Ribbon mics are OLD SCHOOL recording tech, and Cloud has been making terrific mics for years now. Their 44-A represents a fresh twist on the ribbon utilizing phantom power, and a novel low cut filter for spoken word and voice over applications. Let's take a listen!
I get a lot of questions about taming noise in recordings. Almost every single time I get this question I pretty much think to myself:
"Self, I believe we're looking at a situation of someone picking the wrong tool for the job."
Buying nice mics can be fun, but if you bought your mic before considering your recording space, then you're wasting your time and money. Throw some headphones on, and let's take a listen...
As always, if any of my content has helped you out, please consider using the donation links or shopping through my Amazon affiliate links on the left hand side of this blog!
It's finally here!
I got this mic out of the studio long enough to properly review it. It's a beautiful premium experience.
Shop for the Blue Kiwi on Amazon (using this link), and you'll be supporting SomeAudioGuy at no additional cost to you! You can also use the affiliate or donation links to the left to help keep me on the web!
Fact.
While writing up my review of the Roadster II for YourTechReport, I scoured the Youtubes trying to find a decent video of the Roadster in action where you could actually hear the audio quality of this little wireless speaker.
Alas, none could be found, so I shot my own! Here I put the Roadster up against my current speakerphone favorite, the Nokia Lumia 900. I was pleasantly surprised...
I haven't reviewed a multi-pattern mic since I took a look at the AKG C414, so it's time to return to flexible microphones! This review also happily introduces me to a company I've had ZERO experience with in the past, so I'm excited to share my experiences with you fine readers looking for something a little unique!
Let's take a look (and listen) to the sE2200a II multi-pattern mic!
Let's take a quick look at the high end of Blue's entry level lineup! It's a looker, but do you really get that much more microphone for the $100 premium over the Spark?
I’m a little bored to tears by the insane number of forum threads started by people looking for that “supa warm phat sound yo”. What we’re all looking for is a little texture, a little low frequency distortion, and a little character (inaccuracy).
In the VO world, the first line of attack for achieving this “warmth” is usually tubes. Tube premps, tube microphones, some kind of vintage-y glass bulb SOMEWHERE in our recording chain will warm things up a bit. Recently however, there’s been a renewed interest in other old school methods of audio reproduction. One area gaining a little momentum is the return of the ribbon mic.
It doesn’t get much “older school” than a ribbon. A super thin piece of aluminum is suspended in a magnetic frame. As acoustic vibrations hit the ribbon, the wiggling around the magnet creates the electrical impulse used to carry the audio signal. It’s similar to a dynamic mic, but is a LOT more fragile. That super thin aluminum strip can get torqued by drops or even hard ‘P’ puffs of air. Also, due to the nature of suspending the ribbon, all ribbon mics are figure of eight mics, so you’ll always have to contend with both the front and rear of the mic being live.
The Fat Head II is an inexpensive line of mics from Cascade Microphones. I happened to receive a Fat Head with the optional Lundahl transformer, which is more expensive than the stock microphone, but uses higher quality internals to provide a more even frequency response with less severe high and low frequency roll offs. I wasn’t able to test it side by side a stock Fat Head.
General construction is very attractive. The ribbon is mounted behind a lollipop style mesh grill. The mic body has a satin finish which feels high quality in the hand. It certainly looks the gig, and elicits immediate reactions when people encounter it in the studio. I was so taken with the look of this mic I used it for the top banner of this blog...
It arrived extremely well accessorized. A silver flight case contains a separate wooden box for the mic and double wired shock mount. The Cascade branded microfiber cleaning cloth was a nice touch too.
In use, the mic lives up to its name. The sound delivered could certainly be described as “fat”. It’s very sensitive to proximity and placement, and great care needs to be taken in arriving at a good arrangement for a somewhat accurate vocal recording. This is not a mic you crowd. The proximity effect on ribbons can be severe, and working this mic like you might a dynamic will result in muddy recordings. Once you find that sweet spot however, you’ll be treated to a very pleasant sound.
It’s a little hard to describe. In a word it’s smooth. This isn't a mic built for reference grade clinical accuracy. It’s kind of like using a soft focus and sepia filter on a photo. It’s maybe not the “truest” representation of what we’re capturing, but it feels good.
A couple concerns.
