Design and Build

All in all the Lark Max feels like it’s built to last – a very solid kit, unlike most of those flimsier, budget lav mics around there. Each transmitter is a small, rectangular clip-on unit with a metal clip on the back and a stylish woven mesh windscreen. The mics are easy to handle and fairly rugged – the metal mic guard is stronger than the delicate capsules on some rivals even when the same price range is considered. Although it still does use plastic in its design, because obviously you don’t to wear a cement brick on your collar – yet it looks well made and of high quality, so no issues here. The charging case is surprisingly sturdy: it’s like a large AirPods case with new features, and of course it charges the transmitter batteries. And there is an interior pocket for all the cables and a second set of windscreens.

In terms of layout, the receiver is a bit larger than tiny keychain-style units. It has a belt/strap clip and is roughly the size of a camera hot‑shoe (so it can mount on a camera)​. This larger size lets Hollyland pack in an LCD screen, a push/pull dial, a Back button, and a 3.5 mm headphone jack. One minor gripe is that the hot-shoe mount on the receiver only works facing backwards, so on some cameras you may need a 90° adapter. Each transmitter has its own single control button and LEDs, and I found them easy to attach to clothing with the metal clip or included magnetic clips. Overall, the package feels thoughtful and road worthy: the magnets on the transmitters remind those of higher-end gear and I mean the pro lavs, and I also like the dead‑cat windshields that fit just right onto the capsules.

Audio Quality

The Lark Max’s headline feature is definitely its sound. In our tests it delivered warm, clear voice capture with very low noise. Once again, it’s not an exaggeration to say that it’s comparable to higher end lav systems, potentially beating more expensive mics when it comes to audio quality too. Because we’ve already previously reviewed their ‘budget’ model and it left us pleasantly surprised, but this? – This is an even bigger step up! Speech comes through natural and crisp, with no obvious distortion even at higher volumes. I didn’t notice any electronic hiss or tonal colorations. Outdoors, the built-in Environmental noise cancellation does an impressive job: background hums and winds are pulled down significantly so your voice stays more dominant. Even something atrocious like a clunky truck passing by or construction noise in the background in actuality has had quite little impact.

When comparing to a camera’s onboard mics, the difference is night-and-day: even at moderate distances the Lark’s 24-bit/48 kHz recording is consistently clear​. Inside a quiet room or studio, it holds up just as well – the frequency response is broad (Hollyland quotes 70 dB SNR and 128 dB SPL handling), so it picks up subtle nuances without clipping. If anything, voice recordings feel slightly fuller than some competitors. And once again another surprise is that even on noisy city streets or busy events, the mic remains intelligible. We also borrowed it to one of our colleagues who noted when shooting downtown with obstacles, the Lark Max “was able to transmit audio clearly” even without a perfectly clear line of sight. So yeah, overall we find the audio performance to be the Lark Max’s strongest suit – consistent with what others would call solid or even impressively clear​.

Wireless Range and Connectivity

On paper the Lark Max promises a very long range: Hollyland advertises up to 250 m (820 ft) line-of-sight​. In practice you’ll rarely need that much. We tested it up to ~200 ft (outdoors, open area) and didn’t drop the link. I also did a quick research to see how consistent our findings with what other users reports and some user on Amazon even described a live 800+ ft range through walls in a glass building​ – though that was a very favorable case with nothing between transmitter and receiver. Indoors or with obstructions, performance is still very good: DIY Photography measured about 60 m (200 ft) reliable LOS.

The Lark Max uses a 2.4 GHz FHSS (frequency-hopping) wireless link – essentially its own Wi‑Fi channel – rather than Bluetooth or DECT. In congested RF environments this seems robust: Hollyland’s tests showed it handled lots of other 2.4 GHz devices with no major dropouts​. In my trials around Wi-Fi routers and cellphones, I didn’t notice any pops or static unless the transmitters went completely out of sight. That said, unlike some pro UHF systems or military-style links, it can potentially struggle if overwhelmed by 2.4GHz noise. The system does include automatic frequency-hopping to try to avoid conflict, and in practice the solid build seems to handle normal use just fine.

By design the Lark Max offers no Bluetooth output – it won’t act as a Bluetooth headset. All connections to cameras or phones are done via wired cables or adapters. It comes with a suite of cables (TRS for DSLR, Lightning and USB-C for phones, USB-C to computer) so it can plug directly into most devices. On the camera end, the receiver has a 3.5 mm mono output (any mic input or TRRS adapter works). There’s also a convenient headphone jack on the receiver for live monitoring. In short, the connectivity is flexible: you can send the mic audio into a camera, phone, computer, or record internally on the device itself. Just don’t expect any wireless smartphone pairings – you must plug a cable into your device or use the internal recorder for capture.

