I would like a dynamic microphone with headphone output But since there are few options I guess I will have to choose between headphone output and a dynamic Overall what do you think will be better of these two Logitech Yeti GX or QuadCast? And apart from these two, maybe do you have something better (at a similar price)?
@@michulive I prefer the Yeti GX. The software also has way more features .There's also the Samson Q2U which is a dynamic mic with a 3.5 mm headphone port. It's is my #1 recommendation under $100. The only issue with it is the plosive rejection is bad and when used USB, the self noise is audible (even though barely).
@@BadIntentStreamTechReviews Logi software is really cool and the dynamic sound is so nice Actually if Yeti GX had a headphone port I wouldn't even think about it :P I'll think about it for a few more days and I will also consider Samson Q2U, I remember you recommending it in your videos Thanks for the answer, you have great videos about tech gear ^^
Nice review! For the shock mount performance with the keyboard, it would be better if the mics were placed in an identical location (it looked like you reached towards the original QuadCast, which would imply it was closer to the keyboard, which would make the test a bit unfair (just paying attention to rumbles, the "clatter" of the keyboard switches won't have anything to do with the shock mount). Also, you need to make sure that the sensitivities are matched for that test to really be valid, which you could estimate playing a test tone from a speaker and setting the mics to have the same output level when placed in the same location relative to the speaker). There are some misunderstandings when it comes to condenser microphones vs dynamic microphones regarding background noise rejection. The idea that dynamic microphones simply "reject better" is a bit overstated in the amateur space (as opposed to studio environments where you typically have recording engineers with a higher degree of knowledge as well as the fact that you're working in an acoustically treated space). So getting into this: dynamic microphones are generally less sensitive. This is mainly due to the fact that they use considerably heavier diaphragms. So this does cause them to be less sensitive to higher frequencies (which is why dynamic microphones are not usually a great choice for recording something that has a lot of detail up-top, such as acoustic guitar), and that can help with some background dealing with background noise (I'm avoiding saying "rejection" here, as that's really more about the nulls of the polar pattern, which I'll get into later). When it comes to rejecting frequencies outside of the treble region, this is where there is often a misunderstanding. Because dynamic microphones are less sensitive, they need to be used closer to sound sources than condenser microphones (and ribbon mics for that matter). This forces you to use a dynamic microphone closer, and when the mic is closer, you don't need the same level of sensitivity (adjusted by setting the mic gain). Condenser mics can be used farther away (and often are when we're talking USB electret condenser mics that come with desktop stands). There is plenty of information available about recommended distances for different types of mics, as well as per-mic in the user manuals. So when people say that rejection is better with a dynamic mic, they often forget the fact that they have to use the mic closer. A more fair comparison would be to setup the condenser they are comparing to at the same distance with the gain adjusted so that the sensitivities between the 2 mics the about the same (outside of the treble region of course). This is part of the reason you rarely see dynamic microphones coming with desktop stands, as these typically don't allow the microphone to be placed in a good, close location. Finally, the other major component of sound rejection in a microphone is the polar pattern. One of the things that can separate different microphones is how consistent the polar pattern(s) are throughout the frequency range (if you just see a single polar pattern measurement, it's probably at 1000 Hz, but with pro mics, if you pull up the data sheets, you can often find the measurements on a per-frequency basis). Better microphones will try to remain consistent throughout the frequency range (but there's only so much you can do as lower frequencies are less directional). Also, I think a lot of people new to this don't really think about reflections. They only think about the direct pickup (understandably so), which yeah, you should try your best to put sources of noise such as keyboards in the nulls of your microphone's polar pattern, but keep in-mind that reflections often won't be in the nulls. I often tell people to close their eyes and just listen. It often opens up their perspectives about just how loud the world around us typically is, especially in the untreated bedrooms most of the target audience for mics like this use them in. Anyways, the statement of dynamic microphones being better in noisy environments is definitely true, but I think people are starting to over-estimate just how much of a difference there is and they're not taking into account that these 2 types of microphones usually have different working distances, which naturally forces people to set the mic's sensitivities differently (through gain adjustments). Audio performance comparisons (even outside of doing measurements) really rely on controlling variables and being consistent. Edit: I forgot to mention, the whole sampling rate/bit depth thing comes down more to being able to manipulate sound in post than it does raw recording (or playback performance). 16-bit 44.1 kHz can already exceed the range of human hearing. It's when you start getting into manipulating your sounds that the extra headroom and frequency range can come into play (many DAWs are 64-bit and operate at 32-bit floating point). In audio production, you might see the terms "working format" and "distribution format" for this reason. Manipulating audio and playing back audio have different technical requirements.
hey wanted to know your opinion on the FiiO FT1 and JT1 headphones. On reddit i hear the JT1 are good bang for your buck headphones, and only really found one youtube review talking more in depth of the FT1 and how it can compete with other well above it price range. So wanted to your thought on them as well if you have the time.
GOOD LUCK WITH THEIR FIRMWARE UPDATE THAT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE ANY CONTROL. their app is complete trash and doesn't work to update the firmware of the microphone and will just turn your mic off and do nothing, so you get no audio tuning or control of the lighting, you're just stuck with rainbow vomit or what ever default. this is no new issue. this dates back yearssss with many devices. don't buy hyperx until they actually fix their product they are selling you.
