I would argue that both of them correctly identified the best quality mic, but interpreted the unique characteristics differently. The dude said that the 102 felt like it was picking up more of the world around him, which makes sense, because it is a more detailed microphone. But due to the environment being not perfectly acoustically treated the increased detail of the 102 was classified as a detriment in this specific situation :)
I agree! Its something I mentioned in the 102 review, although its a brilliant mic, its sensitivity may actually serve as a detriment when you place it in an environment that isn't ideal. I think Erika focused on tonality and Ben utility, both valid approaches
@@AudioHaze I know I need to come to terms with this so that I'll stop letting the "perfect" act as the enemy of the good solid content I want to be publishing.
Imo, if you're a creator who's not making content that's specifically audio-focused (like music, podcasts, or VA), there's no reason to spend more than $100 on a mic (unless you're just an audio nerd who wants a specific sound)
@@RainbowCornet @RainbowCornet I used an SM58 for over 20 episodes of my podcast. Now I'm using it for video content. Seems clean enough for my purposes.
sometimes cheaper microphone doesnt mean worse, as you mentioned. i have in my say everyday or casual use behringer c-1, sennheiser xs1 and rode procaster and if c-1 is "condenser" and cant be compared correctly, i cant say that relatively cheap xs1 is 4 times worse that procaster. its worse for me here and there, but if it was my one and only mic, i wouldnt complain at all.
I completely understand where Ben was coming from. Presonus gave me immediate “podcast” vibes considering the room treatment. Like you would think there are sound panels in the room with how that sounds off top. I also think in this case each of their voices caused them to hear different qualities of each. They were definitely looking for different qualities to be brought out. The Lewitt mics sound exactly how they look (to me). Might not make sense to anyone else but hey. Great great work!
well... hearing the room around you is a quality, not a fault of the mic. the better your mic is, the more you need to treat your room, cause it picks up EVERYTHING. Especially tose Neumann TLM ones.
Interesting! It seems Ben's experience mixing and assessing digitally delivered audio has caused him to associate high frequency noise with "bad compression" - low bitrate - which is often results in high frequency ringing, especially around transients. The high frequency sensitivity of the nicer mics seemed to be triggering that dislike. He also, like you and many others, is not a fan of hearing an untreated room - not the mic's problem... rather, as you've emphasized in other videos, a matter of choosing a mic that suits the source and environment.
no, i think he did not mean compression in the sense of digital data rate compression. he means an audio compression which is a kind of fast automatic gain control to keep everything at a similar volume level. if using that compressor effect and not using a noise gate, then the silent background noises are increased a bit. i guess he is used to dynamic stage microphones that lack in detail and have a bad resolution compared to condenser microphones. but because of this "disadvantage", these microphones are being used on stage to prevent feedback loops from the speakers. however, he experienced the detailed resolution of two very good condenser microphones which he probably was not used too. and the m7 microphone despite being a condenser microphone lacked in detail and behaved more like a dynamic microphone with bad coloration.
I feel that a lot of his sound design and post experience for film would mean that he is working with shotgun mics, which tend to have excellent off-axis rejection. Being used to hearing a voice from 12 feet away on a Sennheiser MKH-416 all the time would definitely color one's opinion of recorded voices.
I guess one of the things this video shows is that there are different microphones for different kinds of voices and there may not be an one size fits all. -And if they are there, they might be very rare and expensive. Add to that the fact that people have different tastes, also when it comes to what comes through our ears, and the matching becomes even more complex. Another thing it shows is that price tag doesn't always matter. Which is kind of nice and encouraging for us with limited budgets. 🙂
Bingo. I use a lot of mics and I've found myself using some of my cheaper mics more than my most expensive ones. But you're also paying for consistent results when you go with the more expensive mics. There's no single one-size mic, really. Though you can say that if the mic is more detailed, you can fix what you don't like in post.
What I personally took from this video is that the film and tv industry looks for a very different sound in their audio. As a filmmaker myself, I know that it's best to have something like dialogue with a lot of low-end, where as musicians tend to look for a more balanced sound.
but this can be done with post processing as well. first you need a detailed and crisp recording. the sound can be shaped afterwards. if your mic does not pick up the details, you cannot do anything about it in postprocessing.
This is a wow video for me. Definitely making me more comfortable with my current mic situation. I received a little “constructive criticism” re: in-frame mic, so I’ve overhead-boomed my SM58 which gave me the opportunity to remove the foam pop filter AND the ball grill - which I think has enhanced articulation in a pleasing way while avoiding risk of plosives. After this video, I’m thinking that, although I might detect a benefit if I switched to a small diaphragm condenser (pencil), my audience wouldn’t.
@Robert Johnson I've been thinking about a small condenser myself for vocals ( untreated space ) leaning towards the Lewitt 140 air or the Samson CO2 , any recommendations ?
@@ericanderson7059 My only firsthand experience is with the Shure SM58. Lewitt has gotten my attention lately. But, for me personally, I like the idea of getting a pair of Sampson CO2 for $100. That way, I can determine whether my room and setup can even tolerate a condenser. If not, I'll have two mics that I can use for other things such as recording the kids on the piano, or environmental noise to mix behind my isolated SM58 dialogue.