Controls and Usability

The Lark Max is straightforward to use once you learn the menu. The receiver has a color OLED screen and a dial (plus a touch-sensitive wheel) for navigation. On power-up it auto-pairs with both mics (especially once you open the case lid)​. The main display shows battery levels, volume/gain levels for each mic, active modes (Mono/Stereo/Noise Cancelling) and signal strength. You can tap or turn the dial to change gain on each channel, mute, or activate the ENC noise filter right from the receiver without any app.

Each transmitter also has one multifunction button and lights. You can turn them on/off, mute them, or even start/stop their internal recording directly from the mics themselves​. This is handy for solo shooters, since each talent can control their mic. The menus for mode selection (Mono vs. Stereo vs. Safety Channel mode) are logical. In Stereo mode each mic goes to its own channel (useful for two-talkers). In Safety mode the second channel records the same audio at a lower gain as a backup (useful if someone suddenly shouts). These modes are a nice touch – and yes, it’s the first time we’ve seen gain control on a safety track​. In practice I left it in Stereo mode, but it’s nice to know the backup is there.

Setup is mostly plug‑and‑go. You power up, clip on or pin on the transmitters, and plug the receiver into your camera/phone. The receivers/transmitters remember each other’s sync once paired. If anything is confusing at first, the clear on-screen display and logical options make it easy to figure out. I especially liked that the included charging case automatically pairs the devices as soon as you open it, so you’re ready to go by the time you hand the mics to your presenters​.

Battery Life and Charging

Battery performance on the Lark Max is very solid. Each transmitter’s internal Li-ion battery lasts about 7.5 hours per charge​, and the receiver is rated around 9 hours. In my own shooting, a single day’s worth of use (8+ hours) was easily covered. The charging case is the real multiplier: it holds enough power to recharge both transmitters twice and the receiver once, meaning on the road you essentially have 3 full days of runtime in one pack. It takes roughly 2 hours to fully charge the set in the case.

As a result, we can say that the battery life also makes a very strong point, with 22-hour battery life (counting the case top-ups), it is a pro to be highlighted. To give context, Hollyland’s own blog compares it to DJI’s system: Lark Max’s 7.5h TX per charge beats DJI Mic’s 5.5h, and with the case yields about 15 hours of continuous TX power. Practically speaking, I could shoot all morning on one charge, pop the units back into the case at lunch, and head out again for afternoon interviews. The case is light and has clear LED indicators so you always know when everything is topped off. And btw, if you use the auto-record safety feature, you can even have the mics start recording on boot, so you never miss a take​.

Internal Recording & Safety Features

A unique aspect of the Lark Max is its built-in recording capability. Each transmitter can record locally to its 8GB flash as a backup​. If the wireless link were to drop, you still have your audio on the mic. Transferring those files is easy – just plug the mic into a computer via USB and it appears like a flash drive​. In my tests I recorded to the camera and to the mics simultaneously (the auto-record mode can do this), giving me two identical WAV files to match in post. For professional use especially this safety net is extremely valuable: I bet many would call it a “life saver” to have two copies of audio.

The receiver also offers a dedicated “Safety Channel” mode: this records the same mic signal at a lower gain on channel 2, so if channel 1 clips on a loud outburst, channel 2 can still have a clean take​. This was a first for me on such a small kit and is a clever professional feature. Overall these safety features (dual-track recording and internal backups) give great peace of mind. And it’s not just marketing – in recording some of our samples it has shown how even with a loud noise or partial dropouts, the Lark Max still preserved usable audio on the alternate track.

Practical Use and Performance

In real-world shooting, the Lark Max proved flexible and reliable. Clipping on the tiny mics is simple (the 32 g transmitters are hardly noticed by the wearer) and the magnetic mounts are convenient for shirt, collar or lapel. Switching between on-camera use and phone is just swapping cables; I plugged it into my DSLR for an interview and it worked flawlessly. Out in a busy street, noise cancelling mode made voices pop out of the ambient noise, then tried it in a busy cafe and once again it left me surprised in a good way, so for those who wonder, it’s not just mechanical or machinery noise that it is able to cancel out.

During an event Lark Max’s receivers quickly auto-paired when I opened the case lid – and by the time people had cameras on, the system was synced and ready. The OLED display lets you confirm levels on the fly and I found it handy. Monitoring via headphones was straightforward as well; I could adjust a transmitter’s gain from the receiver while watching input meters. In a wedding shoot, for example, I clipped one mic to the groom, one to the videographer, and got very clean audio on both​. For podcasters or livestreamers, it even works as a ‘USB mic’: if your Zoom calls sound like crap, you’ll find this really impressive as your voice turns crisper and sharper​. Finally, the included carry case is tight and protective, so I could toss it in a camera bag without worrying, integrating it very easy into my typical setups.

