Topic: 460 vs jw mod 460? anyone have something handy?

[datbrad]

I've owned several of Jim's mods and I must say that I have not been impressed at all. I had a pair of 414's that sounded just awful, so I sent them back to Jim and he called and said they were in perfect condition and sounded the way they were supposed to. Stunned, I asked him how he tested them....he snapped backthat he listened to them. When pressed, he admitted he hadn't tested their freq spectrum or even opened them up to inspect them.
In his defense, he didn't charge me for the inspection but I was baffled to hear him say they were exactly how he had intended. I sold them and the next buyer felt the same way and I think Jim wound up buying them from him when he sent them back again.

I certainly don't see enough of a "positive" impovement to warrant the price he charges to rip the transformers out of your mics.
To my ears, they sound worse for it. YMMV

I agree with Phil. I toyed with the idea of sending Jim my 460s a few years ago, even had discussed it with him via email and was about to pull the trigger. Then, I listened to some JW mod sources of shows I recorded with my stock set and while the tighter and deeper bass was a positive, the high end sounded strange to me, and the warmth of the transformers in the midrange was noticably absent. Some JW mod sources I listened to were a tiny bit harsh sounding to me, actually. Glad I kept them stock.

[DSatz]

> I had a pair of 414's that sounded just awful, so I sent them back to Jim and he called and said they were in perfect condition and sounded the way they were supposed to.

There have been a dozen or more different types of AKG condenser microphone with "414" in their names. They've all been rather different from one another, so for the past 25 years or so it's been impossible to tell what that number is even supposed to mean other than "buy me."

Those dozen or more models have used two different capsule types. One is a poor imitation of the company's own CK 12 capsule from the 1950s; they cunningly refer to this imitation as a "CK 12" even though absolutely no one outside of the company thinks that it sounds like the original. It has an intentional high-frequency coloration for close-up vocal recording, while the capsule used in the other "414" microphones has basically flat frequency response (e.g. the C 414 B - ULS) and is not widely used in U.S. studios.

If you were trying to use a pair of AKG mikes from the first category (e.g. the C 414 B - TL II) for the kind of moderately-distant two-mike stereo recording that people here mainly do, your recordings would probably sound pretty bad most of the time, and what Jim told you would be spot on.

So, which specific model of "414" have you got?

--best regards

[PH]

I had the B-ULS version and I was using them for studio applications, acoustic bass, guitar cab, etc....

Not everyone at taperssection uses their mics for distant recording.
I also know the difference between a crappy 414 and a good one having used many of the different models including the Silver EB, which was the best of the bunch to my ears.
None of that has anything to do with the discussion at hand.

Point is that I just don't think having JW mod your mics is a worthwhile investment or a sonic improvement.

[DSatz]

nashphil, very well. A few years ago on something of a whim, I decided to make a little study of microphone modifications, and I ended up sending microphones to Stephen Paul, Klaus Heyne and Jim Williams for them each to "do their thing" (a single U 87, a pair of KM 84s, and a pair of C 414-B ULS respectively).

Jim converted the AKGs into transformerless microphones which in the end, had 4 dB lower equivalent noise than the stock model; their high-frequency response also increased by a dB or two. The "down side" was that the mikes were far less resistant to RFI--probably because he removed one layer of screening from around the capsule in the name of increasing their "openness."

I don't accept Jim's views on "micro-overtones" or indeed, the whole notion of choosing substitute components on the basis of having a much faster rise time than should ever be needed in a low-level audio-frequency circuit. But it was evident that he knew the microphones very well. He was able to make impressive objective improvements in their performance, and beyond that, he was utterly unpretentious (I never heard a single word of self-promotional bullshit from him) and eager to take part in the whole experiment. I appreciated all that.

--best regards

[PH]

As I said in my OP, Jim didn't charge me and I appreciated that. My point was that his opinion differed dramatically from mine, which I found very unusual. While I understand that Jim's approach is certainly unique, I don't buy into the idea of removing perfectly good circuitry and transformers to clean up the signal path and thus achieve a "better" or "cleaner" sound with a Microphone. I don't doubt his skills one bit, but maybe his philosophy a little. It's subjective, so I suppose it's a matter of taste.