Shure KSM9 Vs Neumann KMS 105 Comparison

A microphone for live performances needs to have good sound quality, but at the same time it should be able to avoid capturing environmental noise. Hence, finding a good microphone for such purpose is often tricky and confusing. No worries! Below, we will help you choose between two popular mics for live applications, Shure KSM9 vs Neumann KMS 105.

These are high-class mics available in a similar price range. At first, they may seem identical. However, there are some distinctive differences that set them apart. Below, you can find out more about:
– The different sound characters of the two microphones,
– The features of Shure KSM9 vs Neumann KMS 105, and
– Which mic that is more reliable and easier to use in live settings.

Design and Features
First of all, both Shure KSM9 and Neumann KMS 105 come with dual polar patterns. Each of them has two selectable polar patterns, cardioid and supercardioid. This allows for great versatility in adapting to different environments. The cardioid polar pattern is generally good enough for solo performances. The supercardioid polar pattern has a narrower pickup angle, so it may be handy when there are other performers on the stage.

Shure KSM9 is available in two color choices, champagne and charcoal gray. It claims to have premium-grade electronic components and gold-plated internal and external connectors for the best durability and sound quality. The output connector is XLR, but there is a wireless model is available. It comes with an advanced suspension shock mount that does a very good job. See also: Neumann TLM 102 vs AKG C414.

Neumann KMS 105 is also available in two color choices, nickel and matte black. It comes in a robust metal housing that has been optimized to reduce handling noise. The bundle also includes a stand mount, which is handy and useful. According to Neumann, this mic has a transformerless output, and the pop shielding is said to be effective in reducing plosives and wind noise without any side effect on the sound quality.

Technical Specs

Shure KSM9Neumann KMS 105
- Directional Polar Patterns: Cardioid, Supercardioid- Directional Pattern : Cardioid / Supercardioid
- Frequency Response: 50 to 20,000 Hz- Frequency Range : 20 Hz - 20 kHz
- Output Impedance: 150 ohms (actual)- Rated impedance : 50 ohms
- Sensitivity (typical; at 1000 Hz; 1 Pa = 94 dB SPL): -51 dBV/Pa- Maximum SPL for THD : 150 dB

Sound Quality
One distinctive advantage of Shure KSM9 is that it is quite less sensitive than Neumann KMS 105. The lower sensitivity allows Shure KSM9 to focus on the user’s voice without picking up any sound from other directions. Because of this, Shure KSM9 is much easier to use when there are other singers or instruments on the stage.

On the other hand, Neumann KMS 105 is quite more sensitive. This may be a good thing for a solo performance, when there are no other sound signals on the stage. However, using Neumann KMS 105 when there are other performers may be difficult and frustrating due to the mic picking up other sound signals.

Nevertheless, both mics have good sound accuracy. Shure KSM9 tends to be a little brighter, whereas Neumann KMS 105 has better bass depth due to the wider frequency response range. Both mics have very high maximum SPL, and they can easily handle loud voices without clipping.

Shure KSM9 Vs Neumann KMS 105

- Zippered carrying case
- Dual gold layered, low-mass Mylar diaphragm design
- Switchable polar patterns (supercardioid and cardioid)
- Advanced suspension shock mount
- Neumann sound on stage
- Highly detailed condenser mic for demanding on stage applications
- Robust metal housing reduces handling noise
- Includes stand mount and padded nylon bag

Conclusion
Between the two mics, we recommend you to choose Shure KSM9. It is quite easier to use, especially when there are other sounds on the stage. It does not pick up environmental noise. The features are similar to Neumann KMS 105, such as the dual selectable polar patterns and high SPL handling.

Razer Seiren Pro Vs Blue Yeti Comparison

Razer Seiren Pro and Blue Yeti are two mics suitable for a wide range of applications, from digital recording, podcasting, to streaming. Both products come from renowned companies. However, Razer Seiren Pro is quite more expensive than Blue Yeti. So, which one is better? See the comparisons between Razer Seiren Pro vs Blue Yeti below for the answer.

Below, you can read the information about:
– Which one between the two mics that has better sound quality,
– Which one that has better features and easier usage, and
– Which one that gives the best value for the money.

Design
These two mics have quite different airs around them. Razer Seiren Pro has a more modern and contemporary vibe. It comes with a squarish shape. The construction does look rugged and durable. One nice thing about Razer Seiren Pro is that you can see the currently selected pickup pattern on the OLED display on the front. The gain adjustment is also on the front and is easier to access. Razer Seiren Pro comes with a braided cable which is durable.

On the other hand, Blue Yeti has a more classical vibe with the rounded shape. The housing feels sturdy, but the included cable is a traditional one that isn’t braided. The pickup pattern selector and the gain adjustment are on the rear, so it is somewhat less practical to use. See also: Razer Seiren vs Razer Seiren Pro.

Technical Specs

Razer Seiren ProBlue Yeti
- Microphone Operation Mode : cardioid / omni-directional / bi-directional (switchable)- Polar Patterns: cardioid, bidirectional, omnidirectional, stereo
- Frequency Response : 20 Hz- Frequency Response: 20Hz - 20kHz
- Max Sound Pressure : 120 dB- Sample Rate: 48kHz

Features
Razer Seiren Pro and Blue Yeti come with similar features. This is why they often get compared against each other. Each of them has four selectable polar patterns, which are cardioid, bidirectional, omnidirectional, and stereo. These selectable polar patterns allow for great versatility to adapt to different recording situations.

Each of the two mics also comes with a gain control, mute button, and headphone output for zero-latency direct monitoring. These features make them very handy and practical. You can easily monitor the sound while recording. Note that there is no on-board volume control for the headphone output, so you may want to use a headset that has its own volume control.

Nevertheless, according to Razer’s official page, Razer Seiren Pro supports both XLR and USB. One slight problem is that the included XLR cable sometimes has issues. On the other hand, Blue Yeti only supports USB.

Sound Quality
Razer Seiren Pro and Blue Yeti have more-or-less similar sound quality. They are both good enough for streaming, podcasting, and even some vocal recording. However, they do have different characteristics.

Razer Seiren Pro tends to sound warmer and boomier. It has more bass presence. This is generally not a problem; except if you have a bassy voice, as the sound will be somewhat muddy and not very clear. On the other hand, Blue Yeti sounds more analytical and articulate. Hence, many people think that Blue Yeti is overall more accurate and detailed.

Razer Seiren Pro Vs Blue Yeti

- With an aluminum base as a stabilizer, the mic sits securely on your home or studio desktop without the need of an additional mic stand, making it perfect for recording and streaming
- Whether you’re using the mic for streaming, podcasts, voice-overs, instruments, vocals, conference calls, events, interviews or even duets, the Razer Seiren has you covered
- It can easily switch up to four different dedicated recording patterns to suit a variety of audio capture needs;Headphone amplifier: Impedance: > 16ohms;Power output (RMS): 130mW;THD: 0.009%;Frequency response: 15Hz – 22kHz;Signal-to-noise ratio: 114dB
- With zero latency output when plugged directly into the Razer Seiren, accurately monitor your recordings in real time
- Tri-capsule array - 3 condenser capsules can record almost any situation, Multiple pattern selection - cardioid, bidirectional, omnidirectional & stereo
- Gain control, mute button, zero-latency headphone output. Dimensions (extended in stand) : 4.72 x 4.92 x 11.61 inches
- Perfect for vocals, musical instruments, podcasting, voiceovers, interviews, field recordings, conference calls
- Compatible with Windows 10, Windows 8 (including 8.1), Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows XP (Home and Professional), and Mac OS X (10.4.11 or higher), and requires a minimum of 64 MB of RAM(remove existing and upload)

Conclusion
In general, Blue Yeti is more recommended because it gives more accurate and detailed sound. The performance is better, and the price is more affordable. It already has four selectable polar patterns, an adjustable gain level, and a headphone output for zero-latency monitoring.

Audio Technica ATR2100 Vs Blue Yeti Comparison

You are currently looking for a USB microphone with good sound quality and features. You are now stuck between Audio Technica ATR2100 vs Blue Yeti. They are both good microphones, but they do come with very different features. Hence, choosing the best one depends on your needs and purposes.

In this article, you can read and find out more about:
– The two mics’ different mechanisms and polar patterns,
– The different features of Audio Technica ATR2100 vs Blue Yeti,
– The differences in their sound quality, and
– Which one is the best USB mic for the money.

Size and Weight
First of all, Audio Technica ATR2100 and Blue Yeti come with very different designs. If you prefer a typical handheld microphone, Audio Technica ATR2100 is more suitable. It has the usual shape of a mic. It measures approximately 51 mm wide and 183 mm tall, with a weight of about 268 grams. If you ever need to put it on a stand, don’t worry. A tripod desk stand and the clamp are included in the bundle.

On the other hand, Blue Yeti is shorter yet a little bulkier due to having the desk stand integrated onto the mic. It measures 12 cm x 12.5 cm x 29.5 cm. One nice thing is that the mic’s position is easily adjustable. You can easily angle the mic as needed to perform. See also: Blue Spark vs Blue Yeti.

Different Polar Patterns
Audio Technica ATR2100 is specifically designed for music and field recording. As stated by Audio Technica, it comes with a cardioid polar pattern. This is a good choice for capturing sounds from a single direction (the front) while attenuating environmental noise coming from other directions.

On the other hand, Blue Yeti has four selectable polar patterns. It has cardioid, stereo, bidirectional, and omnidirectional polar patterns. Hence, it is very versatile. You can adjust the polar pattern to match the needs of different conditions, such as podcasting, field recording, and interviewing.

