A Guitar And Gear Support Forum

I thought I had avoided it this time, but I ended up putting my foot in it by thinking about it too much, and watching too many review videos after I thought I had made up my mind.

I'm going to start doing voice-over/narration work, and I had a mic already that was suitable for this kind of work (Audio Technica AT2005USB), but yesterday, it started sketching out on me. I think I "fixed" it, but now I don't trust it not to happen again, so I hit the interwebs to do some mic research. I had been using USB, or combo XLR/USB mics since I hosted my radio show several years ago, because I would sometimes broadcast from remote locations, and didn't want to lug around a lot of outboard gear. I figured in order to avoid "option freeze", I'd limit my choices to those types of mics. But then I started thinking: Why do I need a USB mic?? XLR sounds better, and that's what I always use when I'm at home anyway. Plus the AT2005 is kinda long in the tooth, and there are better options for just a little more money if you can live without USB.

One requirement is that it HAS to be a dynamic mic. I live in an apartment, and condenser mics are way too sensitive. I have a condenser lav mic and that thing picks up passing cars, and my next-door neighbor's TV, and the kids playing down the street... And it's a LAV MIC! So condensers are out of the question. I also don't want to spend a crazy amount of money, so I'm not looking at any SM7Bs, or Neumanns, or anything over $200. You don't need a super-expensive mic to do voice-over work, and there are a lot of great sounding mics for $70-$150 (the Audio Technica I have sounds awesome and rejects all environmental noise, and it only costs $70). But the devil is in the details. Some mics are too gain-hungry and have a higher noise-floor, some are bad with plosives, some are bad with sibilance, some don't have good proximity effect, some have detailed highs, but muddy lows, some have tight lows, but harsh highs. You get what I mean... That's what starts to drive you nucking futs when comparing mics.

Here are the mics I've narrowed my choices down to, and their pros and cons:

Samson Q2U - This mic has developed a legendary reputation as a low-cost ($60) broadcast quality microphone, and I was pretty much settled on getting this one. I think it sounds better than the Audio Technica I have (and that mic sounds pretty good), but it's got some pretty pronounced sibilance. I know you can fix that in post with EQ, but I'm a firm believer in starting with a good signal and sweetening it, rather than starting with a naff signal and trying to fix it. Garbage in - garbage out, as the saying goes. I'm not saying the mic sounds like garbage, but the sibilance does bother me.

Shure MV7X - This is the XLR-only version of the MV7, and I think it sounds noticeably better than the MV7, but it just sounds "good". It doesn't knock my socks off (for the record: the SM7B doesn't really knock my socks off either, but I haven't heard it "in real life"). The most common comment you hear in reviews is that if you absolutely have to have a mic that looks like a broadcast mic, then it's a good choice, but there are some hand-held dynamic mics that sound better and cost less. I'm not going to be doing YouTube videos, so I don't care what it looks like, but it sounds a little better than the Q2U (less sibilance), and it's got good mids.

Samson Q9U[/i] - This is a fairly new release, and I think it's gunning for the MV7/SM7B market, but at $200, it costs $30 more than the Shure MV7X and it sounds pretty much the same. It only sounds marginally better than the Samson Q2U, and it costs $140 more. If the price were to drop about $50, I might consider it more.

sE Electronics V7/V7X - I found out about these mics last, and they're the reason I reconsidered my decision to get the Samson Q2U. I've never heard of this brand before, but the V7 is pretty much the toast of the town in all areas of recording (spoken word/singing/amp micing), and they have a broader frequency range than any dynamic mic I've ever seen. It's been said that they sound more like a condenser mic, but without the high sensitivity. The highs are very smooth and detailed, and the lows are tight, but it doesn't have much proximity effect (something that's useful for voice-over work). These mics are also very gain-hungry and I'm not sure what kind of noise-floor it has. No one has mentioned that as a problem, though, and my Zoom H4n Pro has good mic pre-amps, so I may not have to worry about that.

The V7X is marketed as an instrument mic, and it has more lows and better proximity effect, but plosives can be a problem (though it's said that can be fixed by putting the grille from a V7 on it, or adding more foam above the capsule). Also, these have a Super-Cardioid pattern, which means it will pick up more sound from the rear of the mic. Still, I'm kinda leaning towards these mics, as they seem to be a more all-around microphone, while the previous three aren't very well suited for amp micing, or recording acoustic instruments. If I've gotta buy a mic, it might as well be good at more than one thing.

Fluff is a big fan:



As with any sound gear, it's always a compromise of features/performance, and you can only tell so much from a YouTube video. It's impossible to tell what a mic's assets/liabilities are until you hear it with your own voice, in your own space, through your own gear. But I thought it would be interesting to see if anybody has any opinions about these mics, or if you have any suggestions for mics that I may not be aware of - at the risk of muddying the waters even more.

I use a variety of mics for different purposes, but for voice work, I always end up using my good old ElectroVoice PL20 that I've had since the late 80's. Today's RE20 is virtually the same mic. I don't think there is any magic to it, it just works great for that application. It seems to be a widely accepted choice for commercial work.

I'm moreso commenting to follow you on your journey in this more than anything.

I've wanted an SM7 for years for recording aggressive vocals but haven't been able to justify spending $400 on the mic plus another $100 for something like a cloud lifter for the level of recording I've been doing.

I do have a few cheap dynamic mics for jamming in the basement if the need ever arises (hasn't really, thanks to Covid), but I've been thinking of getting myself a decent mic in case I ever fill in with a group outside my main band. I'm not much of a singer, but I feel like I should at least have a gig-worthy mic to bring to the table. In my main band, a Shure Beta 58A is supplied to me and think it works well for my voice, so I figured I'd get one. I like it better than the usual SM58. That sE Electronics V7 is interesting to me, though, as it comes in cheaper. The way you describe it makes me think it might be more susceptible to feedback, though.

Please update us on your journey!

BatUtilityBelt wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 12:31 pm I use a variety of mics for different purposes, but for voice work, I always end up using my good old ElectroVoice PL20 that I've had since the late 80's. Today's RE20 is virtually the same mic. I don't think there is any magic to it, it just works great for that application. It seems to be a widely accepted choice for commercial work.

Yeah, Electro Voice makes great mics, and I'm sure I'd love to have one, but I can't justify spending more than $200 at this time. But when my wildly successful voice-over career takes off, they'll definitely be a brand to consider.

RockYoWorld wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:01 pm I'm moreso commenting to follow you on your journey in this more than anything.

I've wanted an SM7 for years for recording aggressive vocals but haven't been able to justify spending $400 on the mic plus another $100 for something like a cloud lifter for the level of recording I've been doing.

I do have a few cheap dynamic mics for jamming in the basement if the need ever arises (hasn't really, thanks to Covid), but I've been thinking of getting myself a decent mic in case I ever fill in with a group outside my main band. I'm not much of a singer, but I feel like I should at least have a gig-worthy mic to bring to the table. In my main band, a Shure Beta 58A is supplied to me and think it works well for my voice, so I figured I'd get one. I like it better than the usual SM58. That sE Electronics V7 is interesting to me, though, as it comes in cheaper. The way you describe it makes me think it might be more susceptible to feedback, though.

Please update us on your journey!

Honestly, even if I could justify spending $400, I don't think the SM7B would be my automatic, go-to choice. I've never heard my own voice through one, but I've listened to countless demos and comparisons of that mic and it just doesn't sound that magical, or special to me. It sounds good, yeah, but I think there are mics that sound just as good, if not better for less money. Also the weak output turns me off too... That mic needs a lot of power, and I don't think anything less than Cloudlifter or a pre-amp will do. I'm not saying I would never buy one, but I'm not one to immediately jump on a band-wagon, just because it's popular. At the $400 price-point, a lot of other options become available, like the aforementioned RE20. It doesn't look as sexy as the 7B (well, I guess that depends on what your thing is ), but I don't care about that. As with guitars, it turns out people buy microphoness with their eyes too.

