sE Electronics sE2300From real comments

Verdict distilled from 7 mentions across 6 aspects in comments under product review videos.

Positive sentiment71%
PROS 71%
CONS 29%

Rank based on 7 mentions across 6 aspects

View the verdict as

Buy this if...

  • You want a condenser mic that multiple buyers call good value for the price
  • You'd appreciate the added dual high-pass filter and pad settings over earlier sE 2200 variants
  • You're upgrading from an entry mic like the Rode NT1A and want a step up

What users love

Skip this if...

  • You're expecting genuinely new capsule/pattern innovation rather than a renamed, tweaked model
  • You need to hear extensive spoken-word/narration samples before buying and can't easily find them
  • You already own the sE 2200a II MP and want a substantially different microphone

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
sE Electronics sE2300
Positive Buyer SatisfactionFavorable Compared to Rode NT1AImproved Filter and Pad ControlsLimited Spoken-Word Demo SamplesMarketed as More Novel Than It Is
sE Electronics sE2300
Positive Buyer Satisfaction
Favorable Compared to Rode NT1A
Improved Filter and Pad Controls
Limited Spoken-Word Demo Samples
Marketed as More Novel Than It Is

Who wins on what

Ranked by what users actually praise

Overall Impression

Buyers see the sE2300 as a refined, not reinvented, addition to sE's condenser line. One detailed commenter clarifies that the multipattern capability reviewers highlight as 'the innovation' actually existed in the earlier sE 2200a II MP, and the sE2300 name mainly resolved a marketing mix-up between cardioid and multipattern variants sharing a name. The genuine upgrade in this fourth generation is the dual settings for the high-pass filter and pad. Despite this, the same commenter still calls the sE 2200/2300 a nice microphone overall.

Several commenters frame the sE2300 as strong value for its price. One viewer says the passion of the sE Electronics team suggests a high-quality product that exceeds expectations for the price, even joking about wanting a free unit. Another commenter simply thanks the reviewer and reports being happy after buying one that same day. These reactions suggest the sE2300 is perceived as delivering more than its price would imply, based on the enthusiasm both current and prospective owners express in response to the review.

Owners upgrading from other condenser mics report satisfaction with the sE2300. One commenter describes the sE2300 as their second condenser microphone after owning a Rode NT1A, saying they are quite happy with it, implying a favorable comparison to that well-known entry-level mic. Separately, another viewer notes it was hard to find good spoken-word or narration samples for this mic online, thanking the reviewer specifically for providing one, which suggests demand for more voice-focused demo content.

Outdated / Not-accurate data?