I'm not sure why the change
There’s WAY more than needed, but thought best to present as is…
From a Stephen Paul post - Unfortunately, I don’t remember where. Date was June 3, 2000. Here
ya'll go:
I was quickly browsing through dejanews a while ago, and I realized that some of you (notably there was one message from David Satz) apparently thought for some reason that I never posted the 87 problem...
Here once again, (I buried it a bit before and some of you may have missed this, and I was hesitant about focusing on it in a separate post, but my ducks are in a row, and if I'm fired on by you-know-who I am ready to release a serious broadside in return, so hopefully things will remain at peace,) is the story in a brief form on what has happened with the 87-67 capsules...
Also, I noted someone who said our mods and remanufactured or manufactured replacement capsules had nothing to do with a difference in "quality" compared to factory procedures, and I beg to differ. In addition to using hi-tech films, and exclusively continuing to employ =hand work= and imposing =toolroom= specs, these things have EVERYTHING to do with quality, and for whoever said we don't make them better thereby, well, I beg to differ there too, though better is slippery, and open to one's definition of the word "better". I freely concede that. I am honest when something is an =opinion= in stating so, but there are also 'facts' without getting too existentialist about the whole 'what is reality' thing and the following are the facts as I have best been able to ascertain them.
I hereby re-quote from the earlier and apparently missed by many post:
Even the manufacturers cannot reproduce what they used to build. To this day for example, when Neumann has a customer who comes in with a broken tube KM-53, 54, or 56, normally they refer them to my laboratory. To the best of my knowledge at this time, we have the only facility in the world where you can still obtain a handmade replacement for these microphone capsules. To focus my remarks concerning this crazy discussion, the fact is that when it comes to microphones the word Micro from the Greek "tiny" is not there by accident. When we rebuild a capsule, we work in a tolerance world that would frighten most machine shops to death. In many situations a tolerance difference of a 10,000th of an inch (2.54 microns) can change the response by up to 2 dB! This is one of the reasons I have been complaining about the tolerance deficit which has occurred in today's microphones, but especially microphones which are supposed to be the same as the originals. Among which the U-87/67 capsule has suffered tremendously.
Ah yes, I can hear many of you thinking right now, "Yeah, whatever happened to that 87 post?"A fair question. That complete post with pix and diagrams, will be on the new Stephen Paul Audio Web site. Patience. After struggling and struggling and struggling with the problem of trying to figure out how to enlighten you guys without being able to upload diagrams for clarity's sake, (after all can you imagine what I went through trying to figure out how to describe to those of you who are not familiar with machining terms, physics, tooling etc. what has happened to this capsule and why it matters?) In words alone it is a nearly impossible task. It was turning into The Great American Novel about what has happened to the Great German Capsule Machine. On the Web site it is much easier for me to give you this information clearly and fully by adding diagrams to my explanations. Along with pictures, computer art, etc. To explain to those of you who really want to know what the problem is in detail using words alone was a Herculean task. And boring. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Huh!? Whazzat? Yawn...stretch
To summarize very quickly just so you understand my objections, (and this certainly goes right to the heart of this discussion about older microphones) the original U-87/67 specifications were -not- a spectacular frequency response curve, but they were -consistent-. You knew =exactly= what you were buying. And they were easier to modify into a truly spectacular microphone. Those of you who own any of our 87/67 modifications I am sure would step forward in a moment and testify to the fact that a stock U-87/67 next to our least expensive modification sounds broken. And I completely understand Neumann's desire to find a better (read cheaper) way to make something similar to the original capsule without going as far as AKG did with their replacement for the CK 12. =If the response were the same I would keep my mouth shut=. But it is -not-. The continual program of =elimination of important expensive elements= (read parts, such as the precision diaphragm spacer/gasket) for this capsule, the retooling of others, (the diaphragm rings) and the attendant =deterioration of its tolerances= (CNC ) over the past three or four years, has resulted in a U-87/67 which does not resemble the original curve. -That- is what I object to.
The original U-87/67 for more than 35 years had a response above 1 kHz, resembling the following: (get your pencils out kids, and draw these out to make real sense of them). A rise of roughly +2 dB at 5 kHz, dipping down afterwards, (dip bottoms at roughly 0 at 7-8.5 kHz) and then rising again to about +1 dB at 10kHz, falling to -3 dB at 15kHz, and down -9 to -12 dB at 20kHz. (Just for comparison, our lowly 3 micron modification is +2 dB at 5kHz, *+4 dB at 12kHz*, gently falling back to -flat- at *18kHz*, and within *-2 dB at 20kHz*. [=Guaranteed curve plus or minus 0.5dB=] The 0.9 micron unit actually achieves **=+1.5 dB at 20 kHz**!! From a 32mm capsule! Not bad eh The current capsule, which has eliminated these important parts because of the cost of the precision tooling necessary to make them, and the drastic re-design of other parts, and then making this new nonsense on CNC lathes, has resulted in a capsule which is currently:
Dead flat to 10kHz, *-5 dB* at 15kHz, and absolutely off thechart into the Abyss at 20 kHz. You are -no longer getting a classic U-87/67 anymore-. Those are the cold hard facts. End of discussion. And of course they're harder to modify. There, I said it. To hell with it. So there it is, if you have Neumann replace your 67/87/47/49 capsule insist on getting your old backplates back in return. That way, if before Godzilla is issued, you decide you at least want a guarantee of the original specs back, we can remanufacture the older backplate with factory-thickness 6.5 micron film. We have had it for AKGs too for years, but nobody seems to want it! I guess they figure if we're going to rebuild the thing, might as well at least get 3 microns on there... I don't know. We also can install a switch will will give you either a Voice Over/Full Mod curve choice, or Original Curve/Full Mod choice. We also have a Pad mod (you know how wonderful that Pad has always sounded!!) which pads the capsule by dropping the polarizing voltage instead of throwing shunt capacitance across the input which mucks everything up. We can even put this pad in 47s, 67s, 251s, C12s, etc. Just remember... when Godzilla walks, no mo' mods, only caps for KM 50 series, SM2s, and other no longer made vintage Neumann or whatever mikes. Oh yes, and just to clarify one other misunderstanding I noticed going through the archives. The CAD review lawsuit was most emphatically not why I have not written for Mix in years past... I can write for the magazine at any time. Please remember, that it was only this past year that VR really became feasible, and allowed me to begin writing at -all- again. After that suit, many of you may not recall, but I continued writing for Mix for some time. Remember the "Best Microphones Under $500.00"? (A No.1 article according to the Readex, the magazine's equvalent of Neilsen ratings,) "Test Equipment"... etc... Reprints of these and other articles, and, of course the Bonzai interview will be available on the website in .PDF format. Back to work gang. Hope that clears things up, (and goesn't get a contract put out on me!)
Yours,
The Mad Scientist (Whoooah hahhahhahhahahaaaaah...
