Very Inexpensive Microphones
From what I’ve read on various internet forums, it’s much easier to make a good omnidirectional (or non directional) (or just omni) mic than it is to make a good directional mic. And as a result it should be easier to find good, cheap omni mics, which would be great for me, because I love them. They can be placed very close to the source because they don’t have the proximity effect that occurs with directional mics. They seem to capture a big, clear, realistic sound very easily.
The problem has been that there are not a lot of omni mics around. The market doesn’t seem that interested in omnis, so the manufacturers are not interested. In the five years or so that I’ve been recording and buying gear, I would guess that models of directional mics in the marketplace outnumbered omnis by 20 to 1 or more, and almost all the hip new inexpensive mics have been directional.
In the last year or so, though, Jon O’Neil and his Naiant Studio Store has begun selling a very inexpensive omni microphone which Jon builds himself. He use readily available capsules, adds his own active electronics, and mounts the whole thing in an XLR connector shell. The result is compact, rugged, and inexpensive. I think they work pretty well, too. Here’s a brief comparison of a pair of Naiant MSH-1 omnis to a pair of DPA 4061s:
The DPAs carry a list price of $429, and they require an adapter to connect to standard mic preamps that adds about $75 to the cost. Even used they cost about 10 times as much as the Naiant MSH-1 costs new. It’s certainly true that the DPA can be used in more applications, because it’s very small and unobtrusive, and the two different mics are not equivalent, but just on the basis of sound quality, I think they’re amazingly close.
This year Naiant began selling the MSH-2, a mic based on a larger capsule. Jon describes this mic as having lower noise and a gently falling high end compared to the MSH-1. I’m a sucker for an inexpensive omni, so I ordered up a pair. Here’s a recording using one of these new mics alongside an industry standard for microphone quality. I’m using a John Hardy M-1 preamp and Lynx2 converters. This time I set up the Naiant MSH-2 on one channel and a Schoeps CMC6/MK2 on the other. I mounted the mics so they were a few inches apart and about 6 inches from the Martin OM-18GE. Here are the two mono files that resulted:
I can hear some slight differences, although they’re pretty subtle. By turning up the volume and listening to the extended “tail” or decaying signal, I can hear a higher noise level in the Naiant track. But considering that the Schoeps costs about $1400 and the Naiant costs $35, I’d call the similarity pretty amazing. Certainly if someone asked me for an inexpensive microphone to record solo acoustic guitar, I’d be quite comfortable recommending the Naiant MSH-2.
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 5th, 2007 at 9:28 pm and is filed under Audio, Comparisons. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Jacob said in post # 1,
on May 29th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Is there also an very inexpensive way to connect 2 Naiant microphones to a computer?
Fran Guidry said in post # 2,
on May 29th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Jacob, there are a few ways to do this. If your computer has a Line In connector, you can buy a very inexpensive mixer and a couple of cables and adapters. With this arrangement you can get connected for well under $100.
If your computer does not have a Line In connector, and many laptops today do not, then you need some kind of interface device. There are a few that offer 2 mic preamps for under $150 down to $100. Go to any major music retailer like Sweetwater and look for USB interfaces with two mic preamps and 48v phantom power.
Ah, I just noticed that you are in the Netherlands. I’m not sure how to advise you for products that are available in Europe, and I’m afraid you’ll face slightly higher prices.
Fran
Michael Springer said in post # 3,
on October 8th, 2011 at 12:00 am
I have a couple of Naiant X-Q mics. Jon tweaks his designs pretty often, so the MSH-2 is long since obsolete, and my X-Q is already obsolete. I bought the X-Q because I had asked Jon which of his then current series was best for recording fiddle.
Anyway, I’ve found two cheap interfaces- USB is the way to go, but they can be expensive… or if they are cheap, really not very good. One problem is that even fairly pricey USB interfaces often have really crummy mic preamps.
One USB interface I’ve used recently with the Naiant X-Q mics is the ART USB Dual Pre. It’s a fairly rugged and versatile little guy that retails for only about $85 bucks. I recently used it to get some of my best fiddle recordings yet. Another performer at a low price that I have even higher hopes for is the Peavey PV6 USB 6 channel mixer. They came out about 2010, and apparently they used good preamps… I get an even better live sound out of the Peavey than out of the ART USB Dual Pre (I was using it as a mixer for a while before I got the Peavey) because the preamps sound very crisp and clean. I have also gotten good recordings with the Peavey and other mics (Heil PR30 and PR35) on voice and guitar, so I know it records well- and I’m looking forward to using it with the Naiant X-Qs as well. Oh yeah, the PV6 USB goes for about $130… be sure the model says USB after it, because they also make a nearly identical PV6 *without* USB.
Igor said in post # 4,
on January 18th, 2012 at 11:55 am
More than close, I’d say; I actually preferred the MSH-1. The DPA has a slight harshness that the other mic doesn’t. The MSH-1 emphasizes a range of frequencies that is more flattering to the source.
In the second test, I preferred the Schoeps, but the Naiant was no slouch and is obviously capable of achieving good results.
It would be silly to deny that there are sonic differences between microphones. The real question is whether these (usually subtle) differences are critical, and if they are, whether they can’t simply be EQ’d out. To me, if a recording is in the ballpark and there is no gross distortion, I’m going to focus on the performance, not on the properties of the mic used to capture it.
BTW, I’m an omni fan as well and have also been frustrated at how few there are on the market (and at how many hoops you have to jump through sometimes to find the ones that are out there). Beyerdynamic had an omni dynamic mic I was interested in (I believe the model was M101) which no one ever seemed to have in stock and which I can only assume has been discontinued. A few years ago, I wanted to pick up a pair of AT3032s, only to find that they, too, had been discontinued (Audio-Technica’s 303x series offered a lot of bang for the buck, IMO). These almost never come up on eBay.
A couple of years ago, I picked up an AT4049 omni on blowout for about $400. It’s wonderful. All of those 404x series SDC mics with the interchangeable capsules sound nice. I also have a pair of factory-matched omni capsules for the Oktava MK-012 SDC which came as part of a kit, but haven’t had an opportunity to try them.
Fran Guidry said in post # 5,
on January 18th, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Thanks a lot for visiting and commenting.
I used omnis with a Jecklin disk for some of my favorite tracks on my first CD, but these days I’ve been having more success with a mid-side rig. I’ve been looking for AT3032s though (grin).
Fran