Opinions on TF-11

[AcousticDreams]

II would be nice to add one more double duty Vocal & Acoustic guitar microphone to my locker.

Always nice to add something a little different to the mix so that the audience might feel a sonic difference, song to song. I think it was Lennon who always wanted to try new microphones to make his voice sound different from tune to tune.

And besides that it is always nice to have options. Always nice to experiment. While I am very happy with my Stereo Schoeps for Guitar...I still wish to experiment with a third center channel. I also have the Lauten Atlantis which is U47 ish and a pair of AT 4050's.

Alas, I am at the end of my funds. No more high end mics for me. However as we discussed it seems like some of the manufacturers are actually building some high quality microphones at affordable prices.

Jim1960's comparison post on U87 clones proved that it is possible. And one of the secrets is that some of this companies are using higher quality transformers in their build. While many think the U87 to be too mid range forward..too unexciting...I found it always dependable in providing a pleasant recording. Actually worked well for guitars. the U87 tubular brother..the U67 has been used on many acoustic guitar recordings.

Another mic that has always intrigued me is one that contains the C 12 Style capsule. I believe KevWind uses a 251 style mic with C 12 style capsule...and his vocal recordings sound very smooth.

So I would like to get your opinions on Last years introduction of Telefunken TF-11. From this video it sounds pretty clear, fast & smooth on vocals. On the Acoustic Guitar it Sounds a bit bright with not much low end. But the gentleman is playing a thinner bodied Martin which I believe is a bit brighter. And even if it is a bit bright it seems to catch the overtones of the guitar rather well. From the video looks like the build quality is rather good...using film capacitors and High nickle transformer.

This one has a slightly strange URL..and I could not seem to post the video any other way than through a link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1kBLJo2v0A&t=2s

[Glennwillow]

The Telefunken TF-11 seems like a pretty cool mic. It's not inexpensive, but at $895 and built in the USA it's within a reasonable price range for a lot of home recordists.

- Glenn

[jim1960]

There aren't too many comparative videos out there for the TF-11 but the one that makes me lean pretty hard to the 'no' side is this one...

In this video, the TF-11 sounds even brighter than the Neumann 102 and the 102 is a very bright mic. I'm not fond of overly bright mics on acoustic guitars and since you already have the Atlantis, I doubt the TF-11 would emerge as your preferred vocal mic.

I think the a better choice for you in that price range would that Serrano 87. It sounds great on acoustic and it's another very good vocal mic option that takes you in a different direction than does the Atlantis.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by jim1960

There aren't too many comparative videos out there for the TF-11 but the one that makes me lean pretty hard to the 'no' side is this one...

In this video, the TF-11 sounds even brighter than the Neumann 102 and the 102 is a very bright mic. I'm not fond of overly bright mics on acoustic guitars and since you already have the Atlantis, I doubt the TF-11 would emerge as your preferred vocal mic.

I think the a better choice for you in that price range would that Serrano 87. It sounds great on acoustic and it's another very good vocal mic option that takes you in a different direction than does the Atlantis.

Thanks Jim1960, always enjoy your observations.

I would have to agree with you from this video. And this was the thing that I was afraid of as in the Vintage King video the guitar did sound pretty thin with chimy overtones. I wondered if it was the guitar. But in this video it makes it pretty clear that the mic is extenuating the higher overtones. In my opinion, none of the other two mics, including the WA-67 sounded good with that guitar. So this might also lead me to believe that the guitar being played is the biggest culprit.

In the Vintage King video I did like the mic on vocals. I heard a little bit of openness that was appealing. However, he was singing very softly. A lot of mics sound good for soft singing. I am not a soft singer. So It might be safe to assume after hearing the chimy guitar sound, that this mic would exaggerate a harsher singer as myself. And to be totally honest...while my skills as an acoustic guitarist are continually improving...I am a bit of a wild man on guitar as well. I can not see how this would really pronounce my larger dynamic range of playing. Certainly do not need that.

In my gut, I do believe that an 87 is the direction I should be going. However that might also defeat what I am aiming for and that is to have a slightly different flavor. While the 87 is a different animal...it still has some of the characteristics of the Atlantis U47 tone. And that is..a less open sound. Defeating the purpose of have a different flavor.

It always comes back to this:
What we think we want, and what we need, are most often not the same. While I yearn for open, for that slightly different flavor, that is probably not what will work best for me.

Regardless, I am now convinced that the TF-11 projects too much in the brightness area. While There is an appealing quality to this mic's openness characteristic...I would now dare to presume that this type of characteristic would most certainly not work for me.

Jim1960, have you heard any comparisons between the Serrano 87 and the UA TWIN 87. Come to any conclusions?

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

have you heard any comparisons between the Serrano 87 and the UA TWIN 87. Come to any conclusions?

I haven't. I've seen some chatter praising the Twin as a good voice over option but I've yet to hear any praise for it as a great mic for what we do (except from people who are trying to sell them). I'm probably unlike many people in this regard but that modern/vintage switch has no appeal for me. A friend of mine who lives nearby owns an 87ai. I've sang through it a few times and I'm just not a fan of it on my voice. The darker vintage would suit me better and would probably be preferable on acoustic as well.

There are only two mics that I'm really interested enough to possibly purchase... the Serrano 87 and the Beesneez BU67 that I just made a thread about. I'm holding off on both for different reasons. Serrano developed a Neumann KM84 for which he offered an early buy in for a really good price. I jumped on that and the mics were originally supposed to arrive in January but that's been delayed twice since then because the bodies are being manufactured in Shanghai which is still not back to normal after being in full lock down earlier this year. I want to resolve that sale before I order the 87.

On the BU67 front, a guy from another board who does product reviews has a BU67 on the way and he'll post a review at some point. I want to see that before I decide one way or the other on that mic. When the review comes out, I'll post it in the BU67 thread I made.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I haven't. I've seen some chatter praising the Twin as a good voice over option but I've yet to hear any praise for it as a great mic for what we do (except from people who are trying to sell them). I'm probably unlike many people in this regard but that modern/vintage switch has no appeal for me. A friend of mine who lives nearby owns an 87ai. I've sang through it a few times and I'm just not a fan of it on my voice. The darker vintage would suit me better and would probably be preferable on acoustic as well.

There are only two mics that I'm really interested enough to possibly purchase... the Serrano 87 and the Beesneez BU67 that I just made a thread about. I'm holding off on both for different reasons. Serrano developed a Neumann KM84 for which he offered an early buy in for a really good price. I jumped on that and the mics were originally supposed to arrive in January but that's been delayed twice since then because the bodies are being manufactured in Shanghai which is still not back to normal after being in full lock down earlier this year. I want to resolve that sale before I order the 87.

On the BU67 front, a guy from another board who does product reviews has a BU67 on the way and he'll post a review at some point. I want to see that before I decide one way or the other on that mic. When the review comes out, I'll post it in the BU67 thread I made.

Like anyone else...I am always looking for that magical component that will take me to some new level. That extra something that transforms me into something more.

What I often forget; sometimes there is no more suitable level than the one we already stand on. That the level we stand on is not only working the best, but it is also the safest level to be standing on.

When I really think about it...the mics function is not to make better of us...but let the music be represented in its best way. Of course, that differs for each of us and our music.

More and more I am realizing why a mic might sound good on one voice and not another. It all has to do with our vocal characteristic and style. And one given microphone might let that particular character shine through better than another.

A mic is not much different than a guitar. Eventually we find an instrument that we are the most comfortable on. While we might enjoy many flavors of guitars, there is always one that we like the best and keep returning to.

Found this article just now, by Justin Hayward.

" I often find myself at sessions with new engineers that I don't know and don't know me. They want to discover a new and different way of recording my voice and often want me to try their favourite new mic. I go along with it (you never know - maybe one time it will be great!), but at the end of each experiment I eventually suggest a good old Neumann u87 and viola! Yes! it's the one that works perfectly. I knew it would. "

http://justinhaywardrecordings.com/j...rd-on-singing/

Maybe the sound we are looking for is the one that we are most familiar with. The sound of a guitar like we have always imagined....or a microphone that makes us sound like we imagine. Or like we think we sound? Or the microphone that we grew up listening to so it becomes what we judge all others by? Not sure we will ever know the entire answer to that question. In the meantime...Until proven wrong we go with our gut feelings.

[KevWind]

Humm. first here is the Telefunken vid

Second I have no experience with the Telefunken
And perhaps I am overly skeptical but I am wary of drawing much of a conclusion from either of these YT vids in general.

