Mic tests for VO

I tested, A/B’d and compared a bunch of sub-$1000 mics last weekend. All were tested in an acoustically treated studio using a Monster Prolink Standard mic cable (which I ended up purchasing because I really liked it) and the preamp from a small-format Alesis mixing board. I used a set of Audio-Technica ATH-M30 headphones for review, which I also purchased for my wife...Not bad cans, but not my favorite either…Would be a good starter set for VO at about $70. I tested several voices on each mic, as well. I took notes as I tested each mic, from the least expensive to the most expensive. After testing all mics, I re-visited my favorites so I could compare them with the more expensive models.

Anyhow, I thought I would share my results. I only tested large diaphragm studio condensers, with the exception of a couple large dynamics. Some of which I had no intention of buying, but I did want to try for the sake of comparison. I did not test any tube mics (I don’t care for them). I did not test any shotgun mics, though they can sometimes work very well for VO. I did not test any ribbon mics and I did not test any USB mics.

Marshall MXL 990 [$69] I’ve owned one of these for quite some time. In my opinion, this is a good starter mic for someone on a (very) tight budget. It’s not good for speakers with sibilance problems, as it has a strong high-end boost (common among Chinese condensers). It has a “cold” sound, so it won’t perform very well for soft-sell reads. It does work well for younger male voices. The 990 becomes pretty harsh when used on female voices. The construction is solid, and the included shockmount works well, though not as well as others. The self-noise is very high (22dB), though tolerable. This is a huge step forward from a “stage” mic or Radio Shack mic. But this is not a great mic, by any stretch of the imagination.

Nady SCM 900, 920, 950, 1000; Behringer B1, B2; MXL V63M, V57M, V67G, 2001, 2003, 2006; AKG Perception 100, 200; MCA SP-2; CAD GXL2200, 2400 [$39-149] All of these mics sounded essentially the same, with only subtle differences in sonic character. None were very impressive. The MXL and Behringer lines seemed to be of higher build-quality. All of these mics suffer from the exaggerated high-end, which makes them sound especially rough on female voices and speakers with sibilance issues. The MXL 2001 was the best-sounding of the bunch, with a slightly warmer sound. Rumor his it that a 2001 can be modified to sound like a Neumann U87 for about $150 worth of parts, though I cannot confirm that. The AKG’s are a load of crap…They do NOT sound like they belong in the AKG line. My suggestion is to avoid these mics for voiceover, unless you simply want a backup for your main mic.

Audio-Technica AT2020 [$99] This mic is, by far, the best sounding $100 mic on the market. There is no shockmount, which is a definite downside. Overall, this suffers from the same high-end problems as other mics in this price range, but the sonic quality outperforms the competition. On a super-tight budget, this one gets my vote. The self-noise is also lower than other comparably priced mics. Like most “budget” mics, this one will work better on a male voice than female. It may not be a “great” mic, but it seems to be a great buy.

Audio-Technica AT3035 [$199] Not bad at all. This mic was the first to sound reasonably good on a variety of voices without the help of EQ. Self noise is pretty low, as well. The 3035 has a warmer sound than others in this price range, which means it works in most applications. There’s some high-end boosting that, on a frequency plot, looks similar to the Chinese mics, but this does not sound like a Chinese condenser. This is the first mic I tested that actually started to sound like a professional piece of gear. Unfortunately, the shockmount is made of cheap plastic and may break or have problems holding the mic upside down. This mic, in my opinion, is a very solid choice for the price.

R0DE NT1-A [$199] This is the quietest mic I tested all weekend. Does that mean I love it? No. I thought it sounded mediocre on my voice. It sounded pretty good on my wife, but her sibilance was a little harsh…Nothing near as bad as with the Chinese mics, but not great. I think this could be an excellent mic when used on the right voice. The build quality seems very solid as well as the included shockmount. The proximity effect with this mic might work well for some voices, but it just made mine sound dull and muddy. With this mic, I would HIGHLY suggest a test run. I could picture this mic doing amazing things with the right user. And with the self-noise figure of only 5.5dB, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a quieter mic for less than $2000.

Studio Projects C1 [$199] A good choice, period. I have heard people say that this mic sounds like/as good as a Neumann U87. It doesn’t. It’s also less than one tenth of the price, so what do you expect? This mic is very solid and it’s HEAVY. It may be too heavy for less-expensive boom stands. While it doesn’t sound like a $2500+ mic, it could easily sell for more than the $200 street price. I worked well on every voice I tested it on, though it performed especially well on deep-voiced males. Again, this mic follows the pattern of most Chinese condensers…It doesn’t sound great on “thin” female voices or speakers with sibilance issues, but it does handle these speakers much better than other similar mics. Self noise is not very low, but not high enough to be problematic. The shockmount is okay, but nothing to write home about. All in all, this mic is a good choice for many voices, and would likely be a good investment for someone with a budget in the $200 range.

AKG C 3000 B [$299] Awful. This mic was the biggest disappointment of the day. I’ve heard some very good things about this mic, but I didn’t hear anything good from it. I couldn’t make it sound good on ANYONE! Aside from the self-noise spec, I thought most of the “budget” Chinese condensers outperformed this mic, hands down. The mic looks nice and seems to have a solid build. I didn’t care for the design of the shockmount, though there’s nothing really wrong with it. Somehow, this mic manages to sound dull and brittle at the same time, with a scooped sound in the mids. I say, avoid this one, it’s not worth the $300.

Shure KSM 27 [$299] Another disappointment, though not as drastic. This mic sounded very good on female voices, but lifeless and dull on males. The shockmount seems very nice, though not very flattering to the mics appearance. I would recommend this mic to female speakers, but not male…Especially not deep-voiced males. I imagine this mic would provide years of use, as it bears the Shure name. It’s worth a listen, but not very impressive.

Audio-Technica AT4040 [$299] Wow…Just wow. This was the first mic to really get my heart pumping. Did I mention, “Wow!”? The sound is simply amazing. Absolutely worlds ahead of anything before. I liked this mic so much, I bought one as my main studio mic. I also revisited this mic to test next to the $1,000 models. I almost prefer some of the sonic characteristics of this mic to the Neumann TLM103 and AKG C414…Almost. I didn’t find a single voice that sounded bad on this mic, though some sounded better than others. While this mic sounds great on females, it sounds outstanding on males. The construction of the mic itself is second to none. The shockmount does a good job, though it’s not easy to remove and replace this mic from the shockmount. But considering the shockmount design was the biggest flaw in the AT4040, I think I can deal with that. This is also the first mic I tested that I could set the EQ to completely flat and be 100% satisfied with the results. If you don’t have $1,000 to spend on a mic, this is the next-best thing. Skip everything between $300-$900 and go with this or the Neumann TLM103, depending on which end of the spectrum you’re going for.

R0DE NT1000 [$299] Blah. This mic probably didn’t get a completely fair shake, since it followed the AT4040 and paled in comparison. There was nothing terrible about this mic, but nothing great either. Very neutral sounding. Might be a good choice for commercials, but not exciting enough for imaging. In fact, I like the NT1-A better for $100 less.

Sennheiser MD421 [$349] If you’re in the market for a dynamic mic, this one sounds pretty decent. Not too boomy or muddy. I wouldn’t suggest using this mic for VO, but I do think it’s a good choice for serious podcasters or voicetrackers. Rugged build quality and decent sound.

R0DE Broadcaster [$399] This mic seems to be nothing more than a cheap gimmick to entice radio professionals. The build quality is absolutely horrendous and the sound isn’t much better. The design would work well in a broadcast setting, but for the cheap build quality. Junk. R0DE, you should be ashamed to put your brand on this.

ElectroVoice RE20 [$399] Ugh, two bad ones in a row. If I were rich, I would use this mic as an expensive hammer or doorstop, but never as a VO mic. The good news is that this mic will stand up to years of abuse and continue to work. The sound is muddy, boomy and lifeless. But, for a podcaster, voice-tracker or anyone who abuses their equipment, this mic will handle it.

R0DE NT2-A [$399] Now were talkin’! I liked this mic a lot. Not as much as the AT4040, but close. Here’s another one that can compete with the big boys. This mic has a lot of features which would really allow someone to “dial in” the perfect setting for their voice. Nice, smooth response and worked well on all voices tested. If I had time to test all of the different features, I might spring for this one. I can safely recommend a test drive of this mic, though I don’t think it’s as good at the AT4040 and it’s $100 more.

