Why are mics so expensive?

[mshilarious]

These quotes have been taken out of context. I have been working in electronics manufacturing/design in the testing field for over 20 years. The process is quite complex and products like CPUs and computor motherboards are manufactured almost 100% by machines. Easy to make a "run" of 1000s and have a yield of 99% good.

No, I don't believe the tenor of my response was to take the quotes out of context. Indeed, unless you have built capsules, irrespective of your other relevant experience, you have "no clue". Do you believe that? I don't either.

. . . because both of us have read plenty about how capsules are made, and we can relate that to our other experience.

I also continue to object to this statement:

typically find no reason to participate in the discussions.

On the contrary, those who have participated in the discussion, such as Klaus Heyne or our own big thread author, Harvey Gerst, have found ample reason to participate, and we have all benefitted from their experience.

No one is required to participate, but please, do not belittle those who want to share knowledge. If nothing else, a bulletin board of microphone enthusiasts is prime territory for potential customers. How could it possibly not benefit a manufacturer to explain the finer points of their production? Nevermind the advancement of mankind, it makes simple economic sense.

And these factors are not unique to the production of microphone capsules. Winemakers love to describe their trade as an art too. And yet I have personally been to many, many seminars, events, etc., where the details of oenology and viticulture are freely discussed, and the basics happily explained to neophytes. The industry benefits, the consumer benefits. Where is the downside?

Here is my summary of this thread:

Q. Why are high-end microphones expensive?

A. Because the capsules are hard to make.

DJ: You guys don't have a clue. It's because the capsules are hard to make.

 

[apl]

Q. Why are high-end microphones expensive?

A. Because the capsules are hard to make.

DJ: You guys don't have a clue. It's because the capsules are hard to make.

Once again proving that you, sir, are one of the smartest people I know.

 

[mshilarious]

Once again proving that you, sir, are one of the smartest people I know.

Hey, I don't mean to be mean to Mr. Josephson. I don't know him, he didn't post here directly. He is not here to explain that comment.

However, I do think the sentiment expressed falls short of "best post ever". That's all. Sorry for the rant. I did warn it was a screed! I am back on the meds now!

 

[dgatwood]

Mic capsule cannot be done by machines. The people build the capsules and there is as much "art" in it as audio recording.

See, the very premise here is wrong. Anything that can be done by hand can provably be done by a machine. Therefore, mic capsule manufacturing can be AND IS done by machines.

Most of the milling, etc. even in large diaphragm Chinese condensers is done entirely by machine. Only the assembly of the final parts is hand-done, and even then, only because the economies of scale for large diaphragm condensers make it cheaper to hire sweatshop labor than to tool up a machine to do the assembly for you. (Of course, one could reasonably argue that if you did build the machine, you could then crank them out with such high consistency and in such high quantities that you could lower the price and sell much higher volume....)

I can almost guarantee that PC board mount capsules like the one in the MSH-1O are entirely build by machine. I'd be shocked if there was a human involved in any stage of the process except perhaps screwing wires to parts of the capsule, and maybe not even then. The quantities involved for those parts are beyond what even Chinese sweatshops can crank out by hand.

 

[dgatwood]

And then he goes on to completely refute that point by clearly explaining the difficulties in the process--which, by the way, do not seem to greatly differ in magnitude (for example, the manufacturer that had to recall an entire model's production, vs. the 80% rejection rate mentioned above) from what had been posted in the thread.

Heh. I think that a lot of his points were remarkably close to what I said on the subject, albeit worded differently:

What I said:

So if capsules really have only a 20% yield, either their design has flaws that lead to a ludicrously high failure rate or their process sucks horribly.

What I meant:

So if capsules really have only a 20% yield, either their design has flaws (e.g. requiring impossibly tight tolerances) that lead to a ludicrously high failure rate or their process sucks horribly.

Classic example in silicon is putting two circuit traces so close together that there is leakage due to imperfections in the silicon walls, etc. In such a case, you have to do one of the following:

A. Revert your last die shrink,
B. Redesign the part so the problem traces are not so close together, or
C. Improve your fab process and/or silicon quality so that it isn't a problem.

