The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Telefunken C12 - a worthy specimen???
Old 22nd October 2013
  #31
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
It was a 47 which was used as a reference for a very popular 47 clone, and one of the better 47s I've ever heard, so it was pretty good. Maybe we got lucky with Wunder? I'd be surprised if it was related to luck since we have two and both are equally great (and similar in sound) and Mike's reputation is outstanding. It might be that, instead of us having good luck, you've had bad luck.

Either way, I'm not considering Wunder's C12, only Tele or an original, which is off the table since I've checked prices.
Old 28th October 2013
  #32
Lives for gear
 
NoEgo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by elambo View Post
You've hit the exact button I wanted this mic to press. I currently use KM54s for acoustic and they're incredibly good. I'm selling one and thinking of grabbing a C12 in the process.



Yeah I'm not holding my breath (slight pun slightly intended). They passed the $10K threshold a while ago.
I dunno. It would be hard to beat a KM54 pair for acoustic guitar. I think. Now that I have used them.....Especially finger style. Message me if you are selling one.

Have you heard a CS1 Lucas mic yet? They are pretty special. I don't have a C12 but I do have a VF14 U47 and a Wunder. The Wunder is in the ballpark but in no way not the U47.
The C12 is a classic but the CS1 is a real nice mic I think. It looks and kind of runs in the same pack as a C12. It reaches for miles though. And it's not too hyped in the highs like a CV12R which I am not a fan. Just my opinions of course.
Old 28th October 2013
  #33
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulOcchialini View Post
I have two home built c12's with Ami transformers, and Tim's capsule.. Good but not that good.. I would buy the metal work from flea not ami, Wunder and almost certainly tele USA buys bodies from flea..

Fletcher.... Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't tele acquire the original capsule blueprints and manufacturing details from akg or another source?
Don't want to interject anything manufacturer-biased into this debate but just to clarify...TELEFUNKEN Elektroakustik does not buy any C12 bodies or chassis from FLEA. All of the body tubes, chassis structure, plastic molds, contacts, rivets, head baskets, are manufactured and painted/plated by a small few machine shops who are local to our Connecticut and Massachusetts area that we have worked with closely since the early days of this company 10+ years ago. I don't know what Wunder does for their parts nor will I speculate.

And yes, we have original AKG blueprints for CK12 capsule backplates as well as a plethora of the other parts for original C12, 251, and U47 microphones. In spite of the number of both vintage and new microphones of this caliber that I have taken apart, repaired, refurbished, listened to, tracked with, etc...looking at these parts drafts and diagrams which so few people would ever have the opportunity to view is one of the neater parts of my job here. They feel like sacred ancient documents to me!
Old 28th October 2013
  #34
Lives for gear
 
NoEgo's Avatar
I have the Tele USA Elam251 with orig CK12 and Ac701K. You guys called it the V

it is killer. I am told only 50 + exist. Is that true?
Old 28th October 2013
  #35
Fifty is a fair estimate I believe for the total number of 'V' series mic systems. In addition to the AC701 edition there were also 'V' edition 251E's and C12's...so certainly less than fifty ELA M251 VAC microphones like yours are in existence.
Old 29th October 2013
  #36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telefunken Lab View Post
Don't want to interject anything manufacturer-biased into this debate but just to clarify...TELEFUNKEN Elektroakustik does not buy any C12 bodies or chassis from FLEA. All of the body tubes, chassis structure, plastic molds, contacts, rivets, head baskets, are manufactured and painted/plated by a small few machine shops who are local to our Connecticut and Massachusetts area that we have worked with closely since the early days of this company 10+ years ago. I don't know what Wunder does for their parts nor will I speculate.

And yes, we have original AKG blueprints for CK12 capsule backplates as well as a plethora of the other parts for original C12, 251, and U47 microphones. In spite of the number of both vintage and new microphones of this caliber that I have taken apart, repaired, refurbished, listened to, tracked with, etc...looking at these parts drafts and diagrams which so few people would ever have the opportunity to view is one of the neater parts of my job here. They feel like sacred ancient documents to me!
I'm very pleased you took the time to weigh in on this thread with actual fact and second what Fletcher said also. I have never had any doubts with regards to your authenticity and am a huge fan of your products (of which I own several).
Old 29th October 2013
  #37
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
Thank you Telefunken Lab! The high degree of attention to detail is becoming obvious.

There are people who aren't interested in that last 5%. The "magic" as I mentioned earlier. The level of detail, tough to describe, which makes certain vintage classics so envied. I DO care about that and I'd be willing to pay for it. I'm guessing that your level of detail gives these new mics a real shot at capturing the entire sound, not just something reminiscent.

