Expensive vs Inexpensive Microphone Test

B

briangboat

New member
So what is the difference between an expensive microphone and a entry level microphone. To look into this I compared two microphones - a Sanken CS3e and a RODE NTG-2. Is this a fair comparison? No and yes. No because of the 5:1 price difference, but yes because this test was done to illustrate the low marginal return (for most people) between mic price extremes. I walked away form these tests thinking that I could do some really quality work with a quality, but inexpensive microphone - a comforting in the event my primary mic was not available. By the way, I really like both mics.

Is an expensive microphone better than an an inexpensive microphone, yes. However, good audio recordings can be achieved with both microphones given proper technique. This test further emphasizes that technique is more important than the microphone.

The CS-3e yields better audio in a broader range of conditions making it a more forgiving/capable microphone. The tests also showed that the the CS-3e capable of being used in many indoor situations. With that said, a good hyper would be better still in some cases.

Is the CS-3e worth over $1,000 more, absolutely yes for a sound professional. For an amateur or semipro in many cases, probably not, but you decide based on your objectives and budget.

There have also been reports of the CS-3e being sensitive to smoke detectors and florescent lights, so that was tested too, but testing did not identify any problems.

In these tests the trim levels were adjusted to equalize recording levels, except in the very low trim level test. All recording were conducted simultaneously with a Sound Devices 702 over Canare StarQuad cable.

Indoor Tests

IDOAandIDOFA
Indoor on-access tests showed the Sanken CS-3e to have a fuller sound at 1' and 2' and slightly fuller at 4'. At 90 degrees off access the CS-3e was fuller at 1' and 2' and dramatically fuller at 4'(albeit attenuated).

Room Silence - normal trim
The CS-3e had more self noise at normal trim level in a quiet room

Very low trim
The CS-3e had more self noise. This was disappointing for such an expensive microphone. However, after thinking about it a bit, the self noise probably comes form the face that the CS-3e has three capsules and not one. Given the noise floor of most settings, this is probably not a practical issue.


Outdoor Tests

ODWFOAVOA
The outdoor test was conducted at 90 degrees off access to a waterfall and on axis for voice. CS-3e was significantly better at rejecting the sounds of the water fall while retaining the crispness of the sound. It was fuller at 1' and 2', but indistinguishable (to my ear) at from the NTG-2 at 4'. The CS-3e also accentuated lower frequency off axis sounds more than the NTG-2.

ODWFOAVOFA
With both the voice and waterfall recorded at 90 degrees off access the CS-3e was fuller tahn the NTG-2 at 1' and 2' and slightly fuller at 4'(albeit attenuated). The fuller sound, combined with it's superior off axis rejection, resulted in recordings that were better than those made with the NTG-2 at 4'.
 
Thanks for providing your comments on this test.

The mic test that I would like to see is the Sennheiser MKH 8060 short shotgun against the Sanken CS-3e. I keep hearing about people who switched to the 8060 and say it's an amazing shotgun, especially for the price.
 
Brian,

For sure, there is a diminishing improvement curve when you spend more. But there are lots of folks that can't get enough gain from a NTG2 to work with a pocket recorder like the H4n without a mixer to boost the gain. Listers ask how to solve this exact problem here each week, and it seems the only answer is to change mics, or add a mixer. I'm no advocate of spending more than you need to, but at the lower end, you have to be more careful mixing and matching gear. And in particular, be careful trusting printed specifications. I own a AT897 which on paper, shouldn't be a stellar performer with regards to gain and worse than the NTG2. Yet, I have used it successfully with both a H4 and a DR-100. You can draw your own conclusions from that. My NTG3 is a hotter mic and needs no help with gain and is about the same price as a NTG2 + cheap mixer.

Thanks for the comparison, and I would sure like to have a CS3e.

