Telefunken Elam 251 $9,500 worth it? (WA251 & GA251 SHOOTOUT) I Shred Shed
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- 251 Style Shoot out between the OG Telefunken Elam 251, Golden Age 251(Clone) and the Warm Audio WA251(Clone)
The Warm Audio Wa412 was used for the preamp
Josh Sackett Finger-Style Acoustic (TAYLOR 517-V) 0:19
Adam Cesarz on Vocals 2:20
Ryan Clapper on Drums 3:58
Josh Sackett Strummed Acoustic (TAYLOR 517-V) 4:41
Buy it Here:
www.sweetwater...
www.sweetwater...
www.sweetwater...
Instagram
/ shredshedrecording
Shred Shed Studio Website
shredshedoffic...
CONTACT
Shredshedofficial@gmail.com
#Elam251 #WarmAudio251 #GoldenAge251
Definitely a noticeable difference when i listened to this in my monitoring headphones. All sound great tele just had that crispyness along with the warmth i could see not needing to do hardly any eq when recording with this on vocals. The WA was my second favorite had more warmth than any of them kinda sounded like a vintage 251 and if it takes to EQ well a slight boost in the uppers and youve got a fantastic sounding mic, could get a little muddy but who doesnt dip out lows in a mix anyway especially in the hip hop genre. Ive always preferred buying warmer mics and having to bring down the lows a little than having a bright mic thats not warm and trying to boost lows just doesnt sound the same as boosting highs.
That's exactly what I look for in a mic. I just got the Lauten Atlantis. I had a u87. I definitely prefer the Atlantis
Hey man thanks for doing this video! As a commercial studio owner I appreciate the time and effort involved in making this. Don't let the silly and childish trolls below dissuade you from making more outstanding vids like this one. For the record, my studio both buys and makes our own mics- both clones and our own designs...and the WARM we purchased as a backup to the 251 we built sounds remarkably similar. So similar that any engineer worth their salt could use EQ and the tiniest of saturation to make them indistinguishable.
Thanks man : )
THANK YOU for not singing show tunes or opera like most reviews. Cartel is an excellent choice. :-) Earned a sub.
Lol which reviews do that? I’ve not seen a single opera singer in a review and now I want to.
I do wish the 3 had been lined up vertically on the acoustic guitar. That much horizontal change on a guitar makes a much bigger difference in tone than the same spread vertically. Thanks for this.
why? no difference IMHO
@@andivax different frequency comes from the guitar as it vibrates and the sound pressure wave moves through the body. Strong sound from the body neck join is hugely different to further up the neck and even compared to the closer sound hole. The top also has different responses all over it too.
Telefunken got it right on everything. Drums - Telefunken USA, WA, GA - big difference with the Telefunken fullness and top end.
No such thing as right and wrong. They all sound good but have different shades of warmth. Those minor differences should not warrant a 1000% price difference. There is nothing in a Teli other than strategic marketing aimed at suckers. It is a microphone and that is it.
I can’t hear a notable difference. Selling my expensive mic collection and buying entire warm audio microphone line and a Sontec EQ plus a skiing trip for my family . Thank you Warm!
come on now...really? I hear a huge difference.
@@byus6928 it’s a vibe difference. I changed the stock tube to the vintage GE and it’s a crips as the original 251. I have made several songs with wa251 and wa47. Those mics were picked by the artists after comparing them with mics that are wayyyy more expensive. Those songwriters don’t know the prices of the mics they just pick them based on the vibe it was giving them.
@@wnorowsk you mind telling me what GE tube that was? I'm interested in doing the same to my wa251.
The Elam is in another class, it has THAT Vocal sound
No it does not. Period. It’s just hype and you are promoting it. It is because of fools that Teli can make a 2000% (or more) profit margin on their products. Remember this is just a microphone.
@@jekyljacobson Bruh whatever, Ive owned a Bock 251, its sounds just like a dam Elam. and Ive sung on a Elam 251. It aint no dam Hype. Youre in the dam minority fa real. The Manley Gold sounds like an Elam as well, thats 5500. Until you have a front end ie Apogee Symphony and monitors, and or the correct studio headphones. You wont hear the difference. I have all the above and the difference is night and dam day end of story
@@MusicByKhalilTV You need to protect a costly purchase. I totally get it. I have the equipment in the league of of what you mentioned, and clearly hear the 'subtle' sonic qualities and differences. They are all very usable pro-grade mics. If you are as good as you claim, then you should know that with good mixing and processing practices, it really is not worth to spend an extra 5-10K on a microphone. Get a decent fairly priced mic and mod it to your liking. Save the $ for more mics and useful/essential equipment.
@@jekyljacobson I sing and song write brother, I live by the phrase you don’t have a second chance to make a first impression. I don’t run a studio so I just need the absolute best for my situation. As it stands I’m singing on a Manley Reference cardiod but I’m about to get the Manley Gold Reference and call it a day as far as microphones go.
One of the few vocal mic shootouts where the singer is actually decent, good job!
Elam 251... big winner..!!!!
Listening on headphones and from a perspective of getting the best results from a studio project ... to me The Telefunken was dramatically more impressive with the tone on everything. one example .. On the first acoustic guitar parts, the E string was so powerful and every other string sat strongly by it. The guitar sounded expensive. With the Warm Audio, I was impressed as well. It's a great sounding mic with the most noticeable difference being that the lows sound slightly rolled off and there is a little bit less of the big money sound, but it does sound great. The Golden Age sounds like it focuses a bit more on the upper mids and highs. This is a great sounding mic as well, but the Telefunken is dramatically better, hence the dramatically higher price.
Yeah, the Telefunken is clearly better, but the Warm Audio at $800 is an incredible sounding mic.
A lot of folks in these comments really don't seem to understand that these small differences are what makes things sound the way they do. Think of having cereal with 1% milk when you usually have it with whole. Think of sweet potato pie vs pumpkin pie. Think of McDonald's ice cream vs Burger King or Diary Queen. YOU may not be able to perceive a difference, but that doesn't mean other's can't. It also doesn't mean that it doesn't matter just because you can't detect it as well as someone else might be able to. You're listening to a video on RUclips that's been compressed and then on top of it, most are likely listening on shitty speakers or through some headphones that are like $50 MAYBE $100. Do you honestly think that's the best way to listen to a comparison of sound? I have this audio routed through a Universal Audio Apollo and I can tell a significant difference and I'm sure I'd be able to tell an ever larger difference if I had the files to play at full fidelity.
@Doremi Monami The differences are easily identifiable to me and what I'm listening on. The raw sound of something is also not the best measure because many things sound like an 87 until you start EQing them and suddenly, they don't sound so much like an 87. There are plenty of clean mics but there is a reason people still buy C800Gs and others like it. The frequency response makes things much easier to deal with. The analogy of this is easily stated by saying that a Nikon D7000 can take an awesome picture, but you can use a $150 camera and Photoshop to get just as good a final product. The Nikon captures more detail initially just like a Telefunken 251 would. That detail can not be added back in later because it was not captured initially. You can have a usable outcome with both, but one requires far less work. Those hours spent correcting something to make it sound better is money being lost.
@Doremi Monami outstanding examples and analogies, thanks so much!
@Doremi Monami You've got way more knowledge than I when it comes to cameras but I can say this, I can look at something and may not necessarily know what was done to it or what camera captured it, but I can look at it and go "This looks better than a lot of films I've seen". I may not know why, but I can usually tell. I'm all for new mics being made that are just as good as the old ones, maybe it'll force the damn prices down. I used to own a C800G but sold it due to the nuances of it and that it wasn't always the right fit. Advanced Audio made a mic to capture that same tone and while it's not spot on exactly nailing the sound, I could not tell a difference in a blind test. I am ALL for that. I own a Tele 251 (USA) and can say that I've heard other Tele 251s and they've not sounded the same so that should be taken into account. However, I have owned several mics that were meant to replicate the sound of another and granted some sound great, other's not so much, but my 251 responds how I expect it to and that tiny little difference in how it captures the sound is the difference between inspiration and just another recording. When I sang into the C800G, it just sounded like a recording, no special magic to me. However, when I sing into my 251, it not only replicates my voice, it makes my voice sound like I wished it did in my head. That may sound odd, but it's true. From a listener's perspective, one wouldn't be able to listen to something and identify the mic it was recorded with, but from a creator's perspective, my equipment has a purpose beyond what someone else will hear.
You're into photography so I'm sure you have tons of pics that won't ever see the light of day but you may still enjoy them. You may have a crappy camera from your college days that doesn't take photos as well as another you have but you love that camera because you know it inside and out and you know that if you want a particular thing, you can count on it. It inspires you and that inspiration is sometimes more important than the tool used. I've made songs that I know I would not have been able to make if I'd used a different mic because that tiny difference in the way the transformers distort the signal, made me choose to sing a certain note a certain way or made me choose to make a particular creative decision. There are plenty of old mics I do not like, but the ones that have stood the test of time have done so for reasons outside of things like sonic opulence. A Bock 251 to me, is the closest I've heard to my mic but I can still tell a difference, but the Bock has it's own character and I think those little personalities that some mics have are what makes them stand out. Yes, a Bock is going for the classic 251 sound, but in doing so, it brings it's own character and signature and in some situations, that signature is preferred over a Tele 251. The Upton 251 is also a fantastic microphone, but there are other factors aside from "does it sound close enough?" that influence mic choices. I don't think people that are going to be purely listening to music would be watching this, but I do think that those that create it will be and these things are important to those that create music. I don't know anything technical about guitars but I'm sure a guy would choose to use a certain brand of pick ups over another because of the small differences in the tone of them and how they inspire that person to create music. I don't really care about the brand of something so much as I do it's value outside of it's primary role of recording audio. May refer to this as "mojo" but that mojo is what gives certain artists that extra little "umph!" when they're creating. Same as why a painter would use wild boar bristle brushes aside from synthetic. Same outcome, but the feeling of sliding it across a canvas is different and every little thing like that makes its way into the final product. So yes, someone listening may not be able to tell in a full mix, hell I may not be able to tell in a full mix, but what I would be hearing would be a direct result of the gear used and who's to say that the person that made the song I'm listening to wouldn't have chosen a different harmony or delivery if they'd used a different mic?
So say those who need to justify an expensive purchase. If the electronics components are of quality, then the minute difference in perceived sound is not worth the way-overpriced unit. Every decent engineer and studio owner knows that deep down. Telefunken charges what the silly market is willing to pay. There is absolutely nothing in their products that warrants such price tags. R&D? For a reissue? C'mon. Build your own mics if you can or buy a clone and upgrade it with better components and capsules. Or just get the WA and make music. Great albums have been made using budget priced equipment.
@@bavabasra agreed. I own a recording studio and certainly although to a large extent one does get what one pays for, a lot of these differences diminish once compression and EQ are correctly and judiciously applied to compensate. A WARM 251 certainly sounds more like a 251 then an 87 does at any price. We built our own C12 and although the 251 is a slightly different beast- a pinot grigio compared to a Chardonnay LOL the quality of the two mics is close enough that I wouldn't call the 251 inferior in any meaningful way in the hands of a competent engineer. One can make GREAT music with this mic! :-)
All very close to me. The differences were the Golden Age was pushing forward in the upper mids. And the Telefunken had a tighter control on the very high end wash, mostly when you were dealing with crash cymbals. The cheaper mics usually have issues with a sort of phasing with cymbal sounds. But overall I'd be happy to own any of them. Less inclined to spend the Telefunken money.