Conclusion

After using the Lark Max extensively, I can say it lives up to the buzz. It delivers studio-like audio with very few compromises, at a budget-friendly price. Setup is plug-and-play and the extra safety features like internal recording, safety channel and noise cancel are real-world game‑changers that you usually see implemented this well only in more expensive gear. Leaving us impressed, The Hollyland Lark Max earns its high ratings, and for an average user this is going to translate to no less than simply exceeding expectations​. In short, it’s a standout wireless lavalier system for filmmakers, vloggers, and podcasters alike. Highly recommended for anyone needing reliable two-person audio on a budget!

Best Price on Hollyland Lark Max Wireless

---

Sound quality

When talking about sound quality, first there are few things we need to consider. Pixel Finch is a budget mic, it is supplied from Hong Kong and is offered at a very competitive price. It makes little sense comparing it to the professional lavaliers that usually worth over $300, not only because of the price difference but also due to the fact that none of those professional microphones are compatible with iPhone. Second, sound recording is not a simple task, so more often than not, poor quality is a result of lousy recording technique rather than a mic problem. Finally, iPhone users often do have unrealistic expectations about quality.

Having cleared those misconceptions, we can now say that Pixel Finch is actually quite good, for what it offers. It doesn’t fall short in terms of specs compared to any other budget microphone. Moreover, they actually reveal their specification, such as self-noise, etc. So you certainly aren’t buying a pig in a poke, which cannot be said about other similar-priced products. Talking of noise, Finch actually addresses this problem quite well: the cable it uses is well-shielded and the direct connection to phone helps to eliminate issues such as grounding or poor contact, compared to solutions that use adaptors and/or multiple connectors.

Overall, the sound quality is fine, however this mic isn’t particularly crispy or transparent. Especially alongside a professional lavalier it sounds rather muffled. Still, personally I would use it any time instead of the in-built mic, which often produces unacceptable artefacts making the speech unintelligible. For an average user though, you don’t necessarily need a professional equipment to produce a decent quality video. Also, in order to truly appreciate the difference between two mics you may need to use quality monitors, not like you will be able to notice it while using the same phone’s in-built speaker.

For professional video, I wouldn’t recommend this mic, but for making vlogs on Facebook or Youtube I find it quite convenient and the quality is just about right. There is no hiss, artefacts or electromagnetic interference, just a bit lacking in high-end in regards to details. Others may even find this beneficial as it helps to attenuate the background, reducing the amount of distractions for the listener. One application to be cautious about is ASMR: do NOT use this mic if you intend making ASMR videos because instead of accentuating those sounds, it kind of does the opposite.

Build quality & application

There are also few things to be said about the build quality and the actual user experience with iPhones. Pixel Finch lavalier does pass all the check marks when it comes to quality of the build and the materials used. The cable here, probably being the biggest advantage. Not only is it long and durable, it is actually quite soft and bends well. Neylon braiding isn’t something that you usually see on microphones but it does feel good. (Professional mics however do often reinforce cables beneath the rubber without looking fancy). The connector quality is also good, you can’t see it on the picture but the contacts are of a different metal. They have a quality nickel plating that gives a nice shine and makes them resistant to corrosion.

The mic itself is quite sizeable, having a length of 40mm and 11mm in width. Both the body and alligator clip are metal, which is all fine and looks durable. The foam however I find annoying, because it is loose and sometimes slips off the mic, which shouldn’t be the case for a factory new device. Perhaps they should have used the same rugged texture for the tip so it doesn’t slip. My final remark is about iPhone. Somehow it recognizes the plugged-in device as a headset, and essentially turns off the speaker during playback unless you unplug the device. This can be quite inconvenient if you intend to record and playback a large number of samples.

- Reviewed at $39.99

Best Price on Pixel Finch

---

Sound & quality

In terms of frequency response Sennheiser ME 2-II for the most part is flat, crispy but doesn’t sound too bright either. It has a decent tonal balance and the low end also sounds about right. While it’s all fine for a beginner and beats most of those cheap $50 mics that you plug directly into your phone or camera, it does however fall short of sound quality when compared to professional omni lavs that fall into $300 and above price range category. Sennheiser offers their own model called MKE 2, which is great but there are also other alternatives such as Sanken or Countryman.

So when comparing Sennheiser ME 2-II to a more expensive omni mic, it suddenly starts to sound a bit boxy, and you may hear that it actually resonates a bit in midrange at its own frequency but this is subtle and not very apparent unless you do the A/B comparison. What’s more important is the high-end specter, which although offers the same amount of brightness, there are audible resonances or harshness that it sounds like it could use a de-esser. On the other hand, MKE 2 is more precise tonally, and the highs are noticeably cleaner, not to mentioned superior self-noise and the fact that it seems to pick less background too.

Not only that, MKE 2 has a bunch of other benefits that makes it worth the upgrade. MKE 2 has a more durable cable, which is elastic and just feels nicer. For lavalier mics, the durability of the cable is actually more important than that of the mic itself, because if you damage the cable, the chances of you able to fix it are slim. The clip has a different design too, it inverts the cable so it acts as a spring in case of an accidental pull, which is a small thing but helps to reduce the unwanted handling noise. And of course the mic itself is smaller and easier to mount; it works directly on the skin and it’s sweat resistant too. All these factors enable it for a heavy-duty professional use.

Durability & overall

Sennheiser ME 2-II on the other hand, falls a bit more into a light-use category. I haven’t used them for a significant amount of time personally in production because I just straight replaced them with COS-11D. But from those who did keep the ME 2-II, I did hear a couple of complaints. It may sound banal but I’ve heard a few things. The mic stopped working after some time, the cable went faulty or it developed a static noise when used for less than few years. Imagine the disappointment when you bought the replacement and the same thing happens again after some time.

That is why when looking for a replacement you may want to consider going straight to MKE 2 or a similar quality mic from another producer, provided it has a compatible connector of course. In terms of pricing, I do think Sennheiser ME 2-II is priced a bit too high, because once again, it’s only an entry mic and it is plain, without any transmitter or XLR interface, or anything for which you would rightfully charge extra money. And when I give tips on thriftiness, my solution is always to buy a professional mic. It’s better to enjoy the quality MKE 2 for 10 years – spending only once, than enduring the entry ME 2 having to buy replacements again and again every few years – this is only an example of course.

- Reviewed at $129.95

Best Price on Sennheiser ME 2-II

---

Best Price on Sennheiser MKE 2-EW

---

A bit of history

Since this is the first review of a Sanken mic, I believe it wouldn’t hurt to introduce the company. Sanken has been established in Japan in 1925 by Rihei Takeuchi with a launch of their first factory. In sixties, they have produced various mics that have been used for broadcasting of the Olympics. In eighties, their mics have been used on the radio stations and they have also started to export their production. They have built many experimental and innovative mics to push the industry forward. But here we’re holding the latest Sanken COS-11D, widely used all over the world… but so little talked about, so it’s time to shed some light!

Sound & quality

This mic has an open, crispy sound and it’s actually one of the most natural sounding lavaliers out there. Having said that, the frequency response is quite bright but since it’s usually worn under clothes and is not spoken into directly, it balances out well in the end. Compared to some others, it’s rather sensitive or hot, so you may want to turn down the gain a little when using it. Another important thing about COS-11D is that it’s highly resistant to RF-interference, which pays out when pairing it with wireless transmitters. The mesh that it comes with also provides water resistance, protecting it from sweat, perspiration and cosmetics.

Directional pattern

Sanken COS-11D has an omnidirectional pattern, which means it doesn’t matter for example if you turn it 90 degrees off axis, and it makes almost no difference when a talent turns his head while speaking. Despite many mics are labeled as omni, there is still a tendency to become directional at higher frequencies. For COS-11D, it’s only about 2 dB difference when turned 180 off axis @ 20 kHz, which is perfect. Omni pattern also helps reducing handling noise so common for lavaliers when rubbing against clothes. In addition, it has a special coating to reduce rustling, in which regard it is considered one of the most tolerant.

Wireless transmitters

This mic comes with three different terminals: 3.5mm locking connector for Sennheiser evolution transmitters, TA5 universal locking for Lectrosonics transmitters and unterminated. Lectrosonics gear is quite high-end, so it’s more often used with cheaper Sennheiser G3 systems as a replacement to the default ME-2 lavaliers that come with it. Sennheiser wireless is actually decent but the ME-2 lavs are terrible compared to Sanken. Therefore, an upgrade to COS-11D offers a tremendous improvement. If you like DIY there is also unterminated version, so having some skills you can solder it to almost any separately bought connector and it will cost you cheaper.

Application and accessories

Sanken COS-11D comes with a metal mesh that serves as windscreen and repels water. Then there is a metal clip with a loop for attaching it onto cloth, usually behind a button where it sits pretty well. You will find a rubber mount for taping it onto body as well. You can probably find even less conspicuous aftermarket solutions but that’s more than enough for starters. Anyway, with such a low profile, the mic is super easy to hide, and the fact that there is very little cloth rustling assures for a versatile placement. Don’t underestimate the power of a miniature Sanken – this mic can give you a sound comparable to a good shotgun or a studio mic!

- Reviewed at $379

Best Price on Sanken COS-11D unterminated

---

Best Price on Sanken COS-11D with XLR bodypack

---

Sound quality

The frequency response of ECM-44 is smooth and stable. It gives a good tonal reproduction without any added color. The lows are very gently rolled off, so it doesn’t get to sound muddy and the highs receive up to a 5 dB boost, peaking at around 8 kHz. This mic may not sound particularly rich but it has a nice bright character to it and it feels pretty natural. Although the high end does have a tad of grain, this mic still handles it way much better than most entry lavs. However, its performance isn’t that great to compete with more expensive microphones and it’s actually considered only a low budget, entry-level device.

The mic comes with a compact, neat-looking preamp, which can also be powered by the battery and this is a convenient feature of course. However, it seems as though they sacrificed quality along the way. In all honesty, this preamp just isn’t the cleanest out there! Have they actually scrimped on a quality impedance matching transformer or is it a consequence of a small form factor, or simply a poor design? Those questions are out of scope of this review, but what matters is that we end up with more noise and distortions. And they don’t even bother specifying the things like THD in their sheets…

Obviously the noise figures of the ECM-44 are poor. With the high self-noise of 32 dB (non-weighted) and very low sensitivity of only 2.2 mV/Pa it is no better than a $21 Azden EX503. I don’t know maybe some people like the hissing sounds, so it gives them a sort of “vinyl experience” but I’m not a fan. In its price range, Sony ECM-44 is probably the nosiest lavalier. If you have some quality preamp with lots of clean gain in your studio, you can still probably get a decent result but otherwise, you will have to live with the static. For digital recorders it’s not worth it, because you can easily plug 3.5mm mics like Giant Squid Audio Lab and they are twice as cheap than XLR.

Applications

Theoretically, you can use it in all possible setups, but there aren’t many uses that would justify buying it, considering that the mic isn’t that cheap and it has some obvious disadvantages. If you need a bright-sounding, wired lav for sit down interviews, it is usable as long as you are doing it in the appropriate place. The mic is omnidirectional, so it won’t do very well in a noisy environment. If you need more isolation, you could also use a cardioid mic like Audio-Technica PRO70, which is altogether better, albeit not as bright. For walk and talk situations – it’s either a recorder or wireless, so the XLR output is usually not required and certainly doesn’t worth the extra money.

Build and durability

In terms of build quality, it is good but nothing extraordinary. The mic itself looks quite cheap – it is just a piece of plastic with a bunch of holes, that’s it. Nevertheless, this does not impact its performance nor does it make it any less durable. The clips are metal and they are quite sturdy, and the cool thing is it comes with two different clips, one for the single lav and one for the double lav setups. The wire is very long – about 3 meters, and it’s thick, so many people will love this. However, it is not detachable from the preamp, which isn’t particularly clean, as we’ve noted.

Bottom line: buy this mic if you want a decent, bright sound and you don’t mind some hiss.

Best Price on Sony ECM-44

---

Side address

How is Shure SM93 / WL93 different from other microphones? The major difference is, this is a side address microphone, which means the sensor is facing the side. This helps to achieve a low profile of only 3.8mm while being 5.8mm wide and 9.4mm long. As a mini lavalier, it doesn’t stick out and it’s hardly even noticeable on the black background. It’s also relatively easy to hide in the hair of the talents. As an omnidirectional microphone, it’s not particularly sensitive to the mechanical noise and allows more freedom of motion. Thus, it is ideally used for TV shows, broadcasting and theaters.

However, as a side address mic, it has its own drawbacks, which Shure has deliberately hidden. They do say that the mic is basically omnidirectional, but search all you want – you won’t find the polar diagram! And since it’s omnidirectional, the users are led to believe that it doesn’t matter how it is being pointed. This is a huge mistake, because although the low and mid frequencies do pass through, the highs are significantly reduced when facing sideways or backwards. SM93/WL93 is exactly the case where instead of pointing directly to your throat, it faces sideways so your voice is coming from a 90 degree angle.

