Impressions after listening to the recorded samples for Test #5 Male Voice, Exterior, on-axis, narrative setup

Audio-Technica AT875R

In this test, I was out in nature, so to speak, (well, actually my backyard). I was impressed at how the AT875R was able to reject most of the ambient street noise although you do hear the crickets more on this mic than on some of the others. The sound quality was balanced and I thought it made the quality of my voice appealing. This was not the best microphone for exteriors but I thought it would still be useful for exteriors if you were on a tight budget.

Audio-Technica AT4073a

Accurately judging the AT4073a outdoors was a tall order, mainly because of this microphone's extraordinary sensitivity. If I A/B between this microphone and the AT875R, this microphone seems to be picking up more ambient noise. But, in looking at the meters, I can also see that the signal that the AT4073a recorded at the same input levels was considerably hotter. If I compensate and lower the levels on the AT4073a, then the ambient level becomes closer in level to most of the other mics. This microphone would be excellent in picking up more distant subjects. If you can only get your shotgun perhaps 4-6 feet from a subject instead of a foot or two away, this microphone would pick up the sound better than most of the other mics in the test.

Beyerdynamic MC-836PV

The MC-836PV did a very nice job on the exterior test. It had excellent rejection of off-axis noise; I could barely make out the traffic din from a distant road. I could still hear the crickets/cicadas, but they were more muted than with some of the other mics tested. I felt as if the Beyerdynamic really came alive and sounded much more interesting and dynamic on an exterior than it did on interiors.

Neumann KMR81i

The Neumann KMR-81i exhibited a remarkable isolation on my voice outside, it almost felt as if I was in a VO booth, the off-axis rejection was that good. The KMR-81i also warmed up my voice, adding a smooth bass/mid emphasis that was appealing to my ear. In a lot of ways, this microphone, even though it is a shotgun, seems to feature a lot of the same qualities that Neumann large diaphragm studio condensers feature. This microphone seemed to be ideal for exterior situations. As you listen to the sample, keep in mind that the mic was located about a foot to a foot and half over my head!

Oktava MK-012

I tested the Oktava with both the cardioid and hypercardioid capsules even though you would undoubtedly want to use the hyper for most exteriors. I very much liked the quality of sound for exteriors with the hyper, it sounded much closer in quality to the cardioid but you will notice that the ambient noise level went way down when I switched to the hypercardioid capsule. The overall sound quality on the exterior seemed a bit smoother to me than the interior clips. Very impressive microphone.

Sanken CS-1

The Sanken CS-1 had a very clear and detailed sound for the exterior but to my ear, it was picking up more off-axis sound in this situation than some of the other microphones. The transitions between the frequencies were very good though and overall, this microphone sounded very appealing. You would have to test this microphone to make sure that the ambient levels were acceptable for your needs. I liked this microphone better for interiors.

Sanken CS-3e

The Sanken CS-3e sounded very good in the exterior test. I noticed less ambient sound than the CS-1 and a smoother, more bass/mid emphasis than on many of the other mics tested. The Sanken did not have the degree of off-axis rejection that the Neumann seemed to have but in a way, it's detail and high end were just a tiny bit more appealing to me. The CS-3e seemed to have more presence but it was not as "in-your-face" as some of the other mics. Overall, it presented a very well balanced and sophisticated sound on the exterior test.

Schoeps CMC641

Wow! This microphone surprised me. I have always heard that few sound mixers use the CMC641 for exteriors. Because the CMC641 is a supercardioid and not a shotgun, I was not expecting very good isolation from off-axis noise and I was expecting that overall this mic might not keep up with the shotguns on exteriors. Listen to the clip, it sounds very impressive. I felt that the mic had excellent off-axis rejection and the overall quality of the sound was superb. Other than windy situations, I would have no problem in using this microphone for exteriors if this is the type of sound I could expect.

Schoeps CMIT5u

Much like the Neumann KMR81i, this microphone basically makes all of your off-axis issues almost disappear. Very good isolation of the desired sound from background noise and I really enjoyed the warmth and intimate sound that the CMIT5u presents on an exterior. To my ear, the Schoeps has a less colored sound than the Neumann, which presents with more bass coloration, but in a good way. I did not have the time to record separate samples with all of the cuts and roll offs for this microphone but I am sure that they would be helpful to you in certain situations. Schoeps has really done a nice job with the CMIT5u, it sounds great on exteriors.

Sennheiser MKH-50

The Sennheiser MKH-50 simply has a punchy, bass and mid emphasized sound in comparison with the Schoeps CMC641. I judged the off-axis rejection to be about the same but the two mics sound pretty different on exteriors. I would choose the Sennheiser MKH-50 for exteriors if you record female talent or talent with a higher or thinner voice. It can do wonders. As for my voice, I don't know, does it make me sound a little Barry White-ish?

Sennheiser MKH-60

The MKH-60 was an outstanding performer on the exterior test. I heard very little off-axis sound but I never got a sense being in a VO booth that I had with the Schoeps CMIT5u and the Neumann KMR-81i. I would say overall, the MKH-60 shared a lot of similar qualities with the Sanken CS-3e. They both sound very natural on exteriors with the Sanken leaning slightly toward the mids and the Sennheiser leaning slightly toward the lows. Interestingly, the MKH-60 presents with a lot less of a bass feel than the MK-50 on exteriors. I really like the sound quality of this mic and I am told that the MKH-60 makes an excellent mic for hand booming by less experienced boom operators. It has some latitude and forgiveness in it's pickup pattern which makes it a natural for a beginning boom operator.



Final Evaluation and Recommendations

Wrapping up the considerable amount of data I have presented in this article is a daunting task. It seems that audio beginners simply want someone to tell them which microphone to buy, while more experienced and knowledgeable users want to read more sophisticated arguments for each microphone tested, using complex descriptions and metaphors for the sound quality of each microphone. In the end, what I think of each microphone doesn't matter in the least; the paragraphs below are simply my opinion. The real goal of this article was to provide you, the potential microphone buyer with objective writing and audio samples so that you can determine which microphone(s) will suit your needs the best.

I am consistently amazed by the sheer diversity in how we all use our camcorders and microphones. I have spoken with users from all over the world over the past decade, they are shooting in environments as varied as outer space, jungles, Antarctica, war zones, corporate boardrooms, weddings, live events, film sets, caves, underwater and many other strange, unusual and interesting places. It seems that few of us have the same experiences as we film, videotape and record sound. This reinforces my opinion that YOU need to critically evaluate your needs and eventual needs before selecting the microphones that will work best for your situation.

For Your Part

I am listening to all of the audio samples I recorded as I imagine which situations each of these microphones could best be used in. I encourage you to do the same. Keep in mind that the method for comparison between audio components, whether microphones, mixers or audio monitors usually comes from A/B comparisons between your two or three most likely candidates. I have learned that our ears and brain have an incredibly short memory. Our ears and brain, because they are so adaptive to surroundings, also become easily confused. The most common mistake potential audio buyers make is to listen to dozens of potential candidates in a row. This will do nothing but confuse your ear and brain. If you are serious about evaluating these microphones for purchase, I would encourage you NOT to sit down and listen to all of the sound samples for all of the microphones in this article in one sitting. You will do nothing except fatigue your ear and confuse your mind about which microphones sound like what. If you are just curious and doing preliminary research, listen away, it doesn't matter, but if you are trying to narrow down which microphone to buy immediately, read on.

The best way to evaluate sound components begins on paper or on your computer screen. Do your research. Read manufacturer and sound magazine websites. Talk to people in sound forums. It is pointless to evaluate $2,000.00 microphones if you only have $500.00 to spend on one. In the end, you should base your buying decision off of a body of research, not from any one recommendation, not even this article. Most recommendations you will get about which microphones to buy are not objective. Take it all in, process and distill your opinion down with what matters most to you. Quality? Quality regardless of cost? Cost? Off-axis rejection? I would advise you to begin narrowing your selection by evaluating microphone candidates that are in your general price range by doing the research.

There are several microphones tested in this article that are considered "industry standards". This, to me has always meant very little to my evaluative process. As in many other areas in life, buying into what the status quo uses is sometimes a good thing but often, you can discover a microphone that costs less and provides superior results for your particular needs. This piece of gear may be the same microphone that most other people use (cough, cough, Sennheiser MKH-416, cough) or it may be a microphone that few people have ever considered, often because not every great microphone company is a multi-national conglomerate with a huge advertising budget. The bottom line is to have an open mind and ear and truly evaluate what will sound best and work best for your situation.

Do You Have Feelings of Guilt?

Once you have lined up potential candidates, the best of all worlds is to get your hands on a sample and use it. Nothing beats an ears-on demonstration. If you visit a quality location sound dealer, almost all will let you evaluate potential microphones that you may purchase from them. Location sound is one of the few industries where there are still many small, quality companies nationwide that offer great advice and service. In my opinion, it is bad form to go to an audio dealer, pick their brain, put your hands all over numerous microphones, then walk out and purchase your selection from that huge dealer in NYC over the Internet because they have the same microphone $50.00 cheaper. People who do this (you know who you are) think that you are smart because you can get the microphone cheaper on-line but in reality, they are making a seriously short sighted decision when they do this. The decision they make could eventually put all of our best small audio shops out of business. I am all for capitalism and getting the best deal, just realize that the best deal is not always the lowest priced deal. Taking care of you after the sale, offering ongoing advice and bailing you out on a Friday late afternoon for a weekend shoot are all things that my favorite two or three audio retailers have done for me over the years. A good location sound dealer is easily worth paying a few bucks more to in exchange for better service.

My Final Overall Evaluations

Audio-Technica AT875R

This microphone was the little engine that could. Frankly, I did not have very high expectations for this microphone. It was a brand new, still unproven commodity. It was really inexpensive. In reading Audio-Technica's literature, it was clear that the main design criterion was usage as an on-camera microphone. The more I thought about though; on-camera usage isn't really that different than using a mic on a boom pole overhead. Sure, you can usually locate a boom mic closer to the source than on-camera, but good sound is good sound. I knew that if Audio-Technica engineered the mic for on-camera usage, it would probably be fairly isolated from handling noise and would have pretty decent pickup from a distance.

I knew going in what the price was on this microphone but I made an effort to try to forget the price of the unit as I evaluated it. This mic finished particularly strongly in the mic handling test and I really enjoyed it's sound with the female talent. All in all, if you are on an extremely limited budget, you could record good quality audio in many situations with the AT875R. This microphone is a perfect example of the price paradigm in these types of microphones shifting. Before I tested this mic, if you would have told that you could purchase a seriously high-quality sounding microphone for video/film usage for it's price, I would have disagreed. The AT875R is a very impressive new product and I highly recommend it as one of the best low cost mics on the market for film/video use. It does not have the smoothness of sound, transient response, nuance and off-axis rejection of the more expensive microphones but in the right hands, it still makes good quality recordings for an amazingly low price.

Audio-Technica AT4073a

I have used this microphone for years. It is a solid performer. If you read around the sound forums, it is highly recommended by many users. I would term this microphone as an "industry standard" even. I found that in comparison to the other microphones evaluated, the AT4073a is a fairly unique microphone that has some particular strengths as well as some areas that it was not as strong in.

I was struck each time I used it by the 4073a's amazing efficiency. This microphone puts out a seriously higher nominal audio level than the other mics. The other recurring theme is one of crispness. This microphone sounds basically at the other end of the spectrum than most of the other microphones. Would I recommend this microphone if you mostly shoot interiors with lots of reflective, hard surfaces? No, I would not. In those sorts of environments, the sound could become a bit brittle. I would recommend the 4073a if you shot in a lot of absorptive environments. Picture a room in which you are shooting an interview. The room has silk wall covering, plush thick carpets and rugs and large, puffy furniture. In an environment like this, many of the other mics would present with a muffled, probably too bassy sound. Not the AT4073a, it would be perfect for this sort of situation. Its crispness would really cut through such muffled acoustics.

Same thing with exteriors. If you are booming and cannot locate the microphone a proper booming distance of 1-2 feet from the subject, the AT4073a would be an excellent choice. With it's increased sensitivity; it would probably pick up at least adequate sound from as far away as 4-6 feet from the subject. This microphone is an excellent example of why I suggest your kit contains at least two Shotgun/Cardioid variant mics. This microphone is outstanding in certain physical environments and not as impressive in others. If you combine the AT4073a with a microphone with smoother sound and less high-end response, between the two, you would have a lot of different audio situations covered.

Beyerdynamic MC 836

The Beyerdynamic MC-836 represented an interesting enigma. I liked how it sounded overall but it did not seem to be a standout performer in any of the test situations except the exterior test. I would say that the main term that comes to mind when evaluating the test clips is balanced. The MC-836 did not seem to be particularly impressive on the interior tests although it did not do badly on any of them either. The unusual thing about this microphone is that even in it's test results, the microphone was balanced. There were other microphones that excelled in certain areas but they also tended to have more distinct disadvantages as well. Not the Beyerdynamic MC-836, it did at least decently in all of the tests.

The microphone really came into it's own on the exterior test, I liked it's sound much more for exteriors than I did for interiors. I did also really like the detailed smoothness that this mic presented, the smoothness was on par with some of the much more expensive microphones. This MC-836 presents with emphasis on the mid-range, so if you have soft spoken or whispery voiced talent, this microphone could be a viable alternative for helping to emphasize this voice.

Neumann KMR81i

The Neumann KMR-81i lives in the sound bags of a lot of working sound mixers. Neumann has quite a reputation for building outstanding world-class large diaphragm studio condenser microphones and from what I experienced, Neumann has successfully managed to infuse the KMR-81i with much of the same sound quality and mystique. The KMR-81i has a very rich and detailed sound that I found extremely pleasant to work with. I used it on a project that featured interviews with several students at a design school. The area we had to shoot the interviews in was not a good sound location; it was situated in between two open classrooms just off of a heavily trafficked hallway. The results were outstanding; we hardly picked up any of the din from down the hallway that was totally apparent to our ears.

On the other hand, I recorded with this microphone in a few instances where I would have liked to hear a bit more "room tone" mixed in with the voice. The isolation from off-axis sound is almost too good with this microphone sometimes. In certain quiet environments; it can be nice to hear a bit more of the environment mixed in with the voice. Just keep in mind that these situations are much more rare than shooting in environments with too much ambient noise. In a few of the recording situations, this microphone almost sounded like a really full bodied sweet sounding lavaliere, it sounded close mic'd even though the microphone was almost two feet from the talent.

The off-axis rejection is top notch; the quality of sound is outstanding. This microphone isn't inexpensive but it is worthy of your consideration as a top of the line sound tool that will last you for many years, and will be useful in many different sound situations. If you want a premium sound and are willing to pay for it, definitely consider the KMR-81i.

Oktava MK-012

Talk about baggage. The Oktava came to me with some reputation. I had heard a lot of different buzz about the MK-012 from users and the forums. Some describe it as a "poor man's Schoeps", others have been dismissive about it. The Oktava is unusual in that it is made in Russia and is quite well accepted and popular all over the world. One feature that I thought would be very appealing to me was that the Oktava MK-012 is available as a three capsule set with an Omnidirectional, Cardioid and Hypercardioid included along with a -10dB capsule to reduce sensitivity. If you are an all-around sound recordist, this kit is a great value, the Omni and Cardioid capsules are great in the recording studio and in the field. If you mainly shoot video/film sound, you will find that the Hypercardioid capsule is the best for most video/film situations so you may be able to save some money by purchasing the power supply with only the Hypercardioid capsule, although I liked the Cardioid capsule for certain situations as well.

The Oktava sounded great. The MK-012 is an amazing value considering it's low price. The MK-012 is also physically tiny, which for many sound for picture situations can be handy. The Oktava was a solid performer in all of the tests, save the handling noise test. It is true that the MK-012 is more susceptible to handling noise than many of the other mics tested. If you are planning on hand booming with the MK-012, my advice it to purchase the best microphone mount you can find and practice with it for a while before shooting. A professional boom operator can probably deal with the handling noise just fine but an amateur boom operator like me would have issues with it. Oh yeah, to my ear, the Oktava didn't sound as full, smooth and uncolored as either Schoeps but it did sound amazing for it's modest cost.

Sanken CS-1

To me, the Sanken CS-1 fulfilled my expectations. I expected it to have more detailed and smoother sound than the other $1,000.00 and under microphones. It did. I expected that it would not sound as detailed or smooth as the $1,000.00 plus microphones. It didn't. I have heard a lot of satisfied owners on the sound forums talking up the CS-1, saying that it is the best thing since sliced bread, so to speak. It was interesting to test both the CS-1 and CS-3e together.

To my ear, I found the sound of the CS-1 to be clear, clean and detailed. The CS-1 did not have the warmth or bass emphasis that some of the more expensive microphones seemed to have; it probably has a less colored sound. I also get the impression that the CS-1 may have been primarily designed as an on-camera mic, much like the Audio-Technica AT875R. It's handling noise was very low, I would say the best of the sub-$1,000.00 microphones. The CS-1 is one of the microphones that presents with a little more room tone than some of the longer shotguns. This is neither good or bad overall. If you were recording in a very noisy environment, this mic could pick up too much ambient sound but in a quieter environment, I really liked hearing a bit of the environment. Some of the longer shotguns almost sounded sterile, the CS-1 sounds more "real" as far as integrating the voice with it's surrounding environment. This is another point for owning more than one of this type microphone; there is no ideal mic for all sound situations. The CS-1 was a solid performer; it's great reputation is well deserved.

Sanken CS-3e

I had a sense of Déjà vu as I first listened to the Sanken CS-3e. Hmm...I have heard a mic that sounds like this before. Which one was it? Oh yeah, the Sanken CS-1. I should clarify, the CS-3e sounds better than the CS-1. It sells for almost twice as much so it should. I found that the better bass response and considerably better off-axis rejection of the CS-3e makes it an outstanding microphone. This is a classic case of the CS-1 being very good and the CS-3e being better.

The CS-3e also did very well in the mic handling test, suggesting that this could be an ideal handheld boom mic for interiors and exteriors. The CS-3e also did very well in the exterior test with a nice mixture of isolating the voice but also letting in a natural sounding amount of ambient. For female voices, I really liked what the CS-3e could do, it made the talent sound open and natural. I felt that the Sanken CS-3e offered basically a similar level of performance and sound quality as the more expensive German mics yet sounds different than the German mics. You would have to determine if you prefer its sound over the more expensive Neumann, Schoeps and Sennheisers. I really liked it and would be very happy to have one in my sound bag.

Schoeps CMC641

Much like the Neumann KMR-81i, the Schoeps CMC641 is, frankly, an audio legend. It is expensive, like the Neumann, and you will find it in MANY professional sound mixers' kits. Schoeps mics are also perhaps a bit more difficult to find, although I have noticed that one popular NYC "box house" is now carrying this particular microphone. So, to get right to it did the Schoeps CMC641 live up to it's reputation? In a word, definitely. The Schoeps had a natural, uncolored sound that really made me forget I was listening to a recording. If I recorded lousy sounds with Schoeps, they sounded lousy, as they should. If I recorded a great sounding source, it sounded great. The Schoeps gives you what is probably the most realistic sound picture of any of the mics I tested, what you hear from it is what you get.

The Schoeps is, like the Neumann, a serious piece of German workmanship. From the gold colored engraved name and model number to the no-nonsense crackle enamel finish, the Schoeps feels like a solid piece of gear. I hesitate to even use too many adjectives to describe the sound of the CMC641, other than to say it is VERY accurate and uncolored. I also feel that the Schoeps delivers what you are paying for. In this case, I feel that "industry standard" is a well-deserved badge of endorsement. If you knew how many television shows and how many feature films you have heard through this microphone, you would probably shake your head in disbelief. It's that good. If you can afford this one, you probably won't need to buy another main microphone for decades, if not longer. That said, if you treasure microphones that impart some of their own personality to your sound as most of the other mics did, you may be happier with some of the other models.

Schoeps CMIT5u

The Schoeps CMIT5u was a very interesting microphone. In some ways, it turns the industry on its side. Let's go down the list. First of all, it's a Schoeps! Schoeps has never made a shotgun and for many years, sound mixers have wished that Schoeps would distill some of the audio magic from mics like the CMC641 into a shotgun form factor. Check. Next, it has active electronics built into the microphone body with really cool little buttons with LED indicator lights. Besides looking interesting and high-tech, the boosts and roll offs are much easier to implement than with the traditional small, cheap dipswitch. Personally, I have to be reminded by bad rumble usually to implement the roll off on most of the mics that I use that have the roll off. With the CMIT5u, I found myself often just clicking through the switches because it was so easy and convenient. The light show has another practical feature, as a shooter, I can look over and at a glance, receive visual confirmation about which boosts and or roll offs I am using, very handy. Lastly, Schoeps has really gone all out to ensure that anyone who sees this microphone notices that it is something different. The color and finish on the CMIT5u is beautiful and not in an ostentatious way. The blue anodized finished is simply exquisite. Nope, it doesn't make it sound any better but it does make it a joy to use because it is just so cool looking. (Sorry, I can't help it, I love the way it looks). Check. Last unique feature, the weight! Man, this mic is long and rather large in comparison to the CMC641 but it weighs a LOT less than the CMC641. If you are hand booming, you will fall in love with this mic, it has low handling noise, great off axis rejection and it is incredibly light.

Interestingly, to my ear, the CMIT5u doesn't sound exactly like a shotgun version of the CMC641. The two mics have a distinctly different sound quality although they are in the same neighborhood. Neither is better or worse, they are just different. The CMIT5u obviously has better off-axis rejection yet the basic quality of the sound is slightly more colored, but in a good way. The CMIT5u was the second most expensive mic I tested and to be honest, I felt it was easily worth every penny. You will discover if you shop for this microphone, nobody seems to offer discounts on it. That should tell you something. It's a superb shotgun.

Sennheiser MKH-50

The Sennheiser MKH-50 was a microphone that I was really interested in evaluating. I have shot with the MKH-60 and MKH-416 for years but have never had a chance to use the MKH-50. It displayed a distinctly different sound than both the 60 and 416. It's difficult to put it into words but the MKH-50 had a very exciting sound. It made subjects sound big and dynamic. The MKH-50 is a very popular microphone; I have seen quite a few at work on the Hollywood television and film sets that I frequent. Sennheisers are very well built and smartly engineered. The look is low key and black. To my ear, the MKH-50 presents the sound with bass and mid-range emphasis. As always, I would seriously consider this type of sound if you record a lot of female talent, child talent or males with thinner voices. The MKH-50 makes them sound robust and gives their voices some authority. If I had to make a film analogy, this microphone sounds like an action thriller. It's exciting, dynamic and a blast to record with.

If you look at sound characteristics as a palette, this sort of sound would be good for warmth and authority. If your talent already has a very deep or authoritative sort of voice, this microphone might not be the number one choice. I really liked how this microphone made my voice sound and I do have a fairly penetrating and deep voice so who knows, it's just a matter of taste and preference. Sennheiser has created a classic with the MKH-50.

Sennheiser MKH-60

Unlike it's sibling, the MKH-50, the Sennheiser MKH-60 had a slightly more balanced sound overall. It produced less bass coloration on exteriors, had excellent off-axis rejection and did extremely well in the mic handling tests. In exteriors, the MKH-60 seemed to compare more to the Sanken CS-3e than the other German microphones. After reviewing both of these Sennheisers, I could see that teaming the two of them together would result in a very complimentary microphone package, if not an inexpensive one.

I have shot many hundreds of interviews with the MKH-60 over the years and it presents a very well balanced sound picture with a slight mid-range emphasis. Personally, I find that I really enjoy using the MKH-60 although it becomes rather transparent, like the Schoeps CMC641. After a while, you just don't notice the microphone's characteristics at all, you just notice the sound it recorded. I feel that the Schoeps is less colored than the Sennheiser but both of them present a very realistic sound. The MKH-60 holds the distinction of having the highest list price ($2,000.00) of any of the mics tested although actual street prices result in the MKH-60 generally selling for less than the Schoeps CMIT5u. The Neumann is another world-class microphone from Sennheiser. It was a joy to work with.



In The End

I hope that you have found this article a quality resource. Choosing the correct audio gear for your needs is always challenging. Fortunately, microphones don't have a tendency to change much; several of the models reviewed here have basically stayed the same for the past 5-10 years. A few of the models are newer and have introduced some new technology and new quality levels for unheard of price points.

The most important thing to remember as you decide which microphone(s) to purchase is to buy quality and buy the product that best suits your needs. You should always challenge yourself to not scrimp and to buy the best quality audio gear that you can afford. Unlike cameras and computers, audio gear can really be an investment. With care, it will last you many years and will not need to be replaced by the newest, latest and greatest. Quality audio gear will also pay for itself quickly in saved rental fees. As with all other aspects of sound for picture, it's the skill of the operator that really makes the most difference. Having the most expensive or best performing microphone on the market won't make any difference in the quality of your sound unless you know when, where and how to use it. In order for any of the microphones in this article to work to their full potential, you need a quality microphone mount, wind protection, boom pole, cable, mixer and recording device. As you can see, the microphone is merely the first device in the chain.



Acknowledgments and Thanks

I would like to thank the various manufacturers and distributors who graciously supplied the review samples and answered many technical questions:

Karen Emerson - Audio-Technica

Beyerdynamic USA

Dan Radin - Neumann USA

Ken Heaton- Oktava USA

Jim Pace - Plus24

Scott Boland - Redding Audio

Dawn Birr - Sennheiser USA



Dan Brockett, is an independent television producer based in Los Angeles, Ca. Dan's most recent projects include documentaries for the DVD releases of Paramount Pictures Braveheart: Special Edition and Warner Bros. Special Edition of Howard Hawks Rio Bravo. Dan is also known for shooting and producing two top rated episodes of A&E's Biography. Dan is currently in development on three television shows for 2008. Dan can be reached at dan@biglittlefilms.com.