For example ? In this video perhaps the F11 is simply giving a decent rendition of a thin sounding guitar, or playing style, or thin pick, or all three ??????????



in this video below ,,, the guitar sound is fuller .. But the three different performances is a problem for me. As well as the three slightly different positions of the mic's (hard to tell from the camera angle ) but If I am not mistaken ,, looks to me like:

The 102 is pointed at the guitar body (just below) the neck, slightly (left of the neck/body joint) a bit more towards the sound hole

The Warm 67 seems to be pointed just a bit further towards the sound hole and also below the neck

The F11 seems to be pointed more up on the fret board and more towards and maybe slightly forward of the neck/body joint

And there is a distinct change (Starting @ :49 seconds when the player shifts and moves the guitar slightly screen right and the harsh-ish high end disappears



Ha!!! so other than jumping in the thread and trowing water balloons all over, I have no opinion

[DupleMeter]

Having tried several of their mics, I have to say there are better options out there IMO. Especially their lower priced line (like the TF). I don't know what it is about their mics that just feels flat/lifeless to me. I live about an hour from them & have been to their studio & tried all their stuff out.

The thing to remember about Telefunken is that they never made those classic mics they sold. They were either Neumann or AKG mics rebranded. They simply had a distribution channel that neither of those companies could reach. So, the "classic" Telefunken was either a Neumann or AKG. The new Telefunken (in CT, not Germany) simply bought the rights to the name & are "recreating" the classics (basically clones) & added other lines to hit market price points.

What are you looking for, specifically? Do you want something honest? Something that adds character? Something that has a specific EQ disposition?

If you can hold off - Production Expert is about to release a mic article outlining the favorite mics in each of our collections. It should give a lot of insight into what pros are using on a day to day basis. And, you might be surprised that it isn't just unobtanium vintage gear ;-)

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

Having tried several of their mics, I have to say there are better options out there IMO. Especially their lower priced line (like the TF). I don't know what it is about their mics that just feels flat/lifeless to me. I live about an hour from them & have been to their studio & tried all their stuff out.

The thing to remember about Telefunken is that they never made those classic mics they sold. They were either Neumann or AKG mics rebranded. They simply had a distribution channel that neither of those companies could reach. So, the "classic" Telefunken was either a Neumann or AKG. The new Telefunken (in CT, not Germany) simply bought the rights to the name & are "recreating" the classics (basically clones) & added other lines to hit market price points.

What are you looking for, specifically? Do you want something honest? Something that adds character? Something that has a specific EQ disposition?

If you can hold off - Production Expert is about to release a mic article outlining the favorite mics in each of our collections. It should give a lot of insight into what pros are using on a day to day basis. And, you might be surprised that it isn't just unobtanium vintage gear ;-)

Good to know Duplemeter. Nothing like first hand experience. I look forward to that review.

As far as what I am looking for specifically? Well that is always a tough to answer.

After many years I came to the realization that " What we think we want...and what we need are often two different things."

I owned a mid seventies U87 that I bought brand new back in the day(sold it years ago). While I thought it to be boring...it always came through for voice and acoustic guitar. I wanted more exciting. But exciting can sometimes come with a price. Usually something that sounds exciting begins to cut into your ears like a knife with long term listening. Short term...at first...it sound great. But then you come to the realization that the Exciting, it really not that good.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

Good to know Duplemeter. Nothing like first hand experience. I look forward to that review.

As far as what I am looking for specifically? Well that is always a tough to answer.

After many years I came to the realization that " What we think we want...and what we need are often two different things."

I owned a mid seventies U87 that I bought brand new back in the day(sold it years ago). While I thought it to be boring...it always came through for voice and acoustic guitar. I wanted more exciting. But exciting can sometimes come with a price. Usually something that sounds exciting begins to cut into your ears like a knife with long term listening. Short term...at first...it sound great. But then you come to the realization that the Exciting, it really not that good.

Agreed - we don't always want what's best for us...and not just in mics. I think we all have those stories...

I hear what you're saying. When you get a character mic, something exciting, you are forever married to that character. And, if you're not planning on buying a dozen mics to cover all the different characters, I think a neutral mic and a good EQ are a far better choice. (even if the EQ is a plugin).

I'm a huge fan of the Neumann TLM67. It's honest, but not boring and takes EQ very nicely. One of the few instances where you will hear my say anything good about a transformerless mic.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

Agreed - we don't always want what's best for us...and not just in mics. I think we all have those stories...

I hear what you're saying. When you get a character mic, something exciting, you are forever married to that character. And, if you're not planning on buying a dozen mics to cover all the different characters, I think a neutral mic and a good EQ are a far better choice. (even if the EQ is a plugin).

I'm a huge fan of the Neumann TLM67. It's honest, but not boring and takes EQ very nicely. One of the few instances where you will hear my say anything good about a transformerless mic.

I also feel that way about transformers...

I call it ...Meat - weight - heft. Transformered equipment actually sound more natural to me than most transformerless equipment. I am sure most would argue to the contrary, saying just the opposite. But for myself...I think transformer adds an evenness that translates into a natural reality. Maybe that is because I grew up listening to records made with transformer gear. Or maybe because it really does give you that something that equates into naturalness. Be it in Microphones or Preamps on every shootout, I seem to like Transformered equipment.

Yes, I have heard countless people claim that the TLM67 is a great mic. A desert Island mic. I have actually come close to buying one in the past as price wise it is certainly most reasonable when compared to others in the Neumann line. While I have always loved so many Neumann Classics (u87, u47, 49, KM84), Oddly, I have never been a fan of the Tube 67 for voice. For acoustic guitar...I love it...but for voice I hear a distortion that just is not pleasing to my ear most of the time.

The other microphone that breaks the mold in transformerless microphones is Schoeps. If I did not already know, I would swear Schoeps used a transformer. Love my Schoeps.

I have never tested a TLM67. So please tell me how is it different from the U67? While claims are made that it is similar, I know it must be different. Maybe it does not have the same type of distortion that I dislike?
* Please tell me your opinion of how the TLM67 is different from its Tube father.

Here is what Neumann has to say.
"Inspired by the U 67, which defined the sound of the 1960s, the TLM 67 perfectly captures the retro sound of the original. Through innovative FET circuitry, the TLM 67 is able to create authentic analog tube sounds with stunning realism. Equipped with the the classic K 67 capsule (also used in the U 67 and U 87 A microphones), the TLM 67 delivers the same nearly-linear frequency response of the U 67".
AUTHENTIC ANALOG SOUNDS

"Instead of using clunky electron tubes like the original U 67, the TLM 67’s head amplifier uses reliable transformerless solid state technology with a special sound design that closely reproduces the sonics of tube circuits. At high SPLS, the TLM 67 will intentionally produce soft saturation to simulate the THD of vintage tube mics."

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

I also feel that way about transformers...

I call it ...Meat - weight - heft. Transformered equipment actually sound more natural to me than most transformerless equipment. I am sure most would argue to the contrary, saying just the opposite. But for myself...I think transformer adds an evenness that translates into a natural reality. Maybe that is because I grew up listening to records made with transformer gear. Or maybe because it really does give you that something that equates into naturalness. Be it in Microphones or Preamps on every shootout, I seem to like Transformered equipment.

Yes, I have heard countless people claim that the TLM67 is a great mic. A desert Island mic. I have actually come close to buying one in the past as price wise it is certainly most reasonable when compared to others in the Neumann line. While I have always loved so many Neumann Classics (u87, u47, 49, KM84), Oddly, I have never been a fan of the Tube 67 for voice. For acoustic guitar...I love it...but for voice I hear a distortion that just is not pleasing to my ear most of the time.

The other microphone that breaks the mold in transformerless microphones is Schoeps. If I did not already know, I would swear Schoeps used a transformer. Love my Schoeps.

I have never tested a TLM67. So please tell me how is it different from the U67? While claims are made that it is similar, I know it must be different. Maybe it does not have the same type of distortion that I dislike?
* Please tell me your opinion of how the TLM67 is different from its Tube father.

Here is what Neumann has to say.
"Inspired by the U 67, which defined the sound of the 1960s, the TLM 67 perfectly captures the retro sound of the original. Through innovative FET circuitry, the TLM 67 is able to create authentic analog tube sounds with stunning realism. Equipped with the the classic K 67 capsule (also used in the U 67 and U 87 A microphones), the TLM 67 delivers the same nearly-linear frequency response of the U 67".
AUTHENTIC ANALOG SOUNDS

"Instead of using clunky electron tubes like the original U 67, the TLM 67’s head amplifier uses reliable transformerless solid state technology with a special sound design that closely reproduces the sonics of tube circuits. At high SPLS, the TLM 67 will intentionally produce soft saturation to simulate the THD of vintage tube mics."

To my ears, the TLM67 reminds me more of a U87i (original version with the smoother response) than a U67. Honestly, having tested one next to the current generation U87Ai, it’s like a smoother, less hyped version.

I don’t really hear that tube wooliness.

I, like many, wrote off all the TLM mics as too bright, too thin. Had it not been for a session with John Patitucci, who brought his TLM67, handed it to me & said “I only use this mic on my bass” (it was his upright), I would have never experienced it & realized that it may very well be Neumann’s best current model.

Funny enough, I did FOH for him a a couple weeks ago at a local show & he was experimenting with a DPA (and we used the TLM67 on his wife’s ‘cello).