To my mind, there's something to pick up here. A microphone is only good on some sources. Having different range of microphone can help a lot, because of variety of audio material and situation. On the video the best mic for that woman was the Tlm102 and lewit for the man.
Not in my experience. On the other hand, no one I know would say the SM7B is better than the SM57 blindfolded. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if most preferred the SM57.
@@JohnnyF71 I've seen his video but haven't tried his specific settings. I enjoy his channel but he's a bit disingenuous (I get it, have to cheat a bit to have fun). For example, he used both mics, it seems, more than a foot away, and not in a way that I believe the SM7B shines. As I commented on his video, EQ can't change attack, delay, the specific physical properties of the diaphragm, coil and magnet design and construction. EQ is an average of frequency tops (more or less) and really has nothing to do with how anything sounds--the shape and amplitude of the waves. If one could get the SM57 to sound like the SM7B then why not in REVERSE, get small speakers to sound like subwoofers, etc? This is the thing I try to get across to everyone--my strong opinion. You can't change the physical facts of a sensor. Whether in a camera or a microphone, it produces a one-time capture of physical phenomena which MUST always be "colored" by the physics of the sensor. When you modify a digital signal you can only work with the quantization you have. You can't fill in "sound" (analogue properties) that isn't there. You can use AI to add in what people find psychologically pleasing, in which today's cell phones do amazingly well--but the nuance of what was captured? No. Not even close. Anyway, if you have a couple of audio samples where you use the SM7B to its max effect and compare it to the SM7 let me get a link. I'd love to listen. And again, I'm not shilling for the SM7B. It's just a specific sound. Either one likes it or not. Not saying it's better than the SM57. Thanks!
Most people have no clue. I ran a test with a $40 comica micro shotgun mic straight into camera versus my sm7b ran through a mic preamp/ processor rack unit into an audio interface and DAW and none of my friends even knew I was switching back and forth and when I told them they couldn't pick which was which. Most preferred the Comica. The sm7b is exactly 10x more money.
Thats true! Either way both had to test the microphones somehow, the CB-1s and the M30s have a similar sound profile, an attempt at reference grade but with a peak in the upper midrange.
It's like when I tried experimenting with my girlfriend. I played samples of the 440 pure, the sm7b and the ksm 44. She described all the sounds perfectly and picked the 44 as her favourite ...she described it as "full sounding but with a lot of definition and not picking up ambiance almost at all".
The $50 Mic really did Sound natural on that guy's voice. I can actually see why he chose that, it did seem to fit his voice quite well. now on the female I think tlm sound leaps and bounds better for her than the others.
Really interesting video ! :) I think that when you don't work around with vocals it's hard to know what is a good sounding mic. The first person had it all right, congrates :) But even if the second one was wrong, he was right about the caracteristics of the mics, saying for example that the tlm 102 was a bit harsher and picked more noise of the room. When you mix vocals you know that brightness is important for vocals to cut through the mix and when you apply compression, it makes kind of more obvious the difference of quality between mics. Also, I think that may be there is a bias in this expericence cause if you are not used to listen to your voice, the mic that makes your voice clearer and better restituted can bother you as it is one of the rare time you hear your voice from outside of your head, it can feel unconfortable for some people. So what I am trying to say is that : Of course, when you chose a mic, you must like the sound of it, but it is important to know what you will use it for. The TLM 102 (and even more the 103), are mics that really put the vocals forward and make it cut through the mix (because of there frequency response that have a boost in the high end), ideal for new rap, pop and r&b vocals for example. So, to me people who does not see the reason why it is better to own an expensive/better mic because random people seems to not always make the difference are making a big mistake cause mixing engineer knows the potential of these mics when the vocals from it are processed :) Tell me what you all think :)
Interesting comparison, but I think it unfairly reduces everything to "better" or "worse", when there can be a lot of variables. This primarily focused on on-axis frequency response. But off-axis response can be important too (both how much is picked up, and how colored that off-axis response is). And frequency response in general isn't necessarily a "better" or "worse" thing. Sometimes a flat response is better, while other times a more colored (inaccurate!) response works for the source or overall production. Extended high frequency response may be ideal for drums and acoustic guitars, but it may not always be necessary or even wanted for vocals, guitar amps, etc. Depending on the use, there may also be concerns about handling noise, plosives, etc. Of course, there are huge differences among mics in any price range. It's not as if this is necessarily what a $60 mic sounds like. Even among "cheap" dynamic mics, there can be huge (intended) differences in frequency response, polar pattern, etc. And has some others have noted, hearing yourself live (whether via speakers or headphones) is a different experience from hearing someone else, or hearing a recording.
What I would have done for this experiment is to not rely only on the direct monitoring. I would have made them record a sentence and make them listen without direct monitoring. At least it's even for the 3 mics. :) Nice video :)
Yeah. Alot of the time when I used direct monitoring I can hardly tell the difference in my mics until I switch from dynamic to condenser. Listening to them back afterwards is a big difference tho.
An expensive microphone has some features only the mix engineer will notice. Ridiculously low S/N Ratio is mandatory when we'll be later squashing the signal into brutal compression. But if you are just talking into it for podcast work that noise won't be a problem.
The better "mid" mic to test would have been the Lewitt 441 Flex. It levels off and does a better job with the somewhat crispy high end of the 440 Pure. Actually, I'm betting the 441 would have won in both of those tests, has a pleasing sweetness in the mids. I have and use them both. The 440 is presently my talkback mic and makes a great podcaster, much cleaner than the 240 that's typically used. The 441 is a straight up AKG 414 XLII studio tracking replacement all day long and twice on Sunday.
The one who has the least experience with audio is often the one in society who solely *listens* to the most music of official industry and radio ready pop standard, perhaps making her point of reference many well recorded and well mixed finished end products. Just a theory. where as the other guy could have been more confused will not knowing what point of reference is the best or really considered ideal to start with. Just some thoughts. Also I reallyyy really really want to see more of this exact type of video, bringing In others to listen and predict/analyze the quality of the mic. Maybe 3 people rather than 2. Cool Thanks!
None of them is wrong, they simply had different priorities, so she did not know anything. And this alone makes the price irrelevant when comparing gear. Great video.
One of the issues with this concept, is that a budget mic might sound pretty good to someone's ear by itself, but it's how all of the high-quality pieces of a signal chain work together to make a really high quality sounding product. The "gear doesn't matter, make good music/content" crowd has never tried to mix ten vocal tracks recorded on a cheap microphone into a budget interface. The mic capsule alone doesn't matter, the type of tube in the mic alone doesn't matter, the audio interface alone doesn't matter, but the summation of those things does.
Ok but in this case everything except the microphone was the same (for each person) and there was a very noticeable difference between each of the mics. With the cheapest one sounding dull and muddy compared to the top end one which sounded extremely detailed and natural with the other one sounding good but not as good as the Neumann.
@@joezuu I think you and I are in agreement here. I'm not sure we're disagreeing. My point is that a cheap mic might sound like it gets you 80% of the way there in a vacuum but in a full mix that may drop to 50%.
This just proves, you should never argue with a woman... because they really do know everything! LOL I have some great sounding condenser mics (not expensive ones), however, I record everything with SM57's. I have no sound treatment in my room, and, the SM57's don't punish me for it. The condensers pick up EVERYTHING!
And that, ladies and gentlemen; is why I never ask any musician's opinion about my music. Bc we think too much, instead of just simply listening to what we actually hear. (I know he isn't a musician, but... You know..)
@@AudioHaze There was a certain tone in your voice in your video discussing the TLM 102. All over the shock mount coming extra or as a package. Shame shame.
I have like 30 mics (I know... I'm an idiot) and sometimes price just isn't a factor in the quality. But with the most expensive mics you're paying more for consistency. You can more or less guarantee that every u67 is going to be identical and provide consistent results. Sometimes though... you can have a room, a voice, or a performance that just doesn't call for a mic like that. (Much like every man and his dog using the shitty SM7B and not taking into account whether or not it's actually the mic they need) But in this case... I wasn't a fan of that $50 mic in the slightest. I've had considerably better sounding mics in that price range.
I don't want to spend a lot of money, and I am a beginner in audio. I know usb mics are not great, but they don't need an audio interface. I was wondering which audio interface I could buy for an sm57, below the price of a Scarlett 2i2. In addition, I like deep radio voice, so if there's a better mic for that than the sm57 or Samson Q2U (usb), I would be happy to be informed :) By the way, thank you for your amazing work on RUclips! (forgot to say it would be for streaming/podcasting)
Thanks! You could always go for the uphoria series by Behringer :) super cheap and great quality for the price, I could personally stick with the 57/58 and just EQ out the upper range peak for a broadcast sound tbh
hahaha I am 100% aware I need a serious haircut....its just down the street....yet I don't go. I think I just don't want the awkward conversation with the barber tbh.
I would say that by "educating" them at all the renders the test of no consequence...the price should have been left out of the equation.... the average Joe wouldn't know sibilance at all...or if it was a good thing or bad thing... they should just pick their favorite... the female followed your instructions exactly.... the male listed his favorite..... the best should be what people like, not what they think should sound good.... not a competition of seeing if they can list them by dollar figure based on the factors that you told them made for a "good" mic thereby winning a competition. The average Joe doesn't know a good mic from a bad mic.... I remember reading of somebody that put several audio heads together for a blind test to discuss the differences between 2 microphones..... they all discussed and argued their opinions.... as it turned out the 2 mics were identical... but I appreciate where you are going with this... I would say that a more thorough blind test of unbiased listeners would be all over the place.
The hardest task is to judge the own voice while speaking. It would have been much easier if they would have judged the voices of different other people.
The real difference in microphones shows when you start mixing. Cheap thin sounding mics don't eq well at all. The reason why the woman may have chose accurately is because women here A wider range of sounds than men. They also see a wider range of colors. Also different might sound better on different people's voice.
the m7 really sounded crappy. over pronounced low end, no details, no clarity in the mid section. "muffled" was the right word to say. the neumann has insane detail to it but the esses are slightly over pronounced, which is the only weak point that i could notice. but only if you want to be very picky. the lewitt has a tiny bit less detail compared to the neumann in the mid section and a tiny bit louder esses compared to the neumann. but what is very nice is the low end that is a bit more over pronounced above neutral, but that does not sound bad at all, more rich and pleasant. overall, i would choose the neumann because the details are wonderful. but maybe i would try to give it a bit more low end in postprocessing or at least play around there.
I mean, i am all for cheap equipment (if you know how to use eq, you can make 30 dollar mic sound great), but I see one little problem with this experiment - they both had different headphones while testing, so that basically means they heard completely different things!
That's fair! I would say though that both of these guys had a chance to individually test each mic unblindfolded before, both using their individual headphones. Not to mention, different outputs will always be an issue no matter what, every microphone is going to be perceived through some sort of speaker or headphone, so its hard to just chock up the results to different headphones
He was so focused on sibilants, that the slightest hint of it felt bad to him. It’s either that or he simply likes darker microphones, because that’s what I noticed about the cheap microphone, it certainly had qualities that - in comparison - could be named darker, than the rest. Maybe he got influenced by your explanation? She might have been in the place, where she was like „What the heck is he talking about?“ during your explanation and it all clicked on an emotional level, when she got to compare. I know, this sounds like: It could have been the same for him, but that’s my point. Maybe he was too focused on using your explanations, while comparing the microphones. But maybe I’m overthinking things… We will never know. Still.. this was a great video to watch!
Thanks as always Michael! Yeah I always try and give people a couple clues to look out for, like brightness and sibilance is pretty easy to pick up on :) that being said I could see how people could transfix on that a bit much
1) I was going to give you a thumbs up, but there are currently 69 likes….nice; 2) you never told me her name, but she needs to call someone a bitch in every video you make for the rest of time. I liked that part a lot; 3) Technically speaking, I’m both a professional and an adult, 👍🏼. Have a nice day.
Way too guided .... Oh Yeah, OH YEAH, this is definitley the one that picks up the lower range .... (honest opinion) then mmmmKay .... like the Midrange ??????? Whatddy mean ... ???? fail
I think my hair has reached peak levels of homeless orangutan
Sonic aesthetics definitely in the ear of the beholder :)
I can't stop looking at the piece of lint(?) under your chin in your beard
@@MrKarlGP lol yeah I don't know, I kept staring at it during edit too. You would think one of my FRIENDS would have mentioned it!!
😂🙈
I would argue that both of them correctly identified the best quality mic, but interpreted the unique characteristics differently. The dude said that the 102 felt like it was picking up more of the world around him, which makes sense, because it is a more detailed microphone. But due to the environment being not perfectly acoustically treated the increased detail of the 102 was classified as a detriment in this specific situation :)
I agree! Its something I mentioned in the 102 review, although its a brilliant mic, its sensitivity may actually serve as a detriment when you place it in an environment that isn't ideal. I think Erika focused on tonality and Ben utility, both valid approaches
Genius and original! The average person is satisfied with a clean clear signal. Any $100 microphone would suffice.
That's a great takeaway :) we all love gear but we should also remember our listeners probably don't mind
@@AudioHaze I know I need to come to terms with this so that I'll stop letting the "perfect" act as the enemy of the good solid content I want to be publishing.
Imo, if you're a creator who's not making content that's specifically audio-focused (like music, podcasts, or VA), there's no reason to spend more than $100 on a mic (unless you're just an audio nerd who wants a specific sound)
@@RainbowCornet @RainbowCornet I used an SM58 for over 20 episodes of my podcast. Now I'm using it for video content. Seems clean enough for my purposes.
sometimes cheaper microphone doesnt mean worse, as you mentioned. i have in my say everyday or casual use behringer c-1, sennheiser xs1 and rode procaster and if c-1 is "condenser" and cant be compared correctly, i cant say that relatively cheap xs1 is 4 times worse that procaster. its worse for me here and there, but if it was my one and only mic, i wouldnt complain at all.
I completely understand where Ben was coming from. Presonus gave me immediate “podcast” vibes considering the room treatment. Like you would think there are sound panels in the room with how that sounds off top. I also think in this case each of their voices caused them to hear different qualities of each. They were definitely looking for different qualities to be brought out. The Lewitt mics sound exactly how they look (to me). Might not make sense to anyone else but hey. Great great work!
Haha I get it, modern mic and look and sound with the Lewitt :) and yeah, the M7 was crazy dark! Definitely that mellow spoken word sort of feel
well... hearing the room around you is a quality, not a fault of the mic. the better your mic is, the more you need to treat your room, cause it picks up EVERYTHING. Especially tose Neumann TLM ones.
