Did you know that two of the so-called “industry standard” voice over microphones were never specifically designed to record voice overs? Come to think of it, no microphone I know of, was ever developed for voice over work only.
Even Harlan Hogan’s VO: 1-A mic was based on an older MXL Model. According to recordinghacks.com, the frequency-response graph is identical to that of the MXL 2006, which also shares the VO: 1-A’s body and grille. Is that a coincidence?
THE KING AND THE SHOTGUN
Let’s talk about a true industry standard. Neumann’s venerable U87. It’s a versatile all-round studio microphone designed for single miking acoustic instruments such as strings and woodwinds, as well as vocals. It was never built to live in cramped voice over booths, and in poorly treated rooms it is extremely unforgiving.
Had it been up to Sennheiser (the company that now owns Neumann), their celebrated MKH 416 shotgun mic would never have made it into the voice over studio. It would have stayed on the boom pole it was developed for. But thanks to the antics of announcer Ernie Anderson, it became a VO staple in many studios.
Ernie didn’t like that audio engineers and session producers were always talking about him while he was in the soundproof booth, so he insisted on joining them in the same room. The engineer on duty grabbed the most directional mic he could find to record in the control room, and that happened to be a 416.
According to someone who worked with him, Anderson never insisted on only using a 416, but word got around and other promo guys started doing what he was doing. It was only a matter of time before engineers in the LA area got used to the sound of VO’s close-miking the 416, and the rest is history.
Now, the original 416 was developed way back in the seventies to capture dialogue on film sets. It became popular for two reasons. To quote the B & H website:
“The directivity of the MKH-416 reduces the amount of background noise through off-axis rejection, and its small diaphragm capsule helps improve the directivity of its high-frequency pickup while reducing the effect of plosives from compromising the recording (“popping”).
The second reason for the MKH-416’s reputation is the durability of its construction, its resistance to humidity, and its usability outdoors.”
As a voice over I don’t care that my microphone can survive in Antarctica and the Amazonian rain forest, but the ability of a shotgun mic to pick up my voice and not much of my surroundings is very useful, especially in rooms that are not built to keep ambient noise out.
STUDIO PROBLEMS
That’s precisely what I discovered when I moved into my new studio space a few months ago. It’s a generous 14′ by 11′ by 9′ basement room with no isolation, just absorption panels for dampening and deflection. I don’t need to be surrounded by triple walls because there’s barely any ambient noise in the secluded Vermont area I live in.
My noise problem came from inside: the adjacent boiler room that has a pretty loud furnace that likes to kick in at the worst of times. On top of that I didn’t like the sound I captured with my trusted Gefell M930 Ts.
In spite of the installed bass traps and acoustic panels, the room sounded a bit too hollow to my ears. When I used my Synco D-2 shotgun microphone, however, the room sounded nice and dry. That’s because the Synco has a hypercardioid pattern as opposed to the Gefell’s cardioid pattern. (click here for more on polar patterns)
I had been using the Synco on and off for about twelve months, and not once did a client complain. On the contrary. They liked my new punchy sound. But I have to be honest. Advertising myself as a “Synco talent” doesn’t exactly instill confidence in a new client or agent. As much as I would like them to evaluate me purely on my talent and on the quality of my home studio setup, I felt it would be wise to invest in a new microphone of a brand most people would recognize and trust.
So, the search for a new microphone was on!
LOOKING FOR MY FOREVER MIC
Why didn’t I just buy a 416, you may wonder? It has earned its reputation, and with good reason. My motivation is simple: a microphone has to fit the voice that’s using it without any correction or sweetening in post. That’s my rule of thumb.
I have used the 416 many times in professional recording facilities, and I never sounded my best. That’s because I have a light tenor voice and the 416 has a hyped high end. This is a relic from the tape era in which it was developed. The high end boost also comes in handy when using the shotgun mic with a deadcat or zeppelin. These wind shields muffle the sound and you can add clarity with a heightened presence boost. It’s a boost that makes my voice sound overly bright and sibilant.
With the 416 ruled out, I looked at Rode shotgun microphones. The NTG3 (with a somewhat extended low end) was supposed to be the Australian answer to the 416, and their new and much cheaper NTG5 earned high praise from the team at The Pro Audio Podcast.
In fact, they preferred it over the MKH 416, especially because it was using the latest technology at half the price ($499 versus $999). But like it or not, Rode still doesn’t have the same reputable ring as Neumann or Sennheiser. In fact, the NTG3 is sometimes referred to as the “poor man’s 416.” Yuck!
I market myself as a premium voice, and such a voice has to have premium equipment.
A 416, BUT EVEN BETTER
That brought me to the microphone Sennheiser released in 2011 to succeed the 416: the MKH 8060 (see photo). I believe the only reason they didn’t retire the outdated 416 was because people kept asking for it.
Before forking over $1500 on an 8060, I did my research. I visited all the forums where experienced gear geeks congregate, and discovered that most commentators thought the 8060 was the “sweeter, lighter, and less noisy, better overall mic.” “It has less distortion and sounds more natural and uncolored while still being very directive.” But these are just words, of course.
There are always two specs I pay close attention to: sensitivity and self-noise. Both influence the all-important signal to noise ratio.
Sensitivity refers to how hot a microphone is. Sensitive microphones need less signal boost from a preamp which results in cleaner recordings. The lower the number in the specs, the hotter the microphone is.
There’s an added bonus for voice overs. If your microphone is more sensitive, you can stay further away which leads to less popping. PersonalIy, I prefer a more sensitive microphone for medical reasons. After my stroke in March 2018, I lost my vocal stamina. I cannot project as much, and my vocal folds tire out more easily. These days I tend to speak at a lower volume making my voice last longer. The MKH 8060 picks up my voice perfectly, even when I speak softly.
To illustrate: when I’ve plugged in the Austrian Audio OC18, I have to set the gain of my SSL2+ preamp at five ‘o clock. It almost needs as much gain as a dynamic microphone. But when I plug in the 8060, the gain is at twelve ‘o clock!
Self noise (or equivalent noise) is noise produced by the microphone itself even when no sound source is present. Cheaper mics tend to have more self noise (a faint hiss), which translates in higher numbers and a less clean recording.
THE COMPARISON
Here are some of the microphones I was comparing. The first number refers to sensitivity, and the second is self-noise (SN):
Synco D2 -32, SN 12 dB A-Weighted
MKH 416 -32, SN 13
Rode NTG 3 -30, SN 13
Sennheiser MKH 8060 -24, SN 11
Rode NTG 5 -23.5, SN 10
As you can see, the NTG 5, which retails for a third of the 8060, outperforms the Sennheiser by just a bit. I don’t think these differences are even audible, and clients never get a side-by-side comparison anyway. These numbers do demonstrate how much more sensitive and quiet the new 8060 is, as compared to the 416.
This should also tell you that it’s not a microphone for beginners. This mic hears everything that comes close to it and will reproduce it as realistically as possible. That’s why it is a favorite of foley artists. Good mic technique is a must.
The comment I heard most when I shared an 8060 audio sample was that I “never sounded more like me.” You can interpret that any way you want, but I took it as a compliment.
BUT HOW DOES IT SOUND?
This is always the hard and unfair part, because the same microphone can sound different, depending on the recording space, the mic placement, the equipment it is plugged into, and the person using it. Plus, you’ll be listening to it on your studio monitors, headphones, or earbuds which color the sound as well.
To my ears, the MKH 8060 sounds less in-your-face than the 416. It is more refined and does not accentuate the highs in my voice as much. The microphone is still clear without sounding shrill. The pickup pattern is a bit more forgiving compared to the 416. This means I can move more without running the risk of my sound discoloring when I’m not precisely in front of the microphone.
I don’t own a 416, but I can let you listen to a comparison between the Synco D-2, and my new microphone. The audio has not been processed in post, I just turned the file into an mp3 for faster loading. A warning: it gets a little louder when I move to my new mic because it’s a hotter microphone.
If you’re interested in more comparisons, YouTube is your friend. Just be aware that most people comparing shotgun microphones are not voice overs but people who evaluate microphones for their use on (outdoor) film sets. And also know that YouTube uses compression, which negatively influences the quality of the audio.
It’s worth remembering that shotgun mics don’t magically make a distant source sound closer, they just help isolate it from its surrounding noise. If you’re far from the sound source they will pick up ambient sounds in addition to whatever you’re pointing the mic at. That long interference tube is for rejecting off-axis sound. So, how well does the MKH 8060 do in terms of rejection? After all, it is a bit shorter than the 416. Have a listen.
FINAL WORDS
You may say that it’s a little unfair to compare a $249 microphone to a $1500 shotgun mic… except… I didn’t pay $1500 for the 8060. I found a previously loved one for $999 at Music Go Round in Greenfield, Wisconsin. It was in pristine condition. Not a scratch or dent, and I think that the Nextel® coating just looks very classy. By the way, it is resting in a Rycote InVision INV-7 HG mkIII Microphone Shock Mount.
If the MKH 416 is considered an industry standard microphone, and the 8060 is the new and improved version, why hasn’t it caught on the way the 416 did? I think people have a tendency to go with what they know. Plus, $999 is already a lot of money for most people, let alone $1500.
To me, the 416 is technology from the seventies. It’s a relic from the past.
Solid, but surpassed.
PS If you’re thinking of buying a new voice over microphone, here’s an article I have written especially for you. Click here to read it.
Related Posts
Do You Really Need That New Microphone?
Picking the Perfect Voice-Over Microphone
Earthworks’ Iconic New Microphones
Reviewing the Microtech Gefell M 930 Ts
The Neumann Killer Has Arrived, and it’s from Austria!- The ideal voice-over mic you’ve never heard of
Do I get to keep the gear I review?
Awesome and Affordable: Solid State Logic’s New Audio Interface
Sounds really really great Paul and what a great article.
Thank you so much!
Thank you Stephanie! Congratulations on being a One Voice Award nominee in the category Best Female International Voice Over!
Great article, Paul! I’m an older voice artist but have decades of experience as a musical voice talent, audio engineer, PA company owner (I owned more than 60 microphones), VO talent, and microphone freak. I first heard and used a Neumann/Telefunken U48 when I was about 18 years old and lusted after a Neumann ever since. While at the University of Cincinnati we had 4 U87s and my love for them only grew. It took me 40 years to be able to afford my first U87. It’s my favorite mic, “just because.” My studio is 13’ x 17’ x 7’ and I have good baffling to make the room a non-issue. I sound like me with that mic and I feel good using it.
I also used to work as a boom operator for film/commercial production and found that the 416 had a very distinct “sweet spot” that, if I got it a little off axis from the talent, was noticeable in my headphones. That characteristic makes it a challenge if VO talent moves while reading. There are other mics out there that are slightly more forgiving. I’d love to get my hands on an 8060 – but it’ll never replace my 87. I now have 3 of them plus a Sennheiser MK4 and MK8 for road work. Those mics, on my voice, are remarkably similar in sound to my 87. Almost sad because they cost a fraction of the price of a U87ai.
I think you should tell clients that you have a U87ai and a 416 and then use whatever mic you like the best in your studio. I don’t think that there’s a client that can tell the difference!
Thank you so much for your perspective, Rob, especially coming from someone with so much experience. Thanks for confirming the trouble with the 416 being off axis. For that reason alone, it’s not the best VO microphone for most people. The 8060 is much more forgiving in that it has a wider sweet spot.
The team at the Pro Audio Podcast also suggested telling clients you have a 416, when in reality, you’re recording with the NTG5. No one would notice the difference, but I do not want to lie to my customers. Plus, I see owning a solid brand name microphone as a sign of professionalism.
Great post! I was never a fan of the 416 myself for VO, and faced a similar search for a premium alternative recently. After much research and testing, I settled on the Schoeps MiniCMIT for my voice, pricey, but worth every penny. Whats sets it apart from the 416, apart from its über-cool metallic blue finish and being very short and lightweight (great for traveling) is its polar pattern: it does not change or “wobble” depending on which way around its axis it is placed inside the mount. Happy deluxe voicing!
That Schoeps mic is totally cool, but out of my price range. Plus, most of my clients have heard of Neumann and Sennheiser, but they won’t recognize let alone know how to pronounce Schoeps. It rhymes with “cups” by the way.
It is a little expensive, but has definitely paid itself off for me in blocking out interfering sounds while recording in makeshift booths whilst traveling, which I could hear but were not captured in the recording because of its directionality. Of course a 416 may have performed equally good at that. Also in my experience the clients that actually ask about mics, know a little about mics, and Schoeps is up there close behind Neumann and Sennheiser in the prestige and recognizability stakes.
Plus, you must be the only talent with a blue mic (unless you have a Yeti). I hear it comes in metallic green too.
I had NO idea of the correct pronunciation of Schoeps. First I’ve ever heard it! Thanks. I’ll know the next time I mention it – or MAYBE in an audiobook! 😉
Paul,
Yes, it’s important to be honest with your customers. So will it be an 8060 for you? And what about some additional baffling more close to you? After consultations with Jim Edgar, Dan Lenard, and finally George Whittam, I’m baffled from the ground to about 6′ on 3 sides, keeping energy off the walls. In addition, George suggested a 6′ GIK acoustics bi-fold baffle behind me. My “booth” size is now about 4′ x 8′ deep. It still feels quite spacious, though. Might that be enough baffling to knock out the sound of the boiler in the next room? Then you could go back to your Gefel and not have to lie about the Synco. But the 8060 really does sound intriguing to me!
My guess is that your noise floor without the boiler boiling is about -72dB. How much noise does the boiler add?
By the way. my late brother, a classical music recordist and chief engineer for Cincinnati’s classical music station, WGUC, was really fond of Microtech Gefel mics – and Schoeps, and Neumann.)
First off, I never lied about my Synco. I just didn’t tell my clients I was using a $249 shotgun microphone. No one ever asked, either. I love GIK acoustics. Click here if you want to read about my studio setup. It includes quite a few GIK acoustic panels, including a Gobo behind me. The sound of the boiler will go away as temperatures rise, but I have found that a noise gate and a high-pass filter will go a long way to remedy the rumble. Combined with the directionality of the MKH 8060, I now have a noise floor of -78! That new Sennheiser is a keeper.
Paul –
I totally understand that you never lied about the Synco. Super that you’ve got the GIK gobos!
I’m eager to try an 8060. Technology has advanced a whole lot since the 416 (or the “forty-one-six” as the Aussies say) was introduced. It’s like the change in the output of the U87ai vs the original U87. 10dB hotter output means lower gain on my preamp which means lower electronic noise.
Congrats that you’re at -78!! That’s freaking awesome! I might be talked into selling my TLM103… I have it on a boom arm in my control room but it doesn’t get used for serious recording – only stuff that will have a musical bed underneath. The control room isn’t as quiet as the studio. But I’d love to see the 8060 find its way into more VO applications!
Enjoy New England as things get warmer!
My wife and I will be in Maine during the summer for about 3 weeks. Looking forward to the solitude.
Rob
Solitude is healing in so many ways. Our society has become noisier and noisier. We just had to escape the loud cars, leaf blowers, lawn mowers, and partying neighbors. Noise pollution is a terrible thing.
I always thought the TLM 103 was overpriced and overrated. It’s a good microphone, don’t get me wrong, but not the “poor man’s U87” as it’s sometimes described. It’s one of those industry standards people buy because they don’t know any better. I sold a couple of my microphones that were just gathering dust (like my Hoover), and was able to purchase the 8060 and a whole lot of other goodies. My old mics are now in good hands and finally get used.
Interesting about the 103. I found it on Craigslist in Cincinnati! It had been listed for a week for $600. The guy hadn’t put 5 hours on it and found it too sensitive for singing in his apartment. He’d gotten it less expensively because of coupons and stuff so I got a good deal on it. I’ve not done a shootout with my 87 but it’s fun to have.
What interface are you using and are you an Adobe Audition guy or what?
It’s nice when a microphone goes to someone who appreciates it. True about anything, I guess!
R
Hi Rob, I’m using the SSL2+ (click here for my review), and Twisted Wave audio editing software. You got an amazing deal on the TLM 103! I think they’re up to $1100 these days, at least on Amazon. I know at least of one colleague who bought it so “it would match all the other 103’s in recording studios he’s working with.” Unless you can perfectly match the sound in those recording studios, you’ll never get a perfect match. The acoustics are different, and so are the preamps in these locations. Then the engineer applies some tricks to sweeten the sound, and you no longer have an exact match…
Hi, Paul – I’d have gotten back to you sooner but my wife and I are on a Caribbean cruise and we’re lounging around in our suite being quiet – no recording thus far, though I do have my portable rig with me.
Just read your review of the SSL2+ and it’s impressive. I’ve got a PreSonus StudioLive 16 Series III in my studio along with a Vintech 473 4-channel pre…but I’m not currently using it. Dan Lenard listened to it and the only thing he said was, “Don’t you trust the pre’s in your console?” I really couldn’t hear any difference so I’ve bypassed it. My portable rig used to be a “vintage” Apogee One but I couldn’t monitor myself while recording and that got to be a pain. At our place in Maine I had a MOTU UltraLite Mk3 but when I got my new MacBook Air I couldn’t use the software for it so that made things difficult. SO, I purchased a PreSonus Revelator io24. It’s solved the problems and performs quite nicely. Seems to have plenty of preamp gain but the headphone amp is a bit weak unless I push up the master fader on the software. Then it’s great. It also has a balance control (on the front panel as well as software control) of the balance between monitoring and playback, very useful for directed sessions! I’m guessing that you’ve seen George Whittam’s review.
Back to your Gefel microphone – would I be correct in making a comparison of the sound of it to the original Neumann TLM170? I have one of those and it’s super good but very flat – perhaps lacking some clarity from 5kHz up? I seldom use it unless I have a singer in the studio whose voice has some upper edginess.
I have fun discussing microphones, especially when I have an MK4 that, on my voice, sounds very much like my U87ai and for a fraction of the price. When I’m on the road I use that mic. I’ve been using an MK8 as well because of the multi-pattern capability and the 2-position high pass filter. Not sure I need to bring a $700 mic with me when the Revelator has all the processing I could want while recording.
I look forward to hearing/reading your assessment of the 8060 as time goes by!
Thanks for your consistently good blog posts!
Regards,
Rob
Hi Ron, fist off…. what are you doing reading my musings while you’re on a cruise? Shouldn’t you be hitting the buffets, drink champagne, and get a couples massage?
Seriously, I too love to talk about gear and try things out. The tough thing is that what works for one person in one space may sound not so good for another person in another space. When I watch Bandrew compare microphones on YouTube, most of them sound fine to me, and I cannot justify spending $3500 on a U87 Ai, if a $500 Rode NTG 5 would do the job as well. It’s the law of diminishing returns.
To my ears the Gefell always had a “velvet” sound, for lack of a better word. I’ve sold it to a colleague who’s going to use it for audio books. The SSL2+ has all the features you’re looking for at a very affordable price, but with what you already have, I don’t think you need it.
I will use the 8060 every single day from now on, but I already have a new microphone to try out. It’s the CAD E100Sx, the successor to the E100S. To be continued!
Paul –
Hey, it’s vacation! I don’t know if I’d have as much time to follow this thread if I’d been at home working!
I hear SO many microphones that sound terrific. I’ve just always lusted after a U87. The reason I could finally afford it after 40 years is that I had an exceptionally good year in 2010 and my tax guy said that I could either spend $15,000 or give the government $7000. I needed a new computer and so I got it and the mic and the preamp (and some other stuff like the big boom from Ultimate Support Systems).
But you’re totally right about the law of diminishing returns.
I’ll bet that the Gefel mic will work great for your colleague who’s doing audiobooks. That’s where most of my work is happening these days. I just feel so freaking comfortable in my studio with the chair in one place, putting me at just the same distance everytime I get into it. I’ll send some pics. I’m pretty proud of how it sounds, thanks to the help of Jim Edgar, Dan Lenard, and George Whittam (and myself).
I’m waiting with baited breath about the CAD mic!
Have a great evening,
Rob
I thoroughly enjoyed your tour through microphone-land, and was amused by the fact I took several similar tours in my search for “perfection”. But the very thing that you like about the 8060 is exactly why I eventually picked the 416 as my ideal: less signal processing needed!
You pointed out that your voice is suited to the signal curve of the 8060, while I was blessed (or cursed) big low-register set of pipes. My U-87 was great, but I had to have a bunch of EQ presets to handle different styles and avoid “booming” or muddiness. I haven’t had to mess with one bit of signal processing since I started using the 416 several years ago! It may be outdated by some industry standards, but it still makes me sound better than anything else out there and can handle any delivery I am asked to deliver without resorting to DSO magic.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, Joe! But your story illustrates the stupidity of demanding that talent use industry standard microphones, even if those mics don’t flatter their voices. It’s like symphony orchestras demanding that every flute play should play on a Powell flute. It doesn’t work that way. Even two TLM 103’s are not 100% alike, that’s why microphone makers sell “matched pairs.”
I use a mic that’s pretty low-budget compared to these ones (a Shure KSM32, bought second-hand), and I’m not into buying new fancy gear just because. I’ll wait till I’m earning more AND until I find a reason I’d need a different mic.
I do look longingly at those shotgun mics, though. 🙂 Thanks for the sensible overview.
I don’t know if you have read the article I linked at the very end, but in it I ask the question everyone who thinks s/he needs a new mic should ask: What problem am I hoping to solve? In most cases I think it makes more sense to invest in soundproofing and dampening the recording space. Expensive mics can sound terrible in poorly treated rooms, and cheaper ones can sound like a million bucks in properly treated rooms.
Thanks, Paul. I read that and my conclusion is, I will get a new mic if an expert I trust tells me I should (which is how I ended up with my current mic). Because otherwise, I don’t understand enough of the technicalities. 🙂
The good news is, all the specs in the world won’t tell you how that new mic will sound capturing your voice, using your equipment, in your recording space.
Great stuff as always… and by great stuff I mean “I love hearing affirmation of my own thoughts!” Thanks especially for that chart with sensitivity and self-noise. I’ve been trying to put something like that together every since I listened to that same episode from the Pro Audio Podcast team.
Great minds….
VO for almost 50 years. When I first started recording from home I used an Audio Technica 3035, it served me very well for years and I still own it. When I bought my Whisperroom I thought to upgrade my mic. A friend who owns a recording studio brought over 5 mics: a Neuman U87 & a 48, a high end ribbon mic (can’t remember the name) an AKG 414 and a Sennheiser 416. So with my AT we had 6 to compare. I read the same short paragraph through each mic into Pro Tools with my friend only adjusting volume so the mics were sounding at the same level. Then we did A/B comparisons without knowing which ones we were listening to. The Senheisser 416 came out the winner, not by any sort of large margin but, it seemed to “like” my voice the best and I bought one. Just as a side note, the Audio Technica 3035 that used to sell for around $500 that I bought for $249 hung in quite well with the $1000 and $3000 mics.
Microphones are like wine. The more expensive they are, the higher the rating they get. But once you start doing blind tests, that all disappears and some of the cheaper microphones do very well. For the longest time I used the Harlan Hogan VO 1-A microphone from MXL, a $249 mic. Every now and then I listen back to myself, using that microphone, and I sound pretty darn good (if I say so myself).
However, some of my agents and clients like to see that I’m using an expensive tool. It gives me extra credits and they know I’m serious.