Hello Mr. Granger,
I do not understand your persistence in re-stating the same arguments continuously here as it only serves to dilute the content of a thread expressly designed for assisting in the assembly of a particular kit. . . one that you do not have any direct problems with, intention of building, or any interest other than to point out your objections to the design. This is classic trolling behavior.
You have made your points, and I personally feel you you have had ample space to air your objections. Everyone understands your position. There are plenty of people who frequent these forums who adhere to the belief that ONLY traditional methods, materials, and component layout qualifies as acceptable. I personally feel many of those familiar traditional features are simply the most expedient production methods at the time given the economics, resources, and materials of the era. . . or just stubborn German adherence to established conventions for no apparent reason (we often see this in car designs). . . catastrophic failure in some of these designs (ie. decomposition over time of the plastic frame in ELA M251) do happen. At any rate, you have Flea, Shaggy, and other suppliers who will gladly provide components to build mics to your sensibilities.
Matador has always maintained that this is HIS implementation of the original C12 circuit with noted changes to the PSU topology and BOM adjustments to utilize readily available modern components.
We take all input into consideration and test for problems. If you would like to assist and come back with actual data illustrating within normal operating conditions which frequencies in our microphone design are resonant beyond the baseline behavior of a "proper" traditionally designed C12 implementation (including vintage original) and provide your test methodologies so we can independently confirm data, please do so. If you have NEW points to make (ie. ones that you have not stated already several times in this thread), please make them concisely. Otherwise, you are simply diluting the content of a build and support thread.
You are welcome to make a "Frederic Granger guide to properly designed microphones" thread to evangelize your preferences, criticize our futile efforts, and provide as many pictures as you like of various approved microphone designs, all within the purity of your 100% economic-interest-free development ecosystem, by all means do so. We will enter into the discussion respectfully and with data to advocate our position if relevant and when we are able to set up /execute tests as we develop our kit.
I do not understand your insistence upon diluting this thread further having no direct problems with building or using the kit, no assistive information for those who are (besides using the platform to dissuade people from trying it, and advocating other parts/ kits), and repeating ad nauseum the same positions that we have already acknowledged and understood.
Many times with these complex systems, it is difficult to absolutely prove a definitive opinion, but in general, large-scale implementation will reveal faults in a system or at least point to weaknesses, and we do have many hundreds of these microphones in use across the entire spectrum of amateur and professional applications. The feedback we have been getting as to microphone performance as prescribed (short of build faults) has been stable and positive.
Either we, in our blind pursuit of economic exploitation of the audio community, have coerced and deceived a great number of people and tricked them out of their hard-earned dollars. . . or, people genuinely find the kit accessible, educational, and the end performance exceeds expectation in the real world.
