Apogee ClipMic DigitalFrom real comments

Verdict distilled from 14 mentions across 9 aspects in comments under product review videos.

Positive sentiment54%
PROS 54%
CONS 46%

Rank based on 14 mentions across 9 aspects

View the verdict as

Buy this if...

  • You want strong noise isolation in outdoor or noisy environments
  • You're comparing it against similarly priced lav mics like the Sennheiser G4
  • You need a compact digital lav mic with generally good sound fidelity for narration

What users love

Skip this if...

  • You're sensitive to self-noise or a noise-gate-style cutting in and out of background hiss
  • You want the cleanest, least compressed/digital-sounding lav mic on the market
  • You need reliable customer support in case of quality control issues

What users complain about

Compare in seconds

Based on user comments

Best choice
1Premium
Lewitt MTP W950
Studio-quality vocal soundMinimal monitor and drum bleedTrusted for regular gig useDistracting large logoHigh price tag
Lewitt MTP W950
Studio-quality vocal sound
Minimal monitor and drum bleed
Trusted for regular gig use
Distracting large logo
High price tag
2Premium
Sennheiser MKH 8040
High Owner SatisfactionExceptional Sound ClarityGreat for Field RecordingHigh PriceNot Omnidirectional / More MuffledUltrasonic Self-Noise & Wind Rumble
Sennheiser MKH 8040
High Owner Satisfaction
Exceptional Sound Clarity
Great for Field Recording
High Price
Not Omnidirectional / More Muffled
Ultrasonic Self-Noise & Wind Rumble
3Premium
Sennheiser AVX
Reliable, plug-and-play operationClean, distortion-free audioSolid build quality
Sennheiser AVX
Reliable, plug-and-play operation
Clean, distortion-free audio
Solid build quality
4Premium
Lewitt LCT 640
Post-recording pattern flexibilityVersatile across instrumentsStrong, non-boomy low endPrice barrier for some buyersUnclear M/S and connector design questionsLacking low-mid presence on some vocals
Lewitt LCT 640
Post-recording pattern flexibility
Versatile across instruments
Strong, non-boomy low end
Price barrier for some buyers
Unclear M/S and connector design questions
Lacking low-mid presence on some vocals
5Mid
sE Electronics DynaCaster
Strong overall sound qualityVersatile onboard EQ switchesBuilt-in gain boostHigh price for some buyersUncertain added value over existing setupFiddly dip switches
sE Electronics DynaCaster
Strong overall sound quality
Versatile onboard EQ switches
Built-in gain boost
High price for some buyers
Uncertain added value over existing setup
Fiddly dip switches
6Mid
Shure Beta 57A
Smoother, clearer vocal sound than SM58/SM57Excellent on acoustic guitarDurable, long-lasting buildCan sound harsh in some applicationsAppearance not universally likedInconsistent noise rejection vs SM57
Shure Beta 57A
Smoother, clearer vocal sound than SM58/SM57
Excellent on acoustic guitar
Durable, long-lasting build
Can sound harsh in some applications
Appearance not universally liked
Inconsistent noise rejection vs SM57
7Mid
Sennheiser MD 441
Excellent sound on drums and vocalsStriking, attractive designRecognizable, notable reputation
Sennheiser MD 441
Excellent sound on drums and vocals
Striking, attractive design
Recognizable, notable reputation
8Premium
Telefunken ELA M 251
Smooth, warm characterCompetitive with top-tier micsFull-bodied, rich low endHard to distinguish from cheaper alternativesVery high pricePositioning-sensitive
Telefunken ELA M 251
Smooth, warm character
Competitive with top-tier mics
Full-bodied, rich low end
Hard to distinguish from cheaper alternatives
Very high price
Positioning-sensitive
9Premium
MXL V69M
Rivals the Neumann U67Warm, creamy tube toneAttractive appearance
MXL V69M
Rivals the Neumann U67
Warm, creamy tube tone
Attractive appearance
Best value
10Mid
Neumann TLM 193
Natural, unhyped tonePreferred over U87ai in blind testsLow sibilance / smooth highsAudible distortion noted at price pointCan sound muddy or bass-heavyCardioid-only, unlike multi-pattern siblings
Neumann TLM 193
Natural, unhyped tone
Preferred over U87ai in blind tests
Low sibilance / smooth highs
Audible distortion noted at price point
Can sound muddy or bass-heavy
Cardioid-only, unlike multi-pattern siblings
You are here
31Mid
Apogee ClipMic Digital
Good overall sound qualityStrong noise isolationReasonable price versus alternativesInconsistent sound across environmentsNoise gate and background hiss cutting in and outOutdated micro USB connector
Apogee ClipMic Digital
Good overall sound quality
Strong noise isolation
Reasonable price versus alternatives
Inconsistent sound across environments
Noise gate and background hiss cutting in and out
Outdated micro USB connector

Who wins on what

Ranked by what users actually praise

Overall Impression

Sound quality is generally rated good, though some hear it as compressed or digital. Multiple commenters found the sound quality good or impressive for a lavalier mic, with one calling fidelity for narration pretty good and another comparing it favorably to a Sennheiser lav mic. However, another user described the audio as sounding very compressed and digital, and one reviewer said it lacks something compared to a usual Rode setup, though still fully acceptable overall.

Noise isolation impressed several reviewers, but self-noise and gating issues were also reported. Commenters were surprised by noise isolation given outdoor conditions with lawn mowers and minimal wind noise, calling it unexpected and impressive for the price. But one user disliked an apparent noise gate causing background hiss to cut in and out, and another noted considerable self-noise from the preamp despite improvement over a prior Apogee/Sennheiser version.

Price and reliability opinions are split, with one serious quality control complaint. Some found $199 reasonable compared to a Sennheiser G4 set, while others felt it was steep for a lav mic. One buyer reported numerous quality control issues and frustrating customer support that simply directed them to return the unit, also noting inconsistent sound depending on environment and mic placement, and criticized the continued use of micro USB instead of a newer connector.

Outdated / Not-accurate data?