search

Review

2006.01.06

Soundelux ELUX 251

EQ MAGAZINE REVIEW JULY 2001 - www.eqmag.com

A CLASSIC IS REBORN
The last few years have seen major improvements in recording technology.
However, the one area that has been slow to catch up with
the low-noise, high-headroom world of 24/96 recording is microphone
technology. In recent years, we?ve seen some great new
models from Neumann, Audio Technica, Shure, BLUE, and others.
David Bock at Soundelux has also shown us some great mics, with
models including the U95S and U99. These mics offer vintage tone
with specs that meet any demanding digital recording application.
The latest addition to the Soundelux line is the ELUX 251, modeled
after the old Telefunken ELAM 251E manufactured in the ?60s
by AKG and distributed under the Telefunken badge. The original
mics employed a triode tube circuit built around the 6072 tube. I
found them to have the smoothest, open top end and the roundest,
even low end of any tube mic. For me, this made ELAM 251?s the
perfect choice for vocals, acoustic guitars, piano, strings, and drums.
The Soundelux ELUX 251 uses the same 6072 tube circuit as the
original. The mic comes complete with shockmount, cable, case,
and power supply. The capsule is a one-inch dual membrane ? the
same as the original. The power supply is also true to the original,
unregulated type design. However, it?s a solid-state design. Like the
original, the mic cable is heavy duty, doesn?t kink up when coiled,
and the connector has a twist lock to keep it snug to the mic. Bock
has even matched the turquoise color and slide switch pattern
selector found on the original. The list price of the ELUX is slightly
under $5,000 ? compare that with the going rate of $10,000 to
$20,000 for an original 251.

THE TESTS
When the ELUX 251 arrived for evaluation, I was in the midst of recording
a project for Japanese artist Miyuki Nakajima. Her music is textured
and layered, and has often been compared to Kate Bush.This gave me
the opportunity to try the new mic in lots of different applications.
We were recording at O?Henry Studios in Burbank, CA on their
custom-built API/Jenson console. The luxury here is that owner Hank
Sanicola has one of the best mic closets in Los Angeles. His collection
includes four original 250 and 251 mics, as well as several AKG
C12?s, Neumann U 47?s, U 67?s, and M 50?s.

ELECTRIC GUITAR:
The first test was recording electric guitars with
studio musician Tim Pierce. I set up my standard SM57 and U 67
combination, but added the Soundelux 251 and a randomly chosen
original ELAM. The first shock came when I set up the preamp gains
on the two 251 channels. The preamp gain controls were set identically,
and yielded exactly the same output level. One great feature of
O?Henry?s custom API console is the ability to watch individual mic
preamp levels on the respective channel VU meters. On an electric
guitar, the meter ballistics were also identical on the two mics.
Sonically, the mics were frightfully similar. The original perhaps
having a bit more openness to the tiptop 15?17 kHz and a little bit
more edge in the 5 kHz area. The bottom on the new Soundelux,
however, was a bit richer and heftier than the original 251 ? perhaps
about a 1 or 2 dB boost at 180 Hz compared to the original. They
both yielded clean, open, and full-bodied tones.

PIANO:
Now on to the studio?s Yamaha C-7 acoustic piano.We started
with just a simple single-mic position just outside of the piano.We
compared three mics ? the original 251, the ELUX 251, and an AKG
C414EB. Even though I find myself using 414?s often on acoustic
piano, in this comparison they were eliminated quickly ? their top end
was much too artificial sounding and the low end too boxy. The original
251 was quite open and rich in the upper harmonics, and even in
the bottom.The ELUX sounded equally clear and open on the top end,
but at times the extra low-mid bump seemed a bit much.
Transients on the ELAM and ELUX were amazingly similar. We
compared both mics in cardioid and omni. The ELUX cardioid pattern
did seem a bit wider than the two original 251?s we compared.
However, when we switched all mics to omni, not only did the patterns
seem more similar, but the tonal variations between the original
and the Soundelux became much less apparent. In all patterns, the
ELUX did seem to go down much lower in the 30 Hz neighborhood.
Room-rumble and noise from the air conditioner was noticeable on
the ELUX, but chopped off on the ELAM.

STRINGS:
Two ELUX?s where placed adjacent to a pair of vintage
Neumann M 50?s. The mics were placed about ten feet high above the
ten-piece section. Although I wouldn?t usually use 251?s in this application,
I thought it was worth the experiment.The ELUX was full and rich
in the lower mids, but once I auditioned the mics in the track, I did prefer
the extended top end of the M 50?s.Where the ELUX did excel, however,
was in the area of noise. Even though their output level is similar
to that of a vintage ELAM, their self-noise level is substantially lower.
(The spec sheet rates the equivalent noise at 27 dB unweighted.)

FEMALE VOCALS:
 I compared the ELUX 251 extensively to my
favorite ELAM 251 on lead female vocals. At times I missed the extra
air and top end of the original ELAM, however, the sweetness of the
ELUX?s upper midrange made it a strong contender. With a few dB
added in the 15?17 kHz area, the ELUX managed to fool a few people.

BACKGROUND VOCALS: The next job was to record three studio
background singers doing R&B-style backups. This is an application
where I would normally use an ELAM 251, C12, or perhaps a 414EB.
We tried two different ELAM?s as well as a stock silver C414EB (original
series with C12-type capsule).We then put up the ELUX, and it
was hands-down the winner. It had the open, smooth top end, but the
slight low-mid bump seemed to fill in the sound of the group. The
upper midrange was smooth and the mic never folded or got nasty on
the high notes.
We tried several different preamps for these auditions ? an SSL
9000J, Neve 1073, Neve 1272, and an Avalon. The tonal differences
between the mics did change with the preamps; for example, the
transparency of the SSL made the differences seem slightly subtler.

ON THE INSIDE
Before I concluded this review, I wanted to open the ELUX up and
compare its construction to the original. Since this is an area beyond
my expertise. Harold Kilanski, chief engineer at O?Henry Studios and
custodian of the studio?s extensive vintage mic collection, accepted
the invitation to look under the hood. Here are his observations: ?The
original ELAM employed point-to-point wiring, as does the new ELUX.
The construction uses heavy gauge steel and no internal connectors.
The original ELAM, like all mics of that era, employed an output transformer.
The ELUX uses a good quality Lundahl transformer.
Soundelux went to great effort to be true to the original mic, and
included the use of a ceramic tube socket as opposed to the plastic
ones used in most mics today. Even the wires to the tube were coiled
to help eliminate any vibration transmission. One slight difference is
the use of Teflon wire versus the copper used in the original mic. The
Soundelux uses a polypropelene blocking capacitor, where the original
has a tantalum.?

Overall, the ELUX 251, like all the models I?ve heard in the Soundelux
line, is a wonderful sounding microphone. Although the focus of this
review has been a comparison to the original, the ELUX 251 has its
own character and sound, yet fits well into the C12 family.
If I were trying to punch-in on a vocal track that was recorded on
an original ELAM, the overall tonal character of the ELUX is close
enough that, with a little added ?air? EQ, I could make the ELUX
match up with the original sound.