped object on a stick that you strike with a small wooden beater that I don't know the name of, but it sucks on claviers. It's not that it sounds bad. It's just that you have to get real close, turn the gain on the mic input all the way up and, even then, it barely registers on the meters (not even the peak). I mean. I like to gain stage starting at the source, then the mic choice and then the pre. I always figure that if I'm having to turn the pre all the way up then either the instrument/cab volume isn't at the optimum level (which doesn't mean loud) or my mic choice is wrong. And for claviers a dynamic mic is clearly, in my experience, the wrong option. Also it's nice to have a choice of flavours to spice up the mix. I mean. I'm sure someone's going to tell me that the M201 would make a fine overhead mic on a drumkit and, from my limited exposure to it so far, I can't really disagree (not having had the opportunity to try it drums yet). So maybe I can get another one of those for that application. But I'd still like a pair of SDCs to give me another option.
 
pundit said:
The catch with any excessively colored piece of gear is that it will sound GREAT on very few things and CRAP on most!

So before long you no longer record harmonicas or kazoos or violins with it, or anything that doesn't like an 8db boost above 6khz!

It's really just a case of 'horses for courses'.
Click to expand...


You're absolutely right.

The thing that got me though, was although they didn't use the C1000s on some things, they did use it on most things. We're talking voices, drums, guitars, sitars, bells, instruments I had never seen before. They used it with an Apple G3 powerbook running Logic and it does sound good, really good, on the DVD.

Anyway, regardless of them using a C1000s, you really should check out the project if your interested in that sort of thing, at:

http://www.1giantleap.tv/

I only mention it again as the result of the whole project is so impressive. I know I sound like a marketing department :) , but I think it'll be a long time before I see any music based project that worthwhile to humankind again. Sad but true.

Actually the February issue of Sound on Sound had an article about it.

Cheers for your input guys, all very valid stuff.
 
Mark7 said:
Quote:

...I recently bought an M201...
Click to expand...
I take it you mean a Beyer M201?

Although this is a dynamic mic it is a very good one.

Often used in preference to a SM57 on snare where a crisper slightly more hi-fi sound is required. Being a hypercardioid it can sound good when close miking toms too. Actually works pretty well on acoustic guitar and percussion in general. I would most likely use a 201 over a condensor when recording violin as it still has quite an extended frequency response for a dynamic but is kinder with regard to a violins screech factor. The only SD condenser I general use on violin is an AKG C60 tube mic and occassionally a KM84 if it's a smooth sounding instrument.

The other thing it can also do rather well is record vocals.

In fact the 201 is probably one of the most versatile mics invented as it works on most things pretty well.
I'd go as far to say it's a 'higher-fi' version of the SM57.

But there lies it's slight problem. It's smaller lighter capsule, with less turns of wire on the coil, responds faster than a 57 and has a better frequency response, BUT as you are aware is it's relatively low output.

As for a pair of SD condenser see if you can manage to check out some Rode NT4' or the new upcoming Studio Projects C4's.

Good Luck.

P.S. Don't get rid of your M201... it's s great mic!

I've got two of them myself! ;)
 
The problem with microphones that add excessive high frequency coloration is that the effect can be cumulative, or is only best suited for one or two particular situations.

This limits their usefulness in a professional studio and it may not be a good investment as a general use mic. A smoother mic may be a better choice, at a lower cost, and some judicious eq to duplicate the desired brightness.

The other problem is that many new recordists mistake the extra brightness for "increased high frequency detail", and only later (often, many months later) find out that they were listening for the wrong characteristics.

It may well be that many people who like the AKG C1000 use them on, or with, other equipment that may not have the desired high end response, and the C1000s become system compensators.

I've never advised using them as a general purpose mic, but if they work well for their owners, you can't argue with success. If I had a pair, I would only use them for a small number of things and their value would not be worth the price to me.
 
I do indeed mean the Beyer M201! Actually it's the TG version. But we're not going to let that spoil things are we!?

And what makes you think I want to get rid of it? And what's with the Beyer, Beyerdynamic thing? (note, I'm not blaming you for that) Which is correct?

The NT4 seems a little too gimmicky for my tastes. I think I'd sooner buy a pair of NT5s. Actually I'd rather get a pair of MK012s or the C4s as I like the idea of interchangeable capsules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top