Review / Microphone / Various: Difference between revisions

Line 5:

|RightHead = Microphone Review

|RightBody = Originally posted on the Bose® Musicians' Site - August 2004. Last updated July 2021 to include

* [https://audixusa.com/products/vx5/ Audix VX-5] Supercardiod

* [[Sennheiser e 965]] Condenser, Supercardiod/Cardioid

* [[Sennheiser MD 435]] Dynamic, Supercardioid

Line 29:

Line 30:

* [[Sennheiser e 965]] $399

* [http://www.akg.com/site/products/powerslave,id,262,pid,262,nodeid,2,_language,EN.html AKG C535] $384

* [https://audixusa.com/products/vx5/ Audix VX-5] $249

===Dynamic ===

Line 52:

Line 55:

* Shure Beta 87a

* AKG C535

* Audix VX-5

'''Dynamic'''

Line 85:

Line 89:

# Neumann KMS105

# Sennheiser e 965

# Audix VX-5

# AKG C535

# Rode S1

Line 94:

Line 99:

The Sennheiser e 965 was introduced in 2008, at close to the same price as the Neumann KMS 105 (above). In 2020, Sennheiser dropped the price as part of a 75th-anniversary promotion, and it is now an exceptional bargain. It is interesting because it has a switchable polar pattern (Supercardioid/Cardioid). This gives you the flexibility to use it with a vocalist who cannot consistently sing directly into the microphone. The others on this list are less forgiving. It also has a built-in -10 dB pad, and a low-frequency roll-off. This is good for controlling the [[Proximity Effect|proximity effect]] that occurs with many directional microphones when you use the close-microphone technique ("eat the mic").

I got the Audix VX-5 in 2018. It is a fine microphone that took the number two spot on my list. It moved to number three when I got the Sennheiser e 965.

The AKG C585, Rode S1, and the Shure Beta 87a sound very similar to me. Well defined, accurate, but lacking the lustre of the Neumann KMS105 and Sennheiser e 965.

Line 102:

Line 110:

=== Application - On the Stand ===

;Condenser

# Neumann KMS105

# AKG ~~C585~~

# Sennheiser e 965

# AKG C535

# Rode S1

# Shure Beta 87a

The list remains the same. With good microphone technique the bottom three would be pretty much equivalent when mated up with ~~presets~~ that seemed right for them. The differences will be more dependent on the singer's voice and range than anything I can detect in testing.

The list remains the same. With good microphone technique the bottom three would be pretty much equivalent when mated up with ToneMatch Presets that seemed right for them. The differences will be more dependent on the singer's voice and range than anything I can detect in testing.

== General Comments ==

A consequence of getting the Bose ~~Personalized Amplification System™~~ is that I can hear everything better.

A consequence of getting the Bose {{L1}} is that I can hear everything better.

This is a significant improvement at a qualitative level. This means that the quality of the sound (or lack of it) has become much more apparent to me. I am enjoying playing, and performing more than I have in years.

Since getting my L1~~™~~ I am playing more, performing more, and singing more.

Since getting my {{L1}} I am playing more, performing more, and singing more.

In the days before the L1~~™~~ I practised vocals using the Sony C48 and the Microtech Geffel UMT 70S, but since I couldn't hear myself anyway, there was no need to push the envelope (microphone quality) when performing live. I was singing harmony most of the time because I had not the confidence to take on lead vocals (couldn't hear myself). Now that I can get the same sound live as when practising, it is time to find a way to closely get the same sound in both circumstances. This was relatively easy to do with my guitar sound, and now I'm ready to do it with the vocals.

In the days before the {{L1}} I practised vocals using the Sony C48 and the Microtech Geffel UMT 70S, but since I couldn't hear myself anyway, there was no need to push the envelope (microphone quality) when performing live. I was singing harmony most of the time because I had not the confidence to take on lead vocals (couldn't hear myself). Now that I can get the same sound live as when practising, it is time to find a way to closely get the same sound in both circumstances. This was relatively easy to do with my guitar sound, and now I'm ready to do it with the vocals.

