Rode VideoMic Copy? 50 bucks less! Opteka VM-100 Video Condenser Shotgun Microphone

Chadfish said:
Not a bad bargain for roughly 20.00US Framerate! Especially if it beats the ME66 at $500.00! But at those prices, I would think that durability will probably be a factor.
Click to expand...


I can't help feeling there's some gentle chiding there, from a man who thinks I'm mad:happy:

Let's not say it's better - but I am having to listen hard to find serious flaws v. the Sennheiser - and, at that whopping price differential, that should most certainly not be the case. I've done some digging, and it seems to be a Bardl - I've never heard of them. It's a Chinese website that features a German facility - did the Chinese take them over?

I asked my daughter (with her keen young ears) to listen to a couple of samples. She thought the Sennheiser sounded better ('thought', mind you! - it wasn't a night & day difference) When I told her that one cost 27 times more than the other, she was amazed.

Not because the EM8800 was so cheap, but because the ME66 was so expensive.

I'm not trying to be provocative - but I really am scratching my head and wondering what's going on with all these mics - do they all cost pennies to make, but the 'brands' have a stratospheric mark-up because of image and prestige?

I'm thinking of my Rode M3, which I really like. It's solid, very well made, has a nice sound - and cost £62.50 including VAT, retailer mark-up, Rode's profit and production & shipping costs...

I'm also aware that Rode were giving them away for $1 when another mic was purchased - so how much do those M3's cost to make? - it can't be much, surely?

Similarly, that Chinese mic came halfway around the world for £13.27. It must have cost, what? - £2.00?, £3.00? to make?. Let's say that it sounds 75% as good as he ME66 (and, in reality, it's better than that) In terms of external build, you'd honestly be hard pressed to find a significant difference in quality. (apart from the ghastly mic fittings that accompanied the EM8800)

The Sennheiser is a bit better in sound quality (or even 25% better) - but costs 2,700% more.

Something seems wrong, to me.....
 
Framerate - the differences in audio quality between mics are typically things they you have to train yourself to hear. The samples of the sounds that you're recording and how you're recording them could vary greatly, and influence what you're hearing and your objectivity.

Sometimes the snapshots I take with my iPhone 4 look amazing. Does that mean that Canon and Nikon and all quality glass is just a big, over-priced farce? No. You need to train your eye to look for the subtle beauty of quality optics and camera gear. Once you can see it, you'll see it forever. It's the same with sound gear. Yes, there is an imbalance with the low prices of these cheap electronics coming from far away places. But that imbalance isn't a deception on the part of well-regarded audio brands.
 
Framerate said:
..............

I asked my daughter (with her keen young ears) to listen to a couple of samples. She thought the Sennheiser sounded better ('thought', mind you! - it wasn't a night & day difference) When I told her that one cost 27 times more than the other, she was amazed..............

The Sennheiser is a bit better in sound quality (or even 25% better) - but costs 2,700% more.

Something seems wrong, to me.....
Click to expand...

Framerate, I am glad you brought this up. Yes, people that are untrained in audio are just like those that are untrained in film-making, DP'ing, etc. They can usually tell when something is "off", but they won't be able to put their finger on the issue. But that is where we as film-makers comes in. We should be able to identify the issue, and be able to correct it.

Sound is one of those things that takes subtlety and massaging to make great. And every piece of gear leaves it's mark on your recordings. If the inexpensive gear you use turns out to be "cheap" gear, you usually cannot correct the results in post and make it sound great. Just a small difference in equipment can have a impact on your recordings, but usually not so much that any untrained ear will say "eww" one one and "ahhh" on another. They will just prefer one over the other, because it "sounds a little better".

I think your daughter may have really helped you here, seeing how she is untrained as a film-maker/sound engineer. Even she heard a difference, before you told her the price. And equipment differences can be subtle.

For us.........those small differences are what make US go "eww" or "ahhh!".

My question to you is, "Did you hear the difference?".
 
Framerate,

The bottom line is if it works for you then go for it. You can get an electet mic element for under $2 and make your own at an even bigger differential.

THere are some really bad mics that have existed but since capsules have gotten mass produced for nine zillion gadgets the bottom quality has been set more by the rest of the device.

I have some mics I like a lot that are too noisy for most of what I do. Those mics would be fine in a situation where what your recording is louder.

Compare some "silent" room tone and I will bet you can hear the hiss of the cheaper mic. For me that is a killer, but not nec for you.
Chadfish was probably chiding a bit but he is really saying the same thing.

The problem is when people start talking about (cheap mic X) being as good as or better than (expensive mic Y) with out tagging on the "to my ears" part. Really good mics are really good for a couple of reasons. One is general quality. The components and build quality of really good equipment is just way above the cheaper stuff. If your a pro in the field working it hard and your livelihood depends on it that is significant. If your not it might not be much of an issue. The other major one is sound. Some of that will be obvious to almost everybody some will only be noticeable by a few. And a lot of "sound quality" is heavily affected by what your plugging that mic into. A cheap relatively noisy mic may be the quietest thing in your chain.

And another part of "sound quality" is very subjective. Some people hear "clarity" where others hear "brittle", the same works for "warm" and "muddy". There are some mics that most people like the sound of but it really varies.

The point is there is a difference and in some cases a very significant difference. But how big any of those differences are is very dependent on you and how you use it and what it gets hooked up to when you use it.

It is quite possible that a $20 is insignificantly different for you than a $2,000 mic.

I like the Oktavas quite a bit. I've worked with Schoeps and I like them also but not enough for me and what I do to justify spending $1,500 a piece VS the $170 a piece I spent for the Oktavas. But I also don't have any illusions that the Oktavas are as well made or as well supported and I know that they are about 5dB lower in output.

I also have a pair of $20 lavs I got at Radio Shack that get use stealing ambiences in places where one has to be incognito. They are not great mics but they are good enough for what I'm doing with them.

If your $20 mic is good enough for what you are doing with it then I would stick with it and use what you can get for the Senn. to buy something you need more.
 
Mitch.Kear said:
It's weird, I thought the opposite. I started with music and found (at least with the people I was working with) that Rode was not a respected name at all for the recording industry as a pro mic company. I don't think if you do a search for mic lists at real studios Rode will be on any of them. Hearing many people here talk about the great quality made me think that the film guys think differently."

Mitch, FWIW, my brother is a career LA studio musician (acoustic jazz) and also does some engineering on his own label. He and his contemporaries use a fair amount of Rode mics. Certainly not every model or for every purpose, but they aren't uncommon at all.

Grant
Click to expand...
 
When I hear about folks buying a cheapo knock-off mic, I think of how they would cry if someone stole their work after it was recorded on that pirated mic. That would be some irony!

Grant
 
ggrantly said:
When I hear about folks buying a cheapo knock-off mic, I think of how they would cry if someone stole their work after it was recorded on that pirated mic. That would be some irony!

Grant
Click to expand...


I'm keeping the Sennheiser - primarily because I bought it in mint condition at a good price (although, needless to say, not as good as the Chinese mics) It's main advantage is overcoming the relatively low gain of the H4n.

I certainly understand the law of diminishing returns - it's just that the curve of diminishment (is that a word?) seems startlingly steeper than one might expect..

I simply cannot believe that 'brand' manufacturers, even though there products are more refined, are not riding a gravy train to extravagant riches.

One example - have you got a foan windscreen for an ME66?

Certainly, Sir, that will be £34.34 plus £6.00 delivery, thank you.

Over £40 for a tiny bit of foam tube?? - is it made of some rare and precious mineral, of which only 10 kilo's remain in the entire world?

No, Sir, it's acoustic foam.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh... 'Acoustic Foam'! - well, that explains it......

However, the foam windscreens on the Chinese mics seem exactly the same, they fit perfectly, have a somewhat nicer shape (subjectively) and come delivered with the microphone all the way from distant China for £13.24.

Even if you don't want the mic, such is the apparent greed of the 'brand' microphone industry, that it makes perfect economic sense to order a £13.24 mic from Hong Kong, fit the foam onto an ME66 - and chuck the mic and accessories in the bin!

It's very hard to believe that the pricing structure of that Sennheiser foam cover is not also extended to the mic on which it is placed
 
Doc Bernard said:
My question to you is, "Did you hear the difference?".
Click to expand...