WA HAS A WONDERFUL SOUND. I RECOMEND IT.
I think a lot of you guys who are asserting such huge differences in the sound quality between the mics would not be able to reliably tell the difference in a blind shootout. They are very very close, and if they were loaded up with some high quality tubes, I'd bet there would be a less than 1% difference.
ETA: Listening on Sennheiser HD650s and Adam Monitors, through a Focusrite Scarlett Solo.
If you run a commercial studio and are charging big bucks go for brand name. But for home or small studios? Save cash.
I used to think that, but the vast majority of your clients have no idea what a Telefunken is!
Kirk Sullivan I’ll second that. There is nothing in a microphone modern or vintage that’s worth 10 or even 5K. Let’s stop this silly trend. Also, unless you’re recording large live orchestras, there’s no need to go to the large overrated recording studios. A decent sized studio with a veteran engineer and comfortable array of gear, is all you need. No 20K vintage microphones or 40-50K compressors and processors. A bonafide engineer can make killer sounding recordings with very basic gear. And remember, most people do not care about the nitpick subtleties some of us ‘claim’ to hear in different pieces of equipment. Especially once processed and mixed. This is a truth that the snobs in the industry cannot afford to let be known. They troll the blogs and keep distorting the truths and tell us that you can’t join the big leagues unless you have this, that and the other holy grail tools or record in the corporate music houses.
@@bavabasra 100%
biggest difference is on mics placement, the one on the top left is like 4-5 inches away from the one on the top right that will cause important differences on high frequencies. It may be not the best option for A/B auditioning between these mics. I think WA 251 can be an interesting cheap choice though...
Totally agree!
What about a blind test instead? Playing and singing same short phrases of few seconds each. I”m pretty sure the result will be surprising ;)
All very close. There are some differences. More differences in price than in sonic variation.
Telefunken is a bit more "pristine" sounding, but to me not worth spending more than 10x as much on - the Warm seems like an excellent choice here
The Telefunken sounds more focused in the bottom end and more open on top to my ear. it definitely sounds better but it is a subtlety. Cheers!
All of these mic sound so much alike but vastly different in price. I can't tell them apart, so I will go shopping starting at the lease priced unit and work my way up if need be...I have never been convinced of these mic/speaker shootouts. I expected all these mics to sound about the same. In summary, the only thing I've learned is to look at your money first, as the mic is a personal preference. Most consumers can't make a mistake at the checkout counter!
The Bock 251 sounds just like an Elam 251, for 3500 Less. Ive had it and it was the best mike ive ever owned. Had to sell it when i made a cross coast move. God willing ill be getting another one real soon
I Mixed a song for a rapper who recorded through a bock 251>neve 1073>cl1b. Best raw vocals ive EVER heard. No matter what creative effects i auditioned, the vocals sounded good
@@Warmwinterz yes sir man, that Mic is the shit, it is THAT SOUND
WA251 is so great! Recommend it to everyone
Do you have it?
Yes, the Tele is more extended on both ends, but barely. These mics are all so close, I bet actual 251's are more different from each other than these.
You sir are right on the money. Very refreshing to like a comment like this one : )
What about a shootout between a WA 251 & AA CM251?
In a full mix NO ONE would be able to guess correctly. Good shootout!
You'd be surprised what some people are able to hear on a good system. On Apple earbuds you're absolutely correct!
Exactly my point 😂 The general consumer won’t hear it. Audiophiles definitely can.
Pro trick: you can watch movies at kaldrostream. Been using it for watching loads of movies during the lockdown.
@Vicente Andrew yup, I've been watching on kaldrostream for since december myself :)
Telekunken is fuller, rounder, better. It a 10% margin admittedly vs a 10x price difference, but it's there, I hear it, esp. on vocals
Perhaps you hear it because you want to. In a mix especially after processing I doubt anyone can tell which mic was used.
I think the real difference is how well they take processing.
Nonsense. An engineer worth his/her salt can work magic with any decent mic.
@@jekyljacobson Never stated they couldn’t. All I said is that when processed that is where the real differences in quality between the mics are heard. Keep in mind I am talking from the trained ear (Recording engineer/Mixer) perspective because the average listener won’t hear and could care less about this.
@@sKarredtoon you’re 100% right. Just because a good engineer can make any mic sounds nice after processing doesn’t mean some mics don’t take to mixing better
It's not easy to tell from a YT clip if the perceived openness of the TF is just brighter trebles. But The difference betwee the WA and the GA seems really small.
For $800 the WA251 sounds soooo good!!
I own the mic. It's fab. Really great on acoustic guitar aimed at 12th fret.
@@mannixmusicmixingmastering8652 I own a wa47 and wa251. great value in both. I changed my tubes in each mic to vintage nos tubes from the 60's. It all works pretty well and especially for the cost!
@@martianluther3728 Absolutely. I recently put in GE 5 Star in it. What a great mic.
Telefunken still noticably better, but price is surely to be considered.
@@mannixmusicmixingmastering8652 A Campbell Capsule, improved transformer and higher quality cable will put it right up there and still be very reasonably priced.
I think if the warm audio top end was a little smoother & brighter & open up just a little, you couldn’t tell the difference.
Excellent shootout! Dang that Elam sounds so good! The low end to me is superior and the body of the tone is significantly better. However, the WA and GA sound good too. I personally like to rent a great mic for vocal tracking. Here in Nashville, Blackbird Audio Rentals has quite a selection. Thanks for the vid! I just subbed you. :)
I appreciate that man, thank you!!