Totally agree
Interesting! It seems Ben's experience mixing and assessing digitally delivered audio has caused him to associate high frequency noise with "bad compression" - low bitrate - which is often results in high frequency ringing, especially around transients. The high frequency sensitivity of the nicer mics seemed to be triggering that dislike. He also, like you and many others, is not a fan of hearing an untreated room - not the mic's problem... rather, as you've emphasized in other videos, a matter of choosing a mic that suits the source and environment.
Very elegantly said! I think I was thinking a similar thing, but didn't formulate the thought as well as you did here, couldn't have said it better.
no, i think he did not mean compression in the sense of digital data rate compression. he means an audio compression which is a kind of fast automatic gain control to keep everything at a similar volume level. if using that compressor effect and not using a noise gate, then the silent background noises are increased a bit.
i guess he is used to dynamic stage microphones that lack in detail and have a bad resolution compared to condenser microphones. but because of this "disadvantage", these microphones are being used on stage to prevent feedback loops from the speakers.
however, he experienced the detailed resolution of two very good condenser microphones which he probably was not used too.
and the m7 microphone despite being a condenser microphone lacked in detail and behaved more like a dynamic microphone with bad coloration.
I feel that a lot of his sound design and post experience for film would mean that he is working with shotgun mics, which tend to have excellent off-axis rejection. Being used to hearing a voice from 12 feet away on a Sennheiser MKH-416 all the time would definitely color one's opinion of recorded voices.
I guess one of the things this video shows is that there are different microphones for different kinds of voices and there may not be an one size fits all. -And if they are there, they might be very rare and expensive. Add to that the fact that people have different tastes, also when it comes to what comes through our ears, and the matching becomes even more complex. Another thing it shows is that price tag doesn't always matter. Which is kind of nice and encouraging for us with limited budgets. 🙂
Bingo.
I use a lot of mics and I've found myself using some of my cheaper mics more than my most expensive ones. But you're also paying for consistent results when you go with the more expensive mics.
There's no single one-size mic, really. Though you can say that if the mic is more detailed, you can fix what you don't like in post.
What I personally took from this video is that the film and tv industry looks for a very different sound in their audio. As a filmmaker myself, I know that it's best to have something like dialogue with a lot of low-end, where as musicians tend to look for a more balanced sound.
Interesting take!
but this can be done with post processing as well. first you need a detailed and crisp recording. the sound can be shaped afterwards. if your mic does not pick up the details, you cannot do anything about it in postprocessing.
This is a wow video for me. Definitely making me more comfortable with my current mic situation. I received a little “constructive criticism” re: in-frame mic, so I’ve overhead-boomed my SM58 which gave me the opportunity to remove the foam pop filter AND the ball grill - which I think has enhanced articulation in a pleasing way while avoiding risk of plosives. After this video, I’m thinking that, although I might detect a benefit if I switched to a small diaphragm condenser (pencil), my audience wouldn’t.
I mean if you enjoy getting new gear, go for it, but in all actuality most of the time, unless you're an enthusiast and SM58 is more than okay :)
@Robert Johnson I've been thinking about a small condenser myself for vocals ( untreated space ) leaning towards the Lewitt 140 air or the Samson CO2 , any recommendations ?
@@ericanderson7059 My only firsthand experience is with the Shure SM58. Lewitt has gotten my attention lately. But, for me personally, I like the idea of getting a pair of Sampson CO2 for $100. That way, I can determine whether my room and setup can even tolerate a condenser. If not, I'll have two mics that I can use for other things such as recording the kids on the piano, or environmental noise to mix behind my isolated SM58 dialogue.
@@ericanderson7059 Curtis Judd compared the Sampson to another option in this video: ruclips.net/video/NU-Bz4XM8_0/видео.html
I was shocked that the person who had no experience with audio was able to tell which mic was which the best such a good video idea
Thanks! And yeah me too!!
The best test. No shifted opinion by the price or brand. This how people should testing microphones.
She's a natural!
I’m going to be throwing all my Neumanns out now…. Enjoyed this comparison.
We all should just go guy the M7 I guess :)
To my mind, there's something to pick up here. A microphone is only good on some sources. Having different range of microphone can help a lot, because of variety of audio material and situation. On the video the best mic for that woman was the Tlm102 and lewit for the man.
It's interesting how eq can make a huge difference. A Shure SM57 can sound like a SM7B with a few tweaks on the eq.
Not in my experience. On the other hand, no one I know would say the SM7B is better than the SM57 blindfolded. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if most preferred the SM57.
Yeah, I would say that M7 could definitely use a bit of a presence boost lol
@@MaxoticsTV have you tried Julian Krause's eq settings for the SM57? It's uncanny how much they make it sound like an SM7B.
@@JohnnyF71 I've seen his video but haven't tried his specific settings. I enjoy his channel but he's a bit disingenuous (I get it, have to cheat a bit to have fun). For example, he used both mics, it seems, more than a foot away, and not in a way that I believe the SM7B shines. As I commented on his video, EQ can't change attack, delay, the specific physical properties of the diaphragm, coil and magnet design and construction. EQ is an average of frequency tops (more or less) and really has nothing to do with how anything sounds--the shape and amplitude of the waves. If one could get the SM57 to sound like the SM7B then why not in REVERSE, get small speakers to sound like subwoofers, etc?
This is the thing I try to get across to everyone--my strong opinion. You can't change the physical facts of a sensor. Whether in a camera or a microphone, it produces a one-time capture of physical phenomena which MUST always be "colored" by the physics of the sensor. When you modify a digital signal you can only work with the quantization you have. You can't fill in "sound" (analogue properties) that isn't there. You can use AI to add in what people find psychologically pleasing, in which today's cell phones do amazingly well--but the nuance of what was captured? No. Not even close.
Anyway, if you have a couple of audio samples where you use the SM7B to its max effect and compare it to the SM7 let me get a link. I'd love to listen. And again, I'm not shilling for the SM7B. It's just a specific sound. Either one likes it or not. Not saying it's better than the SM57. Thanks!
The Lewitt and Neumann sounded really good on both of there voices.
Most people have no clue. I ran a test with a $40 comica micro shotgun mic straight into camera versus my sm7b ran through a mic preamp/ processor rack unit into an audio interface and DAW and none of my friends even knew I was switching back and forth and when I told them they couldn't pick which was which. Most preferred the Comica. The sm7b is exactly 10x more money.
This may as well be a test of which mic combines best with that headphone for each person. The "best" one is not necessarily the most accurate one.
Thats true! Either way both had to test the microphones somehow, the CB-1s and the M30s have a similar sound profile, an attempt at reference grade but with a peak in the upper midrange.
It's like when I tried experimenting with my girlfriend. I played samples of the 440 pure, the sm7b and the ksm 44. She described all the sounds perfectly and picked the 44 as her favourite ...she described it as "full sounding but with a lot of definition and not picking up ambiance almost at all".
Wow! Impressive :)
The $50 Mic really did Sound natural on that guy's voice. I can actually see why he chose that, it did seem to fit his voice quite well. now on the female I think tlm sound leaps and bounds better for her than the others.
Really interesting video ! :) I think that when you don't work around with vocals it's hard to know what is a good sounding mic. The first person had it all right, congrates :) But even if the second one was wrong, he was right about the caracteristics of the mics, saying for example that the tlm 102 was a bit harsher and picked more noise of the room. When you mix vocals you know that brightness is important for vocals to cut through the mix and when you apply compression, it makes kind of more obvious the difference of quality between mics. Also, I think that may be there is a bias in this expericence cause if you are not used to listen to your voice, the mic that makes your voice clearer and better restituted can bother you as it is one of the rare time you hear your voice from outside of your head, it can feel unconfortable for some people.
So what I am trying to say is that : Of course, when you chose a mic, you must like the sound of it, but it is important to know what you will use it for. The TLM 102 (and even more the 103), are mics that really put the vocals forward and make it cut through the mix (because of there frequency response that have a boost in the high end), ideal for new rap, pop and r&b vocals for example. So, to me people who does not see the reason why it is better to own an expensive/better mic because random people seems to not always make the difference are making a big mistake cause mixing engineer knows the potential of these mics when the vocals from it are processed :) Tell me what you all think :)
Really great take here!
Just goes to show the mic you choose depends on the voice and what vibe you’re going for
The answer is the cost doesn't matter in the microphones
It's about what you think your voice sounds like on them
True! Its like a wand in harry potter lol
Interesting comparison, but I think it unfairly reduces everything to "better" or "worse", when there can be a lot of variables. This primarily focused on on-axis frequency response. But off-axis response can be important too (both how much is picked up, and how colored that off-axis response is). And frequency response in general isn't necessarily a "better" or "worse" thing. Sometimes a flat response is better, while other times a more colored (inaccurate!) response works for the source or overall production. Extended high frequency response may be ideal for drums and acoustic guitars, but it may not always be necessary or even wanted for vocals, guitar amps, etc. Depending on the use, there may also be concerns about handling noise, plosives, etc.
Of course, there are huge differences among mics in any price range. It's not as if this is necessarily what a $60 mic sounds like. Even among "cheap" dynamic mics, there can be huge (intended) differences in frequency response, polar pattern, etc.
And has some others have noted, hearing yourself live (whether via speakers or headphones) is a different experience from hearing someone else, or hearing a recording.
What I would have done for this experiment is to not rely only on the direct monitoring. I would have made them record a sentence and make them listen without direct monitoring.
At least it's even for the 3 mics. :)
Nice video :)
Thank you! And great idea, maybe in the next one :)
Yeah. Alot of the time when I used direct monitoring I can hardly tell the difference in my mics until I switch from dynamic to condenser. Listening to them back afterwards is a big difference tho.
Awesome! No NT1 :( still hesitant on first mic buy, building a recording booth
Yeah wanted to try out leaving the NT1 out of the video, it gets enough exposure lol
An expensive microphone has some features only the mix engineer will notice. Ridiculously low S/N Ratio is mandatory when we'll be later squashing the signal into brutal compression. But if you are just talking into it for podcast work that noise won't be a problem.
And maybe mix enginner's would also be able to spell "Mic".
@@WiIIiamOfficial Thank you mate, English is not my mother tongue. Corrected.
Fun tests. May consider letting them sing too. Thanks for sharing.
That's a cool experiment! Most of the review videos of microphones conclude to preference of the listener.
Definitely true, and it shows that most mics will do the job just fine :)
The better "mid" mic to test would have been the Lewitt 441 Flex. It levels off and does a better job with the somewhat crispy high end of the 440 Pure. Actually, I'm betting the 441 would have won in both of those tests, has a pleasing sweetness in the mids. I have and use them both. The 440 is presently my talkback mic and makes a great podcaster, much cleaner than the 240 that's typically used. The 441 is a straight up AKG 414 XLII studio tracking replacement all day long and twice on Sunday.
Great execution of a great idea for a video. I imagine it will do well too… people like reactions
Here's to hoping :) glad people are enjoying it
The one who has the least experience with audio is often the one in society who solely *listens* to the most music of official industry and radio ready pop standard, perhaps making her point of reference many well recorded and well mixed finished end products. Just a theory. where as the other guy could have been more confused will not knowing what point of reference is the best or really considered ideal to start with. Just some thoughts.
Also I reallyyy really really want to see more of this exact type of video, bringing In others to listen and predict/analyze the quality of the mic. Maybe 3 people rather than 2.
Cool
Thanks!
None of them is wrong, they simply had different priorities, so she did not know anything.
And this alone makes the price irrelevant when comparing gear.
Great video.
Shouldve been 4-6 choices 3 is kinda too easy to describe the differences and list them in order thats why she got it right the first time
One of the issues with this concept, is that a budget mic might sound pretty good to someone's ear by itself, but it's how all of the high-quality pieces of a signal chain work together to make a really high quality sounding product. The "gear doesn't matter, make good music/content" crowd has never tried to mix ten vocal tracks recorded on a cheap microphone into a budget interface. The mic capsule alone doesn't matter, the type of tube in the mic alone doesn't matter, the audio interface alone doesn't matter, but the summation of those things does.
Ok but in this case everything except the microphone was the same (for each person) and there was a very noticeable difference between each of the mics. With the cheapest one sounding dull and muddy compared to the top end one which sounded extremely detailed and natural with the other one sounding good but not as good as the Neumann.
@@joezuu I think you and I are in agreement here. I'm not sure we're disagreeing. My point is that a cheap mic might sound like it gets you 80% of the way there in a vacuum but in a full mix that may drop to 50%.
This just proves, you should never argue with a woman... because they really do know everything! LOL
I have some great sounding condenser mics (not expensive ones), however, I record everything with SM57's. I have no sound treatment in my room, and, the SM57's don't punish me for it. The condensers pick up EVERYTHING!
And that, ladies and gentlemen; is why I never ask any musician's opinion about my music. Bc we think too much, instead of just simply listening to what we actually hear. (I know he isn't a musician, but... You know..)
She loves the TLM 102. Boom!
I do too!!! I think you think I don't lol
@@AudioHaze There was a certain tone in your voice in your video discussing the TLM 102. All over the shock mount coming extra or as a package. Shame shame.
I have like 30 mics (I know... I'm an idiot) and sometimes price just isn't a factor in the quality. But with the most expensive mics you're paying more for consistency. You can more or less guarantee that every u67 is going to be identical and provide consistent results.
Sometimes though... you can have a room, a voice, or a performance that just doesn't call for a mic like that. (Much like every man and his dog using the shitty SM7B and not taking into account whether or not it's actually the mic they need)
But in this case... I wasn't a fan of that $50 mic in the slightest. I've had considerably better sounding mics in that price range.
I've been guilty of being 110%wrong when it comes to these things almost all the time.
210% here ;)
This is why, when I listen back the next morning with fresh ears, I often ask “WTF was I thinking?”
Oh me too, I did one of these earlier in the channel and I didn't do very good tbh
They can obviously see through the mask opening
wonderful, more, please!
Absolutely! :)
first of all your hair is awesome, second of all ur friends seem epic
They're great!! and thank you :)
The Presonus was surprisingly good for the price point imho
Hairs? Yes!
Nice Video 👍
Yes! Hairs!
I think if you had a treated room it would give them a little better idea what they really sound like. But good info.
How does your 7b not sound boomy so close to it
I don't want to spend a lot of money, and I am a beginner in audio. I know usb mics are not great, but they don't need an audio interface. I was wondering which audio interface I could buy for an sm57, below the price of a Scarlett 2i2. In addition, I like deep radio voice, so if there's a better mic for that than the sm57 or Samson Q2U (usb), I would be happy to be informed :) By the way, thank you for your amazing work on RUclips! (forgot to say it would be for streaming/podcasting)
Thanks! You could always go for the uphoria series by Behringer :) super cheap and great quality for the price, I could personally stick with the 57/58 and just EQ out the upper range peak for a broadcast sound tbh
@@AudioHaze Thank you I'll look into that :) !
Damn , your hair will take over the channel soon
hahaha I am 100% aware I need a serious haircut....its just down the street....yet I don't go. I think I just don't want the awkward conversation with the barber tbh.
