I need to get a boom mic. I know nothing about them. I would like to get something decent for under $1000 any recommendations? I also need boompole and maybe a stand. This is mainly for interviews.

Thank you
Kathy

I need to get a boom mic. I know nothing about them. I would like to get something decent for under $1000 any recommendations?

Interiors or exteriors? People typically (there are exceptions) use shotguns for exterior work because of the way interference tube mics handle quick reflections (which are largely absent outside). For interiors, where there are close walls/ceilings, people typically use hypercardioids.

Since you are talking about a boompole and stand, and interviews, I'm assuming the subject is seated and interior. Two mics come to mind that are under $1000 USD. The AT4053b, and the Audix SCX1/HC. I have and use the AT4053B in exactly this duty, and it does a fine job.

Interiors or exteriors? People typically (there are exceptions) use shotguns for exterior work because of the way interference tube mics handle quick reflections (which are largely absent outside). For interiors, where there are close walls/ceilings, people typically use hypercardioids.

Since you are talking about a boompole and stand, and interviews, I'm assuming the subject is seated and interior. Two mics come to mind that are under $1000 USD. The AT4053b, and the Audix SCX1/HC. I have and use the AT4053B in exactly this duty, and it does a fine job.

Bruce, I was hoping to use it for both interiors and exteriors.

Broadcasters here tend to use 416's, in hairy covers over zeppelins with at the low cost end, the Rode boom pole. AT make some nice alternatives that are cheaper.

Don't forget to budget for decent headphones - most mistakes with booming come from the person with the boom not being able to hear what the mic hears - and it's essential.

If I wave a boom indoors, then I'll probably still use the 416, although loads of members here would consider that a huge mistake, and scream that a hypercardioid is the correct tool. Maybe it is without headphones, aiming by eye only?

However, for interviews - particularly seated interviews - a couple of clip on omni labs makes for better sound in most cases.

Bruce, I was hoping to use it for both interiors and exteriors.

Well, you can of course. If I were only going to have one for both inside and outside sit-down interviews it would still be a hyper.

The problem is keeping the talent inside the mic's pattern. If you have them in a chair (hopefully no reclining, swiveling, rolling around, or rocking, so just a dumb old upholstered club chair or the equivalent) then a hyper on a c-stand usually has sufficient size pattern that they can't get out of it without making an effort. And most people on camera won't wiggle around quite that much.

If you use a shotgun however, the pattern is smaller. So even outside, I would still want to use a hyper for a sit-down interview without an active boom op.

If the talent can get up and roam about, all bets are off. In that case, lacking a boom op you'll want to wire talent with a lav, inside or outside. If you have a boom op, a shotgun mic becomes much more desirable, especially outside.

Exteriors are going to require wind protection for c-stand mounted or actively boomed mics. So don't forget to include at least a slip on furry in your plans.

Broadcasters here tend to use 416's, in hairy covers over zeppelins with at the low cost end, the Rode boom pole. AT make some nice alternatives that are cheaper.

Don't forget to budget for decent headphones - most mistakes with booming come from the person with the boom not being able to hear what the mic hears - and it's essential.

If I wave a boom indoors, then I'll probably still use the 416, although loads of members here would consider that a huge mistake, and scream that a hypercardioid is the correct tool. Maybe it is without headphones, aiming by eye only?

However, for interviews - particularly seated interviews - a couple of clip on omni labs makes for better sound in most cases.
Would Sennheiser HD 280 Pro be considered decent?

Well, you can of course. If I were only going to have one for both inside and outside sit-down interviews it would still be a hyper.

The problem is keeping the talent inside the mic's pattern. If you have them in a chair (hopefully no reclining, swiveling, rolling around, or rocking, so just a dumb old upholstered club chair or the equivalent) then a hyper on a c-stand usually has sufficient size pattern that they can't get out of it without making an effort. And most people on camera won't wiggle around quite that much.

If you use a shotgun however, the pattern is smaller. So even outside, I would still want to use a hyper for a sit-down interview without an active boom op.

If the talent can get up and roam about, all bets are off. In that case, lacking a boom op you'll want to wire talent with a lav, inside or outside. If you have a boom op, a shotgun mic becomes much more desirable, especially outside.