== What to do now ==

Line 172:

Line 183:

July 2021

I can now add to the list of great microphones for the {{L1}} the Sennheiser e 965. It is an extremely flattering vocal microphone, ~~built~~-to sound ~~great~~. It has two polar patterns (Supercardioid/Cardioid), a -10 dB pad, and a low-frequency roll-off. The pad can help with an extremely loud live stage. The roll-off can tame an excessive proximity effect (low-voice, aggressively eating the mic).

I can now add to the list of great microphones for the {{L1}} the Sennheiser e 965. It is an extremely flattering vocal microphone, and it performs just like you would expect a high-quality condenser microphone to sound. It has two polar patterns (Supercardioid/Cardioid), a -10 dB pad, and a low-frequency roll-off. The pad can help with an extremely loud live stage. The roll-off can tame an excessive proximity effect (low-voice, aggressively eating the mic).

The Sennheiser MD 445 has the best performance for gain before feedback, beating everything else on this page, with a high-end clarity and presence close to the top condenser microphones. The Sennheiser MD 435 sounds just as good in a different way, and it is more forgiving for vocalists who stray away from the microphone.

May 2019

Line 186:

Line 200:

I'm still using the [http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=kms105_description Neumann KMS105]. It is my vocal microphone.

I've used several other microphones that weren't available for the comparisons above. Today I would include the [https://www.shure.com/en-US/products/microphones/ksm9 Shure KSM9] among the top contenders for a stage worthy condenser microphone. Having used both it's not a matter of one being better than the other. They are outstanding microphones. It comes down to person preference and the combination of the singer and microphone.

I've used several other microphones that weren't available for the comparisons above. Today I would include the [https://www.shure.com/en-US/products/microphones/ksm9 Shure KSM9] among the top contenders for a stage-worthy condenser microphone. Having used both it's not a matter of one being better than the other. They are outstanding microphones. It comes down to person preference and the combination of the singer and microphone.

One more comment about the Neumann KMS 105. It makes singing effortless. Of all the microphones I've used over the years, it is the easiest to sing into to get the sound I want to hear. That's not something I can identify quantitatively with specifications, but it's real and it makes a huge difference. The Shure KSM9 is very close in this regard.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 |RightHead = Microphone Review
 |RightBody = Originally posted on the Bose® Musicians' Site - August 2004. Last updated July 2021 to include
+* [https://audixusa.com/products/vx5/ Audix VX-5] Supercardiod
 * [[Sennheiser e 965]] Condenser, Supercardiod/Cardioid
 * [[Sennheiser MD 435]] Dynamic, Supercardioid
@@ Line 29: / Line 30: @@
 * [[Sennheiser e 965]] $399
 * [http://www.akg.com/site/products/powerslave,id,262,pid,262,nodeid,2,_language,EN.html AKG C535] $384
+* [https://audixusa.com/products/vx5/ Audix VX-5] $249
 ===Dynamic ===
@@ Line 52: / Line 55: @@
 * Shure Beta 87a
 * AKG C535
+* Audix VX-5
 '''Dynamic'''
@@ Line 85: / Line 89: @@
 # Neumann KMS105
 # Sennheiser e 965
+# Audix VX-5
 # AKG C535
 # Rode S1
@@ Line 94: / Line 99: @@
 The Sennheiser e 965 was introduced in 2008, at close to the same price as the Neumann KMS 105 (above). In 2020, Sennheiser dropped the price as part of a 75th-anniversary promotion, and it is now an exceptional bargain. It is interesting because it has a switchable polar pattern (Supercardioid/Cardioid). This gives you the flexibility to use it with a vocalist who cannot consistently sing directly into the microphone. The others on this list are less forgiving. It also has a built-in -10 dB pad, and a low-frequency roll-off. This is good for controlling the [[Proximity Effect|proximity effect]] that occurs with many directional microphones when you use the close-microphone technique ("eat the mic").
+I got the Audix VX-5 in 2018. It is a fine microphone that took the number two spot on my list. It moved to number three when I got the Sennheiser e 965.
 The AKG C585, Rode S1, and the Shure Beta 87a sound very similar to me. Well defined, accurate, but lacking the lustre of the Neumann KMS105 and Sennheiser e 965.
@@ Line 102: / Line 110: @@
 === Application - On the Stand ===
+;Condenser
 # Neumann KMS105
-# AKG C585
+# Sennheiser e 965
+# AKG C535
 # Rode S1
 # Shure Beta 87a
-The list remains the same. With good microphone technique the bottom three would be pretty much equivalent when mated up with presets that seemed right for them. The differences will be more dependent on the singer's voice and range than anything I can detect in testing.
+The list remains the same. With good microphone technique the bottom three would be pretty much equivalent when mated up with ToneMatch Presets that seemed right for them. The differences will be more dependent on the singer's voice and range than anything I can detect in testing.
 == General Comments ==
-A consequence of getting the Bose Personalized Amplification System™ is that I can hear everything better.
+A consequence of getting the Bose {{L1}} is that I can hear everything better.
 This is a significant improvement at a qualitative level. This means that the quality of the sound (or lack of it) has become much more apparent to me. I am enjoying playing, and performing more than I have in years.
-Since getting my L1&trade; I am playing more, performing more, and singing more.
+Since getting my {{L1}} I am playing more, performing more, and singing more.
-In the days before the  L1&trade;  I practised vocals using the Sony C48 and the Microtech Geffel UMT 70S, but since I couldn't hear myself anyway, there was no need to push the envelope (microphone quality) when performing live. I was singing harmony most of the time because I had not the confidence to take on lead vocals (couldn't hear myself). Now that I can get the same sound live as when practising, it is time to find a way to closely get the same sound in both circumstances. This was relatively easy to do with my guitar sound, and now I'm ready to do it with the vocals.
+In the days before the  {{L1}}  I practised vocals using the Sony C48 and the Microtech Geffel UMT 70S, but since I couldn't hear myself anyway, there was no need to push the envelope (microphone quality) when performing live. I was singing harmony most of the time because I had not the confidence to take on lead vocals (couldn't hear myself). Now that I can get the same sound live as when practising, it is time to find a way to closely get the same sound in both circumstances. This was relatively easy to do with my guitar sound, and now I'm ready to do it with the vocals.
 == What to do now ==
@@ Line 172: / Line 183: @@
 July 2021
-I can now add to the list of great microphones for the {{L1}} the Sennheiser e 965. It is an extremely flattering vocal microphone, built-to sound great. It has two polar patterns (Supercardioid/Cardioid), a -10 dB pad, and a low-frequency roll-off. The pad can help with an extremely loud live stage. The roll-off can tame an excessive proximity effect (low-voice, aggressively eating the mic).
+I can now add to the list of great microphones for the {{L1}} the Sennheiser e 965. It is an extremely flattering vocal microphone, and it performs just like you would expect a high-quality condenser microphone to sound. It has two polar patterns (Supercardioid/Cardioid), a -10 dB pad, and a low-frequency roll-off. The pad can help with an extremely loud live stage. The roll-off can tame an excessive proximity effect (low-voice, aggressively eating the mic).
+The Sennheiser MD 445 has the best performance for gain before feedback, beating everything else on this page, with a high-end clarity and presence close to the top condenser microphones. The Sennheiser MD 435 sounds just as good in a different way, and it is more forgiving for vocalists who stray away from the microphone.
 May 2019
@@ Line 186: / Line 200: @@
 I'm still using the [http://www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=kms105_description Neumann KMS105]. It is my vocal microphone.
-I've used several other microphones that weren't available for the comparisons above.  Today I would include the [https://www.shure.com/en-US/products/microphones/ksm9 Shure KSM9] among the top contenders for a stage worthy condenser microphone. Having used both it's not a matter of one being better than the other. They are outstanding microphones. It comes down to person preference and the combination of the singer and microphone.
+I've used several other microphones that weren't available for the comparisons above.  Today I would include the [https://www.shure.com/en-US/products/microphones/ksm9 Shure KSM9] among the top contenders for a stage-worthy condenser microphone. Having used both it's not a matter of one being better than the other. They are outstanding microphones. It comes down to person preference and the combination of the singer and microphone.
 One more comment about the Neumann KMS 105. It makes singing effortless. Of all the microphones I've used over the years, it is the easiest to sing into to get the sound I want to hear. That's not something I can identify quantitatively with specifications, but it's real and it makes a huge difference. The Shure KSM9 is very close in this regard.