Telefunken Ela M12 vs. M12 F or M251 vs M251 F

[cuby]

looking to get a good mic, but wondering if the M12 F with modern power supply is good enough to purchase? Don't really need the multi-pattern thing, but am most concerned about the sound. Same goes to the M251 F, does it sound as good as vintage 251? I will use it mainly for vocals, and don't know if the M12 would give me advantage over the more versatile M251?

thanks

Jim

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by cuby

looking to get a good mic, but wondering if the M12 F with modern power supply is good enough to purchase?

That would depend on your standards and the tone for which you're searching. One man's ceiling is another man's floor... whether it's your ceiling or your floor will be a personal decision that only you and you alone will be able to determine.

I would recommend you try one against a few other choices that fall within your budget range and pick the one that seems to work best with your style of recording as your new "favorite tool".

Sorry, wish I could tell you that it will shit ice cream for you [and it might] but anyone who gives any kind of blanket statement about any tool as subjective as a microphone is either brutally inexperienced or just a general purpose fool.

Best of luck with your search.

[Revelation]

The Telefunken R-F-T M16 Mk II had a very similar sound to their higher end mic's. Some suttle thing going on more in the higher end that is better, but in a mix, there is no way you could tell the difference. But again, bear in mind this was at the AES show in NYC. I could be wrong on this, but I did compare all the Telefunken mic's one right after another.

[kats]

I've only heard the 251 "F". But 84k uses the teleUSA "E"s along side the originals and says they're exact in sound - as far as 2 different mics can be that is.

If you do a search you can find his posts on the subject.

Some suttle thing going on more in the higher end that is better, but in a mix, there is no way you could tell the difference

I guess that would depend on the way you work. If you work a minimalist style where every track counts and they all have to be top notch and you don't do heavy processing - the subtleties will make you or break you. I can see what you mean when you have huge track counts, but for me it's a bust at that point anyhow.

I really take to heart what Michael Wagener says (and I'm sure countless others) about how the little things really add up - the 1%s turn into a 100% difference in the end.

[cuby]

thanks Fletcher and others,
If my budget is around $5000-ish, what other mics should I be comparing with? I thought the Telefunken would be a tad above the Soundelux, aren't they? I know there are some Brauners and maybe the in the range, or Manley labs. Or even the Neuman M49 or M50?
Also how are the in-studio comparison arranged? Do I have to pay for all the mics that I am interested first, have them send to me and then return and get refund on the ones that I don't keep?
thanks a bundle

Jim

[kats]

Actually I just remembered True North did a mic shootout posted on GS where he had a SD elux251 and a TELEUSA 251F ($4999) - search you'll find it.

You have to take it with a grain of salt and really check it out in person because as he said himself, eventhough the Tele came out on top - in his studio he preffered the SD in many cases.

IIRC I liked the Tele251, it really sounded big, but I was missing some detail that I would have expected. However, file format etc probably had alot to do with that.

I think there were about 20 or 30 mics in that shootout.

[cuby]

Yes, I am aware of the M16 issue. In fact, I asked the Tele guys in NAMM about the parts being made in Chnia but the rep in the show insisted that it was mostly US parts and assembled in US which turn out to be bogus. Now they insisted that MK2 is designed and hand-assembled in US, I would still take that for a grain of salt for what it's worth. One thing I am not very sure about is the quality of the parts that are used in those "F" models, are they rejects from the non-F batch? If I don't know better, quality of vaccume tubes varies greatly even within the same batch, and yet Tele has the following descript on their M16 MK2 "... ... (use) NOS GE JAN 6072a tube (same tube used in ... M251)". It seems the integraty of the company is questionable so I can only rely on suggesetions from this board before I try to arrange for a audition.
Anyway, I am more interested in their high-end mics and would like to know if anyone has experience with the "F" models first.

[mahasandi]

throw up a hortch and the Brauners and geffels and Tele usa's with a pre you like and go for it

and will you cheer up this girl and just listen to the mics

[mahasandi]

hhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[AmekGuy]

Originally Posted by pegleg

Maybe the 'F' stands for 'F YOU!'

LMAO!

[Bat Head Sound]

Originally Posted by cuby

Yes, I am aware of the M16 issue. In fact, I asked the Tele guys in NAMM about the parts being made in Chnia but the rep in the show insisted that it was mostly US parts and assembled in US which turn out to be bogus. Now they insisted that MK2 is designed and hand-assembled in US, I would still take that for a grain of salt for what it's worth. One thing I am not very sure about is the quality of the parts that are used in those "F" models, are they rejects from the non-F batch? If I don't know better, quality of vaccume tubes varies greatly even within the same batch, and yet Tele has the following descript on their M16 MK2 "... ... (use) NOS GE JAN 6072a tube (same tube used in ... M251)". It seems the integraty of the company is questionable so I can only rely on suggesetions from this board before I try to arrange for a audition.
Anyway, I am more interested in their high-end mics and would like to know if anyone has experience with the "F" models first.

The Telefunken USA 251 E and 251 are EXACTLY the same mic. The only difference is the power supply. As far as the M-16 mkII goes, the majority of the parts are american, and it is assembled in the US. In fact, the circuit design is a TAB-Funkenwerk, and the output transformer is either a Haufe or a TAB-Funkenwerk.

[AdamLazlo]

I've had the chance to try a real Telefunken ELA M 251, in beautiful shape - up to original factory specs and it sounded lovely. It was a "no-brainer" mic, it made things easy. At a $15,000 to $20,000 in prime condition cost? I don't know. I'd rather have a perfect vintage C12 or U47 longbody for more than half of the cost.

Regarding the "close to original" TAB remakes, I have yet to run across/use one. For that kind of money I'd aggressively pursue the company in a loaner/rental before dropping that kind of money on something that you might deem unworthy or not what you want.

I know what I just said is a common BS answer but really the $5000 to $10,000 I save up for a mic or spend on a mic is because I know I can't live without it any-longer.

Personally I wouldn't spend more money just because of the PSU. Capsules and tubes, yes but I have a feeling that what you're mostly paying for is the Telefunken pride.

Like I said, I'd have to hear it to make any kind of real judgment. Hell yes, if the TAB 251 AC were drastically better, sequentially, than the 251 "F" to "E" I'd take the plunge accordingly.

Back in the early days of BLUE I really dug their restored mics... C12's, U47's, etc... if I ran across one of their early restored mics I'd be all over them.

I'd love to hear more about the TAB re-issues/clones but have people jumped on them yet? Especially those that have practical experience with the originals? Personally I don't take too much stock in the PSU's.

-- Adam Lazlo

[AdamLazlo]

Originally Posted by pegleg

To me, one of the major problems with many of the boutique companies is that 'demos' are hard to come by, or you're left with the option to 'buy several and return most' - which may not give you enough time to evaluate them...

And, no, it doesn't seem that any particular 're-issue' has gained universal approval (or acceptance as a replacement for the 'original') - which means that they may all be useful mics in their own right, but none are quite 'there'.

... and that's the gooch/catch-22. That's why I proposed the question of who has actually used the REAL thing next to a copy/refirb?

There can be many many factors especially the age/condition of the original issue mic in capsule, tube, etc.... even if something was NOS, the shelf life is apparent, no? Like a fine wine? Or not? Let's say a mic was bought new, then put in a chest for 50 years, then listened to... would it be the same today as it was 50 years ago? Probably not.

I'm still combating my internal psychological/practical/technical side regarding such things. Did a 251 back in the day sound like the TAB 251 of today? Maybe... the recording medium was behind the mic technology... so we're hearing mics that were based on specs of the time and not based on the prime reproduction medium of the time. Am I going down a weird path or does that make some sense to some? Is all a company looking at is freq SPL curves?

The specs set up for mics back then and those mics that are still around today have characteristics that translate today (due to components and age) but the recording mediums of today don't capture the same attitude/character?

I really think there are too many variables, regarding age, to base a new clone/re-issue on original specs cuz things are way too different now both in format recording and age of a an original vintage mic. Yet again they have a process to make some wines older in age at an accelerated rate.... hmmmm.

Did I just draw myself into an MC Echer drawing?

-- Adam Lazlo

[Bat Head Sound]

Originally Posted by pegleg

You say the 251 E and the '251' are EXACTLY the same mic? Do you mean the 'F' (which we were discussing) or the 'AC'?

251 AC - $10,125 (AC701 tube)
251 E - $7495 (6072)
251 F - $4995 (6072 + ??)

This is right from the Telefunken site:
"The Ela M 251AC and Ela M 251E come complete with your choice of Telefunken AC701 or GE JAN 6072a tube, a new CK12 dual membrane capsule, custom wound Haufe transformer sourced from the original European supplier, VINTAGE style power supply, 10 meter Gotham Audio cable, locking leather bound flight case, wooden microphone box, owners manual and 5 year warranty.
The Ela M 251F microphone system comes complete with a GE JAN 6072a tube, a new TK12 dual membrane capsule, a custom wound Haufe transformer, MODERN style power supply, wooden microphone box, 10 meter Gotham Audio cable, owner manual and 1-year warranty."

EXACTLY the same? The CAPSULE isn't the same - the F uses a 'new TK12' - is that made in the same place as the 'new CK12' - or is it Chinese? Is it the capsule from the Apex/Nady mic?? The PRICE difference between the two mics is $2500.00 - do you seriously think that's $2500 worth of power supply? Come on!

As for the M-16 MKII - OK, so it's TAB-Funkenwerk electronics, but still, a supposedly 'hand-selected' Chinese capsule, same as what's in the Apex, Nady, etc, right? Is that worth the $1100 price difference there?

Sorry about that... Yes I meant that the 251 "E" and the 251 "F" are the same mic. However, what I didn't notice is that they had changed it because for a while they were using the SAME mic. Also, straight from Telefunken about the TK-12: The only differences between the TK-12 and the new CK-12 is a plastic groove that is on the CK-12 and not the TK-12 (which is historically accurate), and some of the screws on the capsule are slightly different. Everything else is the same, and both capsules are American made. Sorry for any confusion that I might have caused.

Not to go back to a sour subject, but keep in mind that there are other factors leading to such a large price difference in the M-16 verses the Apex. First, the quantities that each company buys, the more you buy, the more you save. Second, there are various cosmetic changes to the M-16. Now, they might not be important to the sound of the microphone, but it still costs money. Everything from the new grill to the wooden box that it comes in, the powder coating of both the shockmount and the mic body all costs money. The M-16 also comes with a better cable. Does all that stuff make it worth the additional money that it costs, I dunno. But what I do know is that to most clients, if the mic looks good, it will probably sound good to, which gives them a bit of a confidence boost allowing them to perform a better take. If a client walks into the booth, and spies a mic that looks like shit, that will leave a bad first impression on them. Whereas if they walk into a booth and see a sharp looking mic badged "Telefuken," they might think "wow, that's a nice mic. I'm gonna sound great on that thing." Even if both mics sounded EXACTLY the same (which they don't), I feel that I could get a better performance out of the singer who sings into the better looking mic.

All that said, being an engineer isn't about money (well it sort of is, but that's a different discussion), it is about providing the artists with the necessary tools that he or she needs in order to deliver a compelling performance, allowing us to capture that performance in such a way that when it is reproduced, all the emotions that went into the intial performance is conveyed to the listener in an attempt to make them feel a certain way.

[Revelation]

Originally Posted by cuby

thanks Fletcher and others,
If my budget is around $5000-ish, what other mics should I be comparing with?
Jim

Blue Bottle is the one to get. With the option of the different capsules, you can get almost any sound with it.

[Bat Head Sound]

Originally Posted by pegleg

When I demoed the Apex and the Telefunken M16 MKI, my clients noticed that there was little difference. In fact, those two mics sounded almost exactly the same, except for the higher noise floor of the Tele...

Well, there's your first problem right there. The mkII is a very different mic.

Originally Posted by pegleg

Your example of singing into a Telefunken badged mic is a little exaggerated, I think; Most of my clients would certainly notice the difference between the M16 and a U47, 67 or 251... Nevertheless, I feel sorry for any studio or engineer who so feels the need to impress in that way, that they would use a Chinese mic with a different paint job and pass it off as wonderful. I could not do that and feel good about myself. (If everyone had those feelings, of course, the M16 wouldn't have existed in the first place )

You seem to be missing the point. My point was not "put up a Chinese mic and pass it off as wonderful," nor was it "the M-16 is as good if not better than any U67, 251, etc..." My point was you have to instill confidence in the artist, especially if it is one who has never performed in a studio environment before because it can be quite intimidating. When new or potential client walks into a nice facility, with nice gear, big monitors, and a big television , that instill confidence. Engineers do the same thing, they check out a room and see maybe like an SSL 4k, some pultecs, api's, a Lexicon 480, NS-10's, a giant Augspurger system with the appearence that every piece of gear is in great working order and everything is well maintained and they think "yup, I can work here." And you can't tell me that they don't do that, because I've seen it, I've seen a real pro walk into a room that he'd never been in before and say "yup, I can work here," scrictly based on what he saw. Even seasoned artists do the same thing. They might walk into a room with an engineer that they have never worked with before, go into the booth and see that they've put up a C-12. The artist thinks "hey, I've sung into one of those before and it sounded pretty good, this guy knows what the **** he's doing." In the end, maybe that particular mic isn't right for the artist, but at least you didn't put up a trashed 57, even though that might end up being the mic that sounds the best on that artist. The first impression is the most important and if you can give a good first impression, the rest should be a breeze. (I do realize that most seasoned artists know what works on them, but sometimes they don't).

Obviously, the M-16 is not for everybody, and most of the people who are going to own one are the people who cannot afford a more expensive microphone. Does it make them a terrible purchase, no. People who are just starting out must get what they can afford, and then work their way up. Anyways, we don't need to get back into this discussion...

[Sqye]

Originally Posted by AdamLazlo

... and that's the gooch/catch-22. That's why I proposed the question of who has actually used the REAL thing next to a copy/refirb?

There can be many many factors especially the age/condition of the original issue mic in capsule, tube, etc.... even if something was NOS, the shelf life is apparent, no? Like a fine wine? Or not? Let's say a mic was bought new, then put in a chest for 50 years, then listened to... would it be the same today as it was 50 years ago? Probably not.

I'm still combating my internal psychological/practical/technical side regarding such things. Did a 251 back in the day sound like the TAB 251 of today? Maybe... the recording medium was behind the mic technology... so we're hearing mics that were based on specs of the time and not based on the prime reproduction medium of the time. Am I going down a weird path or does that make some sense to some? Is all a company looking at is freq SPL curves?

The specs set up for mics back then and those mics that are still around today have characteristics that translate today (due to components and age) but the recording mediums of today don't capture the same attitude/character?

I really think there are too many variables, regarding age, to base a new clone/re-issue on original specs cuz things are way too different now both in format recording and age of a an original vintage mic. Yet again they have a process to make some wines older in age at an accelerated rate.... hmmmm.

Did I just draw myself into an MC Echer drawing?

-- Adam Lazlo

lot of good points here.

[MiamiShap]

Hi all. New to gearslutz.com and hoping someone can guide me. I've inherited a vintage TELEFUNKEN ELA M 251 E microphone, in the wood box, and I'm very interested in selling it. I'm pretty certain it's vintage. I've attached a photo. Any suggestions as to how I can go about selling it would be greatly appreciated.Attachment 216238

MiamiShap
mitch@thinkbsg.com