Not worth the extra $8K
damn on my MacBook Air I can clearly hear the difference. Telefunken CLEAR W
The GA 251 on the guitar at the end has crraazzyyyy color damn ! 🔥🔥🔥 on the vocals is was 2nd place
Anyone who pays 9500 for a mic that sounds that marginally different is duffus. With my best headphones and my eyes closed the difference was unrecognizeable. I own an opr 251 and it’s amazing on everything. Period.
I sometimes wonder if other people realize that Telefunken is also a cloning company. Renamed to Telefunken Elektroakustik, the people manufacturing your $10,000 microphone acquired the name and diamond logo only 20 years ago. Soooo essentially you're paying for a $10,000 clone instead of a $1,000 clone. :-)
We're living in the matrix.
@@ShredShed XD
that is totally true, still the Telefunken sound much better than the other two mics.
So true. I've read in more than one place that Telefunken heard an Apex 460 and were so impressed that they sourced the same mic, with minor changes, and sold it as their own. The M16.
Not really. Telefunken Elektroakustik painstakingly measured and recreated the 251 to AKG's exact specifications, including the capsule down to the capsule's 50+ parts and the Haufe transformer being used. The components are the same, switches, the grill mesh is the same, the mounting system, capsule tension, voltages, all down to the exact specs a tolerances. In effect it IS the same microphone.
Warm audio is almost there, correct EQ, and timbre but slightly less 3D.
its like there is a thin curtain between the singer and the clones.
Yeah, tell yourself that you have magical ears.
@@jekyljacobson I have magic ears and can absolutely tell a difference on the vocals
@@Nathan0A That’s what you tell yourself to justify a $8000 difference. The difference is so subtle that it makes no difference in the real world to 99 percent of the people. Hype that’s all.
@@jekyljacobson if there is no difference why go through the effort of making a comparison video? I can load up the audio spectrograms from the different mic and see an analytically significant difference in higher frequencies. get your ears checked bud
@@Nathan0A Yup, keep convincing yourself that the difference is that great to the ear. Digital analyses don't count. It's what we hear in the mix that counts. Any engineer worth his salt can tweak those subtle differences and get any half decent mic to sound great in the mix. The subtle difference does absolutely not justify an 800% price difference. Telis were built off an old design, so very little R&D went into it. Manufacturing costs are more or less the same for all quality mics. So why the price difference? Because fools are willing to pay it so they can gloat.
Big props for singing Hooligans. Great comparison!
I own the WA-51. Fab mic. Kills on vocals, acoustic and as a drum overhead.
And for a few more dollars it can get modded if you feel it lacks somewhere. Can’t wait for Teli to fall on their knees and beg us to buy their mics for under $1K. Then, I MAY consider it.
@@jekyljacobson i own a WA 251 just used for first time! Sounds great! Where can i get a mod if I ever need one?
The Telefunken has all the magic. The other two just sound like other mics on same source. Maybe the Warm Audio has the same low end as Telefunken but neither cheap mic touched the details and character of the Telefunken
Bullocks. In a blind test, you’d likely have a hard time picking the “best sounding” mic.
Use an EQ right after the WA !
I think warm audio try to give warmness by rollin of the top end, Golden is more open, but telefunken its even more
Boost the WA-251 at 10khz with the tonlux eq and save some money. lol
Or save even more money and buy an Aston Spirit.
Yes I was just about to write this
1. Telefunken Elam 251 (but not for this money).
2. Warm Audio WA-251 (needs modification)
3. Golden Age
what kind of mod are you thinking for the WA-251? I felt that with a little top end eq you'd be pretty close to dead on the ELA M. Thats literally all that i could pick out was that the ELA M was a tad bit brighter.
Golden Age didn't have any testing of any of there mics this year at the namm show this year and I heard its just not there. They will probably have to lower there overall prices. Telefunken was on point.
Telefunken was best on everything. Not sure it's worth the cost. Was surprised with the warm as well.
Awesome vdo. Thanks. I have been waiting for my TF 251 for 4 months now. The TF has better top end, the GA is brittle sounding, the Warm really blew me away, it sounds darker, but I can think of sources that I wouldn't feel shy to put a pair of them up.
I agree, Cheers!
@@ShredShed
a tube swap could fix that. they are using a jj which has a slightly more colored sound. A EH12ay could make the difference
WOW, not spending the money on the ELAM, I actually prefer the warm especially for the money. Thanks for posting, great comparison!
Keep in mind his room sounds kinda shit
I venture to state boldly that most if not all commenters here are biased. I truly believe that in a blind test, few if any would actually pick the one they claimed sounds best. Some want to tell themselves that they have golden ears and seek our recognition (pssst... I laugh at you). Others who can't afford the rip-off price of the Telis, tell themselves that the Chinese (that's where it's made) clones are right up there or even better.
I say that the differences are so subtle that rather than acquiring overpriced gear, we ought to start a trend to record great music with reasonably priced gear. At current, great gear should not be costly. Let's send a clear message to those that have been raping us for years and to those that enable them that those pricey toys are just that: overpriced toys. Let's bring Telefunken to their knees until they will have no choice but sell their overrated clones (that's what they are) for it's true value. I truly believe a hi-end modern day microphone should sell for no more than 1.5K if that. Do the math.
Was waiting for a video like this! I have the warm audio myself but the telefunken beats it. Is it 10x better as the price though? Naah
wow thanks for this, I love the people who say there is a huge difference, far more change in tone when you ad processing in the mix, just proof you should be able to make a stellar sounding recording with all 3!
I agree 100%
Expensive equipment makes it easier and faster...that extra price is the price of working more...
Though if you are working on a lot of projects, expensive equipment will help out a lot...
Time is money after all.
