My mismatched pair is making me nervous. Please console me!

innobidova

New member
They are AKG C414 B-ULS mics. I bought them separately on ebay particularly because the matched pairs are hard to come by, but also because they both came with their original frequency response curve charts so I could see just how mismatched they are. First of all, can somebody please assure that I didn't pay too much for them individually? I paid $610 and $597. That, alone, makes me nervous because I've been thinking about putting them back on ebay and I don't want to suffer too much of a resale value loss. Second of all, the reason why I want to sell them is that the frequency response charts have staggering differences that make me feel like I have two completely different microphones... like I have a bad pair. Well, it's also because there are lots of new matched pairs available that cost much less and are probably more appropriate for a newbie like me. I can't help but feel out of place by owning a C414 (let alone two). But, that just raises the thought that I'll end up wanting better mics in the long run. So I really hope that it's not a big deal, having such a mismatched pair. Is it? Would you keep it and treat it like it's a matched pair?
 
you are getting too caught up in graphs and specs. your post makes no sense. "bad pair"??? the mics are excellent. as for matching...have you actually heard the difference? Graphs never tell the entire story. if you bought two seperate mics then why would you expect them to be "matched" anyway???Another thing...AKG has a standard that they bring all their mics up to. ALL their mics are within a certain tolerance , as long as it is within a certain timeframe.. And another thing...I dont understand the "matched" fuss. Dont your preamps have trim and pot controls???FWIW, ALL my mics are "mismatched" save one pair. Who cares?

Quit worrying about the silliness and record some music.
 
i dont even like matched pairs. try them out, and im sure they will sound beautiful, they are great mics.
 
BigRay said:
you are getting too caught up in graphs and specs. your post makes no sense. "bad pair"??? the mics are excellent. as for matching...have you actually heard the difference? Graphs never tell the entire story. if you bought two seperate mics then why would you expect them to be "matched" anyway???Another thing...AKG has a standard that they bring all their mics up to. ALL their mics are within a certain tolerance , as long as it is within a certain timeframe.. And another thing...I dont understand the "matched" fuss. Dont your preamps have trim and pot controls???FWIW, ALL my mics are "mismatched" save one pair. Who cares?

Quit worrying about the silliness and record some music.
To answer your questions...
I didn't say I have a bad pair. I said I feel like I have a bad pair. I wouldn't know the difference as I am new to this stuff and haven't worked with pairs of anything before. The pair I have seems fine to me, but I just don't know if they're as good as a matched pair. I wouldn't know what to think or expect. I realize that the mics are excellent and that graphs never tell the entire story, otherwise I wouldn't have dropped six hundred on each of them. Like I said, I purposely got these microphones mismatched because the stereo pairs are hard to come by and these two happened to have their charts. I just wanted to physically see the difference to get a better idea of how technically similar or dissimilar they are. As it turns out, they are significantly dissimilar and, as extraneous as it may be, it would make me feel better if that weren't so. I'm sorry for the annoying topic, but I managed to decipher your point on it. Thanks, I guess.

Edit: I forgot to mention that they are several years apart in time of manufacture.
 
They may not be "a pair". Big deal. They are very good mics. You'll wind up sticking them on all kinds of stuff. I'll get rid of mine- when they pry it from my cold, dead, hand.-Richie
 
Thanks. I hope this thread diminishes into the abyss as I suspect I will happily record my band's first single with these mics starting today! I really do apologize for the annoying topic. Admittedly, it was brought on by a sudden burst of uncertainty. It's just good to know that my fellow recording enthusiasts don't really care much for matched pairs. It makes me feel better, and that's the point! :D
 
Like I said, the end result is all that matters. I do fine with "unmatched" pairs. Not a client one has complained. :D Focus on substance, not filler.

I dont even think I look at my graphs when I get new mics, Im too anxious to hold the mics and hear em. Youll be fine man. The ULS is a fine mic.

FYI

http://www.saturn-sound.com/Curio's/story%20of%20the%20akg%20c414.htm

From the "Famous" C12 to ........

It all started when the famous AKG C12, valve classic, was superceded by the C12a. Rather then using the 6072/12AY7 valve, as in the C12, the C12a utilsing a miniature "Nuvistor" type valve. This, together with smaller/modern components, enabled the body of the C12a to be very much smaller then it's predecessor. The C12a was our first introduction to the famous rectangular box shape that we have come to recognise as a kind of "trademark" from AKG.

