Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (
More info?)
Neil Henderson wrote:
> I don't believe I've personally ever heard any mics with nickel
> capsules - anyone have any opinions on what type of colorations
> one can expect from nickel? Or is it more dependant on the nickel,
> plus the electronics/overall design of the mic?
Those are good questions, and I wish more people would try to find
real-world answers rather than just making assumptions.
The Microtech Gefell site emphasizes the practical aspects of various
membrane materials for specific applications. It touts the company's
versatility as a manufacturer, and the continuity that results from their
use of Georg Neumann's original 1928 capsule design in some retro models.
But they don't make a major issue over any alleged sonic characteristics
of particular membrane materials--and I think they're right not to do so.
I have a pair of 1960s-era tube microphones in which one capsule still
has its original nickel membrane while the other was fitted with a new
Mylar membrane at the factory. The capsules aren't perfectly matched,
but are as close in sound as any other unmatched pair of their type
would ordinarily be. The nickel capsule doesn't have any "metallic"
character, nor any other sonic "fingerprint" that its Mylar counterpart
lacks, nor vice versa. Though they're not absolutely identical I would
still be quite surprised if anyone could ever specifically identify the
membrane material by sound--anyway, I sure can't. I'd even have to do
some digging in the paperwork to figure out which one is which any more.
Some people seem to assume that the diaphragm is always the main factor
in determining a capsule's sonic characteristics--and that "naturally,"
nickel diaphragms would sound brighter than Mylar (and similarly, that
ultra-thin diaphragms would "naturally" have audibly superior transient
response and/or high-frequency response). But once a diaphragm has been
tensioned so that its resonance is optimal for the capsule's design, its
response within the audio band is controlled far more by the air around
it than by the intrinsic characteristics of the diaphragm per se. (That's
assuming, of course, that the material isn't, like, wood or something.)
The membranes get public attention--there are endless debates on various
boards concerning center-fixed designs versus edge-fixed, as well as
different materials and thicknesses. Those things do matter somewhat.
But at best, the diaphragm responds to the air around it, so what really
matters most is the exact way in which that invisible, free stuff is
affected by sound waves, or is prevented from responding to them.
It's a little like the way magicians can do tricks by the most ordinary
of means, as long as the audience is distracted from seeing what they're
really doing. The backplate and the acoustical chambers surrounding it
(between the backplate and the diaphragm, and also behind the backplate)
are a lot of where art and science meet in microphone design. Meanwhile
we've all been trained to keep our eye on the diaphragm(s). No wonder
so many audiophiles approach microphone design as if it were magic ...
/www.gefell-mics.com/capsules.htm
Facebook
Twitter