Not surprisingly, the mic sounds muffled – the highs are just not there. But Shure are very smart motherfuckers. Although they didn’t include the polar pattern, they did actually include the frequency diagram. And if you look at it – it is quite bright, albeit only when you are facing the diaphragm. However, in the actual application, the mic is facing sideways to the source, so the highs are rolled off and it becomes darker, which is exactly the opposite of what you see on the diagram. The funniest thing is, as it faces away, it is still bright in relation to the background, but not the actor…

Sound quality

Perhaps, I’m a little bit exaggerating the whole thing, but I think it is important to understand what you are getting, so keep this in mind. Aside from it being muffled, I don’t have any other objections. The sound is pretty good, there is no color, so the voices are natural and intelligible. The mic can also handle occasional singing, but for something more serious like opera singing, you’d better stay away from it! There is a slight difference in sound between SM93 and WL93, because the SM93 has a slightly rolled off low end, which probably happens during pre-amplification but it still sounds relatively rich.

If you want a better quality mini-lavalier, you may as well look at the Audio Technica mics. They are more expensive but you get what you pay for. We have reviewed the AT899 but there are also others. Shure 93 has its own advantages though – it is very quiet for a small mic. However, if you can live with bigger sized mics, it is also worth considering the Audio Technica Pro 70. Not only it sounds better than the SM93, it is also less expensive. However, the AT Pro 70 uses a cardioid pattern, and although the additional rejection is great, there are some situations in which omnidirectional pattern is preferred.

Omnidirectional pattern

The omnidirectional pattern of the Shure SM93 or WL93 is ideal for situations where you find yourself in constant motion and cannot always pay attention to the microphone. Having it on your chest while looking at the left or right won’t make much difference, whereas with a cardioid mic, variations in the output level would be more noticeable. Another advantage of omni is that it doesn’t amplify the mechanical vibrations, which occur from rubbing it against the cloth or even playing with the wire. However, with a cardioid mic, any mechanical vibrations result in an unpleasant rumbling noise.

Cardioids of course have their own advantages. If you don’t move as much, and don’t turn your head while speaking, it will usually produce a cleaner audio by rejecting the sounds coming from other directions. On the other hand, omnidirectional mics pick up lots of background, so if for instance, you are wearing it outside, it will literally capture all the street noise and what not. It is also not advisable to use omnidirectional mics in small rooms or confined spaces, as they would pick up a lot of reflections from the walls, resulting in a poor sound. They are however fine for the larger rooms, stages, etc.

Final remarks

In terms of build quality, Shure SM93/WL93 does not disappoint. The mic has a durable wire, and it doesn’t seem like it will fail any soon. After all, it is particularly designed for heavy usage. The clip is sturdy too and it leaves a relatively small footprint. This lavalier is not without its disadvantages but overall it gives you a nice and steady performance, and offers a good bang for the buck. At this point, there is also a strong competition from the Audio Technica Pro 70, but as long as you are after an omnidirectional lavalier with a small footprint – Shure SM93 is definitely worth a purchase.

Best Price on Shure WL93

---

Best Price on Shure SM93

---

True value

Recently we’ve been reviewing Shure MV5 from the same Motiv Line, and it turned out to be a beautiful USB mic with plenty of technological advancements. However, Shure MVL is just a cheap rebranded consumer lavalier, which isn’t any better than those manufactured 20 years ago. All they did is attached it to a TRRS plug, and now they market it as something new. TRRS is a relatively new standard and the demand for quality smartphone mics is ever increasing. Unfortunately, consumers are unaware of how the quality lavs should sound, so it’s very easy to take them for a ride!

Do you know the real value of this microphone? I’d say $30 bucks tops, because it is debatable whether or not it sounds any better than a cheap ass Azden EX503 /w adaptor. If you want to make a better investment for your time and money, you can buy Giant Squid Audio Lab and a TRRS adaptor. This will give you a far better quality sound for only $60 including the adaptor. If you don’t like the idea of using adaptors, you may also consider Rode smartLav+. It is more expensive ($79 as I’m writing this review) but it’s also worth purchasing though I personally prefer the Giant Squid. Both of them will easily beat Shure MVL.

Sound & quality

Shure MVL has a very crispy response; it sounds a bit bright and it’s great. However, it also brings tons of air along the way and I don’t find it particularly comfortable, especially as it gets digitalized. It tastes artificial, as though there is someone taking a shower behind the scenes when the person starts speaking. Ssssssss…… Aside from that, you will hear a constant static noise unrelated to the input. And it goes like shhhhhhh…… It isn’t that loud so don’t imagine Niagara Falls! Yes, you can live with that and it is still better than using an in-built mic, but for this price, one would expect it to be better.

Having said that, there are also plenty of funky resonances and harshness, which I don’t quite understand. The frequency response is relatively neutral, so the tone is overall balanced but at the same time, it just sounds harsh and distorted. The low end is gently rolled off but it’s quite accurate and it doesn’t sound tiny at all. It may be one of the reasons to like it. But the only reason to buy it would be an ability to work in high sound pressure environment. Most lavs nowadays will clip as you shout or even clap your hands. Yet, Shure MVL can handle much louder sounds than that.

