I own the MKE600, I wanted the battery option. The 416 DOES sound a bit better but not more than double. The MKE 400 really wasn't bad but it was less natural sounding and had a bit of a clarity boost.
04:20 the 600 sounds more "directional" the 400 sounds like it picks up a bit more room sound. The 600 sounds like the voice is more isolated.. But that might just be me.
With headphones the 400 is picking up some of the room echo while the 600 is not. On my TV the only difference I can hear is that the lav mics are worse, but all the others sound the same. So for RUclips any of the lower end non lav mics should work fine. Btw what mic is off camera? Cuz that one is picking up waaaay too much of that low resonant hum of the concrete room.
The 416 benefits from an acoustically treated space. The bass reverberance can be attenuated with bass traps. I've found that to be the case with my MKH 416 but I think in the right environment it just sounds so good. Maybe it's the work I've done in sound but I can hear reverberation with all shotgun microphones you've tested - they struggle indoors and need to be outside or in a well treated space to really shine. Only then can you really compare them properly, but it's fair to say not everyone has an acoustically dead space so it's a very valid comparison.
I can hear and identify which one is which, but I used to work for a pro audio company that had microphones. The proper answer for me is that the 400 sounds more pleasing on human voice. The test is flawed though. We are listening through a streaming service that uses compression. Also what speakers are being used will make a difference. It is just like video quality, what is acceptable for streaming versus cinema is different.
#1 and #2 suck, #3 very good, #4 boomier and fuller sound I like it. #5 exceptionally clear, #6 feels like a small downgrade when it comes to clarity from #5. If I have to pick it's #5.
This makes me so happy. I bought the 400 a while ago and love it, and I genuinely picked it out of the line up in your blind test also. Such a great investment!
The 400 and 600 sound the same without headphones on, but when I put a pair on, I could hear a slight difference. I would go with the 400 as the change is not enough to make a difference at all.
For great mic comparison presentations such as this you must wear GOOD headphones. The 400 is ok for scratch audio or camera mount vlog type videos, but if your goal is narrative filmmaking then the mighty 416 and 600 are the right choice hands down.
The difference in quality between the 400 and 600 is not when you’re right in front of the microphone, it’s the noise cancellation from behind the microphone. The 600 does a much better job of cutting out background noise when you are in noisy environments then the 400 does. But if you are in a quiet environment, there is not much difference between the two.
I once had a $15 Microsoft desk mic that weighed about the same as a tooth pick and wasn't much bigger. It sounded amazing. I don't know how they did it. I wish I could find another one.
IMO, I hear a better balance of highs from the MKE600 over the MKE400 but the MKH416 sounds just like the MKE600. all from three samples of your blind test, but the practicality of the MKE400 is now something i am adding to my own rig. Thanks for the info.
As a music/ audio person I would have to agree. I think the $399 mic sounds the best to me with the $999 also sounding excellent but maybe in a different application
I have been using an old sennheiser mke 400 for years for recording live bands, and although I have tried various other more expensive mikes that I have borrowed from friends, I still use it all the time.
I picked the 400 as well. And now I might have to go and pick one up. I'd love to hear the all used booming overhead, off camera, just in front of you.
Old vid, the 600 and 416 have reverse issue in that space, the 600 sounds dampened ever so slightly, like "over rejecting" while the 416 picks up the reverb/echo of the space. I'd throw some flea market fake persian rugs on the floor and run with the 416 if it was me and I had to pick from the bunch. The first few sound muffled but I'm used to specific sound so ye, they lack that airy clarity that in this test only the 416 had.
To me it sounds like this video was shot with the $1000 mic. But it is probably because of any post processing you did to the video, whereas the examples you showed us I assume were raw audio from those recordings...
I asked to hear the difference between the 400-mke and 600 mke.. and let me tell you I bought the MKE 600. I haven't really tried it yet. But for vlogging and on camera mic. The 400 for the on-camera Mike and the 600 shotgun mic are the best that actually sounds a tad bit different
I feel like the 600 has much more versatility and sounds way better in more situations. The 400 sounds around the same in ideal conditions but falls off faster when the conditions aren’t perfect for it. The 416 is significantly better when conditions are right but also falls off so much when they aren’t that the 600 surpasses it. It seems like that’s the goal really. I bought the 600 because it seems like the best for slapping on all my cameras and my recorders.
MKE 600 is my favorite in terms of overall sound and budget. The $999 one did have a satisfying fullness to it, but is it really worth that much money? I’m not 100% sold.
I can hear the difference between the 400 and 600 and 416. The 400 picks up well. But the 600 fills in a bunch of the range. The 416 add back in the bass that the others cut. I'd love to hear a hiss/gain test between the 400 and 600 (because the 416 is way out of my price range).