The way she called Ben a little b*tch had me dying 😂
Hahahah, they said more but I had to edit it out lol
Excellent Right Here 👀👍🏿
Thank you good sir!
The guy doesn't know about the sound. I like the girl she knows butter about the sound of the microphone, like she is the professional one.
BTW, watching on my TV, I couldn't tell the difference in any of the mics!
I wonder if the TV has difficulty producing low end, I find thats usually the case :)
@@AudioHaze Add that and I need to play the TV loud for my old ears, and yes, there are even more difficulties than that! HAHA
I would say that by "educating" them at all the renders the test of no consequence...the price should have been left out of the equation.... the average Joe wouldn't know sibilance at all...or if it was a good thing or bad thing... they should just pick their favorite... the female followed your instructions exactly.... the male listed his favorite..... the best should be what people like, not what they think should sound good.... not a competition of seeing if they can list them by dollar figure based on the factors that you told them made for a "good" mic thereby winning a competition. The average Joe doesn't know a good mic from a bad mic.... I remember reading of somebody that put several audio heads together for a blind test to discuss the differences between 2 microphones..... they all discussed and argued their opinions.... as it turned out the 2 mics were identical... but I appreciate where you are going with this... I would say that a more thorough blind test of unbiased listeners would be all over the place.
The hardest task is to judge the own voice while speaking. It would have been much easier if they would have judged the voices of different other people.
The real difference in microphones shows when you start mixing. Cheap thin sounding mics don't eq well at all. The reason why the woman may have chose accurately is because women here A wider range of sounds than men. They also see a wider range of colors. Also different might sound better on different people's voice.
That's definitely a fair point about mixing with cheaper mics, this wasn't the most scientific test, just a bit of fun :)
the m7 really sounded crappy. over pronounced low end, no details, no clarity in the mid section. "muffled" was the right word to say.
the neumann has insane detail to it but the esses are slightly over pronounced, which is the only weak point that i could notice. but only if you want to be very picky.
the lewitt has a tiny bit less detail compared to the neumann in the mid section and a tiny bit louder esses compared to the neumann.
but what is very nice is the low end that is a bit more over pronounced above neutral, but that does not sound bad at all, more rich and pleasant.
overall, i would choose the neumann because the details are wonderful. but maybe i would try to give it a bit more low end in postprocessing or at least play around there.
they didn’t use the same headphones
:0
7:09
@me at that exact moment
I mean, i am all for cheap equipment (if you know how to use eq, you can make 30 dollar mic sound great), but I see one little problem with this experiment - they both had different headphones while testing, so that basically means they heard completely different things!
That's fair! I would say though that both of these guys had a chance to individually test each mic unblindfolded before, both using their individual headphones. Not to mention, different outputs will always be an issue no matter what, every microphone is going to be perceived through some sort of speaker or headphone, so its hard to just chock up the results to different headphones
Fascinating.
Thanks!
He was so focused on sibilants, that the slightest hint of it felt bad to him. It’s either that or he simply likes darker microphones, because that’s what I noticed about the cheap microphone, it certainly had qualities that - in comparison - could be named darker, than the rest. Maybe he got influenced by your explanation? She might have been in the place, where she was like „What the heck is he talking about?“ during your explanation and it all clicked on an emotional level, when she got to compare. I know, this sounds like: It could have been the same for him, but that’s my point. Maybe he was too focused on using your explanations, while comparing the microphones. But maybe I’m overthinking things… We will never know. Still.. this was a great video to watch!
Thanks as always Michael! Yeah I always try and give people a couple clues to look out for, like brightness and sibilance is pretty easy to pick up on :) that being said I could see how people could transfix on that a bit much
Cool vídeo 🎉
Danke!
Thank you as always Rainer!
The room doesn’t look treated enough to do this test
This video didn't turn out as expected lol
Oh God, ... that voice.
1) I was going to give you a thumbs up, but there are currently 69 likes….nice; 2) you never told me her name, but she needs to call someone a bitch in every video you make for the rest of time. I liked that part a lot; 3) Technically speaking, I’m both a professional and an adult, 👍🏼. Have a nice day.
Hahaha I'll make sure she has a cameo just to curse people out lol, and thats Erika :)
I know this is only two people's ears in the end, but it's an interesting test.
For sure! Cool to get a different perspective than an audiophile/audio engineer
So the more expensive one wins ?
Not sure if there's a winner! Just an interesting experiment :)
I think the guy just doesn't like harmonic distortion
Interesting video
Thanks!
If he is a Dodgers fan he is automatically wrong.
lol
Something tells me she could see
interesting
Way too guided .... Oh Yeah, OH YEAH, this is definitley the one that picks up the lower range .... (honest opinion)
then
mmmmKay .... like the Midrange ??????? Whatddy mean ... ????
fail
Best example of how there’s almost no such thing as a bad or good mic, just one that does or doesn’t suit one’s voice.
100% agree!
I guess that one mic I bought that sounded like it was an over drive pedal could have it's use.
Use more test subjects
That is one creepy looking mask lol, is she a member of the Illuminati?
Who knows, I'll have to ask