3 mics compared - Rode NT5; CAD CM217; Samson C02

O

OldCorpse

Rockin the Boat
I'm interested in recording dialogue indoors and wanted to use a cardioid of adequate quality. I was considering these three mics: Rode NT5, CAD CM217, Samson C02. They are all roughly the same price - "very cheap" (though the NT5 is a bit more), but what I was wondering is what would be the best choice for recording dialogue from a practical point of view, not only sound quality. The setup is the mic at the end of a boom, xlr going into a Tascam DR-70D. The actors would move around the room and the boom would follow them. So I figure some of the criteria would be: (1) sound quality (2) self-noise (3) handling noise (4) sensitivity etc.

Now, I understand that a hyper would be much better here, but I don't want to lay out $600 for an at-4053b, because honestly I listened to a blind test of the at-4053b and the NT5 and I actually preferred the sound of the NT5 (call me deaf)... but the limitation here was that the test was of a mic at the end of a stationary boom and the actor was just reading into the mic, so no movement and no echoes and no other noise in the studio, where presumably the ability of the 4053b to reject side noise would have come to the fore.

Anyhow, can somebody speak to such a comparison?

Rode NT5 specs

CAD CM217 specs

Samson CO2 specs
 
Can't speak for any of these SCCs in particular, but Rode usually delivers good value with a well built product and a good warranty. Although not without controversy, the Russian made Oktava 012 has been often considered to have very good quality sound with a reasonable price. I have both the Oktava and AT-4053b and the AT is the clear winner IMHO, but the Oktava is very respectable by comparison at about half the price.

Grant
 
I also have both the Oktava and AT-4053. The AT has more reach (twice the output), but the Oktava has a nicer sound IMO, but then all Oktava 012s are not created equal... so YMMV. I won't go into the 012 modifications and caveats which has been previously discussed ad nauseam.
 
Last edited:
OldCorpse said:
So I figure some of the criteria would be: (1) sound quality (2) self-noise (3) handling noise (4) sensitivity etc.
Click to expand...

One of the most important and at the same time most overlooked criteria is off axis sound quality. Lots of mics sound good when you're directly on axis, but as you move off axis they get increasingly colored (peaks and dips in frequency response). This is important for booming because boom operators, especially inexperienced operators, aren't prescient. They can't read the talents' minds, all they can do is anticipate. And if they guess wrong, the mic is off axis for a bit until they can bring it back on axis. And as you can imagine, this makes sound post a real PITA.

Also, for booming interior dialog, I don't think you will be very happy with a cardioid. You'll want a hypercardioid. Two reasons. First, a bit more reach. Second, a bit more out of pattern rejection. This is especially true for scenes with two or more actors that the boom op. has to swing back and forth for. That seems contrary, but you need the extra off axis rejection to keep from picking up non-dialog noise (clothing rustle, etc.) from the off axis actor.

My advice is to spend some money on the mics. The mic is your sound source; the better your sound source, the better your final dialog quality. You "can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" and all that.
 
The only one I have used is the CAD.

I use the Oktava 012 primarily but the CAD is so cheap and sounds decent that I love them for putting in harms way.

Big differences off the bat are size (and probably weight).

The Samson is almost 6" long and the CAD is just 3", with the Rode about 4".

The CAD doesn't have any real low end and partly because of that has very low handing noise. It also rolls off the very top end but has a bit of a bump in the high mid so they sound a bit brighter than some mics.

I have done production with cardioids and it can work well. You have to get closer if you need isolation so that is an issue, but for more verite style it can work well since you are bringing in more of the environment.

That also could be a problem if you are not really aware of what you are actually recording, or you are planning on doing a lot of sound post.


Also Price. The Rode is around $130, the Sampson about $50 (in a pair) and the CAD's can be had for $60 a pair, sometimes less. I paid $49 for a pair so at 1/5 the price of the Rode...

Also the CAD weighs almost nothing.
 
