Topic: AKG 480 vs. AKG 460 - A Comparison

[tgakidis]

I have been meaning to post this for awhile now.

http://www.archive.org/details/gpdgs2009-04-26.akg481.vs.akg461.comp.flac24

Source #1: AKG c480b/ck61 > Edirol R-4 Busman T-Mod(24/48)
Source #2: AKG c460b/ck61 > Edirol R-4 Busman T-Mod(24/48)

Artist: Giant Panda Guerilla Dub Squad
Date: April 26, 2009
Venue: UNH Solarfest
Location: Durham, NH
Song: Black Toke

Both microphones were on the same stand in a DIN configuration roughly 9' high, about 40' from the stage and dead center (as shown in the photo).

The sources switch every 10 seconds starting with the 480's the the 460's and continues switching every 10 seconds through the whole song.

Enjoy you Audio geeks and gear sluts!!!

[Javier Cinakowski]

dude, this isn't a fair comp.  Those right-angled Neutriks sound way better than the straight xlrs.   


 


Nice comp, listening now, will update with opinion....
edit: The sources sound similar to me.  I found it difficult to comp in this format.  It was annoying to keep track of the 10sec intervals...

[tgakidis]

The sources sound similar to me.

That is kind of the point.  They are some what similar.  If you listen really hard with a good set of cans you will pick up the bright crisp highs of the 480's, especially in the snare and vocals.  You will also pick up the deep fat tone of the 460's.  Download the file and take a look at the wave form and you can get a better picture of the differences.

I found it difficult to comp in this format.  It was annoying to keep track of the 10sec intervals.

Longer itervals would not bring out the soubtle differences.  When listening just think 480 = even double digits (20-29, 40-49, etc) and 460 = odd double digits (10-19, 30-39, etc).

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

dude, this isn't a fair comp.  Those right-angled Neutriks sound way better than the straight xlrs.   

Hahahahahaha!

[yug du nord]

I haven't listened yet...  but that's a real nice lookin pic Ted!

[page]

The sources sound similar to me.

That is kind of the point.  They are some what similar.  If you listen really hard with a good set of cans you will pick up the bright crisp highs of the 480's, especially in the snare and vocals.  You will also pick up the deep fat tone of the 460's.  Download the file and take a look at the wave form and you can get a better picture of the differences.

I caught the difference once in the highs. I heard the trademark sizzle of the 480s once around the 0:43 mark or so, first vocal set I think. I couldn't discern a difference in the bottom end though.

[Javier Cinakowski]

When listening just think 480 = even double digits (20-29, 40-49, etc) and 460 = odd double digits (10-19, 30-39, etc).

this is helpfull, thanks!  I feel kinda stupid, I was never good at math!   
I can tell the difference, but not enough to make a strong opinion.   I have listened on a nice headphone Dt880 and a nice monitor system...

[Javier Cinakowski]

dude, this isn't a fair comp.  Those right-angled Neutriks sound way better than the straight xlrs.   

Additionally, the mass of the Shure vert bar gives a significant stabilization advantage over the t-bar.  The shock mounts cannot do their job properly on such a inadequate mounting apparatus.  I think the variables of this experiment are questionable, at best. 



 

[newplanet7]

Thanks Ted.
Been waiting for this.

[SmokinJoe]

When I listen in the 2:00-3:00 range... at 2:10-2:20 and 2:30-2:40 etc, I can hear it sound slightly fatter, especially in the right channel.  Enough that if you close your eyes and just listen and don't look at the clock, you can tell when it switches.  It's possible that the right channel is a tiny bit louder on those samples which will play games with your mind, but it doesn't "look louder" in Audacity.

Overall the difference is slight.  If your average listening environment is a typical car or set of computer speakers you will never hear it.

[taperwheeler]

This is great Ted!  Thanks..have wanted to hear a good comp...

[caymanreview]

these are stock 460s right?

[tgakidis]

these are stock 460s right?

yup

[caymanreview]

cool. getting ready to check it out now. thanks!

[raymonda]

For a PA recording, outdoors with significantly dense windscreens that roll off the high end and negatively effect the frequency response of the mic I would imagine the sound would be similar.
It would be better to compare them on a grand piano, OH, or at least a 2 point stereo recording under better condition, i.e., indoors with accoustic music.

Thanks for all your work it was fun to listen.

[datbrad]

For a PA recording, outdoors with significantly dense windscreens that roll off the high end and negatively effect the frequency response of the mic I would imagine the sound would be similar.
It would be better to compare them on a grand piano, OH, or at least a 2 point stereo recording under better condition, i.e., indoors with accoustic music.

Thanks for all your work it was fun to listen.

Not quite sure of your point. Since both mics have the same windscreens on them, the test controls are identical, so any differences would not be negated by the screens, IMO.

[tgakidis]

In a perfect world there would be matched mics, controlled conditions, rubber gloves and hand sanitizer.

Given who we are and what we do this comp is a snap shot of a typical situation.  Of course it's not perfect and I may have over stepped my bounds with the title "definative".

Take it for what it's worth, it all about having fun.

[page]

In a perfect world there would be matched mics, controlled conditions, rubber gloves and hand sanitizer.

 

I think that statement can be applied to a lot of situations in life. 

[raymonda]

For a PA recording, outdoors with significantly dense windscreens that roll off the high end and negatively effect the frequency response of the mic I would imagine the sound would be similar.
It would be better to compare them on a grand piano, OH, or at least a 2 point stereo recording under better condition, i.e., indoors with accoustic music.

Thanks for all your work it was fun to listen.

Not quite sure of your point. Since both mics have the same windscreens on them, the test controls are identical, so any differences would not be negated by the screens, IMO.

As an extreme point, do you think that you would get an accurate picture of what a mic sounded like, or two mics sound like, when a pillow is placed over them? Now, of course, this is certainly not that extreme but significant none the less. I don't think this shoot out can tell you anymore than what they sounded like under these, less than ideal, test conditions.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is great fun and extremely helpful for someone, and maybe many, planning on taping in only these types of conditions, but I wouldn't bet on it transfering to more ideal conditions.

I'm not trying to be a padant but honest.

Again, thanks for the hard work. 

[tgakidis]

I don't think this shoot out can tell you anymore than what they sounded like under these, less than ideal, test conditions.

BINGO!  This comp is exactly what they sounded like under these, less than ideal, test conditions.

Like I said, I did over step my bounds by using "definative" in my title.  Another thing to keep in mind is that there are MANY factors that can effect the test conditions.  But again, for who most of us on this board are (amatuer audio geeks) and what we do (record in less then ideal situations) this is a good representaion of what to expect.

[newplanet7]

But again, for who most of us on this board are (amatuer audio geeks) and what we do (record in less then ideal situations) this is a good representaion of what to expect.

Yep.

[illconditioned]

For a PA recording, outdoors with significantly dense windscreens that roll off the high end and negatively effect the frequency response of the mic I would imagine the sound would be similar.
It would be better to compare them on a grand piano, OH, or at least a 2 point stereo recording under better condition, i.e., indoors with accoustic music.

Thanks for all your work it was fun to listen.

I would be cool to hear a comparison on something like a jazz outfit, where you can get unamplified input from the drum kit.  That would reveal a naturalness and also lots of transients.

  Richard

[datbrad]

I don't think this shoot out can tell you anymore than what they sounded like under these, less than ideal, test conditions.

BINGO!  This comp is exactly what they sounded like under these, less than ideal, test conditions.

Like I said, I did over step my bounds by using "definative" in my title.  Another thing to keep in mind is that there are MANY factors that can effect the test conditions.  But again, for who most of us on this board are (amatuer audio geeks) and what we do (record in less then ideal situations) this is a good representaion of what to expect.

This is exactly the type of comp that matters most to the tapers that tape primarily in the field, specifically concerts from a PA system.

A comp in a studio setting direct mic'ing instruments would tell me nothing about the recording situations I am mostly in, so this comp is great one for me personally.

Thanks Ted

[raymonda]

"This is exactly the type of comp that matters most to the tapers that tape primarily in the field, specifically concerts from a PA system.

A comp in a studio setting direct mic'ing instruments would tell me nothing about the recording situations I am mostly in, so this comp is great one for me personally.

Thanks Ted
[/quote]

Ted,

I wasn't speaking of a studio. As a matter of fact I have never recorded in a studio but rather I always do live on location recordings.

My thoughts were that in a better venue, since most of us record inside, would be a better choice. Also, close micing would also tell us alot more about the differences. Many folks do simple multitrack, i.e., board and ambience and or 16-24 tracks. Regardless, seperate mics are often used on many of the instruments and often times you have a better choice of where you place your ambient mics. In these situations, and even with simple two track stereo recordings, the difference may well be evident.

I'm not sure I agree that everyone here records only under outdoor, windy conditions. If so, that certainly limits the recording season for all but the folks that live in the SE and S. Ca.

 

[tgakidis]

Ted,

I wasn't speaking of a studio. As a matter of fact I have never recorded in a studio but rather I always do live on location recordings.

My thoughts were that in a better venue, since most of us record inside, would be a better choice. Also, close micing would also tell us alot more about the differences. Many folks do simple multitrack, i.e., board and ambience and or 16-24 tracks. Regardless, seperate mics are often used on many of the instruments and often times you have a better choice of where you place your ambient mics. In these situations, and even with simple two track stereo recordings, the difference may well be evident.

I'm not sure I agree that everyone here records only under outdoor, windy conditions. If so, that certainly limits the recording season for all but the floks that live in the SE and S. Ca.

I surrender 

PS: That was Brad's response you quoted above, not mine.

[raymonda]

I surrender 

PS: That was Brad's response you quoted above, not mine.


[/quote]

Ted,

Sorry about confusing you and Brad. I'm not sure what the surrender means but if you felt you were put on the defense my apologies. I do believe I thanked you a number of times for your work and commented on how it was fun. My intent was to make further comments regarding drawing further implications from this comparison. It was not meant to be personal.

Ray

[datbrad]

I surrender 

PS: That was Brad's response you quoted above, not mine.

Ted,

Sorry about confusing you and Brad. I'm not sure what the surrender means but if you felt you were put on the defense my apologies. I do believe I thanked you a number of times for your work and commented on how it was fun. My intent was to make further comments regarding drawing further implications from this comparison. It was not meant to be personal.

Ray
[/quote]

I would say he surrenders in trying to justify his comp, and deal with critics from the peanut gallery. If you want to make a comp a particular way differently than it was done by a member here, feel free to make the effort, and post your results. Nobody likes a "Monday morning QB".

[raymonda]

Ray
[/quote]

I would say he surrenders in trying to justify his comp, and deal with critics from the peanut gallery. If you want to make a comp a particular way differently than it was done by a member here, feel free to make the effort, and post your results. Nobody likes a "Monday morning QB".
[/quote]

So, when someone post a comparison no one is suppose to make any comments to further the discussion in a constructive manner. Sort of like my wife asking me if she looks fat in her dress, I guess.

[SmokinJoe]

So, when someone post a comparison no one is suppose to make any comments to further the discussion in a constructive manner. Sort of like my wife asking me if she looks fat in her dress, I guess.

Yes, but whereas you wife will no longer perform sexual favors after you hurt her fealings, I'm not sure the same can be said of Ted.    (Sorry I couldn't resist).

Seriously though, the results do sound quite similar under those circumstances, it would be good to repeat under different circumstances...  maybe we can organize something like running dual V3's, stage lip for club d'Elf might bring it out in spades.

[newplanet7]

maybe we can organize something like running dual V3's, stage lip for club d'Elf might bring it out in spades.

I like where you're going with this Joe.
  AND
This thread is full of quote fail.
Carry on.

[manitouman]

do you think that you would get an accurate picture of what a mic sounded like, or two mics sound like, when a pillow is placed over them?

Rigging up the bedroom while the wife is in the shower...

[newplanet7]

do you think that you would get an accurate picture of what a mic sounded like, or two mics sound like, when a pillow is placed over them?

Rigging up the bedroom while the wife is in the shower...

Sendspace ?? 

[tgakidis]

Easy now boys or the mods will move this topic to "the sewer"!

[Papaphunk]

bump....thoughts / experience using  460 v 480 Bodies. Much of a difference ?

[DSatz]

If you took two pairs of any _one_ model of microphone and made a test like this, careful listeners would very likely hear small differences. I know of no manufacturer who guarantees their microphones to be within (say) 1 dB of the published specifications; meanwhile, differences of only a few tenths dB can influence the outcome of a listening comparison. And it must be said that AKG always had the loosest manufacturing tolerances of the leading European manufacturers, including long before they started outsourcing manufacture to China.

The fact that these are stereo recordings, with the microphones relatively close together, exposes any differences in sensitivity and frequency response between the two microphones of each pair to the maximum. Auditory perception in stereo is far more sensitive to differences between channels than to differences in sound on any "absolute" basis. Randomly occurring differences in sensitivity and frequency response within any one pair would be quite unlikely to match the differences in another pair.

In other words, those who feel that they can hear differences between the two pairs are quite possibly hearing something real. But what that says about any general sonic difference between the 460 and the 480 is entirely moot in this kind of test.

--best regards

[spyder9]

The answer is Yes:  460's have transformers.  The 480's do not. 

It just depends on what you like.  I like transformer-sound, so that's why I own 460's.

[DSatz]

I don't mean to argue with you or anyone else, but statements such as yours seem to assume/imply that transformers all have an inherent "sound", or at least some effect on sound quality.

But transformers can very well be sonically neutral problem-solvers, being simply a part of how the amplifier puts a balanced, low-impedance signal out into the world. That's the usual case with reasonably modern professional condenser microphones that have them, and with transformer-equipped preamps and recorders as well.

So the idea of expecting something to sound a certain way because it has, or doesn't have, a transformer, doesn't make sense to me. The mere presence or absence of a transformer gives no indication at all of how things will sound.

--best regards

[goodcooker]

I don't mean to argue with you or anyone else, but statements such as yours seem to assume/imply that transformers all have an inherent "sound", or at least some effect on sound quality.

But transformers can very well be sonically neutral problem-solvers, being simply a part of how the amplifier puts a balanced, low-impedance signal out into the world. That's the usual case with reasonably modern professional condenser microphones that have them, and with transformer-equipped preamps and recorders as well.

So the idea of expecting something to sound a certain way because it has, or doesn't have, a transformer, doesn't make sense to me. The mere presence or absence of a transformer gives no indication at all of how things will sound.

--best regards

You are correct that transformers SHOULD not color the sound travelling through them but the practical reality is that it often is the case. In the case of the AKG 460/480 the switch to a transformerless design caused a noticeable difference in the sound of the preamp. Take a pair of CK series capsules and put one on a transformer based 460 body and another on the transformerless 480 series preamp - put them next to each other on the same source material - and the difference is definitely audible.

The bottom line for our typical uses of far field recording is that the 460 is a little more bassy and has a more relaxed midrange while retaining some of that high end sizzle associated to the "AKG sound". The 480 is more even across the frequency spectrum and a little brighter in the high end. Completely anecdotal evidence from field use experience.

I always liked the 460 sound. I used a pair of 460/A60 reducer rings/CK1 capsules for years. The poor mans DPA 4011 but some extra umph in the low end. Then I switched to Neumann AK40 for cardioids. To get the same balance of clarity and warmth I've been using subcardioid mics more often in the past few years as long as I'm either outdoors, in a good sounding room or close to the source.

[DSatz]

To be clear, I didn't say that transformers never influence sound quality; clearly they can and sometimes do. Also, the subminiature transformers used in small condenser microphones tend to limit the maximum undistorted output voltage that the mike can deliver. Some transformer-equipped preamps require the source impedance of a microphone to be within a fairly narrow range (e.g. 150-200 Ohms) in order to have linear frequency response and avoid parasitic oscillation, and transformerless microphones may have a lower output impedance than those input circuits were designed for. In some cases transformers can cause unfavorable impedance interactions when driving long cables and/or cables with high capacitance, which can lead to high frequency losses and/or slew rate limiting.

All those considerations (and others that could be mentioned) are ways in which microphone output transformers can influence sound quality. But it's on a case-by-case, situation-by-situation basis. No one, identifiable "sonic character" or "flavoring" is associated with simply having an output transformer (or not). If a given microphone has a transformer (or doesn't), then from knowing that fact alone, you know literally nothing about how the microphone will sound. If you prefer the 460 to the 480 or the other way around, fine; but your preference can't be extrapolated to other microphones with (or without) output transformers.

I hope that I'm making myself clear here. I also wonder something: If you tried comparing the 460 and 480 using a preamp with a distinctly higher-than-average input impedance across the frequency range, such as 20 kOhms or greater--I wonder whether you might then hear less difference between the 460 and 480 than what you hear with heavier loading--maybe even no difference at all. Have you ever tried that, by any chance?

If that proved to be the case, I would rather say (as one must with ribbon microphones) that they should be used with preamps that have higher-than-the-minimum input impedance. Or maybe you like what happens when a preamp input loads down a microphone, I dunno; certainly some people like to do such things. I don't as a rule. But in any case the cause-and-effect picture isn't nearly as simple as saying "I like transformer sound" (or "the sound of iron" as I've heard it romanticized to be).

Again, thank you for taking my remarks in the spirit that they were meant in.

--best regards

[illconditioned]

I wonder how much tranformerless design is driven by cost.
Building good transformers is expensive (and requires space within the mic.Small (well matched) transistor pairs seem to work well.No reason to change one for the other in my opinion.

[DSatz]

illconditioned, yes, a good output transformer is not a cheap part, so if it can be replaced by less expensive active circuitry, the microphone can sell for less. Quality control is also faster, simpler and cheaper with transistors and other low-level components than it is with transformers, and shipping weight is enough to matter if you have 1,000-microphone batches as some manufacturers do. The budget end of the modern sales environment is competitive to the fraction of a penny, and I have no doubt that transformerless microphone circuitry has been welcomed there for this reason, particularly among far Eastern manufacturers.

Among the traditional central European manufacturers it's more a matter of history and of drastically changing times. I can tell you that Schoeps' main incentive for eliminating the transformer was technical rather than economic. The maximum SPL of the transformerless versions was one or two dB higher, depending on the model (e.g. CMT 34, 125 dB SPL; CMT 44, 126 dB SPL; CMT 54, 124 dB SPL). Those are small differences, but if a user exceeded the given maximum SPL by (say) 5 dB, particularly at low frequencies, the transformerless microphones would have markedly lower distortion than the transformer-equipped ones. When you consider what was going on in the music recording business at this time, with the rise of the Beatles and rock-n-roll in general, people were close-miking louder and louder sound sources, and the upper SPL limit was being reached much more often than it ever had been in years past. In 1973 Schoeps raised that limit to 130 dB with the introduction of the Colette series, and now that all of their new models were transformerless, that was a softer limit.

Neumann introduced their first transformerless phantom-powered microphone with a great deal of fanfare about ten years later, the TLM 170. Compared to the already existing model U 89 which used the same capsule, it had 6 dB greater headroom for the same level of sensitivity. Their catalog said that it had been possible to "reduce significantly the self-noise level of the microphone compared to similar types" and while the noise specifications for both microphones varied by some 4 dB between different catalog editions back then, the TLM 170 generally came out about 2 dB quieter.

--best regards

[Jammin72]

So they've dropped this system?  That's too bad.  You couldn't find a better value in remote capsules with the work of folks on this board.  Wonder if they're moving production to china and going to introduce something else similar?