|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 4, 2019 13:51:02 GMT -6
Ouch...no contest in this vintage 250 vs. new 251 comparison...
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 4, 2019 13:52:38 GMT -6
Closer on this one...but the zing is there on the new ones...Or I should say the vintage ones just sound mellow with NO sibilance.
|
|
|
Post by subspace on Mar 4, 2019 14:12:14 GMT -6
Ouch. Kudos to Sweetwater for putting that out even though they don't sell vintage gear, as I can't see that helping Tele USA sales in any way...
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 4, 2019 14:34:23 GMT -6
Yeah, pretty obvious...
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Mar 4, 2019 15:22:57 GMT -6
The top end smoothness of the vintage mike was wonderful. The modern didn't sound grating but almost hyped in comparison. I was impressed with the male singer's pitch and the mike's ability to capture all the enunciation and subtlety. I noticed how far back the email singer was and the capture seemed very focussed and still dynamic, for example when she kicked into the chorus.
Sigh,,,, doubt I will never own a vintage tele but I guy can dream !
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Mar 4, 2019 15:33:44 GMT -6
I'm only listening on some PC speakers while I do some paperwork, but even in this less than optimal listening position the difference isn't subtle. I suppose if you didn't have the vintage to AB against, the new 251 would be acceptable. But, side by side, the vintage easily wins for smoothness with no sibilance. It amazes me that in 2019 we still can't surpass these vintage mics. With all the technology available to us, it seems like we should have been able to improve on the original... yet we have not. That strikes me as odd.
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Mar 4, 2019 15:38:50 GMT -6
Where is Tele US getting their capsules? Are they making them or using someone else's capsule? nevermind... Recording Hacks Telefunken Elektroakustik manufactures its own CK12-style capsules in-house. The cost per part, according to company president Toni Fishman, exceeds $1000. As of November 2005, the company was able to produce 400 capsules per year, with a reject rate of 50% and goal of increasing capacity to 500 (presumably) usable capsules per year. The transformer in the 251E is made by Haufe, maker of the original ElaM 251 transformer. It is a 14:1 design; the Telefunken Elektroakustik unit is custom-wound by Haufe to the specs of the original, although some experts disagree. Read more: recordinghacks.com/microphones/Telefunken-USA/ElaM-251E#ixzz5hF3mUm99
|
|
|
Post by brenta on Mar 4, 2019 17:07:31 GMT -6
Where is Tele US getting their capsules? Are they making them or using someone else's capsule? nevermind... Recording Hacks Telefunken Elektroakustik manufactures its own CK12-style capsules in-house. The cost per part, according to company president Toni Fishman, exceeds $1000. As of November 2005, the company was able to produce 400 capsules per year, with a reject rate of 50% and goal of increasing capacity to 500 (presumably) usable capsules per year. The transformer in the 251E is made by Haufe, maker of the original ElaM 251 transformer. It is a 14:1 design; the Telefunken Elektroakustik unit is custom-wound by Haufe to the specs of the original, although some experts disagree. Read more: recordinghacks.com/microphones/Telefunken-USA/ElaM-251E#ixzz5hF3mUm99I think it depends on the mic too. Fletcher stated back when he was working for them that the Copperhead uses a Chinese capsule. Their U47 and 251 better not use Chinese capsules at those prices. I’m really keen to hear their new “Alchemy” series, even though those are probably Chinese capsules as well.
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Mar 4, 2019 17:48:45 GMT -6
Wow...that's disappointing but not surprising at this point. I've held off on buying vintage mics other than a U87.. It's the only stage left for me in this gear addiction LOL. Any chance our mics of today sound that great in 50 years due to some magic aging process?
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Mar 4, 2019 18:40:17 GMT -6
The vintage is much nicer; The Tele is strident in comparison, but doesn't the vintage seem just a a tad on the tight side?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 4, 2019 18:56:41 GMT -6
I can sell you guys Uptons for a fantastic price. Buy it, try it and if you don’t like the cap that’s in it, swap it for a timcampbell capsule and keep the extra $5000 in your pocket.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Mar 4, 2019 19:07:44 GMT -6
If I'm paying $9500 for a new version of the 251, I expect it to sound identical to the vintage 251. Full stop. Based on that video, it's not even that close.
What gives?
|
|
|
Post by subspace on Mar 4, 2019 19:33:08 GMT -6
If I'm paying $9500 for a new version of the 251, I expect it to sound identical to the vintage 251. Full stop. Based on that video, it's not even that close. What gives? It says Telefunken on it.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Mar 4, 2019 19:47:45 GMT -6
If I'm paying $9500 for a new version of the 251, I expect it to sound identical to the vintage 251. Full stop. Based on that video, it's not even that close. What gives? It says Telefunken on it. Well that was a rhetorical question. Haha But it does beg the question how even $9500 can't seem to buy whatever tooling is necessary to exactly reproduce the capsule or how $9500 can't seem to buy the parts of the circuit or recreate the transformer in a manner necessary to exactly reproduce the sound. It can't all just be the tube. The reissue 251 is using a NOS tube anyway, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Mar 5, 2019 7:45:15 GMT -6
How did they get so close with the U47 but be so far off with the 251?
But . . . just wait until you hear the new Heiserman 47 Tube!!
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 5, 2019 11:41:02 GMT -6
I hear more sibilance in the 250 than the new 251. As I've pointed out many times, sibilance is a misbalance of consonant to vowel. Not "too much HF"...or "ugly HF content". Those are just ways the fundamental problem is made ear pokey and obvious to people who don't get the problem. That 250 (which is a cardioid only and not really the same mic anyway I think)...would need air put into the vowels. You'd have to be careful with to find a frequency flattering to Nick while not making those already too loud consonants ugly. I preferred the new U47 there, too, though not by any striking amount-so we can agree they're mostly interchangeable functionally. The new one seemed to distort the consonants less while keeping the midforward Neumann sound. Are these "worth" $9k? I mean...that becomes a whole different discussion. But, I think people like to throw stones at anyone charging a lot...or utilizing a name they have no actual tie to other than buying the rights to it...I get both of those. Go pick on UA. I'm glad that Telefunken, whomever they are now, is doing the name justice. Not going to be in my price range any time soon, but doesn't mean it's not a fine bunch of mics.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 5, 2019 11:57:31 GMT -6
Since they got busted pawning off chinese mics, they've tried really hard to sell the notion of them being all handmade in house.. Which I personally don't believe.
They claim a 50% failure rate?
Bullshit.
Modern CNC processes can absolutely turn out 100% perfect backplates and tension rings.
If someone like Shannon can hand tension capsules without a ton of failures in his little workshop, a fully funded company with a team of people building these things can surely do as good... Unless of course you read the word "produce" more figuratively instead of literally..
It makes me think they are buying tons of cheap chinese parts and doing hand selection.
|
|
|
Post by aremos on Mar 5, 2019 12:12:51 GMT -6
I can sell you guys Uptons for a fantastic price. Buy it, try it and if you don’t like the cap that’s in it, swap it for a timcampbell capsule and keep the extra $5000 in your pocket. Have you or anyone here heard/tried it with the CT-12? And, maybe you've stated it, what was the difference between Dallas's original & Shannon's reskinning of it?
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Mar 5, 2019 12:49:49 GMT -6
The new one sounds like it has a treble booster on it. I could see that working in a dense track, though. The vintage might need some EQ to stand out the same.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 5, 2019 13:57:31 GMT -6
The vintage might need some EQ to stand out the same. Yeah, I know it was a 251 vs 251 demo, but I'm not sure the vintage mic is what I would have chosen for that guy.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 5, 2019 15:06:06 GMT -6
"that guy"...
now I listened to the woman's demo...the vintage certainly sounds better on her. But, more because the new one pinches too much on her loud parts than any sibilance on either. And honestly, I've always found 251 clones get pinchy...which is why this caught my ear as NOT sounding like a 251: (same singer - towards the middle)
He's singing loud and near it. The SSes are loud but clean....and it doesn't pinch. Which is why to me that sounds more like a U67 than a 251. FWIW.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Mar 5, 2019 15:14:40 GMT -6
I wish they could shoot out the WARM with the vintage ELA M mic...... well ok throw in the T-Funk as well that would be a great 3 way video they will never do it.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 5, 2019 17:02:07 GMT -6
That why i posted the clip of Nick. Obviously different day and better song ....but, theres no doubt Id choose that Warm over the two in the first clip for “that guy”. Hes loud, which is weird that the TF above did fine on him (IMO) and not on the woman where it seemed to pinch whenever she’d sing loudly. I wonder if its some specific frewuency it doesnt like at volume....
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 5, 2019 17:39:49 GMT -6
BTW, FYI, I didn't mean any offense when I said "that guy". I didn't know his name....
|
|
|
Post by Chad on Mar 5, 2019 17:46:11 GMT -6
What I heard in both cases:
» Modern recreation Mics: Top end that is more open (and even pushing "harsh" on the 251!).
» Vintage Elam 250/U47: Low mids/low end that feels "slow" dynamically. Almost like there is a Sta Level that is only affecting the low-mids/lows. The impression is that there is a "foundation" that isn't going way... the signal is constant and steady (coming toward me) in that area of frequencies.
|
|