Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush  Ian, I am surprised at you.
What an arrogant and ignorant response. 
Your analogy to the Ford or the Apple computer is laughable.
Ford always made the F150 and Apple always made the iMac.
AKG in Vienna made the 260, not TelfeunkenUSA. You're delusional in asserting that your company already made something in the 1960's and now is making a re-do of something you already designed. 
Despite my complaint above, I ended my post by asking what does the new 260's
sound resemble. What sound world does it inhabit?
You don't or won't answer that question and I made the mistake of assuming you are knowledgeable in this area. Why are none of the principals like Mr. "Porsche" Fishman or other management with design responsibility answering instead of you?
Your response is laughable. |
AKG made the 260 for the original Telefunken and it was never badged as anything other than a Telefunken, therefore it's a Telefunken. They didn't make the U 47 or the Ela M 251 either, but they are still considered Telefunken microphones. Look, I apologize for sounding arrogant or ignorant, it just seemed that you were constantly missing my point, which was that the Professional series mics are not replicas of familiar classics. They started off that way, but with the addition of the RM-5C and the Ela M 260, that quickly changed. I'll say it again, the Ela M 260 is not designed to be a replica of the original. It is designed to be something new. Should it be called the Ela M 260F? Maybe, but that is not my call to make. Complaining to me about it is not going to change the fact that it is named how it is named. Again, I apologize for the confusion.
As far as what "sound world" it inhabits, here ya go:
From my personal experience, the Ela M 260 seems to be its own entity. It's not dark like a Neuman, but it's not really bright like an AKG 451 either. It has a detailed, open top end without being overly bright or harsh. The low end is big, tight, and solid. It seems to have a certain amount of depth to it that I have not heard in a Neumann KM84 or an AKG 451E. Compared to a vintage Schoeps 221B, the 260 seems a little more polished sounding, maybe even a little more "real" if you may. Actually, a couple of weeks ago, I had a horn session that included a flute, soprano and tenor saxes, trombone, and trumpet. The Ela M 260 was quite possibly the best microphone I have used yet on a flute (the title was previously held by a Schoeps CMC6 with an MK4 capsule). It also performed fantastically on both of the saxes. It just seemed to have a certain amount of realism that I hadn't heard in other small diaphragm condenser microphones before. When it came time for mixdown, I found that I didn't have to do anything to it to make it work in the mix, aside from adding a touch of verb.
There you have it, a personal "real world" description of the Ela M 260. As far as me not being qualified or knowledgable enough about it to answer your question, that is a misguided assumption. Of any person here at Telefunken | USA, I am one of the most qualified to speak about our products sonically. I hope that this information was helpful.
