|
Post by chessparov on May 4, 2019 15:13:48 GMT -6
My limited understanding is that a 6 micron condenser capsule, can handle more of a loud SPL source, versus a thinner capsule.
Also would a 6 micron capsule tend to last longer and/or be more durable? Does a 6 micron capsule tend to sound "fuller"? Is a 3 micron "more transparent"?
This sort of thang!
Thanks, Chris
|
|
|
Post by drbill on May 4, 2019 15:59:44 GMT -6
I know when Michael Joly switched from 3 micron to 6 micron on some of his capsules, I liked them significantly better. Not sure if that's a specific comment or a general one. I've always tended to think of thinner capsules as more transparent, but what do I know. Never designed or made a microphone....
|
|
|
Post by popmann on May 4, 2019 17:05:15 GMT -6
My experience has been the thinner skins are just worse sounding. It's not about transparent...or fuller...it's about the SENSITIVTY, often to HF content--which is different than LOUDER HF content. You might want a vocal mic to be bright as the sun but, you DON'T want it popping easier and creating more sibilance and lip smacks and AC blowing noise and such.
I'm open to the idea that a NEW mic design might be made to leverage that sensitivity with some new amp circuit and housing and whatever to good or BETTER ends...but, I don't think you'll find those thin skins on any classic LDC. Thus clones...which seem to make up nearly all the market, shouldn't need it.
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 6, 2019 9:37:30 GMT -6
I used to agonize over these types of things, but I eventually found that if a mic works well on a source, it doesn't really matter what the diaphragm is.. I'm much happier now too.
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on May 6, 2019 10:17:25 GMT -6
From doing too much research on mics, I was also led to believe that a 6 micron capsule was better as well. But, there are some pretty highly regarded mics lately that have 3 micron diaphragms. One being the Vanguard mics. I know a lot of cheap Chinese mics I've run across have 3 micron and sound horrible, so there must be a bit more to it.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on May 6, 2019 11:28:37 GMT -6
From a conversation I once had with Shanarama, 4 microns seems to be ideal. But I'm not an expert and can't speak to 'why' or 'why not'
|
|
|
Post by markfouxman on May 6, 2019 14:38:54 GMT -6
When developing capsule for our TF08 condenser microphone we tried everything between 1 and 6 micron. The 1 and 2 micron felt too fragile and unstable, so we rejected those. In the same conditions (i.e. same backplate dimensions and spacing) we did not detect much sonic differences between 3 and 6 micron. Both had similar output, but the 3 micron seemed a little more transparent and clear, which makes perfect sense. That is, one might think the lighter 3 micron diaphragm would be more sensitive, however, with those thicknesses the diaphragm weight is pretty close to that of air. Moreover, it is not only weight of the Mylar itself, but also the weight of loading air (i.e. the air which surrounds the diaphragm) and stiffness of the air trapped between diaphragm and backplate. The difference is in the resonant modes and damping.
The 3 micron still felt a little fragile and 4 micron felt more stable and did not take as many thermal stabilization cycles (similar with 6 micron). As a good compromise that's what we ended up using.
Best, M
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on May 6, 2019 15:38:52 GMT -6
FWIW the Oktava 219's and 319's punch above their weight, on my voice. My understanding is that they're 5 micron.
Mark, not to be OT too much but... Michael Joly indicated he thought their capsules were U47-ish. Your thoughts?
I do think they sound like "ribbon-ish" LDC's. Thanks, Chris
|
|
|
Post by markfouxman on May 7, 2019 0:33:58 GMT -6
FWIW the Oktava 219's and 319's punch above their weight, on my voice. My understanding is that they're 5 micron. Mark, not to be OT too much but... Michael Joly indicated he thought their capsules were U47-ish. Your thoughts? I do think they sound like "ribbon-ish" LDC's. Thanks, Chris Chris, The 219/319 capsule is pretty unique. It's made out of something what looks like bakelite with metalization. I guess, it was very cheap just to mold that material. It is aperiodic design of K67/87 family, but unlike blind holes it rather has blind groves (you can clearly see them on the back side of the capsule). Also, it has good output and works well without DC to DC converter. When we talk U47 my mind immediately thinks PVC M7 with lighter low end and a bit more mid forward. The Oktava on the other hand has a good low end extension and fairly rolled off top, esp. with resonators removed. I do agree in that respect they are rather 'ribbon-ish' LDC's. If there is a chemistry on the right source it can be a very useful microphone. Best, M
|
|
|
Post by tskguy on May 7, 2019 6:43:14 GMT -6
Hey all,
I personally feel that the thinner stuff 1-3 micron just doesn't hold up well long term.. I pretty much echo all of the same experience as Mark regarding the super thin type. Especially regarding the thermal cycles. I honestly haven't tried the 4 micron stuff.. Im sure its a very nice compromise!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,921
|
Post by ericn on May 7, 2019 7:30:26 GMT -6
Like so many things, there’s no right answer here it comes down to how the builder uses it in their manufacturing, their sonic priorities and QC. Personally I don’t care how you build it, just build me the best you can than tell me how you did it!
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 7, 2019 7:56:27 GMT -6
How many microns were the vintage U47’s and 67’s, and 87’s?
Whatever that is works for me 🙂
I had a U87 made in 1980 for a long time, there were zero issues, it was simply perfect. I assume that would be the same as a 67 capsule?