I've actually heard of real-world cases where a chip die was taken from one fab plant and set up in another fab plant and resulted in significantly better yield, so you must not underestimate the potential of C.

Cheap mic manufacturers tend to do B. Good mic makers are more likely to do C where possible, and only fall back on B if C isn't possible.


What he said:

A capsule is designed based on the knowledge that certain tolerances can be achieved in production. The first difference is that when you know tolerances are loose, you can't specify dimensions in the design that must be held to close tolerances. Some dimensions in the Series Seven capsule must be held within a ten-thousandth of an inch; if you can only get to a thousandth, you can't make that part, so you're constrained to designs that don't require such tolerances.

...one of our techs can set out the parts to make 20 capsules and come up in a few weeks with exactly 20 capsules which are all the same....

So basically, he confirmed what I already said: at a fundamental level, microphone manufacturing has the same classes of problems (albeit with vastly different details) as any other manufacturing process. Either your process is precise enough to fabricate parts with the tolerances needed or it isn't, and if it isn't, you'll have a high reject rate.

The biggest difference, then, between the crap manufacturers and the good ones (or at least the good ones with high reject rates) are whether the rejects reach the customers or not. In both cases, however, the consumer is paying a high price (either in terms of literal dollars or in terms of potentially diminished quality) for the lack of quality control during manufacturing.

And it sounds like this particular company worked out most of their manufacturing quality control problems long ago. So which expensive mic manufacturer has an 80% reject rate again?

 

[PhilGood]

See, the very premise here is wrong. Anything that can be done by hand can provably be done by a machine. Therefore, mic capsule manufacturing can be AND IS done by machines.

Most of the milling, etc. even in large diaphragm Chinese condensers is done entirely by machine. Only the assembly of the final parts is hand-done, and even then, only because the economies of scale for large diaphragm condensers make it cheaper to hire sweatshop labor than to tool up a machine to do the assembly for you. (Of course, one could reasonably argue that if you did build the machine, you could then crank them out with such high consistency and in such high quantities that you could lower the price and sell much higher volume....)

I can almost guarantee that PC board mount capsules like the one in the MSH-1O are entirely build by machine. I'd be shocked if there was a human involved in any stage of the process except perhaps screwing wires to parts of the capsule, and maybe not even then. The quantities involved for those parts are beyond what even Chinese sweatshops can crank out by hand.

The machining of the brass can be done by hand, but not tuning the diaphragm. That is an art of itself and I for one would not trust a machine to do it. Tensioning the mylar of PVC is too critical to the sound of a mike to entrust to a machine. If a machine did it, I wouldn't buy it!

'nuff said!

 

[dgatwood]

The machining of the brass can be done by hand, but not tuning the diaphragm. That is an art of itself and I for one would not trust a machine to do it. Tensioning the mylar of PVC is too critical to the sound of a mike to entrust to a machine. If a machine did it, I wouldn't buy it!

I would much prefer to trust a machine for that sort of thing. A machine can measure the deflection of the capsule at a large number of points using laser interferometry, then calculate the optimal adjustment for tension at every point to get the most ideal tension possible.

A computer could make near-microscopic adjustments to precision tune the tension with an accuracy that would be nearly impossible for a human to achieve, and in a fraction of the time that it would take for a human to do it.

Indeed, the main reason microphones vary so much in quality is precisely because this is the sort of thing that should be done by machines designed for precision measurement rather than by humans who are more likely to make mistakes.

The right place for this sort of hand work is in the design of a capsule, not in production of a capsule. The very notion of doing this stuff by hand is absurd.

 

[CoolCat]

i was at the Fender museum in Fullerton CA, they talked about this manufacturing by hand issue. Consistency was poor in the early days (all built by hand).

at the DLP factory I worked, the operators would watch screens to check for quality and defects by eye. 12 hrs a shift in a dark room..looking at test patterns! yeah, right....a human can do this
of course as the numbers ramped, the machines could do this Quality Control better.

i think the human final QC is important at the end of line. but this is a cost issue, so thats why boutique stuff is rarely defective out of the box, and cheap stuff is a great deal if you "get a good one".

interesting issue though, imo.
older is not always better, and newer isn't always improved I guess.

 

[mshilarious]

I can almost guarantee that PC board mount capsules like the one in the MSH-1O are entirely build by machine. I'd be shocked if there was a human involved in any stage of the process except perhaps screwing wires to parts of the capsule, and maybe not even then.

No question. In fact there are no screws or wires inside at all. Inside the metal can is a diaphragm (grounded to the can), a spacer, and the backplate attached to a plastic buffer. The PC board you see on the back only has a single FET attached to it, the gate pin reaches up through the plastic piece to touch the backplate--physical connection only, no solder there. The other two pins go through the PC board to the terminals you see.

 

[xstatic]

Personally I did not take either of the two comments to be so harsh. Infact, I generally found them to be pretty true, like it or not.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

i was at the Fender museum in Fullerton CA, they talked about this manufacturing by hand issue. Consistency was poor in the early days (all built by hand).

I worked at Fender during those days and the problem went way beyond just hand making those units. The employees were paid piece work; the more products you turned out, the more you were paid. Not a good recipe for quality.

There was no incentive to make it good, but a lot of incentive to make it fast.

 

[sdelsolray]

I would much prefer to trust a machine for that sort of thing. A machine can measure the deflection of the capsule at a large number of points using laser interferometry, then calculate the optimal adjustment for tension at every point to get the most ideal tension possible.

A computer could make near-microscopic adjustments to precision tune the tension with an accuracy that would be nearly impossible for a human to achieve, and in a fraction of the time that it would take for a human to do it.

Indeed, the main reason microphones vary so much in quality is precisely because this is the sort of thing that should be done by machines designed for precision measurement rather than by humans who are more likely to make mistakes.

The right place for this sort of hand work is in the design of a capsule, not in production of a capsule. The very notion of doing this stuff by hand is absurd.

In your dreams. If it were that simple, you would see numerous clones of Schoeps, DPA, Microtech Gefell and other high end mics, all of which would sound exactly the same as the originals. You don't see such products.

I'm not sure what was involved with the manufacture of the Schoeps and Gefell mics that I own and use, other than knowing there's a fair about of highly skilled human labor involved. I can tell you they sound magnificent.

I think they are made by Elves.

 

[CoolCat]

I worked at Fender during those days and the problem went way beyond just hand making those units. The employees were paid piece work; the more products you turned out, the more you were paid. Not a good recipe for quality.

There was no incentive to make it good, but a lot of incentive to make it fast.

wow, thats frkn wild you were there!
it's a great little museum for the gearheads and the town is small enough its easy to drive and see the various buildings such as the brick shop and that kind of stuff.

never made it over to Corona. wow...thats a trip you worked there. I get the impression no one that worked the factory knew it would be such a famous icon product?

yeah, I agree on paying for piece parts isn't good. bonuses for mangers to meet schedule is not good either (they tend to stretch the truth to get the bonus)....

unfortunately, outsourcing is done this way most the time. they get paid on quantity out the door/ships so the main hub has to really watch the Foundry close.
if its not a reputable foundry many things can be done to lower the quality..one being not monitoring the quality, the other is using cheap materials to increase their own profit.


Non Quality Controlled Manufacturing....

I read Pioneer Audio is going back to a solo type shop. and others are following this trend too.

To have a store that only sells PIONEER AUDIO and Products with intelligent sales staff etc...

Pioneer felt their not getting their name brand across at the WalMart super 12 mile long stores....with 5000 choices and mail in rebates for one example.


I thought the idea's refreshing.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

wow, thats freakin wild you were there!
it's a great little museum for the gearheads and the town is small enough its easy to drive and see the various buildings such as the brick shop and that kind of stuff.

Haven't seen the museum.

We were in 6 Quanset huts, as I recall. The first two huts made guitars; the third was Freddy Tavris' R&D hut (where I'd spend most of my lunch times), the fourth and fifth huts were for amps, and the sixth hut (across the railroad tracks, behind the other five) was where I worked with Harold on the Rhodes keyboards.

 

[superspit]

Haven't seen the museum.

