(Page 1 of 1 pages for this article )

Filed under: Audio •Production •

Microphone Madness

After recently adding some sound treatment to my new studio, I was curious to go back through my microphones to see which one sounded best on my voice in this new environment. I found that what sounded “best” depended on what I was playing the resulting audio through. I thought I’d share my results and observations with you, as well as solicit votes to see (hear?) what sounded best in your particular listening environment.

First, Some Background

For years, I had been using an AKG C1000 condenser microphone set up in hypercardiod mode, going through a Focusrite VoiceMaster Pro mic preamp/signal processor before reaching the computer. For a variety of personal reasons, I prefer using a standalone mic over a tie clip or headset mic for recording video training; the C1000’s optional hypercardiod pattern helped reject spurious noise such as the computer.

The VoiceMaster Pro is what’s referred to as a “voice channel” in that it contains a chain of processing elements that help improve vocal recordings. Beyond a normal microphone preamp, it has a downward expander to help bury background noise in between utterances, a compressor to level out the loud and quiet bits, an equalizer to tailor one’s voice, and a de-lesser to remove sibilance noises.

Most vocalists sing at louder than conversational level, and are often closer to the mic than I am while operating the computer, so I need to crank up the gain in the VoiceMaster quite a bit to get the output loud enough (and even then, I could use more, as the VoiceMaster can get a touch noisy at full gain; this is one advantage the Aphex 230 has: more gain at the preamp). I also used the EQ to boost the bass slightly to compensate for my previously-bright studios - but after treatment, my new studio isn’t quite as bright-sounding. I disengaged the EQ for all but one of my tests below; after I choose a new mic, I’ll go back and tackle the EQ from scratch to see what works “best” now.

The Tests

My mic collection is a motley crew, focused around recording hand percussion rather than voice. I’m also…um, budget-concious, shall we say. Still, even though they cost closer to $100 than $1000 each, it was a worthwhile exercise to run through them to see how they react. (I left out a few that obviously didn’t work at all for voice, such as one designed for bass drums, or omnidirectional mics that picked up too much room noise, but I also left in a couple oddballs as educational exercises.)

As I tested the various mics below, I did not alter the VoiceMaster’s settings. One variable that popped out is the different loudness of the various mics - some were very sensitive, causing the compressor to kick in too often (resulting in an unnaturally claustrophobic sound); the dynamic mics where too quiet, resulting in the downward expander occasionally trying to push their volume down while I was still talking. So even though I normalized all of the audio segments below to even the playing field, that’s why you will still hear some variation in loudness from mic to mic. To create a worst-case scenario, I left the door to my under-desk computer enclosure open - as well as the door into the studio - to see what additional noises the mics might accidentally pick up. All audio files were compressed, to best simulate how they might sound when posted for a podcast etc.

The important thing to keep in mind when auditioning the results below (look for the QuickTime play bar) is that they will sound radically different on different speakers. I myself tested playback on Roland MA-12C speakers (the ones that used to ship with Avids years ago), Panasonic RP-HT21 headphones (a set of cheapies I use on my computer all the time), a MacBook Pro, and an iPad. I’ll reveal my personal opinions at the end - but I’m also curious to hear your opinions, along with what you were listening through when you formed them.

AKG C1000 with EQ

This is my original setup, tailored for how my prior studios sounded. In my new room, the EQ makes it sound a tiny bit bassy and congested:

AKG C1000 without EQ

To set a fairer base line, I disengaged the EQ for the remainder of my tests. I actually prefer the result over the C1000 with the EQ engaged:

Oktava MK319

This is the original inexpensive Russian large-diaphragm condenser mic that started the cheap mic craze several years ago, based around cheap parts from Russia and China. Listen to that bass emphasis!

Marshall MXL2003

This is a later version of an inexpensive large-diaphragm condenser mic, with upgraded electronics. It sounds less smokey than the Oktava above:

Marshall MXL 603S

This is a small diaphragm condenser mic, designed to emphasize higher frequencies. It is very sensitive, which means it was really hitting the VoiceMaster’s compressor hard, plus picked up more bass rumble in the room (more obvious with headphones). The high-frequency emphasis is apparent:

CAD ICM417

This is another small diaphragm condenser mic, designed for cymbals and stringed instruments. It has the same “issues” as the Marshall 603, with even more high-frequency emphasis:

CAD TSM411

Now I’m getting silly. This dynamic microphone is designed for drums, guitar amps, and the such. As these instruments tend to be loud, this microphone is less sensitive; the “fading away” you hear on some phrases is the VoiceMaster thinking I’m done speaking and trying to fade me out - I’d have to crank up the gain even more if I chose this mic. Note the emphasis in the upper-midrange, and relative lack of bass:

Shure SM57

This is the classic rock vocalist mic. Actually, it sounds pretty good on my voice too - but unfortunately, being a dynamic microphone as well, it suffers the same lack-of-sensitivity issues as the CAD TSM411 above:

Conclusions?

Which microphone I preferred depended on what I was listening to it through. On the headphones or through the Roland MA-12Cs, I preferred the AKG C1000 without the bass-boost EQ. To my ears, the small diaphragm condensers were too trebly; the large-diaphragm condensers were too bassy. (The headphones also revealed other flaws, such as a low-frequency rumble that I need to tweak out using the mic preamp’s high-pass filter.) However, when listening through the speakers in the laptop or iPad - which lack bass - I had a slight preference for the Marshall MXL2003.

I’d be curious to know your reactions, including what you were listening through. I would also be very curious to know what you tend to use most often when listening to video training and podcasts: the computer’s speaker? external speakers? cheap headphones? fancy noise-cancelling headphones? a tin can? Share with the rest of us!

photo courtesy iStockphoto, © Graffizone, Image # 11337289

(FTC disclosure: All equipment mentioned in this article was bought retail by me, with no knowledge or subsidy from any of the respective manufacturers.)

(Page 1 of 1 pages for this article )

Well, call me crazy - and you won’t be the first to do so - but I’m kinda diggin’ that CAD TSM411 sound - it would be second to the Shure SM57 for my tastes - and for the bassier sounds I like the Marshall MXL2003 - I’m listening on some inexpensive Logitech stereo PC speakers in a medium sized room.

Posted by Jim Hines  on  07/15  at  07:51 AM

---

To me the SM57 sounds best by far Using Kef Q1 Speakers. They have titanium drivers and I use them regularly for voice monitoring. They have very good vocal performance.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/15  at  10:51 AM

---

Great - this is the type of feedback I need. The SM57 was the unspoken “honorable mention” on my list, plus I obviously have a bias toward the C1000 simply because I’ve been using it for so long.

Remember, the objective here is clarity for the sake of delivering training; not what gives me the best singing or DJ voice (being a DJ was a whole ‘nother issue - used to have a large-diaphragm Shure dynamic literally resting against the side of my mouth for that gig, to get the bass boost proximity effect…).

Posted by Chris Meyer  on  07/15  at  10:56 AM

---

BTW, we just ran some tests on Trish, and the CAD TSM411 is the mic she chose for her own voice. So it just goes to show the importance of running tests with mics, rather than making blind assumptions (like “the Oktava is supposed to be a cheap version of a Neuman, which is a really great vocal mic, so go with that!”).

Any more opinions? I’m about to choose a mic for myself before starting recording…

Posted by Chris Meyer  on  07/15  at  03:38 PM

---

For training vids, AKG 1000 without EQ. Neutral, balanced and conveys the information well.

I like the Shure SM57, but low frequencies are muddy.

All comments based on speakers on MBP that I normally use to watch training vids.

Posted by Nick WB  on  07/17  at  02:50 AM

---

The SM57 gets my vote, but the comment of how you are listening is true.  I’m using KRK’s as monitors and the SM57 sounds great for just about everything.

Posted by PG  on  07/18  at  07:22 AM

---

I’d probably record a bit closer to the mic, to avoid room mode, and perhaps slightly off axis.

In my opinion, good quality monitor system is a must.
On high quality monitors, the difference betweeen above microphones would be immediately apparent and room influence would be more obvious - no more guessing.

Nobody woud color correct on a cheap LCD TV, so why accept a cheap computer speaker as a final measure for audio?

Peter

Posted by Peter Gruden  on  08/03  at  03:05 PM

---

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?