Last edited:
OK, I'm crazy, so I decided to go whole hog and buy 'em all and more - simply because I'm curious. I just ordered the Octava mk-012 movie set edition, the two Samsons, for comparison with the NT5, and CAD CM217 (the CAD are so cheap I bought 4, figuring I can always use them as disposable FX mics). I'm gonna be depressed if I find my 2 AT875r (or the Senn MKE600) better for interior recording. I am extremely grateful for all the recommendations, but once I get the mics, I'll try to use my own ears to the best of my (poor) ability, so once they arrive I'll have a ton of testing to do :)
 
Rick R, very briefly so not to derail the thread or bore anyone, when you said "012 modifications and caveats", did you mean problems with the mods? I had my Oktava MK-012 modded by Michael Joly, but as I never did before/after tests, I don't know if it helped much. Your comment is worrying me!

Oh, and I did a quick search for Oktava mods in the search bar, but it kept bringing up threads where Oktavas were mentioned by moderators, rather than mentions of Oktava modifications. Thus this post.
 
Agreed I was a bit confused by that statement. I have only heard good things about Joly. He sells capsule replacements for NT5.


iamlance said:
Rick R, very briefly so not to derail the thread or bore anyone, when you said "012 modifications and caveats", did you mean problems with the mods? I had my Oktava MK-012 modded by Michael Joly, but as I never did before/after tests, I don't know if it helped much. Your comment is worrying me!

Oh, and I did a quick search for Oktava mods in the search bar, but it kept bringing up threads where Oktavas were mentioned by moderators, rather than mentions of Oktava modifications. Thus this post.
Click to expand...
 
I don't want to speak for Rick, but I think what he meant by "caveats" is in reference to the rash of fake Oktavas sold, especially earlier, so you should make sure that you buy from an authorized dealer (though I think that problem abated somewhat). So I'm not sure it refers to mods at all. Of course, I think you should always use your own ears - sometimes people hear what they what they suppose, not reality. In blind tests, I was unable to tell the difference from some modded mics, though that was not the Octava.
 
OldCorpse said:
OK, I'm crazy, so I decided to go whole hog and buy 'em all and more - simply because I'm curious. I just ordered the Octava mk-012 movie set edition, the two Samsons, for comparison with the NT5, and CAD CM217 (the CAD are so cheap I bought 4, figuring I can always use them as disposable FX mics). I'm gonna be depressed if I find my 2 AT875r (or the Senn MKE600) better for interior recording. I am extremely grateful for all the recommendations, but once I get the mics, I'll try to use my own ears to the best of my (poor) ability, so once they arrive I'll have a ton of testing to do :)
Click to expand...

OldCorpse , did you ever do the comparisons?
 
Hey, IronFilm, I never ended up testing them in the proper environment - that is, I didn't do comparisons between the mics when booming actors who are moving around. The only test I did was with a stationary boom on-axis one person reading (that would be me!). The stationary test was interesting, but not applicable to real-life production, because you are not testing off-axis rejection, reach etc. The reason I never did the production test is basically the only time I had actors was when doing short films, and there wasn't any time to say "guys, now for something completely different - a bunch of boring mic checks". For the stationary test - for what it's worth... not very much in practical terms - I guess I don't have golden ears, because I couldn't figure out what all the fuss was about the Oktava... to my ears I actually preferred the sound of my AT-875r; I was still impressed by the sound of the NT5 (and also liked it better than the Oktava); the CAD and Samson were each different, but not as nice as the NT5 or the AT-875r - somewhat "weaker" sounding, or I guess lacking what might be called "presence". But all that is not worth much, since the only real test is booming live actors in dialogue where you move the boom around.
 
So I used a Oktava last week on a short film I was sound recordist for, and then a couple of days after I returned the borrowed Oktava my Samson C02 returned.

So haven't been able yet to do a side by side test directly, but passed on my initial impression and memory, the Samson certainly seems to have higher self noise. (although maaaaaaaybe..... that is because my office I'm trying out my Samson in is a way way noisier environment than the Oktava was used on the film set. Need to wait to use them both at once to be sure about this, my mind might be playing tricks on me)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top