ElectroVoice RE27N/D [$449] This mic sounds better than the other two dynamics I tested. It sounds more like a condenser. I still don’t care for it, but if, for some reason, you’re in the market for a dynamic mic, this one sounds best. It’s also made with the same build quality of the RE20. It should be noted that the shockmount for both the RE20 and RE27N/D runs about $150.

Audio-Technica AT4047S/V [$549] Another diamond, albeit for a hefty price. This mic is much warmer than any of the previous mics and it really does sound good. I don’t think it sounds $250 better than the AT4040 and I do think the Neumann TLM103 is worth the extra $400. However, in some cases, this mic might actually sound better than the Neumann. It sounds great, don’t get me wrong. Test it for yourself, though.

AKG C414B-XLS [$799] A classic VO mic. Personally, I wasn’t blown away. It sounds great, but at $800, it should. It’s almost too natural for my taste. My vision of the perfect “radio sound” is not the most natural. This mic is very flat and very natural. It has VERY low self-noise. I would prefer a little more colored sound. The sound is so silky and smooth that it works well on any voice, but works best with mature voices.

NOTE:  Since I wrote these notes, I've learned that there are two versons of the C414.  It turns out, the C414B-XLII is the one I should have been testing, as it's designed for voice and the XLS is designed for instruments.  It's entirely possible that I would have like the XLII better...

Neumann TLM103 [$999] The best. If you look around, you can find one of these babies for under $800. The sound is simply amazing. The TLM103 uses the same capsule as a U87, but it doesn’t sound like a U87 at all. It’s more colored and spoken voice cuts through without sounding exaggerated. I genuinely prefer the sonics of the TLM103 to those of the U87, at least for my own voice. Self noise is as low as any other mic. The shockmount is the best of all those tested, as well. If you’re prepared to spend $500+, save a little longer and buy this mic. It handled everything I threw at it, with ease. It sounds just as warm when speaking from a foot away, as it does an inch away. I’ve been using one of these at work for a few years and I’ve always liked it. Now, hearing it in context with other mics, I like it even more!



Don’t buy a mic based on my reviews and experiences. Test for yourself. Test as many as you can. As a general rule, the more you spend, the better the mic will perform. But remember to save money for a quality preamp and soundcard or your new $1000 mic will sound like garbage.

How about some more opinions…What have you tried that you loved? What about those that were just a waste of time?

Emmett

Also, I tinkered with a Shure SM5B...Impressive...By far the best sounding dynamic I've heard.  It's a real shame that it isn't made anymore.

Emmett

My goodness - what a lot of mics to test! Thanks for posting the results - I'm sure that somebody is going to benefit from this, even if it only saves them a little time...

It may be worth noting that some mics work rather better with some preamps than others, and that often you can compensate in part for the deficiencies of a particular mic by choosing an 'appropriate' preamp. Typically, a more brittle-sounding mic might sound a lot fuller with a valve preamp, for instance. But using an Alesis preamp isn't a bad idea at all - it's pretty representative of what you'll find out there, certainly.

AKG C414B-XLS [$799] A classic VO mic. Personally, I wasn’t blown away. It sounds great, but at $800, it should. It’s almost too natural for my taste. My vision of the perfect “radio sound” is not the most natural. This mic is very flat and very natural. It has VERY low self-noise. I would prefer a little more colored sound. The sound is so silky and smooth that it works well on any voice, but works best with mature voices.

NOTE:  Since I wrote these notes, I've learned that there are two versons of the C414.  It turns out, the C414B-XLII is the one I should have been testing, as it's designed for voice and the XLS is designed for instruments.  It's entirely possible that I would have like the XLII better...

Possibly you would have preferred the XL-II - there is a slight lift from about 2kHz upwards in the cardioid/figure 8 configurations that rolls off again around 10kHz, but this is rather less pronounced in omni. But it's not a mic I would choose for recording a single voice - even though I have a stereo matched pair of XLS's.

On a single close voice, I prefer the sound of my JoeMeek JM47. As a mic, it's not going to set the world on fire, but it actually works quite well in this role. It uses a Neumann-style centre-pole capsule, and has a similar characteristic sound, although the electronics let it down somewhat, I feel. It gives quite a warm sound though - and it's actually got an output transformer, which sets it apart from a lot of the Chinese competition. With some redone electronics, it could probably be a very nice mic.

But with all Chinese mics, the advice to test the mic you are actually going to buy still stands - identical model Chinese mics don't all perform identically, by any means.

This sounds like too much fun Emmett. I'm glad you liked the AT 4040, the whole of UK radio seems to agree with you apparently, coz it's a very popular live radio mic.

The questions I'm always asking myself whenever I see these tests, are things like, 'good mic for what application, and what voice-type?' You did like my own mic, the RODE NT 1-A, and for the same reasons, low noise, and a very very clear sound across the range. But, whilst this mic is a good choice for my pre-rec work I don't think I would put it in a live studio, the sound is too delicate if that makes sense; you're right about the sibilance, and you have to learn how to use it (distance and voice delivery) to get the best out of it. No one, to my knowledge has yet come up with e.g. this mic is great for deep voices, and that one is great for thin voices, and, this mic is great for voice-overs and that one is a better mic for broadcast. Singers also use some of the mics you mentioned...but which mics for which voice-types or styles of singing?? It surely is not just about the prices.

A useful list...I wish I had that many mics on hand to try!

However, I do feel compelled to comment that spending money on a Monster Cable XLR lead then stuffing that into an Alesis preamp was probably not entirely sensible.  Cables make little or no difference to the sound; most of what's said about cables is just snake oil.  Preamps, on the other hand, can make a huge difference, so I think you got your balance a bit wrong here.

That quibble aside though, thanks for going to this trouble and posting the list.

Bob

A useful list...I wish I had that many mics on hand to try!

However, I do feel compelled to comment that spending money on a Monster Cable XLR lead then stuffing that into an Alesis preamp was probably not entirely sensible.  Cables make little or no difference to the sound; most of what's said about cables is just snake oil.  Preamps, on the other hand, can make a huge difference, so I think you got your balance a bit wrong here.

That quibble aside though, thanks for going to this trouble and posting the list.

Bob

The Prolink 100 isn't the typical Monster cable you're thinking of.  It's much more of a standard mic cable, with somewhat better designed plugs and fancy packages.  The price is nowhere near that of the high-end monster cable.  I paid $21 for a 10' cable...Pretty typical.  The guy who was helping me test stuff said that it behaves pretty typical of other cables in the price range, but there's a little "flex" thing where the cable terminates to the plug, and the plug itself has a plastic covering...Nothing fancy though.  There's no way I was going to spend $80 on a 10' mic cable, but it's certainly an improvement over the cable that I was using.

As for the Alesis pre, it was handy.  I would have preferred a Mackie board, but no big deal.  My use will be mostly with console pres and SS mic processors (I'm thinking about a DBX and I use a 528E at work).  I imagine the pres themselves all have similar characteristics, since none of them are terribly expensive, and none of them use tube (or tube emulation) technology.


Also, the sound of the AT4047 stuck with me and I realized later how much I actually liked that mic.  It's a good one.

Steve:  I did some reading on the JM47...I liked what I read, but was unable to test it out (store was out of stock).  The price was nice too.

Bernie:  It is my opinion that every mic I tested has its place.  I have to believe that the AKG C3000B sounds good somewhere...Maybe it just didn't agree with the pre, who knows.  

As for the relation to prices, it seems that the higher the price, the MORE that can be done with it.  If I tested a $200 mic, it might sound great on one of the voices I tried, and just "okay" on the others.  As I moved up in price, they seemed to handle different voices better.  

They also seemed more forgiving of placement and environment, as the price went up.  

Emmett

Glad to know that I'm working with the best!!!! I use the Neumann TLM103 alot. Bought it off Ebay for 550.00 over a year ago. Sometimes to get different sounds, I  might mic guitar cabs with a Beyer M88. Did you test the Sure SM57? That is a std in the industry..... I have the rode NT1000. Agree with you again there too.

How much effect do you give the mic-pre? I use a Telefunken V76 and it is very very real. here you have a tube mic-pre acting in a chain with a solid state mic. The best of both worlds.

