I would love to hear best effort audio samples from all parties (independent or manufacturer) to establish a broader reference. With an initial test, I am also setting up a process to continue adding data points including vintage microphones, but that incurs more cost so I want to do a few rounds of testing first to make sure the workflow is efficient. Certainly other people would be better equipped to perform testing particularly people with extensive vintage microphone collections and tier 1 facilities, and I am sure it has been requested by a lot of people, but nobody else seems to have the time or inclination to set up sessions dedicated to producing comparative clips which to me is baffling, so I take it upon myself to do so.
It seems a lot of people here discount heavily the use of sound files at all for microphone development, and that may well be your philosophy, and I am not in a position to question other people's development methodologies, but for me and the people I actively collaborate with at distance, we heavily rely on audio samples to track development and I maintain close ties with a studio active in music production as it is critical to my process and a beneficial feedback for people I collaborate with. It may not be "world class", but it is real-world and we work with competent professionals.
To the question of the actual financial interest, I don't feel it is necessary or obligatory for me or any vendor/manufacturer to disclose the back-side financials, but in this case, there is really nothing to look at. For premium microphone capsules, the items that I "sell" are nearly pass-through items that I pre-buy and stock as a service and to make it easier for more inexperienced builders to purchase what I feel to be a "good" option with minimal hassle and seasoned builders to have some convenience and reduced overall shipping costs for the project. All capsules tested were purchased.
- Eric Heiserman HK12 capsule: I pre-pay for batches of 10 capsules and purchase at a 8% discount. Upon sale, paypal eats on average 3%, so I have a margin of 5%. This leaves a profit of ~$21.25 per unit. You can derive what conclusions you want from this arrangement, but I maintain that the primary reason for developing this capsule is to make a backplate-correct variant optimized on the kit mic perpetually available at reasonable lead time for builders. As these are truly labor and Q/C intensive, Eric's production capacity will likely hit a ceiling in the near future, other GroupDIY members are already assisting him on capsule assembly periodically, and there are talks of sourcing the backplates to other capsule manufacturers.
- For Eric Heiserman HK47 and HK67 capsules, I pay full price for capsules and do not stock them yet although they are being considered for mk47 bundle and I would like to see the K67 optimized for mk67 but I'm not sure it's there yet. Margins on Eric's end indicate that there is no room outside of his own manufacture, so likely these will be straight pass-through.
- For Thiersch, I have no affiliation except a customer.
- For Beesneez, I have no affiliation except a customer. I paid discount sale price for the M7.
- For Tim Campbell, I receive no discounts. I previously offered to buy every available excess capsule in his production which to date has been 0 units.
To the inference that I am intentionally stacking the deck against products that I do not sell, why would I include the fact that the Heiserman HK12 catastrophically and irreparably failed mid-session if my intention is bump the sale of that capsule (the only one that I currently carry)? I include it because it happened, and I was disappointed that it did. And Eric needs to do better. That is a diagnostic data point important for customers to have should other 1st run units experience similar failure. I was mid-session with artists on the clock. I had been juggling schedules for a month to set up the test date and working hard to prep the sample mics, and now I need to execute another test. The Campbell CT12 equipped microphone by construction is a 100% teflon turret isolated point to point build. . .(HiZ and lowZ sections of the mic circuit). It uses the best of several capsules we have on hand when vetted over long-term use, so it is "select" from the small sample that we have. It is broken in and uses a Christian Whitmore sourced 1956 GE JG 6072A tube that tests near prime in it's life cycle. I do not know how to build it better or to select a better test candidate from the resources that I have.
My opinion regarding Eric's 1st gen. HK87 capsule as tested were also not particularly good (others disagree and the disagreement seems consistent with previous acoustic guitar test). But, as a result, information is now available about the differences between early and current K87 drill hole diameter. Further testing can isolate that capsule design variable and now, people know they can request that early small-diameter spec if they want it instead of the current "standard" model. It is of use for me to document the configuration for future reference before making changes to the mic. It is also a useful data point for people trying to make a decisions about re-skinning an old vintage capsule or buying a new production one for repair.
For the Beesneez M7, the microphone is quiet. The output is strong and undistorted. The patterning works well. The voltages are as expected. The overall timbre of the tuning seems to concur with other friends who have used the capsule and others in the line. There is a subset of people who prefer darker tuning on microphone capsules, and my assumption is that the capsule is tuned to a specification that I simply do not agree with or does not suit the microphone topology. . . which to me, is generally not a reason to return a product for major re-work especially one originally purchased more than 2 years ago (the on-sale price was good). Now, if the product specs have changed since that point, I need to edit the post to reflect that information, and if Beesneez wants to show a new variant, I'm happy to exchange the capsule and put the mic up again, but I don't think it is reasonable for me as a customer to demand it.
As for my underlying motivations, they are quite simple:
- make top tier tools accessible to common people
- educate and embolden people to DIY (microphones, preamps, bass guitars, etc.)
- develop and foster the development of high quality studio products in an open manner and sell them
Alternate example:
http://www.talkbass.com/threads/basses-for-newbies-sx-batch-build-thread.627147/
This iterative process of (design --> build --> test --> assess) of microphones or any other instrument or audio device involving studio testing to me is so basic that it somewhat baffles me that people would be 100% receptive to seeing all manner of microphones developed and put together and talk about them ad nauseam, but all of a sudden become hostile when invited to listen to them comparatively.
I want kit builders to have a better chance of picking parts aligned with their sonic goals. I want beginning builders/recordists who may not know what their sonic goals are yet to build excellent "all-around" configurations that will serve them well into the future for a variety of applications.
It makes no sense for me to develop or collaborate a kit, show the build process top to bottom, and then line up studio sessions to trick people away from buying the best suited primary components or by sonic trickery to divert people to a sub-optimal configuration. The success and reputation of the kit is strengthened by customers selecting the highest caliber components and achieving the best possible sonic results. THAT drives greater interest and sales. That emboldens the builder to seek out additional projects.
To the general issue of using audio files to do product development or make component decisions, there is always a skew or correction factor between the "far side" or my recording generated in my room and signal chain and the "near side" which would be your monitors, headphones, computer speakers, etc. Or, ultimately, your physical build based on the same referenced parts in your recording environment. So in the development process, it is important to make the full loop often and reference the item being developed hands-on. So a lot of stuff is mailed back and forth. In between those full-loop verifications though, audio clips go a long way to assist in collaboratively determining how far to go when tweaking any variable.
I think to assert that audio samples. . . especially carefully and methodically generated sets of samples is completely or nearly completely useless in component selection would be a bit too far. On the opposite end, it would also be presumptuous to assume audio clips (even well-executed sets) conclusively prove how a complex system will behave when you close the loop on your side and execute a build. But I believe that taken in context with an understanding that there will be a skew and correction factor, they are quite useful to inform decisions.
