Yeti: excellent sub-$100 microphone

Discuss

31 Responses to “Yeti: excellent sub-$100 microphone”

  1. FYI, they make a shockmount, called “the radius”, for that mic that will allow you to use a standard mic stand and prevent vibrations from coming through.

  2. Bill Sides says:

    I love my Blue mics. I have been looking to switch to USB though. Thanks!

  3. Drew Golden says:

    I agree on the Yeti Blue Mark.  While not a podcaster, I record quite a few demos, and voice is everything.  With headphones on, and cheap pop filter in front (highly advised) I can give a cool smooth FM voice when delivering demos.  It’s very ideal – and the Yeti Blue delivers in spades.

  4. corydodt says:

    We bought a couple of these for our remote teams at work, since we’re constantly having Google Hangouts and other kinds of teleconferences. Extremely good investment.

  5. suremann says:

    One of the best ways to decouple the mic from table/floor vibrations (aside from using a specialized shock-mount)  is to use blue-tak poster putty or Sugru.  Make 3-5 little 1/2″ balls of putty and apply them to the microphone base as feet. Just don’t smoosh them too hard on the table, let the feet lightly rest so the plasticity of the material can dampen the vibration.  Also, use a high-pass filter set to around 80Hz in your recording software to eliminate rumble.

  6. bill_mcgonigle says:

    I bought one to do radio ads for a local non-profit and it’s really as good as they say.  Even better than my Roland USB interface with an XLR mic.  I assume it’s because the Blue Yeti is specifically designed for voice.

    I got this pop filter with it and it clamps on perfectly and makes a noticeable difference with plosives.

  7. gluther says:

    I still love a RE20 or SM7 + a decent preamp for voice work, but that combo is a lot more $$$ than a Yeti. having a multi-pattern option could come in handy for a guest mic in a pinch, and Blue makes mighty fine mics in general.

  8. PaulDavisTheFirst says:

    If you’re serious about recording audio, you will always use input and output devices that share  a single sample “clock”. This can be done by using a single A/D-D/A converter unit (which defines the clocks for conversions in both directions), or by sending the clock from one device to the other (e.g. using word clock or the S/PDIF clock signal).

    These USB devices generally do not permit this, and I thus deem them to be useful, often elegant, but fundamentally amateur.

    Stop relying on your computer audio system to resample – starting sharing your sample clock. Sync wants to be free!

    • PrettyBoyTim says:

      Could you go into a bit more detail? If you’re just recording yourself speaking, what is it meant to be syncing *with*?

      • PaulDavisTheFirst says:

        It is certainly true that if all you do is record, without a monitor path through the computer, then the sync issue doesn’t matter at all.

        But most people don’t only do this, and so …

    • Gerald Mander says:

       For the price of a dedicated A/D-D/A converter, you can get a high-quality audio interface with good mic pre-amps (Presonus AudioBox, Native Instruments Komplete, M-Audio M-Track, etc.) that will have a dedicated headphone output, mic boost, multiple in/out combinations, etc.

      • PaulDavisTheFirst says:

         such a device would constitute a “dedicated A/D-D/A unit” for the purposes i was describing above. what matters is the single sample clock inside the device, rather than different clocks for input and output.

  9. coderedd says:

    I’ve used the Yeti for telecommuting connections and for connecting the a class to a remotely-located professor. I can’t endorse these enough!

  10. retepslluerb says:

    Hard drive? Fan? What are these noisy contraptions he’s writing about?

  11. Thü says:

    The Yeti sure is a step up to most consumer grade mics in use, specially thinking of all those who use the video chat cam’s mic. But there are some other USB mics available from more experienced producers with much better recording quality: the AKG Perception 120 USB, Audio Technica AT 2020, Shure PG 27 (the AKG and AT do not cost much more than the Yeti). I do not recommend the Samson C03U or C01U, they are too noisy.

  12. You do know that Gweek sounds terrible? I had to stop listening to it, despite interest in the subject matter.

  13. Lemoutan says:

    I have a black Blue Snowball in a shockmount. I hate my voice.

  14. Mike Tufano says:

    I bought a Yeti a month ago and have done my last few podcasts with it.  I agree 100%. I love how much better it sounds.  

  15. gws says:

    I have a better idea: use that $100 to buy some sound treatment for your room.

  16. brandonmwest says:

    I’ve got the same mic, nice job for the price. Definitely recommend a pop filter.

  17. James Penrose says:

    Please put in a word or two about bit rates;  I’ve dropped a couple of podcasts over the years because their creator used a bit rate so low it not only sounded like a tin can but not even a very *good* tin can.

    Worse than listening to AM radio on the earphone of a 60′s transistor radio.

    • Gerald Mander says:

      Totally agree!  Bitrate for a vocal-oriented podcast should never be below 96K.  You can hear artifacts being introduced at that bitrate, but below that it’s insufferable. 128 is better and doesn’t eat up bandwidth (generally, 1 minute = 1MB mp3 @128K)

      • Well both BBC and NPR both use 64K for their non-music podcasts and they sound fine.

        • Gerald Mander says:

           Recorded in professional studios using compression, EQ, ducking, and high-end dithering algorithms to re-encode them from .wav to mp3 or aiff. They have massive bandwidth considerations that have to be balanced against quality recording. I can’t think of a reason why a podcast on Gweek’s level shouldn’t be 128k.

          • Bitrate for a vocal-oriented podcast should never be below 96K.

            So I guess there’s an exception to “never” then?

            Regarding Gweek, I can think of several reasons. First of all, I doubt it would make a difference to 95% of listeners if it was encoded in 64k or 128k (and if you feel there are sound problems with Gweek, they won’t be solved by a higher bitrate). Also, longer unnecessary download times, unnecessarily larger files, more bandwidth usage.

  18. Gerald Mander says:

    Mark, you have a lot of room echo & resonance in your recordings. If you can’t afford sound baffles & deadeners (decent ones are expensive), hanging blankets on walls and reflective surfaces still improves things drastically. There are a lot of articles online about sound-treating for home recording.

    The S-E Electronic Reflexion Filter is a terrific solution as well.  It attaches to your mic and acts as a kind of portable sound booth for deadening the audio. I use the Pro with terrific results.  http://www.seelectronics.com/se-reflexion-filters/

Leave a Reply