Skip to main content


Member for

21 years
I'm new to this forum; have been reading posts for some time and found it very educational. I have a question, especially to those who have some experience recording voiceovers.

I'll soon be setting up a home project studio for recording voiceovers, most likely for FM radio audio skits with cartoon-like wacky voices (some of which pitchshifted) on sfx/musical background. I'll be recording from home (will have a well designed vocal room) but will be “coached” by a guy who owns a small commercial studio (he'll help me with mixing, etc).

He feels very strongly about me using AKG 414 BULS (says U87ai too agressive) and since chances are I'll be working with him for the next couple of years, that's the mic I'll probably will be getting, at least for starters. Now assuming that's the mic I'll use, what are my options in terms of a preamp? (Budget for pre is around $1000 – just need one channel, maybe another $1000 for compressor during tracking)I would like to have a detailed sound that is not too agressive but that stands out easily from the mix. I heard great things about John Hardy M-1, Grace 101 or HV-3. However when i went to a local music store, the salesman told me that something as transparent as those pres in combination with AKG 414 BULS will sound flat, dull and boring in the mix. (and then suggested Universal Audio LA-610 or Blue Robbie saying it would add some life to AKG 414 BULS. Is it true that JH or Grace wouldn't compliment well this specific mic for VO? Any insights would be greatly appreciated. Thanx.


Member for

21 years

Member Sat, 01/13/2007 - 12:20
Let me start by saying I do music, not the spoken VO so much, but here something else to consider...
I have the 414TLII and like it much better than the standard 414. Without the transformer in the mic the low end is better, and for voices people tend to dig low-end punch.
Also, what about the Avalon 737sp? It's a killer preamp, and if you can snag it on eBay for a good price ($1600ish for a good condition used one) it will hold it's value. Try it - if you don't like it you can put it back on eBay and get most (if not all) of your money back out of it.

Good luck!

Member for

19 years 9 months

Davedog Thu, 02/01/2007 - 01:10
aqualand666 wrote: never thought i'd hear the words "414" and "limited use" in the same sentence.

Okay. Lets use another 'descriptive phrase'..............How about 'singular' that its arena of expertise is 'limited'.. This mic on a vocalist, say, would have to be very particular for this to be the mic of choice for this purpose.....However, if it suits that particular vocalist, then its PERFECT for the chore and assignment. The same goes for a particular acoustic instrument, brass instrmentalist,percussionist etc etc. NO studio with any sembalance of quality should be WITHOUT an AKG 414BULS...Its a GREAT mic.....I love them...I simply dont happen to agree with your particular view on its purpose in recording music....and thats OKAY....Its my FAVORITE overhead for drumset mic, and I spent several years in a studio where we had U87's as the matched pair of overs in the drumbooth.

They are just not a mic I would choose for VoiceOver work, nor is it a mic that one would rightly consider when choosing a mic for its 'transparency'....

Whatever you choose is whatever you believe in.

"There are no rules."

"Break every one of them."

Member for

17 years 6 months

Cucco Thu, 02/01/2007 - 07:01
I haven't made THAT kind of reputation for myself, have I Dog?? I mean...shotgun,, nah...

Anyway - DD's right - the 414 is a limited use mic. It does some things and it does them well. I also love them for overheads (but prefer my Schoeps instead - much smoother), I also really love them on a Yamaha C7 grand piano (but prefer my Gefells instead MUCH more open and realistic). Other than that, I haven't found a source which screams..."USE A 414!" Thus, I don't own a pair....(besides, I can rent them for $25 a day if necessary...)

I started my recording career with a pair of 414s (ULS series - old ones too - with the legit C12 capsule) into a custom outboard pre and then into a Nakamichi 3-head deck (and occassionally DAT or even earlier that silly Sony box that recorded digital onto VHS!) Anyway, what we recorded was symphonic bands and every recording sounded shrill and thin. That was most certainly not the fault of the Nakamichi (a WONDERFUL tape deck - IMO, almost as good sounding as some fine digital with the addition of a little bit of noise.)

Anyway - the 414 skews towards the high end making it far from transparent. The Earthworks stuff, IMO, is the embodiment of transparent but I feel to get the best out of their stuff, only the best pre will do (Mr. Hardy's certainly would fit that bill as would Millennia or Grace. I'd be curious to pair the QTC 50 with the A Designs Pacifica that Ben raves about. I think the results would be a HUGE hyper-realistic picture!)

