Skip to main content

AKG C214 vs C314

Member for

5 years 2 months
Hello there,

I've had two C214 for a while, using them for home studio recording, mainly vocals and acoustic guitars/ukes.

I'm thinking of upgrading to C314 (the desirable 414 being way too expensive for my budget), mainly for their ability to switch between different polar patterns. There doesn't seem to be a lot of 314 around so I'm not able to test them. AKG claims the capsule is better than the 214 and very close to the 414. Is this true?

Do you have an opinion on this upgrade?

Comments

Member for

9 years

DonnyThompson Tue, 10/25/2016 - 03:57
DonnyThompson, post: 442589, member: 46114 wrote: Not sure. I guess the best way to find out would be to upload something that sounds good in its original form, and then listen to the file after it's been uploaded.

Oh Good Gawd. Did I actually just say that? Really?? o_O

(Well, Hey! Now there's
a good guess, donny!! ... Thank you Oh So Much, Mr. Thompson, for once again belaboring the all-too-apparent and providing your vast knowledge and insight).

( insert massive eye-rolling emoji here.)

I'm gonna leave my original statement there, as a testament to just how moronic I can be...my very own monument to my very own stupidity. Yup. I've now outdone myself.

-donny
( AKA Captain Obvious) LOL... :)

Member for

6 years 4 months

Sean G Tue, 10/25/2016 - 04:10
DonnyThompson, post: 442589, member: 46114 wrote: Not sure. I guess the best way to find out would be to upload something that sounds good in its original form, and then listen to the file after it's been uploaded.
DonnyThompson, post: 442590, member: 46114 wrote: Oh Good Gawd. Did I actually just say that? Really?? o_O

(Well, Hey! Now there's
a good guess, donny!! ... Thank you Oh So Much, Mr. Thompson, for once again belaboring the all-too-apparent and providing your vast knowledge and insight).

( insert massive eye-rolling emoji here.)

I'm gonna leave my original statement there, as a testament to just how moronic I can be...my very own monument to my very own stupidity. Yup. I've now outdone myself.

-donny
( AKA Captain Obvious) LOL... :)


Just read it, then your following post and had a good old chuckle :D

Member for

12 years 4 months

kmetal Tue, 10/25/2016 - 19:59
DonnyThompson, post: 442585, member: 46114 wrote: Absolutely agreed. In fact, in my own experience, SC is one of the worst codecs - if not the worst - I've ever heard.



Kyle beat me to it...in saying that he can even hear a marked difference between the examples on a poorly coded SC file; and to me, that supports even further that there are obvious differences between the mics; because SC - or at least the SC that I'm familiar with - should be skewing everything downward in quality.

In short, LOL, everything should sound as nasty as monkey-ass on SC, and equally so.

Now, to be fair, there are those here on RO who's opinions I really respect, who have said that they haven't heard the lossy artifacts with SC that I have heard; so either it's been coincidentally intermittent on their end, or, perhaps it has more to do with local connections/bandwidth?
I dunno, guys, I'm just guessing here...

I do know that SC had screwed up more than just a few sound files I've uploaded, and in my experience, it's always been artifacts that are most noticeable in the upper mid range and top end - like vocal presence, cymbals, acoustic guitar, percussion, etc. that have that "phasey" thing happening; the odd frequency modulation that is apparent with poorly converted down-sampling.

I did contact SC a few years ago via email to mention the issues; in their reply, I was told that they were indeed aware of it, and they even went as far as to apologize - but - they didn't say that they had any intentions of fixing the problems, either.
If I were to read between the lines of that very polite reply, I'd say that it probably translates to something like:

"Dear over-expectant, self-entitled moron:
Thank you for your query. Yeah, we know that our system isn't the best audio delivery agent out there, and we're aware that we do indeed have quality issues with our coding/compression...
But, hey... it's also free, so what do you want for something that doesn't cost you anything?"

And to be fair, I suppose I'd have to acknowledge that their point is fair.
It would be different if I were paying for the service. But I'm not, so I'm only allowed to b i t c h about them so much. ;)

-d.

Well put D.

Sean G, post: 442587, member: 49362 wrote: Maybe things might get better with SC now there looks to be a takeover by Spotify...who knows

Is Spotify any better?

My cousin is on Spotify, I'm very familiar w his recordings, and I'd say it 'ok'. I find all of the streaming services to basically be MP3 quality. So they 'sound' pretty good in tone and timbre, but the depth and imaging is obviously compromised. Similar to the differnce using basic gear vs high end gear. It's the details and depth that get lost.

The differnce becomes more noticable if the recordings are hifi to begin w. That's probably why D noticed so much change in his recordings. He's got a full clean sound.

When you talk about more lofi stuff like my portastudio recordings or typical 'mixtape' urban stuff the quality differnce is much less noticable.

I recently read (forgot where) but somewhere reliable, that MP3 conversion actually increases the peaks so things that aren't clipped in .wav could clip when converted.

I think is was maybe ozones site or something, talking about their codec preveiw feature.
x