Exteriors are going to require wind protection for c-stand mounted or actively boomed mics. So don't forget to include at least a slip on furry in your plans.

I already have a lav for the situations where the talent needs to roam around. OK so hypercordioid mic should work for indoors and outdoors. I will take a look at AT4053b and Audix SCX1/HC. Thanks

For headphones the Sennheiser HD 280 Pro or Sony MDR-7506 are the main, $100 choices. The Sennheiser is a bit more accurate to my ears. The Sony cuts through the noise a bit better. For pure monitoring, I would choose the Sony cans. If you sometimes do midnight mixing, I'd go for the Senheiser pair.

For mics in the $1,000 budget range (sort of) indoors or out, there are two options that I prefer:

* The Sanken CS3e is a unique shotgun that rolls off highs, mids, and lows at about the same rate as you go off axis and has a very small rear lobe. That makes it good indoors or out. The acceptance angle is fairly narrow, so it requires good technique. It's a bit over budget at $1,450 or so, but would be a no-regrets keeper.

* The Rode NTG-3 has very similar performance (though not identical) to a 416 at a lower price. Couple this with an Audio-Technica AT4053b and you will have outdoor and indoor solutions. This costs about $1,300, so it's a bit closer to your budget, but still over.

And then there's wind protection, the boom, the shock mount, headphones...

The main difference between the above choices is that the Sanken is a top-tier choice. The Rode and AT are very good, 2nd tier mics. This might come down to personality and future plans. Are you the type of person who isn't satisfied with 2nd best? Do you plan to hire out audio services? If so, get top equipment. Do you just need to get the job done? Then go for the second tier. It will still sound very good (assuming good technique.)

An alternate shotgun would be the NTG-1. At $250, you can couple it with the AT4053b for about $850. I don't know of a good, cheaper indoor mic than the AT4053b (the AKG alternative has low gain, I tried a cheaper off-brand mic with great paper specs for kicks, but it's way, way too noisy.)

I need to get a boom mic. I know nothing about them. I would like to get something decent for under $1000 any recommendations? I also need boompole and maybe a stand. This is mainly for interviews.


What do you mean by a "boom mic."?

Almost any mic. can be used on a boom.

Also - what do you mean by a "boom pole"?

A "boom arm" is normally fitted to a microphone stand a hand-held boom is normally called a "fishpole".

Sorry, seem to be wearing my pedant's hat today.

Mr. Willett,

Forgive me, but I'm going to come to the defense of the OP.

It's pretty clear to me that the OP is looking for a mic that will be appropriate to use on a boom, mostly for recording interviews. She is trying to narrow down her search and eliminate "almost any mic." (your words) that would not be appropriate in this situation. Further clarification appears as the thread evolves.

If I enter "boompole" in the B & H search engine, I get 173 results. I looked at the first 24 results, and every one of them used either the term "Boom Pole" or "Boompole." Only one of the 24 also used the term "fishpole" so it seems that B & H, at least, think "boom pole" is acceptable terminology.

Of course the OP does say the stand is optional, so she may indeed want a boom arm to go with the [optional] stand. She'll have to decide where she stands (sorry, pun intended) on that decision.

With all due respect, I'm a bit surprised to see you wearing that hat. You are usually quite cordial and helpful. (Moreso than I am, truth be told.) I hope your day gets better as it evolves. ;-)

Cheers!

Is your $1000 budget for just the mic, or the whole setup with shockmount, boompole and wind protection?

I'm a pretty big fan of the AKG Blue mics also for about 500 for the mic it leaves you some money for the rest of your set up. I know they are used on the TV show Ax Men.

AKG Blue Line Series Hypercardioid Microphone Kit B&H Photo

I've been using the AKG Blueline CE300/CK93 Hyper for many years now as my general use goto mic. It lives on my primary camera and for indoor run N' gun it's great. For outdoor work it's more than passable. I've had it on a stationary boom stand and an operator boom (fishpole). It has never let me down. Plus there are other capsules available for it so one CE300 becomes very versatile plus it's not a bank breaker.

Small Diaphragm Condenser | B&H Photo Video (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_AKG&ci=14703&N=4028759635+4291628428)

IMO great value for dollar spent.

One consideration with the AKG CK93 vs. the AT4093b is that the AKG Blue Line is roughly half as sensitive (10 mV) as the Audio Technica hypercardioid (19.9 mV). Put another way, the AT has 34 dB sensitivity (pretty good), while the AKG has about -40 dB sensitivity (on the low side). The bottom line is that a less sensitive microphone puts a premium on the quality of your preamp/recorder.

That's the main reason I'd lean toward the AT4093b - it's more sensitive. I'd love to see/hear a proper shootout between the mics though. The specs only tell you so much.

Case in point: For kicks, I bought an Avantone Pro CK-1 on sale for $99. It comes with multiple capsules, a suspension mount, a wooden case, and it has a nice red finish. Based on the specs, it competes head to head with the AT4093b. But in the real world, it's noisy as heck. Normally, in a reflective environment, one would choose a hypercardioid over any shotgun or cardioid mic. In this case, I'd choose any decent mid-range mic over the Avantone even inside a big glass ball. Yes, it's that noisy. I guess I can use it as a door stop or something. :) (On the other hand, I might try replacing the internal op amp with a high quality part. For all I know, it might become the killer budget hyper!)

Jon,
It would be great if there were a real test of the various mics available (at least the typically bought and used mics) be it shotgun, hyper, or lav. Sort of like the tests that Ty Ford had done a few years ago.
That would save a lot of people a lot of "hair pulling out" and at least give people a starting point.

Agreed Don! I wish I had the time...

Fortunately, we have many people here who are successfully using a variety of mics:
- The 416 has been used by too many to count!
- John Willett stands by the newer generation of Sennheisers, including the MKH-8060.
- I've played with the Sanken CS3e and others here own it and love it.
- The Schoeps CMC641 is widely regarded as the king of indoor mics. (And their active shotgun is likely the king of outdoor mics, though I don't know if anybody here owns one - they're pricey!
- Many use and like the AT4053b for indoor use.
- Many use and like the AKG Blue Line for indoor use.
- I have yet to see any consensus beyond the three above for indoor dialog.
- The Rode NTG3 is well regarded. I've heard detailed tests where it compares well with the 416.
- The Rode NTG1 and NTG2 are solid, budget choices. They might not match the NTG3, 416, 8060, and CS3e, but they deliver credible results.
- The Avantone Pro CK-1 does not deliver credible results. ;)

Of all the comparisons, I'd most like to hear an AT4053b vs. AKG Blue Line shootout. Both are viable. The AKG is a bit cheaper; the AT a bit hotter. I have no idea how the sound compares, but it seems you can't go wrong with either.

FWIW, indoors, I generally use a COS-11D lav. I love the sound, and you can generally get it closer than one can with a boom - without a separate boom operator. For reflective environments, I use moving blankets on C-stands. Rather than choose the mic for a crummy environment, one can often improve the environment. :)

Jon, maybe your post could be a sticky. You've put a bunch of good information in it and frankly if people would take a few minutes to search a little bit they'd find most of the information they're looking for. At least enough to help them narrow down their search for new gear so the questions that are asked can be more specific.
Anyway, yeah I prefer a lav for most of the interviews or if I'm lucky enough to have talent I'll give them a Shure SM63 to do interviews with. I love the look of the mic and the sound quality hits my ears just right plus you don't have to "eat" the mic for it to sound good. It's worked very well for me over the years even on the floor of trade shows. I'll use the good old SM58 if it's an extremely noisey enviorment like a manufacturing plant IF there's talent handling it otherwise it's the lav. I use Countryman EMWs with a Tram windscreen since the EMW and Tram50 are shaped the same. the Tram is a bit thicker but I make the windscreen work. It way better than the Countryman screen.

"If you use a shotgun however, the pattern is smaller."

Not exactly in my experience. A shotgun with an interference tube may have a tight HF pattern, but the middle and low frequencies are a lot more omnidirectional.

Outside, that lets all sorts of off-axis noise get into the audio and it's usually not very pretty because of the edges of the pattern.

Regards,

Ty Ford

I have found the AT875R to be a good compromise between a full shotgun and a hyper and they have become my stock mic for use on all sorts of projects usually fitted in a rode PG2 grip with W/S6 softie.

