![]() ![]() It saves a hassle considering I do not need to read the script on my screen through a pop-filter mesh. I have never found a need to use an additional pop-filter for it. It is nice since I don’t need to worry about it collecting dust when it stands unused and I don’t need to put on pop filter foam onto it. It also has a built-in pop-filter which prevents plosives and protects the microphone from spit and dust. I have thrown the mic into a bag and carried it around with me a handful of times and it didn’t seem to put any damage onto it. It is all made from metal and I don’t know what it would take to damage the microphone. The microphone feels (and it is) very heavy and sturdy. ![]() Also, EQ usually solves most of my muddy problems. If you can spare some of the clarity for a pleasant tone it could work for you. So, in overall the microphone doesn’t sound crystal clear and has some muddiness to it, but I love how it gives my voice some warmth. That is probably due to a bump up in the 100-200Hz frequency range and I often find myself using an equalizer to remove some of that muddiness. The sound that comes from Rode Procaster microphone sounds rich and bassy, however, oftentimes it feels a bit muddy. This is a Rode Procaster microphone frequency response. This had completely solved the problem, however at the cost of an additional GBP 80 ($100). To solve the problem I had to purchase Triton Fethead which gave me an additional 27dB of clean gain. I’ve had to set my gain at 100% for Behringer UMC204 HD to provide at least somewhat enough gain for Rode Procaster, but at this point, my interface started to introduce a lot of the pre-amp noise and it was unusable. Neither of these two interfaces alone is sufficient to power Rode Procaster. For reference, it is pretty much equal in pre-amp power to a more well known Focusrite Scarlett 2i2. I am using a GBP 60 ($75) interface, a Behringer UMC204 HD. One of the troubles I have faced with Rode Procaster is how gain hungry it is. So, despite the heavy weight you can use any swivel arm to hold Rode Procaster, it is not going to be a problem and you definitely don’t need to buy any of that expensive stuff. I am using a cheapish, lowest quality swivel arm which cost me GBP 10 ($12) and at first, I was worried it couldn’t handle its weight but after all this time it has never troubled me. Nevertheless, I have never found weight to be much of a problem. For comparison, Rode NT1 weighs 440g and Shure SM58 is only 300g. Rode Procaster is one of the heavier microphones weighing 745g or 1.64lbs. That is a whopping 45% difference in price. Also, keep in mind that most of the stuff you buy in European Amazons are generally more expensive than in USA version.įor comparison, if you are European you would be paying GBP 589 ($733) for Shure SM7B which is priced $399 in USA Amazon. If you were to buy Rode Procaster from USA Amazon webpage you would be currently paying $204 which is roughly 20% more than in Europe. I don’t know the reasoning for this, but basically, all Rode production is cheaper in Europe compared to USA. The reason for choosing Rode Procaster was that it is one of the more affordable quality dynamic microphones, that it is if you are a European, which I am. I have bought Rode Procaster for GBP 131 (the price is still the same) which at this moment is equal to USD 163 or EUR 146. Costs $160 or $230 depending on where you live.Dynamic broadcast cardioid polar pattern microphone.Here is a quick brief and takeaway from this article about Rode Procaster: It will require an interface and XLR cable and won’t plug into your USB port. Rode Procaster is a dynamic, cardioid pattern, end addressed, broadcast, XLR microphone. I have been using it for almost two years now and this is a short and honest first-hand review. Rode Procaster is the fourth microphone that I have ever purchased. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |