Links in this post may be affiliate links. Any products purchased through affiliate links may provide a small commission which helps to support the SemiPro Tech+Gear site and YouTube channel.

Earlier in 2024 I reviewed the Hollyland Lark M2, which was one of the earliest examples of a tiny wireless microphone that offers great connectivity and ease of use without sacrificing sound quality. Now more manufacturers are jumping into this segment of the market and Rode recently announced their version, the Wireless Micro. They’ve stripped away the advanced features of the Wireless Pro in favor of smaller transmitters and USB-only connectivity. Let’s see how The Wireless Micro stacks up agains the Lark M2 and its big brother.

Features and Specifications

There are two kit versions available, one for USB-C and one for Apple Lightning. But unlike the Hollyland Lark M2, there is no option for a camera receiver with a 3.5mm output because the Wireless Micro is truly intended for use with smartphones, tablets, and computers.

The Wireless Micro kit includes a charging case that is not much larger than a case for airpods which holds the two transmitters and receiver. The transmitters will last approximately 7 hours per charge, with the case providing up to 2x additional charges so you can use the kit for about 21 hours before having to plug in the case again (with breaks to charge the transmitters every 7 hours of course). This is slightly less use time than the Lark M2 which states 10 hours of use time per charge for the tiny transmitters. The kit also comes with a short USB-C to USB-C cable and a pair of wind muffs for the transmitters.

The transmitters offer 24-bit audio at a 48 kHz sample rate, and a frequency response of 20Hz-20kHz with a max SPL of 135dB which is very loud. You can safely use these mics in very loud environments (like a construction site or a concert) without over-driving the mic capsule – just be sure to wear hearing protection if you’re in environments that loud. The signal to noise ratio is 73dB which is just slightly better than the Lark M2 but not by much. There are no advanced features like noise reduction or a high pass filter, however there are two recording modes and three gain levels which have to be set via software because there are no physical controls on the transmitters or receiver (more on that below).

Range of the transmitters is stated as >100 meters and in my test (included in the video above) it worked at 110 meters however once I reached 150 meters, there was no signal at all. The signal will break up if you have obstructions between the transmitter and receiver at shorter distances – I observed some breaking up at 50 meters with my back turned to the receiver. Some competitors like the Lark M2 offer longer ranges, however in my experience none of them work especially well once you reach 150 meters or more.

Now let’s get back to the recording modes – this setting is accessed via Rode’s mobile apps including Rode Central, Rode Reporter, and Rode Capture. There is also a desktop version of Rode Central. Besides updating the firmware, these apps provide access to the few settings available on the Wireless Micro, the most important of which is the recording mode. The “Routing” option in the receiver settings allows you to choose from Merged Mode or Split Mode. Merged mode sends the audio into your device as a mono signal even if both transmitters are being used. This is fine for a single user, but if you have two people using the transmitters, Merged mode won’t allow you to edit the audio separately for each person. Using Split mode sends a stereo audio signal to your device, with one transmitter on the left channel and the other on the right channel. This allows you to separate the tracks after recording and edit them independently, which comes in handy if one of the speakers talks over the other person accidentally or coughs/sneezes while the other person is talking.

The only drawback of recording in Split mode is that for beginners, you’ll have to learn how to work with the audio after recording (“in post”) before publishing your content. If left untouched, the audio from one mic will be heard on the left and the other on the right, which won’t sound right to the audience. The stereo track needs to be split into two mono tracks in post so that they both sound centered to the listener. This can be done easily in most video editing software as well as dedicated audio software like Audacity, however it’s one more step and something new to learn if you haven’t done it before. This is not Rode making the situation more complicated, it’s just how it works when recording using a smartphone because most smartphone apps cannot recognize multi-track audio signals – they will only accept a single audio track which is either mono or stereo. Third party apps like Blackmagic Camera do give you more audio options, including “dual mono”, which records each of the identified tracks as separate mono tracks, preventing you from having to separate them in post – so look for a “dual mono” option in your app of choice if you want to save some time.

The other setting available is the gain/output level which has three options: low, medium, and high. Rode did, however, include their automatic Gain Assist feature in the Wireless Micro, so no matter what gain level you choose, there will be some degree of automatic gain adjustment so that your recording is neither too quiet, nor too loud. One thing I did notice is that on the low gain setting the sound is just a bit more natural, while on the high gain setting there seems to be some baked-in processing being applied to a higher degree. This is demonstrated in the video above when I set the gain to high and yelled straight into the mic capsule, as there was some obvious compression being applied to the sound in order to push the level down and avoid clipping. Does that mean the Wireless Micro is clip-proof even though it does not include 32-bit float recording? Well, not really, but it does mean it helps you avoid clipping in most real-world scenarios, more so than other microphones that don’t have an auto-gain feature.

Like the Lark M2, you won’t find internal recording or a 3.5mm input for lavalier microphones on the Wireless Micro. This kit was not intended to be a full-featured wireless microphone like the Wireless Pro, and the price reflects that. However if you need to use lavalier microphones or know that you need to have a backup audio recording, that would rule out both the Wireless Micro and Lark M2.

Pros and Cons vs Lark M2 and Wireless Pro: Weighing Your Options

So what does the Hollyland Lark M2 have that the Wireless Micro does not? Let’s first consider the areas where the Wireless Micro bests the Lark M2.

First, the ability to record in stereo over USB is something the Lark M2 cannot do. It does offer this feature over the 3.5mm output of the camera receiver but not the USB-C or Lightning receivers, so if you are using the Lark M2 over USB you will only get a mono signal. It also has a lower max SPL (115dB).

The Lark M2 does however offer more receiver options, including one for cameras with a 3.5mm audio input. Another nice feature is the USB-C power delivery port on the USB-C receiver, which allows you to keep your phone charged while using the receiver. This is not available on the Wireless Micro so you will either have to let your battery drain or use a wireless charger. The Lark M2 is also less expensive than the Wireless Micro, with even the combo kit that includes all receivers coming in at less than the MSRP of the Wireless Micro.

Now comparing the Wireless Micro to the Wireless Pro is not exactly a fair comparison, because they were designed to meet different needs. The Wireless Pro is less than half the MSRP of the Wireless Pro, and the features reflect the price difference. The Wireless Pro includes 32-bit float internal recording in the transmitters (up to 40hrs of audio), a 3.5mm input on the transmitter for using lavalier microphones, the ability to generate timecode, and a charging case that includes a data connection for transferring audio files from the transmitters. The kit also includes two high quality lavalier microphones and all the needed accessories at an MSRP of $399 (I’ve seen it marked down to $362 recently). The transmitters are of course much larger than the Wireless Micro, and if you’re not going to use those additional feature then it doesn’t make much sense to pay for them.

Besides what I’ve already mentioned, there are just a couple minor things that I consider cons but not dealbreakers. One is that the transmitters have a glossy finish on them which creates glare/reflections on camera (gaff tape to the rescue). The other is the lack of storage for the wind muffs. The receiver and transmitters fit nicely into a compact charging case that’s easy to throw into your pocket. However the wind muffs, which may be necessary depending on where you’re recording, do not fit in the charging case and Rode did not include a pouch or other storage solution for the entire kit (Hollyland does provide a pouch that fits everything with the Lark M2). This is one of those things that doesn’t hamper the functionality of the device but I personally find annoying – it’s an oversight that results in at best mild frustration, or at worst losing the wind muffs because there wasn’t a safe place to keep them.

Final Thoughts – Is the Wireless Micro for You?

All of that considered, I believe the Wireless Micro is a great option for content creators who exclusively use a smartphone, tablet, or computer (or combination thereof), especially when recording two people at the same time. If you regularly have two speakers, the ability to edit the audio from each mic separately is very valuable and that’s an advantage the Wireless Micro has over the Lark M2.

If you’re a solo content creator who rarely or never uses both mics at the same time, the Lark M2 has some potential advantages like power delivery through the USB-C receiver, a smaller and thinner transmitter, an available camera receiver, and a lower price. And ultimately if having an internal backup recording is a “must have” feature for you, then a wireless mic kit that includes internal recording is likely a better choice.

However the Wireless Micro is certainly worth your consideration if you’re in the market for a simple to use and reliable wireless mic for smartphone content creation.

Check out the Wireless Micro