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

---

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

---

Introduction

It’s been a while since I reviewed the original Yeti, and there haven’t been as many USB mics on the market at that time. Now the internet is swarmed with new computer mics, there are thousands of models to choose from and it’s getting a bit more difficult to keep updated in all of this chaos. But this has been the trend with computer gadgets in general. Produce more models even if they don’t make sense nor offer anything new… but adding some LED lighting is a must! Irony aside, the USB market did evolve recently, the new mics have come up with built in shock-mount suspensions, which has made a whole lot of difference.

Table vibrations

Producers have realized that hearing the hammering of keyboard keys that come from table vibrations isn’t a good thing, so they came up with cheap but effective suspensions to deal with this problem. Blue mics don’t seem to be one of them, because Yeti Nano comes with the same old pad design seen on Blue Yeti that acoustically amplifies those vibrations – for which it has been blamed since day one. Maybe because of the popularity of their original Yeti they wanted this mic to have a similar ‘trademark’ look, which implies the same awkward pad that amplifies your keyboard sounds tenfold…

Durability concern

Well, if you are used to Yeti, you would probably get used to it, so let’s pretend the pad wasn’t an issue. However, there have been another trend going on with all those new USB mics popping up like mushrooms on the market. Many of those mics unfortunately don’t seem to last more than a few years and even become phased out, as I have witnessed while reviewing the Cyber Acoustics CVL-2004 Rainier a few years back. Good sound quality, with neat controls, initially receives a very good response but then come all those faulty units and no one orders it anymore. In that case, the mic had a flimsy USB port that often snapped inside after some use.

And in case you are wondering why I brought up this particular mic example, is because Blue Yeti Nano suffers from the exact same issue. It has the same micro USB port that connects from the same awkward downward angle, and strangely enough, produces the same results. In this case – hundreds of angry customers who give it one star reviews due to the USB port ending up faulty within the first months of use. Believe it or not, I am perfectly aware of this trend with the poor quality gadgets, and this is in fact why I allow a certain period of time before reviewing the newly released USB mics, so I can integrate some feedback from other users too.

It’s on fire…

One of those user reviews I have read was both disturbing and entertaining at the same time. Blue Yeti Nano has caught fire aka incinerated itself, presumably due to a faulty port, causing a short circuit. I’m refusing to comment on this but in case you really wonder, I’m not making this up. Aside from the flimsy port, the controls don’t seem to be better. The original Blue Yeti had flimsy knobs that could sometimes introduce unnecessary white noise, that or the electrically resistive spray-up inside the knob would wear out ending up with either full gain or no gain at all. Fortunately no gain knob here but the volume knob once again feels flimsy and wobbly.

Same old, same old… at least after 17 years this one thing could have been fixed but no. My expectations are probably too high for this market. The mic body is now also made of plastic, which could be discrediting, but that’s all right with me because the original Yeti was unreasonably heavy. Anyways, I understand that all things have a limited lifespan, and especially computer gadgets nowadays don’t seem to last long. It is just a little bit disappointing to see this new trend plaguing an older producer such as Blue mics. I haven’t personally dealt with their customer service but the rumors are – it’s not good, to put it politely, so if yours got damaged, tough luck sirs.

Glitching

And as if the above wasn’t enough, the physical durability isn’t the only issue. From what I have gathered online, Blue Yeti Nano seems to be quite susceptible to glitches, especially when used with Windows 10. The mic just keeps cutting in and out without any apparent reasons. Even the mute button isn’t a hundred percent reliable, sometimes upon pressing, it may change color to red yet continue recording, to your embarrassment. What’s worse, some of the mics reportedly go bad randomly during recording, starting to produce a series of crackling or hissing sounds without you knowing about it.

Pickup patterns

As mentioned earlier Blue Yeti Nano features omnidirectional and cardioid modes, you can switch between the two by pressing the button at the back of the mic. Omnidirectional pattern is useful for picking up the sound from all directions in your room, for example if you have multiple sources of sound, or multiple persons speaking. However, the omni pattern also ends up picking up a lot of background, so most of the time you are going to end up using the standard cardioid mode for improved rejection of background noise and unwanted reflections of the original sound that tend to interfere with the latter.

Sound quality

In terms of the frequency response, Blue Yeti Nano sounds brighter than the original Yeti. The sound is crisp and the highs are relatively smooth, which is nice. The low end is also fine in the cardioid mode. However, the midrange is terribly lacking, and if you look at the curve, it is literally scooped out. Therefore, I would generally not recommend this mic for music. And even the voice sounds a bit stripped of the fundamental and harmonic components. You can get an ineligible speech yes, but it won’t be the most pleasant tonally. The original Yeti sounded more flat and natural and it didn’t have this problem, so this really seems like a bummer.

The omnidirectional pattern has a better midrange than the cardioid, but unlike the latter, it actually sounds thin and I hate this, but I would not normally use it anyway. The scooped midrange isn’t necessarily bad if you have a valid use case for it, but otherwise it’s probably isn’t the best curve, especially for close up recording. Normally you want to get up close, but if you can’t, you could still sound a bit richer than a flat mic at some distance, but of course not too far from the mic. Compared to some cheaper USB mics I have reviewed previously, the Blue Yeti Nano still sounds much better.

If you don’t mind the questionable durability and the glitching aspect of the mic, it could actually give you quite a decent sound, especially in non-critical applications such as skype or even reviews for YouTube. But then, if you like this mic’s concept, why not just add a few extra dollars and get yourself the Blue Yeti? I believe it would have been a much better investment that would also last longer and would be more versatile due to a flatter curve. Blue Yeti appears to be a better mic still, and certainly a better investment. The original Yeti maybe isn’t the best mic nowadays but it works reliably well with a boom arm and pop filter (without the pop filter both mics tend to overload when up close).

Boom arms

Could the Blue Yeti Nano be used with a boom arm? Without giving it much thought, you would probably answer yes. Blue Yeti Nano has a 3/8 inch threading and comes with a 3/8 inch to 5/8 inch male-female adaptor, so it can fit onto any boom arm or shock mount as it is more compact. In contrast, the original Yeti didn’t have the adaptor, and it was too big to fit into some shock mounts. But then you are definitely going to strain the cable and damage the port in no time, as I have already explained, and you are going to get that scooped out midrange sound, which isn’t good for up-close, so, if you bought a boom arm and pop filter, it would be a shame to skip the mic upgrade.

- Reviewed at $99.99

Best Price on Blue Yeti Nano

---

Best Price on Blue Yeti USB Microphone

---

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

HyperX QuadCast has a neutral tone and for the most part, it provides an unhyped sound with a clean and detailed midrange. The proximity effect in cardiod mode isn’t very strong, which means it does not vary as much in the bass response as you get closer. However, the amount of low does not disappoint, it may not sound as solid as a radio broadcast mic, yet it just naturally represents your voice without taking anything away. Blue Yeti in comparison actually sounds more hyped, with slightly scooped midrange, it sounds brighter and more intimate when up close, but there is also more hiss in Blue Yeti.

When it comes to vocals and music, tonally QuadCast doesn’t have any problem, so it can capture the entire frequency range without added color. If you want to upload a YouTube video with this mic, or play your favorite instrument via streaming – this is all fine. What the mic is not intended for however is recording. You must understand the strengths and weaknesses of this device and keep your expectations in check, because the fashion for the USB mics changes rather quickly. If you record and compare uncompressed audio, you will be able to see some distortion, which is otherwise unnoticeable.

Shock mount, pop filter

In a controlled environment, both mics actually sound fine for the USB standards. What actually makes the difference in a day-to-day application is the availability of the suspension that comes with QuadCast. Calling it a shock mount may sound ambiguous especially from a non-sound engineer’s point of view. Since this is HyperX, I am sure a lot of gamers will be reading this without seeing the importance of it. What this shock mount actually does is it mechanically isolates the mic from the table. You will be surprised how much noise usually comes through from a typical gaming desktop without this suspension.

Have you ever wondered why the keyboard strokes and mouse clicks sound so annoying when making a video call from your computer? That is because it is being amplified mechanically. A part of the sound comes from the air but another significant part comes from mechanical vibration. Those vibrations also significantly boost the low frequency part, so that each stroke has a deep rumbling to it. Now add up all the unintentional bumps on the table or even the chair, humming of the fans in your computer, neighbor’s subwoofer and even the vibration of a distant railway train. Well, I hope you get the idea!

A decent shock mount can make a huge impact but not only they are expensive (if you choose to buy a standalone solution) you will also have to purchase a boom arm, which may actually exceed the cost of your mic. Every other USB mic we’ve reviewed so far does not come with a shock mount. At best, they come with a pop filter but that’s it. HyperX QuadCast also has an internal pop filter though it’s rather just a piece of foam on the inside. It does an okay job and it’s better than nothing. The internal EQ is also adjusted for this, so it doesn’t impact on the clarity. I personally haven’t experienced any popping at all.

Polar patterns

If you are familiar with Yeti USB, QuadCast provides the exact same choice of polar patterns, namely cardiod, omnidirectional, bidirectional and stereo. Those can be adjusted with a knob at the back. The main and go-to pattern is cardiod, but in case you are unfamiliar with the patterns, I will quickly cover each of them now. Cardiod picks up sounds from the front and rejects sounds from other directions to a good degree. By minimizing the sound from other directions, you effectively reduce background noises and room reverberation, which manifests as if you were talking far away somewhere in the kitchen.

Cardiod pattern also introduces proximity effect. This simply means when you are close to the mic you will sound more bassy and intimate, though the QuadCast’s proximity effect isn’t particularly strong even compared to Yeti. Omnidirectional allows capturing sound from all directions, especially useful when you have more than one speaker at a time; however, it introduces more noise and reverb. Bidirectional pattern captures from front and back only, perhaps it is useful if want to capture the sound from your speakers, it also gives strongest proximity. Stereo mode is obvious I think… it too potentially introduces more noise, as it listens to the sides rather than directly in front.

Other functionality

This may sound trivial but the users seem to give a lot of importance to the mute function. Blue Yeti is an old mic but it still remains popular thanks to this reason, it has a mute button while other mics don’t. HyperX QuadCast did in a way copy all of its features but not without improvements. The mute button of the QuadCast is actually on top of the mic, it is touch activated and it’s very accessible. When the mic is on it will light up with red color, so there is no confusion about it. However, unlike a mechanical solution it seems to suffer sometimes from being activated on and off repeatedly from a single touch.

The mic also has a gain control, which is great – the knob itself is big and located at the bottom. There is no way you can miss it, but it’s also possible to bump into it accidentally. This control does not adjust the gain from 0 to 100 but it’s rather a fine-tune adjustment. You will still have to set up an appropriate value in the settings and I actually like it this way, as it gives you less chance to screw up. At the back, there is also a headphone jack for monitoring your mic output in real time. Unlike other mics however there is no way to adjust the headphone volume nor ‘in the mix’ volume aside from the sound settings.

Build and overall

This mic feels a bit unusual, it is actually very light; I believe it’s mainly made of plastic except for the grille. That said it is very tall unlike any other USB mic you’ve seen before. The good thing about it, it is actually brought further away from the table and a bit closer to your mouth, so this way it sounds better. The connector used is mini-USB, which is the same as Yeti, so this is fine. I have reviewed CVL-2004 before with micro-USB and it was a disaster. HyperX QuadCast works for both Mac and PC, and even PS4 and it’s certified to work with TeamSpeak and Discord. No connectivity issues detected.

Overall, I see it as a great pick. The sound may not be the best for recording but for things like YouTube, Twitch, streaming and gaming in general, it is ideal. Especially if you like the black and red theme, because unfortunately there is no way to turn off the lighting. But what’s far more important is the absence of background noise; the mic is not too hot, it gives a good and natural voice timber and comes with a whole bunch of useful features such as touch mute. Then once again, there is this exclusive shock mount… and an okay pop filter, what else do you want? QuadCast well deserves its price tag and even more!

- Reviewed at $139.99

Best Price on HyperX QuadCast

---

Sound & quality

From the company that used to produce nothing but low-end computer speakers, it is surprising to admit that their first USB mic actually lives up to the standards set by long-established giants. This mic may not be a technological breakthrough, but it brings some good features and a quality sound at a competitive price. The DAC of CVL-2004 has a standard sampling rate of 44.1 KHz and 16-bit depth. Most low-end mics will have a similar spec; however, this is not a reliable measure of quality. The good thing, there is no any audible jitter, which is a common attribute of any cheap-ass USB interface.

Another good thing, the mic is very quiet even at high gain. By quiet, I mean the opposite of noisy of course. So when you aren’t speaking, you may hear the background but no static or hiss. When it comes to clarity, yet again this mic does not disappoint. The tonal balance is what I love most about CVL-2004. Even though the highs lack accuracy, they are still present and in a good proportion to the mids. It is neither too dark, nor overly harsh or sibilant and, actually works great for speech recording. Blue Yeti does have better and more musical highs, yet on the other hand, CVL-2004 provides a cleaner low-end.

Features

This mic probably has the best controls ever for adjusting the gain and headphone levels. The two sliders are right in front of you… so it’s very easy to access and approximate the settings. The availability of gain control can be another reason to consider CVL-2004, because so far among the reviewed mics only Yeti and Apogee have had this feature. Unlike Rode NT USB and AT2020USB Plus, there is no control to adjust the blending with pre-recorded audio; however, this can be done in control panel. You can set your mic as a playback device without any problems.

Bummer, there is no actual mute control, despite it being clearly listed among the features. In order to mute, you will have to adjust the gain slider all the way down… then probably miss the right setting on your way back up. If you are in a dark room, or in a hurry, you may even mistake one slider for another and mess it up completely as a result. Well okay. At the backside, you can switch between cardioid and omnidirectional patterns. Both capsules are of a good quality and the omni mode works flawlessly. This is a nice addition as it gives you more flexibility and particularly it is useful for conferencing.

Durability and build

At first glance, Cyber Acoustics CVL-2004 Rainier may seem to have flawless design… Die-case body with a cold ass grille is a rare find among sub $100 units. Then again, it has quality controls and no parts sticking out to break off. However, there is one major flaw – vulnerable USB port. If you look at NT USB or AT2020USB, both of them utilize a solid Type B connector. Blue Yeti uses a Mini USB, which is also fine. Now guess what do we see on CVL-2004? That’s a Micro USB connector! And considering it is located at the bottom – this is really the worst design decision they could have made.

I will try to explain what I mean as best as I can. Sometimes you just cannot avoid accidental pulls of the wire, especially for devices like mics – they really beg for it! Just kidding… in the event you pull the wire, it cannot unplug but will apply a lever force to the connector and, Micro USB connectors are very flimsy by design. There is a big chance your connector will snap, or worse damage the port and render the device useless. Fortunately, there is a workaround. You can simply tie the wire around right leg of the microphone. Then it should be safe even if it falls off a table.

Conclusion

This mic I definitely recommend for streamers and podcasters. Out of the box, it produces an expressive, good enough quality sound most people are after. Cardioid pattern does a decent job of isolating your voice and no hiss to be heard in the background. Then you get two meaningful controls for gain and volume right in front of your nose, which you can easily adjust on the fly. It could be even more appealing had they actually implemented the mute control. Still… it is quite a package for the money, and in this price range, few can match it in value. Finally, the Rainier can be a viable alternative to Blue Yeti.

- Reviewed at $89.99