Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Microphone Recommendations (for Vocal Recordings)

Hey guys,

Thanks for your advice. I'm still swaying between multiple solutions. Most individuals seem to describe the Rode NT1A as very bright, and the NT1 in general with a more pleasant sound, but still quite bright. So both seem to be rather out of choice for me.

After some research I definitely would love to go with a condenser mic. Possibly in the range of 100 USD till 250 USD as absolute max. No idea if it's known outside Europe, but what do you guys think about the Behringer B2, or any other potential alternatives?

Thanks!
-https://Fredericbernardmusic.com (Frederic)
 
Diablo3 said:
NT1A is sht
Click to expand...

Nah, NT1A is completely ok if you don't have any other choices around and prefer a condenser. It's a good mike, just a bit overly sibilant at certain area (mostly 7-8k). Just go a bit off-axis when recording. I'm having one permanently rigged for quick vocal demoing at my studio desk and as long as you know how to use it and tame the harshness, it's perfectly fine.

PS: My first vocal mic was a semi-broken Shure beta *something* from the 70´s which I replaced with a used SM58 in the late 90s. In that context, the NT1(a) is completely fine in my books- which, incidentally, was also my first "better" mic nearly fifteen years ago. :P
 
  • Like
Reactions: nas
Whatever mic you pick, something like an Aston Halo behind the mic will give you a much better recording. Way cleaner, less roomy, more direct sound.
 
Henu said:
a bit overly sibilant at certain area (mostly 7-8k).:P
Click to expand...

Sorry mate, you're right about it being sibilant, but I disagree, sht is sht. Although I am glad you could work it out with that mike.

I just wish people knew better and stop supporting brands/companies that really just make batches of trash to make an income...
 
You may have your opinion on NT1a, but Røde is actually far from being a "trash company"- just ask anyone who is doing professional audio. Try out some of their other mics and see it for yourself!
 
Henu said:
You may have your opinion on NT1a, but Røde is actually far from being a "trash company"- just ask anyone who is doing professional audio. Try out some of their other mics and see it for yourself!
Click to expand...

I politely disagree, just check out this video (singing starts at 8:30). Also the guy after the singing, just wants to skip straight to the SE mike since he really has nothing good to say about the Rode one (ofc here we are now talking about Rode in general and not just the NT1a). Plus you can read in other forums how NT1a is never suitable for a serious vocal recording. And not good enough to me == trash. And Rode is not even near "good enough" in my book. Mediocre has to disappear.

Again, if something "good enough" like the Rode Nt1a works out for you for certain purposes, great.
Let's just say if I went to your studio to record some vocals and you showed me your Rode, it'd be out
faster than if you said "aids":

 
FredericBernard said:
what do you guys think about the Behringer B2, or any other potential alternatives?
Click to expand...
General impression of the Behinger lower end is kind of "eh." The C series are less expensive and at least as good near as I can tell, so if you want to go low end, I think I'd opt there instead...the C1 is a very neutral (honest) mic too. Although for almost the same you could get an MXL 67G which specs out a bit better. Although I would opt for isK's "Vibrato" condenser for the same cost over either. I have not used, but I trust isK enough to feel confident about it. In fact, I'm near certain that will be one of my next mic purchases.
 
Henu said:
Nah, NT1A is completely ok if you don't have any other choices around and prefer a condenser.
Click to expand...
? Why would you not have any other choices? Frankly I would choose almost anything else, but I know there are those who like them, to each their own.
 
@FredericBernard. There's a few websites that list some of the same answers as given here, plus more, with good explanations on why. Just google best vocal mic.

I've always assumed the dynamic mics were better for live environments and such, and the large diaphram condensers better in a studio or home, as they can sound more detailed and be more flexible in a quieter environment. They can perform double duty as an instrument mic, you don't have to be as close, you can change the pattern setting on the mic (assuming you get one that has that, which I'd recommend if you want to use if for more than vocals), etc. They just seem more flexible to me.

I'm far from being an expert though, I'm just a consumer on this. I have some cheap Berhinger pencils (small diaphram) and a cheapish AKG (large diaphram) condenser and use them just occassionally. They differ a bit in noise floor and character, but even in that $100-300 price range these seem way good enough to capture preliminary vocals. Even the cheap Behringers that aren't really designed for it. To me it seems at this price range the cost differences are all about features (e.g. the pattern, a high pass filter switch, etc.), getting a better noise floor, and the build quality and accessories. I'm talking about the "proper" mics here, not the USB ones.

I listened to all the mic demos and such on YT when looking to buy these. And sure, you can hear a difference between many of them. But really, its often very subtle, with the occasional outlyer. None of the differences ever seemed significant enough to me to care much after a while. So I just got a reputable brand which had the features and acceptable noise floor, etc. and that was it. Haven't regreted it at all.

I suggest you go listen to some of the YouTube comparisons. You will quickly realise it probably doesn't matter that much at this price point.

Or another way of looking at it is, if you're gonna be screaming metal vocals into the mic, then get one of the Shure dynamic mics. If you're doing something more detailed and wanna try other stuff with the mic later, get a condenser mic, a Rode or AKG or something.

Sorry for the long post.
 
Last edited:
markleake said:
I'm far from being an expert though, I'm just a consumer on this. I have some cheap Berhinger pencils (small diaphram) and a cheapish AKG (large diaphram) condenser and use them just occassionally. They differ a bit in noise floor and character, but even in that $100-300 price range these seem way good enough to capture preliminary vocals. Even the cheap Behringers that aren't really designed for it. To me it seems at this price range the cost differences are all about features (e.g. the pattern, a high pass filter switch, etc.), getting a better noise floor, and the build quality and accessories. I'm talking about the "proper" mics here, not the USB ones.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily (any of that, actually!). :)

Well, let me preface this by saying that for me personally, a relatively neutral-sounding condenser mic would be - and was - the right do-it-all starter mic.

But as I wrote above, dynamic mics have a natural acoustic compression feature because their diaphragms are heavier. That can be put to good use, and it's why they're used on 14.3 billion records that were recorded in studios that also had plenty of exotic mics at their disposal - on both instruments and vox.

A more forgiving mic can also make your life easier if you're not in a very quiet environment.

And these days you can get lucky and find some pretty decent mics for $100.
 
I would suggest you check out the Aston Stealth, it has four settings that change the tone of the mic depending on who/what you are recording giving you pretty much 4 mics in one. Also if you supply phantom power it effectively has a built in Class A gain stage.
 
Nick Batzdorf said:
Not necessarily (any of that, actually!). :)

Well, let me preface this by saying that for me personally, a relatively neutral-sounding condenser mic would be - and was - the right do-it-all starter mic.

But as I wrote above, dynamic mics have a natural acoustic compression feature because their diaphragms are heavier. That can be put to good use, and it's why they're used on 14.3 billion records that were recorded in studios that also had plenty of exotic mics at their disposal - on both instruments and vox.

A more forgiving mic can also make your life easier if you're not in a very quiet environment.

And these days you can get lucky and find some pretty decent mics for $100.
Click to expand...
Well, like I say, I'm just approaching this as a consumer. It does seem like the features play a big part here and the end result is pretty similar between many of these mics. Hence my own (apparently misinformed!) conclusion that the condenser mics are more flexible for home studio. :grin:

I've always disliked the sound of some of those Shure mics used for voice that I hear everywhere on YouTube (when they are used as podcast mics, etc., not so much singing). They sound to me like they mask the detail a bit. This is my personal bias coming into play here I guess, like how we all prefer different sample libraries. And I will admit YT is hardly the best way for me to the best judgement on those dynamic mics.
 
You can’t go wrong with SM57/58.
Plus they have plenty of other uses.
To me it’s a must have for everyone who’s a bit in audio (yes, even for guitarists, podcast, etc).
I’ve got an old NT1 too and it does the job. It’s not high end but is great value for the price. Note that you’ll need to feed it with phantom power.
Aston has a good reputation too, though maybe a bit more pricey (I don’t own any).
Antipop is mandatory, also part of any studio survival kit.
 
markleake said:
It does seem like the features play a big part here and the end result is pretty similar between many of these mics. Hence my own (apparently misinformed!) conclusion that the condenser mics are more flexible for home studio. :grin:
Click to expand...

I think that's a fair statement - that condenser mics are more flexible, especially ones with switchable pickup patterns (which I believe are a little more expensive).

I've always disliked the sound of some of those Shure mics used for voice that I hear everywhere on YouTube (when they are used as podcast mics, etc., not so much singing). They sound to me like they mask the detail a bit.
Click to expand...

That would be the SM7B, which uses the same capsule as the SM57. The SM7B has a little more low end, while the SM57 is a little more midrangey.

There's a YouTube video somewhere of a guy who EQ-ed an SM57 to sound like an SM7B. While I remember having some arguments with his whole approach - and was baffled that he thought the two mics sounded the same even without EQ, when to me it's blatantly obvious which is which - the point that you can EQ mics to sound the same in this context is absolutely valid. (This context = close-miked speech, which makes off-axis response and other differences minimal; and that these mics use the same capsule.)

But most podcasters don't pay attention to the sound anyway.

And anyway anyway you don't even like that sound in the first place. :)
 
Nick Batzdorf said:
I think that's a fair statement - that condenser mics are more flexible, especially ones with switchable pickup patterns (which I believe are a little more expensive).
Click to expand...
OK, glad I'm not too off-track with my thought process. Flexibility is important for home studio. IMO the condenser mics also look cooler. 😎

Nick Batzdorf said:
But most podcasters don't pay attention to the sound anyway.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of them buy these because they are told they are good vocal mics, which is true. Except a lot of them are guys and speak so close to the mic, the mic ends up not suiting them. As you say though, it's easy to EQ the mid-range and lows a bit. I guess that's the original point I was trying to get at... most of these mics will be fine for most people for most purposes.
 
Just be aware there have been three versions of the Rode NT-1:
  1. The original NT-1 released in the 1990s
  2. The https://recordinghacks.com/microphones/Rode/NT1-A (NT-1A) released in the the early 2000s
  3. The updated https://recordinghacks.com/microphones/Rode/NT1-2013 (NT-1) released in 2013
The newest one is apparently quieter and more neutral than the others. SoS review here.

If I was to have just one large diaphragm condenser, personally I would prefer to have switchable patterns. The option of having figure-8 and omni as well as the standard cardiod just makes the microphone so much more versatile.
 
rhizomusicosmos said:
Just be aware there have been three versions of the Rode NT-1:
  1. The original NT-1 released in the 1990s
  2. The https://recordinghacks.com/microphones/Rode/NT1-A (NT-1A) released in the the early 2000s
  3. The updated https://recordinghacks.com/microphones/Rode/NT1-2013 (NT-1) released in 2013
The newest one is apparently quieter and more neutral than the others.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, 1 and 3 are comparable, 3 perhaps somewhat better, but again the 1A well below those two, esp harsh on the high end.

If I was to have just one large diaphragm condenser, personally I would prefer to have switchable patterns. The option of having figure-8 and omni as well as the standard cardiod just makes the microphone so much more versatile.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but some don't have a need for those other patterns, and (as I hear it from those I trust, FWIW) sometimes the more commonly used cardioid pattern, even on the same brand/price level of mic isn't as good.
 
Last month, after studying various static microphones for the voice and also for the instruments for a long time, I bought Audio Technica AT 2035.
I am really pleasantly surprised by its quality. No background noise, good sensitivity, fréquency curve, no noticeable bump, and good manufacturing quality.
It comes with a very correct suspension, all for a reasonable price of 140 euros. I hesitated with a Rode NT1, and finally I decided on this Audio Technica.
It is an ideal companion with my faithful Shure sm 57.
In your case this may be an option, but this is only my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom