M88 and 201 are quite different.
M88 has a lots of proximity effect. Which you can use to your advantage if you learn to work it. Depending on distance from source, it can sound light, natural, warm, big or muddy. Natural or pretty coloured. Very very interesting mic.

I also own the 201 and 441 but I haven't played with them as much yet. They are both great. Both seem more natural than the M88.
I too have the impression that the 201 is a bit brighter and maybe a bit leaner on the mids than the 441. So I might prefer one or the other depending on the application.
These three along with the RE20 are my favorite dynamic mics so far.

Who was it that said that a M201 was what a 57 would be if it were a microphone? Bruce Swedien?

I love them and have two. I would love to have some 441s, but they are out of my budget. They might be my favorite all around dynamic.
I also have two M88s. Great mics.

Steve Albini said that. And I agree with him

Me too

The 441 has a quality I‘ve only heard with some good Neumann mics, like the KM86 or the U77 (yes, that‘s SEVENTY-seven):
On its own, on a single track, it may sound a bit unspectacular, and you might be tempted to go for another mic, with more body, or more air.
But when you start piling on the tracks, they fit so effortlessly and the whole just sounds „right“.
Apply that to the whole drum kit, all guitars (including bass) in a band, or all horns, and you‘ll get this unifying thing. I don‘t own enough to try this on a whole band, but I‘d sure love to try.

I would have said the opposite, at least with regards to the top end.

However, there was a change sometime a couple of years ago.
The M201s used to be more "all over the place" in terms of frequency response. Now they are more even in terms of they sounding like each other, but they are peakier.

I have frequency plots of two of them, and you can see the big differences there.

If you're looking for a Beyer M201, also consider the Revox M3500. It's basically the same mic but the Revox has a slight boost at 5k, in my book that is an advantage.

I didn't like the newer M201 TG after my older 201 broke. But I was pleasantly surprised by the M3500, especially on acoustic guitar. Even though I haven't tried it yet I'm pretty sure it will deliver on snare as well.

Not that you want more choices, but I prefer the Shure ksm8 over either the m201 and 441, both of which I know well and use... well my m201 is broken and likely staying that way for a while as Im tired of having to regularly repair Beyer mics.

The ksm8 is a superhero mic, in my opinion. Shocked at how versatile, durable, and fantastic sounding that thing is. We have two now and are planning on getting 2 more.

I love the KSM8. The midrange and the bass, and the politeness of the proximity effect (there is one, it's just quite small). But it has nothing above 10k. I've tried to EQ, excite, and distort to get some of the air back, but to no avail.
I can't work with a mic that dull on half the sources I'd be happy to use an M201 on, not least singing vocals (which the 201 with its windshield is amazing on, btw).

Spoken word on a KSM8, great.
Kick drum, guitar and bass amps, toms, and a lot of percussions are also reproduced beautifully.
Singing vocals, snare, hi-hat, acoustic guitar, and anything with treble, I'd rather have a 201 any day.

I was talking about even frequency response, not manufacturing consistency.

Me too. The new ones (under a year old) have an tighter manufacturing consistency, but a more uneven frequency response.

Darn, by peaky you just mean less flat?

Could you upload pics of your frequency responses? I can upload mine to compare if you want.

Couldn't we just EQ these peaks out?

I disagree you can clearly hear the difference.

A few years ago I had to record Chipin nocturnes on a Steinway grand in a not ideal acoustic.

Before the session I experimented with spaced omnis and an MS rig in various positions - the mics were MKH 20s and a 40/30 for the MS, so tonally identical and the MKH 40 goes lower than most other cardioids.

I recorded from various positions, first with the MS rig and then with the omnis in the identical positions.

It was very clear that the MS pair was lacking in bass compared to the omnis and the omnis gave a far more full-bodied sound.

I would never use directional mics on a grand piano for classical music as the lack of a good bottom end in a directional mic. is very clear to hear.

Even if you don’t actually play the lowest notes on the piano the lack of bass is still clearly heard - and when I was recordin* I was using headphones.

Ill have to try out the KSM8 as I always seem to roll of the excessive top end on most things. I didnt even know about this mic until this post !

