Harvey, clarification please.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Middleman
  • Start date Start date
Middleman

Middleman

Professional Amateur
Harvey, in the "Under the Hood" thread you stated the following, "The back diaphragm has no electrical function - it's just there to allow some of the sound from the back side in thru those little capellary holes in the back plate, and seal it from dirt and dust particles getting in there. Good mic designers normally tune the back diaphragm a little to help flatten the response. It may just be that glueing the diaphragm in place was all that's necessary"

Can you elaborate on how they tune the diaphram? Is it just a tension thing? Does it involve front-side back-side tension ratios? Just curious.
 
Last edited:
This is where I pull the "Why ask me?" bit, but we're really getting into areas that Brent Casey or Stephen Paul should be answering this question, not me. I have a fairly good understanding of how large diaphragm mics work on a "more than a lot of people know" scale, but I've never designed an LD mic, and at my age, I wouldn't even try without someone like Stephen Paul looking over my shoulder (even with him laughing at my efforts).

Here's what I "think I know", and it may help (and it may also be wrong, too), but it's gonna be in really simple form:

A diaphragm connected to a solid backplate with a small spacer between them, would be a pure pressure device that reacts strictly to pressure changes, in other words, an omni. They usually add a very pressure relief hole as a vent. (I threw that in because someone will correct me if I don't mention it.)

Now, with a solid plate close to the diaphragm, the pressure is still pretty high, so we need to add a little more volume behind the diaphragm, so it can move a little more freely, but how to do it so you don't lose output is the question. If you put in a thicker spacer, the output will go down. Ahh, make the backplate thick and drill some holes PARTway thru the plate. That way the plate is still close and the holes increase the volume of space between the diaphragm and the trapped air behind it.

Ok, we want a cardioid pattern outta this whole mess, so how do we get it? WEll, we know (from reading the big thread), that a cardioid pattern is just an equal (50/50) mixture of omni and figure 8. A figure 8 pattern is also know as bi-directional or pure pressure gradiant, since it reacts to velocity, not pressure.

Well, we've got our omni done, so we're 1/2 way there.

We know a figure 8 is simply a diaphragm that is exposed to sound on both sides and responds to velocity (air MOTION, not air PRESSURE), but how do we get the sound right if it's coming from behind the mic? We need to get air MOTION from behind the mic to affect the diaphragm. So, how the hell do we make the other half of this mic a figure 8?

Hey, if we drill just the right number and size of holes all the way thru the backplate, we can get the mic to react like a pressure gradiant and an omni in a nice 50/50 mix, and we have....

....a cardioid pattern. Ta DAAA!!!

Now, since this is really an electrostatic device, we don't want to get a lot of dust coming in thru those holes we just made in the backplate, so maybe a cover over them which can move? Hmmm, a second diaphragm, but not connected to anything electrically.

Now this back diaphragm is a lot like any front diaphragm, it has some mass and it moves, so it resonates, and that can be used for damping some frequencies or boosting other frequencies, depending on how it's tensioned and fastened.

And that's what "I think I know" about that subject.
 
Last edited:
Sounds reasonable. Thought it might be the tension thing but was not sure.

I was talking to one of Neumann’s engineers today and he was talking about the properties of PVC, the early material of diaphragm mics. I was amazed that PVC was around in the 1930s and 40s. Later all mics went to mylar according to him. I guess the PVC stuff doesn't age very well.

PVC is an oil by-product, I think, and I am amazed the Germans had developed oil by-products that early.
 
Middleman said:
PVC is an oil by-product, I think, and I am amazed the Germans had developed oil by-products that early.

Little OT maybe, but the German scientists was early on with a lot of things. It was German scientists (brought (kidnapped and/or bribed) to USA under and after WWII) that invented rocket science, jet aircraft, nuclear science and a lot of other things.

Usually around the big wars, there are a lot of scientific breakthoughs due to the vast amount of money pumped into the development of new weapons, transports, communications and other technologies. Other fields of science benefit too as spinoffs from other inventions.

If they could to all that, PVC was prolly a no-brainer ;)
 
Stefan Elmblad said:
Little OT maybe, but the German scientists was early on with a lot of things. It was German scientists (brought (kidnapped and/or bribed) to USA under and after WWII) that invented rocket science, jet aircraft, nuclear science and a lot of other things.
snip...


jet aircraft?

I think Sir Frank Whittle would disagree with you...

from his biography:

"...1930 Applies for a patent for the jet engine concept - "a reaction motor suitable for aircraft propulsion" (granted 1932). The idea is ignored by the Air Ministry.
1931-32 Test pilot on floatplanes and flying boats
1934 Flight Lieutenant Frank Whittle sent to Cambridge University as a mature student by the RAF. Enters Peterhouse College. Whilst at Cambridge encouraged to pursue his idea for jet propulsion.
[Hans von Ohain, a 22 year old student at the University of Goettingen in Germany, began his research on a gas turbine propulsion system in 1933]

1935 While at Cambridge University meets up with two former RAF pilots keen to develop the jet engine.
1936 Power Jets Ltd set up by Whittle and colleagues in a factory in Rugby owned by BTH.
1937 Power Jets tests first experimental bench engine, the WU.
1938 Testing moves to a derelict foundry in Lutterworth for safety reasons.
1939 The Air Ministry's Director of Scientific Research finally acknowledges that Whittle's ideas are feasible. Power Jets are awarded a contract to develop a flight engine, the W1.
[The contract to build a plane to put the engine in is given to the Gloster Aircraft Company]
1941 15 May: first test flight of a Gloster E28/39 powered by Whittle's jet engine.
[A jet-engined Heinkel He 178, developed from von Ohain's work, had first flown in Germany on 27 August 1939 - but the flight had not been very successful and it took the Germans another five years to perfect the technology]

1942 An engine prototype is shipped to General Electric in the USA.
[America's first jet plane built in 1943]
1944 First official public news of the jet engine.
A jet-engined Gloster Meteor flies in combat - the only Allied jet aircraft to participate in World War Two. The Power Jets company is nationalised.
1946 Taken off the design and development of jet engines. Resigns from the project.
Awarded the Daniel Guggenheim Medal for the development of the jet engine..."


- Wil

;)
 
People disagreed when someone said the earth wasn't flat too.
 
Back
Top