One bummer though: The printer only has volatile memory for storing settings, so once I disconnect and reconnect the power, it goes back to factory (language, font size etc.)...

1:31 - preamp A with MKH 8040
2:04 - preamp B with MKH 8040
2:42 - preamp B with OM 1
3:23 - preamp A with OM 1
4:08 - disclosure
4:29 - background noise comparison (open OM 1)

Correction: weight of Rubix44 is 2 kg (still a lot heavier than the Babyface).

0:00 with open top
3:10 with closed top (additional absorber)
5:37 series of A/B comparisons
6:35 A/B for background noise
6:47 A/B comparisons with sounds pitched down by two octaves

To make any judgement, you'll have to wear headphones. I found the difference not as pronounced on the recording as perceived when standing in the "booth". Towards the end, there are pitched down versions which of course emphasise the reverb durations.

1:23 - Røde Lavalier II
2:28 - Edutige ETM-001
4:00 - DPA 4060
5:44 - Audio Technica AT 825
7:02 - Line Audio OM1
8:07 - Sennheiser MKH 8040

I did not use any compression or equalisation (the metallic sounds are sometimes clipped by limiter which I used to boost the overall level in the demo). The relative gain boosts are indicated, which are used to match the microphones in overall loudness. The whispering parts are boosted by an additional 6 dB. This is the test where you can see how the Sennheiser stands out. Of the others, I would say the Røde is the noisiest, followed by the Edutige and the DPA, with the Line Audio and Audio Technica performing relatively good.

I didn't use a pop filter, and I had to cut out a few fragments of DC wind pops (you'll notice when the spoken words seem strangely cut).

1:27 - Sennheiser MKH 8040
2:09 - Line Audio OM1
3:51 - Audio Technica AT 825
6:44 - Edutige ETM-001
10:43 - Røde Lavalier II

Note that the MKH 8040 and AT 825 are Cardoids, all others are Omnis. I did not use any compression or equalisation, and as I am speeking only ca. 10 cm away from the microphones, the MKH 8040 and AT 825 exhibit a proximity effect (boosted bass / attenuated treble), which makes them difficult to compare.

Overall, I was slightly disappointed by the exaggerated brightness of the ETM-001 (might also be slightly worse in terms of distortion), but then again it is the cheapest of them. The OM1 appears quite neutral and pleasant. I want to add another test that compares the background noise, and yet another test that runs them on a cheap preamp, as well as running the plug-in power microphones on a very cheap preamp. The video indicates the relative gain boosts I applied to each microphone to make them appear roughly equal in loudness.

The recordings were done in a small studio with little acoustic treatment, but using some absorbers around the microphones. A pop filter had been placed between microphone and speaker.

Shown: Firefox audio elements, OpenJDK application with native look-and-feel, VLC