I also use the term boom pole rather than fish pole but as John says you can put whatever you wish on the end of a pole to capture audio.

I personally use gitzo carbon fibre poles with the above as tey are compact and lightweight.

Indeed I have used everything from a fisher boom with a neuman U87 all the way through to a sony ecm77 on the end of a telescopic RF aerial!

"If you use a shotgun however, the pattern is smaller."

Not exactly in my experience. A shotgun with an interference tube may have a tight HF pattern, but the middle and low frequencies are a lot more omnidirectional.

Not disputing that. What I'm saying is that it's easier to get out of the "sweet spot" with the tighter pattern from a shotgun. And when the speaker gets out of the sweet spot, it's usually quite audible, and not in a good way.

a sony ecm77 on the end of a telescopic RF aerial!

I like that kind of thinking! In fact that plays into a question that I may post within the next few days.

I have found the AT875R to be a good compromise between a full shotgun and a hyper and they have become my stock mic for use on all sorts of projects usually fitted in a rode PG2 grip with W/S6 softie.

I also use the term boom pole rather than fish pole but as John says you can put whatever you wish on the end of a pole to capture audio.

I personally use gitzo carbon fibre poles with the above as tey are compact and lightweight.

Indeed I have used everything from a fisher boom with a neuman U87 all the way through to a sony ecm77 on the end of a telescopic RF aerial!

I've had great results with my AT897, too. It's no Neumann, but definitely a good mic for the price.

Good point about the less expensive AT shotguns:

- The AT875R is one of the most sensitive (-30dB) budget mics. It's a very short shotgun that some recommend for indoor use. This might be the best entry level mic as the pattern is wide, so it's forgiving, it can be used indoors for sub-pro, high-amateur use, and its high sensitivity means that it's effective with lower cost preamps and recorders.
- The AT897 is a popular inexpensive shotgun that competes with the Rode NTG1 and NTG2. From the specs the AT897 is less sensitive (-40dB vs -36db) than the Rodes and the pattern is a bit tighter. I haven't compared them head to head.
- The AT815b is a long shotgun (I own one) that has strong lobes and a so-so frequency response. For outdoor use only. It has been replaced by the AT8015. The sensitivity of these mics is on the low side (-39dB).

Of these, the AT875R is the most interesting. One could start with it and keep it around as an emergency backup for indoor or outdoor use after upgrading to better equipment. I'd personally skip the AT815b and AT8015, though this might just be that I'm quite familiar with its flaws. I've heard nice examples with the NTG1 and its higher sensitivity and my experience with the AT long shotgun make me prefer the Rode.

Another mic in my kit is the Rode NT1A. It's a big, heavy, large condenser, cardioid studio mic that is cheap, sounds good, and has super low noise. It's perfect for recording very quiet Foley like pin drops. It's not super sweet for vocals and can sound bad when driven too hard, but for quiet, non-vocal stuff it's imperfect frequency response and poor THD at high levels don't matter. The low noise and low price are the killer features of this mic. Don't expect to put it on a "fishpole" though. This is for mic stand use only. It can also be used for voiceovers, though there are better options at higher prices.

I have also had good results with the AT875r. B&H currently offers a complete aluminum boompole kit featuring this mic with shockmount, wind protection, carry case and other accessories for $553 (which also allows for a $70 discount on the purchase of a Tascam DR-60D).

My current best hypercardioid for boom use is the AKG C480b/CK63. Unfortunately it's current price is $1058, much higher than the high $700's to low $800's back when I purchased mine. After I got the CK63, I didn't use my AT4053a anymore and eventually sold it.

Other AT mics that I use frequently are the AT4073 in a blimp and the newer design AT4021 cardioid.
The AT4021 has very low self-noise, high sensitivity and a flatter frequency response in the low end than my AT4053a had. Even though it's a cardioid I plan to use it on a long boom soon just to test it out. The $350 price is attractive too for situations where a very clean cardioid on a regular mic boomstand is warranted.

I haven't tried the Blue Line, or the Rode NTG-1, -2 or -3. I do like the sound of my AT897 if connecting to good preamps. It's on a boomstand in the studio connected to a rackmount preamp and hasn't been out in the field since 2008.

Is your $1000 budget for just the mic, or the whole setup with shockmount, boompole and wind protection?
The budget is for the whole set up.

