# Shure Sm7B microphone: is it possible to get close to its quality by using good post production ?



## ManicMiner

I've been looking at the Shure SM7B, seems to be the industry standard for vocal narration.

Its an OK price, but the fact that you have to buy a Clouflifter for an extra $160 dampens my enthusiasm a bit.
And still I see online that some people are still complaining that it can be a little noisey. Fair enough, you can get rid of this noise with RX or something else.

I just wondered if there is any way of buying a less expensive mic and using some good post production techniques to achieve something close ? (I am speaking in terms of spoken word narration, and singing vocals.)


----------



## X-Bassist

ManicMiner said:


> I've been looking at the Shure SM7B, seems to be the industry standard for vocal narration.
> 
> Its an OK price, but the fact that you have to buy a Clouflifter for an extra $160 dampens my enthusiasm a bit.
> And still I see online that some people are still complaining that it can be a little noisey. Fair enough, you can get rid of this noise with RX or something else.
> 
> I just wondered if there is any way of buying a less expensive mic and using some good post production techniques to achieve something close ? (I am speaking in terms of spoken word narration, and singing vocals.)



It’s not the industry standard for vocal narration- that would be the Neumann U87. But considering those are $2k and up USED ($3200 new), it makes the Shure look like a steal.
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/de...i-large-diaphragm-condenser-microphone-nickel
Even the shock mount for it (essential yet not included) is another $400.

And no, you can’t get close with a cheaper mic. If you are really looking for something cheaper that will work for vocals then go for a Shure SM 58 ($90) or an 87A ($240). It’s at least a decent capsule that can be sculpted, but the mics won’t sound similar. If you really love the sound of the SM7B then just save your pennies. It’s only a few hundred. Not that much more than an 87A.

But once you get one you’ll be looking at larger condenser mics and salivating, the clarity, weight, and smoothness just can be matched by a dynamic mic. Then when you buy one you’ll look back and say “why did I think the SM7B was so expensive?”


----------



## chrisr

With respect, I would suggest that whilst the SM7B is clearly enjoying a bit of a renaissance in the vlogging world (because who doesn't want to look like Chris in the Morning?) ... but that large diaphragm condensers are still the "standard" for most voice recording duties. Also, depending upon your mic-pre I would think that you can very probably get away without the cloudlifter. I don't use the mic but I have used some pretty quiet mics and with good 24bit converters you can easily record low signal, low noise audio and boost digitally. (I have a feeling I'm going to be slated for saying that but I've found it to be true)

For what it's worth, I've always thought that the Rode K2 was an absolute steal for a super versatile, fairly low noise, great sounding mic, for about the same $$ as you would spend on a sm7b and cloudlifter.


----------



## wst3

once upon a time there was the SM7, and it is a wonderful microphone. It was up there with the EV RE-20 as a much used broadcast and voice-over microphone!

But at that time people expected/wanted to hear that sort of sound when they watched or listened to the news. It was the "norm", just as ribbon microphones were the norm a decade before that.

Some clever engineer or producer got the wild idea to put the SM-7 in front of some famous singer and all of the sudden it was popular in recording circles as well. I think it was always considered a great workhorse microphone, but I remember it leaping in popularity, just don't remember the details. (Sorry)

After a bit some enterprising voice-over artist (with the talent to back it up) switched to a large capsule condenser (probably a U-47 or U-87) just to differentiate himself. It worked. And fashion changed once again.

Each microphone era had a specific sound, and if you are trying to capture or emulate "that" sound you'll likely need "that" microphone, or something very similar.

I am a little surprised that you need the Cloud-Lifter for an SM-7, I've used the SM-7 (not the B model, so maybe that is a difference?) with a variety of preamplifiers and never had a noise problem.

I'm not sure there is a good but less expensive option I'm afraid.

There is a more expensive, but more flexible alternative, and I mention it only in passing - the Townsend Labs Sphere L22 is an extremely neutral, accurate, quiet, dual large diaphram condenser microphone. By itself it sounds fantastic, and it would probably be very interesting as a narration or voice-over microphone.

The software, on the other hand, sets it a step or two above. The emulation of the Coles 4038 is frighteningly close, the SM-7 and RCA DX-77 are also really good. Maybe not quite as convincing as the Coles, but pretty close. The emulation of the U-67 is another favorite. I have very little experience with the U-47, Sony 800, or some of the other more esoteric (expensive) microphones, but I like the emulations. And the four (count them 4) versions of the C-414 are a real eye opener.

So, last I looked it was selling for $1400, so it isn't an impulse buy (at least not for me!) But I have not had a moments regret since I bought one. I'm saving pennies to buy a second one!


----------



## DerGeist

I just clicked in hopes of finding out what an Sm Dominant 7 sounds like


----------



## Quasar

FWIW, the Fethead generally compares well with the Cloudlifter and it's somewhat less expensive. (I have the Fethead, but no Cloudlifter with which to compare.) Here's a video where Booth Junkie looks at both:


----------



## smallberries

Polkasound said:


> I once did a mic cord comparison test using a Shure SM Dominant 7 mic. I used five different cords, labeled 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. I eventually settled on the 4 cord.


I found its cadence to be imperfect.


----------



## rrichard63

The Kel Audio HM-2D has unfortunately been discontinued. In its time it had a reputation as the poor person's SM-7. Depending on where you are located, you might find one on eBay.


----------



## Sean

The SM7B is a great mic for untreated rooms I've found. I've tried similarly priced condensers (nothing over $1k) and I've liked the SM7B a lot more. If you really want to record vocals and can't afford the SM7B then get an SM58, but don't expect anywhere near the same quality in sound.


----------



## ManicMiner

thanks, good input so far.
I wonder how much the SM7B comes down on Black Friday? I did a couple of Googles searches but it looks like it doesnt come down much.


----------



## DerGeist

smallberries said:


> I found its cadence to be imperfect.


Amen


----------



## Joe_D

DerGeist said:


> Amen


That would be plagal....


----------



## DerGeist

Joe_D said:


> That would be plagal....


I feel so subdominant....


----------



## Joe_D

I would suggest going over to the Voiceover Bulletin Board gear section, and seeing which other mics VO artists use:

http://www.vo-bb.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=3

You can also listen to a bunch of mics (from very cheap to expensive) used for VO here:

http://vomictest.blogspot.com/

Believe it or not, I set up a VO system for an aspiring artist with a cheap AT875R shorter shotgun mic (the shotgun pattern largely rejects room sound; one ideal for VO is "a voice going right into your ear/brain") because it was recommended by some VO artists. I never followed up to see how well it worked out in the long run, though.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

ManicMiner said:


> I've been looking at the Shure SM7B, seems to be the industry standard for vocal narration.
> 
> Its an OK price, but the fact that you have to buy a Clouflifter for an extra $160 dampens my enthusiasm a bit.



I wouldn't spend the money on a Cloudlifter, and it's not true that you need it to use this or any other dynamic mic. Will explain.

First, dynamic mics have a lower output than condenser mics because they're passive - there's no active (meaning powered) amp stage built in as there is on condenser mics. To be somewhat more precise, the noise you're talking about is because you have to turn up the mic preamp, i.e. it makes no logical sense to talk about passive electronics as being noisy! 

Now, I've never used an SM7B, but I've used many other dynamic mics, and noise absolutely shouldn't be an issue if you get close to it. How many vocalists have you heard on records recorded through a Shure SM70, for example, all way before Cloudlifter was born?

However, the SM7B does have some proximity effect (meaning a bass emphasis in lower freqs when you get close to it), which can be good or bad depending on your voice. I think the SM7B's popularity is because it's so forgiving and durable.

If noise does become a problem - with that or any other dynamic mic, or for that matter a ribbon mic - ideally I'd suggest putting your $160 toward a good mic preamp that doesn't get noisy at high gain. Great mic preamps also improve the sound... but you have to spend 5X as much for a good one. However, even a $100 Mackie mixer will solve the problem.

While people use all kinds of mics to record VO, I agree with you 100% that the SM7B has become a standard. You see it on every YouTube video of a podcast (Joe Rogan, for example), VSL video sometimes... it's everywhere.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

By the way, condenser mics are generally more detailed and (if you get close) intimate. They also tend to have more dynamic range, because the heavier mass of the moving coil on a dynamic mic provides some acoustic compression. That's what makes them more forgiving.

Also by the way, the Sennheiser MKH70 - a shotgun mic - is another traditionally popular VO mic. It's very expensive and I'm not recommending it in the context of this thread, but shotgun mics are a good choice if you're shooting video as well as audio, or just if you're recording in a room that's not soundproof and want the rejection a really tight pickup pattern has.

I took some voice acting classes a while ago, and they used a MHK70 in the studio. All the people in the class (all professionals except me!) sounded great through it.


----------



## VinRice

Never been a fan of 7B's. I think its main claim to fame is that it could survive James Hetfield screaming into it. To much top end roll off and too much proximity effect - and a ridiculously low output. I tried an SM7B, and RE20 and a RE320 recently and went for the cheapest - RE320. Higher output, flatter top end. Just a more versatile mic in the dynamic, strongly-cardioid sector. The Aston Stealth gets good reviews but I haven't tried one.


----------



## smallberries

VinRice said:


> Never been a fan of 7B's. I think its main claim to fame is that it could survive James Hetfield screaming into it. To much top end roll off and too much proximity effect - and a ridiculously low output. I tried an SM7B, and RE20 and a RE320 recently and went for the cheapest - RE320. Higher output, flatter top end. Just a more versatile mic in the dynamic, strongly-cardioid sector. The Aston Stealth gets good reviews but I haven't tried one.


You definitely need a pre-amp with this one, that audio interface you already have is not up to this task. The Hetfield reference is news to me, I had always heard of this as the "Thriller" mic.

I like it because it makes me sound on tape like I sound in my head. But I am pretty green as a singer, and I suspect professionals have already made peace with their actual sound being different from what they hear in their head. Or maybe they all have 7B's, who knows? A few times when I have worked with a singer uncomfortable with a mic (yes! it can happen to you), I grabbed this one and all was copacetic. 

It is funny to me that this mic is not designed to be hand-held, yet that happens alot.


----------



## thesteelydane

You could get an Aston Origin for way less than an sm7b and you'd have a much more versatile (condenser) mic. Don't own it myself, but it's on the next-to-buy-list and the reviews are stellar.

Also, in this test the sm58 actually beat the sm7b for voice over work (but they both got spanked by the MUCH more expensive Sennheiser 416) : https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/ho...the-voice-over-microphone-everyone-should-own


----------



## ManicMiner

thesteelydane said:


> Also, in this test the sm58 actually beat the sm7b for voice over work


Interesting. I have an SM58 at work which I can borrow anytime. I wonder if you get close enough to it to get that proximity it could be as silky as the SM7B? I'll have to try the 58 out. I've sung into it "from a distance" but not got that close to it.

The *Aston Origin *is about $300, so not a huge price difference from the SM7B. I wonder if thats gain hungry & needs a Cloudlifter too ? One or two Amazon reviews seem to suggest so.


----------



## thesteelydane

ManicMiner said:


> The *Aston Origin *is about $300, so not a huge price difference from the SM7B. I wonder if thats gain hungry & needs a Cloudlifter too ? One or two Amazon reviews seem to suggest so.



No it's a normal condenser, you don't need a cloud lifter, but of course phantom power is a must. All my audio engineer friends are raving about it as the ultimate workhorse mic at an unbelievable price. I have a ton of cheap mics, and have learned the hard way that it's just not worth it - it's a waste of money in the long run, just save up and buy something decent from the start. If you want a sm7b wait till you can afford it - you will get one some day anyway and then that cheap mic was just a waste of money. Better to put that money into an sm7b from the start, and you will get there sooner. Take it from someone who's learned this the hard way!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

thesteelydane said:


> Take it from someone who's learned this the hard way!



I agree with and follow that philosophy in general, and like all good analog equipment, good mics are a good investment. They won't lose their value, either in money or in utility.

But there are some exceptions. It actually is possible to find some cheap mics that sound as good as expensive ones. Part of that is luck, part of it is that there are some good cheap mics. They may or may not last as long, but that doesn't mean they're all useless.

Example: my Oktava MK019 pair. I forget what I paid - it was a very long time ago - but they were cheap. I've also heard Shanghai U87-alikes that are surprisingly good.


----------



## thesteelydane

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I agree with and follow that philosophy in general, and like all good analog equipment, good mics are a good investment. They won't lose their value, either in money or in utility.
> 
> But there are some exceptions. It actually is possible to find some cheap mics that sound as good as expensive ones. Part of that is luck, part of it is that there are some good cheap mics. They may or may not last as long, but that doesn't mean they're all useless.
> 
> Example: my Oktava MK019 pair. I forget what I paid - it was a very long time ago - but they were cheap. I've also heard Shanghai U87-alikes that are surprisingly good.



For sure. My personal cheap gem is the R1 active Mk III from Golden Age Project. Luscious creamy ribbon sound for around 200 bucks (at least when I bought mine). And the Aston Origin looks to be of a quality that shouldn't be possible at its price point - and it will be more versatile than a passive mic in my opinion.


