Mid priced microphone comparisons

[gorbyrun]

Microphone Shootout

Neumann KMS 105, Rode NT1, Oktava MK-319, CAD E-200, SM-81, SM-58

(10 is highest, 1 lowest… relative to other mics in group)

Loudness: (output level)
Rode (10)
CAD (9)
Oktava (8)
Neumann (5)
SM-81 (5)
SM-58 (4)

Brightness:
SM-58 (10)
CAD (9) (sometimes too bright)
Neuman (8)
Rode (8)
SM-81 (8) (same brightness as Rode & Neumann but less warm)
Oktava (6)

Mid range:
SM-81 (10)
Oktava (9)
Rode (7)
Neumann (6)
CAD (5)
SM-58 (4)

Low end:
SM-81 (10) (can be boomy)
Oktava (9)
Rhode (7)
CAD (7) but clearer than Rode
Neumann (5)
SM-58 (3)

Impressions:

Brightness:

This is a comparison of 6 popular microphones side by side. Comparisons were made with the Yamaha O2R’s stock microphone preamps. The Oktava-319 arrived today, hence this test.
First, there is a thin line between “air… magic-sparkle”, and “harsh… brittle”. The Shure SM-58 seemed the “brightest”, but this may because compared to the other mics it was lacking in all other frequency ranges. Of course the SM-58 is a dynamic stage mic and the others are studio condensers, but I thought it might make a familiar reference for anyone working in sound. The CAD E-200 is the brightest of the studio condensers, which is both good and bad. I have found the CAD to be “too” bright sometimes, sounding a bit harsh or brittle on my digital recording equipment. It would probably sound better on analog tape. I have found that a tube preamp make this mic sound much better.
The Rode NT1 probably has the best sounding top end. It is “airy” without being harsh.
The Neumann 105 also has a smooth top end, but it’s tight polar pattern limits the “openness” of it’s sound.
The SM-81’s top end is not as “bright” as the CAD, being closer to the Rode and Neumann, but it is not as smooth in the very high frequencies.
The Oktava’s had the least brightness of the group, but did not seem muffled.

Midrange:

The SM-81 is supposed to be a “flat” frequency response microphone… but, it sounds the most “midy” of the bunch.
The Oktava has a nice thick midrange.
The Rode does not seem to have quite as much mid as the Oktava, but it does have a more open top end.
The Neumann is a little less “midy” than the Rode, but I would not say lacking.
The CAD is also a “flat” microphone, the midrange response seems a little less than the other studio condensers, but this is hard to determine because of it’s bright top end.
The good old SM-58 had the least midrange response.

Low end:

The SM-81 had a pronounced low end compared to the others, it can sometimes sound “boomy”.
The Oktava low end is nice, fuller than normal, but not too boomy.
The Rhode had a bit less low end, than the Shure and Oktava, though not lacking.
The CAD has a balanced good sounding low end. It isn’t ever “boomy” and the low end is probably “clearest” on this mic.
The SM-58… well this isn’t really fair.

Obviously, different applications require different mics, I just thought these comparisons might be usefull to someone. I bought the Rode when they first came out, so I don't know if there is a difference in quality after the price drop... if they are still the same quality I think dollar for dollar it's the best vocal mic of the bunch. The SM-81 seems best on acoustic guitar. Female singers with great voices are sometimes best with the CAD. The Neumann is best for great sounding scratch vocals and live recording. The Oktava is new to me, but I exspect it to be good for sound sources with harsh top ends that need smoothened.

My studio web page is www.gorbyrun.com

Vegetable Rights and Peace:

Chaz

 

[crisdhunter]

cool!!

I'm surprised that there are no replies to this post yet.

I, for one, think it's a very insightful, nice job, thanks.

 

[Axis]

I wish i had these the only one i have is the 58

 

[Robert D]

I just got an NTK the other day. Before that I had been reaching for my Okatava 319 more often than not for vocals. The NTK is an awesome mic, and I wondered how I would feel about the 319 once I had the NTK. So, after I had satiated my ears with the wonderful sound of the NTK, I put up the Oktava, and was pleasently supprised at how much I still liked it. That's just a good mic, never mind the price.
Cheers, RD

 

[WATYF]

I'm stuck with just an SM58 too..

I have been looking at getting an Oktava 319 though... would you think that's a better mic than the NT1?

WATYF

 

[gorbyrun]

They are different. I have a lot of experience with the Rode, the Oktava is new to me. I used it on a singer yesterday that is difficult to record. It's hard to discribe, the upper characteristics of his voice are not as pleasing as his mid-high area. I usually use an eq (which I hate to do) to roll off the top of his voice to make it smoother and more even. The Oktava sounded much better on his voice than the Rode. The top ends on these mics are different. I think the Oktava sounds "warmer", but the Rode has more "sparkle". The Rode may have a looser polar pattern, which gives it a little more openness (like an omni).
I haven't bought any mics for a couple years now... I hadn't seen any that really looked like a must have for under $1000. The Oktava just stuck me as possibly being the next Rode. I looked at it and though (in the words of Frank Zappa) "it looks just like a telefunkin U47..." Which it kinda does, though moreso in a picture than in person. (Obviously this is a very superficial comparison, the Oktava isn't even a tube mic)... but, it looked close enough that I thought it could be an attempt. The reviews and company background seemed good.
I'm not sure one is better than the other... The Rode is great for vocals... but not much else (loose pattern, bright top end). The Oktava's thick midrange seems like it will be more widely usefull on acoustic guitars, violins ect. ( it has bass roll-off and 10db cut, the Rode doesn't) I would rebuy either one without hesitation. If I had to choose one or the other... probably the Rode. It has served me well for 3 years or so... The Oktava is 3 days old.

V & P

Chaz