I know you and others attempted removing the capsule from the tube but was too costly due to breaking some.Were you succesful in making a working pair?
I really don't get the benefit of removing the capsule from the tube.
The *frequency* response of the DPA 406x is flat. I *think* the problem (of the high frequencies) of the DPA is due to the distortion *of the element*, and that may be due to the non-tensioned diaphragm (it just sits up against the backplate, insulated by a dielectric layer).
By the way, I've been looking into this design. It seems a few others are using a rectangular diaphragm. Sanken COS-11 ("vertical diaphragm", not sure about tension), Knowles acoustics (hearing aid mics, non tensioned diaphragm BT1759, first prototyped in the mid seventies), Lectrosonics TRAM 50 (rectangular, tension = ?). I've found the Knowles sounds similar to the DPA, with a funny high end. This one is not in a tube, just a flat 6mmx4mm element. The Lectrosonics is the same size, but sounds a little better. Perhaps there is some tension on that one? I have not had time to evaluate Chris Church CA-1. This is a flat element, same size as the DPA, and there is no tube.
This is certainly a topic worth investigating. Just don't break your DPA!
Richard