As for the Neumann stuff - each mic that they make is significantly different than any other mic that they make. The TLM 49 is definitely a "colored" mic, but it is designed to be that way (second order distortions built-right-in to emulate a tube). I haven't used the TLM 49 personally, but I did just recently attend the Neumann/Sennheiser Mic clinic in which they had one and we played around with it for a few minutes. It's not bad.

The 193 is designed to be their "flat" microphone. It is quite nice for almost any application (I love it on piano, woodwinds and voice).

By no means are all Neumanns "hyped" in the upper frequencies. Some are quite pronounced (M50/150/TLM103) others are less so (170) and still others such as the 193 are relatively flat. Their legacy mics (the 87/67/47) weren't really "voiced" with anything too specific in mind. They engineered the mic to be a good mic and the frequency response just happened to work (and become the benchmark for other mics to follow).

Oh....and please throw out the notion that anything with a Tube in it is automatically colored and not "transparent." Most current tube gear (that is to say "starved plate") is quite colored but that is because the tube is getting very little voltage (sometimes on the order of only a couple volts) and is thus overwhelmed by even the slightest of voltage variance of incoming signal (audio) creating significant 2nd and 3rd order distortions. True tube gear (a great example is the new Presonus ADL 600) uses REAL voltage to the tubes (in their case +/- 300 volts) and the audio signal coming across the tubes does not cause the tubes to freak out. In the case of these "real" tube boxes, you'll find that the audio is quite realistic (er...transparent). I find Summit gear to be this way as well.

If you were to hear an M50 in action (a tube mic) you would NEVER think there was a tube in there!

Anyway...gotta get to work. The bills aren't gonna pay themselves...


Member for

21 years

Member Thu, 02/01/2007 - 10:06
alright well then find a frequency that is exactly the same among the 414 and mic X's curve, proceed to depict it via the proper instrumentation, and literally see which mic's circuitry is more transparent.

you must be a master of pun because you are playing on these words "colouration" and "transparency" big time. sure if i were recording a bass guitar, a certain microphone may better achieve "transparency" with it because of its frequency responses.

if you were to compare curves for any two microphones, you will find at least one frequency that has the same response curve pattern among them both. that is where we determine which mic is more transparent.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Cucco Thu, 02/01/2007 - 10:33
aqualand666 wrote: if you were to compare curves for any two microphones, you will find at least one frequency that has the same response curve pattern among them both. that is where we determine which mic is more transparent.


Linearity does not determine transparency. Transparency is a subjective term. Furthermore, I put VERY little stock in "Frequency Curves." They are bogus and over all, bullsh*t.

For example, I find the Beyer M130 to be extremely transparent. However, according to its frequency curve, it is not. Granted it's a TAD on the "dark" side, it's not bad and it takes EQ well (making it "undark.")

The difference is not in its frequency linearity but its transient response and its damping characteristics. Because it is faster than most condensers and has very little body resonance, it translates sounds more effortlessly (with a lot more gain needed at the preamp though).

I ask you to NOT look at pieces of paper when comparing microphones and instead use your ears and your brain. When talking about microphones that cost as much as a cheap used car, you owe it to yourself to do this instead of looking at such meaningless things as frequency response curves.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Cucco Thu, 02/01/2007 - 11:06
I'm not experimenting.

If I were, I would certainly take more into account than the frequency plot.

I've been a musician for 24 years and took my first professional classical gig when I was 8. I know what an instrument sounds like and when the mic captures what it's supposed to. To my ears, the 414 doesn't do it - not even close. If accuracy is the name of the game, it is best to look elsewhere. That's all I'm saying.

We've officially hijacked this thread now, so....we should either start another or let it go (although, feel free to rebutt - I'd hate to be accused of forcing the last word.)



Member for

17 years 6 months

Cucco Thu, 02/01/2007 - 11:16
aqualand666 wrote: any two microphones are going to depict at least one frequency in the same manner as far as volume is concerned.


Well...that's an impossible question to answer. There are other variables. Unloaded, a microphone cannot create volume (rather - amplitude). It is possible to suggest that two microphones of different origin when fed the same input signal (sound) could create the same voltage to their outputs. However, how does this correlate to anything we've discussed thus far?

Besides, even if the voltage is the same (suggesting the same signal at the same amplitude), what about the rise time and damping time of the diaphragm and it's potential connected components (in the case of a dynamic mic)? Will this not also have a direct impact on the sound?

Member for

21 years

Member Thu, 02/01/2007 - 11:28
cucco, under this postulate you have given us, no microphone would be transparent. because no microphone is as transparent as your ears. can the TLM 193 be used on bass drum and bass guitar? i'm sure it can but would you use it on those applications if you wanted them to sound just as you heard them?

Member for

17 years 6 months

Cucco Thu, 02/01/2007 - 11:45
aqualand666 wrote: cucco, under this postulate you have given us, no microphone would be transparent. because no microphone is as transparent as your ears.

Well...not so. First of all - I agree that nothing beats live music. A recording, however, can sound pretty damned convincing. Don't believe me, put a Royer SF1 over a solo violin and put a pair of DPA 4006TLs in the hall. Then listen. Through a decent playback system, with your eyes closed, you might just get a glimpse of reality.

Put a 414 over the violin and a pair of 451s in the hall and you may as well reach for the band-aids for your bleeding eardrums.

aqualand666 wrote:
can the TLM 193 be used on bass drum and bass guitar?
Hell yes!

aqualand666 wrote: i'm sure it can but would you use it on those applications if you wanted them to sound just as you heard them?

The hell I would! I use a Soundelux U195 on bass drum all the time and I friggin love it. It sounds JUST like the kick when played back. It doesn't sound like some hyped-ass piece of crap Beta 52 (actually, I don't hate the Beta 52, but I did just sell mine for $50 in brand new/mint condition.)

As for you mean electric? (In which case I LOVE my Radial Designs J48. THAT's a transparent DI!)

For upright (acoustic), I sure would use a TLM 193 (or a U195, or a Schoeps CMC62, or a Gefell UMT70, or a DPA 4006, or even an AT4050!!!)

Member for

16 years

RemyRAD Thu, 02/01/2007 - 12:46
Neither the words transparent nor aggressive really can be used to describe any of the 414's or the U87, in any variety. That's ridiculous. Other microphones sound far more aggressive because they're either too bright or too crappy, neither of which I believe applies to any of the 414's or U87's. And so why is the U87 one of the most popular voiceover microphones, in the advertising, movie and music business? Because it is. In fact, I don't know many who use 414's for voiceovers? Of course I got a Grammy nomination for using one on a fat soprano.

I've cut thousands of commercials throughout my career. I worked for a major international advertising agency and syndicator. My preferred microphone for most male announcers was the U87 and an API microphone preamp into a UREI 1176LN followed by a Allison KEPEX-1 into an APIs 550A equalizer. On occasion I would use a 414P48 or B-ULS or a KM 86 Neumann if I wanted a different or character like vocal sound but four straight announce work, the U87 handsdown. It's just a beautiful combination of stuff for male announcers.

But again, you are working with somebody else who is the "producer?" and you want to give the producer, what they want. But to make a blanket statement that you should use a "414B-ULS", without hearing you on one tells me, he's an amateur. I really want to hear the person first and not over the telephone, before I make a decision about what microphone I want on that person! If he had an ounce worth of sense, he would send you to a local studio or retail establishment to have you cut some tracks with various microphones to see what you'd be sounding the best on for his purposes. Before telling you to go "F" or "S" your self. I think he needs a De-Asser?

I think you should wear jockeys instead of boxers?
Ms. Remy Ann David

Member for

19 years 9 months

Davedog Tue, 01/30/2007 - 12:49
JWHardy wrote:
the guy told me

The guy is an idiot.

John Hardy
The John Hardy Co.

How did I miss this???

John, you dont hang here often but everytime its a real informative time!

That there's funny........

If I wasnt a poor electron farmer I'd be buyin me some of that Hardy stuff.....

Ben got it right. The BULS version is WAY bright and in yer face....."more aggressive than an 87"....I dont think so. An 87 in excellent condition is one of the MOST versatile mics on the planet. I own an older one and everytime I think I'm gonna plunk down a bunch of lettuce on something to 'replace' it, I hear it and it never fails to hold its own and change my mind. It certainly allows for the single-malt budget to stay up where it should.