Microphone Review

The Lineup
(These are ordered in descending order by list price in $US dollars and the links are to the manufacturers' web sites)
Sony C48 $1675
Microtech Geffel UMT 70S $1,600
Neumann KMS105 $799
Rode S1 $599
Shure Beta 87a $462
AKG C535 $384
Beyerdynamic M88 $499
Shure Beta 58a $300
Audix OM5 $265

Quick Notes
I used the Sony C48 and the Microtech Geffel UMT 70S for baseline reference. These are both large diaphragm condenser microphones with switchable patterns; omni, cardioid, hyper-cardioid (figure 8). When I had a Neumann U87 and TM103, the Microtech Geffel sounded very similar (It is rumoured that they all use the same capsule).
I would probably not recommend these for frequent live, on-the-road applications because given their value and relatively fragile nature they are probably better suited for recording. Neither is particularly suited for hand-held use. If you don't mind treating them with care, I would use either of these for an ensemble where you want to use a single microphone. Here, the switchable pattern (omni-directional) might do very well.

I have used the AKG C535 and Beyerdynamic M88 for many years, and they are old friends. I included them in my testing to help me to "listen" to the others.

This leaves for comparison
Neumann KMS 105
Rode S1
Shure Beta 87a
AKG C535

BeyerDynamic M88
Shure Beta 58a
Audix OM5

See the section at the end (Testing) for the details about how I tested.

I think that any of the remaining microphones would be good performers, at least as good as the Shure Beta 58a.

Application - High Volume - Gain before Feedback
Audix OM5
Beyerdynamic M88
Shure Beta 58a

For high volume applications where gain before feedback is the priority, the Audix OM5 comes first. The Beyerdynamic M88 has a slight edge for clarity and is very close in feedback rejection. I also know the latter to be extremely rugged. I would use the either if I was working a small stage and could not get at least 4 feet away from the L1, or if having difficulty with reflections leading to feedback. If you can't get enough gain before feedback, it doesn't really matter how good the microphone sounds under better circumstances.

Application - Hand Held Microphone - Soloist
Neumann KMS105
AKG C535 [edit - corrected typo on model no]
Rode S1
Shure Beta 87a

Where sound quality takes precedence over everything else, the Neumann KMS105 is first. It has very low handling noise so as a handheld unit or on a stand with lots of mechanical noise this would do very well. I also found it to have the best resistance to wind noise and popping "p"s when "eating the mic". I think you would find it very suitable for female vocalists or any vocalists whose voice holds plenty of nuance. This microphone can be very present even at lower volumes. In the hands of a skilled artist, there is plenty of room for dynamics while maintaining detail in softer passages.

There is a quality that is shared by the Neumann KMS105, the Microtech Geffel UMT 70S and the Sony C48. If it could be said that a microphone sparkles, shimmers, or glistens - then these microphones do that. Not being a sound engineer, I don't have the words to describe it, but I hope you understand what I mean. It is the same kind of difference you hear going from a dynamic microphone to a condenser only more so. Think of the difference between red, and the candy-apple red you get with many layers of lovingly applied lacquer.

The AKG C585, Rode S1 and the Shure Beta 87a sound very similar to me. Well defined, accurate, but lacking the lustre of the Neumann KMS105.
The AKG C585 comes ahead of the others because it has switches to provide -10 db attenuation and low frequency roll-off. This is good for controlling the proximity effect that occurs with condenser mics when you "eat" them.
The Shure Beta 87a is at the bottom of the list because, of all of the condenser microphones, it was the most difficult to control for feedback. This would be a concern in a hand-held situation.

Application - On the Stand
Neumann KMS105
AKG C585
Rode S1
Shure Beta 87a

The list remains the same. With good microphone technique the bottom three would be pretty much equivalent when mated up with presets that seemed right for them. The differences will be more dependent on the singer's voice and range than anything I can detect in testing.

General Comments
A consequence of getting the Bose Personalized Amplification System™ is that I can hear everything better.

This is a significant improvement at a qualitative level. This means that the quality of the sound (or lack of it) has become much more apparent to me. I am enjoying playing, and performing more than I have in years.

Since getting my L1™ I am playing more, performing more, and singing more.

In the past I practiced vocals using the Sony C48 and the Microtech Geffel UMT 70S, but since I couldn't hear myself anyway, there was no need to push the envelope (microphone quality) when performing live. I was singing harmony most of the time because I had not the confidence to take on lead vocals (couldn't hear myself). Now that I can get the same sound live as when practicing, it is time to find a way to closely get the same sound in both circumstances. This was relatively easy to do with my guitar sound, and now I'm ready to do it with the vocals.

What to do now
So for me, the Neumann KMS105 is a keeper.
The Rode S1 and the Shure Beta 87a are redundant, so I don't need to keep them.
The Audix OM5 would be a great addition to anyone's gig bag. I'll use the Beyerdynamic M88 (it's hypercardioid) when feedback is an issue. For the open stage type events, I'll probably continue to use Shure Beta 57s and Beta 58s.
For instruments I can use a couple of Neumann M184s or AKG C451s. There is even a preset for the latter to be used with acoustic guitar. I think there's a notch at 200hz to alleviate boominess from the sound hole.

I'm not an audiophile. I don't have a trained ear. I will never be hired for my vocal skills. The primary expression of my musical voice is my guitar. Do I need to spend double the money on the Neumann vs. the Rode S1 (that I liked)? Probably not.

Why spend the money?
The difference is subtle. If I was still working through a conventional PA, much of the difference would be lost, imperceptible. I know from experience, I wouldn't be able to hear it in the monitors. But with the L1™, I can hear the difference. I used the Neumann last night at a gig. (Picked it up on the way there). I really enjoyed it.

A couple of days ago I traded in a beautiful 8 year old PRS McCarty to get a PRS Brazilian series Custom 24. Interestingly, the new guitar has the "sparkle and shimmer" that the other one lacked. This is a subtle nuance that could easily be lost in a conventional guitar amp. The L1™ seems to transparently make it louder. If you hear those kinds of differences in your instrument or voice, then you might make similar choices given the same options.

A Gentle Warning about the consequences
After you get your L1™, you will probably go through some changes.
Some, like parting with old gear that no longer seems appropriate are relatively easy.
You will probably play and sing more. But you may find that you end up upgrading the input since the amplification of it (the source), is so faithful. That was unanticipated, and the heart of the warning.

In closing
I hope that all of this is useful to you, and that I have provided a little of the experience in a meaningful way. I will have all of these microphones in my possession for another couple of days. So if there is anything specific I can try for you, or if this raises questions... just ask.

This is not all that interesting, but I thought you might want to know.

First - a disclaimer: I have no formal background in testing methods or sound for that matter. I was going to try to be scientific about this, testing and measuring with a sound level meter and a real time analyzer, but in the end, I just tried each microphone against its nearest competitors and listened.

Physical surroundings: 20' x 40' room. The L1™ was about a foot out from a fairly reflective wall facing into the long dimension of the room. The sides of the space are reflective too.

Settings: I had the L1™ running so the trims were set to only flicker red slightly (then backed off a little). I used preset 02 for most of the testing, but experimented with others. I turned down the gains at the remotes so at any given time, only one microphone was "live".

All the settings on the remote were set to 12:00 o'clock except for the master that was at 1-2 o'clock at times. It was loud! [edit - I took it up that high to find the threshold before feedback. I couldn't live with it that loud for long. The loudest I have ever taken the system running live is everything at 12:00 o'clock. I did some measurements today and this seems to hover at 100 db +- 5db. This is measured at ear level at 7 feet, same distance as the microphone ]

I tried the microphones several times set up at 7 feet from the L1™, and then for the feedback stress test I put the microphones 3 from the L1™. At 3 feet, I couldn't get the Shure Beta 87a to run higher than 12:00 for the master even when I was eating the mic. I could get the others a little higher. I had to turn things down below 12:00 o'clock if I wasn't standing between the microphone and the L1.

When listening for tone, clarity, and sound in general I turned the systems down to 12:00 o'clock on the master. The microphones were 7 feet from the L1™ units for this part. I had four microphones going into separate channels (1 and 2) in two L1™ units. I would sing the same phrases into each microphone and move them back and forth until I had them in an order I liked. Then to remove any "bias" inherent in the shape of the room or placement, I reversed the order (left-to-right) and listened again.

Not a trained singer, I can squeeze out a couple of octaves starting at the lowest note you can get from a guitar (E below middle C I think). I sang songs and scales, and just listened carefully. I had the microphones set up as you would playing live, so the L1™ units were behind me. The microphones were angled upward about 60 - 70 degrees. (Looking from the left side in profile - about 2:30).

