Originally Posted by Ox Han ➡️

I believe Vanguard replied to me on another thread saying the V13 and V4 have a similar capsule, but not identical.

Originally Posted by Shannon Adkins ➡️

Thanks Chris and dickiefunk for the bday wishes! @ dickiefunk ...
Regarding the mics, the V13 definitely comes with the best package. Although, when the Telefunken mic update comes out, it will probably be an even better package.
I can verify that the CU29 mount has problems staying in place, and this is a chronic problem, because I've had three of these mics. I've contacted Telefunken about this. They've offered to exchange it for a Rycote mount, which is great. But first I have to ship the original shock mount to them, and I just haven't had a window where I can be without it. I use this thing almost every day. They said they can't ship me the new mount first because they've had scenerios where people haven't shipped the other one back.
As for build quality between the three, I'd give the Telefunken top nod. Everything about it feels sturdy. It weighs quite a bit more than the Vanguard, which I believe is due to the body being made of a heavier material (it is... I've opened both of them up) and a heavier transformer. Inside, it's probably the cleanest layout I've seen in a mic.
The materials on the Vanguard are much lighter than the other two, but the quality control is good. It's a good looking mic. And the shockmount is easily the most robust of the three. It has a rather small transformer, which I actually got to saturate pretty easily while singing loudly at closer proximity. The 10db pad took care of this (if you want a cleaner sound). The mic stayed clean without the pad when I was 12" away... Which is the proximity I almost always use, anyway. As I understand it from talking to Derek at Vanguard, the smaller transformer and easy saturation was part of the intended design of the mic, and that's why the pad is there.
The Warm has no issues with sound. But, I've had four of their mics now (two 87s, two 47s) and each one has had some kind of cosmetic flaw. This is not as big a deal to me as it once was. To produce a mic like this at this price point, with the materials they use... We'll, it seems like QC on the cosmetics is where they cut costs.
They're all three amazing mics.

Originally Posted by chessparov2.0 ➡️

Yes, I am impressed with the TF 51 (I think this was the model Paul meant) along with the Copperhead. It'd be a tough call on my voice, to pick between them. T-Funk was smart to update their RFT series.
Chris

Originally Posted by dickiefunk ➡️

I read somewhere that’s they use the same capsule?

Originally Posted by Paul_G ➡️

Firstly I really enjoyed your voice and I think all the mics bring out different qualities. I agree though I think the Copperhead is the winner. I thought that would be brighter like the Vanguard so it surprised me. I have one (CU29) I let my son use for his demos and I got it half price. I think it's a great mic. I have a theory that we're used to hearing young voices on bright mics (sony, manley etc. copperhead) but you've just ruined that theory. Out of the cheap Tfunks I thing the 251 is the best though, that is a great mic. Thanks for sharing and proving once again it's talent that really matters!

Originally Posted by dickiefunk ➡️

Yes the new versions of the Telefunken mics look great! I wonder how the new versions will compare to the current version after the headbasket and circuit upgrades? I also like the fact that they will now come with upgraded shockmount and and hard case. The CU39 looks like a great mic but double the price of the Vanguard V13!
I’ve noticed quite a few studios doing shootouts with the V13 against much higher priced classics and they all favour the V13?

Originally Posted by Telefunken Lab ➡️

Greetings all,

Not to derail this thread, but if you'd like to know more about our recently released Alchemy Series and it's upgrades from RFT, I posted a lengthy description by model in this thread: New Telefunken “TF” series mics?

I would say the headgrille change is noteworthy, and most obvious on the TF51. It accentuates the openness and clarity in a certain way that the earlier version did not have. It's a bit tricky to explain and some people probably won't notice, but I am very proud of what our R&D was able to accomplish with this redesign.

Anyways, carry on.

Regards,
James

Originally Posted by Shannon Adkins ➡️

So I was wrong about the tube, as it's the same.
Very interested how much difference you notice on voice with the new headgrille - on the Copperhead, specifically...

Originally Posted by Shannon Adkins ➡️

Thanks, Paul!
I've never used the AR51. That, or the new TF51 will have to be on my shortlist. It's my understanding that the Copperhead (which is supposed to have the most tamed top end of the three t-funk mics) uses the same capsule as the AK47, so I'd expect that the 51 is even brighter sounding?
Thanks again for your kind words!

Originally Posted by Paul_G ➡️

It's a different kind of bright. It's balanced and clear as a bell. It won a shootout out with a fussy singer against all my top mics: Horch, Bock, Chandler, C24, Sony C800G, Nu 47 etc. I had to agree with him, it did sound really good on his voice.

The Copperhead sometimes has a nasty top end for me with proximity and stuff. It can sound expensive and it can sound cheap. It's a funny mic, not much depth of field. When it works it works.

That new range sounds like a great reason to snap up bargains from the old range as these things go for half price or a little more.

Originally Posted by Deleted 2be7eae ➡️

The only mic I've ever gotten good results on with close miking (at least IMO) is an AEA N22. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I always feel like the tradeoff with proximity and lack of openness is not something that appeals to me.

Originally Posted by Paul_G ➡️

I love that mic.

Originally Posted by Funny Cat ➡️

I'm curious Paul, are you playing with distance-from-singer-to-mic when you are doing vocals? For a while I was doing strictly up on the grill miking with vocals, everyone asking for that in your face, whispering in your ear sound but I think I'm getting a little bored with that. Are you finding your mics reacting differently when pulling them back off the vocal a bit? Some are obviously better than others with this in your stable I'm assuming...

Originally Posted by dickiefunk ➡️

Do you have any experience with the Shure KSM32 or Audio Technica AT4040 mics?

Originally Posted by Deleted 2be7eae ➡️

I forgot to answer this. I've never used the KSM mics, but have lots of experience with 40 series ATs.

Originally Posted by dickiefunk ➡️

How do you find the mics in your shootout compare to the AT4040?

Also, just wondering if you would be will to share the RAW files of your daughters clips? No worries if not

Originally Posted by Shannon Adkins ➡️

I've used every mic in the 40 series, and still have a 4050. I feel like the Copperhead is the most like the 4050, because it has that upper mid forward character that brings a vocal to the front of the mix. All three of the tube mics are larger sounding than the 4050, and the transients are softened more.
I really like AT mics a lot. Always have.
I have to pass on putting out the raw files of my daughter.

Originally Posted by Deleted 2be7eae ➡️

While I agree that the V13 is the cleanest in the upper frequencies, I disagree that the other two mics sound "grainy". I feel like the V13 is, among these mics, the one that's more of a blank canvas. The other two have more character. In the case of the Telefunken CU29, it's a much bigger sounding mic than the V13 on vocals, and the WA47 has a more rounded top while remaining very clean. I hate these adjectives, but that's the only way I know to describe them.

Originally Posted by Deleted 2be7eae ➡️

The only mic I've ever gotten good results on with close miking (at least IMO) is an AEA N22. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I always feel like the tradeoff with proximity and lack of openness is not something that appeals to me.