Tape Op #75 Review of AKG C1000 Mod - What's Wrong with this

[chetatkinsdiet]

OK...we've all discussed for years how bad the AKG C1000 mic is....no secret there and it's not really subjective. Overall, bad sounding mic. I just (finally) read the review of the mod in the new issue. Here's what I'm floored by....it sounds like there were no changing of components, only some mods on the angle of cap and removal of foam.
My question is....the guy that did this is a hacker, noodler, right? No offense to him, I'm sure Mark Fouxman has skills, but my point is, I'm guessing he doesn't have the engineering talent or testing facilities that AKG has at their disposal. How could a major company like AKG put out crap like this when a few simple tweaks of their design could result in strikingly better results? Did they do no testing on this mic? Were there no prototypes? Have they not bothered to read the millions and millions of online and print reviews that have slammed this mic since day one? Could they not alter the mic themselves?

I could go on with the questioning here, but I think you get my point.

mike

[Nate Dort]

EDIT: my counter-rant removed due to my overreaction.


There are lots of reasons that some mics sound terrible. Most of it comes down to manufacturing costs. The mods that Mark performed may be impossible to do on a large scale at a reasonable cost. And you know they build those things on a large scale because you see them everywhere, even though they're universally known to sound terrible. When you're a huge corporation pumping out relatively cheap microphones all day, money is the bottom line. The C1000 is widely known, for better or worse, and they sell a ton of them. Why spend more money redesigning it when they can put money into those cheap handheld dynamics that have much higher profit margins?

[Nate Dort]

After re-reading the article, I could see how one would make the assumption that Mark didn't do a whole lot of work on the mic. The review is pretty light on the details and really downplays the process of modifying a microphone. It basically reads like "Mark found some schematics, screwed around with some ideas, and liked what he heard." Based on what I've seen and read with regards to Mark's attention to detail, I'm sure there was a lot more involved than that.

I was a bit harsh up there, and I apologize for that. Your point is more a criticism of AKG than of Mark, and I totally agree with your assessment. I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

In summary: money.

[Z-Plane]

I think you might be overestimating AKG R&D, possibly while underestimating the costs and pressures of manufacturing. Thanks to the net, we have done much of the R&D for dozens of manufacturers and in most cases improved obvious faults or compromises in their design. NS10's for example, can be modified with ordinary petroluem and a match to provide a very useful 10-15 minutes of warmth.

[vvv]

I hope I get the new issue soon as I have a C1000S - my first condensor - bought for US$80 or so back in 1999.

I do find it OK for guitar amps sometimes, and use it with an LDC on acoustic, but it always is just kinda OK.

[vvv]

Just hadda thought:

Mebbe Kel or someone could do a all-C1000S recording?

[b3groover]

vvv, the issue doesn't tell you how to do the mod. You'll have to send your mic to Mark to have it done at a cost, which by all accounts is worth the price.

For the record, Mark re-ribboned a pair of mics for me and they sound incredible. He also modified an MXL 603s capsule, which made a huge difference. And he's shared ideas and other mods with me. He's a very cool guy. And honest to a T.

[mjau]

FWIW, I like the c1000 on finger-picked acoustic guitar.

[chetatkinsdiet]

I hope no one takes what I'm saying as any sort of slam on Mark. I'm sure he put a lot of work into the mic. I'm also sure that he's done this before and has a pretty good background in mic hacks. But, my point was/is, doesn't AKG pay a lot of folks, probably a lot more than Mark, to design these things? OK, so they design around a price point....I get that. But, it doesn't sound like he really changed components. Sure, he had a lot to do to change the angle of the cap and possibly tinker with the grill design, etc. But, if it were designed "better" in the first place, would that have made it more expensive? I doubt it.
I totally understand designing to a price point. I mean, I'm sure every major manufacturer could come up with a pie in the sky design that would be amazing, but none of us could afford it....schoeps....but, the compromise on materials and components. That doesn't sound like the case here. It just sounds like they got to a point and didn't R&D the mic further to see how much better it could be with some tweaking. Had that been done in production as opposed to a mod, I"m sure the costs would be comparable.

m

[Scodiddly]

Sometimes it's surprising what a little tinkering and a couple of bucks in parts can do to a cheap design. Quite often the 50-cent film capacitor is too expensive to put into a $100 mic, when you factor in what it costs to actually get that mic on the shelf at Banjo Center.

Then there's the intertia factor. Let's say you have been selling a particular affordable mic since the early days of home recording. At this point the design maybe isn't great, but the mic still sells, the tooling is all paid for, and there'd be a few people who would actually raise a big stink if you stopped selling that mic. So instead of improving that mic, you put your improvements in mics a bit higher up the price scale and sell them as well! Look at how deep Shure's mic catalog goes - 3 different price-point versions of the SM-58 alone.

And yeah, headbasket / windscreen design is rather tricky and has a significant effect on the sound. Wouldn't be surprised if improvements were possible.

[Nate Dort]

also, if your $100 mic sounds awesome, why bother buying the $500 mic?

[Scodiddly]

also, if your $100 mic sounds awesome, why bother buying the $500 mic?

Ah, so that's how you hit a nail with a hammer!

[kingmetal]

also, if your $100 mic sounds awesome, why bother buying the $500 mic?

I would wager that people would still buy the expensive mics. It's amazing how much brand / model stigma is out in the world.

But you do have a good point and it kind of makes me wonder if that's why low-end MXL stuff sounds better than the low end of most other manufacturers to me -- they don't have a lot of high end products so their low-end stuff doesn't compete with it.

Also, to defend AKG, there might be some patent concerns that are blocking them from fixing their issue. Not sure what the deal with the C1000 is, but I'm sure that (for example) with the MXL 991/603s they had to make some 'bad' design decisions with the lip of the capsule / lack of vents so that it wouldn't be a complete chasis ripoff of a KM84 (maybe Mr. Joly can chime in on this and either back me up or refute my claim).

Because if you have a talented individual make those changes for you, those mics really go from ugly to beautiful.

[LazarusLong]

NS10's for example, can be modified with ordinary petroluem and a match to provide a very useful 10-15 minutes of warmth.

I love this.

[kingmetal]

NS10's for example, can be modified with ordinary petroluem and a match to provide a very useful 10-15 minutes of warmth.

I love this.

Aww, poor NS10s.