You could always just EQ the flatter SDC capsule mics in post though right? I mean I don't know if it'll match a 416, but I think it'd get that "broadcast ready" sound. People EQ some other shotgun mics to get pretty close to the 416, though if that's the sound they want they should just buy a used 416 or a used Rode NTG3 if the used 416 is out of budget. For me, it wasn't entirely a budget choice, I just haven't been a fan of the 416 and NTG3 on close VO (unless you're trying to do a promi or commercial, but I find that sound waaay to punchy), and I prefer the flatter sound of the shotgun mic I went with. The fact that it's a bit less than half the price of an MKH416 was a big bonus though.

When I bought C414EB with CK12 many years ago, I did a quick test while recording a radio spot for a local club. Female VO. Mics compared C414EB with brass and with teflon, C24. It's in czech, so there is more esses and consonants than there would be in english.

AKG C24 - your favourite use


It's workable and you can eq it easily, but I would get U89 or MKH60 instead for the same kind of money (or cheaper in the case of MKH). Both more detailed than teflon C414. Also old AKGs are kinda noisy, while MKH60 is one of the most quiet mics out there.
I like MKH60 top end better than CK12 C414EB, because it's flatter and sibilance sounds more controlled. U89 has slight bump in 1-3khz range and darker top compared to MKH60 which can be a good thing or not.

Other thing about C414s is how hapily they convert a small hint of plosive into a giant 808 kick drum. They just go very low and you really need to set the popfilter right or work harder in post (izotope RX to rescue, yay!).

The difference between Mic A and Mic B is not just frequency response. A large diaphragm mic sounds different than a small diaphragm mic partly because the diaphragm has more sonic information to deal with, and it deals with that information somewhat inaccurately. This is what Greg Silsby, former president of ElectroVoice, called "pleasing low-frequency distortion" in a conversation with me long ago.

A 416 is an RF mic with a square diaphragm inside a tube. EQ magic notwithstanding, it's not going to react the same, or amplify the initial signal the same, as a 1", circular diaphgragm inside the large headbasket of a conventionally amplified side-address condenser.

If these differences didn't exist, we could all just buy the cheapest (quiet) mic, and EQ it to sound like an ELAM 251. That would be nice, but somehow a lot less fun than the world we inhabit.

I figured medium diaphragm ones would be close enough to a large diaphragm one to work. I know certain capsules have design differences that affect things like transient response, and even just frequency response, like non chambered "CK12" capsules having frequency responses closer to an ELAM 251.

I'm extremely thankful to everybody for replying. No matter how long I've been using the internet, I can't get used to kindness of people replying on such forums.
Special thanks to Dohreetoh who even offered to record a demo for me. Really, thank you guys.

I'd like to clarify some moments:

1. My vocal booth. I've looked through many designs and decided to make mine of dry walls with rockwool inside. On the inside I will hang perforated dry walls and acoustic foam.
2. My skills. I've been to 4-5 theater classes in the span of 5 years. Performed on stage few times. I also had vocal lessons and train my voice everyday. I feel like I'm still not ready and I need to record demos, books and plays in my booth with a new mic before I can earn for living in VO.
3. My mics. I've only had AT2020 USB in my life. It's not possible to try different mics in the place I live. They are too expensive on the domestic market and studios in my (big) city don't have mics I'm looking for (one of them even listed AT2020 as their mic )

Money. A mic for 500-700$ is much more preferable.

I've mentioned TLM 103 because many list it as "VO-mic". I can, with time, put money aside for 1000$+ mic, but it would be much more preferable to buy something cheaper for the moment. And I was leaning towards KSM32 because it sounds very similar to 103 or even, as other user said, to U87. It's not that detailed, not so open, but unlike 103 it doesn't produce much sibilance. It's also a bit warm which I think is a good thing for VO. Though my voice is already a bit warm. Not sure if it will benefit it or make it "too warm".

After so many replies and KSM being called "boring" I'm again a bit clueless.

As for Oktava. I don't want to buy it. Sorry, but I just don't trust Russian manufacturers these days.
As for MKH416. I'd probably buy it in the future, but not now due to many good remarks in this thread. It's definitely not a universal mic. Condenser is much more preferable.
As for used mics. Again, it's hard to find decent used mics in the country I live. We also don't have a website like Ebay and people can easily scum you. If I only could I'd buy used a Gefell m930. But unfortunately it's not a possibility here. I can, although, find a way to try to find a decent lot on Ebay and send it to a fake address in the USA and then try to find a way to bring it here. So, it's much easier for me to buy a new mic overall.

Oh, wow, what you describe differs greatly from the conditions I'm used to. Feels like a different planet . Where are you? If you don't mind me asking.

"In a world without eBay..."

So if you're not ready to start making money doing this, why worry about what mic to buy?

Boring is good if you want the mic to be "invisible," such as during long audiobook v/o's. It's not good if you want something punchy for promo work. Your first task is to determine what kind of work you're going after.

I don't see the value in investing in some intermediate stage of mediocrity. Why not hone your skills - again focusing on the objective (what kind of work you want to do) - and when you need to upgrade you'll have more money to get the kind of equipment that will make a noticeable difference?

All the best.

I'm going to quote myself a couple of years ago about using small-diaphragm condensers for voice in general.

"To be honest, the reasons why large-diaphragm condensers are the standard for vocals and far more popular for that aren't about sound, or particularly relevant today.

First, old small-diaphragm condensers were noisy. This is because a smaller diaphragm will naturally give out a smaller voltage. The circuitry to make them quiet just didn't exist. If you wanted to record a full-size orchestra and didn't want to have both inherent noise and preamp noise (old SDCs were noisy and less sensitive) was to use a LDC.

This isn't the case anymore. Yes, all in all they will be 2-4 dB noisier, but it's further down than on most old LDCs, and anyway in a mix nobody is ever going to hear that.

Also, there is a difference between single and dual diaphragm's proximity effect. Single-diaphragm mics have more of it, which can be a bit disconcerting to the singer if they move about, and makes them prone to popping, and a bit annoying to deal with at mixdown. But it can just be fixed through EQ. And many LDCs are single-diaphragm anyway.

For a highly-technical treaty on the differences, here is a Shure tech paper on that subject:

http://cdn.shure.com/publication/upl...m_paper_ea.pdf

Another thing is that some people like the distortion that LDCs add to the sound. Let's be completely honest here: LDCs are less accurate, on both bass and treble frequencies. A lot of people don't know this, but having spoken to designers at DPA, they all are completely in agreement with this.

A larger diaphragm causes all sorts of problems; from an acoustic shadow and mic body reflections causing weird off-axis responses, to the inherent distortion of a diaphragm moving diagonally, which happens with LDCs exponentially more. This shows up as a pleasing sort of "hair" or "weight" to the recording, but it's something we're just used to, not a natural aspect of the original sound.

I actually absolutely hate the "eshy", artificial-sounding sibilants most LDCs give you, even expensive Neumanns and Telefunkens. There are exceptions, but they are rare. Listen back very carefully at many, if not most albums you know and love, and pay attention to the esses. Most sound slushy and nothing like a real person saying one. It drives me nuts.

But I think the main reason why they are definitely less used in studio environments, is just the look. SDCs just look a bit funny in front of a singer behind a pop shield, compared to the imposing, expensive-looking side-address LDCs. It just doesn't look as cool. And that matters a lot in a commercial environment. In your bedroom, less so.

Don't be afraid of SDCs for vocals. They are used in classical music almost exclusively, including for spot mics for opera singers, at even the highest level of recording."



Basically, there is no conceptual reason why a small diaphragm is worse for vocals, either spoken word or singing, and the KSM32 is a very good model for that indeed.

I'd use a Neumann KM 84 small-diaphragm condenser over any of the mics we've been discussing for vocals, honestly – as long as I had a good pop shield!

Funny. The whole reason they're being used in those photos (along with the ultra-skinny stands) is the look. Meaning the size.

I honestly don't think that a classical music sound engineer for Deutsche Grammophon would skimp on sound quality for looks when you're miking up Plácido Domingo. Those are all Schoeps mics that are used for orchestral recording (literally the whole orchestra) almost as a matter of fact in many places around the world at the highest levels.

The stand type RC set is indeed used for vocals to make them less obstrusive. The only difference in design is that the Schoeps capsule (which as always been modular) is separated from the preamp, which is at the bottom of the stand. There is no sonic degradation to be had in this configuration.

You can see the exact same preamp one would use as a standard, the CMC, at the bottom of the boom in the pictures on their site:

https://schoeps.de/en/products/acces...et-singer.html

We can argue all we like about the niceness of the colour of whatever boutique mics and transformer preamps while we're doing popular music and spoken word recording. In classical music recording they don't muck about anywhere near as much. They just use the best available.

I wouldn't call a Schoeps "skimping," exactly, but I don't think the audio guys get all the votes in these things, either. It's probably something along the lines of, "Use whatever you want as long as it's small and dark."

LDCs have worse off axis, so the orchestra "bleed" is too colored.

SDCs can handle loud as well as LDCs. Even the old ones. U87Ai has 3dB lower max SPL rating than KM84 or MKH416 (both 130dB)

http://recordinghacks.com/microphones/Neumann/KM-84
http://recordinghacks.com/microphones/Neumann/U-87-Ai
http://recordinghacks.com/microphone...heiser/MKH-416

I've never encountered internal mic distortion with MKH60 nor MKH405 nor MKH80 when recording loud shouting from ~0.5m-1m. But maybe I don't work on extreme enough stuff ;-).

The only distortion that happened to me while recording vocals/vos other than clipping the converters accidentaly. Was clipping the compressor input (cs trakkers, buzz soc 1.1) without realizing there is a very defined ceiling there.

Anyone know of a shootout of LDC vs SDC for "In a world . . . "?

The old-school trailer/promo guys like Don LaFontaine and Hal Douglas would sound fine either way. Or on a soup can and string. But a lot of the newer Ashton Smith-type guys get their sound by projecting way, way less. If they can't snuggle right up to a shotgun they're screwed. The snuggle-ness being relative since the capsule in a short shotgun is at the midpoint of the vents.

Hi Gary,

I'd go for a KSM32 any day, particularly if you don't have a preamp that can drive an SM7B cleanly.

It's a really nice-sounding and capable mic for all sorts of uses.

You'd need to double your budget to get to a Gefell M930 to reach an appreciably higher level of fidelity.

I don't know what the rest of your gear is like (interface?) but the money you'll save over the TLM103 you can put towards other essentials like your booth, headphones, pop shield, cables, stands, silent table, non-creaky chair etc.

If you can act you should be able to do voiceover successfully. There are a lot of people doing it now who don't seem to have much if any experience in acting, because now there's so much work online and a lot of it doesn't seem to be too picky seeing as how there are people making livings with some pretty cheap mics.

I don't know why you wouldn't trust a Russian microphone (I could understand not wanting to buy some random dodgy no name laptop or phone) manufacturer, especially one like Oktava who has some amazing quality products for cheap and actually gives you genuine measurements of your mic, they will still be worth a bit of you sell them (as opposed to some random Chinese copy mic). There are distributors in the UK and North America as well if your qualm is buying directly from the Russian company. No engineer will listen to a recording done on an MK-219 and say "this sounds like it was recorded with a $150 mic" unless they know that's what a used MK-219 goes for, and in that case they should know what a great mic it is once the body resonance is addressed. All I can say is there's a reason the MK-012 is still considered a reliable cheap SDC, and a popular one for low budget film.

Video always wins. They put up the very best small microphones they could find, this was a video event foremost. Believe me, the producer of the video would have thrown anything bigger than maybe a KM84 at the sound designer. I wouldn't be surprised if the producer wanted them to use wireless laveliers and there had to be a big meeting with the executive producer, the producer, sound designer, etc etc to allow the mics on stands. (ok i may be pushing that but in sound for video almost always the picture people win)

I second this.

I'm the one who compared its sound to a U87. Out of all the mics that have been discussed in this thread, that's what the KSM32 sound reminds me most of. Smooth with nice low-end.

Obviously I'm not suggesting it could replace a U87, especially the U87A, but it's more similar to that mic than to the TLM-103, which is much edgier in the top end. (Although some U87s really don't sound too flattering on some voices, so maybe in some cases it could )

Plus you get different polar patterns with the KSM32, and Pad and Bass rolloff switches, which the TLM-103 does not have.

if it was me I'd build your space, work on your setup, seating, screen, script placement etc then mic. VO is soooo much more than mic and if you're still working on technique etc then any practice is more important than which mic you use at this point.
Obviously best answer is to try a few in your space before buying, but if you can't do that find some VOs who's tone/style is what you're aiming at and ask them what they use.
In your budget I've been using the CAD Equitek E100s for VO for a couple of yrs now and it's really working well for me and a lot of others. Had mine fixed for some noise once but they handled it v well and it sounds superb.
Pm if you have any questions etc

The M179 could probably work too. I've thought about getting a couple of them.