Hi. Looking for a microphone to record my church services from 20-30 feet away. There will be a full band, singing and preaching. I need something better then the crappy iPhone mic.
at 900K subs you'd expect one would differentiate the use case of a lav mic vs shotgun mic, have the shotgun at least mounted out of the frame (which is 99% of the use case), noting any sound treatment of the room or lack of thereof, etc. apparently that's not the case.
I agree that the 400 sounded the best to me. And I'm glad you also mentioned it was the best FOR THAT ENVIRONMENT. Just like you have multiple lenses and lights for different use cases, the same thing goes for mics. Certainly there are better all-around mics, lights, lenses, but it doesn't mean there is a best. It's best for the job/budget. On the flip side there are certainly things that are the worst haha.
Is any of this audio processed? It’s like shooting in raw vs jpg. Some of the mics are going to need processed and probably have more room to adjust the sound to what you want.
416 sounds muddy lol I picked the 600. It could be one of situations where technical strength, pricier are better but require equalizing in post. Straight out the box, MKE 600 sounds best. It's just like RE20 vs SM7B.
Fun challenge: Ask your audio expert buddy to do a simple 2 minute EQ (only gain/eq) on all the recordings of the mics to an "ok" level and see if you can then make a difference and pick the "best" result :)
I thought the number 4 sounded the best and that 5 & 6 sounded like they had potential and better quality but were used wrong and I was absolutely right. Ur not supposed to have those kinds of microphones that close to you for ideal sound (check sennheisers own official guide to this) they state that about 1 meter away is the ideal distance and in those circumstances the 400 could sound better as it did but the 416 and the 600 are still way more versatile and will outclass the 200 if you just change the circumstances just a little. So yess in this instance the higher the price the better the quality without doubt.
I don't mean to be stupid but on camera mics tested 8 inches from your face isn't really a great test. The room you are in sounds like crap so I'd always go for a lav even above anything more expensive
Hi. Hey, thank for the really nice video! I wuold like to hear rejection tests on 400 and 600 and "the beast" 416 hahaha and also maybe another video, testing range
There is very little descernable difference between the MKE 400 and MKE 600. Maybe a bit more sound resolution on the 600. However, everything above and below this is night and day MKH 614 has WAY more dynamic range and everything below the MKE 400 just sounds like trash cans
We are running into the law of diminishing returns when it comes to AV gear. Newer, cheaper, consumer grade tech is rivaling high end professional gear. Especially the slightly older stuff. Is there some gain in the high end gear, sure but is it enough to justify the much more expensive price? Maybe if you have a Hollywood budget. However when it comes to streaming, even that stuff loses quality. By the time it reaches the audience and it doesn't seem that much better to the average person. It's a great time for those entering the video and audio production game.
Dude nothing surprising here. 416 obviously the best. The 600 is significantly better than the 400. Remember the shotgun is all about side rejection so not really sure what you’re testing here??! Surprised your sound buddy didn’t point that out or hear the obvious difference?!
This is the worst test i have seen in some time. It is like comparing a 500mm vs a 55-200mm vs a 16-35mm vs a 24-70 2.8 vs an 18-55mm at the same position. Which is better? Nonsense
I own the MKE600, I wanted the battery option. The 416 DOES sound a bit better but not more than double. The MKE 400 really wasn't bad but it was less natural sounding and had a bit of a clarity boost.
04:20 the 600 sounds more "directional" the 400 sounds like it picks up a bit more room sound. The 600 sounds like the voice is more isolated..
But that might just be me.
Definitely the 400. Less coloration, seems to cover the full frequency range. Most of the mics have a boxy coloration, even the most expensive one.
Completely agree. I came to the same conclusion.
That got more to do with the room itself.
With headphones the 400 is picking up some of the room echo while the 600 is not. On my TV the only difference I can hear is that the lav mics are worse, but all the others sound the same. So for RUclips any of the lower end non lav mics should work fine.
Btw what mic is off camera? Cuz that one is picking up waaaay too much of that low resonant hum of the concrete room.
The 416 benefits from an acoustically treated space. The bass reverberance can be attenuated with bass traps. I've found that to be the case with my MKH 416 but I think in the right environment it just sounds so good.
Maybe it's the work I've done in sound but I can hear reverberation with all shotgun microphones you've tested - they struggle indoors and need to be outside or in a well treated space to really shine.
Only then can you really compare them properly, but it's fair to say not everyone has an acoustically dead space so it's a very valid comparison.
They are designed for out door use hence the side rejection. 8060 is usually the indoor choice.
@@KenFlanagan exactly. There are better choices for indoor use in an untreated space
@@MarkVO absolutely. The schoeps cmit series or any mic with low cut though that can be overused.
I can hear and identify which one is which, but I used to work for a pro audio company that had microphones. The proper answer for me is that the 400 sounds more pleasing on human voice.
The test is flawed though. We are listening through a streaming service that uses compression. Also what speakers are being used will make a difference. It is just like video quality, what is acceptable for streaming versus cinema is different.
This where this mics will be used the most
i dont know how many times i listen between 400 and 600. they sounded so similar to my ears. i was not expecting that ! thanks for the video
#1 and #2 suck, #3 very good, #4 boomier and fuller sound I like it. #5 exceptionally clear, #6 feels like a small downgrade when it comes to clarity from #5. If I have to pick it's #5.
This makes me so happy. I bought the 400 a while ago and love it, and I genuinely picked it out of the line up in your blind test also. Such a great investment!
The 400 and 600 sound the same without headphones on, but when I put a pair on, I could hear a slight difference. I would go with the 400 as the change is not enough to make a difference at all.
For great mic comparison presentations such as this you must wear GOOD headphones. The 400 is ok for scratch audio or camera mount vlog type videos, but if your goal is narrative filmmaking then the mighty 416 and 600 are the right choice hands down.
The difference in quality between the 400 and 600 is not when you’re right in front of the microphone, it’s the noise cancellation from behind the microphone. The 600 does a much better job of cutting out background noise when you are in noisy environments then the 400 does.
But if you are in a quiet environment, there is not much difference between the two.
I once had a $15 Microsoft desk mic that weighed about the same as a tooth pick and wasn't much bigger. It sounded amazing. I don't know how they did it. I wish I could find another one.
IMO, I hear a better balance of highs from the MKE600 over the MKE400 but the MKH416 sounds just like the MKE600. all from three samples of your blind test, but the practicality of the MKE400 is now something i am adding to my own rig. Thanks for the info.
As a music/ audio person I would have to agree. I think the $399 mic sounds the best to me with the $999 also sounding excellent but maybe in a different application
Really good comparison 👏
Maybe get an actual dialog mic like the mkh50 next time?
I have been using an old sennheiser mke 400 for years for recording live bands, and although I have tried various other more expensive mikes that I have borrowed from friends, I still use it all the time.
I picked the 400 as well. And now I might have to go and pick one up. I'd love to hear the all used booming overhead, off camera, just in front of you.
Old vid, the 600 and 416 have reverse issue in that space, the 600 sounds dampened ever so slightly, like "over rejecting" while the 416 picks up the reverb/echo of the space. I'd throw some flea market fake persian rugs on the floor and run with the 416 if it was me and I had to pick from the bunch. The first few sound muffled but I'm used to specific sound so ye, they lack that airy clarity that in this test only the 416 had.
How do they compare now to DJI Mic 2 and its Rode sybling?
To me it sounds like this video was shot with the $1000 mic. But it is probably because of any post processing you did to the video, whereas the examples you showed us I assume were raw audio from those recordings...
I asked to hear the difference between the 400-mke and 600 mke.. and let me tell you I bought the MKE 600. I haven't really tried it yet. But for vlogging and on camera mic. The 400 for the on-camera Mike and the 600 shotgun mic are the best that actually sounds a tad bit different
Definitely between the 400 and 600. The 600 has a little more mid range pickup.
I feel like the 600 has much more versatility and sounds way better in more situations. The 400 sounds around the same in ideal conditions but falls off faster when the conditions aren’t perfect for it.
The 416 is significantly better when conditions are right but also falls off so much when they aren’t that the 600 surpasses it. It seems like that’s the goal really.
I bought the 600 because it seems like the best for slapping on all my cameras and my recorders.
But the main issue is, how does the 400 behaves when is it further than 600?
Alright let’s get to the comparison can you hear a difference between these two microphones?
Stellar video! Thanks 💜
The best mic might be the one you used for recording the video 😁
Would love to know which one that is.
It was a Rode NTG 3 but it was heavily EQed.
@@FStoppers Thanks!
What is the mic you used for the commentary?
Thank you for review! And sad that there was no MKH 50, which is specificaly designed for Indoor use. Would be nice to here it also))
MKE 600 is my favorite in terms of overall sound and budget. The $999 one did have a satisfying fullness to it, but is it really worth that much money? I’m not 100% sold.
I can hear the difference between the 400 and 600 and 416. The 400 picks up well. But the 600 fills in a bunch of the range. The 416 add back in the bass that the others cut. I'd love to hear a hiss/gain test between the 400 and 600 (because the 416 is way out of my price range).
the sounds were recorded in a relatively controlled environment. what if we change the place and test sounds again?
this is great! which audio interface did you use to capture?
600 has a little more bass in it and a slight clearer sound. 400 sounds really good
Hi. Looking for a microphone to record my church services from 20-30 feet away. There will be a full band, singing and preaching. I need something better then the crappy iPhone mic.
at 900K subs you'd expect one would differentiate the use case of a lav mic vs shotgun mic, have the shotgun at least mounted out of the frame (which is 99% of the use case), noting any sound treatment of the room or lack of thereof, etc. apparently that's not the case.
