Under The Hood - Inside the Marshall V67G and the Studio Projects C1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harvey Gerst
  • Start date Start date
H

Harvey Gerst

New member
I still haven't had time to do a shootout between these two mics, but I thought some of you may be interested in what I found when I took both of them apart and compared them side by side.

To disassemble the V67, unscrew the back ring at the bottom of the mic. Next, unscrew the large bottom green ring. You can now slide the green body shell off. There are two small screws holding the gold grille on. When you remove those, the grille will slide off, revealing the capsule.

To disassemble the C1, unscrew the 3 screws at the bottom of the mic, and you can slide the body shell off. There are three small screws holding the grille on. When you remove those, the grille will slide off, revealing the capsule.

Here's what they both look like inside, side by side:

V67GvsC1.jpg


First impressions:

The C1 is definitely has a better built housing and is heavier. The V67G is almost flimsy by comparison. I think I would put something like undercoating on the inside of the green body shell to prevent ringing, although I don't hear any ringing in use.

The C1 uses a single circuit board; the V67 uses two back-to-back circuit boards. Either method is fine.

The V67 has a transformer, the C1 does not. Good transformers can add a lot of body to the sound and prevent ringing on the high end. Bad transformers can cause severe roll offs and ringing. I know the V67 has a pretty good transformer, so points for the transformer (at least till I can hear the C1 directly compared).

Both circuit boards look pretty well assembled. A tie there. On to the capsules:

capsedge.jpg


Wow, this is strange; the V67 capsule is solid brass with teflon spacers and brass rings, while the C1 capsule is aluminium and plastic with teflon rings. Points to the V67G - much more solid construction and engineering. The gold sputter is thicker and more even on the V67 capsule. They didn't sputter out to the edges; the mylar serves as an insulator. The C1 is sputtered lightly all the way out, so that's why they hafta use the teflon rings. Overall, the C1 capsule looks cheesier than the V67 - round goes to Marshall. Let's take a good look at the edge of each mic:

capsfig1.jpg


Yup, on the C1, it's teflon spacer, gold-sputtered mylar diaphragm, aluminum back plate, plastic body, clear mylar diaphragm, teflon ring.

The V67 has a brass ring, teflon spacer, gold-sputtered mylar diaphragm, brass backplate, brass body, clear mylar diaphragm, teflon spacer, and brass retaining ring. Mega-points to Marshall on capsule construction. Whoa, what's this?

capsfig2.jpg


Do you see what just caught my eye? This is the back side of the capsule, You can see the teflon ring, the clear mylar diaphragm, and the plastic body of the C1 on the left. On the right is the V67, where you can see the brass ring, the clear mylar diaphragm, and the brass body of the V67. I didn't see it at first either, so let's get in really close. Here's the back side of the V67 capsule:

V67_cap.jpg


Look closely. Now look at the back side of the C1 capsule:

C3-cap.jpg


Where the hell are the rest of the retaining screws for the teflon ring? Two screws? The screws are down so tight, the teflon is partially lifted away from the diaphragm. Those screws are supposed to be there to insure a good back seal and even tension. All I can think of is the robot in "Lost In Space", waving his arms and crying, "Danger, danger, Will Robinson".

Anyway, I reassembled the mics and I'll actually listen to them in the next few days.

Damn, while they were open, I forgot to see if the gold top (not the grille itself) is made of plastic or not. Both grilles have the coarse weave outer mesh, and a fine mesh inside the grille. A tie there.

I had to open it up and look. No, it's not plastic, it's metal on the top and bottom of the V67G.

More to come. Stay tuned.
 
Last edited:
What did you do to my mics!!!!!!

I hope you can put my mics back together!!!!!! :eek: :eek:
 
Hey, you leave em laying around...

That'll teach you to put your toys away when you're finished playing.
 
JPS

Great Start!! When I read this first part, my first reaction was I can't believe they sent a mic for review and "forgot" to put the tension screws on the back of the mic capsule. So much for C1 quality control.