Super cardioid mics can be susceptible to feedback if you have, say, a monitor that's pointing right at the rear lobe of the pattern (in which case, you don't have to move the mic very much to fix the problem), but in general, they're considered more feedback resistant than regular cardioid mics, due to the narrower range of sensitivity at the front, and better side rejection. But I suppose your own experience should allay your concerns... The Beta 58A that you like so well is a super-cardioid mic too . I don't think it's a really big concern for stage use. I've probably used super-cardioid mics any number of times on stage and not even realized it (I've never been in charge of microphones). The area of sensitivity is pretty small. I'm less concerned with feedback than I am with picking up extraneous environmental noises, but I don't know if I even need to worry about that. In the review below, I didn't hear any peaks in volume when he demonstrated the noise rejection in the back.

He became a big fan of this mic. It's the standard he uses to measure all other hand-held dynamics that he reviews.



In this video you can hear what the V7 sounds like compared to the Beta 58A (as well as a bunch of other mics):



My bigger concern (or conundrum) is that while I like the sound of the V7, I think it might be a little too bright and open-sounding for my voice. I like the more mid-forward sound and proximity effect of the V7X, but absolutely everybody says the plosives are a problem... and a pop filter alone won't be enough. Not a problem that can't be fixed with technique (speak off-axis), but I don't know if I want to have to be mindful of that all the time.

Speaking off-axis, as you say, is a habit that's pretty easy to adopt. From my experience, once you're doing it, you're doing it and you just never think about that anymore. Not just for spoken voice, I've gotten singers to get used to that (especially a few who apparently wanted to eat the microphone).

BatUtilityBelt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:14 am Speaking off-axis, as you say, is a habit that's pretty easy to adopt. From my experience, once you're doing it, you're doing it and you just never think about that anymore. Not just for spoken voice, I've gotten singers to get used to that (especially a few who apparently wanted to eat the microphone).

Yeah, I get it, but for spoken-word (and in my days of doing radio), I really relied on proximity effect. I think I have good mic technique. I don't eat it, or over-do the effect, but there's a point where my voice really "blooms", and I'm afraid I won't be able to get that speaking off-axis.

Here's an interesting hack... I've read about this, but I never heard what it sounded like. I could hear a difference (and guessed correctly in the blind comparison), but it's very slight. I really had to focus and listen intently.

Mossman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:29 am Yeah, I get it, but for spoken-word (and in my days of doing radio), I really relied on proximity effect. I think I have good mic technique. I don't eat it, or over-do the effect, but there's a point where my voice really "blooms", and I'm afraid I won't be able to get that speaking off-axis.

Ok, I think that's a pretty good hint then. If you like toying with proximity effect, you can definitely stay on the lower end price point, maybe just go for a vocal mic that suits your ear with maybe a spider mount and a good pop filter.

BatUtilityBelt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:37 am

Mossman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:29 am Yeah, I get it, but for spoken-word (and in my days of doing radio), I really relied on proximity effect. I think I have good mic technique. I don't eat it, or over-do the effect, but there's a point where my voice really "blooms", and I'm afraid I won't be able to get that speaking off-axis.

Ok, I think that's a pretty good hint then. If you like toying with proximity effect, you can definitely stay on the lower end price point, maybe just go for a vocal mic that suits your ear with maybe a spider mount and a good pop filter.

Honestly, I was perfectly happy with the $70 Audio Technica mic I already have - for voice-over work, anyway. I think it sounds really good for that, but @sabasgr68 has heard a number of recordings with that mic, so he can probably give you a more objective opinion. The only thing I didn't like about it was that it's pretty quiet. It's not a problem with the pre-amps in the Zoom H4n, but it's kinda useless with my interface. Even with a booster (Klark Teknik CT-1, not a Cloudlifter), I was just barely getting a usable level for tracking vocals. But when the mic had its near-death experience, that's what lit a fire under me to seriously start looking for another one.

But yeah, you don't need a top-tier mic to do voice-over work. You just need a mic that sounds good (with your voice) and has a low noise floor. The majority of the voice-over experts I follow on YouTube worked a sizeable chunk of their careers with $50-$200 mics, and say they could still use those mics in their work today and their quality wouldn't suffer at all. However, the brand name on your mic has a palpable effect on how clients judge your work, before you've recorded a single word. When you reach a certain level, prospective clients want to know what kind of gear you have, and it's hard to justify your higher rates if you're using a RODE Procaster, or a Blue Yeti into a 2i2 Scarlet, but that's really all you need.