@@ardonrumnong These people don't understand that though. They're saying that you can get a $300 camera and it'll be just as good as a top of the line Nikon or Canon just because you have Photoshop. That sounds retarded when I say that but that's exactly what they're saying. Just because you can EQ something (PS), it doesn't mean it'll sound as good because it was not CAPTURED the same.
In listening past the guitar and focusing on the room I can hear the shape of the guitarist to a greater degree with the funken 251, with a stereo pair I could hear the color of the guitarists eyes...give you his blood type if I knew the room! Warm... a tad more saturated lower end atmospheric hangover in a cool way. Goldage...a slight bit more glass in its transparency...warmth is just a hair catching up to the glass turtle...but, like they cross the finish line in a tie and give each other high fives...the crowd cheers! All really amazing mics...two of 'em priced two low:)
Signal chain please? Huge sounding
Thankyou great video, not another one like this
Excellent shootout thank you
I just listened on headphones, and on a pair of Genelec's in a tuned room...I've heard more sonic variance between 2 vintage mics of the same brand and model, but different years ...than I heard in this comparison. The only way to really objectively compare would be a blind test, and I honestly don't know any engineers that would pass this one with flying colors...I certainly wouldn't bet money on it
@@ShredShed
thanks for the comparison..I agree there are some subtle differences, but the perceived tonal and frequency differences might become complicated by the variance in the performance itself too... I would be curious to see the frequency charts compared side by side (which I'll try to find.) I doubt they deviate all that much, and a spectral analysis on something like RX would also be interesting to check out. I personally find it incredibly difficult to pick out differences in a comparison like this, when there is so much variance in the performance too ( dynamics , timber, tone ect ) played back on files that are likely not of high resolution on my end. I would be super impressed if any one could listen to a blind comparison of a similar performance and definitively pick out which mic is which, every time, especially if there were cross-fades in the edits between the 2 making the performance seamless ...even 70% of the time would be a feat....and as far as which sounds better, that is a whole other subjective commentary, but its clear that this WA piece is well done.... I know there are mastering engineers with incredibly refined and trained ears , but, Ive seen very seasoned engineers fail at even distinguishing a 414 from a C12, in blind tests with various sources, and the percentages are even less accurate when it comes to distinguishing A/D converters apart....although it could take more time and experience with gear to really get to really know those differences apart, and many other factors as well.. I think more than anything, having an original piece of vintage kit vrs a clone has more to do with attracting particular clientele than anything to do with musical functionality these days, and surely it is a solid investment to own such a revered mic..but it seems without a blind comparison, most people will tend to opt for the pricey name brand tool as being superior...must be a part of human psychology
Shred Shed do a comparison with Advance Audio mics also!!
@@e.apollis2877 I would if I had them?
@@ShredShed Adk also if you can
@@e.apollis2877 Where am I supposed to get these said mics from? you should make a video
Telefunken definitely sounds best to me.
I really don't care for brand names and love a good underdog mic but... even if you discard the slight but obvious high and ultra-low frequencies bump of the Telefunken, when I listen to the drums especially, there's a sense of being there that the others just don't have. And I feel that it's more than just EQ. I couldn't tell you exactly why but there it is. Is it worth 10 times the price tho? Well if you're recording Adele in the most beautiful sounding room maybe it is. But you sure as hell can make a professional record with any of these mics.
Yikes the ELAM is SO much better it's depressing !
ELAM seems to have better extensions top and bottom end.
lenmusic Why is that? A personal bias perhaps?
Really now? "SO" much better? Any other review, where the lower cost mic has the better top end, you would be calling it "harsh" or "brittle"....right? The truth of the matter is these mics are VERY close in character to each other, nice round bottom and smooth through the bulk of the audio range. The Warm is actually a flatter mic, the ELAM has a very slight presence boost in upper mids. So what? is it worth 12x the cost of the WA? In no way, shape or form! Do not be depressed. Grab a couple of WA251s and make some amazing music. Let the snot boxes on Sunset Blvd pay through the nose for their marketing and PR driven "mic locker". We live in amazing times. It absolutely isn't necessary to spends millions on a mic locker to produce top shelf recordings.
No, it is not SO much better; it is a LITTLE different.
I would rather separate clips (use a click and phones) with the mics in the exact position. The positions of the mics here will give you just as much if not more of a sound difference as mics themselves. Definitely would need to be a consistent performer. I’m mainly talking about guitar.
In relation to the opening guitar example vs. the guitar example at the end, did you change the camera angle or your playing position relative to the mics? Also, I'm assuming you didn't want to mask anything so you didn't roll off any low end by applying a HPF, is that correct?
Before I got to the end of the video, my comment was going to be a bit of praise for the Golden Age but I'll get to that in second. When people talk about flexible mics that are capable of being suitable for most recording sources, the key word is "suitable". In my opinion the ELAM is one top 3 vocal mics ever, and arguably the best. Did it sound good or at least decent on the first acoustic guitar example? I thought it sounded good but I don't think it sounded great. In this one example I actually preferred the Golden Age, but in general large diaphragm condenser mics aren't the style of mic I would choose to record acoustic guitar.
The GA sounded far worse than the other two mics on the last guitar example, which I found surprising considering my preference in the first guitar example. That's why I asked about the camera angle and your sitting position. I tend to agree with some of the comments that "10% better" can make all the difference in a recording. It took me a few years to start being able to truly hear what was happening in specific frequency ranges but at a certain point it becomes fairly noticeable. However, I think the clones in the $3500 - 6000 offer a great option with negligible compromise because the gap with a $10k real ELAM is fairly small. I think the price point tier that includes the top Golden Age mics may offer the best value. My only issue with GA is I think there are better options available around $2k.
