I have, with the intention of finding a good microphone for vocals for my home/project-studio, auditioned a number of LD-condensers, including ADK 51s, SP B1 and C1, Ksm32, TLM103 and AKG 414 TL-II, in the last couple of weeks. While some of the cheaper mics were surprisingly pleasent, I found the Neumann and the AKG to be in a class of their own. Both the TLM103 and the AKG 414 TL-II are excellent microphones but with, soundwise, very different colours to them. The AKG is the one for me. The question is how the BULS compares to the TL-II. I know that the TL-II is designed with the human voice in mind, but what is the true story? I like to record neutral sounds and tailor them to my liking later. Are there any, sonically similar alternatives?
AKG 414, BULS or TL-II?
- Thread starter zoj99
- Start date
There are a few BLUE mics in that same price range (Dragonfly, Blueberry, Mouse) that you may want to compare.
I kind of like the Audio Technica 4060 too. It's not a Lawson L47, but it's decent for the price.
I haven't heard that many people who sound really good singing through a 414b/ULS. Not that you couldn't use it in a pinch, but most studios will have better sounding alternatives.
I kind of like the Audio Technica 4060 too. It's not a Lawson L47, but it's decent for the price.
I haven't heard that many people who sound really good singing through a 414b/ULS. Not that you couldn't use it in a pinch, but most studios will have better sounding alternatives.
LongWaveStudio
New member
The C414 mic is a very bright mic. i prefer it on drum overheads, and acoustic guitars. it works ok for vocals but maybe recheck how the neuman sounds. the TLM is a very nice mic.
Given the Neumann and AKG 414s seem to be in a more "upper class," I'm curious about the Neumann TLM193 and the Neumann M147 (LD tube). Does anyone know how these compare to the TLM103 or mics from other manufacturers?
I think the AKG C414-TLII is great mic for some vocalists and it also works well for ambient purposes [as a spot mic for example]. Many people love it for recording electric bass but always use the mic's pad and the windscreen when you're recording at loud volumes at close range! This is so you do not risk blowing the capsule. The C414B-ULS is a fine mic for many other instrumental recording purposes...I know of no studio that doesn't have at least a pair of these for overhead mics, M/S mic'ing techniques, etc.
Personally speaking the AKG C4000B is one of my first call LD condensers for just about any application. The C4000B has a bit more "soul" to the sound and it isn't as bright as the C414 B-ULS either.The C4000B is a very quiet microphone with -8 dB self noise specs There are so many wonderful mics out there these days you gotta try them all....Actually I'm dying to try out Alan Hyatt's C-1/C-3 microphones real soon [not to mention his mic preamp too].
That said, I also love the Audio Technica 40 Series as well.
Personally speaking the AKG C4000B is one of my first call LD condensers for just about any application. The C4000B has a bit more "soul" to the sound and it isn't as bright as the C414 B-ULS either.The C4000B is a very quiet microphone with -8 dB self noise specs There are so many wonderful mics out there these days you gotta try them all....Actually I'm dying to try out Alan Hyatt's C-1/C-3 microphones real soon [not to mention his mic preamp too].
That said, I also love the Audio Technica 40 Series as well.
sonusman
Banned
I have been using the B ULS a lot on certain "types" of vocalist, and on them, it is THE mic to use! Overall, it still isn't such a bad mic.
I found this. Via a solid state preamp, it tends to sound very bright. Via a Drawmer 1960 pre/comp combo, it sounds very silky and smooth.
I never liked the sound of the TL II for some reason, but it has been a few years since I used one, and really can't remember why. I do know that the BULS work very well in a number of applications, and again, is sometimes JUST the right vocal mic.
If this sheds any insight on this subject, cool. If you auditioned a good cross section of mics, and found that the 414 complimented your voice well, then by all mean, BUY THAT MIC!!! So many people around here DON'T compare mics on THEIR voice, and purchase mostly off of what others say about it, or what they have heard others do with it, and end up with a mic that DOESN'T compliment how they will use it very well. For LD's at the studio, I have a pair of vintage U87's, a 4033, a 4050, a 414 BULS, and a ADK TC 51. I can usually count on one of them to provide just what I am looking for in a situation where I need a LD. But, I could never choose JUST ONE of them. I like having the variety. If you need "just one", you should NEVER purchase until you have tried a bunch to see which will best compliments what you will use it for. Don't take what others say about a mic as the best thing for you, because other people might expect a very different sound, or have very different sounds they are tracking that their "favorite" sounds good on. The reason most big studios offer a variety of mics is because they KNOW that no one mic will work well for every application, and that not having the variety means the sound sought will not be possible. Since most of you only need to record yourselves, you should take GREAT CARE in selecting the right mic for you. You cannot make that choice UNTIL you have tried a bunch out.
I would compare purchasing a mic unheard to marrying a woman you have only read about.
Ed
I found this. Via a solid state preamp, it tends to sound very bright. Via a Drawmer 1960 pre/comp combo, it sounds very silky and smooth.
I never liked the sound of the TL II for some reason, but it has been a few years since I used one, and really can't remember why. I do know that the BULS work very well in a number of applications, and again, is sometimes JUST the right vocal mic.
If this sheds any insight on this subject, cool. If you auditioned a good cross section of mics, and found that the 414 complimented your voice well, then by all mean, BUY THAT MIC!!! So many people around here DON'T compare mics on THEIR voice, and purchase mostly off of what others say about it, or what they have heard others do with it, and end up with a mic that DOESN'T compliment how they will use it very well. For LD's at the studio, I have a pair of vintage U87's, a 4033, a 4050, a 414 BULS, and a ADK TC 51. I can usually count on one of them to provide just what I am looking for in a situation where I need a LD. But, I could never choose JUST ONE of them. I like having the variety. If you need "just one", you should NEVER purchase until you have tried a bunch to see which will best compliments what you will use it for. Don't take what others say about a mic as the best thing for you, because other people might expect a very different sound, or have very different sounds they are tracking that their "favorite" sounds good on. The reason most big studios offer a variety of mics is because they KNOW that no one mic will work well for every application, and that not having the variety means the sound sought will not be possible. Since most of you only need to record yourselves, you should take GREAT CARE in selecting the right mic for you. You cannot make that choice UNTIL you have tried a bunch out.
I would compare purchasing a mic unheard to marrying a woman you have only read about.
Ed
crawdad
Dammit, Jim, Shut Up!
This is just a general observation from my perspective. There is no single mic that will sound good on me day in and day out, song to song, project to project. I have sung through the TL-II twice. Once, I sounded great, the other time, I sounded dry and lifeless. Go figure. The U-87 always made me sound better than I am
and if I had the bucks, I'd probably get one.
So, like Sonusman says, if that mic makes you sound great, get it. As time goes on, you may want to consider adding some alternatives to the mic cabinet, though. Even a few inexpensive ones, like the C-1, V67 etc. Did you try the AT 4033, or the newer AT 4040? If not, you should add that to your tryout list if possible.
and if I had the bucks, I'd probably get one. So, like Sonusman says, if that mic makes you sound great, get it. As time goes on, you may want to consider adding some alternatives to the mic cabinet, though. Even a few inexpensive ones, like the C-1, V67 etc. Did you try the AT 4033, or the newer AT 4040? If not, you should add that to your tryout list if possible.
geekgurl said:
As far as the M147 goes, I had hoped it was going to be a less expensive carioid-only version of the M149. But it seems it doesn't sound anything like the M149. I will admit up front that i have heard so many complaints and people expressing disappointment about the sound of the M147 that I never bothered to check it out. So you can discard my comments as hearsay.
I do own both a TLM 103 and a TLM 193. There are obvious differences like size of the mic and how hot the output is (the 103 is smaller and hotter). As far as sound, the 103 seems to have a bit more top end, and the 193 seems a bit flatter. Both are cardioid only, and neither has any roll-off switches or pads.
But I'm not sure that there is enough difference in timbre to make me want to run out and buy one if i already had the other.
Rossi
New member
To my knowledge, both the TL-II and the ULS are transformerless. The difference is mostly in the capsule; the TL-II is designed with the old C-12 in mind and is a bright mic. It doesn't really sound like a C-12, though. Hence the extremely high prices for vintage C-12s. The ULS is the modern version and has a fairliy flat frequency response. The ULS is definetly *not* a bright mic. Both mics sound a bit edgy, hence their popularity in the 80s. Think Steve Winwood "Higher Love".
Light
New member
AKG tries to claim the 414B-TLII has the same capsule as the old C12, but they do not. The manufacturing process is completely different. The process for the old C12 was very labor intensive, and very inconsistent. The new capsules are made faster, and more consistent. They, unfortunately, are not as good as the best of the old C12's, but are better than the worst of the old C12's. The B/ULS is a transformer balanced mic, and the B-TLII is the transformerless version. Most people find the TLII a little warmer, but the real difference is in the clarity of the sound. Of course, the best thing to do is to try both, and see which one YOU like more. I usually like the TLII more, but I will use the B/ULS from time to time.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
Henrik
Member
Sonusman,
I've been looking for a nice mic that is a little darker than my Rode NTK, since I sometimes find that a bit too bright for some female vocalists. One of the mics I've been recommended for this application is the ADK A51TC that you mention. Would you second that, or can you in some way describe the characterstics in a singer's voice that make you reach for the TC?
