While staying in Penang, Malaysia, I decided to conduct a little experiment.
It had been a while since I had done a microphone comparison, and over the past few years I had accumulated several different microphone rigs without ever really putting them all side by side. I had used most of them extensively in the field, but always in different situations, at different times, and with different recording goals.
I was curious to hear how much difference there really was between them when recording the same environments under the same general conditions.
So I took most of the microphones I regularly use for ambience and field recording and put them together for a larger comparison than I would normally do.
The result is this comparison video, covering nine different microphone setups across a variety of locations and recording situations around Penang.
The technical details
First, an important disclaimer: this is not a scientific microphone test.
I am not attempting to measure frequency response, self-noise, distortion, maximum SPL, transient response, or any other parameter under controlled laboratory conditions. The purpose of this comparison is much more practical and subjective: I wanted to hear and compare the aesthetic character of the recordings in real-world situations.
There are, however, quite a few technical differences between the microphones and the way they were used, and these are important to understand when listening to the results.
The microphones used in the comparison were:
- Schoeps CCM 41, from my ORTF 3D rig, connected to a Zoom F8n Pro
- Sennheiser MKH 8090, connected to a Zoom F6
- Immersive Soundscapes Earsight Nano, connected to a Zoom F1
- LOM mikroUši, connected to a Sony PCM-A10
- FEL Clippy EM272, connected to a Zoom F8n Pro
- Sonorous Objects SO.103, connected to a Zoom F6
- Immersive Soundscapes Earsight Thumb, connected to a Zoom F3
- Immersive Soundscapes Earsight V2, connected to a Sony PCM-A10
- Sony PCM-D100, using its built-in microphones
These microphones represent quite different technologies and designs.
The Schoeps CCM 41 is a compact true condenser microphone using the Schoeps MK 41 supercardioid capsule. The Sennheiser MKH 8090 is a wide-cardioid RF condenser microphone, using Sennheiser’s RF condenser technology. The smaller microphones in the comparison are predominantly electret condenser designs, while the Sonorous Objects SO.103 and Earsight Thumb use directional capsules and the other small microphones are omnidirectional.
The polar patterns therefore vary considerably.
The Schoeps CCM 41 is supercardioid, the Sennheiser MKH 8090 is wide cardioid, the Earsight Thumb and Sonorous Objects SO.103 are cardioid, while the Earsight Nano, LOM mikroUši, FEL Clippy EM272 and Earsight V2 are omnidirectional.
The Sony PCM-D100 is slightly different again. Rather than using two externally positioned microphones, it uses a pair of built-in 15 mm electret condenser microphones in an adjustable stereo configuration. Sony specifies two microphone positions, X-Y and Wide, and for this comparison I used the Wide setting.
Stereo spacing
Another significant difference is the distance and geometry between the left and right microphones.
The Sennheiser, Schoeps and Earsight Thumb were used in an ORTF-type configuration, with approximately 17 cm between the microphone capsules.
The Sony PCM-D100 uses its own built-in microphone arrangement, so the spacing is much smaller and determined by the recorder itself. I used the Wide position rather than X-Y.
The other microphones were arranged as AB pairs, with approximately 60 cm between the left and right microphones, give or take depending on the particular setup.
This is important because the stereo image is not simply a property of the microphones themselves. The microphone polar pattern, capsule spacing and stereo geometry all contribute significantly to how the resulting sound field is perceived.
The Schoeps 3D ORTF rig
The Schoeps setup deserves a little more explanation.
My ORTF 3D rig contains eight capsules, but for this comparison I did not use all eight channels. I used the four capsules on the front of the rig and combined the two coincident capsule signals associated with each side of the stereo pair.
In practical terms, the result is a left and right microphone in an ORTF configuration, but each side is formed from more than one capsule from the original 3D array.
This means that the resulting polar response is not exactly the same as simply using a single CCM 41 per side. The combination produces a somewhat broader effective pickup than a single capsule alone.
Different recorders
Another variable is the recorder.
Almost every microphone pair was connected to a different recorder. This was not intentional as a way of comparing recorders. It was simply a practical consequence of the number of channels available on the recorders I had with me.
I had to distribute the microphones across several machines in order to record them all simultaneously.
Of course, the recorder and its preamps can have an influence on the final result. However, all of the recorders used here are capable of professional-quality recording, and the recordings were made at 96 kHz, using either 24-bit or 32-bit float recording depending on the recorder.
No EQ, compression, limiting or other processing was applied.
In my opinion, any differences introduced by the recorders are relatively small compared with the much more obvious differences between the microphones themselves.
Wind protection
There was another unavoidable variable: wind protection.
The microphones were not all equipped with identical windshield systems. Some used more substantial cage-style systems, some used furry wind protection, and others were protected only by foam or smaller windshields.
This can influence the high-frequency response, particularly when comparing small microphones with very different windshield arrangements.
There was also some wind at one of the recording locations, and a few microphones experienced a little more wind buffeting than others. I did not attempt to measure the acoustic effect of the different windshield systems, so this should be kept in mind when listening to the comparison.
Again, this was a real-world comparison rather than a controlled laboratory experiment.
Why these microphones?
The choice of microphones was actually very simple.
They are the microphones I already own.
All of these microphones have been part of my field recording travels at one point or another. Most are compact, relatively lightweight and easy to travel with, which makes them particularly relevant to the kind of recording I do.
I did not buy or borrow equipment specifically for this comparison. I simply took what I already had on my shelves and finally put everything side by side.
Some of these microphones were acquired because they were inexpensive and practical. Others are considerably more expensive professional microphones. Some are directional, some omnidirectional, some are designed around tiny electret capsules, and some use much more sophisticated condenser technology.
I have often heard individual microphones described by other recordists, but it is difficult to build a meaningful mental reference when you hear microphones in completely different recordings.
This comparison gave me an opportunity to hear them under much more comparable circumstances.
It also comes at an interesting moment for me, because I am currently considering how I want to build some new recording rigs. Having all of these microphones available makes it much easier to evaluate which characteristics I actually value in different situations.
The recording locations
I have to admit that I am somewhat spoiled by being based part-time in Penang.
The island is remarkably diverse for its size. Within a relatively small area, you can find forested hills, beaches and the sea, dense urban environments, historical districts, markets, religious sites and busy roads.
That made it a particularly good place for this experiment.
For the comparison, I recorded nine different situations:
- Chew Jetty
- Wet market, Tanjung Bungah
- Forest, Air Itam
- Motorcycle pass-by
- Balcony cityscape with the call to prayer
- Sea waves
- Quiet Botanical Garden, with a distant river
- Studio props, including bells and other small objects
The idea was not to find one microphone that wins every category, but to see how their individual characters emerged in very different acoustic environments.
My verdict
Microphone choice is ultimately subjective. What sounds “better” to one person may sound completely wrong to another, and the intended application matters enormously.
That said, after listening through the recordings repeatedly, I did start to notice some consistent characteristics.
Earsight Thumb and Earsight V2
The Earsight Thumb and Earsight V2 were probably the most strongly colored microphones in the comparison.
I would not necessarily choose either one as my first option for a generic ambience library, but that does not mean they are bad microphones. Quite the opposite: their character could be very useful in the right application.
The Earsight Thumb has a pronounced midrange that I could imagine being particularly useful for things like birdsong or other sources where a strong presence in the middle frequencies is desirable.
Its relatively high self-noise, however, makes it less attractive to me for very quiet environments.
The Earsight V2 has a strong low-frequency character. It reminded me in some ways of the low-end character of the Sennheiser, although I found the overall tonal balance less neutral.
Clippy EM272 and Earsight Nano
The two microphones that consistently performed very well across a wide range of situations were the FEL Clippy EM272 and the Earsight Nano.
They have different physical designs, but both use small omnidirectional electret capsules and share a similar philosophy: very small microphones with good sensitivity and low noise.
I found both of them remarkably easy to like.
They did not seem to impose a particularly strong character on the recordings, and they remained useful across many different environments.
For a compact travel rig, that is a very valuable quality.
Sennheiser MKH 8090
The Sennheiser MKH 8090 has a very different character.
To my ears, it has an impressive sense of power and an extremely striking transient response. The mid-high frequencies feel particularly sharp and immediate.
Its wide-cardioid pattern also creates a very large sense of space.
At times, that spaciousness can almost feel exaggerated, depending on the environment. But for certain recordings, that can be exactly what makes the microphone exciting.
I particularly liked it on the motorcycle pass-by, where it captured a strong sense of power.
I also preferred it for the balcony cityscape and distant call to prayer. It produced a pleasing sense of scale and largeness that some listeners may find excessive, but that I found attractive in this particular situation.
Schoeps CCM 41
The Schoeps CCM 41 felt almost like the opposite approach.
Where the Sennheiser gives me a sense of power and scale, the Schoeps feels softer and more refined.
But “soft” should not be confused with lacking detail.
In fact, I found the Schoeps to be probably the most precise microphone in the comparison. It seemed to reproduce small details naturally without making them sound artificially emphasized.
It was particularly good at preserving the relationship between nearby and distant sounds.
The stereo image was also extremely detailed and coherent.
I particularly liked it in the studio, where small objects and subtle transients benefited from its precision.
It was also my favorite at the Botanical Garden. The distant river was relatively diffuse and difficult to isolate, yet the recording remained coherent and natural.
Sony PCM-D100
The Sony PCM-D100 was perhaps the most surprising microphone system in the comparison.
Its built-in microphones have a very different presentation from almost everything else here, but the result is remarkably good considering that the entire stereo microphone system is integrated into a portable recorder.
I think the D100 remains an excellent backup system, particularly when you want to make a quick recording without deploying a visible microphone rig.
There is also something to be said for its simplicity. Take the recorder out, switch it on, and record.
It is not going to replace a good pair of external microphones for every situation, but it remains an extremely capable all-in-one field recording system.
LOM mikroUši
The LOM mikroUši were my favorite for the forest.
Their tiny size makes them particularly convenient for discreet field recording, and I liked the way they rendered the forest environment without making it feel overly directional or overly processed.
They are also an interesting example of how much performance can be achieved from extremely small electret capsules.
Sonorous Objects SO.103
The Sonorous Objects SO.103 was probably the most understated microphone in the comparison.
It performed well across the different situations without having one particular characteristic that dominated the recordings.
That is not necessarily a negative.
In fact, for someone looking for a compact directional microphone that can do many things reasonably well, that consistency can be an advantage.
I also liked it in the studio, where I would probably rank it alongside the Sony D100 as one of my preferred alternatives after the Schoeps.
The individual winners
Rather than trying to declare one overall winner, I found it more interesting to pick a favorite for each situation:
- Chew Jetty: FEL Clippy EM272
- Wet market: Earsight Nano
- Forest: LOM mikroUši
- Motorcycle pass-by: Sennheiser MKH 8090
- Cityscape / call to prayer: Sennheiser MKH 8090
- Sea waves: FEL Clippy EM272
- Botanical Garden: Schoeps CCM 41
- Studio props: Schoeps CCM 41
- Overall versatility: Sony PCM-D100
These choices are entirely subjective and are based on what I personally found most pleasing or useful in each situation.
One adjective per microphone
If I had to reduce my impression of each microphone to a single word, this would be my very subjective list:
Sennheiser MKH 8090: Power
Schoeps CCM 41: Precise
FEL Clippy EM272: Balanced
LOM mikroUši: Toned
Earsight Nano: Bright
Earsight V2: Muddy
Earsight Thumb: Unbalanced
Sonorous Objects SO.103: Practical
Sony PCM-D100: Versatile
Obviously, these adjectives describe my personal impression of these particular recordings, rather than objective properties of the microphones.
Humidity
There is one additional consideration that is particularly relevant to field recording in Southeast Asia: humidity.
Most of these microphones are designed to work in demanding environmental conditions, but the Schoeps is the microphone that I have personally found most sensitive to extremely high humidity.
In certain situations, it can take some time to adapt when moving between very different humidity conditions.
However, during this particular comparison, the CCM 41 showed no obvious problems related to humidity, despite the tropical conditions in Penang.
What I would do differently next time
I am glad I finally did this comparison, but if I were to repeat the experiment, I would probably approach it quite differently.
There are many more compact microphones that would be interesting to include. A comparison could also be expanded to microphones from Line Audio, Rycote, sE Electronics, Lewitt and Neumann, among others.
It would also be interesting to look at specific technical characteristics separately.
For example:
- Self-noise
- Maximum SPL and overload behavior
- Frequency response
- Transient response
- Off-axis response
- Stereo image
- Wind sensitivity
- Humidity resistance
- Handling noise
Those tests would require a much more controlled environment and, ideally, proper measurement equipment.
There is also an interesting phenomenon with the small electret microphones in this comparison: several manufacturers use capsules from the same small group of capsule manufacturers, so microphones that look completely different on the outside can sometimes be surprisingly similar acoustically.
That would make for another interesting experiment in itself.
For this comparison, however, I deliberately did not try to turn the test into a laboratory measurement.
The microphones are too different, and the way I use them in the field is ultimately what matters to me.
What I wanted to know was much simpler:
If I put these microphones in the same place, recording the same thing, which one do I actually prefer?
After listening to all nine systems across several environments, I now have a much clearer answer.
And that, ultimately, was the point of the experiment.
Download all the recording excerpt that were use in the video (in wav 24 bits) here
| Microphone | Type / pattern | Frequency response | Sensitivity | Self-noise | Max SPL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schoeps CCM 41 / MK 41 | True condenser, supercardioid | 40 Hz to 26 kHz | -36 dB / 16 mV/Pa | 14 dB-A | 136 dB SPL* |
| Sennheiser MKH 8090 | RF condenser, wide cardioid | 30 Hz to 50 kHz | -34 dBV/Pa, 20 mV/Pa | 13 dB-A | 142 dB SPL |
| Earsight Nano | Electret condenser, omni | 20 Hz to 20 kHz | -27 dB | 17 dB-A | 110 dB SPL |
| LOM mikroUši | Electret condenser, omni | Not specified | -32 dB | ~20 dBA | ~115 dB SPL |
| FEL Clippy EM272 | Electret condenser, omni | 20 Hz to 20 kHz | -28 dB | 14 dB-A | 120 dB SPL |
| Sonorous Objects SO.103 | Electret condenser, cardioid | 20 Hz to 20 kHz | -32 dB ±3 dB | 16 dBA | 125 dB SPL |
| Earsight Thumb, small capsule | Electret condenser, cardioid | 20 Hz to 20 kHz | -37 dB | 22 dB-A | 110 dB SPL |
| Earsight V2 | Electret condenser, omni | 20 Hz to 20 kHz | -24 dB | 14 dB-A | 110 dB SPL |
| Sony PCM-D100 | Built-in 15 mm electret condensers | Manufacturer does not publish equivalent mic specs | Not published | Not published | Not published |