To answer a few questions, I am looking to record an all acoustic album. Sounds to me like a condenser is what I'd like but unfortunately not what is available at this time, considering how I hear a lot of how cheap condensers all sound the same. Thing is, I am recording with my Zoom H4n and they have built-in condenser mics, I've used them and they pick up on everything, low background hum that you wouldn't notice so easily and what not. I've been told that they aren't suitable for a serious recording unless you want a lo-fi sound, that a standalone condenser would be another world of quality.
Think I might just try the built-in mics anyways and see what I can get out of Reaper. If those mics don't cut it then I'll maybe go for an SM57 or a decent condenser if I get the money by then.
I have heard that the built-in mics on the H4n are capable of a professional recording, though I'm sure a standalone good condenser would be better. Anyhow, gotta start somewhere.
Thank you for clarifying the purpose of your mic in your situation. While I'm not recording an album (it will be my next lifetime before I am good enough to do that), I did acquire 5 less than $160 condenser mics (both medium and large diameter diaphragms) and compared them with the dual small condenser mics built into my recently purchased Tascam DR40 recorder. The performance of these Tascam mics is probably VERY similar to those in your Zoom. There are several points I want to make for your benefit about this comparison:
1) The Tascam mics did very well compared to all the others. The average Joe might not be able to distinguish any difference. But realize that the diaphragms in the Zoom and Tascam mics are very small, probably 1/8th the size of large diaphragm mics.
2) The critical musician or discerning listener definitely WILL be able to distinguish the other stand alone condenser mics from NOT ONLY the Tascam built-ins, but from one another. If there were no differences in sound quality among the dozens of sub-$150 mics, you wouldn't see all the internet comparisons, discussions, and debates of those mics all over the place. There ARE differences. Many of their specs are different as well: Frequency response (range as well as +/-db throughout the range), sensitivity, noise, polar response and others. Here is a site that describes the function of each mic spec:
DPA Microphones :: How to read microphone specifications Unfortunately, some of the most useful specs are not provided for lower priced mics.
3) The slight differences you will hear between condensers manifest themselves in a variety of ways including more highs, a thinner or fuller overall sound, a sense of more or less presence or immediacy of sound or exaggerated "very lows" that pick up room rumble (I didn't have a shock mount on my test mics (except the AT2035), but the mic stand was on a concrete slab) - but some mics picked up the ambient rumble more than others..
4) Unless you have a VERY quiet room or a recording studio, I doubt that the noise floor specs of any of these $50 and up mics will be an issue or noticeable to 95% of your listeners. The room noise in even a reasonably quiet room will overwhelm any internal sound the mic generates. If you hear ANY traffic, ANY birds, ANY transformer hum, ANY talking from outside your recording space, the condenser will make that part of your performance.
Just for the record, the quietest mic of those I tested was the AT2035 (large diaphragm). The most sonically pleasing to me was the MXL Stereo (medium diaphragm; spatial presence due to stereo X?Y pickup). The one that emphasized the high mid-range and highs more was the AT2020 (medium diaphragm). The ones that sounded most neutral were the MCA SP1 (medium diaphragm) and the Tascam built ins (small diaphragm). I will be trying out a pair of CAD GXL 2200's (large diaphragm) shortly. I am listening through a pair of Grado headphones recording WAV files on my Tascam DR40.