Thanks!
/Henrik
I've been looking for a nice mic that is a little darker than my Rode NTK, since I sometimes find that a bit too bright for some female vocalists. One of the mics I've been recommended for this application is the ADK A51TC that you mention. Would you second that, or can you in some way describe the characterstics in a singer's voice that make you reach for the TC?
Thanks!
/Henrik
sonusman
Banned
I have never tried the NTK. Have heard them. Not terribly impressed with what I heard, but then again, that could be the way it was used. I am no fan of Rode's mic's. I can assure you though that the ADK will sound different. Better? Up to you to decide.
I have heard some stuff on the fet version. Didn't like it. Reminded me a lot of the GT mic's. Don't like them. But, haven't used the fet version, so I cannot really give a "experience" opinion about it.
Your best bet on mic's is to try them out. However you can do that before buying!!! I won't purchase a mic until I have used it first (I made an exception with the RE 27 n/d. BUT, I have used the RE 20 a bunch, and the way the 27 n/d was described to sound was exactly what I would have wanted different than the 20. I was not disappointed with that purchase!!!) Taking my word on something, or listening to what "others" have done with a mic is a horrible way to decide that it is for you. Indeed, if you are looking for a variety of mic's, and have a budget for that, then certainly there is no problem with going with recommendations. In my opinion, you can NEVER have too many mics available. Each can be "just right" for SOMETHING!!! But if you are looking for a specific sound, you really need to try mic's out until you find the one that does what you want well.
Ed
I have heard some stuff on the fet version. Didn't like it. Reminded me a lot of the GT mic's. Don't like them.
But, haven't used the fet version, so I cannot really give a "experience" opinion about it.Your best bet on mic's is to try them out. However you can do that before buying!!! I won't purchase a mic until I have used it first (I made an exception with the RE 27 n/d. BUT, I have used the RE 20 a bunch, and the way the 27 n/d was described to sound was exactly what I would have wanted different than the 20. I was not disappointed with that purchase!!!
) Taking my word on something, or listening to what "others" have done with a mic is a horrible way to decide that it is for you. Indeed, if you are looking for a variety of mic's, and have a budget for that, then certainly there is no problem with going with recommendations. In my opinion, you can NEVER have too many mics available. Each can be "just right" for SOMETHING!!! But if you are looking for a specific sound, you really need to try mic's out until you find the one that does what you want well.Ed
Richard Monroe
Well-known member
The B-ULS is, in my opinion, a great instrument mic that works on some vocalists. the TLII ifs a fair vocal mic that works on some instruments. The TLII would not be my first choice for an all-around vocal mic. For under $1000, that would be B.L.U.E. Dragonfly. However, the B-ULS is my first choice under $1000 for acoustic guitar, strings, and woodwinds. YMMV.-Richie
kristian
New member
I love the AKG414 BULS, I always recommend it to people, but that is because one day I happened to sing through it and realised that I sounded "there". Its something that I neve found right with my recorded voice, with the AKG414 I could listen to myself. Other people also agreed that it was definitely the mic for my voice type. Also, it shines through on acoustic guitars, and as an ovehead for drums.
I think the AKG C414[/URL]-TLII is great mic for some vocalists and it also works well for ambient purposes [as a spot mic for example]. Many people love it for recording electric bass but always use the mic's pad and the windscreen when you're recording at loud volumes at close range! This is so you do not risk blowing the capsule. The C414B-ULS is a fine mic for many other instrumental recording purposes...I know of no studio that doesn't have at least a pair of these for overhead mics, M/S mic'ing techniques, etc.
Personally speaking the AKG C4000B is one of my first call LD condensers for just about any application. The C4000B has a bit more "soul" to the sound and it isn't as bright as the C414 B-ULS either.The C4000B is a very quiet microphone with -8 dB self noise specs There are so many wonderful mics out there these days you gotta try them all....Actually I'm dying to try out Alan Hyatt's C-1/C-3 microphones real soon [not to mention his mic preamp too].
I wouldn't consider the buls bright especially compared to the TLII. Look at the difference in the frequency response on the cardioid settings...
I have a C2000b and a C414 BULS and have a TLII on the way, It should be here tomorrow... can't wait to try it out!
The C2000B is great but the self noise is annoying, however its a lower cost mic... but in case anyone is looking for that lower price point it owns my Rode NT1A.
The BULS would sound great on someone who has a very resonant voice in the upper frequencies... however, I'd still rather capture it with the TLII and cut some of the highs if it's too much.
I'll reply again when I get the TLII in hand.