Looks like JZ Microphones are having a Black Friday sale, on their website.
Vintage 11 is worth a thought IMHO.
Chris

Sanchez and chessparov2.0 thank you for your kind suggestions.

I'll check Vintage 11 now. Have never heard of this company at all.
But the price and looks are really nice. Should look into it.

UPDATE. Not bad, but VIntage11 is kinda "boxy" (at least as I hear in my ATH20). Checked few youtube videos and my observation is consistent.

But someone might actually like it. Very good sale indeed (50% off)

So far KSM32 is the mic I enjoy the most.

I'm a little bit afraid of its neutral sound, but people say I'll just have to EQ it a little bit so it's probably not a big problem. Also, I can't, as I said before, buy mics with different "mojo" to find one that suits me most. I hear some similarity to U87 also and to my ears U87's sound is what I enjoy in VO the most. Not broadcast sound of dynamic beasts like RE-20 or a bit dull sound of SM7b.

Another side benefit of KSM32 for me is that I also sing and record guitar from time to time and my favorite style is that of Nick Drake. KSM32 seems to be a good choice for that also. Clear and a warm sound that will probably pick up my mahogany guitar well.

The only concern is left is that I'm a baritenor (speaking and singing voice), so I hope KSM32 will not leave me sounding "meh". Hope EQ will help with that if need be.

I'm still open and will be very thankful for any thoughts and suggestions. I can buy the mic any day, but I will still consider any options before this final step.

I'm really really thankful for all the support this forum is providing me. I will surely record VO demos, guitar and songs as demos and post in this thread for all people who will be deciding between this mics or in this price range.

I will also probably post comparison between AT2020 and "my future mic" just for fun and to see how big of improvement it has been.

I agree on the 32. I just watched the Sweetwater Mic Shootout and messing around, they recommended to download the samples into your DAW for true RAW tracks so I did. (The samples online are great but all have some compression and reverb.)

I downloaded a handful of mics, the top were U87ai ($3k) and a Telefunken U47 ($8K) as upper end, male vocal raw..
Then downloaded several other mics.

The KSM32 sounded very similar to the U87ai, even more so than the more expensive KSM44, more than the other 3 or 4 I downloaded.
I was surprised.

Neither sounded like the TFU47, not saying these are the best or anything, so anyone knows... its different mics for different strokes, but bright, dark, medium, well done, raw, medium raw...lol There were other mics that sounded bright and closer to the TFU47 than the U87/KSM32 which didn't sound like the TFU47....

Ronan and many others like the KSM32 and its on the Abbey Road mic list too....so probably no regrets with it.
The Shures are built so damn well too, nothing cheap about them, and can take a drop or hit.

The Sweetwater download to the DAW is pretty cool..

They also lack a figure 8 pattern when comparing them to multipattern LDCs (of course not all do have fig8 either). Now on vocals that's not really a problem (unless you're miking two with one mic), and there's also a figure 8 capsule for the Oktava MK-012 (but that really adds to the cost, but my MK-012 is probably one of my favorite mics I have, so I am considering that capsule). Personally I like that SDCs are smaller and less impressive looking, even if it's just because they take up less space (I'm not sure you actually save a practical amount, but I like being able to boom the mic above my mouth and point it downward).

Now the pattern argument doesn't matter here, because OP is asking about cardioid only mics. If I were after a cardioid only mic, I'd look at some Oktava MK-219s.

it looks like they're using the 416 here for dialog on the new Spongebob Squarepants movie (skip to 1:44):

Those things are never the real deal, they're a re-enactment for the EPK. Likely as not in a different facility from where the show is actually tracked. And that audio isn't from the 416. It's from a mic further away, maybe on the camera, that manages to make a treated booth sound like it's not.

Do you mean that manages to make the sound drier, or more reverberant?

Reflected and boxy.