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on May 7, 2019 8:41:46 GMT -6
Thanks so much Mark. IMHO those 219's and 319's are an excellent match on me. What you said (of course!) makes a lot of sense. Chris
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on May 7, 2019 8:49:58 GMT -6
BTW Mark, when I think of TF08, I think of the "T" in it as... Transparent.
Why it's even more neutral than Switzerland! Chris
|
|
|
Post by markfouxman on May 7, 2019 23:42:56 GMT -6
How many microns were the vintage U47’s and 67’s, and 87’s? Whatever that is works for me 🙂 I had a U87 made in 1980 for a long time, there were zero issues, it was simply perfect. I assume that would be the same as a 67 capsule? Martin, The U47's M7 was 9 micron PVC, which unfortunately, dried with time, became much less compliant, and developed cracks. Obviously, all the capsules from 50's at this point lost their original sound. Later Neumann changed it to K47/49 types, which were skinned with PET (read Mylar). One of the reasons they could not install PET into the M7's was at that time there were no adhesives, which could comfortably adhere to PET, so they were forced to make a ring clamping system, which was more secure. While the internal geometry (backplate and spacing) with K47/49 was the same, obviously the overall OD diameter was different (which acoustically is quite important), so at this point it is really hard to tell what contributes into M7-K47/49 sonic differences--physical size, or changing material and thickness. Both K67/87 used PET, which unlike PVC doesn't age. If stabilized properly (which Neumann surely did) and not abused PET can last life long. The only problem is PET's hygroscopic nature, so drying it every ones in awhile is a must. If treated properly there is no reason it would fail. BTW Mark, when I think of TF08, I think of the "T" in it as... Transparent. Why it's even more neutral than Switzerland! Chris Thanks Chris, The answer (even though it did not sound as a question))) is not the diaphragm thickness, but its great off axis phase integrity, which BTW, is one of the reasons why frequency response graphs tell so little about microphone sonics and tonal balance--the off axis is by far dominates the sound. I am sure a lot of times so many engineers would get a good on axis close up, but with a little distance and/or when room comes into play things would go way South and the mic just loses its "reach". That's something what usually doesn't happen to ribbons. Blame it on off axis--that's where ribbons due to their narrow physical width are phenomenal and so natural. Needless to say, one of the main indications of a good phase integrity is the ability of a mic to take EQ well. Best, M
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on May 8, 2019 2:05:38 GMT -6
Thanks! Chris
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on May 8, 2019 2:40:52 GMT -6
I have tried thinner films and didn't find any advantage. Changes required to tuning frequency of the membrane and dampning to prevent collapse along with trying to achieve proper frequency response negated all the hoped for increase in sensitivity. David Josephson and I have discussed this before and he had the same experience. Mark I haven't tried 4 micron but I do mostly classic designs so the change isn't something my customers look for.
My experience repairing Stephen Paul's work has also reinforced that these thinner films are more fragile and so don't hold up over time.
|
|
|
Post by tskguy on May 8, 2019 7:40:05 GMT -6
I have tried thinner films and didn't find any advantage. Changes required to tuning frequency of the membrane and dampning to prevent collapse along with trying to achieve proper frequency response negated all the hoped for increase in sensitivity. David Josephson and I have discussed this before and he had the same experience. Mark I haven't tried 4 micron but I do mostly classic designs so the change isn't something my customers look for. My experience repairing Stephen Paul's work has also reinforced that these thinner films are more fragile and so don't hold up over time. All of this YES!!
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on May 8, 2019 12:23:20 GMT -6
Somewhat of a parallel discussion going on at GS/High End, on a thread regarding Tim's CT12. Partly regarding this topic, also talking about Stephen Paul's work.
As expected, Klaus' comments are very thought provoking... Chris
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on May 8, 2019 12:54:07 GMT -6
Interesting read.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on May 8, 2019 13:14:24 GMT -6
Doing some research, I found that Stephen Paul's capsules, could be as thin as .7 micron! But evidently, he had a program for the modded mic to be sent in periodically for inspection. Chris
|
|
|
Post by timcampbell on May 8, 2019 13:38:52 GMT -6
I knew Stephen and had many long, interesting discussions with him. At one point he wanted me to work for him. At the end of his life he was not the same person because of his debilitating illness.
|
|
|
Post by markfouxman on May 8, 2019 14:22:33 GMT -6
Indeed, Tim! The general consensus in that thread is bashing 3µ. While the stability point is very valid (although with correct treatment 3µ can work just fine) the main point is missing--the capsule needs to be developed, engineered, and voiced for that thickness as a system. IOW, if something was engineered and meant to work with 6µ, then it would be not exactly correct to draw conclusions and 'fault' 3µ for not working well enough in that place. Best, M
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,921
|
Post by ericn on May 8, 2019 15:59:06 GMT -6
Indeed, Tim! The general consensus in that thread is bashing 3µ. While the stability point is very valid (although with correct treatment 3µ can work just fine) the main point is missing--the capsule needs to be developed, engineered, and voiced for that thickness as a system. IOW, if something was engineered and meant to work with 6µ, then it would be not exactly correct to draw conclusions and 'fault' 3µ for not working well enough in that place. Best, M Nailed it!
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on May 8, 2019 17:49:05 GMT -6
As I just mentioned "over there"...
My understanding is that the Lawson capsules are 3 micron, and seem to be very reliable. Chris
|
|