Lecture at the Audio Engineering Society, meeting at NRK, October 10, 1991

It all began in 1987, when we started reflecting on why no one in Norway had ever initiated production of this type of product (microphones). We could only conclude that it had not been done, while at the same time we saw significant challenges in—and opportunities to improve—the existing technology.

Our starting point was a handheld vocal microphone, as we considered this segment to have the largest market. AND it was to be a condenser microphone.

The first sketches and prototypes focused on the body design and more specific circuit solutions. With great enthusiasm, we traveled to London with the first prototype—we didn’t want to embarrass ourselves at home first! But there we received a brutally direct response:

It looks East German! 1950s! We won’t even listen to it. We can’t sell this for you!

Luckily the NRK was not our very first testing ground…

We returned home somewhat crestfallen, yet still full of determination. New resources were brought in on both the design and electronics sides, and Martin Viktorin became head of development for the NEW prototype.

The first thing we did was to map out the strengths and weaknesses of our competitors through our own measurements. Every microphone on the Norwegian market, as well as several others, was thoroughly examined—not only electronically and acoustically, but also in terms of construction.

Specifications

Based on both the positive and negative findings we identified (see Part 1), we established the following requirements for a new microphone:

1. Low self-noise
2. Low handling noise
3. Withstand high sound pressure levels
4. Withstand rough physical treatment
5. Achieve the highest possible level before feedback
6. Be production-friendly
7. Finally, it had to be entirely Norwegian-made and competitively priced.

Development

We quickly realized that the acoustic design of the microphone body would take far more time than we had anticipated in order to make it as perfect as possible. This was no simple task, and we began to understand WHY many of our measurements of other microphones had turned out the way they did.

It became clear that several solutions used by different microphone manufacturers were far from optimal. A natural question arose: Why haven’t these designs been improved in more recent times?

Was it the customers’ fault for simply accepting the state of things—or was it really the case that no one had thought to make obvious improvements, since sales had been strong regardless?

The months passed with trial and error. Even local professors of acoustics could offer little more advice than this: Continue testing! Try new methods!

The design of the area around the capsule caused us an incredible amount of frustration. After repeated attempts, we ended up with a specially designed plastic component molded beneath the capsule—and this solved the problem.

The work on the acoustics was definitely the most time-consuming part of the development process. In the end, we reached our goal and were very satisfied with the results.

Next came the electronics. We knew the characteristics the components needed to have, but the challenge was finding them. We searched through component suppliers around the world and ended up sourcing parts from the USA, Europe, and Japan.

For example, one resistor we use has 1 dB lower self-noise than the second-best alternative we found. One decibel is not much, but it can be that small difference which, in the final result, makes a significant impact.

To enhance reliability and sound quality, we limited the use of electrolytic capacitors as much as possible, and tantalum types were declared strictly off-limits.

To increase the internal bandwidth of the electronics—and thereby reduce distortion, especially at high frequencies—we searched for an IC capable of doing the job. Because of phantom power supply limitations, the available current is restricted. As is well known, wide bandwidth requires more current, and vice versa. The challenge was to find a solution that required little current while still delivering the specifications we needed. Once again, our measurements of other microphones revealed many surprises—but that is not today’s topic.

Throughout the process, we not only measured components, but also conducted active listening tests to evaluate how FETs and capacitors actually behaved sonically. We also chose to use SMD components wherever possible, both for reasons of stability and space constraints. The final version of the circuit board was then completed.

Making the microphone look contemporary while also getting it to work acoustically right has been another of the major challenges. Several models were built and tested—enough to start a small museum.

We have worked on every single detail of the microphone to ensure that it performs perfectly and maintains a high standard of quality—whether in terms of design, electronics, acoustics, or ease of production and servicing.

We have not only met the goals we set for the finished product (see Part 2), but exceeded them by a wide margin. We must say that we are satisfied.

We have received feedback that it delivers remarkably high gain before feedback occurs, and we believe this is due to a properly executed acoustic design. It is service-friendly, and it has become entirely Norwegian-made.

The microphone has been thrown onto asphalt from a height of five meters and even run over by a car—admittedly a small Fiat—with the result that the grille was dented, BUT it still worked.

What about teething problems? We have had them, but the fine-tuning process is complete and has long since been finalized. We are now so confident in the components and circuit designs that we have no hesitation in offering a 10-year warranty.

Our original starting point was a vocal microphone, and in that respect we have partly “failed,” if one can put it that way. It turns out that the microphone is not only suitable for vocals; according to our customers, it is actually used as an all-round studio microphone in environments where one would normally find well-known high-quality studio microphones.

We know it is used on string instruments, wind instruments, and even percussion. We have also heard that it is used as a reporting microphone.

Sound

It is not easy for us, having been so deeply involved in this development project for several years, to remain objective. However, we believe the microphone has achieved an openness and near-neutrality, along with a strong ability to articulate fine details.

It has something unique about it. But sound is not only measurable—it is also a subjective experience, something only you yourselves can judge.