Build and durability

The build is about decent quality, it’s not as bad as it sounds and will probably last a while. The cable is 4 feet long; it is nice and soft. The mic is very easy to set up and secure in place using the included metal clip, which does the job done but I find it somewhat bulky and visible. It just doesn’t look cool when you’re wearing it. Shure MVL has a gilded plug, which provides a good electrical contact with your device. Unlike non-gilded connectors, it’s unlikely to produce those rustling sounds when you are twisting or touching the plug. Finally, there is a detachable windscreen and a carrying pouch included in the package.

Best Price on Shure MVL

---

Get to know Azden

The first thing you need to know about Azden EX503 is that unlike most of the low-priced crap out there, it is manufactured in Japan and the company actually specializes on low end shotguns and other mics for video production. They are a relatively new producer and they achieve better results with every new model. However, this lavalier isn’t one of their new models and it’s also the cheapest, so don’t get too excited. Long time ago, when I did not have any experience, I believed that spending $50-100 for a lav is insane. But that changed when I actually listened to them. In a nutshell, you get what you pay for.

Performance & sound

There are good and bad things about this mic but I’ll start with good. EX503 has a more or less neutral response; it doesn’t color your voice much and sounds relatively natural. There is plenty of low end so your voice doesn’t sound tiny like over the walkie-talkie. I know this analogy is a bit strange but a lot of cheaply made lavaliers have this nuance. The highs are also there, but it isn’t particularly bright. Finally, this mic’s sound is overall smooth (except for the upper range maybe). By smooth I mean not harsh, so it won’t be killing your listener’s ears, unless you are screaming or something.

Now I’ll get to unveil the ugly things. As it has been noted above, the mic produces very low output and needs a lot of gain. This makes it worthless in combination with sub-par audio devices that struggle to provide enough quality gain; however, with excessive gain, the static noise and electromagnetic interference also become more noticeable. This mic is not at all the worst out there, and many people can live with this amount of static noise. Nevertheless, if you are a perfectionist, it will be worth considering the Giant Squid. It is more expensive but it has no static noise at all, really.

Another disadvantage is that despite it sounding rich, the low end may not be very accurate and at times, it will get distorted. It works best when you clip it onto your collar, just as it was designed to. For any other uses, I do not recommend it – it is just not as flexible as some other lavs, and it won’t produce any decent results otherwise. It lacks crispiness and the upper highs may sound a bit muffled. There is also a small amount of sibilance, but this is fine, considering the price. Finally, it lacks the detail and definition of more expensive mics. Comparing it to Countryman doesn’t make any sense – at all.

Setup

Ideally, you want to pair this mic with some inexpensive digital recorder like Zoom H1. This combo will work pretty well and most importantly, it will be light on your budget. Azden EX503 has an unbalanced 3.5 mm connector, obviously, so you also want to connect it to an unbalanced input. Zoom H1 uses unbalanced 3.5 mm inputs, so they will match. However, Zoom H4n uses balanced 3.5 mm inputs, so they will not match. It is still possible to connect to Zoom H4n but you’ll have to crank up the gain to the maximum in order for them to match, so it’s a very bad idea.

If you have a decent camera with unbalanced input, it will also work fine. Keep in mind that cheap cameras usually have sub-par preamps and you may find the sound lacking quality. Expensive cameras on the other hand, tend to have balanced inputs and again will not match. I don’t recommend plugging this mic directly into computer either. Most computer inputs have sub-par quality and it’s likely to have three of the following outcomes. 1) The amount of noise may reach the threshold of becoming annoying. 2) It may not have the sufficient gain and the sound will be low. 3) There is a smaller chance that it will not even work.

Build & quality

EX503 has a 1-meter plastic cable, which is a bit thick but not reinforced. Some people complain it’s too short but in my opinion, it’s more than enough to plug it into a recorder or camera. For other uses it’s practically worthless anyway, and longer cable would also negatively impact the signal-to-noise ratio. The connector is just basic and it’s not gilded. It will be getting dirty from time to time so do not forget to clean it. The clip is stiff and rugged, and holds in place rather well. However, the foam may get loose over time, so don’t lose it or get yourself some extra foams.

Bottom line, the mic is real cheap but it’s actually decent if you use it as I have instructed in this article.

Best Price on Azden EX503

---

Sound & quality

AT829CW is a semi-professional mic with an excellent price / performance ratio. Audio Technica has never disappointed us with their lavaliers and this model goes in line with our expectations. It captures the voice with a good clarity and decent accuracy; sensitive enough to handle a whisper and won’t fail either as you sing. For best results, you may want to keep it tucked at the collar level.