Kathy, looking back at your first post, I see that this is mainly for interviews. If so, have you considered a lav?

In some respects, there is a parallel between lavs/boom-mics and headphones/monitors. You can spend thousands of dollars for great monitors and great boom mics. On the other hand, you can get best-of-class headphones and lavs for a few hundred bucks. Of course, for a fully-featured audio kit, you want all of the above, but on a budget, it's nice when you can buy products that are truly keepers that never need an upgrade.

For example, best of class outdoor mics (Sennheiser 70, 60, 8070, 8060; Sanken CS3e, Schoeps), you're looking at $1,000+ if not significantly more, plus pole and wind protection.

For indoor mics, the Schoeps CMC641 costs nearly $2k.

But for lavs, you can get a Sanken COS-11D with XLR output for under $500 and the highest price for an in-stock lav on the entire B&H site is under $650. I have a couple of Sankens, and they sound absolutely great to my ears.

But there are some pros and cons with lavs:

1) They're okay in outdoor conditions, but can't match mic in a nice blimp. On the other hand, for extreme weather, one could choose an omni handheld mic like newscasters use in hurricanes. That generally requires an on-screen interviewer, but the mic won't cost $1k+ and will perform great.

2) They take a bit of time to set up. You might need to string the cable through clothing. Then again, you don't need a dedicated boom operator.

3) If the talent moves, the mic moves with them, which is good. However, if the talent turns their head, the response goes down. So it's better than a mic on a fixed stand but not as good as a mic and dedicated operator.

4) If you use a wireless transmitter or put the recorder on the talent, the talent can walk freely and you can capture good dialog even with a wide shot.

5) Indoors, a lav won't sound "bad" (as can a lobar shotgun), but it will pick up more room reflections than would a hypercardioid. I find this to be acceptable in reasonably dead (carpeted) areas. If there are hard surfaces, such as large windows, this can be an issue. Putting moving blankets on C-stands is a great solution for taming bad reflections. In general a lav in a reflective room with well-placed blankets is better than a hyper in the same room without the blankets. The hyper doesn't remove the "bounce"; it just reduces the volume of the "bounce". If the reverberation sounds bad (like a clear delay), no mic will fix it.

Anyway, a great lav (or pair of lavs) might be the better interview solution than a so-so boom mic. Not needing to place a stand, hire an operator, and worry about casting shadows or being in the frame are all nice, practical advantages.

Another point about lavs. Sometimes you pay more for miniaturization than you do for great sound. There are examples of companies cheaper but larger mics sounding better than their more expensive, tiny mics. A larger capsule is better able to pick up bass.

For instance, the Countryman E6 is a tiny, head worn mic. The advantages are that they are tiny, can be placed VERY close to the mouth, and will get a consistent signal no matter how the user moves their head. The downside is that they have virtually no bass. I really can't stand the sound of them as the speaker sounds unnaturally thin. I don't know if that's because of the size of the capsule or if it's to avoid plosives. In any case, this is a clear example of paying for extreme miniaturization over sound quality.

Kathy, looking back at your first post, I see that this is mainly for interviews. If so, have you considered a lav?

In some respects, there is a parallel between lavs/boom-mics and headphones/monitors. You can spend thousands of dollars for great monitors and great boom mics. On the other hand, you can get best-of-class headphones and lavs for a few hundred bucks. Of course, for a fully-featured audio kit, you want all of the above, but on a budget, it's nice when you can buy products that are truly keepers that never need an upgrade.

For example, best of class outdoor mics (Sennheiser 70, 60, 8070, 8060; Sanken CS3e, Schoeps), you're looking at $1,000+ if not significantly more, plus pole and wind protection.

For indoor mics, the Schoeps CMC641 costs nearly $2k.

But for lavs, you can get a Sanken COS-11D with XLR output for under $500 and the highest price for an in-stock lav on the entire B&H site is under $650. I have a couple of Sankens, and they sound absolutely great to my ears.

But there are some pros and cons with lavs:

1) They're okay in outdoor conditions, but can't match mic in a nice blimp. On the other hand, for extreme weather, one could choose an omni handheld mic like newscasters use in hurricanes. That generally requires an on-screen interviewer, but the mic won't cost $1k+ and will perform great.