We were in 6 Quanset huts, as I recall. The first two huts made guitars; the third was Freddy Tavris' R&D hut (where I'd spend most of my lunch times), the fourth and fifth huts were for amps, and the sixth hut (across the railroad tracks, behind the other five) was where I worked with Harold on the Rhodes keyboards.

wow!!! This is soooooo cool!!!
Wish I could learn more about how things worked back there/then.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

The music industry was a whole lot smaller back then and home studios were few and far between. Everybody pretty much knew everybody else and it was a lot friendlier.

One time, we ran out of RCA output transistors at Acoustic Control, and Bud Ross (of Kustom) sold us some of his - for less than we were paying from RCA!!

While I was at JBL, Semie Mosley (of Mosrite) needed some JBL speakers to get a production run finished, but he was on COD ONLY with JBL. I "accidentally" wrote up the order as "NET 30", and it went thru, saving his ass.

When I had KIK boxes, Michael Liacona (at Whirlwind) sold me the basic box I used - for less than I could buy them from the manufacturer, since he bought them in far bigger quantities than I did.

I was talking to "Gar" Gillies (he designed the Garnet amplifiers) at a NAMM show about the Guess Who's "American Woman" and how much I loved the "Herzog" that Randy Bachman used on that song. A few weeks later, one showed up on my doorstep.

It was a far smaller industry and we kinda looked out for each other, maintaining a "friendly" rivalry, but still respecting each other, and helping each other stay in business.

It was a very different time.

 

[flatfinger]

Wow, That looks SO easy to make with robots !!!!!


I guess that must be how the chineese are doing it , massive cheap labor!! $4.50 for a 12 hour shift, if you complain, well you know, tank time.


The best tools are useless in unskilled hands

 

[dgatwood]

In your dreams. If it were that simple, you would see numerous clones of Schoeps, DPA, Microtech Gefell and other high end mics, all of which would sound exactly the same as the originals. You don't see such products.

You don't see it, but it's not for the reasons you think. It's very hard to gold sputter a diaphragm in the thicknesses needed. Gefell uses a 0.1 micron thick layer of gold. I'm told that many cheaper capsules have 1 micron of gold or more. That's one big problem with cheap capsules, and is the reason that, for example, Peluso capsules are built in China, but sputtered elsewhere.

Second, while you can fab parts that are remarkably close to an existing part, the tolerances for an "exact" match are fantastically small, so cloning a part is exceedingly difficult---doubly so if you're trying to do it on the cheap---and if you're not trying to do it on the cheap, you're likely to want your capsule to have a bit of its own sound anyway rather than being a perfect clone of someone else's capsule.

Third, while you could build a machine to optimize the tension of mylar, AFAIK, it has never been done. It is conceptually very simple, but the precision involved (due to the small scale of the parts) would make the manufacturing equipment quite expensive to build if you want to get the same quality as a good capsule. The question then becomes whether it would be cost effective to use a machine. In the quantities that boutique mic manufacturers build, the answer is almost definitely no.

There is no technical reason why a human must be involved, though. Any measurement that can be performed by a human can be performed by a machine, and the notion of "intuition" is what we in computers refer to as "expert systems". Look into it before you go trying to BS me about what is and isn't possible.

 

[mshilarious]

It was a far smaller industry and we kinda looked out for each other, maintaining a "friendly" rivalry, but still respecting each other, and helping each other stay in business.

Well Harvey, you helped me get in business, and I appreciate it! Thanks again, and Merry Christmas


And as far as humans vs. machines, well really no microphone is built by hand. My shop is about as primitive as it gets, but even I can't build mics without a soldering iron, pliers, and clippers. So it's just a matter of how expensive the tools get, and how many units are built.

As hard as building a capsule might be, I still maintain it's easier than, say, building your own transistors. Of course that is absurd, because they are so cheap who would try?

But if ***** called up Panasonic tomorrow and said, we've decided big is the new small, and we need 10 million top quality large diaphragm mic capsules for our new cell phones, how long do you think it would take Pana to match Gefell? Given that they would be willing to throw $300 million at the problem?

 

[Han]

I'm waiting for a $50 microphone (Behringer?) that sounds like a Neumann U47.

It's just a matter of time, a very very very long time I guess.