When AKG introduced their modern semiconductor designs, the prefix of the figure 4 was utilised. The first microphone to carry the new number scheme, being the C412 i.e. a semiconductor version of the C12/C12a. Still using the same CK12 capsule as that in the C12 and C12a. The C412, had 2 on board switches. One for polar pattern selection, the other for attenuation. There seems to be various "Attenuator/Pad" levels e.g -10dB & -20dB, throughout the history of units produced. However ..... as the attenuator was purely a potential divider in the output stage of the microphone, there still were minor problems with distortion, as the FET amplifier could be still easily be over-driven by high SPL's. The C412 had only 3 switchable polar patterns i.e. Omni, cardioid and fig'8. Whereas, the C12 and C12a had 9 possible polar pattern settings. This was OK for some users, but many found this a move backwards. The BBC, one of AKG's respected/influential customers, found that the C412 was unable to fill the place of the C12/C12a, as 3 polar patterns were insufficient for many applications. After much back and forth conversation's between the BBC and AKG, and other users, an up-dated version of the C412 was introduced. Basically the same as the C412, with an improved attenuator i.e pre-FET amplifier stage, and more importantly, the addition of a Hyper-cardioid polar pattern. As this new microphone had 4 polar patterns, the last digit of the older C412, was changed to a 4 i.e C414. Thus the start of the C414 series of microphones.

The C414 was available in 2 versions. Either, the C414E, with cannon type connector or, the C414C with a connector to the "Din standard". The C414 proved be a strong competitor to the Neumann U77 and U87. The U77, being Neumann's first semiconductor version of the U87. Note that the U77 was one of Neumann's earliest microphones with a transformer-less output stage. Mainly due, to the 12volt "T" powering technique used at that time..

The next version of the C414, was the C414EB. Much the same as the C414, with the addition of a 3 position Attenuator switch (0,-10,-20dB) and 3 position Bass roll-off switch (Flat, 75, 150Hz). One of the major, long term, improvements, was that of the connector type. Since the introduction of the C12a, including the C412 and C414, a stand mount/connector combination had been used for mounting, and electrical connection, of the microphone. This would prove to be very unreliable throughout it's life, so the introduction of a built-in cannon type connector on the C414EB, was of great benefit to all users.

During the production years of the C414EB, manufacture of the "original" CK12 capsule ceased and a modern nylon version (2072-Z-0005) was introduced. This replacement would never live up to the standard of the famous CK12, that had previously made AKG large capsule microphones so wonderful. The tonal qualities of the nylon CK12, are just so different from it's predecessor.

A remote control version of the C414EB was produced. Known as the C414E1. This would be very useful in "Fixed Rig" situations, as the polar patterns were remotely adjustable via the S42E1 remote control box. The S42E1, offered 9 polar patterns and facilities for 2 microphones. The C414E1 looked identical to the C414EB, without the polar pattern switch. The housing used, was that of the C414EB. Hence it still had C414EB stamped on it, with the addition of the word Remote, where the polar pattern switch would have been. The capsule and pre-amplifier, were the same as that used in the C414EB. However, the polarising voltages, for both sides/faces of the capsule, were derived from a DC/DC converter in the phantom powered S42E1 box.

The "Digital Age" was now upon us, and the need for quieter microphones was very apparent. Enter the C414EB-P48. Until this time, the previous C412 & C414 series of microphones, could be powered from any "Phantom" power supply, offering +12 to +52 volts. However, the C414EB-P48, was designed to work purely on +48v phantom supplies. The polarising voltage for the capsule, is taken from the +48v supply via very high value resistors and high voltage tantalum reservoir capacitors., rather then the previous way of using a DC/DC converter. The tantalum capacitors were to be a fault liability in the "long term".

A new model, the C414B-ULS, was the next microphone to emerge. The suffix ULS, denoting that the microphone had a "completely linear transfer characteristic of all transmission parameters". Looking just like a black/matt version of a C414EB, the C414B-ULS offered better performance figures and reliability, then the C414EB-P48. The electronics took on a highly complex design. Utilising no less then 17 transistors, as opposed to the previous 4 transistors in earlier designs. Whether or not this maze of components could improve the sound quality, would be food for thought. However, we did see the return of the DC/DC converter for polarising the capsule.

Getting the iron out of the audio signal i.e. no coupling transformers, was all the rage at this time. The C414B-TL (Transformer Less) version of the C414B-ULS was introduced. Offering less distortion at high SPL's then the C414B-ULS. Sounding somewhat dryer and more clinical then it's predecessor.

AKG were to re-create the sound of the original CK12 capsule, in a new nylon version (2072-Z-0009), similar to that already in production. This new capsule was to be used in the "Gold Grill" C414B-TLII, also in the C12-VR, valve microphone. The only audible difference, between the TL and TLII, being a "Presence" boost.

Currently, we have the "New Look" C414B-XLS, and a transformer-less version, the C414B-XLII. Many new features are found on these units. The capsule being mounted on a internal elastic suspension system, rather then the previous fixed block method. Logic circuitry is used for switching of all parameters. With LED display of chosen settings and overload. A big difference, is the provision of a 5th polar pattern i.e. Soft Cardioid. Therefore, I wonder why the microphone was not called the C415B, following the tradition of the last digit being the amount of fixed polar patterns available. Who knows ?


innobidova said:
To answer your questions...
I didn't say I have a bad pair. I said I feel like I have a bad pair. I wouldn't know the difference as I am new to this stuff and haven't worked with pairs of anything before. The pair I have seems fine to me, but I just don't know if they're as good as a matched pair. I wouldn't know what to think or expect. I realize that the mics are excellent and that graphs never tell the entire story, otherwise I wouldn't have dropped six hundred on each of them. Like I said, I purposely got these microphones mismatched because the stereo pairs are hard to come by and these two happened to have their charts. I just wanted to physically see the difference to get a better idea of how technically similar or dissimilar they are. As it turns out, they are significantly dissimilar and, as extraneous as it may be, it would make me feel better if that weren't so. I'm sorry for the annoying topic, but I managed to decipher your point on it. Thanks, I guess.

