That’s something I noticed a while ago: all podcasters have those huge microphones in front of them - sometimes with a gigantic boom - that wouldn’t look out of place on 1950s TV. But unlike in the 1950s, they’re not trying to hide them, no no: the more visible, the bigger, the better.
I can’t figure out the point of that prop. If I did a podcast, I’d try to unclutter the shot myself.
You must log in or # to comment.
Considering that it’s first and foremost an audio format it only makes sense to invest in a mic that produces the clearest sound. If a clip-on mic could achieve that then that’s what they’d use. They still use those massive camera rigs that move on wheels to film in studios too, where as one might think that any modern camera on a tripod would do the same thing - it wouldn’t.
Do you really believe you need a giant microphone to get clear sound in 2026? Someone should tell almost all TV news studios, because they all seem to produce perfect audio without a single microphone in sight.
Also, most podcasts are streamed, which is going to compress perfect audio into internet-friendly crap.
There is nothing to “believe”, it is documented fact that large microphones does tend to produce the clearest sound.
Your mistake is comparing TV, a visual audio medium, to podcasts, a mainly audio medium, and expecting the same needs.
This is wrong.
TV has to compromise the audio quallity with the visual aspect.
TV accepts getting 90% of the audio quallity as large mics would be too impractical, radio doesn’t have the visual limitations, and they use large membrane mics, same with podcasts.
I currently use a shotgun mic at home, mounted on a microphone arm, my setup is a Röde VideoMic Go II and a pair of Philips Fidelio X2HR headphones, it is brilliant for normal gaming/discord, the mic acts an audio interface that my headphones connects to as well and it is out of my way. But while the audio is excellent for gaming and would be find for podcasting guest apearences, for anything more demanding I would probably get a large membrane mic.
I may be an IT guy, but I am also a hobby photographer who finds AV tech fascinating.
Movies and TV shows sometimes (more often than you’d think) have to re-record the speech, effectively dub over themselves, because the audio from the live shoot isn’t usable for one reason or another. And of course, almost all sound effects are foley and recorded in a studio with those giant microphones too.
But you’re not wrong, boom mics and smaller mics can be really effective. But it takes a lot more effort both during recording and afterwards in post production to achieve the same level of audio clarity. For podcasts it’s not worth the extra effort because they don’t mind the giant mic being in the shot.
When you can’t see a microphone the big boom mic is either out of frame (likely the case for tv news) or the sound isn’t from the recording itself
Bruh thinks the year has an affect on physics.
I said clearest sound. Yes, Shure SM7B is widely considered to be among the best at that. If you’re producing an audio product then it makes zero sense to buy an inferior microphone just because it looks better. That’s entirely missing the point of the format.
A clip on mic + mixing is like 95% as good as a condenser mic with a pop filter but if you’re sitting down in a studio you may as well use a condernser mic with a pop filter so you can get good quality sound.
Because they sound better.
Basically every podcast on the planet opts for 1 of 2 microphone choices, both of which are industry standard in radio.
They both offer excellent audio quality for ~$500.
When your working in an audio medium, people will notice if your audio quality is sub-par a lot faster than if your video is sub-par in a visual one.
it’s pretty difficult to capture human voices accurately while rejecting ambient noise, and a larger diaphragm and its supporting components need larger housing than a mic that isn’t as particular.
techzone audio makes their mics by hand and has good informational videos showing the internal components; you can see there’s not a ton of empty space inside their mics, and the diameter itself is determined by the internal housing and necessary components.
That used to be true with the tecnological limitations of analogue and early digital systems. Now these functions are processed digitally. You can get excellent microphones that do not need to appear on camera at all.
It’s mostly for show and the popularity of the medium has built a market who want to look the part of serious people and wanting to evoke the image of the trusted old timers on the news, for one example, is part of the image.
Hard disagree. There’s a reason pro equipment still exists. Digital noise suppression is still noticeable in comparison to analog. It’s always better to start with a higher quality analog source and do the least amount of digital processing after.
Now, this is with the caveat that someone in an already isolated room with good acoustics can get away with a much cheaper microphone sounding comparable, but give some reflective surfaces in a room and make it non-symmetrical and now the advantage starts to amplify for good source audio.
Source: I’ve done audio production for a few stage plays and produced an album.
Got a degree in audio engineering. Otacon239 knows what they’re talking about.
audio is usually processed digitally; these XLR mics all filter their input through a preamp, but a digital process won’t directly capture audio the same way a physical diaphragm in an XLR mic will, which is what the podcast microphones OP is asking about use.
companies can produce smaller microphones and a lot of people use smaller microphones that capture and process audio differently then XLR mics, but if you’re curious about why podcast microphones specifically are physically larger than other mics, it comes down to the function of a microphone diaphragm designed for the human vocal range and its supporting components shown in the video linked above.
They don’t know what to do with their hands while they speak
A large microphone is the difference between a serious podcaster, and some guy talking.
That was quite amusing 🙂
To be honest, there is some truth in this too! Perhaps it’s even the main reason. But the technical reasons still exist
Going for the radio show look
Early on in podcasting/vidcasting, you had two things going on. People coming from a professional media background (Leo Laporte, Adam Curry, etc.) who either had access to the high end broadcast equipment or bought what they knew. And then you had new podcasters who were on a near zero budget. Big mics had a lot more range for the money. It became symbolic even as equipment got smaller and cheaper. It became a sign that you’re serious and legitimate.
I assume that larger size could be less sensitive for when the speaker repositions themselves. Imagine sitting still for two hours while talking about topics that steer up some emotions. It’s just more natural to move a bit.
(I have no idea, I just assume that bigger microphones help with that)
LOL, yesterday I saw one I think it was Piker was being interviewed, and had this gigantic microphone in front of him and ever few seconds adjusting it’s position, then you could see a tiny microphone on his shirt the same one the host was using.
I found it hilarious.
I guess in podcast space it looks like the bigger microphone you have the bigger deal you are.
They usually don’t have anything interesting or meaningful to say, so they gotta have the big mic to at least give the illusion that they do? If they’re boring/insipid/uninspired, at least they have good equipment?
deleted by creator
Overcompensation.
