chessrock said:
But you say that micron thickness is a relatively irrelevent feature . . . yet you seem to be one of the bigger Stephen Paul supporters on this (and other) forums.
And from what little I have gathered, Mr. Paul seems to think that the thickness of a diaphragm is very relevent, and has almost made a career stressing it's importance, etc. etc.
Why don't you believe diaphragm thickness to be very important?
From my limited knowlege, it would seem that thickness of diaphragm would play a very large role in how it responds to transients -- perhaps Dot feels this, in some way, makes having a thinner diaphragm a useful feature when dealing with percussive instruments. I think Dot's also been known to express his displeasure with small diaphragm condensers on drums in the past for various other reasons . . . so perhaps that would be your explanati on -- that he thinks a good starter mic locker would include something that could be useful as overheads.
Reason I'm saying this is I don't think Dot's being bought out by Studio Projects . . . any more than he is by ADK, A-Designs or anyone else who's shipping him "loaner" gear to use on his Listening Sessions or to give away as prizes on his bbs. 
chessrock;
your question is a good one and a fair one, and speaks exactly to part of the point i was trying to make.
you are correct that i am an admirer of stephen paul's innovations. but stephen would also be the very first to tell you that as an isolated spec, 3 microns means very little. it is only when evaluating the entire design and implementation that it has any value.
for example, a company might brag about making a 3 micron condenser mic. but maybe it is a nickel diaphragm, not mylar. maybe it's only 3/4" diaphragm, not one inch. maybe the design of the housing is acoustically inferior, maybe it uses cheap electronics, maybe the quality control is bad and every mic sounds completely different.
the point is, making a three micron mic is no guarantee it will sound good. i'm sure if i gave you the choice of a well-maintained vintage AKG c12 or a brand new shiny 3 micron (insert your favorite Chinese mic here), i bet i can guess which one you would opt for. In spite of the fact that the c12 has a much thicker diaphragm. As do many other mics considered to be highly desireable and studio standards.
Yes, stephen was the first to do less than six microns. and his current technology allows him to make sub-micron diaphragms! But ultimately what is equally important is his implementation: quality of manufacturing techniques, durability of his product, integration of the capsule design with his custom electronics, and most of all - the sound.
Getting back to DOT's article, all i was trying to say is that recommending a three micron mic is like arranging a blind date with a woman and all you know is that she has a 36" bust. That could be a very shapely woman if she is 36-24-36. But if she's 36-38-40, you might not find the 36" on it's own to make much difference.
finally, i am in complete agreement with you that i
don't think DOT is a paid stooge for anyone, which is why i tried to distance myself from DJL's remarks. i just think, in this case, he had an editorial lapse in his writing.
