Comments on: Which USB microphone sounds best?

By: terrywhite

terrywhite — Wed, 05 May 2010 21:43:46 +0000

The results are here: http://terrywhite.com/techblog/archives/4715

By: Pamela Chipman

Pamela Chipman — Wed, 05 May 2010 21:29:38 +0000

So which one is which? I am looking into purchasing a usb mic and I thought mic #1 won heads over heals and I would like to know which one it was????

By: MikeM

MikeM — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:39:12 +0000

Hi Terry!

Great comparo! Got here a bit late, dying to find the results.

I’m new to voiceoover work. My produceR advised me to find a good UBS mic for home work, so here I am!

Thanks again!

Mike

By: terrywhite

terrywhite — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:17:18 +0000

I know, but I’m still curious to see how #2 and #3 pan out. It won’t be much longer.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:41:50 +0000

Awesome Terry! Really appreciate the feedback! I’m going to look closer at the Blue Yeti.

Thanks again!

By: terrywhite

terrywhite — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:31:07 +0000

Yes, at least two of them would work for that. The Blue Yeti actually has a selector switch to choose between different environments and one of those environments is Yeti Omni (Omnidirectional to pick up sound in all directions) and another choice would be Yet bidirectional to pick up sounds in front and back of the mic (great for interviews). During this test I had the mic set on “Cardioid” which is supposed to be best for a single speaker/podcasts.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:18:35 +0000

Like David above, ignoring background noise, I liked #2 the best.

Since people here are much more experienced then myself, I’d like to throw out a question/scenario and see if anyone could point me in correct direction. Would one of these mics work if I were trying to record a speaker in a small conference room (say 10′x15′) and also get questions from others in the room? Or should I really mic the speaker and have a separate recording device for rest of room?

Sorry if I’m taking this off track!

By: TS

TS — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:16:00 +0000

Replying to my own post….

Terry, with 180 votes, 53% choosing Mic #1, your results are not going to change (statistically speaking) by waiting a week, even if you have 600 people take the survey by then. Put us out of our misery and let us know which model Mic #1 is!

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:19:36 +0000

Terry,

At my age of 63, I have about 20% hearing loss from my past rock-n-roll days…so

Its #1 for me…a smooth sound, sounds more sounds like your voice is “softer” .

From Ky that is how I hear it….

Ken
PS. Photoshop User magazine (April issue) has a tutorial on skin softening by Karen Eiseman that is the best, lucid method with more realism of skin tones that I have been able to achieve. Whatever I paid in subscription, I got paid in spades with that nugget. I think its on page 52. I reduced my PS time by 20 minutes on skin tones…

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:09:42 +0000

Sample one is by far the best. Two and Three both have a considerable amount of background noise.

I wonder if the results would be the same if you played three cord monte with the mics.

By: David

David — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:18:47 +0000

With the room tone so loud, it’s hard to tell what’s background noise and what’s self-noise from the mics. I’m going to assume that the background noise could be fixed by adjusting the recording environment and the gain. I find #3 lower in quality so am ignoring it

My thoughts after listening to the aifs with $100 Sony headphones:

#1 sounds OK to me, but I find the vocal quality thin. I think this would be even more evident with a female voice.
#2 sounds better, fuller, and richer (if you ignore the room noise). It’s also hotter, and might do a better job of recording quieter subjects.

I voted for #2, but if you just want something easily recorded on the fly in your computer room, #1 is better. If other reviews of #2 show decent self-noise levels, and you are willing to take more pains with your recording environment, I think #2 is capable of better results than #1.

By: TS

TS — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:08:36 +0000

Mics 2 & 3 had significantly more background noise, even when adjusted for different levels. While the gain level on mic 1 was lower, it was head and shoulders above the other two in clarity and lack of distortion.

I’ve never heard your podcast, but if you record it in the same environment as this test, you should find a way to cut that low end noise — move the offending fan/hdd/whatever out of the room, or at least cut it down with some kind of filtering. Fatiguing to listen to. (Maybe it’s due to having 3 computers running at the same time?)

By: jude

jude — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:48:17 +0000

#2 & #3 both had a background noise when Terry wasn’t speaking, not a specific sound, just something that let’s you know a mic is open in an otherwise silent room. Maybe the sound is something left over from the Big Bang. The level on mic #1 was significantly lower than the other two. I’d be curious as to why, but #1 had the best sound (IMHO).

By: RT

RT — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:44:58 +0000

I have been struggling with buying a mic. Now I will wait for the results. I know which one I like and I hope it is in my price range.

By: John H. Maw

John H. Maw — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:17:34 +0000

Hi. The first thing that I noticed was that sample 2 seemed to have more background noise audible, especially at the beginning. The next difficulty was that 1 and 3 were at very different levels. Sample 3 sounds as if you are almost in the mic, or listening from an enclosed chamber. Not a good sound. With the level on sample 1 turned up that one seemed the best and most natural. Interesting test. Thanks.
John