BTW, the C12VR should never come up in C12 discussions.
Old 29th October 2013
  #38
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elambo View Post

BTW, the C12VR should never come up in C12 discussions.
Nor any C12 clones or most of the other microphones mentioned. None of them sound just like a vintage C12. But then what is the point of the discussion?
Old 29th October 2013
  #39
member no 666
 
Fletcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
None of them sound just like a vintage C12. But then what is the point of the discussion?
Most original [vintage] C-12's don't sound like C-12's either... 50 years of varying levels of maintenance will do that to you [see guys my age for details].

Peace
Old 31st October 2013
  #40
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Nor any C12 clones or most of the other microphones mentioned. None of them sound just like a vintage C12. But then what is the point of the discussion?
The point of the discussion is easy to identify. Also, what Fletcher said. There are clones which sound better than certain original C12s, some by a large degree.
Old 31st October 2013
  #41
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by elambo View Post
The point of the discussion is easy to identify. Also, what Fletcher said. There are clones which sound better than certain original C12s, some by a large degree.
Perhaps not as easy as it would seem.

The term "sounds better" is completely subjective. So I guess we then need to decide what is meant by "worthy specimen".

While I agree that a C12vr does not sound like an original C12, I happen to think they sound quite good. For some applications one could sound better than a particular C12.

Leading me to disagree with your statement that "the C12VR should never come up in C12 discussions".
Old 31st October 2013
  #42
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Also I'm curious, why don't you just sell the C12vr that you haven't used in years? It isn't doing you any good just sitting there collecting dust.
Old 1st November 2013
  #43
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
The term "sounds better" is completely subjective. So I guess we then need to decide what is meant by "worthy specimen".
In this case, because there's a control element (a well-maintained C12 which exhibits what engineers typically perceive as the C12 sound), and because, in my experience, a group of engineers who admire the general characteristics of a C12 tend to agree upon what constitutes a good and bad C12, we can toss much of the typical subjectivity of microphones out the window. I'll put it this way: those I've asked in person know instantly what I'm referring to when discussing the admirable attributes of a C12, and from what I've read here so do those who've commented on and have experience with vintage C12s AND modern clones, Teles in particular.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
While I agree that a C12vr does not sound like an original C12, I happen to think they sound quite good. For some applications one could sound better than a particular C12.
And for that matter an SM57 can sound better than any C12. And we've all seen those threads. This isn't that thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
Leading me to disagree with your statement that "the C12VR should never come up in C12 discussions".
If a "C12" is what is intended then a C12VR should never come up in C12 threads, not if you want to do the OP any favors. These mics do not sound the same. I've asked about mics that sound as close as possible.

We haven't sold the VR because it hasn't been necessary and because sometimes we need a lot of mics (e.g. drums) and the C12VR isn't a bad crush mic.
Old 1st November 2013
  #44
Lives for gear
 
syra's Avatar
I guess my experiences dealing with C12 clones vary significantly from the consensus of the thread so far. I have handpicked the pair of C12s I have now from half a dozen and tested it against Tele, Wunder and Flea clones. None of the clones came close to the high register of the original. It was not subtle either. Having said that, Tele has done a great job with the 251 and Mike too with his CM7.
Old 2nd November 2017
  #45
Here for the gear
 

IMHO a microphone is no more than a tubular body, a grill, a capsule, several caps and resistors and in some cases a tube and power supply (chassis and s’more simple electronic circuitry). Using even top tier parts, it can be done within the $500-1000 range. Why anyone would be willing to shell out 9k for a current production mic is beyond me. That 5% magic some of you mentioned, is something that can be achieved by any decent engineer with half decent audio chain. Besides, a lot gets lost in the mix and further destroyed in the digital domain.
I’ve built some nice mics with Tim Campbell’s capsules and believe them to be of high quality. Don’t believe me? Try for yourself. Yeah, I know there are those who need to protect their investments (and their pride).
Old 2nd November 2017
  #46
Gear Addict
 
musicalnyc's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Rose View Post
IMHO a microphone is no more than a tubular body, a grill, a capsule, several caps and resistors and in some cases a tube and power supply (chassis and s’more simple electronic circuitry). Using even top tier parts, it can be done within the $500-1000 range. Why anyone would be willing to shell out 9k for a current production mic is beyond me. That 5% magic some of you mentioned, is something that can be achieved by any decent engineer with half decent audio chain. Besides, a lot gets lost in the mix and further destroyed in the digital domain.
I’ve built some nice mics with Tim Campbell’s capsules and believe them to be of high quality. Don’t believe me? Try for yourself. Yeah, I know there are those who need to protect their investments (and their pride).
“Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.”
– Yoda
Old 2nd November 2017
  #47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Rose View Post
IMHO a microphone is no more than a tubular body, a grill, a capsule, several caps and resistors and in some cases a tube and power supply (chassis and s’more simple electronic circuitry). Using even top tier parts, it can be done within the $500-1000 range. Why anyone would be willing to shell out 9k for a current production mic is beyond me. That 5% magic some of you mentioned, is something that can be achieved by any decent engineer with half decent audio chain. Besides, a lot gets lost in the mix and further destroyed in the digital domain.
I’ve built some nice mics with Tim Campbell’s capsules and believe them to be of high quality. Don’t believe me? Try for yourself. Yeah, I know there are those who need to protect their investments (and their pride).
Yes, but a business making microphones, for profit...is a far different concept.