Note that this is a directional mic with a cardioid pattern so it has to be pointed properly. Ideal for church and business meetings, this model is also good for any moderately loud stages that require higher gain before feedback. Overall, I would point out a very pleasing performance, especially for the price.

Design and durability

The mic has a molded plastic body and carries a non-replaceable element. It could be better if it had been metal but for such price, you have no rights to complain! Although it does give it a bit of a cheap look, this is certainly not an issue. The clip is metallic and of a good quality, though some earlier modifications of AT829CW seem to have had a plastic clip. The wire is a bit too long – 1.4 meters so you will have to coil it. Unfortunately, that cable isn’t particularly sturdy and a lot of coiling further contributes to tearing. This is a quite common disadvantage among lav mics in general and there ain’t much you can do. But at least, if it fails you can replace just the mic and keep the whole system with a transmitter.

Best Price on Audio Technica AT829CW

click to see

Sound & quality

Despite having a low profile (only 5 mm in diameter) this mic delivers rich and natural sound that can be compared to full-size studio mics. Some people may believe that a small diaphragm has to be somehow inferior in picking up sound, mainly drawing the analogies from loudspeakers… Well, this isn’t quite so, since microphones do not have to move air, the size isn’t crucial. Small mics also have their advantages such as more accurate high end. The only downside is a self-noise but it also depends on the model. Too bad, the manufacturers usually do not include this metric for lavaliers. In practice though, a setup with this one produced the least amount of hiss compared to a couple of other units that we’ve had on hand.

That being said, it should also clear out things if we examine AT 899’s polar pattern and frequency response. Larger diaphragms get more directional towards the end of the specter, and starting at around 8 kHz an omnidirectional capsule may as well behave like a cardioid. However, smaller diaphragm mics, such as Audio-Technica 899 can still pick up higher frequencies from just about any angle and this is exactly what we see about its polar pattern. In reality, this is never a deal breaker but still an advantage that may give your voice a bit more presence along with a sparkling clarity. Another thing to conclude is that you can mount it at any possible angle without losing quality.

Looking at the frequency response, we get a good straight line that fully covers a typical vocal range. This means it provides an uncolored, natural sound but also serves as another sign of quality. Like many condensers, it gives a slight boost to the higher end, which once again results in an added presence. This frequency precision makes it a perfect tool for recording both speech and signing, also suitable for the instruments. Depending on the individual voice as well as your whole setup, you may still need to add a little EQ, but it’s much easier to tune a clean and uncolored voice than fixing an unbalanced sound from an inferior quality microphone.

Features

Audio-Technica 899 has a switch for low frequency roll-off that allows fading from around 80 Hz and below. I always have it on as it helps to filter out some rumbling or pounding noises from the environment that include aircon, vehicles, etc. Human voice hardly gets anywhere below, unless you sound like Don LaFontaine or Barry White. However, both modes perform well. Having an omnidirectional capsule, it’s not much sensitive to handling noise, wind and popping sounds that are common with cardioid lavs.

The mic’s package also includes a battery pack, so even if you don’t have a phantom power supply it will still work. The power module is quite slim and compact, and powered by a single AA battery so it’s easy to find a replacement. As it has its own battery, you don’t have to worry about phantom power and can virtually connect it to any device, be it camera, laptop or even smartphone. All you’ll need is a simple XLR adaptor, which can be bought for around $10 or less.

Build and design

The build quality is truly amazing. This time Audio Technica not only produced a great sounding device, but also took care of every single accessory. The mic itself, the cable and the battery pack all feel solid and sturdy – the same applies for the mounting tools. The mic can sit tightly on kind of clothing without anything detaching or going loose. Both windscreens and grilles are detachable, so it allows for some customization. However, I would advise to keep the grilles on since they protect the capsule and serve as pop shield at the same time. The stock windscreens are good enough to accommodate for any windy day, so miking outdoors won’t be a problem.

One thing I didn’t like about the mic is an excessively long cable, which is almost 10 feet long. Using a digital recorder, I had to coil it a number of times and that gotten a bit bulky in my pocket. Nevertheless, I believe it’s a very minor issue and an excess is still better than deficit. The last thing to note about AT 899 is it comes in two color themes – black and beige. I’ve been personally using the black version, which is hardly noticeable for tuxedos, jackets, etc. and I believe it would be the model of choice in 90% of scenarios. However, if you run a theater or a TV shows with a dozen of actors, it would be wise to get some beige variations as well.

Best Price on Audio-Technica BP899

---