----------



## ManicMiner

I've been looking at some video reviews of the Aston Origin. Most seem very positive. This guy though, seemed to be getting a ton of plosives getting into proximity range, even though the mic has a plosive lessening feature built in, and he was using a pop filter.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

ManicMiner said:


> I've been looking at some video reviews of the Aston Origin. Most seem very positive. This guy though, seemed to be getting a ton of plosives getting into proximity range, even though the mic has a plosive lessening feature built in, and he was using a pop filter.



Well, the reason ribbon mics became popular again, after being all but gone, is that they're so sensitive. The ribbon is very light.

So it's not a surprise that it's easy to pop that mic. (To be fair, I don't know that mic, so of course it's possible that it does have weaknesses; I'm just speaking generically.)

Royer's first mic, the R121 (I think that's the one), is an exception - it's designed to be durable.


----------



## thesteelydane

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Well, the reason ribbon mics became popular again, after being all but gone, is that they're so sensitive. The ribbon is very light.
> 
> So it's not a surprise that it's easy to pop that mic. (To be fair, I don't know that mic, so of course it's possible that it does have weaknesses; I'm just speaking generically.)
> 
> Royer's first mic, the R121 (I think that's the one), is an exception - it's designed to be durable.



Ah, misunderstanding...the Aston Origin is a condenser. I just mentioned the Golden Age as an example of an excellent cheap mic. Another one that's a steal is the Line Audio CM3, a small diaphragm condenser that sounds very close to a Schoeps - very quiet though, and a bit noisy, so again, I should probably have put that money towards saving for a couple of Schoeps.


----------



## ManicMiner

Anyone got a comment on this. Fascinating.

"*SM57 combined with A81WS, sounds like the SM7B"
the https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000AQRST?ie=UTF8&tag=tecn00-20&camp=1789&linkCode=xm2&creativeASIN=B0000AQRST (SM57) combined with the enormous https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006NMUI6?ie=UTF8&tag=tecn00-20&camp=1789&linkCode=xm2&creativeASIN=B0006NMUI6 (A81WS)windscreen from Shure sonically transforms the SM57 and makes it sound virtually the same as the much more costly SM7B, at a fraction of the cost, and without demanding a preamplifier...
...part of the sonic transformation is due to the sound waves being affected by the A81WS’s unique material, and that the other detail is —like the cage in the SM7B—, the extremely thick material in the A81WS forces the person speaking to maintain an ideal minimum distance...

halfway down:
https://www.provideocoalition.com/shures-545-palindromic-mic-beats-sm57-nowadays/*


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I think the reason the SM57 with a windscreen sounds like an SM7B is the answer to the original question.

People seemed to say no, you can't make one mic sound like another.

I think you can in many ways. What are the differences between mics? Mostly frequency response!

Now, you can't change the off-axis coloration, capture more detail, duplicate nonlinear response (i.e. if the mic sounds different at different dynamics). But EQ can do a lot.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

As to the video link, I'd like to see the SM57 transformer mod Paul Stamler wrote about in Recording (he's a really sharp and knowledgeable guy - used to write for me when I was there). Unfortunately the page isn't on the site anymore. Will ask him.

The problem with that video is that the guy panned the mics in different directions. Oops. For A/B comparisons you want to do everything the same to both sources.

Well, I also think he's too close to the mics, but that's just my aesthetic judgement.


----------



## S.M Hassani

I was recently helping a friend with a similar need, so I came prepared: 

The SHURE SM7B is an excellent microphone with a wide spectrum of uses, especially when given enough gain and used properly as I explain below. Andrew Huang here used it to record a song in the middle of a frozen lake! You tell me how good this sounds: (Mixed song in the end)



For VO work, the Sm7B will sound better when the larger A7WS windscreen is applied. For the best sound: take it off and use an external pop filter solution (metal mesh is better at preserving those highs)



Big vs Small wind covers:



I like the SM7B for Streaming and VO tasks, especially in the summer when you must keep the AC on. 

The Triton Fethead paired with an SM7B will sound as good as the Cloudlifer, yet it is cheaper and more practical in many ways. TIP: You can also connect the Fethead on the Preamp side.

Another great industry VO mike (which has been mentioned here) is the Sennheiser MKH-416 P48 Shotgun Microphone. It's nicknamed the Hollywood mic among VO circles for its extensive use by legendary artists like George DelHoyo and Joe Cipriano. You can buy it for about $1k USD.

But I'm here to tell you there's a great alternative for a lot less: RODE's NTG3 Shotgun Microphone. It's usually listed at $699 USD. But if you do some digging you can grab it even cheaper. I got mine new for $465 USD!

Here's a video demonstrating its sound against the Sennheiser MKH-416 and even more expensive mics like the $2,200 USD Schoeps CMIT-5U:



Take a look at these Podcastage videos and compare the sound: (same dude, setup and testing method)

SHURE Sm7b:



Sennheiser MKH-416:

https://youtu.be/hI3YW7DjOk8

RODE NTG-3:

https://youtu.be/dTCCqnCYID8

And here's the newest player in town: Aston's Stealth Active Dynamic mic which doesn't need the external gain booster:

https://youtu.be/0J3wfPFTB98

I don't own this one, but I love my Aston Spirit.

I hope this helps, and if you have any questions let me know.

Good Luck!

S.M


----------



## ManicMiner

Couple of more EQ tips to help the sm57 get closer.


----------



## KMA

The SM7 is the best (imo) dynamic mic in its price range.
The Origin is the best (imo) large-diaphragm condenser in its price range.

I recently bought an Origin, but the SM7 was a close second for what I needed. I'll probably wind up getting one of those too


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Great post, especially the comparison of shotgun mics (ignoring that the "host" voice recording sounds like shit  ).

And yeah, good pop filters are absolutely going to be more transparent than windscreens, plus they're better at preventing pops rather than wind noise.



S.M Hassani said:


> The Triton Fethead paired with an SM7B will sound as good as the Cloudlifer, yet it is cheaper and more practical in many ways. TIP: You can also connect the Fethead on the Preamp side.



Unless you're recording in the field - literally - I still say I'd put the money in a piggybank toward a great mic preamp that doesn't need extra gain.


----------



## Kaufmanmoon

I had the cloudlifter and sent it back straight away. Ordered the Fethead and does the job for less money.
A lot of variables on why you'd want a fethead and if you've the money, a nicer external preamp is probably the better option. For my budget at that time, it made sense using a fethead with my current interface. Over the past year or so i've fallen out of love with the SM7B on my voice and went back to condenser. Just my thoughts obviously.


----------



## MrHStudio

DerGeist said:


> I just clicked in hopes of finding out what an Sm Dominant 7 sounds like



I’m afraid that you will have to wait for the update to ‘n’ to find that one out


----------



## S.M Hassani

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Unless you're recording in the field - literally - I still say I'd put the money in a piggybank toward a great mic preamp that doesn't need extra gain.



Indeed a great pre will deliver, for a premium. But here's another solution which is fairly accessible, mobile and comes with amazing preamps: The MixPre series from Sound Devices. You can get the MixPre-3M for about $550USD and enjoy the Kashmir preamps which can fully power an SM7B even without a booster.



Another one I'm looking forward to is the upcoming Zoom *F*6 which promises to reinvent the audio capture process as we know it:



Good times!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Yeah, I'm partial to Millennia Media. They make a single-channel portable one for $700.


----------



## MrHStudio

Are these boosters a recent addition to the mic locker I dont remember them before the last couple of years and the SM7B has been around for many.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

MrHStudio said:


> Are these boosters a recent addition to the mic locker I dont remember them before the last couple of years and the SM7B has been around for many.



Yes.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

S.M Hassani said:


> Another one I'm looking forward to is the upcoming Zoom *F*6 which promises to reinvent the audio capture process as we know it



What's its advantage? I didn't watch much of the video, just as I try and escape those pitches live at trade shows. 

If it's just the automatic level control, I would *never* use one of those - I'm *way* too manly... except that the one on the Blue Mikey Digital is outstanding for its purpose (recording interviews). They really got it right.

Actually, they really got that mic right. It's a stereo mic with a very narrow pickup pattern, so it's just a little more than mono. Perfect for recording interviews.


----------



## Quasar

ManicMiner said:


> Anyone got a comment on this. Fascinating.
> 
> "*SM57 combined with A81WS, sounds like the SM7B"
> the https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0000AQRST?ie=UTF8&tag=tecn00-20&camp=1789&linkCode=xm2&creativeASIN=B0000AQRST (SM57) combined with the enormous https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006NMUI6?ie=UTF8&tag=tecn00-20&camp=1789&linkCode=xm2&creativeASIN=B0006NMUI6 (A81WS)windscreen from Shure sonically transforms the SM57 and makes it sound virtually the same as the much more costly SM7B, at a fraction of the cost, and without demanding a preamplifier...
> ...part of the sonic transformation is due to the sound waves being affected by the A81WS’s unique material, and that the other detail is —like the cage in the SM7B—, the extremely thick material in the A81WS forces the person speaking to maintain an ideal minimum distance...
> 
> halfway down:
> https://www.provideocoalition.com/shures-545-palindromic-mic-beats-sm57-nowadays/*



I ran into this a while back, when I bumped into this video:



So I bought an A81WS and used it for a woman who was recording some spoken word stuff... It worked well IMHO, but since I have zero experience with the SM7B I can't compare.


----------



## Mike Greene

Since a few people have mentioned the Sennheiser 416, I'll add a couple specifics about it, since although it's a standard for VO work (in L.A., at least), it isn't used in the way people might expect.

In VO sessions, it typically gets used almost like a dynamic, where the talent is just inches from the mic. There's an ultra-heightened proximity effect (even more so than with U87s or other mics we would typically use) and there's even a little natural compression. That combination is a lot of what gives it the "Hollywood sound." If that's the sound you're going for, it's magic, really.

Then again, a lot of applications nowadays are a little less hyped, where it might be a little much to sound like Hollywood Voice of God as you're doing a podcast on knitting. Although in that case, you could always just move back a little and use it more like it was intended to be used. (It's supposed to be a boom mic for location recording.)

Obviously this is way more than most people would want to spend, and I'm definitely not saying you should go this route. But if that's the sound you're going for (that's a big "if", of course), then maybe check out the RODE's NTG3 alternative that S.M. Hassani mentioned.


----------



## S.M Hassani

Nick Batzdorf said:


> What's its advantage? I didn't watch much of the video, just as I try and escape those pitches live at trade shows.



Make an exception this time. 

Spoiler: This could potentially become the equivalent of Camera RAW or Vector Graphics for the audio space.


----------



## S.M Hassani

Mike Greene said:


> Since a few people have mentioned the Sennheiser 416, I'll add a couple specifics about it, since although it's a standard for VO work (in L.A., at least), it isn't used in the way people might expect.
> 
> In VO sessions, it typically gets used almost like a dynamic, where the talent is just inches from the mic. There's an ultra-heightened proximity effect (even more so than with U87s or other mics we would typically use) and there's even a little natural compression. That combination is a lot of what gives it the "Hollywood sound." If that's the sound you're going for, it's magic, really.
> 
> Then again, a lot of applications nowadays are a little less hyped, where it might be a little much to sound like Hollywood Voice of God as you're doing a podcast on knitting. Although in that case, you could always just move back a little and use it more like it was intended to be used. (It's supposed to be a boom mic for location recording.)
> 
> Obviously this is way more than most people would want to spend, and I'm definitely not saying you should go this route. But if that's the sound you're going for (that's a big "if", of course), then maybe check out the RODE's NTG3 alternative that S.M. Hassani mentioned.



Thank you Mike, that's a fine way to complete what was said about the MKH-416 and the NTG-3. 

Beyond that Hollywood mic sound, I like the amazing clarity you can pull out of them in a multitude of placements and proximities. I find that quality very useful when conveying "critical" information, such as training material and audiobooks, where every word must be intelligible even against other audio.

Here's a neat three way comparison SHURE SM7B vs Neumann u87 vs Sennheiser MKH-416:



You can hear that smooth clarity you can pull out of the MKH-416.

I'm not sure if a foam cover is applied to the SM7B, but I think it always sounds even better without one.

Here's another comparison: Sennheiser MKH-416 vs Neumann u87: (Although I have small reservations about placement)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

...which is not to say that it's a bad piece of gear by any stretch, just that I'm not micturating all over myself with excitement because it has 32-bit recording.


----------



## S.M Hassani

It's potentially more interesting than that, but we'll wait and see.


----------



## TimCox

Forget the cloudlifter, get The Durham by Cathedral Pipes instead. Way cheaper and works great. Also make sure you remove the cover and use a pop filter, the mic has a lot more bite and clarity without the foam over it!

EDIT

I see I beat a dead horse about the cover, consider this an apology


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Wait. Did I get the MKH70 and MKH416 confused?

Now I'll have to find out which one it was they were using...

And after looking up the difference, it could also have been a MKH60, a shorter one like the MKH416. I was too focused on my copy reading to pay attention to the mic, but I do know that they had it in one position for the whole class and that we weren't close to it.


----------



## PeterN

SM7B came with the post. Plan is to stick it in MOTU M2 interface. No cloudlifter -- yet.

Not planning to record a Bulgarian orchestra, but an acoustic guitar and vox. Intimate and close. If you have tried this without a cloudlifter, how did it go? Mixed reports online.

Testing in a day or two


----------