I heard a difference - but it was difficult to say that one was 'better' than the other - just 'different'

Apart from volume, of course - no doubt at all that the ME66 is 'louder' (about 10dB louder than the HTDZ-81, and 7dB louder than the Bardl EM8800)

As far as sound quality went - in some tests the HTDZ (lower level notwithstanding) actually sounded flatter and more neutral.

I should add that all the mics were mounted in a Rycote multimount, and were tested with & without a softie in-situ. A decent mount seemed to do a lot more for the Chinese mics than it did for the ME66.

Obviously, it all depednds upon how discriminating your final audience is - for my entirely amateur/family stuff, well, I don't think they would care if it hissed like a pit of snakes. In fact, the most difficult part is getting 'em to sit down and watch (yet more) video.

Any pursuit of quality is down to my own obession - not the audience requirement :happy:
 
Noiz2 said:
Framerate,

The bottom line is if it works for you then go for it. You can get an electet mic element for under $2 and make your own at an even bigger differential.

THere are some really bad mics that have existed but since capsules have gotten mass produced for nine zillion gadgets the bottom quality has been set more by the rest of the device.

I have some mics I like a lot that are too noisy for most of what I do. Those mics would be fine in a situation where what your recording is louder.

Compare some "silent" room tone and I will bet you can hear the hiss of the cheaper mic. For me that is a killer, but not nec for you.
Chadfish was probably chiding a bit but he is really saying the same thing.

The problem is when people start talking about (cheap mic X) being as good as or better than (expensive mic Y) with out tagging on the "to my ears" part. Really good mics are really good for a couple of reasons. One is general quality. The components and build quality of really good equipment is just way above the cheaper stuff. If your a pro in the field working it hard and your livelihood depends on it that is significant. If your not it might not be much of an issue. The other major one is sound. Some of that will be obvious to almost everybody some will only be noticeable by a few. And a lot of "sound quality" is heavily affected by what your plugging that mic into. A cheap relatively noisy mic may be the quietest thing in your chain.

And another part of "sound quality" is very subjective. Some people hear "clarity" where others hear "brittle", the same works for "warm" and "muddy". There are some mics that most people like the sound of but it really varies.

The point is there is a difference and in some cases a very significant difference. But how big any of those differences are is very dependent on you and how you use it and what it gets hooked up to when you use it.

It is quite possible that a $20 is insignificantly different for you than a $2,000 mic.

I like the Oktavas quite a bit. I've worked with Schoeps and I like them also but not enough for me and what I do to justify spending $1,500 a piece VS the $170 a piece I spent for the Oktavas. But I also don't have any illusions that the Oktavas are as well made or as well supported and I know that they are about 5dB lower in output.

I also have a pair of $20 lavs I got at Radio Shack that get use stealing ambiences in places where one has to be incognito. They are not great mics but they are good enough for what I'm doing with them.

If your $20 mic is good enough for what you are doing with it then I would stick with it and use what you can get for the Senn. to buy something you need more.
Click to expand...



A good answer - and your points are well taken.

My only comment would be on the differential between the Schoeps and your Oktava - it might not last as long, but as it's ten times cheaper, does it matter?
 
Think of it this way:

So you save a couple/few hundred bucks and got a mic that sounds 25% worse. You don't often replace mics that work, so now every project you do will sound 25% worse until you upgrade. I wouldn't want everything I do to go through a "25% worse" bottleneck just to save some money. A good tool like a mic will be bought once in your career if it's a quality mic that you like, so investing a few hundred more from the start will save me more money than replacing later, AND all my stuff will sound better, possibly getting me more work. One good job can pay for a mic.

Just sayin'...
 
Framerate said:
My only comment would be on the differential between the Schoeps and your Oktava - it might not last as long, but as it's ten times cheaper, does it matter?
Click to expand...

It's really about how you work. Oktavas are now running a little under $300. If put through lots and lots of use, and the mic starts to break down, well... destroy 5 of them and you've already paid as much as a Schoeps.

Same with recorders. The cheap recorders can yield high-end results if used properly... especially if used strictly as line-in recorders with the right external gear. But they are fragile. How many times do you want to go buy another one? Buy right, and buy once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top