Please post a link to literally any example of someone actually saying that they believe this.
There are some posts on the internet with people claiming that the cheap clones sound even better than the originals. I do read such comments every now and then but that's not what's important. What's important (to me anyway) is that the cheap clones have almost identical name, identical look and they do claim/advertise that they sound the same as the originals. Marketing; Sure. Honest; no.
Capsule differences, diaphragm thickness and Back plate differences from another microphone maker.
I am including a plot of the Tim Campbell's CT12 (original CK12 build) and the re-engineered CEK12 type capsule which in this case is our AK12.
The CK12/CT12 do not look identical to the CEK12/AK12. On close look the hole count under the mylar is different and this can easily be identified with the naked eye.
Here is a comparison of the curves of our AK12 and a CT12 plotted on the same day through the same circuit, with the same test set-up in the same room.
We are measuring here a very subtle difference in response between these two capsules under test conditions.
It was John Peluso and friend Verner Ruvalds a retired Neumann Phsyicist that came up with the more modern design.
This design is much easier to mass produce and gets extremely close to the original CK12 curve.
The CE12/AK12 is actually more efficient than the original CK12 having 2-3db more output.
The CEK12/AK12 capsule will also have less variations between capsules than the original CK12 capsules if the capsules QC is performed properly.
The description given by David Bock also describes a CEK12/AK12 which has the much lower cut-off frequency and is more suseptible to rumble than a center fed capsule.
The two cumbersome resonator chambers with their resonator (time delay) disks have been replaced by drilling more holes in two single separated back-plates and 50% of these holes are conical venting into a single chamber between the two back-plates. So, according to physicist Verner Ruvald this should produce a similar response and curve.
When you look at the curve I think Verner and John did a remarkable job of re-inventing the CK12 capsule into a more easily manufactured sub-system.
David Bock also stated that the CK12 produced a flat midrange and a boost up at 10khz to 12khz which you can see on both these plots.
Looking really closely at the curve you can see that this particular AK12 capsule is 2db brighter between 3khz-7khz than the CT12.
However, both capsules have the lovely "airy" rise of about 5db at 10-12khz.
Both the CEK12/AK12 capsules are edge fed and are skinned with 6 micron mylar like the CK12/CT12.
Yes, you can hear a 2db difference if you listen carefully but remember; original properly working individual ck12 capsules could easily vary + or - 2db between each other.
You still have to skin a CK12 or CEK12 back-plate both with 6 micron mylar and the "tuning" or tensioning of this "drum head" is critical to its response.
After carefully QC'ing capsules you hope to get capsules with < 2db differences in response between any two CK12, CT12, CEK12 or AK12 capsules.
if I am repairing an original C12, 251 or a Tele re-issue with a failed capsule then I will suggest to the client the we fit a CT12 capsule or send the old one out to be re-skinned.
If someone feels that the difference between a properly working CEK12/AK12 and a properly working CK12/CT12 is significant to them, then its only the price of Tim's capsule.
We will gladly fit a CT12 into our CM414, CM12 or CM251 microphones for folks if they supply the capsule and post mount.
Halfway, through the production of the original AKG C414EB microphones, AKG discontinued the CK12 brass backplate capsule for a nylon version.
The WA-414 or the Advanced Audio CM414 with a CEK12 type capsule will sound closer to the early C414eb with the brass CK12 capsules than any AKG 414 that came after.
The C414 p48 was the last 414 version with a class "A" transformer coupled circuit, I believe but it had the later capsule with the nylon surround.
It didn't seem to quite measure up to the two original C414eb microphones that we had bought back in the early 70's when Ocean Sound was in a garage.
Bryce, builds authentic sounding preamps and compressors so I am sure he has nailed the class "A" transformer coupled emitter/follower circuit of the C414eb.
If the WA-414's capsule is skinned and tensioned properly and connected to a Class "A" transformer coupled emitter follower circuit it will sound quite delightful on any source.
The advantage of the original C414eb circuit was that the microphone has over 10db more headroom than a U87.
Also, the output of the emitter follower circuit has an output impedance 10 times lower than the single FET driving the output transformer in the U87.
The output transformer in the C414eb has a much lower turns ratio than the one in the U87 so you hear less transformer but get more headroom from the microphone.
The C414eb always sounded better to me over the strings of the Yamaha Grand or over the drum kit than U87's to my ears. It seemed to have a better transient response.
The lower output impedance of the emitter follower dampens the transformer much more quickly than the single FET circuit and low frequency transformer distortion is reduced.
After, the U47 the C414eb was the GOTO microphone at Ocean Sound Studios during the 80's. While the U87's were the voice-over, voice-actor, strings goto microphones.
To paraphrase Bill Porter who recorded both Elvis and Roy Orbison and who I had the privilege to work with one weekend,
"
There is not a hit record on the planet that a vocal microphone would have made any difference toward whether the song was a hit or not."
The performance of the song is much more important than, which microphone to use but I believe the microphone's job is to catch the performance in the best way possible.
So, with hard work and diligence I believe you can build a world class microphone with the new version CEK12/AK12 type capsules that can make great recordings.
Today electronic components are much better than what I started out working with in the mid 60's.
You really can build, slightly smaller and more accurate vintage circuits today, than could be build back in the 60's.
Unfortunately, what gives a properly working CEK12 or AK12 type capsule a bad rap is that some importers will bring in "cheap" microphones.
These microphones could come with a highly touted C12 or K67 type capsules but they will have been skinned inaccurately with 2-3 micron mylar.
The curve of these copy capsules will not resemble the CT12 or even our AK12 or AK67 capsule in anyway.
So, basically their are some really bad "clones" of even the CEK12 capsules out there unfortunately.
However, on the other side there are a lot more really good capsules to choose from today which weren't available to us even back in the 80's.
Cheers, Dave Thomas
aamicrophones.com