So I went over to my C1 mic, held it up to the light... looked through the screen the best I could... at the back of the mic capsule .... where the tension screws are suppose to be... and, WOW!! Just two screws! Then it dawned on me, this wasn't a mistake, it was by design! (Or by cost cutting, or something)

OK, Harvey, is there anything good that can come out of this Chinese innovation, that you can think of? I can't, but I don't claim to be that smart. Is it possible to upgrade to the version with the screws on the back of the capsule? I imagine that would be an additional "whopping" ... let's say, $ .50.

I'm not complaining about the sound, I just feel like I got screwed! Or rather, didn't get screwed!
 
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.

Still, it makes you wonder why they went to all the trouble of using a brass ring and teflon spacer on the V67 back diaphragm - and all the screws. The C1 does use that bottom long screw to make the connection to the aluminium back plate (the V67 has a separate screw on the side). Both these mics come from the same manufacturer.

If you were visiting the factory and picked up each capsule and examined it, which would you think was used in the better mics, the brass body capsule with teflon and brass rings, or the aluminum/plastic capsule with the plain teflon ring and just two screws holding the back ring?

I will call Monday and find out more, but I'll still test it like it is. Anyway, I'm glad you found the same thing, since it means that it may not be a critical thing.
 
c7sus said:
Those clothespins weren't holding down the edges on the C1, were they? :D
Those are NOT clothespins - they're special "insulated, non-ferrous, non-magnetic, positioning devices" - they just happen to look a lot like clothespins. They're very expensive tools we use in the professional mic evaluation business.

They're $50 each from "Mics 'R' Us", but I understand Behringer is planning to sell something similar in plastic at $12.50 each (which I'll be reporting on when they come out).
 
Cool

Just think. I thought they were to keep the mics from rolling off the table. I'm so stupid.
 
Naw, ya ain't stupid. It's just a specialized tool the public isn't likely to hear about unless you're in the business. :)
 
Marshall is running a special right now.....buy one of their "insulated, non-ferrous, non-magnetic, positioning devices" and get a MXL-2001 free......
 
JPS

Latest screw update!!! Yes, I can definately confirm if you upgrade to the C3 (cardioid, omni and hypercardioid) you DO get a full compliment of screws on the back side of the mic capsule, too!!! C3 = $390 at Full Compass
 
Geez, $190 more just to get all the screws? Talk about getting "screwed"!!

Seriously though, I'm not too sure just how much those screws would contribute to the sound in a cardioid only mic. It's only necessary to have that back diaphragm glued down good. Still, it did surprise me. But I wouldn't count the C1 out just yet, at least over that one point. As I pointed out the body casting is heavy and well made, and I expect the mic to sound good. Hust how good remains to be determined.

And in fairness to the C3, of course it has to have the full load of screws, since a multipattern mic has to have the front AND back diaphragms polarized and active to work and create the patterns. They also have to have very closely matched diaphragms.

In our weekly IRC Recording studio chat (that we hold every Saturday morning), it would appear that 797 may be buying some of their capsules from SoundKing in Taiwan, although that's not 100% confirmed. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I speced out a Taiwan capsule for what finally became the CAD C-200 that was way better than the Primo capsule they ended up with.
 
Harvey,

Looking forward to hearing your results when you compare them in head to head competition.

Zeke
 
Last edited:
MrZekeMan said:
Harvey,

Looking forward to hearing your results when you compare them head to head competition.

Ditto. This kind of thing is what makes this kind of forum worth visiting.
 
Harvey, speaking of 797 Audio, do you have any experience with or knowledge of their CR 998 Tube mic?
 
Sorry, but I have no experience with or knowledge of the 797 CR 998 Tube mic. Looks nice though.
 
Studio Projects C1 Capsule

Hi Harvey,

Thanks for getting into the depth of the mics, as there is much to show. I wish to point out to the group, and by all means I am not stepping on your toes here that when dealing with a cardiod only capsule, the rear of the capsule is not functional, so the make up of the assembly is not a functional or critical part of the entire capsules sound and build. What is important is the front side of the capsule, and as you said, the C1 sounds very good.

One of the reasons we chose this method, was first, the response and performance of the capsule would not be affected in any way by using different materials for the rear of it. Second, we chose to put more money in other areas we felt did make a difference, and one of them as you pointed out was our construction and how solid it is.

There are only a couple of other issues I wish to make, as both these mics are made in the same factory by 797 Audio, and both are very good, but if you look at the close up of the tops of the two capsules, I wish to call your attention to the way the capsules are actually mounted to the mic bodies. The Marshall mounts their capsule onto a molded plastic housing, which was the same manner the Joemeek JM47 was mounted. Now you know we also distribute Joemeek, and we have had a good deal of problems with the plastic housing cracking and the capsules falling out. While this may not be the case with Marshall, the design is the same, and it is not a very sturdy one.

The Studio Projects support housing is solid steel and is "bolted" into the solid steel metal base plate. It uses a very stout shock material to absorb vibrations. While this is a more costly method, it is much sturdier and prevents vibrations from resonating through the entire body housing.

In addition, we are using upgraded components from Germany made by WIMA. The components are more expensive and are the same components Neumann uses, but I am making no references of comparison when using the Neumann name. I am only stating that we use the same brand of components.

I think you have done a great job on two great mics. Remember, these are both made by 797 Audio, but it seems we are the only one revealing this information.

The Marshall mic is an "off the shelf" 797 design and branded under the Marshall name. The exact same design is also branded under several different brands like ADK, Nady, Joemeek, Audix, and some other brands. With few differences, they are all the same mic sold by 797 Audio and Soundking. I am not knocking this method, but this should be known. I have attached a photo of an exact design with a hipass filter and pad added. If the photo did not attach, email me and I will email it to all that want to see it.

The Studio Projects mic is a custom mic, and not an off the shelf mic branded with other names and sold everywhere. This is a custom mic I designed with 797 Audio and spent months voicing it. Its design will not be found anywhere else.

In either case, end users would benefit from either of the mics, but I felt it important to expand upon the information so those reading this would understand why we did what we did, and not think screws were left out.

I look forward to more of your comments after you get the second C1 so you can test for the consistency.

Regards,

Alan Hyatt
STUDIO PROJECTS
23773 Madison Street
Torrance, CA 90505
toll free: 877-563-6335
email: alan@studioprojectsusa.com
www.studioprojectsusa.com
 

Attachments

  • p000011f.webp
    p000011f.webp
    16.9 KB · Views: 775
Alan, thanks for the extra information on the C1 mic. I hope you could tell from my posts that I was only having a little fun over the screw issue. In reality, I am very pleased with the C1 mic, to the extent that I later purchased a C3 also, which is another good mic. The information you provided gives me even more confidence in your mics performance. Thanks again.
 
JPS,

Glad to offer any good information I can, and I am grateful for your purchasing the mics. I know the C1 and C3 are great mics, and you will get lots of use out of them.
 
Alan,

Thanks for taking the time to fill us it a bit on your company's products. I am in the market for a large diaphragm condenser and have been following Harvey's reports on the C1, but I have yet to find an online retailer that carries the Studio Projects line, even after looking through the dealer list on your website. Are there any online retailers currently carring the C1?

The Marshall mic is an "off the shelf" 797 design and branded under the Marshall name. The exact same design is also branded under several different brands like ADK, Nady, Joemeek, Audix, and some other brands. With few differences, they are all the same mic sold by 797 Audio and Soundking.

I'm curious which other mics are based on the Marshall V67G design, would you care to specify?

BTW, have you had a chance to check out the new Rode mics (NT1000 and NTK) and if so how do you think they compare to your products?
 
Back
Top