Can’t talk about ribbons without mentioning care. These mics are easily affected by bumps and pops. The magnets can pick up stray particles, so you should never let it rest on flat dusty surfaces. It should also never be stored horizontally as gravity will start to pull at the ribbon. Lastly great care must be taken to avoid connecting the mic to a preamp with phantom power engaged. The sudden surge of electricity can cause the ribbon to invert, which will stretch it out and alter the sound of the mic, prolly for the worse. ShinyBox has a video of this happening. It’s not pretty.
The signal coming off a ribbon is super low, so expect to use a REALLY hot preamp (something that can deliver at least 60dB of clean gain, though you’ll probably need more) to capture conversational speaking. You might also want to invest in something like the Cloudlifter CL-1 for two reasons. One, it’ll deliver about 20dB of gain, and two it’ll protect the mic against damage if you ever accidentally connect it with phantom power engaged.
This wont be a mic for everyone. The more extreme we get with effects on recording, the harder it gets to predict whether it will play well with a particular voice. I’d rate this mic as little better than a coin flip. It might sound great. It might sound pretty bad. As such, I can not recommend this mic as a daily driver, but it could be a fantastic companion mic for those times you’re wanting a particular vibe. At $350 it's not too much of a risk for those wanting to expand their mic locker.
Have you been questing for a "fatter" sound? Well, it wont get much "warmer" than this...
I'm asked a lot (A LOT) by beginner VO actors what they should use to record themselves at home. It was even the question I attempted to answer in the book Voice-Over Voice Actor: What It's Like Behind The Mic (I'm on page 142 btw ;-)).
Unfortunately for the people that ask me this question, there really isn't a "correct" answer. With a near infinite combination of hardware and software choices, and no two people sharing the same voice, by definition there can not be a one-size-fits-all solution. [Also on a quick tangent, I'm often nonplussed by people who get really defensive when I ask what their home space is like, or what kind of budget they need to stay under. Like I'm trying to maliciously pry into their personal lives, but I digress...]
I usually try to recommend a combination of low cost room treatment and decent mid-range gear, but SERIOUSLY stress that the recordings can only sound as good as the amount of time and practice that goes into learning how to properly use the equipment you have. Sadly even this piece of advice (which I feel is kinda common sense-y) is often met with resistance. Don't you just need a $100 USB mic and a Mac?
Well, I've recently come into an opportunity where I myself might actually need to record scratch and auditions from home, so it was time to take my own medicine! Does my advice actually hold water?
I found the quietest space in my apartment, and hung multiple packing blankets from removable hooks. The idea is to leave them in place semi-permanently, but in a pinch they'll be easy to remove. I like moving pads/packing blankets as they're ridiculously cheap, so you wont mind cutting into them or messing them up. Also I find they do a really decent job of cutting reflection when compared to even low cost acoustic foam at a fraction of the price.
Next I set up my new SM Pro Audio Mic Thing with the sides turned in pretty aggressively to form a tight space around the microphone. If my advice holds true, then the the Mic Thing should help reduce room reflections, and the packing blankets should reduce corner reflections from behind me.
The mic I have selected is my AKG C414B-XLS. Now some might say this is a cheat, as I'm recording on a $1000 microphone, but truth be told, this is a mic I have NEVER been able to use at home. It's an extremely present, accurate, and articulate mic (often used to record challenging instruments like pianos), so using one for home recording can often be a detriment if you're not in a properly treated and insulated space. [If you're really upset by this, you can also take a listen to this set up using a mid range M-Audio Solaris on my review of the SM Pro Audio Mic Thing.]
To compare this corner space, I'm going to put it up against my Zoom H4n's built in mics. Often when I do a home coaching with someone who has already purchased a USB mic, the setup I see most often is mic on a short USB cable RIGHT in front of their computer. Somehow this setup has become the new "easy" of voice over (I blame podcasting :-P). Par for the course, when I recommend NOT using this set up, getting the mic farther away from the computer, standing instead of sitting, not recording in a room with tile/hardwood floors/tons of mirrors and picture frames, I'm usually met with resistance. Since this USB "easy" set up causes me so much grief, I'm going to see if my advice is actually better. [Again, I'm VERY positive on the H4n, and I think it produces MUCH better results than any of the sub $200 USB mics I've used, when used in an appropriate space. For more info, here's my review of the Zoom H4n.]
To recap, The treated corner is using an AKG C414 plugged directly into my Zoom H4n, and the "USB" setup is me in front of my computer recording directly into the built in mics on the H4n. No editing or correcting of the audio has taken place other than to convert to 320Kbps MP3.
Let's take a listen (using headphones will provide best results)!
USB mic in front of computer:
Treated Corner:
Your thoughts?
*Special "Thank You" shout out to Mrs. Audio Guy for allowing me to (yet again) appropriate a part of our home to do this whole recording thing...
My fave studio mic of all time. I've used them for years, but never pushed the button on owning one.
That has now been rectified.
This wont be a review on the 414 per se, there are PLENTY of those floating around, but I will share some of my observations on this (beautiful) microphone.
What do you get? First up, the packaging is a little slice of incredible. The flight case not only holds the mic, but also a travel pouch, the shock mount, a wind sock, and a two layer nylon pop screen. Included in the packaging is also a beginner's guide to recording (demonstrating proper mic placement for a variety of instruments), and a frequency response graph of YOUR specific microphone (I thought that was pretty cool).
Having played with a lot of the mics in the 414's price range (TLM103 and MKH416 for example) it was REALLY refreshing to see how well accessorized the 414 was.
But how does it sound?
Pretty damn good!
If you've read here before, my personal go-to large diaphragm condenser was the M-Audio Solaris. I still feel the Solaris is a shining example of a mid range microphone, and you get A LOT of mic for $300.
The 414 takes the game to a whole nuther level.
Again, I wont spend much time reviewing, but five polar patterns, three selectable low cut filters, and a three level pad make for a remarkably versatile microphone. This is also a professional reference microphone, and moving from the Solaris (again no slouch) to the 414 dropped my noise floor 6dB.
I don't think the sound of the mic is going to "wow" a lot of people, but that's sort of the charm of the XLS. It's a reference microphone, and is generally one of the most honest large diaphragm mics I've ever used. There's nothing hyped about this sound. This is not a "warm" mic ("warmth" of course being a harmonic distortion or inaccuracy some people find appealing). This is not really an exciting mic, but that really is the point. It's clean, very accurate, and as long as something sounds good in real life, it's most likely going to sound good on this mic.
It's very much like an SM57 in that respect. It's just very good at everything.
For us VO folk, I can't recommend this mic for everyone, but I would put it on your short list of pro mics to consider. I would definitely put it up against the TLM-103, the MKH416 , and AKG's sister mic the C414 B-XL II (supposedly designed for vocals).
However if you record more than just spoken word, this mic is sort of a no-brainer must-have...
While setting up a client's home recording kit, I got to play around with an SM Pro Audio Mic Thing. Similar in design to the sE Electronics Reflexion Filter, basically it's a foam covered screen that wraps around the back of the mic to help reduce room reflection and echoes.
I've always been a little wary of these types of products. When talking about "sound proofing", I often see people get caught up in the differences between treating a room for reflections and insulating a room. These types of screens are good at helping you shape a room (when used with additional room treatments), but are completely useless for insulating a room from outside noise.
My client had a small office (in a pretty quiet corner of the house) with hardwood floors for his recording space, so we decided to attack the space from multiple areas. We built PVC/Packing blanket baffles to "shape" the corners of the room, we found a nasty shag style rug to throw on the floor, and employed the Mic Thing to finish the space off.
We decided on the MicThing over the Reflexion mostly because of price, being about $70 cheaper than the Reflexion. I don't think the build quality is quite as solid, but I do like that the Mic Thing is adjustable. You can take the screen's sides from perfectly flat to ninety degree angles forming a pretty tight box around the mic. One advantage of the adjustable sides is it makes it easier to use a music stand. We formed an "L" shape with the Mic Thing, the mic in the corner of the screen, and a concert music stand continuing on the flat end, so he could still read copy. I don't think this arrangement would be as easy with the Reflexion.
The SM Pro mic stand we ordered with the Mic Thing is formidable, and is easily one of the most rugged stands I've ever used. You can often find the two bundled for the same price as just the screen.
I like the Reflexion's Mic mount better. On the Reflexion the mic clip attaches from under the screen, and the depth (how far the mic is from the screen) is adjustable. With the SM Pro, the mic attaches to a boom that has to swing over the top of the screen. The closer the mic is to the screen, the higher the remainder of the boom swings up. It looks sloppy and is hard to adjust without swinging the mic around dangerously for minor adjustments. I think I'll recommend a two mic stand approach, one for the Mic Thing and a round base stand for the mic. I think this will make height and depth adjustments much easier and safer.
In all, I'm very pleased. We picked it to save a little cash, but it's doing the job well.
I had a chance to play with the Mic Thing in my living room, and decided to test it out with my M-Audio Solaris and a packing blanket baffle. I recorded first in Omni to get a sound for how "live" the room was, then added the Mic Thing, then switched over to Cardioid.
Take a listen with headphones to really hear the difference.
***Update 07/06/10 Apparently my file storage service has deleted the FMR + 416 recording I used in this test, and I no longer have a copy of it backed up. Apologies for the incomplete comparison***
So this really isn't going to be a fair fight, not even a little.
If you read my blog, you'll know already, that I don't run a booth out of my home anymore, and no longer keep a lot of gear here. From bouncing around town though, I've been getting the equipment bug (I have Gear Acquisition Syndrome, if you will), and decided to throw down on some mid range consumer kit.
I've got a pretty well established mic collection, so I figured it was time to invest in a decent little preamp/compressor combo. After reading some reviews, and using one in a studio, I've been pretty interested in checking out the Really Nice Preamp and the Really Nice Compressor from FMR Audio.
So, I bought one of each.
I'm the proud new owner of an RNP8380 and an RNC1773. To start breaking them in, I figured what better than setting them up against my old workhorse the ART Tube PAC. I picked my two Sennheiser mics for the shootout, an MKH416 P48 and an MD421u5.
Usually for the Living Room Labs, I just record in my living room (get it?), but seeing as how we need to take a closer listen to the differences in tone between the two, I actually padded up a closet to do the test.
I tried to match the settings on the two different setups as close as possible. After hardware, no further editing was done other than to convert to 320kbps MP3.
Hardware settings for the 416:
30dB input Gain
-15dB Threshold
3:1 compression
"Fast" A&R (.2 sec attack and .1 sec release)
0dB output Gain
Lets take a listen! MKH416 P48 on ART Tube PAC:
MKH416 P48 on FMR RNP/RNC combo:
I have to say I was really surprised by the sound here. First up, either ART's marked settings are way low, or FMR's are way high. On average there's about a 5dB difference between the two. That doesn't sound like a lot on paper, but I think you can hear between the two samples just how much louder the FMR combo seems compared to the PAC. Ignoring the boxy-ness of the closet, I feel the FMR is a little harsh. If I hadn't been trying to match it to the PAC, I probably would've rolled it off another 6dB. I like how the tubes in the PAC smoothed out the 416 a little, but there's a lot more noise. Given a little more time to refine the sound of the 416/FMR combo, I'm sure I'll have a winner there. It's just SO much cleaner.
Hardware settings for the MD421u5 were the same except for an additional 8dB of output Gain.
MD421u5 on ART Tube PAC:
MD421u5 on FMR RNP/RNC combo:
WOW! I've never gotten a sound like that out of my decades old MD421. I didn't know she could do that. The FMR brought a smooth, rich, clean sound out of a dynamic mic which has been knocked around since before I was born. I honestly have never recorded so "true" a sound at home. The FMR/MD421 combo is the closest I've ever come at home, with my own kit, to capturing what I feel I really sound like in real life. The 421 on the PAC sounds AWFUL!
I'm kinda torn. My voice on my most expensive condensor mic doesn't sound as good as my old beat up radio dynamic mic. I'm not sure how I feel about that, LOL!
Just as a last note on the test, with no mics plugged in, the noise floor of the PAC was hovering around -70, while the FMR combo was hovering around -78. That sounds pretty good at first, until I considered that the FMR signal chain was being sent through two separate outboard devices, and STILL had a lower noise floor than the all in one Tube PAC. That's kind of awesome.
Now what I said up at the top is totally valid though. This wasn't a fair test AT ALL. You can pick up an ART Tube PAC for around $100, but picking up BOTH an RNP and RNC will run you closer to $700. More expensive doesn't always mean better, but even giving the PAC the benefit of the doubt, the FMR combo is around three and a half times more expensive per channel.
I've been getting my hands on some really fun old mics. First the SM56, then the MD421-U-5, and now this AKG D202 "Rocket".
This mic was given to me from a friend who runs a studio. Sat in a box, it didn't sound all that great (compared to the Neumanns they use), and no one even knew what it was as all the badges ("we no need no stinking BADGERS!") and labeling had been torn off. Add to that, it also didn't fit in ANY standard sized mic holder, and just to use it they had to rig a shotgun shockmount. No fun at all...
So they gave it to me!
