Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46

Thread: Small vs Large condenser for instrumental acoustic guitar

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    40
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Sign in to disable this ad
    Quote Originally Posted by TalismanRich View Post

    How is it that the Chinese supposedly can't make a capsule that's any good (they are GREAT at imitating known products) but a guy in a metal building in the mountains of Virginia can make a capsule as good as Neumann? It doesn't make sense.

    With the right machinery, you can build things to incredible tolerances. Folks like 797Audio have the machinery. Rode has the machinery. Reverse engineering a mic capsule should be childs play compared to some of the things that are out there. There's no magic or mystery to it. Mylar is a standard material, gold sputtering is well known, teflon, brass. These are standard materials that anyone can buy. Stick the parts under a laser and have the CNC machine crank them out to .001mm tolerance. Yeah, it's precision work but no more than building a 14nm microprocessor with millions of transistors that's the size of a postage stamp.
    True that, but the issue is, that said microprocessor was insanely expensive to develop, but the fact that they could produce and sell 200 million units afterwards, drastically decreased the cost per unit. There will not be a lot of 1.2" microphone capsules produced - since nobody needs a lot of those. It's a real issue in the high end manufactures, that need specifically inductors, resistors and whatnot, but the only way to keep production cost low, is to buy 100.000 units - and if you're Leif Masses (of Maselec Electronics) you probably need something like 120 of these components per year, and it is just not cost-effective to do this. And if you want custom made quality components in smaller quantities they will be expensive. As is the assembling and testing, if you want a failure percentage below 1%. It might be possible to build a Maselec MEA2 in a chinese factory, but the Behringer SMT-component version will not sound as pristine as the Maselec - and it will last a tenth of the time. Quality costs. Deal with it. No freaking way I will spend five minutes in my studio with myself or a client being bothered about equipment that does not work properly. That, and IT-issues, is the worst creativity killer on the planet. If I had to live with that I'd switch to become a carpenter or a blacksmith instead.

    Chinese factories build to a price point. Neumann (since you mentioned them) build to a quality point.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Derby City
    Posts
    1,386
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 241 Times in 221 Posts
    Rep Power
    1075863
    I can't agree with the idea that there aren't a lot of mic capsules sold. In addition, I wasn't talking about surface mount components.

    Look at the inside of a U87, there are a handful of very common components. The only custom component is the capsule, and even that is made of basic components. Machined brass, gold sputtered mylar film, plastic spacers, machine screws. The headbasket is a wire mesh component.

    There's nothing unique or proprietary .Quite the contrary, everything can be measured, from the component values and physical dimensions to the actual circuit. It's something that could easily be built and sold for 1/4 the price of a Neumann model. Having worked with Chinese factories, I know that if you give them a target, they'll meet it. They were just as capable as the Germans, Japanese or Koreans at making products. A CNC machine works the same in Beijing or Sydney as it does in Berlin or Willis.

    Granted, if you just want them to provide a cheap copy of something that looks like a high end product, someone has it. I'm not talking about knock off Chibson guitars for $100. I'm talking about actually engineering and building a quality component such as companies like Eastman do in the guitar market. They are quality products, although their designs are not necessarily direct knock-offs or exact copies of other products, they play and sound just about the same as their target designs.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    860
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 22 Times in 22 Posts
    Rep Power
    334285
    When they make the disc's, the manufacture process causes differences in nanodentation. Heat distortion differences are magnified at a nano level. It is hard to achieve a particular repeated spec. So they make a large quantity and take the best ones.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ranelagh Tasmania
    Age
    70
    Posts
    8,827
    Thanks
    255
    Thanked 822 Times in 684 Posts
    Rep Power
    21474860
    Quote Originally Posted by LazerBeakShiek View Post
    When they make the disc's, the manufacture process causes differences in nanodentation. Heat distortion differences are magnified at a nano level. It is hard to achieve a particular repeated spec. So they make a large quantity and take the best ones.
    That sounded interesting, but I couldn't find any more info on it. Do you have a reference to this somewhere that I can look at? Also, I'm trying to figure out how they would work out which were the best ones to keep.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    860
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 22 Times in 22 Posts
    Rep Power
    334285
    Measuring nano and pico levels of indentation?

    measure , s a m p l e {\displaystyle E_{sample}} {\displaystyle E_{sample}} in the Pa range, “pico-indentation” using an optical tweezers system is suitable. Here, a laser beam is used to trap a translucent bead which is then brought into contact with the soft sample so as to indent it.[22] The trap stiffness ( k m a c h i n e {\displaystyle k_{machine}} {\displaystyle k_{machine}}) depends on the laser power and bead material, and a typical value is ~50 pN/μm. The probe size a {\displaystyle a} a can be a micron or so. Then the optical trap can measure E s a m p l e {\displaystyle E_{sample}} {\displaystyle E_{sample}} (≈ k m a c h i n e {\displaystyle k_{machine}} {\displaystyle k_{machine}}/ a {\displaystyle a} a)in the Pa range.

    Looks like a lazer!

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ranelagh Tasmania
    Age
    70
    Posts
    8,827
    Thanks
    255
    Thanked 822 Times in 684 Posts
    Rep Power
    21474860
    Quote Originally Posted by LazerBeakShiek View Post
    measure , s a m p l e {\displaystyle E_{sample}} {\displaystyle E_{sample}} in the Pa range, “pico-indentation” using an optical tweezers system is suitable. Here, a laser beam is used to trap a translucent bead which is then brought into contact with the soft sample so as to indent it.[22] The trap stiffness ( k m a c h i n e {\displaystyle k_{machine}} {\displaystyle k_{machine}}) depends on the laser power and bead material, and a typical value is ~50 pN/μm. The probe size a {\displaystyle a} a can be a micron or so. Then the optical trap can measure E s a m p l e {\displaystyle E_{sample}} {\displaystyle E_{sample}} (≈ k m a c h i n e {\displaystyle k_{machine}} {\displaystyle k_{machine}}/ a {\displaystyle a} a)in the Pa range.

    Looks like a lazer!
    lol

    That's one of the more lucid explanations of something I've come across.

    What about a reference to manufacturing causing differences in nanoindentation?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    860
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 22 Times in 22 Posts
    Rep Power
    334285
    Thats is a search on measuring nano dentation. I copied the part that said the device used .

    I would not understand any of that. Or argue it effectively.

    It is possible nano dentation and nano intedentation are measured differently. I just don't have the data.

    Manufacturing methods of the said items are probably proprietary secrets and the information would not be available.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    860
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 22 Times in 22 Posts
    Rep Power
    334285
    I think we lost Steve.

    Dude it sounds pretty nice. You told us the microphones you used. It sounded like you wanted to tell us about it.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Derby City
    Posts
    1,386
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 241 Times in 221 Posts
    Rep Power
    1075863
    There are several types of indentation measuring devices. Here's a paper about nanoindentation. ... and Neumann has been using this technology for how long?

    BTW, if you want to see how a U87 is built:


  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Derby City
    Posts
    1,386
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 241 Times in 221 Posts
    Rep Power
    1075863
    And if you want to know how they do the capsules:


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. small and large diaphragm condenser placement
    By sureimshure in forum Microphones
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-12-2012, 11:46
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-13-2007, 01:37
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-13-2004, 05:09
  4. large vs small diaphragm condenser question
    By lclyman in forum Microphones
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-06-2002, 22:11
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-21-2000, 20:05

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •