Giganova said:
I dunno if the hype about the (small) diaphragm thickness is justified. I could imagine that a thinner capsule has a better reesponse,
Hype? What hype? On the other hand, I think there should be a hype--"How is it humanly possible to make the diaphragm that thin??!!"
Make a search on Klaus forum. Tony Merill and Brent Casey have already answered many of your questions.
Giganova said:
but one of the finest capsule ever built, the M7, has a 10-micron (PVC) or 6-micron (PE=Mylar) thickness, and I think nobody would doubt that this capsule sounds wonderful. Neumann/Gefell even states that "the ‘heavier’ PVC further credits the M7 with its distinct character", so thickness/thinness cannot be a prime criteria for mic designs.
????
There is a thin crust pizza, there is a deep crust...
No doubt, M7 is
one of the finest capsule ever built, and indeed sounds very good... in many applications. But it is not the only one, either. There are others, which are as wonderful, but... different.
The PVC film is 10um, because due to physical properties of the material, as well as its technology, it cannot be thinner. Besides, PVC has different compliance than PET films. Besides, it has completely different backchamber and phase shift network construction. All these contribute into its sound. I just don't understand why is it "the ‘heavier’ PVC further credits ". It is what it is, and I think nobody expects SP mic to sound like U47 with M7? Not every capsule in the world should be as M7. But it can be as wonderful, just different.
BTW, I am surprised that people are so busy to figure out whether it is a dummy mic, or a "real one", that nobody even paid attention to grill construction?
In a meanwhile, I am impatiently awaiting for a chance to try this mic myself.