I don't have any more older ones, but they were quite different from each other sometimes.

They have obviously improved their measuring system or something since the newer measurements are less smoothed out, but that does not account for the increase in that 10k peak. The sound reflects those charts quite well.

And yes you can EQ it out, but I don't need to EQ that first M201 at all! I do a bit with the other two.

It's pretty new but they've marketed quite aggressively. It's been everywhere, I've seen it on lots of interviews and even a presidential debate last year. It's an amazing mic, that sadly just chops the top octave off. It has to do with how they achieve the polar pattern, which is particularly well-behaved I must say.

Is that first pic the old version? My chart looks more like your first pic; is there a chance they've given me one of the older mics?

Yeah, that's an older one. Looks good!

Oh, so I guess I'm lucky to have gotten an older one?

Does that mean mine is an m201, not an m201tg?

Are the old ones really smoother, or is it simply better measurements on the new mics? If the new mics are more detailed (other than the 10k peak) would I be better off exchanging it?

I didn't say you couldn't hear a difference.

I have a long history of preferring recordings that are a bit light in the extreme high and low range.

The number of great piano recordings made with directional mics is something I take as reassuring. For a person that hears those and thinks they would be improved with more low end, I acknowledge that omnis are the way to go for that.

When I mic a piano for a solo recording I do normally use a little bit from an omni at the far end to fill out the center of a stereo pair. Then again, the gear I use for that is in a different price range than the dynamic mics the op asked about.

But you did imply it.


Miking up a piano as part of an ensemble is different from miking it up as a solo instrument. As a solo instrument you want to hear it in all its glory and directional mics don’t allow that. Even a pair of dynamic omnis would be better than directional IMHO.

That's clearly a different smoothing being applied to the measurement. The old one looks like 1/3 octave smoothing, the newer obviously much less like 1/24 octave.

It works great on snare. I prefer it more for brush work, and the 201 for sticks.

I agree but I don’t like the 10k peak which is definitely not there on the older one. The sound difference is obvious.

I just have the older ones (and a couple m3500) so I can't comment on the sound of the new ones.

It's one of the best for taming hihat bleed that I've ever tried.

Agreed, off-axis response on the ksm8, especially in the high-end, is amazing.

This thread has me thinking I'll get my m201 fixed after all, I've been waaay into the mono overhead drum sound and am now remembering having done that with the m201 on a live album recording concert of a trad jazz band at a busy bar, that turned out much better than expected.

I totally hear what you're saying (see what I did there ) and find it really useful just for that purpose... in snare in particular I'm typically not looking for info above 12k, and am usually trying to get it out, as well as finding what I need there in the overheads... plus I'll always have my Senn 431 as a slightly brighter option.

You say that as if it were a factual matter rather than one of perspective.

People that habitually think in dualistic terms are ill equipped to evaluate what they call implicit in others' thinking.




Too bad about all those glowing classic recordings of piano music made with directional mics. I must have been distracted by something that led me to miss the piano not being heard in all its glory.

I'm a little late to this party but would anyone care to throw in their two cents... is the M201TG really a viable alternative to the MD441? Let's only consider new production as that's what I'm in the market for. My reading is that the 201 is a tad brighter in the highs and maybe even a little mid-scooped, but nothing that couldn't be EQ'd to taste. So, if I liked the MD441 on a given source would I likely find the 201 would do the job?
The reason I'm asking is that it looks like a few months before I can get 441's at the price I'd like to pay and the 201 is not only available now but, well, cheaper, like 1/4 the price.
I've long wanted a great dynamic for snare and guitar that isn't a Shure or a Sennheiser e-series, in a live context. But would I find it wouldn't quite stand in for a 441 on a good horn player, acoustic guitar and so on? I will be recording with my stuff at a later date too, mobile service mostly for student auditions and church work

I'm with you on the mono overhead thing. I've been using a couple of MK-102's on OH's in X-Y and can't live without them, last night I forgot my stereo bar and had to just use one. It was actually better, the toms were amazingly big and full for an overhead. I'm def getting a 201 or 2 and look forward to comparing it with other favourite OH's, and on traditional dynamic sources