Grant
 
I'm not a big fan of Sanken, but some people are, and that is the real point. Most reputable dealers will let you borrow a few mics to try out before you buy an expensive one. There is to my ear a level of difference between some of the better mics from Schoeps, Sennheiser, DPA, etc (add your favorite here, e.g. Coles 4040). I have used my Schoeps mics somewhere in the mix for nearly every project for the last 30 years, so I must like those. The thing is, you do the AB test, take your time, listen, listen again, and choose the one that you think is a good mic. If you like the Sanken, and have AB'd it against say, an MK41 or any number of other SG/HC/SC types, and you say, hey, that works for me, then buy it and don't second guess yourself. I ABd my Neumann KM 140s against a pair of Russian mics once, and I liked the cheaper ones so I sold the KM140s. But most of the time the high end mics will give you a small edge. And that edge is not as important as mic placement. I recently tested a bunch of mics against the Sennheiser MKH 40, and I was actually pretty surprised at some of the differences, differences that on paper were not so big but in actual use, hey, big difference. But I didn't know that until I tested the mics. You may hear it differently. A lot of mics amp the treble. In video, a lot of people turn down the video equivalent of "treble", for example, the contrast or the saturation, because they know it will be better in post if the grade the video unamped. So there is a difference in philosophy there as well. If you want a presence peak, and you don't want to EQ it in post, find the mic with the right EQ for you built right in.
 
Last edited:
DrDave is coming from a music perspective and I'm coming from mostly a FX recording perspective, but "what he said". Mics all sound different and even in the same usage, say film production work, there are ones better suited for different kids of work. If I was doing a lot of ENG I would be very inclined to a mic like the Sanken that can move in and out doors with good results. I know an FX recordist who loves the stereo version because it can take a lot of sound with out distorting. Narrative feature work is generally more controlled so you can/ should have a variety of mic on hand. But in the end folks are hiring you because they like the sound you delivered. If YOU like the sound of a Radio Shack brand X mic use it. Just make sure you keep it in a zeppelin so nobody sees it ;~). Any decent pro shop will let you test out mics, if you know them well they may let you borrow them for a better test. You can also rent most of the better mics and that may be a good choice. If I were doing that and the rental shop also sold the mic I would try to get them to credit the rental to the purchase. Most should do that.

Also check with the state to see if there is some kind of incentive for film and video. Even California with essentially no film incentives has a state form you can fill out and not pay state sale taxes on purchase for use (professionally) in film video and media. That will shave about 5% off the cost of buying local.
 
Noiz,

Off topic:

Here in Washington (the state), they just eliminated the film board and all incentives to shoot here. Far sighted thinking eh?

Grant
 
Grant,
I just moved to Detroit and they (Michigan) just did essentially the same thing.

Before incentives ~ 2- 4 Features shot a year in Michigan (going back to the 40's)
After incentives ~45 - 55 features shot a year.
After incentives stopped... judging by the mass exodus to other states I'm guessing a 50% drop this year and it will probably settle back to where it was.

You have to keep the incentives in place till you have trained local people. Then you can start backing off. Even if it's relatively cheap to shoot someplace it isn't if you have to bring your whole crew and house and feed them. And pay the extra that usually goes with having them work outside their home area.

I think I ranted here about the stupidity of most places cutting incentives but some how the anti film folks keep getting people to believe that 100% of nothing is a lot better than 60% (or more) of something. And when that something is 50+ feature films with decent budgets we are talking some serious change. There are, probably, some stupid incentives someplace (politicians write them so...) but I haven't seen one yet where there was any possibility for the state to loose money. And a lot of the work goes to locals anyway even if all the key crew is from LA.

But here anyway there are a bunch of recall movements. That's what happens when you have a state of union workers (a lot of ex UAW folks were making ends meet with film work) who just saw their jobs disappear.
 
TheDingo said:
Thanks for providing your comments on this test.

The mic test that I would like to see is the Sennheiser MKH 8060 short shotgun against the Sanken CS-3e. I keep hearing about people who switched to the 8060 and say it's an amazing shotgun, especially for the price.
Click to expand...

I agree... This mic sound pretty great.
 
@drapeama, I would be interested in this same test with the built in mics of the H2 you used for a flash recorder.
 
DrDave said:
@drapeama, I would be interested in this same test with the built in mics of the H2 you used for a flash recorder.
Click to expand...
Actually I think I'll do another complete test like the previous and maybe add the internal H2's mic in the bunch. In the next one, I'll normalize all the clip, thing that I learned recently (I know I know...shame on me).
I'll keep you updated with it when I'll get it done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top