I've spent (wasted?) a lot of time the past few weeks taking a deep dive in the current tube mic market, my conclusions:
1) For most of us the vintage route is cost prohibitive, not to mention concerns around condition/temperament of the survivors.
2) For whatever reason, the modern versions of the classics being made by Neumann, Telefunken, and AKG today just seem (very) slightly less magical than the originals. Maybe it's a Placebo Effect, or the fact that there are many comparable alternatives now. Either way, to me it feels like $1-2k markup for a label.
3) Like a lot of people, I really want to love the tube mics in the $700 - $1200 range... but I don't.
4) The mics in the $3500 - $5000 range are great but the gap between them and the $2000 - $3500 range isn't that big.
So, in my opinion there are two "sweet spots" in the tube mic market.
1) The mics in the $5000 - $6000 range are arguably on par (or extremely close) with the iconic brands. This includes Bock, Wunder, Manley, Flea, and Gefell (a contemporary of the icons). Unless you are working in a serious professional scenario in which the snob appeal of the famous name slapped on the mic helps land clients, I would strongly consider the options listed above.
2) Finally, where my actual preferences lay. The mics in the $2000 - $3500 range or being lucky enough to stumble on a great deal for a used mic from the tier above (especially a higher end Wunder or Manley). Perhaps the best bang for the buck are the Wunder CM-7 ($3700), Lauten LT-386 EDEN ($3300), Peluso 22 47 LE ($2750), Pearlman TM-47 ($2300), and Peluso 22 251 ($1650). For a U47 clone my money is on Wunder and for an ELAM 251 clone I'd go with Peluso.
Hey Brother !! I was about to buy the golden age 251 mkii, I just need it for vocals. Would u suggest me the Peluso 22 251 over the golden age? Or is the sound not that different?
@@timuryesa There's a good chance you'll be happy with either but I'd go with the Peluso. If you can find a way to make the numbers work, consider a used Wunder as well. I don't consider my opinion to be particularly noteworthy but the repetitive nature of seeing specific mics mentioned over and over contributed towards honing in on my preferences (or at least where to focus my attention). Maybe that's the case for you too.
The Tele just has that beautiful full and supported low end, but then also this lovely open sounding mid range and no harshness at the top. The other two mics sound okay... but they don't have that amazing clarity and presence that the telefunken has. The WA sounds darker and has less punch and over all just sounds totally different. GA is somewhere in the middle, definitely sounds more like the Telefunken if that's the goal, but it doesn't flatter the midrange at all like the Tele. In Summary, the Telefunken is just so beautiful sounding I could cry and the other two mics are perfectly alright but do not elicit an emotional response of any kind... I'm sure they are really cool once you get to know them better they prob open up about their deepest secrets and yadda yadda the WA is actually kick ass at Mario Kart and the GA knows how to mix the perfect negroni... but who has time for that when there are drums to track? Telefunken ELA M251 is one of the holy grail microphones, I don't know where you got one. I wish someone could/would just make a microphone that sounds exactly as magical as the OG 251 for under 5k. IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK OF THIS WRETCHED WORLD? Great vid, thanks very much.
Who is GA? This GA 251, is a killer. I own the WA251. I did not know they existed. On drums , by far. Vocals, slight edge to the GA.
All others, very, very close.
$250 mod and correct/ 251 tube on the WA and you have a 10k mic for 1k.
what kind of mod?
@@donnyslistonline it’s incredibly extensive but it’s by Signal Art. He’s the man behind the new United Studio Technologies company/ UT FET47 microphone as well.
www.signalartelectronics.com/cart
@@failnerdddddd what about the Upton 251 is it very close to the Telefunken 251?
Telefunken>Golden Age (muddier)>Warm Audio (muddiest). I only listened to the acoustic guitar comparison. EQ might well equalize the difference (no pun, etc) to save money.
That's interesting because on vocals I felt like the Warm Audio was thinner.
@@dancegod1691 Yeah, even on acoustic the Warm sounds thinner, but even with the extended range in both directions, the Telefunken sounds clearer to me throughout the range. That's a characteristic of a great microphone over a merely good or okay one, IMO. I'm not a fan of the fat low end though, so I'm not jonesing for any of them.
@@tanukibrahma Don't overthink microphones man. It's a money pit. At the end of the day focus on the art of getting a great performance out of the person because that matters way more than anything.
Im really curious about the GA 800-G. The real ones just jumped up to 25,000 US recently, 35,000 in Canada.
Advanced Audio Cm800t brother. Homemade here!
Both GA and WA sound extremely similar but both very different from real Elam251
What's with the low freq resonances, are they coming from the guitar or the mics? If the latter, I wouldn't record anything with LF content on either of those mics...
The GA and WA sound like a wet blanket is over them. Just muffled.
The Telefunken sounds the most like the original but... It would be like a temperamental race horse when it comes to the signal chain. The Warm Audio I think would be more forgiving.
Wow, massive difference... in price, only.
I just went and listened to some of your stuff. I'm not going to comment on the artistry, but when you're using that much distortion, it's no wonder you don't give a shit about differences in tone, it's not like it would matter when it's drowned in amp saturation.
@@pavmx703 ahhahahahahahaha
The elam 251 simply cannot be re dome without losing its magic this price point. It's like all the u87 clones. It has the pick up style and same vibe but it lacks the lively articulate performance of the high end mics simply due to cheaper capsule and capacitors blah blah. Still great mics for much less than a Honda accord lmao. And in the end the listeners will never know
Telefunken sounds better on everything !
Not 10 times better. Not worth the 1000% price difference.
In a solo, the telefunken may sound better but in a busy mix, it may not matter which mic you use.
The 251 Original has MUCH more open top end and just sound MUCH more expensive. The copies can't touch them.
Wow, just speaking of top end with most to least, I hear the TF as brightest, then GAP then Warm. Why would warm have made it so much darker? I guess they could have modeled a darker version...or the real 251 you have is a brighter version than others. Who knows
If they modeled a vintage one that would make sense. a 30+ year old capsule is likely much darker then Day 1 out of the box. I think all of them sounded different, but each unique in it's own right. The Elam251 sounded the best and the most expensive and focused to my ear. The GA and Warm both had a slight a cloudiness and honk in the mids, which by itself seemed a little offensive, but in a mix that may be exactly what you need to cut through. Cheers man!
The Telefunken has wider dynamic range. The WA 251 sounds restricted, warm yes, but less response. The GA sounds marginally better than the WA. What this test shows is how fantastic the Telefunken is. Ah, but that sounds costs mucho bucks! Something to save up for....
Just use an EQ on the WA !
@@kianhendrick3794 Width of dynamic response cannot be created by EQ after the fact: this is one of the undeniable reasons why legendary microphones become so, and are demanded by top talent who are capable of perceiving and using that range.
Yo dude great song choise !!!
shit i think i like the WA 251
My ears say telefunken but my wallet says wa 🤷♂️
Not much difference. The difference is so small it doesn't justify spending $9k extra (unless you have money to throw around). In the end as long as it sounds good, the consumer/listener won't care if you spent that much money or what mic you used.
Is that actually an O.G.? Or is it a more recent T-Funk USA re-ish?
Warm Audio sounds woolly, I used to have the wa47 and was even more woolly to a point i couldn't stand nor eq-out and sold it. Golden Age is better but not as good as the ELAM.
I have the WA47 and i don't get that wooliness you are talking about. If you read the manual you'll notice the rated load impedance is around 2.4K ohms, most preamps will have a load impedance of 1200 - 1600 ohms so to effectively get the WA47 to load correctly you'll need a preamp with a switchable impedance or one with a variable impedance. I have the Focusrite ISA pre and it works beautifully with the WA47. The WA47 doesn't sound great through my Neve 1073LB or Avalon 737 though. Just a note!
@@exinated As a mic pre i used to have the Warm Audio WA273, i highly doubt the wooliness was a mic pre issue, also this mic has a weird distortion in the low freq, i tried to replace the stock tube with the best TAD tube i could find and nothing, all the problems were still there. For me this mic was great in omni and very close micing a classical guitar but even in this case i got the bass distortion issue, this issue was subtle but once you identify it you can not ignore it, its annoying as hell. I also sold the WA273, it was a great sounding mic pre but the right channel had some mains hum, once again it was subtle but once you identify it you just can not ignore it. Most likely i will never buy again warm audio products, they have the potential to be good products but they cut many corners to make them cheap, but at the end you get what you paid.
@@dimitrisgakis9206 sounds like what you are describing is coming from the capsule then, heh?
@@aeproducedbyequiano2216 I am not sure but it is possible, there is an american company that mod the WA-47 and makes it sound better without replacing the capsule , check this out here ruclips.net/video/b4rbMb99Lug/видео.html
I noticed how the WA251 didn’t get as much time as the other mics.
Sometimes the edits don't shake out so well. I'm not perfect
Wow I was supprised that the Golden Age sounded as good as it did. I was seriously expecting it to suck! The Tele sounded amazing as always, the GA sounded like it had a dip in the low mids, the WA sounded like it had a cover over the top end and it was smearing too much as well! Bad mic IMO. I'd go with the GA if I had to.
Exactly what I thought. That GA was damn good.
I think, the differences are neglectable
I found GA mids very pushed forward, too much for me, it's a bit "hard". WA is sweeter, though less present and a bit dark. Telefunken is wonderful, very detailed both on the low and high end. But if you want this you have to pay very much for it. WA a good choise for the price. I'm not so impressed from GA.
my eyes say Telefunken, my wallet says Warm, my ears say Golden Age
I've never seen one shootout video where the singer was good.
If you liked this video make sure to show some love and HIT DAT subscribe button ; )
Thank you! the Telefunken is the reissue or the vintage one?
This is a reissue
@@ShredShed Thanks!
Didn’t have like $30k for a vintage? 😂
Both clones have the wrong type of capsule, so its pointless shooting them out. Both have Chinese edge terminated k67s, while the original has chambered CK12. Both clones have way too much midrange, and lack high end sparkle, not to mention different of axis response. Stick CT12 capsule from Tim Campbell into clones, and you'll nail the sound ;)
Pointless to who, you? I made this video because I wanted to. I could give a shit what you think. The funny thing about my videos is I can do whatever I want. If I want to shoot a mic out with a potato I can....And I Don't have to please people who sit back and throw criticism from their secret tower.
@@ShredShed Well, you just did a shootout with a mic and two potatoes ;) And just like anyone can make a video, anyone can comment.
You guys are sassy.
@@matijatatomirovic3351 a clone sound is based around the capsule inserted as well the tubes. Than it's tuned with the circuits to match the original at hand!
@@e.apollis2877 you can not compensate for different acoustic properties of the capsule with electronics. It's all about acoustical resistance within the CK12 capsule, and it's what makes c12 and Elam mics unique. It's multi chambered design, unlike these cheap variations. There are vintage CK12 patent documents, go through them, you'll understand clearer what i'm talking about.
I appreciate the time for making a comparison, but there is so much room noise its pretty much useless... there is no way you can hear the actual differences in these mics in an environment like this, if this is how you record (to all the commenters) than absolutely don't waste your money
id love to hear one of the replicas like bock 251 or wa 251 against the telefunken tf 51 !
The Bock 251 is amazing dam microphone. , the TF 51 which I have sung on before as well, is no where near the Bock, it cant even compare
@@MusicByKhalilTV nice i didnt expect that, I guess the price difference is legit.
I want a bock 251 so bad. Sweetwater did a shootout and the Bock sounded the best to me. The shootout is on their website and u can download the audio files.
@@tbonebeats6429 the bock 251 is an amazing microphone, I’ve owned one before. God willing I’ll get another by the end of the year.
b o y
Any chance I could get the tracks for this?
probably not man. I don't have a ton of time these days. Thanks for watching though ; )
Shred Shed no worries! I was curious how close the clones could get if you did an eq match and applied the curve to the clone to close the pretty small gap between the telefunken and the clones. Just a little experiment I wanted to try. Great video though. Keep it up!
@@blakematthews6374 one could get very close. To me, there were differences but they were extremely subtle. I actually preferred the added mid range of the clones in a few examples. The real 251 sounded smoother and more "glassier" to my ear. all 3 of them are great sounding mics tho.
Shred Shed for sure! All 3 mics sound awesome! Really digging your videos. Keep it up!
watch out that mic placement........
okie dokie cappin'
The Telefunken takes care of the hard transients. Isn't that obvious?
Throwing around lingo (“hard transients”) to convince yourself that you are an authority on this topic, makes me chuckle. No part in that microphone warrants a 1000% price difference or a $9K price tag for that matter.
@@jekyljacobson First of all, I just judge what I hear from the microphones. Second, if you ever have built a microphone you know the capsule is the tricky part. They perform different in different frequencies, how they are tuned, quality of the mylar and so on. But I can agree on one thing, the price difference is really big but its not up to me judge that.
@@vladicarrasco4917 It is up to you to tell everyone in the industry to refuse to pay the ripoff prices for Teli CLONES. Spread the word that competent men like you who know microphones, fail to see why Telefunken-USA CLONES warrant the ridiculous price-tags. Let’s force them to change their business model to be fair to the community interested in their products. They will recoup lost high margin profits by selling volume. Make enough noise until someone listens.
@@jekyljacobson I do understand your concerns about the overpriced Telefunken. You as the consumer have the right to not buy the product if you feel that it doesn't fullfill your needs. Some believe it's a good mic, other think it's not. But Remember, when you as a company sell a very cheap microphones partly made in China you are in the same business. It's about making profit. But I do respect is a microphone built with the highest building materials and components. There are some good and serious companies around.
@@vladicarrasco4917 A top microphone using highest quality hardware and components (and minimal R&D) should sell for no more than 1.5-2K. I should not have to succumb to a downright ripoff just so my business can attract pro clients. Telefunken has many convinced that if it ain’t a Teli it just won’t cut it. Then they make you pay 1000% more than their product is fairly worth just so you can be in business and serve the know-nots and the snobs.
Used to be most female vocals sounded the same & male vocals had greater uniqueness. Now all the new male singers sound like clones. Hard to listen to a copy of a copy of a copy in a shoot out.
TELEFUNKEN
worth it. shit...
a lot of the overtones came from the player :|
Ok.... Let's be real here. Sonically, there is no comparison.
Part 1: Strum/finger picking : LOW END HARMONICS.
Listen to the overtones coming through the Telefunken. The others are left behind, and I mean way behind in the dust I might add.
If you're listening to them through your ear buds well.... then you don't have the budget for the elam anyhow so carry on:)
Part 2: Vocals
Again the lack of LUSH low end readily available from the elam 251 is fervently apparent in contrast to the other two wanna be's.
Also, the mid range on the elam has that classy expensive (worth $9000) quality to it. The other two sound thin and Chinese, in contrast.
I'll stop there.
If you're counting pennies to save up for amic then yes, the other two will do. But that is not the question here.
The question here is: Do either of the other two match the elam 251 in term of sound?
The answer is NO.
Great shootout. Good job.
Telefunken = Lush, rich, classy.
WA and GA = They are acceptable , and would work... But that's not the question.
They don't compare.
If you cannot afford the Ferrari, you'll convince yourself that the Beetle is just as good.
You always get what you pay for.
Right on the money
Sound Education Justifying an overpriced purchase? The mic is worth MAYBE 2-2.5K if that. It’s a ripoff and we ought to change that trend of allowing others to price gouge just because a few snobs in the recording industry can afford to be taken advantage of. We should rather support R&D to produce great sounding tools at affordable (not ‘cheap’) prices.
With Neumann, Telefunken, etc., you’re paying for a brand. The mics sound great, don’t get me wrong, they’re incredible. But they’re not worth $10-$15K. In any situation. A 251 reissue should be worth 5K at the most. There’s nothing going into this mic that makes it worth $10,000, except history. That’s it. So you don’t “always get what you pay for”, In fact, you almost always get less than your money’s worth with a high end mic like this. And this is coming from someone who would absolutely drop 10K on a real 251 if I had the money. Anyway, besides all that, if you knew what you were listening for you’d know that the only difference between the WA/GA and the Telefunken is the stereo image. Listen to this video in mono and you’ll hear VERY little, if ANY difference in frequency range. The GA and WA sound nearly identical to each other and the only FREQUENCY difference that’s audible between those two and the Telefunken is a slight boost in the low mid range. Other than that they’re extremely close, especially for the Warm being less than 1/10 of the price of the Telefunken.
@@bluehole6019 your ears need cleaning.
In the 5k range there are some very worthy contenders Beezneez offers a fair mic in that vein. Flea offers a very nice 251ish offering.
I own 47's, and C12's as well as one vintage 251 The real deal.
Your ear need cleaning. 😂👂
John Glenn So you just proved my point? Which is that you can make a mic that sounds just as good or at least a “worthy contender” and sell it for $5K? I mean you basically just expanded my comment with examples.