Technical Specs

Audio Technica ATR2100Blue Yeti
- Element: Dynamic- Capsules: condenser, pressure gradient
- Polar Pattern: Cardioid- Polar Patterns: cardioid, bidirectional, omnidirectional, stereo
- Frequency Response: 50-15,000 Hz- Frequency Response: 20Hz - 20kHz
- Power Requirements: USB Power (5V DC)- Max SPL: 120dB (THD: 0.5% 1kHz)
- Bit Depth: 16 bit- Bit Rate: 16bit
- Sample Rate: 44.1 kHz/48 kHz- Sample Rate: 48kHz

Connection Ports
Audio Technica ATR2100 is more versatile in terms of output capabilities. This model has two output options, USB and XLR. Thus, this mic is great if you need a mic that can perform well in a mobile setting as well as studio environment. This is also a great backup mic, as the dual connection options may prove to be handy in certain situations. By the way, there is a 3.5 mm headphone jack for direct monitoring. There is an on/off switch for easy control.

On the other hand, Blue Yeti only supports USB. It does have a 3.5 mm headphone jack with a dedicated volume control for direct monitoring. There is a mute button for controlling when to pause and continue the recording.

Sound Quality
Finally, note that these two mics use very different mechanisms. Audio Technica ATR2100 is a dynamic microphone. In general, it has a good ability to reject noise. It is also generally more durable. Hence, it is a great choice for field recording. The sound quality of Audio Technica ATR2100 is good. It is clear and accurate.

On the other hand, Blue Yeti is a condenser microphone. It is very sensitive. Because of this, it usually requires a treated room with no environment noise. The overall sound quality is good; it is bright, crisp, and accurate.

Audio Technica ATR2100 Vs Blue Yeti

- Handheld dynamic microphone with USB digital output and XLR analog output
- USB output connects to your computer for digital recording, while the XLR output connects with your sound system conventional microphone input for use in live performance
- Smooth, extended frequency response ideally suited for podcasting, home studio recording, field recording, voiceover, and on-stage use
- Built-in headphone jack allows you to directly monitor your microphone output without audible delay
- Cardioid polar pattern reduces pickup of unwanted sounds from the sides and rear
- Tri-capsule array - 3 condenser capsules can record almost any situation
-Compatible with Windows 10, Windows 8 (including 8.1), Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows XP (Home and Professional), and Mac OS X (10.4.11 or higher), and requires a minimum of 64 MB of RAM(remove existing and upload)
- Multiple pattern selection - cardioid, bidirectional, omnidirectional & stereo
- Gain control, mute button, zero-latency headphone output. Dimensions (extended in stand) : 4.72 x 4.92 x 11.61 inches
- Perfect for vocals, musical instruments, podcasting, voiceovers, interviews, field recordings, conference calls

Conclusion
In general, Audio Technica ATR2100 is more recommended. This mic is more versatile, suitable for both field recording and studio recording. The dynamic mic and cardioid polar pattern offer a good ability to reject environmental noise. In addition, it has USB and XLR outputs.

Sennheiser E945 Vs Shure Beta 58A Comparison

If you are confused in choosing between Sennheiser E945 vs Shure Beta 58A, you have come to the right place. Below, we will see the comparisons between these two supercardioid vocal mics based on several factors. While they are both quite popular, one of them offers noticeably better clarity and overall sound quality.

By reading this article, you will understand better about:
– The similarities between Sennheiser E945 vs Shure Beta 58A,
– Their differences and performance comparison, and
– Which one is the best mic for the money.

Design
Sennheiser E945 is a little heavier than Shure Beta 58A. It weighs about 12.875 oz. One reason behind the weight is the rugged metal construction. It is very tough and durable, and it can withstand usage abuse. In addition, it also has a shock-mounted capsule which reduces handling and mechanical noise. The grille is very durable, too.

Compared to the other mic here, Sennheiser E945 indeed looks more elegant and classy. The grille is not overly bulky, and the color has been toned down to suit the black body.

On the other hand, Shure Beta 58A looks just like your typical microphone. It has a round, fat spherical grille. Nevertheless, this model is slightly lighter at just 9.9 oz, so it may be a little more convenient to handle. The mesh grille is made of hardened steel which is very durable. It also has a pneumatic shock mount system to minimize vibrations and mechanical noise. See also: Sennheiser E935 vs Beta 58.

Technical Specs

Sennheiser E945Shure Beta 58A
- Frequency response : 40 - 18000 Hz- Frequency Response : 50 to 16,000 Hz
- Nominal impedance : 350 Ω- Rated impedance : 150 ohms
- Sensitivity in free field, no load (1kHz) 2,0mV/Pa = -54dB (0 dB = 1V/Pa) = -74 dB (0 dB = 1V/ubar)- Polar Pattern : Supercardioid, rotationally symmetrical about microphone axis, uniform with frequency

Polar Pattern
Both Sennheiser E945 and Shure Beta 58A are supercardioid dynamic microphones. As dynamic microphones, they offer excellent performance on live stages. They also have excellent reliability and durability, as they are less affected by impacts compared to their condenser counterparts.

Being supercardioidmics, Sennheiser E945 and Shure Beta 58A offers great resistance against feedback and environment noise. According to StackExchange, supercardioid has more side rejection than cardioid polar patterns.These micshave very narrow pick-up angles, so they can focus only on the singer’s voice while rejecting other sounds from other directions. These are great mics for live situations.

Sound Quality
As mentioned above, Sennheiser E945 and Shure Beta 58A have noticeably different sound qualities. In general, Sennheiser E945 is better. It has a wider frequency response range of 40 Hz – 18 kHz. As the effect, it can capture sounds from lower and higher frequencies, hence delivering more accurate overall sound.

Sennheiser E945 has excellent clarity. It can capture the singer’s voice very clearly. It already sounds great without needing much tweaking.

On the other hand, Shure Beta 58A actually has good overall sound quality, but the clarity and accuracy just can’t match Sennheiser E945. Shure Beta 58A has a frequency response range of 50 Hz – 16 kHz. It usually requires the user to tweak the EQ in order to get the most accurate sound.

Sennheiser E945 Vs Shure Beta 58A

- Shock-mounted capsule: Low sensitivity to impact and handling noise
- Supercardioid pickup pattern: Insulation from other on-stage signals
- Neodymium ferrous magnet with boron: Keeps microphone stable regardless of climate
- Frequency response tailored for vocals, with brightened midrange and bass roll off to control proximity effect
- Uniform super cardioid pattern for high gain before feedback and superior rejection off axis sound
- Neodymium magnet for high signal to noise output

Conclusion
Between Sennheiser E945 vs Shure Beta 58A, we highly recommend you to choose Sennheiser E945. This mic has a better, more elegant design and better sound quality. The output has higher clarity and accuracy, and it does not need much tweaking to sound great.

Blue Spark Vs Blue Yeti Comparison

Blue has released several great mics for different needs and purposes. However, their varying features and prices may make it difficult to choose the right one for your projects. In this article, we will see the comparisons between Blue Spark vs Blue Yeti to help you choose the best mic for the money.

Below, you can find the information that you need regarding:
– The features and advantages of Blue Spark vs Blue Yeti,
– The connections used by the two mics, and
– The recommended model for musical and professional recording.

Design
First of all, Blue Spark and Blue Yeti come with very different designs. On one hand, Blue Spark looks very unconventional. It is not exactly a good-looking mic, but it is not ugly, either. It just looks unique with the slim body and small grille. Nevertheless, this mic is very portable. You can easily bring it along when going to a gig or traveling. Note that you may need to mount it with a shock mount.

On the other hand, Blue Yeti is a portable and stylish mic suitable for podcasting and interviews. The body is compact and lightweight, and it is integrated to a stand. You can easily put it on any flat surface. The mic’s position is adjustable relative to the stand, so it is very adaptable to different conditions. See also: MXL 770 vs Blue Yeti.

Technical Specs

Blue SparkBlue Yeti
- Transducer Type : Condenser, Pressure Gradient- Capsules : condenser, pressure gradient
- Polar Patterns : Cardioid- Polar Patterns : cardioid, bidirectional, omnidirectional, stereo
- Frequency Response : 20Hz – 20kHz- Frequency Response : 20Hz - 20kHz
- Max SPL : 136 dB SPL (1k, THD 0.5%)- Max SPL : 120dB (THD: 0.5% 1kHz)

Connection
One important difference between these two mics is that Blue Spark uses an XLR connection, whereas Blue Yeti uses a USB connection. This difference alone may make your decision.Blue Spark is generally suitable for working in a music or recording environment. It needs +48V phantom power to operate.You may need an audio interface in order to connect it to your computer.

On the other hand, Blue Yeti is a great choice if you need a simple USB mic that can connect directly to your computer. Blue says that this mic is plug-and-play and USB-powered. You can easily bring it along with your laptop for field recordings.

Features and Sound Quality
Blue Spark is designed for professional recordings. It does not come with many fancy features. It just has a cardioid polar pattern with a 100Hz low-cut filter and -20dB pad. The low-cut filter is very useful for reducing noise and improving clarity, whereas the pre-attenuation pad is nice for handling loud sounds.

Blue Spark has a maximum SPL handling of 136 dB, so it can handle a wide variety of instruments. The sound quality is very good. It can capture sounds with good accuracy and clarity.

On the other hand, Blue Yeti is a versatile mic suitable for many applications. It is especially great for streaming and podcasting. It boasts four switchable polar patterns: cardioid, bidirectional, omnidirectional, and stereo. In addition, it has an adjustable gain control and zero-latency headphone output. However, the maximum SPL handling is only 120 dB. The sound quality is generally good, but it is not as clear and rich as the Spark.

Blue Spark Vs Blue Yeti

- XLR connection integrated perfectly with USB audio interfaces and mixers
- Custom, large-diaphragm cardioid condenser capsule for superbly detailed, focused sound
- Blue’s Class-A JFET electronics deliver rich harmonic audio
- 100Hz low cut filter increases clarity, reducing rumble from your room or desk
- -20dB pad keeps your stream free of distortion when things get intense
- Tri-capsule array - 3 condenser capsules can record almost any situation
- Multiple pattern selection - cardioid, bidirectional, omnidirectional & stereo
- Gain control, mute button, zero-latency headphone output. Dimensions (extended in stand) : 4.72 x 4.92 x 11.61 inches
- Perfect for vocals, musical instruments, podcasting, voiceovers, interviews, field recordings, conference calls
- Compatible with Windows 10, Windows 8 (including 8.1), Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows XP (Home and Professional), and Mac OS X (10.4.11 or higher), and requires a minimum of 64 MB of RAM(remove existing and upload)

Conclusion
For professional music recording, we recommend you to choose Blue Spark. This is a better quality mic with higher maximum SPL handling and clearer, more accurate output.

Neumann TLM 102 Vs AKG C414 Comparison

Neumann TLM 102 serves as an affordable model suitable for people looking for an entry-level Neumann mic. It is considered by many as a good product to introduce people to the superior quality of Neumann mics. On the other hand, AKG C414 is a more expensive condenser mic, but the features and capabilities are very interesting. Which one should you get? Read the comparisons of Neumann TLM 102 vs AKG C414 below for the answer.

Neumann TLM 102 Vs AKG C414

Design
Neumann TLM 102 comes with a compact yet durable construction, however it doesn’t lose the distinctive Neumann design character. It has a length of about 116 mm and a diameter of 52 mm. It is very lightweight at about 210 grams. It is a large-diaphragm microphone with a pressure gradient transducer, featuring a transformerless circuitry. See also our previous post about Neumann TLM 102 vs U87 here!

On the other hand, AKG C414 is slightly bigger and heavier. It measures 160 mm long, 50 mm wide, and 38 mm thick. The weight is about 300 grams. It looks very stylish and professional with the dark gray and gold finish. On the front side, you can see an LED indicator which is to warn about an overload or audio peak. The construction is sturdy and rugged.

Technical Specs

Blue SparkBlue Yeti
- Transducer Type : Condenser, Pressure Gradient- Capsules : condenser, pressure gradient
- Polar Patterns : Cardioid- Polar Patterns : cardioid, bidirectional, omnidirectional, stereo
- Frequency Response : 20Hz – 20kHz- Frequency Response : 20Hz - 20kHz
- Max SPL : 136 dB SPL (1k, THD 0.5%)- Max SPL : 120dB (THD: 0.5% 1kHz)

Polar Pattern
One of the biggest differences between Neumann TLM 102 vs AKG C414 is the polar pattern. Neumann TLM 102 only has a single polar pattern, which is cardioid. This polar pattern is suitable for most recording purposes, as it captures audio signals from a single direction while rejecting the rest.

However, AKG C414 offers a greater range of versatility and adaptability. It has nine selectable polar patterns for the best setting for every need. The polar patterns include cardioid, wide cardioid, hypercardioid, figure eight, and omnidirectional. So, you can choose the most suitable polar patterns for different vocals, instruments, and conditions.

Features
Neumann TLM 102 has a high maximum SPL handling by default. It can handle voices as loud as 144 dB, which is good enough for most singers and instruments except the very loud ones. In addition, it has a very low self noise level, which is only 12 dBA. It uses an XLR3F connector.

On the other hand, AKG C414 has a default maximum SPL handling of 140 dB. However, it is also equipped with a selectable pre-attenuation pad which can be set to -6dB, -12dB, or -18dB. So, you can have a maximum SPL handling of 158 dB with this mic, which is high enough for most loud singers and instruments.

In addition, AKG C414 also features a selectable bass-cut filter which attenuates the frequencies under 160 Hz, 80 Hz, or 40 Hz. This is useful for reducing wind and handling noise. It has a very low self noise level of just 6 dBA.

Sound Quality
Both of these two mics have excellent sound quality. They both have a frequency response range of 20 Hz – 20 kHz.Neumann TLM 102 tends to be brighter due to the slight presence boost above 6 kHz. Meanwhile, AKG C414 is also somewhat bright; it has a soaring sound that is the typical of condenser microphones.

Neumann TLM 102 Vs AKG C414

- Large-diaphragm microphone with cardioid directional characteristic (pressure gradient transducer)
- Compact Neumann design
- Very high maximum sound pressure level (144 dB)
- Slight presence boost above 6 kHz helps vocals to shine in the mix
- Sonic character of the famous AKG C12 delivers astounding sound quality for lead vocals and solo instruments
- Nine selectable polar patterns for the perfect setting for every application
- Three attenuation levels (-6/-12/-18dB) for close-up recording or high-output sources of up to 158dB SPL
- Three switchable different bass-cut filters to reduce wind noise, stage vibration or proximity effect

Conclusion
In general, AKG C414 makes the better choice. It offers a great value for the money. It is a lot more versatile with the features and capabilities.

Rode K2 Vs Neumann U87 Comparison

In the following article, we will discuss the comparisons between Rode K2 vs Neumann U87. Both of them are condenser microphones with multiple polar patterns. However, Rode K2 is available at a much lower price point. Despite being more affordable, its features do look more attractive. On the other hand, though, Neumann U87 has been considered by many as one of the very best condenser models available for the money. Continue reading below to determine which one is better for you.

Rode K2 Vs Neumann U87

Design and Dimensions
Interestingly, Rode K2 and Neumann U87 are about the same size. Rode K2 measures 208 mm long, with a diameter of 55 mm. The weight is about 815 grams. The build quality is very good; it features a welded, heat-treated steel mesh head which is highly durable. Inside, there is an internal shock mount and one-inch capsule with gold-sputtered diaphragm. There is a dedicated power supply for the mic.

On the other hand, Neumann U87 measures 200 mm long and 56 mm wide. The weight is approximately 500 grams. It comes with a pressure-gradient transducer with a double-membrane capsule. The metallic casing and grille are solid and rugged.

Technical Specs

Rode K2Neumann U87
- Polar Pattern : Cardioid, Figure 8, Omnidirectional- Directional patterns: omnidirectional, cardioid, and figure-810dB attenuation switch127dB
- Frequency Range : 20Hz - 20kHz- SPL handling response : 20Hz to 20kHz
- Output Impedance : 200Ω- Impedance rated : 200 ohms

Features
Both mics have three polar patterns: cardioid, figure-eight, and omnidirectional. They are both very versatile, as they can be adapted to suit different needs and conditions. By the way, take a look at our previous post about Neumann U67 vs U87!

Rode K2 comes with a dedicated power supply, so there is no need to worry about adjusting the phantom power. It already has a very high maximum SPL handling by default, which is 162 dB. With such high level, this mic can easily take care of even the loudest singers. In addition, the self noise level is impressively low at 10dBA.

On the other hand, Neumann U87 requires +48V phantom power. The maximum SPL handling is only 117 dB, but there is a -10dB pre-attenuation pad which you can activate to increase the limit to 127 dB. This is still lower than Rode K2’s maximum SPL handling. Meanwhile, the lowest self noise level is 12 dBA, which is on the cardioid polar pattern. Neumann U87 also features a switchable low-frequency roll off, which is handy for reducing mechanical handling noise and wind noise.

Sound Quality
Despite the price difference between Rode K2 vs Neumann U87, the performance of Rode K2 is very impressive. It has very low self noise, so the mic can capture the sound with great clarity. The produced output is accurate and detailed. The output character tends to be bright, which is quite common for condenser mics.

On the other hand, Neumann U87 has a balanced sound that is accurate and natural. It also offers very good clarity, as the self noise level is also very low. It is quite versatile, suitable for vocals and many instruments.

Rode K2 Vs Neumann U87

- Large 1" capsule with gold sputtered diaphragm and internal shock mounting
- Hand-selected and graded 6922 twin-triode valve
- High strength welded and heat-treated steel mesh head
- Arguably the best known and most widely used studio microphone in the world (for good reason), the easy-to-recognize U 87 is a classic!
- A distinctive design and mythical Neumann sound make this microphone a must-have for pro studios
- The U 87 is known for its one-of-a-kind frequency and transient response characteristics which deliver a smooth natural sound with a bunch of source material

Conclusion
If you are concerned about the value of the money, Rode K2 indeed makes a better choice. It is available at a much lower price point, while having very good features and sound quality. On the other hand, Neumann U87 indeed has very good quality, but the price is very expensive.

Rode M5 Vs AKG P170 Comparison

Rode M5 and AKG P170 are two models of pencil microphones often deployed for choirs and instruments. They are available in a similar price range, and they do share a number of similarities such as the frequency response range, polar pattern, and self noise level. Still, there are a few differences that set Rode M5 vs AKG P170 apart. Continue reading below to see whether Rode M5 or AKG P170 suits you!

Rode M5 Vs AKG P170

Size and Weight
Rode M5 is smaller and lighter than AKG P170. Rode M5 measures 20 mm in diameter and 100 mm in length. The weight is approximately 80 grams. In most cases, the mic is practical and easy to handle. You can get a pair of Rode M5 in a bundle that also includes the mic clips and pop filters. See our previous post about Rode M5 vs NT5 here!

On the other hand, AKG P170 is a little bit bigger and heavier. It has a diameter of 22 mm, a length of 160 mm, and a weight of about 130 grams. The mic is sold in a package that also includes a stand adapter. Both Rode M5 and AKG P170 have all-metal bodies for the best ruggedness and durability.

Technical Specs

Rode M5AKG P170
- Polar Pattern: Cardioid- Polar Pattern : Cardioid
- Frequency Range: 20Hz - 20kHz- Frequency Response : 20Hz-20kHz
- Output Impedance : 200 ohm- Output Impedance : 200 ohms
- Acoustic Principle: Pressure Gradient- Microphone Type : Condenser
- Capsule : 0.50"- Mono/Stereo : Mono

Features
Rode M5 is a little more versatile in term of powering because it can work with either +24V or +48V phantom power. On the other hand, AKG P170can only work with +48V phantom power with ±4V tolerance.

Both mics have the cardioid polar pattern. A mic with a cardioid polar pattern captures sound signals from the front direction while rejecting signals from the sides and rear. Because of this, cardioid mics are suitable for musical recordings. They are more resistant to environmental noise.

Rode M5 has a good maximum SPL handling of 140 dB. This mic is good enough for handling most instruments and vocals except the very loud ones.

On the other hand, although AKG P170 only has a maximum SPL handling of 135 dB, it comes with a –20dB switchable pre-attenuation pad which enables it to handle sounds as loud as 155 dB. Hence, it is a good choice when you need to handle a very loud vocal or instrument.

Sound Quality
Rode M5 vs AKG P170 have similar sound quality, which is not entirely surprising due to the fact that they have similar frequency response range and self noise level. Each of them has a frequency response range of 20 Hz – 20 kHz and a self noise level of 19 dBA. They are able to capture lows, mids, and highs with decent accuracy and definition. They have pretty good clarity.

Rode M5 does have a slightly higher sensitivity, which makes it able to capture more audio details. However, this also means that it is more prone to noise – the pop filters can be quite handy. On the other hand, AKG P170 has a slightly lower sensitivity, but the performance is still good.

Rode M5 Vs AKG P170

- Power Options: +48V phantom power, +24V phantom power
- Warranty: 1 year with free extension to 10 years following registration
- Rugged all-metal body and robust design withstands tough day-to-day use
- Switchable attenuation pad for high SPL applications up to 155 dB SPL

Conclusion
Between the two mics, AKG P170 is more recommended. The pre-attenuation pad makes the mic more versatile. You can use it for handling a wide variety of instruments, including the louder ones.

Sennheiser E935 Vs Shure Beta 87A Comparison

We are going to see the comparisons between Sennheiser E935 vs Shure Beta 87A on several aspects such as durability, features, and sound quality. Both Sennheiser E935 and Shure Beta 87A are great vocal mics that have amassed lots of positive reviews from their users. They both are said to have very good sound quality. However, Sennheiser E935 is a dynamic microphone available at a lower price point, whereas Shure Beta 87A is a more expensive condenser microphone.

Sennheiser E935 Vs Shure Beta 87A

Size and Weight
Sennheiser E935 feels solid and rugged. It is just about the right size to be handled comfortably. It has a metal construction which protects the mic against any environment and usage abuse. However, this mic is quite heavier at 355 grams. The heavy weight is due to the metal construction and the dynamic moving coil and membrane system.

On the other hand, Shure Beta 87A has a bigger metallic grille due to the built-in pop filter. It also has a cartridge shock-mount system. Compared to Sennheiser E935, Shure Beta 87A is lighter at 207 grams.

See also : Sennheiser E935 Vs Beta 58 Comparison.

Maximum SPL Handling and Sensitivity
The next difference is the maximum SPL handling. Sennheiser E935 is a dynamic microphone, so you can expect this microphone to have good maximum SPL handling. However, the manufacturer does not specify the actual level of the maximum SPL handling. So, it is difficult to tell how powerful the mic is. Nevertheless, Sennheiser E935 is able to handle most loud singers just fine, and the performance is good enough for on-stage uses.

On the other hand,Shure Beta 87A boasts a maximum SPL handling of 140.5 dB. That is quite a high level. This mic is powerful enough to handle the voice of most singers, except the very loud ones. A very loud vocal may have a sound pressure level of about 150 dB.

Sennheiser E935 has a slightly higher sensitivity than Shure Beta 87A. As the effect, Sennheiser E935 can capture more audio details better. If you are trying to capture the fine details of a subtle sound, this mic is great. However, when handling a very high sound pressure level, you should use a unit with a lower sensitivity.

Technical Specs

Sennheiser E935Shure Beta 87A
- Type : Dynamic- Type : Condenser (electret bias)
- Frequency Response : 40 - 18000 Hz- Frequency Response : 50 to 20,000 Hz
- Polar Pattern : Cardioid- Polar Pattern : Supercardioid

Polar Pattern
Sennheiser E935 vs Shure Beta 87A have different polar patterns. Sennheiser E935 comes with a cardioid polar pattern. It captures sound signals coming from the front while rejecting signals from the sides and rear. This polar pattern has a very good ability in reducing environmental noise.

On the other hand, Shure Beta 87A comes with a supercardioid polar pattern. This polar pattern is useful when you really need to minimize the possibility of feedback, as the pick-up angle is narrower. However, it is somewhat more prone to environmental noise because it can also capture some signals from the rear.

Frequency Response
Sennheiser E935 has a frequency response range of 40 Hz – 18 kHz. Compared to Shure Beta 87A, this mic has a deeper reach into the bass area. The sound tends to be warmer with good clarity and accuracy. This mic is suitable for all kinds of users.

On the other hand, Shure Beta 87A has a frequency response range of 50 Hz – 20 kHz. As expected of a condenser mic, Shure Beta 87A tends to sound bright and crisp. It also has good clarity. While it is definitely usable for most types of users, it is especially great for singers with deep voices. It will improve the vocal’s presence.

Sennheiser E935 Vs Shure Beta 87A

- Shock mounted capsule with humbucking coil
- Cardioid pickup pattern: Insulation from other on-stage signals
- Neodymium ferrous magnet with boron: Keeps microphone stable regardless of climate
- Smooth frequency response with gradual presence rise
- Highly consistent super cardioid polar pattern provides superior gain before feedback
- Electronic low-frequency roll off compensates for proximity effect

Conclusion
If you want to get the most value out of your money, Sennheiser E935 is the way to go. This dynamic mic is more affordable. It is quite versatile, suitable for a wide range of users. In addition, it is also more durable and more resistant to environmental noise. However, if you really prefer a condenser or supercardioid mic, Shure Beta 87A can be your choice.

Rode Videomicr Vs Videomic Go Comparison

Are you looking for a decent on-camera microphone which you can use for recording high-quality audio in your video projects? Rode has the Videomic line, which features several different models on specific price points. Rode Videomicro and Rode Videomic Go are relatively affordable models; the Videomicro is a little bit more cheaper than the Videomic Go. So, which one is better for the money? See the comparisons between Rode Videomicr vs Videomic Go below.

Rode Videomicr Vs Videomic Go

Dimensions
The first thing that you need to consider when choosing between Rode Videomicro and Rode Videomic Go is the dimensions. If you prefer a simple, compact, and lightweight microphone to sit on top of your camera, Rode Videomicro makes a better choice. It measures only 21 mm wide, 21 mm tall, and 80 mm long. The weight is only about 42 grams. Thus, it won’t get in the way of your work.

On the other hand, Rode Videomic Go is slightly bigger and heavier. It measures 79 mm tall, 73 mm wide, and 167 mm long. It has an integrated cold-shoe mount. The weight is about 73 grams. It is definitely still very usable, but not as practical as the sibling here. See also our previous post about Rode VideoMic Pro vs Go!

Durability
Rode Videomicro has an all-metal housing, whereas Rode Videomic Go comes with a reinforced ABS construction. So, the Videomicro is relatively more rugged and durable. It can withstand impacts and heavy abuse better.

Technical Specs

Rode VideomicrRode Videomic Go
- Acoustic Principle : Pressure Gradient- Acoustic Principle : Line Gradient
- Polar Pattern : Cardioid- Polar Pattern : Supercardioid
- Frequency Range : 100Hz - 20kHz- Frequency Range : 100Hz - 16kHz
- Maximum SPL : 140dB SPL (@ 1kHz, 1% THD into 1KΩ load)- Maximum SPL : 120dB SPL (@ 1kHz, 1% THD into 1KΩ load)
- Sensitivity : -33.0dB re 1 Volt/Pascal (22.00mV @ 94 dB SPL) +/- 2 dB @ 1kHz- Sensitivity : -35.0dB re 1 Volt/Pascal (17.80mV @ 94 dB SPL) +/- 2 dB @ 1kHz
- Equivalent Noise Level (A-weighted) : 20dB-A- Equivalent Noise Level (A-weighted) : 34dB-A

Frequency Response and Sensitivity
Next, let’s have a look at the frequency response and sensitivity of Rode Videomicr vs Videomic Go. Interestingly, Rode Videomico actually has a wider frequency response range and better sensitivity. The frequency response range goes from 100 Hz to 20 kHz. The higher reach to the treble frequencies allow for more headroom, and the higher sensitivity allows the mic to capture better audio details.

On the other hand, the frequency response range of Rode Videomic Go only goes from 100 Hz to 16 kHz. The sensitivity is slightly lower. As the effect, it does not capture high-frequency sound signals very well.

Noise and SPL Handling
Finally, it is important to point out that Rode Videomicro has a higher maximum SPL handling and lower self noise level than Rode Videomic Go. The Videomicro can handle sounds as loud as 140 dB, which is impressive for such a compact mic. In addition, the self noise level is only 20 dBA, which is quite low. The users are happy with the quietness. This mic is very versatile and reliable for many conditions.

Rode Videomic Go has a maximum SPL handling of 120 dB, and the self noise level is 34 dBA. The noise is particularly annoying. It is pretty noisy, and it may be quite tricky and difficult to get good clarity. Using a denoiser is a great help, but not having that noise in the first place is much more convenient.

Rode Videomicr Vs Videomic Go

- Compact size and lightweight - only 80mm (3’) long and 42gm (1.5oz)
- No battery required (powered by camera plug-in power - min 3V)
- Rycote Lyre shock mount included
- Deluxe furry windshield included
- Designed and manufactured in Australia
- Mounting to camera
- High quality directional microphone
- No battery required
- Rode's lightest mic at only 73g
- Rugged reinforced ABS construction
- Windshield included
- Integrated cold-shoe mount with 3/8” thread

Conclusion
All in all, Rode Videomicro is definitely the better choice. It is more compact and more lightweight, with better performance. It has a wider frequency response range with lower noise, and it can handle loud voices very well.