Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[J.J. Blair]

Steve, he was originally selling them for $900, so it's hard to keep track of the prices.  Last I had talked to him about price, $1500 is what they were going for.  (Or maybe that was the bro offer?)  I'm sure the Neumann capsule adds some more from what the Peluso cost, too.  But I still don't get why he's not using a K47.

If you are going to wait for a U47, expect to spend at least $7,000, these days.  I recently tried to help somebody find one, and it appears the days of the $5,000 U47 are long gone.

Give the Soundelux U99 a listen, btw.  It's worth a shot.  Also, the E251C looks like it might be a really great mic.

[mjgreeneaudio]

J.J. Blair wrote on Sun, 10 December 2006 22:51

Steve, he was originally selling them for $900, so it's hard to keep track of the prices.  Last I had talked to him about price, $1500 is what they were going for.  (Or maybe that was the bro offer?)  I'm sure the Neumann capsule adds some more from what the Peluso cost, too.  But I still don't get why he's not using a K47. If you are going to wait for a U47, expect to spend at least $7,000, these days.  I recently tried to help somebody find one, and it appears the days of the $5,000 U47 are long gone. Give the Soundelux U99 a listen, btw.  It's worth a shot.  Also, the E251C looks like it might be a really great mic.

Steve,
The E251C is a great mic.  I have used it everyday for 7 months and love it.  The one thing I love it on is female vocals.  I have not really had amazing luck on male vocals but once in a while it has worked really well.  Give it a listen.  My only other bitch is that the shock mount sucks.  You will want and need to buy an Enhanced Audio shock mount instead.  It works better and doesn't come apart like the stock shock does.

Michael Greene

[Extreme Mixing]

Thanks for chiming in Michael.  I'll give it a close listen.  I'm actually thinking of the Royer, too.  I have a trumpet project coming in February, and that would be a very important mic to have.  I could get a pair of 121s or a 122V.

Steve

[J.J. Blair]

FYI, I'm a huge fan of the AEA R84 on horns.  I also just learned that Pete Townshend is using the R84 on his acoustics, which I was a little surprised at.

[Timeline]

Hello all.

Dave uses one of Peluso's capsules and his mic sounds very nice. I think it's a good value for the price.

He first used the c12 Peluso version and it was way to bright. He switched it out to one of johns other capsules and it improved greatly in my opinion. He also hand builds them all.

I guess I really don't like anyone making capsules claiming a c12 replacement unless they're really close. Sorry John.

Anyway, I have known Dave for a while and he's a great guy with a good ear. I think this is an important factor as it was for Klaus who I highly respect as well.

Can't imagine a better Mic Forum representative.

Happy Holidays..

[matucha]

A comparison of CMV563 in good condition and Horch on Gearslutz  http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=99167&highli ght=cmv+563

I think that CMV has shown i's qualities.

[squeegybug]

I've had Peluso 22 47LE here side by side with Soundelux U99 for a week.

I have used all the Soundelux microphones except the two newest models.  Overall, the U99 is my favorite of that brand, especially for female singers.  I sometimes preferred the Elux 251 on male singers.  I have not liked, and even strongly disliked, some of the others.  I think U99, like many Soundelux mics IMO, sounds a little "plastic/processed", not as much texture as I prefer in the mids.  Mids can get a little syrupy and even nasal on certain singers.  The highs are nice, fairly open and airy.  But I feel the build quality is still not up to other mfgrs.  Many (most) of the Soundelux mics I have used have had some kind of issue at one time or another.  I think the price is too high for many of this mfgr's products, including the U99.

The Peluso has a very strong clear high end, that seems to build up from the midrange area, rather than the common "airy/feathery" sound of so many mics.  The highs do not get harsh, just as you think they are going to they continue to build and easily break over without a rough edge.  But still with character.  Gives the mic some real power.  The mids are nicely textured, not overdone.  I feel the bass is perhaps a little subdued, especially when compared to M 149.  Trying to overcome this with proximity did not have a big effect, the mic stays fairly balanced over a range of distances.  Overall, it strikes me as presenting a "final mix" sound, that does not seem to need much more processing for the recording.  May come across as too strong in isolation.  And some singers mentioned it was not their favorite to sing on in headphones, again after being used to the 149.  Value?  Well worth the moderate selling price.

Overall, of these two, I preferred the Peluso for my needs, but still haven't decided if I will keep it.  Now, the question is, what is Pearlman doing with his standard "47" style mic, that is not already available in the Peluso 2247LE? And why pay more for the TM-1 if the 2247LE is the same thing? I was told by John Peluso that Pearlman is not only using Peluso capsules, but is now using Peluso's custom made transformers as well.  Or does that qualify as hearsay, without hearing from Mr. Pearlman?

Has anyone directly compared these two mics (Pearlman TM-1 and Peluso 22 47LE)?  Sorry if this strayed away from the original question.

Steve

[J.J. Blair]

I heard the two side by side two years ago and vastly preferred the Pearlman. I don't know what the current one sounds like.

Is Peluso using an EF14 also?

Also, I know that last I heard Peluso was using cheap Chinese cable and wiring and was trying to get Dave to get on that bandwagon, which Dave refused to do.

I'd also like to point on that everything you described about the sound of the 2247, "clear high end" and "subdued bass" is not at all how I every think of the sound of a U47.  But then again, as I already mentioned, how can you have a U47 using a dual backplate capsule?  

[squeegybug]

J.J. Blair wrote on Fri, 15 December 2006 18:50

I heard the two side by side two years ago and vastly preferred the Pearlman. I don't know what the current one sounds like. Is Peluso using an EF14 also? Also, I know that last I heard Peluso was using cheap Chinese cable and wiring and was trying to get Dave to get on that bandwagon, which Dave refused to do. I'd also like to point on that everything you described about the sound of the 2247, "clear high end" and "subdued bass" is not at all how I every think of the sound of a U47.  But then again, as I already mentioned, how can you have a U47 using a dual backplate capsule?

I assume that older Pearlman had the Cinemag transformer?  What did you hear differently that you preferred one over the other JJ, and what sources?

I opened the 2247LEs (actually have two of them here) -- one has EF12K, the other EF12.  I asked Peluso why no EF14, he told me they ran out of stock a year and a half ago.  When these mics were first released they were promoted as using 14s.  His web site used to advertise them with "EF14".  Now it simply says "Telefunken steel tube".

Does it make a difference?  I posted that question a few days ago, got a couple of replies.  According to some, EF12 is well suited for mic circuits.  Some others say EF14.  Some say they are interchangeable, just requiring different connections.  EF12 is easier to come by.  Obviously neither are VF14, and that is not part of the discussion.  So who knows, and does it really matter in the overall view of designing a new mic, where the whole system has to work together to produce the final sound.  My M 149 with the miniature 6111 and OPA132 op amp pretty thoroughly thrashes the 2247LE for most things.

Not sure what/where you "heard", but the Peluso wiring certainly does not appear cheap.  Very well routed and terminated, all enclosed in plastic tubing and firmly attached to the rails.  The circuit board is neat and clean, components are well placed and not just thrown together.  The tube is pretty large for this frame, and a small section of the flange was removed on each side to allow it to fit inside the rails.  Transformer is plain.  The housing and grill are substantial, well machined, and nicely finished, much better than most PRC structural products I have seen.  Power supply feels solid, good switches and good looking.  I did not open it.

As a contrast, one of the last few Soundelux mics I received had the entire capsule stalk free and flopping, banging the capsule against the grill.  On another the stalk screw was loose and the capsule was spinning around.  Both new, out of the box.

Why on earth would J Peluso "try to get Dave on that bandwagon" of supposedly cheap wiring?  I know he is selling components to Pearlman, who then builds his own versions of Peluso's mics.  Which is the "real" mic maker?...

I can't discuss comparison to U47, since I don't have that mic here.  Recordings I have heard of it have varied from this Peluso sound (clear and strong), to dark and muddy, to fantastic vibrant midrange and textured bass.  So which 47 are we talking about?  But I know what you mean, I would not choose this 2247LE sound as my all time preferred "U47" tone.

I don't know about the capsule he is using, would like to know more.  Is it really the "K67"  type in the 22 47LE?  Interesting, if that is the case.  I would agree with you, doesn't make sense, unless he does something like the M 149, where the rear diaphragm can be disabled at one pattern.  I don't have any information about anything like that being the case.

One-to-one sample recordings of Peluso v. Pearlman would be great, but so far I haven't seen anyone offering any.

Steve

[J.J. Blair]

The source I heard was my voice.  As it was two years ago, I can't recall the exact details of how they sounded different.  I just recall that I greatly preferred the Pearlman.  But as I said, that mic is no longer made that way, so it is moot.  Different circuits and even different circuit components such as brand of caps and resistors can make two mics with the same capsules, tube and transformers sound very different.  I recall the circuits of each mic not resembling each other.

My understanding is that the cable itself that Peluso is/was using is cheap Chinese cable, where as Dave is using Mogami.  I never commented on the quality of the assembly, but rather the component.  The issue is the oxygen content of the copper, and how it will sound and pass signal five years from now.  And that 'bandwagon' was to use that same cheap wire, not cheap wiring.  John saves a lot of money by using that stuff.

My point about the K67 is not about dual diaphragms, it's about dual backplates.  The K47, such as in your M149, or the U47, is a single backplate, and a completely different sounding beast than a dual backplate capsule, like a K67 or a CK12.  They both have dual diaphgragms.  It's the physics of what is going on between those two diaphragms, and the way the air moves in between the two that is what makes dual and single backplates so different.  Perhaps Klaus can do a sticky illustrating the concepts?

[squeegybug]

Yes, that is my main complaint against many (most) custom "small shop" mics.  Continually modifying in-production mics and keeping the same model number, so no two can ever be found the same.  ADK is one who is notorious for this.  Sheesh, design it right and leave it alone.  Maybe like those 30-40 year old capsules.....

I misunderstood the cable reference.  The cable on these Peluso mics are very nice, braided jacket, good fitting connectors (didn't see a brand, Switchcraft-style anyway).  I would be surprised to find that the difference in price in a single cable would multiply into huge savings over the limited number of mics these small shops sell.  But if Dave says so.... not any particular agenda going on there?  In my engineering business we have a longtime supplier who is also our competitor.  A difficult situation, leads to fine-edged tolerance but little cooperation.

Yes, I realize now you said dual backplates rather than dual diaphragms, and I understand the differences.  Is it a fact that the Peluso capsule in the 2247/2247LE models is a dual backplate design?

Steve

[Timeline]

JJ you mentioned the Cinemag xformer.

Are there other third party tranformers that are specifically design for the capsule one would select or are most averaged to be one fits all?

[Schallfeldnebel]

J.J. wrote:"My point about the K67 is not about dual diaphragms, it's about dual backplates. The K47, such as in your M149, or the U47, is a single backplate, and a completely different sounding beast than a dual backplate capsule, like a K67 or a CK12."

I do not think the Neumann K67 is a dual backplate system. The capsule in the U87 was, but not in the U87A and not in the U67.

or do you mean sth different?

Erik Sikkema

[J.J. Blair]

Erik, the K67 is indeed a dual backplate, as are the CK12 and K87.

Gary, I believe that the primary concern with a tranformer is matching the tube, but sometimes a transformer will be selected for its color.  For example, I believe that AKG switched from the T14 to the T14-1 in the Tele 251s, because they felt the low end response of the latter was better suited to the mic.  

I'm sure Klaus will correct me if I'm wrong.

And Squeegy, yes Dave is an acquaintance, but the only agenda is that at least on that day, I heard one mic that I clearly liked better than the other.  Also, if you have ever owned cheaply made cables that lost their high end after a few years, you would have an immediate bias towards cheap Chinese copper as well.  I have made my feelings known about this regarding ANY mic that uses this, not just Peluso.  

[squeegybug]

Yes, I know very well what you mean about crummy wiring.  I threw out all the junk I had accumulated over the years quite a while ago, just so I would not be tempted to use it even in an emergency.  Replaced everything with Teflon Belden, wow what an improvement.  So thanks for the heads up, sometimes you never know what audio companies are really using.

I would still like to hear the differences between Pearlman and Peluso, if I could ever catch them at a frozen design iteration to compare.  I may just buy this 2247LE and eventually try to get the TM-1 or equivalent to run them side by side.  The only way to know for my sources.

Steve