peace
Old 3rd November 2017
  #48
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Rose View Post
IMHO a microphone is no more than a tubular body, a grill, a capsule, several caps and resistors and in some cases a tube and power supply (chassis and s’more simple electronic circuitry). Using even top tier parts, it can be done within the $500-1000 range. Why anyone would be willing to shell out 9k for a current production mic is beyond me. That 5% magic some of you mentioned, is something that can be achieved by any decent engineer with half decent audio chain. Besides, a lot gets lost in the mix and further destroyed in the digital domain.
I’ve built some nice mics with Tim Campbell’s capsules and believe them to be of high quality. Don’t believe me? Try for yourself. Yeah, I know there are those who need to protect their investments (and their pride).
I'm honored that you picked my thread for your first post, but if you're a mic builder then how'd you miss Gearslutz all these years?

I understand you point about the effectiveness of a $500-1000 mic, and some good products fall in that category, but having used mics at all price points for a couple decades I highly value the merits that can only be found in more expensive units. A Wunder CM7, for instance, can be made for less (the CM7GT is proof) but you begin to make compromises. If a production is able to allow for compromises, or if an engineer can make up for them, great. In my experience, a talented engineer is still limited by the quality of the recordings he's/she's given. You can't recreate sonic detail that didn't make it into the recording, and THAT is what you get with better mics. I could record a guitar and spend a week trying to get the sound of a KM54 from an SM57 but it'll never happen, and the 54 instantly exhibits quality whereas the 57 more easily suggests lower-quality production. Again, in some genres it makes no difference. In others (e.g. classical, jazz, singer/songwriter/audiophile) it's everything.
Old 7th November 2017
  #49
Lives for gear
 
NoEgo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by elambo View Post
I'm honored that you picked my thread for your first post, but if you're a mic builder then how'd you miss Gearslutz all these years?

I understand you point about the effectiveness of a $500-1000 mic, and some good products fall in that category, but having used mics at all price points for a couple decades I highly value the merits that can only be found in more expensive units. A Wunder CM7, for instance, can be made for less (the CM7GT is proof) but you begin to make compromises. If a production is able to allow for compromises, or if an engineer can make up for them, great. In my experience, a talented engineer is still limited by the quality of the recordings he's/she's given. You can't recreate sonic detail that didn't make it into the recording, and THAT is what you get with better mics. I could record a guitar and spend a week trying to get the sound of a KM54 from an SM57 but it'll never happen, and the 54 instantly exhibits quality whereas the 57 more easily suggests lower-quality production. Again, in some genres it makes no difference. In others (e.g. classical, jazz, singer/songwriter/audiophile) it's everything.
Well said
I love mics of all kind. The best way I can describe what "I" hear in a high quality vintage microphone, (M49,U47, U67, M269, ElaM251 have not worked with a C12 only an original C12 cap in my Ela M),is that they do not leave anything behind to accomplish their sound. Or the reverse of that would be that some inexpensive but good sounding mics do something to the sound but can leave bits behind in the process
Since this thread came back to life thought I would give my 2 cents.
Old 9th November 2017
  #50
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

The microphone element (and its related circuitry) is the most important thing in the whole recording process, beginning to end. It is the only point where the sound waves turn into electricity.

The only thing as important are the transducers at the other end and we have no control over them, they're selected by the end user.
Old 9th November 2017
  #51
Quote:
Originally Posted by syra View Post
I guess my experiences dealing with C12 clones vary significantly from the consensus of the thread so far. I have handpicked the pair of C12s I have now from half a dozen and tested it against Tele, Wunder and Flea clones. None of the clones came close to the high register of the original. It was not subtle either.
To the thread reviver. This says it all. I started from a place with the originals and tried modern versions and they just sounded nasty in the 8k region in comparison. I'd just as soon have a versatile VMS or an L22 emulation than a fake copy regardless of how expensive it is as bright mics with less depth sound similar.

My present C12 style is an all original C24 and it has that class that clones don't come close too. Chocolate compared to Carob. Coffee compared to bitter Chicory etc.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump