x
Sean G 20 October 2015

Telefunken ELAM 251 Microphone

Item condition:
--not specified
Ended:
Oct 30, 2015, 4:25PM
Price:
US $7,400.00
Shipping:
Read item description or contact seller for shipping options.

Topic Tags

Comments

DonnyThompson Tue, 10/20/2015 - 04:56

That's a very cheap price for that mic - it usually sells for quite a bit more than that; I've seen them sold for prices up to 13K.

The nickname for the mic over the years has been affectionately pronounced as the "Elam", even though there's actually a space between "ELA" and "M", and with a number following the "M" to designate the model ... 250, 250-E, 251 and 251 E, depending on the particular model you have; the "E" series has the letter "E" printed on the mic underneath the pattern select switches. The difference between these models is mostly in the tubes that each uses - the 250/251 contained a Telefunken AC701 tube, while the 250E / 251E versions used a 6072A tube.
There were also some changes implemented by AKG from the original C12 capsule design; the ELAM's used an AKG CK12 ( brass) capsule, and also included pattern-select switching on the mic itself, as opposed to earlier C12's, which used an external device for pattern-select ( cardioid, omni, and Fig 8 )..

I've actually had the fortune to have used an original early 60's ELA-M 251 E ... Once.

I was called in as a hired-gun engineer to work a recording session at a studio in Youngstown, Ohio a few years ago, ( Peppermint Recording - they'd been around for YEARS... I don't know if it's even there anymore, but when I was there it was like I was walking back into 1975 - yellow shag carpet, bean bag chairs, day-glo posters and all - LOL - it had definitely seen better days, though) and the owner of the studio had two ELAM's, both 251-E's.

When I asked him how he got them, he told me that he had purchased them in the mid 70's from Capitol Records Recording Studios in L.A. - for next to nothing - he mentioned paying something ridiculous, like $800 for BOTH.
( So...how come I can't ever run across incredible deals like that??? ).

With one of the mics, the mic itself worked fine, but the PS was fried, but the other one he had was fully operational with both the mic and the PS.

The owner had a picture hanging in his control room of an early 1960's Frank Sinatra singing into an ELA-M. ( He told me that he had been told by one of the older engineers at Capitol that the mic in the photo was one of the ones he purchased... although there's no actual way to prove that...but I suppose it's possible).

I can personally attest to the warmth and silkiness of those mics, there is most certainly a very special "mojo" to that particular mic, especially on vocals. It's kinda hard to describe, really, you have to hear it - there's a very pleasing "edge" to it, with ultra-smooth mids, warm but nicely tight lows, and a silky top end that I'd personally never heard from a microphone before - or since.

We were recording a female singer, a kind of torchy-ballad style, ( think Billy Holiday ) and we didn't really even have to do much at all to the track afterwards in the mix. It just kind of immediately "worked". The room looked pretty dumpy but sounded really nice.
Oh... I should mention - he was tracking through what looked like an ancient MOTU 16 bit A-D converter, into some Amiga-based recording platform that I'd never even seen before. If he had been using more modern conversion, I'm sure the mic would have sounded even better than it did, which was still great.

(As a side note, the ELA-M used an original brass dual-backplate CK12 capsule, made by AKG, which has been replaced by a CK13 capsule on the reissues - and yours truly has the fortune of having two 1978 AKG 414EBs, both of which also have the
dual back-plate CK12 brass capsule... they certainly aren't the same as an ELAM, ( The ELAM is a tube mic, the 414 is not) but they're still very nice-sounding mics.
Having used almost all of the 414 series of mics, I can say that the 414EB CK12 model is my hands-down favorite-sounding AKG 414 mic. It was the last 414 to use the CK12. In fact, half way through the run of the EB series, they switched the brass capsule to a Teflon capsule instead... those of us who own early-run 414EB's with the CK12 brass capsules consider ourselves to be very fortunate. ;) )

As far as the Telefunken ELA-M, you can read more about those models, and about the history of the Telefunken ELA-M series HERE .

FWIW

d.

Sean G Tue, 10/20/2015 - 21:37

There was a pair of AKG 414s' I was looking at last night as well in the vintage pro audio section....selling both in the one listing

They were from 1977-78??? from memory...chocolate brown color....

- Can't seem to find them amongst the 3500+ items listed now, either they have been sold or I didn't look hard enough.

DonnyThompson Wed, 10/21/2015 - 01:30

Sean G, post: 433221, member: 49362 wrote: There was a pair of AKG 414s' I was looking at last night as well in the vintage pro audio section....selling both in the one listing

They were from 1977-78??? from memory...chocolate brown color....

- Can't seem to find them amongst the 3500+ items listed now, either they have been sold or I didn't look hard enough.

If they were from 77-78, then they were EB's... half of the EB series run had the original CK12 brass capsule, and later in that series they changed to a Nylon capsule.
I don't know about the "chocolate brown" part, though - EB's were entirely black with a silver screen on one side and a black screen on the other.

http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2011/09/05/curing-condenser-confusion-an-audio-history-of-the-akg-c-414/

audiokid, post: 433203, member: 1 wrote: I almost scored one last year. :love:
It's one of a few mics I will get before I die. I will settle for
ELA M 251E :D

LOL... you say that like you'd be compromising. ;)

The biggest difference between the 250 and the 251E is the tubes in which they use.

The 250/251 contained a Telefunken AC701 tube, while the 250E / 251E versions used a 6072A tube.

FWIW
-d

DonnyThompson Wed, 10/21/2015 - 01:49

audiokid, post: 433217, member: 1 wrote: Sounds great, what stellar mid imaging. Great gear = mids that don't need EQing

This is perhaps the first thing that I noticed, the one opportunity I had to work with one (original early 60's E series) - the mids were unbelievably smooth, the lower frequencies were rich and warm - but nicely tight, too... and there was a silk on the top end that I'd never heard before on any other mic...and haven't heard again from any mic since, either. I've heard a few that have come close, but nothing quite like the top end on the ELAM. There wasn't a trace of unpleasant sibilance, either... and I was working with a female singer I had worked with before where excessive sibilance had been a bit of a problem in the past. As I said in my post above, we ( the producer and myself) didn't need to do much of anything to her voice afterwards in the mix - certainly no EQ, IIRC, we added some slight LA2 GR, but that was about it....her track just kind of instantly "worked" among the other tracks.

And that was with using an "ancient" AD converter - and old MOTU 16 bit model. I'd have loved to have heard it through more modern conversion.

It was one of those rare occasions where the "hype" surrounding something really did accurately describe the reality.

There have only been a handful of occasions where that has happened to me.... the hype turning out to be valid...
My experience with Johnny Walker Blue was another one of those times... ;) LOL

Sean G Wed, 10/21/2015 - 02:41

DonnyThompson, post: 433228, member: 46114 wrote: If they were from 77-78, then they were EB's... half of the EB series run had the original CK12 brass capsule, and later in that series they changed to a Nylon capsule.
I don't know about the "chocolate brown" part, though - EB's were entirely black with a silver screen on one side and a black screen on the other.

-It may have been the photo...they looked a chocolate brown color...they must have been black but the pic was taken in full sunlight so it could have been deceptive...
From memory they had the brass capsule, it was a selling point.

DonnyThompson Wed, 10/21/2015 - 05:49

Yes, the first initial run of the EB Series had the original CK12 brass capsule ( I'm blessed to have two of these ;) ), and about halfway into that run, they changed to a nylon/Teflon capsule instead. I have no clue as to why, because there wasn't any price difference between them at the time. AKG ended up taking a lot of crap about it, too - about a year or so after the nylon EB's had been released, and guys who had the nylon EB's started looking for the original brass EB's instead... and in fact, the brass CK12 EB is still a highly sought-after microphone, and over the years, has become one of "those" mics.

I've heard both versions, side by side, using my voice,through the exact same preamp, ( a buddy of mine has an 414-EB P48 with the nylon capsule) and the differences between the brass CK12's and the nylon versions are way more than just slight.
In fact, they are substantially different, especially in how the CK12 handles the mids - which are very smooth - as well as in the top end, which is much "silkier" than the nylon EB, which, while still a very nice sounding mic, has an "edgier" top end and an upper mid range that isn't as smooth and defined; it's more reminiscent of later models, like the ULS and the XL's.

That being said, I certainly wouldn't turn down an EB/Nylon if it was offered to me, LOL - because it's still a very good mic.
But ... there's just "something" about the early EB's with the CK12 brass capsules... they have such a warm, rich, silky response. It doesn't surprise me that they've become a prized microphone over the years.

I'm absolutely positive that if you were able to compare both versions yourself, you'd be able to hear the differences between the two right away - because the differences are not the least bit subtle.

I'm actually looking forward to getting a new mic pre - I'm looking for a pre that's as transparent as possible this time around ( I'll probably end up going with a Grace M101) because I already have several pre's with "character" ( transformer, tube)... and I really want to hear what my EB's will sound like through a pre that is as minimally colored as possible, so that I can hear the true character of the mic. ;)

IMHO of course.

Davedog Mon, 11/02/2015 - 16:22

I own an EB with the nylon cap. Its a seriously great sounding all-purpose piece. 1978 for sure. I sent it to "Bob" at AKG and he reconditioned it. Bob's desk is the only one left at AKG America with old parts. His take on the differences in the brass cap and the nylon are a bit different than a lot of other peoples....FYI to Donny....The Grace is a great choice. True Systems P2 is another. The more I use "neutral" "transparent" "natural" mic pres the more I appreciate what the mics themselves bring to the table.

I have a friend who owns an original ELA M 251. The story goes that when he was younger he decided he wanted to get into recording. His mom said "great, there's a mic in storage from when your dad was in a jazz ensemble in the 50's, let's get it down and see if it works....." It does. However......They are NOT the do-all be-all. They are very pointed in the mids and as was said if you need to EQ these mics then they are the wrong choice for your source. They are extremely wonderful for singers that like in your face clarity because they have lots and lots of tonal character. The detail with this mic is outstanding I don't know of another design that comes close...Its SCARY clear...enough to frighten inexperienced singers. That being said not long ago he was recording an album and they wound up using my vintage U87 on his voice.

I have an ADK TT that I had rebuilt to ELAM 251 circuit specs. It isn't a 251 but it gets damn close. Another friend has the Soundelux E250. What a gorgeous sounding mic. He loaned it to me for some tracks several years back. I would own one of those if I could find one. But since I had the TT rebuilt my "need" for the Soundelux has waned a bit.......The 'other' TT wound up being an M249 circuit with a U47 cap. Another legendary sound that no studio should be without.

audiokid Thu, 11/05/2015 - 08:35

audiokid, post: 433671, member: 1 wrote:

New offering from Mojave Audio!
Mojave Audio is presenting their new MA-1000 microphone at AES. This will be the first model in the new Signature Series line. Designed by David Royer.

The MA-1000, Inspired by the Elam 251. Features: Original NOS 5840 Tube, 251 style capsule, custom transformer by Coast Magnetics, 15dB pad, continuously variable polar patterns located on the power supply.
Pricing: $2495.00 USD
Shipping Q4, 2015.

Interesting new mics from Mojave. They mention The MA-1000 was inspired by the Elam 251 in this.
Scavenging around the web... Here my brief info on it
http://recording.org/threads/mojave-ma-1000-ma-50.59063/

DonnyThompson Tue, 12/08/2015 - 23:13

Davedog, post: 433569, member: 4495 wrote: However......They are NOT the do-all be-all. They are very pointed in the mids and as was said if you need to EQ these mics then they are the wrong choice for your source. They are extremely wonderful for singers that like in your face clarity because they have lots and lots of tonal character.

That was very similar to the experience I had with it, too, Dave... the time that I used one - once - on a female vocalist who had a "torchy" ballad kind of style; sort of a Billy Holiday vibe.
It sounded perfect as it was. To my recollection, we never added any EQ, either on the way in or afterwards, because it didn't need to. A little verb and that was all she wrote. I wish I still had a copy of that recording. It was a long time ago.

The thing I recall being the most impressed with, was with the mid range. Up to that point in my career, I'd never heard a mic with those kinds of ridiculously smooth mids before... And I haven't heard it again from any other mic since, either.

Davedog, post: 433569, member: 4495 wrote: I have a friend who owns an original ELA M 251. The story goes that when he was younger he decided he wanted to get into recording. His mom said "great, there's a mic in storage from when your dad was in a jazz ensemble in the 50's, let's get it down and see if it works....." It does.

LOL... you have a very lucky friend. I don't know how many original 251's even remain in existence anymore; I wouldn't think there are all that many working models left, otherwise they wouldn't cost you a kidney, a left lung and your first-born to own one. ;)

DonnyThompson Wed, 12/09/2015 - 01:52

yeah, I noticed that in the credits.

According to Telefunken, for this mic, they drew "inspiration" from both the C12 and ELAM models; which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as both those mics have now become highly sought after for their very distinct sound; but those two mics weren't really known for having the same sound, either... as Dave mentioned, and as I experienced personally, the 251 is "its own beast" - and it's a beautiful beast, too - but it's not the same beast as a C12, which didn't have the same mid-range response.
That's not to say that the C12 was inferior to the 251, not by any means. They both had their own beautiful tone. Both had the same basic topology; same tubes, same diaphragm ( AKG C12), although there were some variances in the electronics - the 250/251 had more gain than the C12 did... ( or at least the version of the C12 that was around at the same time originally).

Originally, the 251 was built as a "variant" of the original C12 - which is to say that the 251 continued to use the AKG C12 diaphragm, but the frequency responses for both were slightly different; again, mostly in the mid range, due to the electronics and the physical structure of the 251; in an attempt to diffuse high frequencies, they added an angled pedestal for the diaphragm, insulated by a felt base, whereas the C12 was flat and uninsulated. According to Telefunken/AKG purists, this is where the main difference in frequency response occurs between the two mics... the C12 being "brighter", and the 250/251 being "smoother". In my own experience, The C12 - which I have used on many occasions, is a "brighter" mic than the 250/251, ( which as I've said, I've used once ) which had a much "creamier" mid range to it.

What many people don't know - what I myself didn't know until just a few years ago - is that both mics were actually built by AKG, even though the 251 had a Telefunken badge on it. It was during a period where Telefunken was unsure of it's corporate destination; so there were a few models from Telefunken that were made by AKG (and Neumann, too) for a short time.
( My source for this info is from an older engineer friend of mine, who has since passed away but who came up as a young engineer in the 50's and early 60's, using mics such as these on a daily basis.)

There's a buzzword floating around the industry these days, when it comes to vintage reissues and new models built on original specs: "NOS" - which is short for "New Old Stock". The term is ambiguous, as it suggests that new components are built based on specs from original parts - including tubes - and while it is true that some manufacturers honestly attempt to do the best they can and to stay as true as possible to the original models, quite often it is more of an advertisement/PR thing, than it is factually true. Some of those components aren't around anymore, so these boutique companies are doing their best to recreate them in as honest a way as possible. And I'm not even suggesting that this is a bad thing ... but you do have to be careful, because that "NOS" term is tossed around pretty liberally these days.

I'm pleasantly surprised by the price of the AR-51. I'm also surprised that I haven't heard of it until now - according to Telefunken, the mic was released back in 2012. I would have thought we would have heard more noise about a Telefunken tube mic priced under 2k.

Although, the fact that some of the components on the mic are made "off shore" ... which is a polite way of saying, "made in China" might have something to do with the low price.
According to Telefunken, these components are not electronic, and are part of the mounting and body design, and don't affect the sound of the mic in any way. Is that true? I really don't know.
Source for this info in the above paragraph is here: http://www.telefunken-elektroakustik.com/reviews/AR51-Review-Music-Tech.pdf

Also, in the Sweetwater vid for the AR51, notice how the Telefunken Rep doesn't say, "It has a C12 capsule." Instead he says, "It has a C12 - LIKE - Capsule..."
Which would also explain the lower pricing. To my knowledge, there is no mic from any mic manufacturer using an actual C12 capsule that is priced anywhere under $5000.

Again, I'm not slamming this mic. I loved the way it sounded in the vid that Chris posted... but if you are after a true 251 sound, personally speaking, you should probably look at an actual 251. At which point you should also just go ahead and move out to the doghouse now, because once your wife/girlfriend finds out what you've spent... LOL

There are other 251 "knock-offs" out there as well, although I can't personally attest to their sound. Their price tags are considerably more than the AR51, though, and do suggest very nice mics, but as to them sounding like a 251? I can't say:

SoundDeluxe E-250 ( Now known as Bock Audio)
Cathedral Pipes St. Mary's model
[="http://recordinghacks.com/microphones/Manley/Reference-Gold"]Manley Gold Reference model[/]="http://recordinghac…"]Manley Gold Reference model[/]
[url=http://'http://www.adkmic.c… Z-251 Model

FWIW

-d.

Klaus Tue, 03/01/2016 - 16:45

Sean G, post: 433196, member: 49362 wrote: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Telefunken-ELAM-251-Microphone-/221918032383?hash=item33ab5871ff:g:R4MAAOSwEeFVLtpu

Just to make one thing crystal clear: the mic sold on eBay, which this thread refers to, is unrelated to the original AKG-made Telefunken ELA M251. It is a copy product made my "Telefunken North America", a Connecticut-based company which bought the "Telefunken" name and logo when the trade name became available on the open market, a few years ago.
None of the design or mechanical components of this copy mic were sourced or authorized by the AKG company, which designed and manufactured the original ELA M, and none of AKG's former or present employees aided in the design or manufacture of this copy.

Because of negligent copyright administration by many of the successor companies to heritage mic manufacturers, including AKG, Neumann or Telefunken, confusion ensues when parties unrelated to the original manufacturer issue and name products that spell the same as, or look similar to the originals.

I am not commenting here about the merits of this copy mic as a recording tool. I posted to help clarify the origin of the name and product, and to point out the lack of any connection between AKG's original ELA M and copy products like the one made by "Telefunken North America", or "Telefunken Elektroakustik", as it is now calling itself.

P.S.: Original, genuine ELA Ms in good working condition go upwards of $15k , and mint specimen can reach well above $30k.

DonnyThompson Wed, 03/02/2016 - 00:21

Klaus, post: 436827, member: 2250 wrote: am not commenting here about the merits of this copy mic as a recording tool. I posted to help clarify the origin of the name and product, and to point out the lack of any connection between AKG's original ELA M and copy products like the one made by "Telefunken North America", or "Telefunken Elektroakustik", as it is now calling itself.

P.S.: Original, genuine ELA Ms in good working condition go upwards of $15k , and mint specimen can reach well above $30k.

Thanks for posting, Klaus. I for one appreciate your info. :)

To be clear, I wasn't under the impression ( nor do I believe that anyone else here was, either) that for 7 grand, one could get an exact recreation of the original 251. As I'd mentioned in one of my previous posts:

DonnyThompson, post: 434311, member: 46114 wrote: According to Telefunken, for this mic, they drew "inspiration" from both the C12 and ELAM models;

Just the price alone would testify to it not being an exact re-creation of the original - as you mentioned, original ELAM's fetch far more than that - several years ago, I saw one at an on-line audio brokerage auction, where a "near-mint condition" model ( with original PS, cables and case) started out with a reserve price of 18k.... it eventually sold for around 30 G's. I've also seen an original model for sale - that wasn't even in working condition - going for more than the price of one of the brand new "copy" models.

This isn't to imply that I think that this new model "ELAM" wouldn't still be a great mic to have. I've spoken with several people who have used it, and all of them have said that they love the way the mic sounds... and a great-sounding mic for 7 grand isn't really all that expensive, at least not in the grand scheme of things in this craft of ours.

Your statement was also very fair, because you weren't implying - either way - that the new copy model would or wouldn't also be a very nice mic to have on its own, or that it would/wouldn't be worth the price.

You were simply telling the truth about this new copy model - obviously based upon research and knowledge - and truth is always a good thing, especially in this day and age of massive "hype" surrounding audio gear; with phrases like "Get the British Sound!" being all too commonly used ( and swallowed hook, line and and sinker by those who are suggestive to that kind of advertising).

Hopefully your post will help to dispel any possible myths floating around the web about this mic - and force people to do more research on their own; to listen, to read, to learn...

At the very least, hopefully it will help to educate those people who are under the impression that they can get a brand new true original ELAM for only 7 grand. ;)

FWIW
-d.

eric labrie Sun, 03/13/2016 - 04:47

Even 7k is insanely high for such a smple design. If we analyse it:

Let's say the capsule is the more expensive psrt and a C12 capsule is a little harder to build. Let's say it cost them 400$ to manufacture, which is not likely and more than conservative. Next part, the transformer. Let's say it cost them 100$ to manufacture, again a conservative thought. Next, electronic component. A C12 or elam cost nor more than 250$ of resistors, capacitors, power teansformer, etc. The pcb's, no more than 20$, next the tubes, let's say 100$ to take in count the large batch they have to test to find the low noise ones. Then, the psu enclosure and microphone body. Psu is probably made of aliminium or steel. No more than 60$ and mic body, probably brass. Nor more than, say, 150$, let's say 200$ to stay conservative. A total of 1000$ of stock and let's say it's and build, say it takes 20hours to make one, which is unlikely because it takes no more than about 10 hours. Let's say they worked at 20$/hours so 400$ of man hours. For a total of 1 400$. Let's say they only keep 50% of them and the rest is not passing their tests, so about 2 100$ for a microphone. This is why i can't explain me why pay such an amount of cash on simething so simple to make :) but, this is a pesonal thought, and totally respect those who pay such an amount of $$$. The goal was simply to show what such a microphone can cost to build :) great microphne by the way

Klaus Sun, 03/13/2016 - 19:44

As a person who has designed and accompanied the production of an expensive microphone model (Brauner's KHE, retail: around $10K), let me assure you that your thumbnail price calculation for making a microphone is off by a large factor.

Let's assume, just for chuckles, that someone could accurately recreate the immensely complex CK12 capsule with its plastic/brass sandwiched backplate, its precision resonators, its immensely complicated diaphragm aging and tensioning process and capacitance calibration (which no one to date has been successful in achieving that AKG quality) and let's also assume you can source enough of the obsolete GE Five Star 6072 tubes (good luck!)

The big money drain comes in later: the diverse ELA M plastic housing and switch assembly parts all need to be molded from scratch (AKG did not save the molds, besides, AKG does not exist anymore). I was in on some preliminary discussions with one of the ELA M aftermarket parts companies, and was not surprised that the biggest financial obstacles to overcome was the cost of casting molds: the three-pattern switch finger mold alone cost five figures, the switch assembly mold, with its eight silver plated contacts precisely embedded was a multiple of that. You would have to commit to making a lot of any of these parts (or mics) to at least break even with your investment in tooling up.
Then you also forgot distribution/dealer and advertising costs (usually 30-50% of retail).

When Neumann, in the mid 1990s, pondered the reissue of the U47, just one of the financial stumbling blocks was recreating the VF14. Tooling up for that tube was conservatively calculated at $500k by Neumann executives with deep, historic knowledge of the matter. At that price, more mics would have needed to be produced than what the market would absorb, just to amortize the initially investment for the tube alone.
Should I go on?
Maybe you start getting an idea why the greats like U47, U67, M49 and ELA M251 have never been faithfully recreated (and I am not talking about copy mics here), and why the originals keep going up and up in price...

x

User login