It's kind of analogous to the guitar world. American Fenders and Gibsons are nice to have, but you can gig with Squiers and Epiphones and nobody in the audience will ever know the difference.

I would be tempted to try that SM58 mod. Sounds interesting.

I don't know much about voice overs but for cheap condensers mics I like the Rode NT1A.
Also I have purchased a few used Audio Technica 3035 between $65 to $99 on ebay. Nice mic. Made in Japan.
Focusrite Scarlett Interface.

Mossman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:36 am Honestly, I was perfectly happy with the $70 Audio Technica mic I already have - for voice-over work, anyway. I think it sounds really good for that, but @sabasgr68 has heard a number of recordings with that mic, so he can probably give you a more objective opinion. The only thing I didn't like about it was that it's pretty quiet. It's not a problem with the pre-amps in the Zoom H4n, but it's kinda useless with my interface. Even with a booster (Klark Teknik CT-1, not a Cloudlifter), I was just barely getting a usable level for tracking vocals.

Oh, yeah, that was something I was overlooking. The quality of the preamp being used can matter a ton. I take that for granted because I almost always run through a mixer because, well, I'm old and set in my ways a bit.

Mossman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:36 am

BatUtilityBelt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:37 am

Mossman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:29 am Yeah, I get it, but for spoken-word (and in my days of doing radio), I really relied on proximity effect. I think I have good mic technique. I don't eat it, or over-do the effect, but there's a point where my voice really "blooms", and I'm afraid I won't be able to get that speaking off-axis.

Ok, I think that's a pretty good hint then. If you like toying with proximity effect, you can definitely stay on the lower end price point, maybe just go for a vocal mic that suits your ear with maybe a spider mount and a good pop filter.

Honestly, I was perfectly happy with the $70 Audio Technica mic I already have - for voice-over work, anyway. I think it sounds really good for that, but @sabasgr68 has heard a number of recordings with that mic, so he can probably give you a more objective opinion. The only thing I didn't like about it was that it's pretty quiet. It's not a problem with the pre-amps in the Zoom H4n, but it's kinda useless with my interface. Even with a booster (Klark Teknik CT-1, not a Cloudlifter), I was just barely getting a usable level for tracking vocals. But when the mic had its near-death experience, that's what lit a fire under me to seriously start looking for another one.

But yeah, you don't need a top-tier mic to do voice-over work. You just need a mic that sounds good (with your voice) and has a low noise floor. The majority of the voice-over experts I follow on YouTube worked a sizeable chunk of their careers with $50-$200 mics, and say they could still use those mics in their work today and their quality wouldn't suffer at all. However, the brand name on your mic has a palpable effect on how clients judge your work, before you've recorded a single word. When you reach a certain level, prospective clients want to know what kind of gear you have, and it's hard to justify your higher rates if you're using a RODE Procaster, or a Blue Yeti into a 2i2 Scarlet, but that's really all you need.

It's kind of analogous to the guitar world. American Fenders and Gibsons are nice to have, but you can gig with Squiers and Epiphones and nobody in the audience will ever know the difference.

Well, to me, it sounded very good. Voice articulation could be well appreciated, and it didn´t sound muddy or dark at all. That´s what my untrained ears told me, at least.

adad wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:39 am I would be tempted to try that SM58 mod. Sounds interesting.

I don't know much about voice overs but for cheap condensers mics I like the Rode NT1A.
Also I have purchased a few used Audio Technica 3035 between $65 to $99 on ebay. Nice mic. Made in Japan.
Focusrite Scarlett Interface.

I almost want to buy a used SM58 just to try it. I always figured I was going to get one eventually... But if I do that, I guess I'll have to buy two, so I can have one that's unmodified.

There's no way I can use condenser mics where I live. It's way too noisy. I bought a lav mic a while back, thinking I could use it for making guitar building/finishing videos, but even that little mic picks up the whole damn neighborhood.

BatUtilityBelt wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:25 am Oh, yeah, that was something I was overlooking. The quality of the preamp being used can matter a ton. I take that for granted because I almost always run through a mixer because, well, I'm old and set in my ways a bit.

I kinda took it for granted too. When I went shopping for my current interface (PreSonus Studio24c), I just assumed that whatever new one I got would necessarily have better pre-amps than my old interface (Lexicon Omega), because that thing was relatively ancient by the time I had to replace it. At the time, my thinking was that most decent interfaces were all pretty much the same. My primary areas of focus were: I/O, control placement, and the price vs quality ratio... Oh, and it had to have an honest-to-God meter on it... Not just a clip light, or a halo light (that's what put me off the Focusrite 2i2). I wish I had spent more time on the PreSonus forum before I bought the Studio24, though, because it was there that I later read complaints about its weak mic pre-amps. But I was in the middle of recording my bass cover of "Something" at the time, and the Omega was glitching out on me, so I was kind of in a hurry to replace it. In hind-sight, I wish I had bought a MOTU M2 instead. Everybody raves about the pre-amps in that thing, and it only costs $170... And it's got a screen instead of a meter!

But I can't say I really need it, because the pre-amps my H4n Pro kick ass. I'll just use that as my vocal interface (or record vocals directly on the device), and use the PreSonus for tracking instruments.

I considered getting a mixer, because that's what I'm most comfortable with too, and it would definitely have better pre-amps, but I just don't have enough room for one. I had an opportunity to buy a 16-channel Mackie board for $200. It was painful to turn it down.

sabasgr68 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:24 pm
Well, to me, it sounded very good. Voice articulation could be well appreciated, and it didn´t sound muddy or dark at all. That´s what my untrained ears told me, at least.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I hear too. It sounds like a broadcast mic to me. I wouldn't say anything crazy, like it sounds like an SM7B, or that it's super-versatile, but it's a great sounding mic for what it is... For what it's meant for (podcasting). I assumed that it would have been discontinued, or replaced by now, but I was surprised to find that they're still making them... Or maybe I'm not surprised.

BTW, a PSA for anyone who's interested... There's a "used" (customer return) Electro-Voice RE-320 on Pro Audio Star for $179:

https://www.proaudiostar.com/electro-voice-re-320.html

Regular price is $299.

I used Shure mics for most of my live musical needs for many many years. Started with a 58, then went to a 58 Beta, then went to a 57 Beta. I had occasion to use other brands, Samson, EV (I even own an EV 767 and it is a fine mic). Then I found the mic that dethroned all the rest. The Heil PR22 is now my go to mic. I do not see that ever changing. I am not sure you can still get them but if you can find one, do yourself a favor and get it.

tonebender wrote: ↑Thu Nov 18, 2021 5:56 pm I used Shure mics for most of my live musical needs for many many years. Started with a 58, then went to a 58 Beta, then went to a 57 Beta. I had occasion to use other brands, Samson, EV (I even own an EV 767 and it is a fine mic). Then I found the mic that dethroned all the rest. The Heil PR22 is now my go to mic. I do not see that ever changing. I am not sure you can still get them but if you can find one, do yourself a favor and get it.

I completely forgot about Heil... But to be honest, when you mentioned that name, I wanted to say: "Man, are you using a HAM radio mic for your vocals??"

They're still around... You got me curious and I went looking for them: https://heilsound.com/products/pr-22/. They sell direct from their website, so that's probably why you don't see them on Sweetwater, or GC (though you can buy them on Amazon). I watched a video where they compared a PR22 to a Beta 58A, and it made the Shure sound like a mud machine. It's a pretty toppy mic, though. When I looked at the frequency response graph on their website, I noticed it looked kinda hyped in the mids and highs.



Interesting fact: The owner; Bob Heil was the guy who designed the Grateful Dead's "Wall of Sound" PA system.

[edit]

There is not a single decent review/demo video for this mic on YouTube. There's only like six of them, and they all suck.

Out of curiosity, I also looked for Heil PR-22 reviews on YouTube and was disappointed in the quality of the videos. My favorite (worst) video was a phone video of people in a music shop singing into a Heil and then a Shure into a PA, all recorded as a phone video... Yeah, that helped...

BUT, I just got a $125 Amazon gift card today for being part of a product test group. With taxes, the sE Electronics V7 came to $123, so that's on its way. One less excuse for me to work on original music.

RockYoWorld wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:19 am Out of curiosity, I also looked for Heil PR-22 reviews on YouTube and was disappointed in the quality of the videos. My favorite (worst) video was a phone video of people in a music shop singing into a Heil and then a Shure into a PA, all recorded as a phone video... Yeah, that helped...

BUT, I just got a $125 Amazon gift card today for being part of a product test group. With taxes, the sE Electronics V7 came to $123, so that's on its way. One less excuse for me to work on original music.

Yeah, most of those videos were made in the early years of YouTube, before anybody knew what a product review was supposed to be, and all they had were shitty 3MP phone cameras and web-cams back then. I eventually went searching for print reviews, and got lots of conflicting information. Some people say it's the best mic ever, while other say it's worst mic they've ever used. Some complain that it's too bright, while others complained that it has too much bass. Some said it's the only mic that doesn't need any EQ in post, while others said it needs lots of EQ. The only thing I could reckon out for true was that Bob Heil doesn't use a high-pass filter in his microphones (some people mod them by adding a capacitor). It looks like Heil is trying to give you ALL frequencies, all the time (with a push in the high mids and highs). They're also low-output... Starts at -55db and peaks at about -43db. The neodymium magnet in the sE V7 gives it stronger output. It also has a flatter frequency response.



I've also gotten my head around the noise rejection profiles of the various polar patterns, and while I was doubtful about using a super-cardioid mic at first, it seems that they're much better at noise rejection than a regular cardioid mic (230° of rejection vs 180°).

I'm pretty sure I'm gonna pull the trigger on the V7 too.

Mossman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 12:33 pm


I've also gotten my head around the noise rejection profiles of the various polar patterns, and while I was doubtful about using a super-cardioid mic at first, it seems that they're much better at noise rejection than a regular cardioid mic (230° of rejection vs 180°).

I'm pretty sure I'm gonna pull the trigger on the V7 too.

V7 buds!!! I also like getting gear that's just a little different from the norm in the local scene to keep things fresh. For instance, I use Westone IEM while the rest of my band uses Shure. I have nothing against Shure, but I felt like I got more bang for buck with my Westone UM Pro 30 and now UM Pro 50 sets than the Shure counterparts (for the price, at least).

Also, refering to the noise rejection profiles, it took me a while to realize that they must assume symmetrical response per frequency on the plot (may even have the data to back it up). I was confused that I could only find colors on one side of the plot.

RockYoWorld wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:53 pm
V7 buds!!! I also like getting gear that's just a little different from the norm in the local scene to keep things fresh. For instance, I use Westone IEM while the rest of my band uses Shure. I have nothing against Shure, but I felt like I got more bang for buck with my Westone UM Pro 30 and now UM Pro 50 sets than the Shure counterparts (for the price, at least).

We are now... Just ordered mine a few minutes ago. But it cost me $5.00 more (awesome California sales tax).

I know how you feel... I don't like to follow the crowd. I never automatically go for the most popular option. Often times, I find that if I do a little research, I come across alternatives that suit my needs better, or are just better in general than the one that's getting all the love online. Sometimes I do end up buying the popular favorite, but not until I've examined all my options.

RockYoWorld wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:53 pm Also, refering to the noise rejection profiles, it took me a while to realize that they must assume symmetrical response per frequency on the plot (may even have the data to back it up). I was confused that I could only find colors on one side of the plot.

I'm also kinda confused by that V7 polar pattern graph with the different frequencies indicated, but after seeing the noise rejection demonstrated in review videos, I'm not going to think about it too much.

Mossman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:08 pm I'm also kinda confused by that V7 polar pattern graph with the different frequencies indicated, but after seeing the noise rejection demonstrated in review videos, I'm not going to think about it too much.

Once I realized that frequencies are only shown on EITHER the left or right side of the plot, it makes complete sense to me, but the fact that it confuses you makes me wonder if I truly understand it, lol.

RockYoWorld wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:39 am

Mossman wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:08 pm I'm also kinda confused by that V7 polar pattern graph with the different frequencies indicated, but after seeing the noise rejection demonstrated in review videos, I'm not going to think about it too much.

Once I realized that frequencies are only shown on EITHER the left or right side of the plot, it makes complete sense to me, but the fact that it confuses you makes me wonder if I truly understand it, lol.

Haha... Don't go by my understanding of it. I'm no mic expert. In fact, I've never gone this deep in the technical details before. Until now, all I really knew about microphones were the different types, and a cursory understanding of polar patterns.

I didn't see this diagram as a noise rejection profile, I saw it as a sensitivity graph, and I don't understand why certain frequencies are represented on one side of the polar pattern and not the other.



This graph for the Heil PR-22 illustrates it more clearly (the red line is the noise rejection profile), and it's in terms of decibels.



It does a very good job at noise rejection, but it's a cardioid mic, so it's only very good for 180°, or from the half-way point down, where a super-cardioid's noise rejection starts higher up (230°, I think). That's what I meant about "getting my head around" the profiles. At first, I didn't understand why everyone said a super-cardioid mic has superior noise rejection, and is preferable for the stage, because of its rear-ward lobe of sensitivity, but what I didn't realize is that the area of sensitivity is more focused with a super-cardioid, and that rear lobe isn't really much to be worried about.

Maybe you could explain to me the frequency graph of the V7's polar pattern?

I have no hands-on knowledge of USB mics, nor have I been following them. However I have a bunch of old and new mics, some very nice like my 1969 Neumann U87.

I can tell you that most mics available today are very close clone copies. For example, my AKG P220 capsule and pre-amp circuit are exactly like my U87. The difference? Better transformer, hand-picked components and more gold sputtering on the Mylar diaphragm on the Numann - making it better than the AKG P220. But not 20x the price better.

So my recommendation to you is price doesn't equal performance and buy one that seems to fit your need, with a good return policy. I think the choice is hard, because affordable mics are so much better today than they were, pre-2000's.

andrewsrea wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:57 am I have no hands-on knowledge of USB mics, nor have I been following them. However I have a bunch of old and new mics, some very nice like my 1969 Neumann U87.

I can tell you that most mics available today are very close clone copies. For example, my AKG P220 capsule and pre-amp circuit are exactly like my U87. The difference? Better transformer, hand-picked components and more gold sputtering on the Mylar diaphragm on the Numann - making it better than the AKG P220. But not 20x the price better.

So my recommendation to you is price doesn't equal performance and buy one that seems to fit your need, with a good return policy. I think the choice is hard, because affordable mics are so much better today than they were, pre-2000's.

I think there's better options now than there were even 10 years ago. I'm leaving USB mics behind, though. Not that they're necessarily bad, but they made more sense when I was doing an online radio show (2010-2013). I didn't want to have to go through a lot of trial and error, and have to deal with pre-amps and what-not. I also thought it would be better to have a USB mic if I had to do my show from a remote location (which I did occasionally), but your choices are limited with USB mics, and an XLR mic (or at least a combo XLR/USB mic) can be used in more situations.

As I alluded to in a previous post; I don't think anybody needs an SM7B, or an RE-20, since there are so many lower-cost options that sound good too. All I really care about is if it makes my voice sound good (well, and build quality, durability, etc.). I won't lay awake at night worrying about whether a $400 mic will make me sound 1% "better".

Mossman wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:59 am
I didn't see this diagram as a noise rejection profile, I saw it as a sensitivity graph, and I don't understand why certain frequencies are represented on one side of the polar pattern and not the other.

First of all, I'm no microphone expert either, and using my engineering background to feel confident when looking at plots can have a hubris that can lead to me not understanding things correctly. Also, you probably already understand much of this, but I'm just throwing it out there to show my thought process.

In my opinion, sensitivity and noise rejection are the same thing, but just an inverse perspective. A frequency response curve should show the output of frequencies from a certain angle. The bottom plots that show 360° just shows a few select frequencies at all angles. In a way, the two plots swap the independent variable of the plot. On the frequency response plot on top, the angle is held constant for a sweep of frequencies while the bottom plot show multiple constant frequencies with varying angles. It's no surprise that lower frequencies are more omni-directional. It's the same idea, but backwards, as subwoofers not needing to directed anywhere specifically.