Skip to main content

HyperX QuadCast vs. Blue Yeti: Which mic is right for you?

HyperX QuadCast
HyperX QuadCast (Image credit: Rich Edmonds / Windows Central)

All the necessary jargon data that you'd usually parse to see which microphone is better on paper is almost identical, which makes the price and available features the deciding factors. The latter area lands in the favor of the QuadCast, thanks to the pre-installed shock mount to prevent the microphone from picking up knocks or vibrations. This is as important as a pop filter, which is also is pre-installed within the outer chassis.

HyperX, being primarily focused on PC gaming hardware, even added some RGB lighting, making the microphone glow red when it's not muted and recording audio. Where it counts, the Yeti holds up on its own and performs just as well as the QuadCast for actual recordings, once you've played around with system sound settings to reduce white noise and amplify your own voice.

Fighting against shocks and pops

Having both of these features, which the Blue Yeti omits, means you're ready to go with everything you need for recording audio as soon as you've unboxed it. The shock mount is used to help mitigate any vibrations that are passed through the stand or mount to the microphone, while the pop filter shields against the "popping" sound from your voice.

The Blue Yeti may require you to purchase an aftermarket shock mount and pop filter should you require them at a later date, and even then you'll need to make sure the mount can fit the Yeti since it's thicker than most microphones at this price. You're looking at around $20 for a Yeti-compatible shock mount (opens in new tab) and $13 for a pop filter cover (opens in new tab). These bring the total to $133, just shy of the QuadCast price.

Sound-wise, both microphones pick up audio very well, considering the price. While the $40 is a lot to ask for those on tighter budgets, especially when the two microphones are similar in specs, the QuadCast is well worth it for the peace of mind that you're getting all the basics included. Want to save a little? Go with the Yeti.

Battle of the specs

For performance, where the numbers are important for audio quality and actual recording, both microphones are real close. If you're on a tighter budget and don't particularly mind using a shock mount (or have one that fits the Yeti) the Blue Yeti is an excellent buy. If your budget can stretch to the HyperX QuadCast, it's well worth considering because of everything that's included.

HyperX QuadCastBlue Yeti
Frequency response20Hz to 20kHz20Hz to 20kHz
Power5V 125mA5V 150mA
Condensers3x 14mm3x 14mm
Polar patternsStereo
Omnidirectional
Cardioid
Bidirectional
Stereo
Omnidirectional
Cardioid
Bidirectional
PortsMicro-USB
3.5mm jack
Micro-USB
3.5mm jack
Sensitivity1V/Pa at 1kHz4.5mV/Pa 1kHz

The above table may look a little confusing, but all you really need to know from it is the Yeti and QuadCast are similar microphones. Both have three 14mm condensers for picking up audio, support four polar patterns (how sound is recorded from different directions), have identical ports and frequency response. Regardless of which one you choose, you'll be pleased with the recording.

Polar patterns are important when selecting a microphone as this depicts where microphone will record sound within its immediate sphere. Since both the Yeti and QuadCast allow you to switch between different patterns, you'll be able to choose how you want the microphone to pick up the sound, whether you want it to record from all its surroundings or just focus solely on your voice at the front.

Everything you need

Going with the QuadCast from HyperX allows you to get a stream or podcast up and running without having to purchase additional equipment. All you'd need is a decent pair of headphones and you have a quality audio setup.

For those on tighter budgets

Blue Yeti is here for those who don't mind in getting slightly less. You will save money, but have to pick up an aftermarket pop filter and shock mount should you require them at a later date. The microphone is as good as the QuadCast on paper, though it's a little on the thick side.

Rich Edmonds
Rich Edmonds

Rich Edmonds is Senior Editor of PC hardware at Windows Central, covering everything related to PC components and NAS. He's been involved in technology for more than a decade and knows a thing or two about the magic inside a PC chassis. You can follow him over on Twitter at @RichEdmonds.