2) They take a bit of time to set up. You might need to string the cable through clothing. Then again, you don't need a dedicated boom operator.

3) If the talent moves, the mic moves with them, which is good. However, if the talent turns their head, the response goes down. So it's better than a mic on a fixed stand but not as good as a mic and dedicated operator.

4) If you use a wireless transmitter or put the recorder on the talent, the talent can walk freely and you can capture good dialog even with a wide shot.

5) Indoors, a lav won't sound "bad" (as can a lobar shotgun), but it will pick up more room reflections than would a hypercardioid. I find this to be acceptable in reasonably dead (carpeted) areas. If there are hard surfaces, such as large windows, this can be an issue. Putting moving blankets on C-stands is a great solution for taming bad reflections. In general a lav in a reflective room with well-placed blankets is better than a hyper in the same room without the blankets. The hyper doesn't remove the "bounce"; it just reduces the volume of the "bounce". If the reverberation sounds bad (like a clear delay), no mic will fix it.

Anyway, a great lav (or pair of lavs) might be the better interview solution than a so-so boom mic. Not needing to place a stand, hire an operator, and worry about casting shadows or being in the frame are all nice, practical advantages.
Jon,

I already have a lav (Sanken COS-11D). I need a boom mic for situations where I don't have time to properly implant the mic on the person.

Got it.

In that case, I'd probably put the AT4053b at the top of the list. It leaves enough change on the table for a nice boom pole and wind protection. I would assume that the majority of your interviews will be indoors and those that are outdoors would not be in the rain and harsh conditions. Unless the exterior is a very noisy environment or in bad weather, the AT4053b can do just fine outdoors.

Overall, I'd rather use an indoor mic outdoors than an outdoor mic indoors - except when water is involved.

The AKG Blue Line is the main alternative, but with a 6 dB lower output, it's more demanding of your preamp and recorder. If you are going into mid-level gear, I'd recommend the AT's hotter output.

Note that Sanken also makes a CS1e short shotgun, but unlike the CS3e it has a single element and traditional lobar design. The sound would match the COS-11D well, but that mic will have the classic room reverberation problem of other shotguns. But for outdoor work, this could be a consideration.

A few years ago at NAB, the Sanken rep noted that the CS1e is fairly forgiving in the hands of novice boom operators, due to its wide pattern. The CS3e has a much tighter spot and requires more skill. Note that the AT4053b also has a wider pattern and will be forgiving. Hotter signal levels also make mics more forgiving in that when the boom operator lets the mic drift away, you won't be fighting the noise in post quite so badly.

FWIW, here are some sensitivity numbers:
AKG Blue Line: 10 mV/Pa (-40 dB)
COS-11D: 17.8 mV/Pa (-35 dB)
AT4053b: 19.9 mV/Pa (-34 dB)
CS3e: 50 mV/Pa (-26 dB)
CS1e: 63mV/Pa (-24 dB - cookin'!)

With the sensitivity of the COS-11D and AT4053b so close, you could do a quick test with the lav on a pole to check the typical distances and the noise of your recordings through your system. Double the distance from the talent to simulate the AKG signal level.

I own and have used for several years, the AKG SE393 (SE300 power module with the CK93 hypercardioid capsule for those scoring at home). Recently at my place of employment, we bought an AT4053b. Upon reading this thread, I decided to run a quick comparison of the two. Now this IS DEFINITELY NOT a scientific lab test. I tried my best to place the mics in the same spot, but as I was using a single boom arm, it's possible they are millimeters different in their placement. I ran them both through a Sound Devices SD552 mixer and recorded to the internal recorder at 24-bit, 48kHz. I tried to match the recording levels on the mics as I recorded and came pretty darn close. I then brought them into Adobe Audition and brought their levels up about 10dB. (We just bought the SD552 and I need to learn it a bit better as I am getting great sound, but a little lower levels than what I want so far. Thank goodness the pres on the SD552 are so quiet.) All the final files were saved at 16-bit, then Soundcloud does whatever it does to them. The link below will take you to a Soundcloud playlist with a number of files. The first are the two tracks with 10dB gain added, but no other processing. The ones with "wNR" in the name were run through the Noise Reduction processing of Audition, as you can hear in the raw tracks that the room we were using has a bit of a hum in it. And finally I created tracks, both with and without noise reduction where I used part of one file, then part of the other, then back to the first. The first person to correctly identify which mics are on which parts wins the admiration of all of us :>)

Like I said, not scientific, but I hope it's a useful comparison for people to hear a real-world head-to-head recording of both mics. Enjoy!

https://soundcloud.com/rob-neidig/sets/at4053-vs-akg-se393

Rob

Fantastic! Thanks, Rob!

As always, leveling two mics is nearly impossible as one will be louder in one frequency range while another is louder in another frequency range. And humans being humans, we will like the louder signal.

Also, my available amp and headphones at the moment are consumer grade.

Given those caveats, both mics sound very good. The AT sound a bit fuller and may be slightly "scooped" (high bass and treble with lower mids.) The highs are significantly brighter than the AKG. The AKG sounds a bit more natural but thinner as well.

Some notes on the EQ of mics: Don't forget that one can apply EQ in post. One can easily tamp down the highs on the AT to decrease the "sss" sounds and one can easily boost the fundamentals of the AKG to make it sound fuller. What is difficult is fine tuning anomalies in the mids and boosting frequencies that are very weak. Neither mic presents problems that can't be easily tuned with a couple minutes of post. One advantage of the strong high frequencies of the AT is that they will be reduced if you add wind protection. That would likely give an excellent out-of-the-box result. The AKG, on the other hand, has a weaker signal to start with. Add some boost to normalize and then add more highs to compensate for wind protection and one might start getting a bit of noise - especially when using a mid-quality preamp.

Another note about EQ: It's speaker dependent. One speaker might sound boomy and dull while another might sound thin, nasal or even shrill.

So, if I have to choose, I'd go with the AT (with a touch of EQ to reduce the highs), but I wouldn't hesitate to use the AKG (with a touch of EQ to boost the fundamentals.) The EQ adjustments are based on this speaker in this space at this distance using my crummy, available headphones, so the situation will vary. But I don't hear anything out of order.

One thing I like about both mics is that they have a bit of "sizzle" in the mids. They both deliver that slight edge that makes a voice pop through a mix. The COS-11D has this in spades. Both mics should intercut reasonably well with the COS-11D, though I think the slightly scooped sound of the AT is likely the better out-of-the-box match.

Thanks again, Rob. I've wanted to hear a head-to-head comparison of these mics for years. I can see (or hear) why people on DV Info like both mics.

I've given the slight edge to the AT. What's your take, Rob?

Jon,

Yes, my take is that is that the AT is slightly better. But I was actually a little surprised that it's only "slightly". I have been very pleased with the AKG SE393, but have always read good things about the AT4053 and heard a few samples that sounded good. Comparing them head-to-head, though, they are pretty similar, but with the differences you mentioned. I'm with you, I wouldn't hesitate to use either one, though if I had to pick just one, it would be the AT4053.

BTW - for those who record music as well as audio-for-video, both mics make great drum overheads. I have two and the CK91 cardioid capsules for the AKG as well. I sometimes use them for overheads (my primary OH pair are Audix scx-ones). I like using the CK93 hypercardioid when miking a hi-hat, however. The SE391 also sounds good when pointed at the 12th fret of an acoustic guitar.

I was also surprised at how slight the differences are. The specs say that the AKG is 6 dB quieter, but they seem much closer than that to the ear. Clearly, specs based on tests with 1 kHz signals tell a very limited story.

If the $100 difference is very dear, get the AKG - or better yet: buy the first one you can find used of either brand.

If you don't plan to use wind protection (often not needed indoors) and hate doing EQ, get the AKG. The AT is a bit sharp on "sss" sounds and really needs a high frequency cut that a blimp or EQ can deliver.

If you plan to use wind protection, go for the AT. The AKG seemed a bit weak in the highs and is quieter. The risk is that the result will seem dull without EQ or will be noisy with it.

If you have a cheap recorder or preamp, get the AT. Every dB counts. In my experience, sensitivity and low noise are more important than "the perfect sound" when it comes to mid-tier audio.

If a friend offers of you either mic, take it and say "thank you", without even checking which model mic was offered. :)