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

---

Lark M1 features

• Small footprint
  Lark M1 is so small and compact – it’s almost unreal. The nowadays popular Rode Wireless GO looks simply atrocious and bulky in comparison, and provides no real benefit unless paired with an expensive after-market lavalier. Yes, Lark M1 transmitters also weighs almost nothing… you may forget you’re wearing one.
• Rechargeable case
  It comes with a charging case so that your reciever and trasmitters are being charged when not in use. There is a 4-bar LED on the case that shows it’s battery level. Inside the case there are 3 more LEDs for the status of each device. Also, it is barely the size of a computer mouse so it’s very convinient. Aside from the case, each device has its own USB-C port and can be charged separately.
• Furry windshields
  A small but nice addition, the mics have custom windshields that can be snapped on for recording outside, helping to negate the wind noise. They have rubber bands underneath and fit tightly onto the mics.
• Noise reduction
  Clicking the yellow button on a transmitter activates the noise reduction mode while the LED status changes to green. Switching to this mode on one transmitter also broadcasts to another transmitter. It’s quite useful for noisy environment outside as well as indoor HVAC noise such as air-conditioning. Both modes with or without noise reduction are actually clean and are capable of producing a high quality audio regardless.
• Volume control
  There are basically 3 discrete output levels: -0 dB, -6 dB and -12 dB. Simply clicking +/- buttons on the receiver does the adjustment. I personally used it with my computer realtek line-in, input levels adjusted to 100% in sound settings and -0 dB on the device. This gives me a pretty good gain and I’ve never experienced clipping so far.
• Mobile connectivity
  Aside from connecting to cameras and computers via 3.5mm TRS to TRS cord, you can also connect to cellphones using the included TRS to TRRS cord. Lark M1 also comes with two additional cables: TRS to USB-C and TRS to Lightning. Having an Android phone I found the TRS to USB-C is the most convinient method, that allows me to use the remaining 3.5mm output for headphone monitoring.

Sound and quality

The sound quality of Hollyland Lark M1 is very good for a budget wireless lavalier mic. It does lack definition and clarity compared to professional standalone lavaliers, but the audio it produces is just as clean and the self-noise is minimal. For miniature and especially budget mics it’s one of the most important factors that makes all the difference between sounding professional and amatuer, because if the mic is noisy it is not easy to clean up the recording. Lark M1 is not particularly bright, nor does it have a lot of low end, which is why I like applying some EQ. It sounds fine for recording conversations out of the box though and it isn’t overly sensitive or ‘hot’, so it works fine in less than ideal or noisy environments.

Since you get two mics – they can be used in stereo mode, so I decided to make an experiment and record some music from my speakers for testing. Above are the results after tweaking the EQ curve. It actually did quite well, although I shouldn’t recommend it for music or other applications that require a lot of detail and accuracy. It is just to show that it works and it’s not bad, especially for a wireless mic. Now when it comes to price, and considering all the features it provides I would rate its performance as excellent. Hollyland Lark M1 is a tough competitor that comes on top in terms of price, quality and footprint. The only drawback being the transmission distance, which is not as good as some of the previously reviewed mics.

- Reviewed at $129.00

Best Price on Hollyland Lark M1

---

Sound and quality

The overall audio quality you’ll get from this setup will for the largest part depend on the quality of the mics you are using. It does not depend much on the transmitter in this case, since the noise produced by the system itself is much lower than that of any lavalier mic. Therefore the strategy for improving quality comes down to upgrading your mics. Importantly, Rode does give you this option. You can experiment and easily replace your external mic or fall back to built-in. The other two things of interest with Rode Wireless GO II would be – the stability of transmission and susceptibility to radio interference.

Built-in / mic options

Since personally having many options to works with, some of which are quite expensive, I didn’t expect much from the built-in. Also being a mic reviewer I’m usually a bit sceptic whenever the price seems too attractive like in this case with Rode Wireles GO II. However, I was pleasantly surprised as it produced very little noise on it’s own. Sure enough, the built-in here isn’t better than any $50 mic: despite the claimed smooth frequency response you can hear some colour and other imperfections. Yet, because of low self-noise you can easily make quality YouTube videos using it. Let’s hear some samples (keep in mind mpeg compression has been used):

I believe it’s pretty decent for starters. Once again, there may be a some sibilance, a little distortion and a lack in transparent, extended response but it can get the job done. What’s awkward however is the placement. Even though the transmitter is quite small, it still stands out and weighs your shirt down. Therefore it is much better to just buy some cheap $50 plug-in mic even if that doesn’t provide any improvement in sound quality. If you want to improve the sound though, aiming for professional audio, just get yourself a quality lavalier. For instance you could use Sennheiser MKE 2, available on Amazon – it has a compatible connector.

Wireless signal & interference

The claimed range for this system is actually a whooping 200 meters, although in reality this would need a perfect weather, open space and direct line of sight. So what happens is, other wireless devices as well as different circumstances may affect the range. Having concrete walls between the receiver and transmitter is what usually greatly inhibits the range. But thinking of it, it’s not like you could possibly film someone behind a concrete anyway. Still, the distance is impressive and the signal propagates much further than any wi-fi router.

Having some range allowance is also beneficial as it converts to signal stability and reduces the probability of dropout. I have not personally tested the maximum range, but the reviewer in the video claims that both Wireless GO and GO II proximately worked up to same range of around 150 meters, while the range of latter was only slightly superior. As for EMI, I haven’t experienced any, even after boosting the audio and specifically checking for it. It is important however to make sure you are using the right cable.

If an external mic has a modular cable, then using a wrong one, e.g. TRRS-TRS instead of TRS-TRS or even TRRS-TRRS or vice-versa… or plugging the wrong end could inevitably lead to RF interference simply because different cables wire the ground (or shielding) differently.

Wireless GO vs Wireless GO II

As mentioned, both have the same audio quality. The only difference is in added features and functionality. If you don’t need that functionality then you could as well just buy the first generation, provided you can buy them cheaper. I will leave that up to you to decide, but personally I would choose GO II simply because of the on-board recorder.

GO II can record up to 40 hours of 24-bit audio. Which means you don’t need a Zoom recorder anymore, besides it is much more compact than previously popular Zoom recorders. The idea of using a recorder is that you get a better quality audio than when plugging into a phone or camera. The drawback is having to sync audio later, but the improvement is worthwhile especially for cellphones.

Wireless GO II features:

• Wireless GO II has a connectivity to a Rode Central app where you can access features and settings. In contrast, Wireless GO does not have this functionality.
• It has an on-board recorder, storing up to 40 hours of audio.
• The availability of Safety channel or stereo mode.
• Safety channel outputs -20 dB padded audio in a secondary channel, which you can fall back to in case of clipping.
• The stereo mode allows recording from two channels or transmitters simultaneously.
• Wireless GO II claims improved transmission stability and range.
• It has a flexibility of gain control, which can be tuned by small increments.

* If you’ve looked at the pictures of GO II, you will usually see two (2) transmitters:
Makes perfect sense… however, if you don’t need two transmitters for some reason – there is another option to buy Rode GO II with a single transmitter, which is also available on amazon. Just do some search and maybe you would be able to save money.

Overall design

By glancing at the pictures, it is easy to miss just how small and compact the whole system is. Go ahead and measure it – it’s just a size of a matchbox! Needless to say, its footprint is miniscule, in fact it is the smallest professional wireless transmitter and receiver pair that I know of. Rode Wireless GO II also scores high in terms of durability, the only moving parts there are the hinges and they are well protected. Other than that, it is comparable to a cellphone. It has a very responsive, color display that shows when you might be clipping or about to clip. The screen is glued to the body in a similar manner, which prevents water getting through. Not waterproof but water-resistant for sure.

Same applies to internal batteries. It supports quick charging just like your cellphone, and I guess the life-expectancy of a battery should be similar too. What I mean by that, well I can recall my Samsung S8 battery started to deteriorate after 4 years of daily use, which translates to almost 1500 charge-discharge cycles. If you don’t use it daily, it could potentially work for a decade. However, in an unlucky scenario things could still go wrong so that you would need a battery replacement. And there is no easy way of doing that, other than sending the mic back to Rode for battery replacement. This might be the only con so far, otherwise it’s almost perfect.

- Reviewed at $263.24

Best Price on Rode Wireless GO II

---

WARNING! MAKE SURE YOUR AMAZON SELLER IS AUTHORIZED: https://rode.com/en/support/where-to-buy

Sound & quality

Although the receiver and transmitters do contribute to the sound quality, we are going to focus on the mics while treating the system as one, since the mics inside the receivers are non-replaceable. In terms of frequency response, it lives up to the claim: covering the range from 100Hz to 10Khz it proves more than enough to reproduce a human voice. The EQ is just about right, not too bright nor mellow – provided you attach it on your collar and use it for vocal recording only. Voical Lark will also mix two channels into one when using both mics, which also eliminates the need for post processing, so you can immediately upload your videos.

However, this is a poor choice for those who like more flexibility. There should be an option to output both channels separately as stereo, since it is using a TRRS connector, which has this capability. Only a mentally challenged user could possibly underappreciate such a feature. Any even barely sane sound engineer would consider this a must. Especially, when you pay almost $200 for such a device. And to my surprise there is no option to adjust each mic’s volume individually in the mix. Sure, you could assume the volume to be roughly the same (considering both persons wear it as instructed), but this is a strong assumption.

Of course, it isn’t that bad unless you are frequently miking interviews. For someone who just does occasional blogging it could be just fine. And the second transmitter is always nice to have as a backup, especially if the battery runs out and you have to keep recording. Occasionally, when you want to record two persons, it would still produce much better results than when using a single mic – that’s for sure. It might be worth noting that the monitoring output on the receiver is very beefy. It drove my 16 Ohm Beyerdynamic headphones very easily, to the point where I thought I might blow them up, and it did preserve all the low end too.

These functionality nuances got me a little carried away. What’s more important, when reviewing Pixel Voical Lark, is to understand what kind of mics are being used there. Most definitely those are front address, small lavalier mics inside the transmitters. Also known as lapel mics. While for the most part, they do sound quite fine, in the absence of sound they start producing a lot of self-noise. This is a well-known problem of any mic in this class. While professional mics, for example, Tram, DPA, Sanken, Countryman, etc, still produce audible noise, it is just about tolerable. The consumer lavaliers are generally horrible in this regard.

In a nutshell, lavs are generally noisy, in a quiet setting they record sounds that do not exist. It first, it may resemble the ambience but if you were to switch to Tram TR50 for instance, all those weird noises would be gone, and only some gentle rustling would remain. If I were to guess the actual quality of the mics used here in regards to noise, I would say they sound like $50 lav mics. Let me reiterate that as follows: you can buy a $50 mic (with a wire) that will sound exactly the same as the $200 system [only without noise reduction]. Sure enough, you can’t fit a pair of Trams in there for this price. But consumers are generally pretty bad at math. Because they’ve spend $200 on the system, they may often expect it to sound like a $200 microphone, oh yes and with the noise that of an LDC.

Therefore, not everyone’s expectations are going to be met here. This isn’t just specific to Pixel Voical Lark, but to any other products in this price range too. Unless you buy a processional lavalier worth around $300, that is, only for the mic – you will find yourself pretty much screwed when it comes to self-noise. The actual self-noise of Voical Lark is unclear, the spec says it’s 79 dbA SNR, but this makes no sense because a professional TR50 is only 68 dbA for instance. In reality, my wild guess it’s at best 58, though no one really knows. Maybe eventually someone will measure it but I don’t have the necessary equipment. The transmitter could also be contributing to the noise spectre.

The good news, it is only crucial in a quiet setting while outside it’s generally not at all an issue. And another good news is that we have the noise reduction mode. Naturally, it does what it does, but at the same time it also reduces the mic’s self-noise. So in the end, a clever post-processing gives us a clean audio without the need of using an expensive, professional lavalier. The downside of noise-reduction is that it smooths out some details that could be of interest. For instance, someone who records ASMR, wants to keep all those chewing ‘noises’ and do not want them reduced. Voical Lark isn’t very sensitive either for the purpose of ASMR recording.

Pixel Lark X sample

Here is the actual recording sample. In the first part you can hear the background noise, which is just mostly the self-noise. There is no HVAC running, only a computer. The second part is the same environment but with the noise-reduction mode on. As you can hear, the difference is tremendous. If I were to make a Vlog or Youtube video at home, I would most definitely use the noise reduction setting. There is a possibility of occasionally jumbling some details but overall it sounds more professional. The recording has been done via SSL2+ in 24 bits lossless format. ’4k’ mode was used, which adds a little brightness, though I think it wasn’t even necessary.

Design & durability

Now that I’ve thoroughly covered the mic, it’s time to mention a few things about the wireless system itself. Although I haven’t used it much, the battery never ran out while testing and the charging box has plenty of charge left. According to the specifications, the battery used in Voical Lark box is ‘Lithium Ion Po’, and it follows the latest charging protocols QC 2.0 and PD 3.0, so expect the same charging speeds as your modern smartphone. The range of the system isn’t particularly great, 20 meters in line of sight is just about mediocre, compared to other wireless systems such as Rode GO II’s 200 meters range. When there is a concrete wall between the receiver and transmitter, you must use the provided antennas or you may lose signal.

Definitely, there are plenty of uses for Pixel Voical Lark that take those factors into account. For instance, you could be filming yourself doing some yoga, a couple meters away from the camera. This is totally fine. Especially if you like the minimal footprint and don’t want to wear a bodypack, just clip on the mic transmitter onto your bikini and you are all set. Hope this is a good enough example. However, a bad idea if you are filming in a large hall, moving far away from the camera and have lots of other wireless devices that could potentially interfere with a rather weak transmitter of Voical Lark. Do not use for what it’s not intended! Also note that you will have no option to upgrade, unlike with bodypacks where you could eventually plug a more expensive lavalier.

In terms of durability, I would say it’s about average. The receiver has an aluminium shell, so it’s not just plastic. Same goes for the charger box, so once you put the components inside there, they are pretty much protected. Nevertheless, I have identified some of the weaker parts, of which you should be mindful. Those are mainly hinges of the clips. For the transmitters they are probably fine, unless you accidentally step on them. For the receiver the hinges are a bit thicker, which is good but the attachment of cold-shoe to the hinge is a horrible design as it puts lateral strain on the hinge. The plastic base doesn’t hold the receiver tight enough for my liking. Should be fine atop of a camera in a horizontal position but attaching to your belt could be risky.

- Reviewed at $199.99

Best Price on Pixel Voical Lark X

---