--- Go make music ---

[edits - grammar, room size, candy-apple red analogy, more detail in testing section]
[edit - updated links]
[edit - replaced references to PAS to L1™ ]
[edit - updated link to Sony C48]
.......::: :::.......
-- click for details --


Photos (3)
Original Post
Fascinating! Thanks, ST, for this highly informative summary!
Not being a sound engineer, I don't have the words to describe it, but I hope you understand what I mean.
Your words, though subjective, are based on real-world experience and, at least to me, speak volumes more than any marketing literature that I've read on these mics...
It's great to have our customers talking about real world experiences with a variety of mics. After all, there always is a means of transfer from your music to sound pressure waves. The Bose approach is only one half of the equation. This is why we developed presets, to personalize the sound of microphones and instruments.

Something else you stated.. We have heard before that this system makes owners listen more carefully, it's almost like hearing things "for real" now, with more accuracy.

Thanks for the review.
A very nice microphone review, ST! I'll chime in with my opinions on the Shures, the Audix OM5, and the AKG D880.

I've been using my two PASes as the "mains" speakers at a weekly open mic for the past several months. The performers love them, for reasons you all know, and the pub owners love them because the sound is stellar throughout the oddly shaped restaurant and doesn't interfere with the waitstaff. But the stage area is tiny and the performers are usually about 3 feet from the speakers, so I have to be careful about feedback.

The Shure SM58 is a great mic, and is the workhorse of the industry. But the Shure BETA 58A sounds noticeably better (in my opinion) and has a tighter cardioid pickup pattern, so is much more resistant to feedback. If you want to buy Shure, the choice is obvious. Buy the Beta. It's worth the extra cash.

I picked up the Audix OM5 a couple weeks ago based on the recommendations I read this board, and I just ordered a second one. Yup, they're right: No feedback, ever. :-) The OM5 also has a low-end rolloff that really cleans up the "proximity effect", so getting right up on the mic doesn't muddy the sound. The high end "presence rise" starts about 1.5k lower than the Beta 58A, which can help add a little character to some voices. In the two weeks of use at the open mic, I find it works really work well for most male voices, and for women who belt. For more delicate female voices (e.g. those who use head voice instead of belting), I prefer the Beta 58A, unless they sing so quietly that I have to worry about feedback.

My a cappella group uses eight wireless AKG D880 mics that I bought long before I discovered the PAS. The mics work OK for us, but I don't recommend them for PAS users. The proximity effect on these mics is really muddy, so they sound best when you stay a couple inches away. Which means I have to turn the gain up a bit higher, which increases the risk of feedback. Anytime we perform in a space where I have to crank up the volume, I position the speakers to the sides and out in front of us. We still get great sound, and are able to balance and stay in tune much better than with a standard (archaic) sound system.
sub-jec-tive adj. 1. Relating to, proceeding from, or taking place within an individual's mind, emotions, etc.: opposed to objective. 2. Originating from or influenced by one's personal interests, prejudices, etc. 3. Introspective. 4. Of the mind or emotions only: illusory. 5. In literature and art, giving prominence to the subject or author as treating of his inner experience and emotion.

footnote: taken from Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary

Just for the sake of clarity, everything I post on this forum will be subjective.

Great real-life review, ST - thanks for your efforts!

As a long-time user of Audix OM-5's & 6's, I am personally interested in where the OM-5 might have fit into your "soloist" categories, both on stand and hand-held (compared to the mics you listed in your results). If I can use a significantly better mic for my performance applications, I'm willing to change over. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.
Ken Bausano
Hi Ken,

Thanks for your kind comments.

I liked the Audix OM-5. My impression was that I would use it any place that a Shure Beta 58a would work. I already have a couple of Beta 57s and 58s.

I use them for at open stage events and emergencies (or occasionally when someone needs to drive nails). They are working fine, I don't see replacing them anytime soon. But when the time comes, I'll probably go with the OM-5.

I personally prefer the sound I hear with a nice condenser microphone. With that sound comes (usually) higher price and unless specifically designed for stage use (Shure Beta 87a, Rode S1, Neumann KMS105), condenser microphones tend to require more attention (physically fragile and you read in the documentation, warnings to avoid excessive heat, dust and moisture). The documentation for Rode S1 includes these warnings too.

In challenging environments (feedback, multiple users, hand-held or on a stand), I think it the OM-5 would be a good fit.

I occasionally play with an amazing trumpet player. She really likes the Beyerdynamic M88. I agree with her, she sounds great through it when she solos. We haven't tried anything else because she saw the M88 in my bag one night. No Shure Betas for her.

Since you are playing trumpet and flugelhorn I can't begin to suggest if going to a condenser microphone would be an improvement.

Would it fit your style to go with a wireless clip-on microphone? This could free you from the concerns of "working" a stationary microphone. On the other hand you lose the tone and dynamic variations you can get "working" the microphone.

So back to the question...

Since you are curious enough to ask, I'd say at least go and audition the Rode S1 and the Neumann KMS 105. You may like the sound, you may not.

Trust your ears - and enjoy listening and hearing in a different way while you are auditioning microphones.
Thanks again, ST - for your reply. I apparently mislead a bit here - I was asking about such mics for vocal use. My 10-piece band uses at least 4 vocalists including myself. All four of my horn players use clip-ons (Shure SM-98's (as I recall) for saxes, AKG C-419's for brass) and are all wireless. So my interest in your test was in following along the guidelines of your 'experiment' for vocal purposes.

And for your benefit, I've been a PAS adoptee since November. We use 5 systems in the above-mentioned band.
I apparently mislead a bit here - I was asking about such mics for vocal use

Nope, mea culpa, I just missed the heart of your question - sorry.

Here's the answer to:
I am personally interested in where the OM-5 might have fit into your "soloist" categories, both on stand and hand-held (compared to the mics you listed in your results). If I can use a significantly better mic for my performance applications, I'm willing to change over.

I didn't put the Beyerdynamic M88, Audix OM-5 or the Shure Beta 58a into these "soloist" categories because they are all dynamic microphones. In my pre-PAS days, I would have been relatively happy to use any of them.

If I had included these in the soloist categories they would have appeared below the condenser microphones. The order among the three would be dictated by your priorities in going for a dynamic microphone (durability, familiarity, gain-before-feedback, fidelity, etc.) --- and that was the problem: I didn't want to put anything at the top or bottom of a list of seven microphones given that the rationale for choosing one condenser over another was different from choosing one dynamic over another. You would have a different set of priorities for choosing any condenser over any dynamic.

So Ken, I'm back to ... if you haven't heard yourself through a nice condenser microphone lately, then find a way to check it out (with the PAS of course). If you like what you hear, then choosing one from the crowd of contenders is going to be a highly subjective exercise.

More musings... Why segregate the condenser microphones from the dynamics?

With most three-way systems, I think you are living with the same kind of inherent "leveling of the differences" that someone (was it Wolf-at-Bose?) said about under-the-bridge pickups and acoustic guitars. Here I think the suggestion was that a mediocre guitar might sound better but an extremely fine instrument might sound like a merely good one. This strange effect was because the pickup system is inherently incapable of picking-up the worst features of the mediocre and the best features in the finer instrument. As an acoustic guitar player, I completely understood this, as I have chosen not to retrofit my nicer acoustic instruments with these pickups.

Okay - back to microphones: The PAS is, I find, much more capable of amplifying the strengths and weaknesses the inputs it receives (compared to the three-way systems I have used). Back in the days of "I can't hear myself", the nuances could easily be lost. Because you can hear the relative merits (and drawbacks) of the condenser microphones with the PAS, this led me to put them in a class of their own (soloist).

The dynamic microphones excel for their durability and gain-before-feedback. Because these are relatively inexpensive and have been the mainstay for vocalists for years, microphones like the ubiquitous Shures are the most familiar to vocalists who may wander across a casual stage. There are a lot of parallels here to piezo-electric under-the-bridge pickups for acoustic guitars. This set of features became the high volume, gain-before-feedback group.
ST wrote, "I'll use the Beyerdynamic M88 (it's hypercardioid) when feedback is an issue."

ST, I enjoyed reading about your microphone trials. I liked that you used your ears to make a decision and scrapped the test equipment.
The quote that you made about the hypercardioid mic may be a key issue to many PAS owners. A hypercardioid pattern differs from a supercardioid in that it has a narrower pick-up pattern. However, the hypercardioid mic picks up more from the rear when compared to a supercardioid. Since the PAS is behind the performer a hypercardioid would logically be more immune to feeding back. If you were using traditional floor wedges the supercardioid would most likely be a better choice in regards to feedback.
Thanks for the info,
Robert L

Thanks for your kind comments.

About this:
I liked that you used your ears to make a decision and scrapped the test equipment

I had wondered (in the long ago past) about the Bose seeming reticence to publish detailed specs. I no longer question the wisdom of this, since in the end, sound is experiential. Its perception is the result of the very individual, personal, empirical experience that comes from listening. For me at least, the reductionist nature of specifications serves to do little more than to distract from the issue of "how does it sound".

In chatting with others about the PAS, I found that the most intense discussion of specifications ceases to seem relevant once somebody actually hears the system.

I decided to do my best to follow in that spirit, and just listen.

The quote that you made about the hypercardioid mic may be a key issue to many PAS owners.

I agree, the hypercardioids should be more problematic when using floor wedges because of the way they pickup from directly behind the microphone. This is not a problem with the PAS (although I'd recommend caution if you use a music stand, that you watch out for reflections).

The documentation that comes with the Shure Beta 87a (supercardioid) warns of this too. See below.

The hypercardioids do seem to work well as long as you don't wander too far off axis while you sing. I have to be careful about this vs. using a microphone with a cardioid pickup pattern.

The puzzling thing in all of this was that the Shure Beta 87a seemed more prone to feedback than the other condenser microphones even though I was very careful that there was nothing that might be reflecting the sound into the back of it.

Here are some pictures from the manuals - and - this might explain why I can't quite comprehend much difference between the terms supercardioid and hypercardioid.

Shure Beta 57A (Supercardioid)

Shure Beta 87A (Supercardioid)

Beyerdynamic M88 (Hypercardioid)
The shape looks similar, although shallower from directly behind. But since none of these give an indication of distance, I can't draw any kind of conclusion from them about this point.

To anyone reading that for auditioning microphones,
  • read enough of the documentation to get the microphone placement right. Then angle it upwards a bit to help with the feedback.
  • Audition with your ears and the PAS in a situation as close to live performance as you can create.
  • If you are curious, or feel that it would enhance your understanding and insight, go ahead and read the specifications.
The question has arisen about the PAS's 24v phantom power - and - the recommended phantom power for the Rode S1 and the Neumann KMS105 (48v).

I used the PAS for the ear tests, because this was all that interested me... that is: how did each mic sound with the PAS?. I'm not planning on using the mics in any other context, so that's where I put my energies.

As a matter of interest, I did try all the mics again through a Yamaha OV1 with 48v phantom power. I was going to run all of the mics into the mixer but I in practice, dealing with four mics at a time was plenty. (channels 1/2 into two PAS units)

I actually preferred the sound running straight into the PAS. I don't recall having any sense that it was in any way better through the mixer but I didn't do any a/b comparisons on a mic by mic basis.
Hi all

With kudos to ST for an excellent mic report, I was moved to do another subjective mic comparison report for you. My wife is the singer in the family and she’s been using a BeyerDynamic TG-X 480 for about 5 or 6 years and loves it to bits. We did a lot of comparisons back then before she settled on that mic.

Due to so many positive discussions and comments, on Saturday we purchased a Neumann KMS105 so that we could take it home and play with it for a couple of days. She was interested in it and the folks at Long & McQuade were kind enough to assure us that we could return it if it did not fill the bill. They were adamant about us using it in our own tests off premises and not through their PAS setup in the showroom.

We spent two evenings with the 2 mics. On Monday we set up in a large church hall/gym. Although she’s always used preset 02 for the Beyer, we started from scratch and explored other presets again in that room. Once the dust cleared, we settled on preset 02 for both the Beyer and the Neumann. Levels were set for both mics as per manual instructions on the PS1 and the remote. The remote EQ was left at “0” for all tests. The mics were placed about 15 feet in front of the PAS and about 4 feet sideways from each other.

She sang, she spoke, she moved, she did a variety of squirrely noises for over an hour on both mics. On several occasions I turned my back and listened blindly as she switched between mics. On a couple of occasions, she closed her eyes as I would hold one of the mics to her lips to sing. I also asked her to move forward from the mics and sing without mics. Both mics performed admirably.

Last evening we did the same thing in our living room measuring about 12 by 22. The mics were about 6 feet in front of the PAS and again, about 4 feet sideways from each other.

As ST mentioned in his report, not very technical, but it’s what is perceived by the user’s ears that is important. I returned the Neumann to L & M about an hour ago with our thanks. Unlike ST, we both felt that it wasn’t worth keeping the KMS105 around. We found that it was an excellent mic but Lindsay was preferring the qualities of the Beyer and it is a perfect match to her voice (to our ears). She’d rather put the dollars towards a new guitar or a new living room chair.

Once again, we thank this community for inspiring us to move forward and try things that we would never had tried six months ago. By the way, I also bought an Audix OM5 for myself and it’ll be great for my gig bag.

Thanks from Ivan
Originally posted by Roger Windsor:
Hi ST,

I read your great post about your microphone test. Thanks for doing that.

My predicament is that there are no listening rooms in my area. I was going to order a KMS-105 and the AKG C535, and my plan was send back the one I didn't want after testing.

After reading your post, I wanted to get the AKG C535EB because you rated it best after the Neumann. However, the company I buy from says that I can't return the AKG because they have to special order it (I can return any other mics, they said). They also told me that nobody ever buys this mic . . . so it made me wonder why it's not popular.

So, could you tell me why you favor the AKG?
You said in your post you liked it because of the flexibility of the roll-off switches, and because it and the S1 had less feedback than the 87a Beta. However, in researching the mics, the AKG is a cardioid, while the 87a is a supercardiod, so you'd expect the Shure to have less feedback. (I checked the graphs, too.)

Anything you can tell me would help!!!


Roger Windsor


The AKG 535 and the Rode S1 were very similar. The switches for low frequency rolloff and attenuation mean that this microphone might prove to be more versatile than the Rode S1, but if you don't need these features, that they don't matter. Put another way: if the AKG 535 did not have the switches I would have to call it a tie.

I can't speculate on this...
They also told me that nobody ever buys this mic . . .

But I wouldn't be surprised if this had something to do with it...
I can't return the AKG because they have to special order it (I can return any other mics, they said).

Let's look at the pickup pattern issue.

If the microphone is facing the sound source as is the case with the PAS, then cardioid, super cardioid, hyper cardioid patterns are not likely going to affect gain before feedback.

In conventional 3-tier situations, we are trying control feedback that can be caused by sound bouncing around all over the place as well as from stage monitors. This is much less of an issue with the PAS than with conventional systems.

very nice review indeed!

Still want that RØDE, though.. Strangely enough, it's cheaper here in Norway than what you bought it for. (About $365) Don't know why, maybe because the RØDE-folks were originally from Sweden, and that's our neighbour-country..

I would, however, like to have my hands on that Neumann.. Big Grin

Btw. how was the S1 in high gain / feedback situations?

Gain before Feedback:
The RØDE S1 was better than the Shure Beta 87A, but not as good as the Audix OM5.

Btw. how was the S1 in high gain / feedback situations?

The prices I used in my initial post, were manufacturers' suggested retail pricing. The street price (in my part for world) for the RØDE S1 is just slightly less than the Shure Beta 87A (under $400 Cdn).

The Neumann KMS105 is a little over $700 Cdn.
Still want that RØDE, though.. Strangely enough, it's cheaper here in Norway than what you bought it for. (About $365)
My 2 cents:

On recommendation and because of the lowest price of any recommended mic, I bought the Audix OM5.

After using shure 58, beta 58, and beta 57As for a few weeks the Audix is a noticable improvement.

No feedback. Clean crisp sound, so much so it makes me want to use my voice to add percussion effects (like hihat, shakers).

I run this mic thru a submixer before the PAS and used no EQ.

To be fair, all but the beta 57As are old mics, so that could be a factor. The 57As needed a LOT of EQ before I was happy.

Thanks to Baby Blue Eyes for the 57A to test!

Audix has a winner.
Has anyone tried the Audix OM-3xb? I saw where someone tried the OM-2 and liked it. I am looking at the OM-5 vs. the OM-3xb and kind of like that the OM-3 doesn't seem to have the huge bass roll-off that the OM-5 has. I would appreciate any comments from anyone with experience with this mic.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Having trouble signing in?

We recently updated our sign-in procedure and if you have old sign-in data cached, this can create a problem. Please:

  1. Clear your browser cache and cookies
  2. Then close the browser (not just the window)
  3. Open the browser and try again
Thank you

Please make sure that your profile is up to date