Edit: I forgot to mention that they are several years apart in time of manufacture.
 
ok, here's the deal...

1. Your pair of 414's should sound awesome, regardless of whether or not they're a matched pair. they're like sm-57's...they don't all sound the same, but they do all have that distinctive 414 sound, and since both are the same model of 414, should sound fairly close to each other.

2. matched pairs are considered pretty damn cherry...while not exactly a necessity, the fact that they have consecutive serial #'s means that they were produced at the same time/place and under the same conditions, and therefore should be as close as humanly possible to sounding exactly the same.

3. if you don't want em, i'll take the pair.
 
Matching is more than just mean sensitivity or sensitivity at 1kHz, so it can't be completed controlled by a gain knob. If there is a dramatic difference at a given frequency, when using coincident or near-coincident stereo mic techniques, can cause the stereo image to shift at times when that frequency is emphasized.

Having said that, you've got to test your own mics to see how well they work. Put the two mics as close to each other as possible, with the same capsule orientation (that is don't use XY, aim them both forward) and record some pink noise at a reasonable distance (6' should do). Match gain as closely as possible, reverse polarity on one track, and sum them. You will hear a difference track--part of it the small difference in capsule location, part is the unmatchedness of the mics. If you hear a quiet but broadband sounding mix, you are fine. If you hear a somewhat loud sound concentrated in a frequency range, that is potentially a cause for concern.

If you find yourself in the latter situation, record a few tracks--drums, piano would be good--and see how it sounds. If it sounds good, you are fine.

If you get funny stereo imaging around the suspect frequency range, you might want to consider replacing the mic with the more deviant curve with another. And hope you get luckier that time :o

I have two pairs of unmatched mics, one I have tested and they are matched OK but not great, the other pair I never tested. I haven't had problems with them.
 
BigRay, thanks for the info. And, mshilarious, thanks for the insight.

Ironklad, with all this assurance I've been given, my intuition is to keep the mics. I really must wait and see how I like the outcome, which I'm about to find out, but I agree with you and do suspect I'll be happy with it.
 
I too have a "mismatched" pair of 414's. As of yet I have never noticed a difference in the overall sound of them, but the output of the two are different by a good 6 decibels. They have been this way since the day I bought them (new and in the same order). It really has never bothered me. Out of superstition though I have made a small mark on the louder one for when I want to use a 414 on a quieter source. Once you get the outputs matched pretty well, listen for the the way the mic sounds. If you really hear a difference, you may want to consider selling one and rebuying another. If not, I would keep it and not worry about it. A long time ago a briefly had a pair of Oktava 319's that i also bought at the same time. With those you could really hear the difference. One of them had a richer low end so I marked that one. That way when I did use them I could choose between the two for what I felt would sound better for a given track. In the end though I sold both because I just don't care for how they sounded. My 414's however I have owned for longer and will not sell them. They rarely become my primary mic for tracks, but they happily make appearences on every album I do, matched or not:D

As to the price of used 414's.... I have seen them sell for a little less, and seen them sell for a little more. Given what you paid I would say that both you and the sellers both got a fair deal, so I would not worry about the cost. Especially if you got one of the 414 issues with the shockmount included.
 
innobidova said:
They are AKG C414 B-ULS mics. I bought them separately on ebay particularly because the matched pairs are hard to come by, but also because they both came with their original frequency response curve charts so I could see just how mismatched they are. First of all, can somebody please assure that I didn't pay too much for them individually? I paid $610 and $597. That, alone, makes me nervous because I've been thinking about putting them back on ebay and I don't want to suffer too much of a resale value loss. Second of all, the reason why I want to sell them is that the frequency response charts have staggering differences that make me feel like I have two completely different microphones... like I have a bad pair. Well, it's also because there are lots of new matched pairs available that cost much less and are probably more appropriate for a newbie like me. I can't help but feel out of place by owning a C414 (let alone two). But, that just raises the thought that I'll end up wanting better mics in the long run. So I really hope that it's not a big deal, having such a mismatched pair. Is it? Would you keep it and treat it like it's a matched pair?

Like many have said, matching is not critical in most situations. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong at all with having a matched pair - there is no downside. In certain situations, a matched pair is desireable, such as stereo coincident recording.

Those original frequency graphs you have are important, simply because there are graphs of the actual mics, not the general graphs AKG might publish on its website for that model of mic.
 
Back
Top