Brewer

Useful comparisons, looks like it may be the R0DE NT1-A as this suits my budget (only a hobby to me).

Would help if everyone expressed their choices from this list or what microphone they use if not on it.

TIA Tony

When setting up a V/O studio for a female friend, we went through a bunch of mics (Rode NT2, Neaumann TLM 103, AKG SolidTube amongst others).  I was blown away by the SolidTube, thought the Neaumann was a waste of money, and the Rode was the best compromise and the cheapest of the 3.  She bought the Rode and loves it.  I have another V/O artist friend, male this time, who loves his TLM 103.

In the radio biz in Canada, the EV RE20 and RE27 are industry standard.  Engineers like 'em because they don't need phantom power and can be plugged and unplugged at will.  They're sturdy, and the heavy duty shock mount makes them idiot/announcer resistant.  Like most EV products, they are probably strong enough to hammer nails with, should the need arise.  The 27 is slightly better sounding, though the differences are pretty subtle.  They require a fairly high gain preamp.  For sound quality I would describe them as adequate at best, but consistent in tone from mic-to-mic and day-to-day.

My other experiences with mics on this list are as follows.  The Rode NT1 and Broadcaster are essentially the same mic.  The Broadcaster is end address instead of side address, with a built in ON AIR light.  I didn't like either.  They were harsh and noisy.  We have one Sennheiser 421.  It's really old and quite beat up, so I'll give it a break.  The tone knob on the end is an irresistable toy to announcers, and the standard mount is unbelieveably fragile.

Fabulous report. Thanks.
VO Mic Tests

Emmets work is quite impressive and a very helpful guide for anyone looking for VO mics. I have listened only to a few of them and cannot comment the rating. There is one big question left open to me: Why did you concentrate on large diaphragm types only - though I know that commonly these types are used for that purpose ? However, physics tells you that these types have a basic boost in the region starting from 3 kHz and usually exhibit a peak of some 5 db at 10 kHz due to compression effects. These may be either giving a harsh sound or a flattering  the voice depending on the speaker. I personally prefer small diaphragm types which sound more flat initially but  allow for individual EQ's appropriate to the type of voice. AA is the perfect tool to prepare a collection of EQ's fitting to the the voices.

There is one big question left open to me: Why did you concentrate on large diaphragm types only - though I know that commonly these types are used for that purpose ? However, physics tells you that these types have a basic boost in the region starting from 3 kHz and usually exhibit a peak of some 5 db at 10 kHz due to compression effects.

Oh, so what physics is that, then?

[Mikrophone]

Ok  Steve - I refer to (unfortunately for you) some german literature: Mikrophone by Gerhart Boré and Stephan Peus (from Neuman), page 20 Einfluss der Mikrophon-Abmesungen (Influence of the dimensions of the microphone).

I try to translate : Microphones with dimensions in the same order as the wavelength of the sound to be recorded present an obstacle to the sound waves. Impacting sound gets fully or partially reflected. The sound arriving perpenticular on the diaphragm may exercise a force up to 10 dB higher, depending on the form of the microphone. (Hope my translation is readable). Similar remarks may also be found in papers of Schoeps. By the way - Schoeps, well known especially in Germany and Switzerland for gear of at least similar quality than Neumann, does not produce any large diaphragm  types. I think this is not only a matter of optics since they hang
in most german and Swiss concert halls but basically a matter of neutral reproduction.

I remember also having found some remarks on the same issue in the story of the Decca tree using the Neumann M50. Though these are not large diaphragm types
their dimensions obviously produced a similar high frequeny peak you find on many of the original Decca recordings.

[may]

Ok  Steve - I refer to (unfortunately for you)

It's not unfortunate for me at all, because you haven't quoted any laws of physics, and seem to have overlooked the significance of a very important word in your translation, which I have bolded:

The sound arriving perpenticular on the diaphragm may exercise a force up to 10 dB higher, depending on the form of the microphone. (Hope my translation is readable). Similar remarks may also be found in papers of Schoeps. By the way - Schoeps, well known especially in Germany and Switzerland for gear of at least similar quality than Neumann, does not produce any large diaphragm types. I think this is not only a matter of optics since they hang in most german and Swiss concert halls but basically a matter of neutral reproduction.

That 'may' is very important, because this effect is controllable, and pretty much introduced at will. What it comes down to with the on-axis response is that forces on the mic diaphragm are complex, but controllable. The forum won't let me put the formulae in, so I will describe as briefly as I can what is happening, and it applies to all microphones, regardless of the size of the diaphragm, or who made them...

This comes down primarily to two things: the relationship between particle displacement and velocity, in terms of a flat electrical output, and the relationship between the diaphragm tension and damping, which is controlled by the backplate pressure relief. As far as the first is concerned, this determines the point of transition between stiffness control and mass control - it is, to all effects and purposes, the 'resonant frequency' of the mic, and is in part determined by the second factor, the diaphragm tension. The lower the Q value at the resonant frequency, the lower the peak in the response. It's certainly easier to engineer a higher resonant frequency with a smaller diaphragm, but it's still there, nevertheless. More importantly, it's also very possible to engineer the way that the resonant frequency is damped, and this is easily controlled almost to the point where it hardly affects the frequency response at all. Larger mics have more variable off-axis responses, primarily because of the size of the diaphragm in relation to the wavelength of high frequencies, but as an example, my AKG C414-B-XLS's exhibit no noticeable resonance at all in some patterns, and only a very slight response variation in others. These variations are no greater than the variations in response across frequency that you get with the majority of mics, unless you pay a small fortune for them. They are almost as flat as my DPA 4006's.

Damping is controlled by the spacing, depth and positioning of the holes in the backplate, and it is this factor that mic manufacturers have always been reluctant to talk about, because they regard exactly how they control it under any given circumstances as commercially sensitive information. That is why Neumann, et al are surprisingly coy about what they say, and couch it in terms like 'may', and give away as few details as possible. The physics are well-known though - there's never been any secret about that, and the important details can be summarised very easily: Most diaphragm resonances are in the region of 8-12kHz, and are controlled primarily by tension - the higher the tension, the higher the Fres. The reason that you don't move Fres up with larger mics (which on the face of it, seems to be desirable) is because the price you pay is a dramatic reduction in sensitivity. If you look up Kinsler, Zuckerwar, Wong, Embleton etc, you can find the formulae which will give you the basic sensitivites, resonances and undamped Q values that apply to all mics with tensioned diaphragms, but this doesn't give you any sort of idea of what they will sound like - that's entirely down to the individual manufacturers and their control of resonance.

So, it may be easier to make small mics with a relatively flat response, but that doesn't mean that you can't do it with a larger one as well. What it comes down to in the end is a trade-off of different parameters, and a lot of people think that the optimum is to be found somewhere between the normal diameter of SD and LD mics - around 3/4". That's about the diameter of the capsules in my Soundfield, incidentally.

So, none of this is unfortunate for me at all, really. Because as an acoustician, I've understood all of this in some considerable detail for a pretty long time, and I can make use of it as needed.

Incidentally, the response of the Neumann M-50 rises progressively above 1kHz to a peak about 6dB higher than its LF response. It doesn't really 'peak' though. Also, it becomes progressively more directional as the frequency rises, and these effects are what gives rise to the rather rich high-frequency detail present in the early Decca recordings using the Tree. Once again though, this rising response is controlled entirely by critical damping within the capsule.

First thank you Steve for your excellent lecture in microphone architecture - a really brilliant explanation of what happens. My knowledge was not that profound. I am in no way trying to contradict you but there stay 2 remarks to add:

The first one coincides exactly with your statement. It is obviously easier to tailor a flat high frequency response using a diaphragm smaller than 18 mm as the peak frequency is in the order of 1/2 wavelength. For SD this comes to the order of 15 kHz while for a LD it is closer to 10 kHz. Although the behaviour beyond 15 kHz may be rather a matter of a few fetishists, it is obvious that a rapid fall occurs above the peak. This explains why many (even rather cheap) SD microphones exhibit a reasonably flat response up to 20 kHz while even highly reputed types such as a U87 have a steep fall off above 15 kHz.

The second is: I admit that this often high overrated with respect to the sound quality but the frequency characteristics of SD types in general look better than those of LD types. This leaves open the question why both so many manufacturers as users stick to the LD types ?