The D202 is an odd little duck. First manufactured in 1966 (I have no idea when this particular mic was made, as there are no serial numbers), it was AKG's first dual element microphone.
High frequency sound is captured under the nose cone, low frequency sound captured by the XLR connector, and the two elements communicating over a cross over which runs the length of the mic. This process leads to a directional mic with almost no proximity effect. It also seems to lead to a more fragile mic, with many complaints online of D202's being sold with busted LF elements.
The mic's design SCREAMS 1960's. They don't call it "The Rocket" for nuthin. The vents in the tail are actually functional, aiding in low frequency accuracy, and the nose cone is made of sintered bronze, creating a built in pop/spit/dust guard. I don't even know what sintering IS! [Sintering is a method for making objects from powder, by heating the material (below its melting point - solid state sintering) until its particles adhere to each other. Sintering is traditionally used for manufacturing ceramic objects, and has also found uses in such fields as powder metallurgy. -- Ed.]
So how does this D202 sound?
Well, considering the amount of damage, not bad, and surprisingly the LF element is functional. I broke out some Aesop this time, instead of my usual Poe, and did a comparison between this Rocket, and my new dynamic sweet-heart the MD421-U-5. I recorded dry, directly to my FW410, approximately 3 inches from the grill/nose of each mic. I did compress in post, then mixed down to 320Kbps MP3.
MD421:
AKG D202:
Yup, this mic has NO PROXIMITY. I sound a lot thicker on the MD421 at this distance. Even though the low frequency element is working (I confirmed by rolling through the bass cut), I sound a little hollow. I think the D202 is a little closer to accurate, but reality is probably somewhere in between the 421 and the 202. Again, the MD421 shows what a champ it is dealing with plosives, the 202 suffering through almost as much as a naked SM57.
Off axis rejection was about equal surprisingly enough. That's pretty impressive considering the the D202's lack of proximity. I'm surpised we don't see more specialty mics using this process, as it works REALLY well. Could it be an issue of durability?
In all, I was surprised at how well the AKG did. Through scrapes, scuffs, and a big ole dent in the nose cone (probably from a fall that dented the bronze), it's still got a usable sound. I don't think it's particularly honest anymore, but as an effect mic, or on certain voices or instruments, it still delivers an interesting sound.
Two last notes.
I found the mic holder that I got with the M-Audio Aries is a PERFECT fit for the D202 if you're missing the original mic clip.
It's a beautiful day (windows wide open with 70 degree weather), Mrs. Audio Guy is outta town, and Biggs is being chill.
Let's play a little!
About two months before we moved, a reader of the blog sold me an old (OLD) used Sennheiser MD421-U-5. He was cleaning out his mic cabinet, and came across this old Senny, which he had purchased in the 90's, then just never really used. He was well stocked on SM7's and RE20's, so off this mic went. To me. For little more than the cost of shipping. Woot!
I don't know exactly how old it is, but it is a fairly early serial number for the U-5 (#2097, and I've seen serials as high 55,000 on ebay), so I'm thinking it was made in the early 80's or late 70's.
A little history, the MD421 is probably the microphone most responsible for Sennheiser having a presence in the US microphone market today. Thomas Schillinger sold 600 MD421's to NBC in the late 60's, getting the microphone into the hands of recording and broadcast engineers across the country, and to date, the MD421 (and it's updates) remains one of the highest selling microphones of all time.
I've NEVER used one before.
These days, the dynamic microphones of choice seem to be the Electrovoice RE20, or the Shure SM7B. Most VO pros I know go for those, a large diaphragm condenser, or Sennheiser's now ubiquitous shotgun, the MKH416.
I don't run a booth out of my home anymore, so I thought it would be fun to throw some kit out on the living room floor. I recorded a little Poe (you know me and Poe), and to compare I also recorded on another dynamic microphone, the Shure SM57 (my personal fave "do anything" mic). The recording chain was Microphone to ART Tube PAC to NRV10 to laptop. So how did it sound?
First up, this mic is QUIET. I plugged it into my preamp, and dialed up about 20dB of gain, and saw nothing. I had to hit the MD421 with 45dB of input for it to register my voice at a comfortable speaking level. By comparison the SM57 needed only 30dB of gain to match the output of the MD421. I've never had to do that before. I'm pretty confident I could scream myself mute into this thing and be NOWHERE near damaging the cartridge. The tone is pretty smooth, and I think it fattens up the bassier end of my thin little voice. From memory, I feel it exhibits more proximity effect than RE20's I've used. Good to know if you're going for an intense "trailer" sound. The SM57 did a much better job with off-axis rejection (picking up little surrounding noise except for what's directly in front of it), but the MD421 was certainly no slouch (remember I was recording 4 feet from an open window overlooking a fairly busy street in Studio City). Also, the MD421 was MUCH more tolerant of plosive b's and p's (a problem of mine), and something the SM57 can be a little fragile about. I feel I could comfortably use the 421 without a pop shield or sock.
I'm really excited about this mic. It probably wont see tons of action as I prefer condensers for most of my VO, but the times I need to record really loud sessions, this baby's going right up front to the top of my list. I'm this mic's third owner, and I'm really stoked to be giving it a good home!
The elusive quest for “warmth”.
First up, the packaging is a little slice of incredible. The flight case not only holds the mic, but also a travel pouch, the shock mount, a wind sock, and a two layer nylon pop screen. Included in the packaging is also a beginner's guide to recording (demonstrating proper mic placement for a variety of instruments), and a frequency response graph of YOUR specific microphone (I thought that was pretty cool).
It's very much like an SM57 in that respect. It's just very good at everything.
We decided on the MicThing over the Reflexion mostly because of price, being about $70 cheaper than the Reflexion. I don't think the build quality is quite as solid, but I do like that the Mic Thing is adjustable. You can take the screen's sides from perfectly flat to ninety degree angles forming a pretty tight box around the mic. One advantage of the adjustable sides is it makes it easier to use a music stand. We formed an "L" shape with the Mic Thing, the mic in the corner of the screen, and a concert music stand continuing on the flat end, so he could still read copy. I don't think this arrangement would be as easy with the Reflexion.
The SM Pro mic stand we ordered with the Mic Thing is formidable, and is easily one of the most rugged stands I've ever used. You can often find the two bundled for the same price as just the screen.
On the Reflexion the mic clip attaches from under the screen, and the depth (how far the mic is from the screen) is adjustable. With the SM Pro, the mic attaches to a boom that has to swing over the top of the screen. The closer the mic is to the screen, the higher the remainder of the boom swings up. It looks sloppy and is hard to adjust without swinging the mic around dangerously for minor adjustments. I think I'll recommend a two mic stand approach, one for the Mic Thing and a round base stand for the mic. I think this will make height and depth adjustments much easier and safer.
I'm the proud new owner of an RNP8380 and an RNC1773. To start breaking them in, I figured what better than setting them up against my old workhorse the ART Tube PAC. I picked my two Sennheiser mics for the shootout, an MKH416 P48 and an MD421u5.
Now what I said up at the top is totally valid though. This wasn't a fair test AT ALL. You can pick up an ART Tube PAC for around $100, but picking up BOTH an RNP and RNC will run you closer to $700. More expensive doesn't always mean better, but even giving the PAC the benefit of the doubt, the FMR combo is around three and a half times more expensive per channel.
I've been getting my hands on some really fun old mics. First the SM56, then the MD421-U-5, and now this AKG D202 "Rocket".
The D202 is an odd little duck. First manufactured in 1966 (I have no idea when this particular mic was made, as there are no serial numbers), it was AKG's first dual element microphone.
The mic's design SCREAMS 1960's. They don't call it "The Rocket" for nuthin. The vents in the tail are actually functional, aiding in low frequency accuracy, and the nose cone is made of sintered bronze, creating a built in pop/spit/dust guard. I don't even know what sintering IS! [Sintering is a method for making objects from powder, by heating the material (below its melting point - solid state sintering) until its particles adhere to each other. Sintering is traditionally used for manufacturing ceramic objects, and has also found uses in such fields as powder metallurgy. -- Ed.]
Again, the MD421 shows what a champ it is dealing with plosives, the 202 suffering through almost as much as a naked SM57.
About two months before we moved, a reader of the blog sold me an old (OLD) used Sennheiser MD421-U-5. He was cleaning out his mic cabinet, and came across this old Senny, which he had purchased in the 90's, then just never really used. He was well stocked on SM7's and RE20's, so off this mic went. To me. For little more than the cost of shipping. Woot!
I don't run a booth out of my home anymore, so I thought it would be fun to throw some kit out on the living room floor. I recorded a little Poe (you know me and Poe), and to compare I also recorded on another dynamic microphone, the Shure SM57 (my personal fave "do anything" mic). The recording chain was Microphone to ART Tube PAC to NRV10 to laptop.