I agree that the 400 sounded the best to me. And I'm glad you also mentioned it was the best FOR THAT ENVIRONMENT. Just like you have multiple lenses and lights for different use cases, the same thing goes for mics. Certainly there are better all-around mics, lights, lenses, but it doesn't mean there is a best. It's best for the job/budget. On the flip side there are certainly things that are the worst haha.
Is any of this audio processed? It’s like shooting in raw vs jpg. Some of the mics are going to need processed and probably have more room to adjust the sound to what you want.
Nothing in the test was processed
416 sounds muddy lol I picked the 600. It could be one of situations where technical strength, pricier are better but require equalizing in post. Straight out the box, MKE 600 sounds best. It's just like RE20 vs SM7B.
Dude! What mic are YOU using as your main mic? It's clearly better.
In my blind test, 416 was a winner.
If ever possible, could you do Schopes mics test?
4 and 6 sound the best. Loved how 6 has more bass
Fun challenge: Ask your audio expert buddy to do a simple 2 minute EQ (only gain/eq) on all the recordings of the mics to an "ok" level and see if you can then make a difference and pick the "best" result :)
No
Great idea- and show us how he did it so we can learn.
Have you been in a fight buddy?
115lb girl in bjj class elbowed me in the eye.
@@FStoppers That's the excuse I used last time. Also FYI I dunno what mic you were using for the commentary but sounds very boxy.
@@TheRevWillNotBeTelevised Ya I'm working to get the echo out of this damn concrete room as I write this.
AGREED, Thanks!
I thought the number 4 sounded the best and that 5 & 6 sounded like they had potential and better quality but were used wrong and I was absolutely right. Ur not supposed to have those kinds of microphones that close to you for ideal sound (check sennheisers own official guide to this) they state that about 1 meter away is the ideal distance and in those circumstances the 400 could sound better as it did but the 416 and the 600 are still way more versatile and will outclass the 200 if you just change the circumstances just a little. So yess in this instance the higher the price the better the quality without doubt.
Great video man
the 400 is fuller and got more base , the bigger shotguns sounds more sensitive in the highs
600 has clearer low end compared to 400 but impressive!
I chose 4 also. I was astounded he did also. Was gonna say, "I like the way it sounds no matter what he says at the end of the test."
I like 4, 5, and 6. They had some bass that the others didn’t.
I picked 4 and 5. 😂 damn it I wish it was the 50 bucks one
Great video! Thank you
The 400, it actually sounds better than your overhead mic to me. That maybe your eq-ing though.
I don't mean to be stupid but on camera mics tested 8 inches from your face isn't really a great test. The room you are in sounds like crap so I'd always go for a lav even above anything more expensive
Hi. Hey, thank for the really nice video!
I wuold like to hear rejection tests on 400 and 600 and "the beast" 416 hahaha
and also maybe another video, testing range
There is very little descernable difference between the MKE 400 and MKE 600. Maybe a bit more sound resolution on the 600. However, everything above and below this is night and day MKH 614 has WAY more dynamic range and everything below the MKE 400 just sounds like trash cans
I bet if you take a few steps back from the mics, the results will be extremely different.
Human voice has a very narrow spectrum. It would be interesting to make a test using some musical instrument.
That was clear. Scientific enough for my bottom line ear. 400@200. Nice.
The 416 is better for outdoor use as far as I know
400 and 416 sounded most similar, 600 had a dip in the mids
4 5 and 6 all sound okay ... I would get 5
i think you try the rode lav mic, it awesome 10x better than those crap lav's u got there
I think your MKH 416 is broken. Mine sounds much better. Thanks for the comparison
I think the 400 sounded best of any of them.
to late bro my 416 is in the mail box at the moment
less than 24 hours and it'll be in my hands
600 sounds fuller than the 400
Lee be honest, did Will Smith hit you as well?
No
We are running into the law of diminishing returns when it comes to AV gear. Newer, cheaper, consumer grade tech is rivaling high end professional gear. Especially the slightly older stuff.
Is there some gain in the high end gear, sure but is it enough to justify the much more expensive price? Maybe if you have a Hollywood budget. However when it comes to streaming, even that stuff loses quality. By the time it reaches the audience and it doesn't seem that much better to the average person.
It's a great time for those entering the video and audio production game.
Dude nothing surprising here. 416 obviously the best. The 600 is significantly better than the 400. Remember the shotgun is all about side rejection so not really sure what you’re testing here??! Surprised your sound buddy didn’t point that out or hear the obvious difference?!
#3
This is the worst test i have seen in some time. It is like comparing a 500mm vs a 55-200mm vs a 16-35mm vs a 24-70 2.8 vs an 18-55mm at the same position. Which is better? Nonsense
3rd last
My choice