Saxophone and microphones

[TenorReinier]

Hello all,

I was wondering what you think of playing the sax into a mike. Are there any special tips, special techniques, special ways you treat playing into a mike?

I will be playing next friday on a gig again using my SD system LCM 89 which I always use on tenor, but I'm curious about how you guys see things. I just play the way I always play, but maybe there are some nice things to learn here.

Regards,
TenorReinier 8)

[Harry]

We cannot "use" a mic fixed to the instrument (which I believe yours is), only play into it. You should ensure that your monitor gives you an accurate and usable account of the reality according to the microphone.
I hope this is useful.
Harry

[Dave Dolson]

TenorReiner: At the risk of alienating a whole lot of power players, I'll opine . . . I detest saxophones (or any instruments) played into microphones. To my ears, amplification just kills a good horn's sound and distorts a performance from the listeners' perspective. Let's see, the horn is stage left, but I hear it EVERYWHERE.

I could recount tale after tale of times when I'd listened to acoustic bands (much nicer) or those who lost their power (they sounded MUCH better!! without the electronic boost) or those who had some instruments mic'd while others were acoustic (awful).

At one jam session, a clarinet player walked up and played without a mic - he sounded pretty good. Then, some tasteless fellow put a mic in front of the clarinet and the player went for it. He turned from a nice sound to something harsh and overbalanced.

Most horn players don't have a clue as to how they sound 50' in front of the band, hence they think they can't be heard or need amplicification - when they don't need it at all. There is a reason that some instruments project while others blend - they all have their role in a band; but most performers think they must boost the blenders and then the projectors need a boost and pretty soon it is amplified cacophony, not music. I could go on and on, but . . . DAVE

[Harry]

Hey Dave,
I agree but if one is to play a big stage for good reason it need not be the kiss of death if acquainted with the territory and on intimate terms with the band and the engineers. Just ask any successful and expressive vocalist.
Harry

[Media Lint]

Quote: I detest saxophones (or any instruments) played into microphones

Well, that's the only way I know of to get them onto a CD!

Though if you're talking about going through a club PA, I would agree with you. Unless it's the band's own PA system they have experience with and balanced out and the band has their own soundperson, the house PA usually sounds better from the bathroom crapper stall than it does in the main area.

[soulsax]

No two sax players sound alike. No two live preformances are alike either. "The house PA sounds better from the bathroom crapper..." Often very true. Walls create filters. I dig the acoustic sound too. But often it's not practical because different factors.(lot's of people, or a VERY LOUD band ect.) You should approch each gig, concert, show, a little different. With a little preshow effort a decent sound should be achievable. High and low frequencys all have different characteristics. What might sound good on stage can sound like "crap" on the dance floor. When correctly balanced and some decent equiptment,(a sound mans nice) mics work great...

[Dave Dolson]

Media Lint: Of course recordings must go through microphones, but that doesn't mean a horn sounds good when blown directly into a mic . . . and that's how I've been required to do it on most recordings. However, on one recording, we used stereo mics placed some distance in front of the three horns (a trad jazz band) and no one played directly into a mic. That was the best I'd (we'd) ever been recorded. That captured the whole band's sound (much more realistic than having each instrument processed through a board) and allowed each instrument's warmth to come through.

I suppose that in a huge hall, amplification is necessary (much like stage musicals where each vocalist is mic'd with units in their hair, etc.). However, when I've listened to acoustic groups in large venues, it was much more listenable to my ears than if the band were "processed" through huge speakers.

But most of us have surely experienced the casual arrangements where everyone is blowing hard into microphones thinking they MUST be heard over all the other cacophony - and that is awful. It is not always the case when we can have proficient sound people and equipment.

I've been in those amplified jams and concerts where I shunned offered microphones - later, the compliments I received on my playing and sound from fellow players and audience members were numerous, specifically mentioning the non-amplified issues. DAVE

[hornstar]

interesting discussion, but not much help to the author. I don't think the question was whether miked sax sounds better than acoustic, but rather, "any special tips, special techniques, special ways you treat playing into a mike."

TenorReinier, when you need to mic the sax, your position relative to the mic will affect the sound. closer tends to be brighter, whereas more distance gives depth. type of mic also affects tone and body; tube mics or ribbon mics are best for recording horns, and are often used in the studio, but are expensive and impractical for live use. the trusty Sure SM57 is always a good bet for live, and is fine for recording, it's practically indestructible, and one of the world's great bargains. it's cardiod pattern will keep out other sound sources that aren't intended for that mic. a nice step up is the AKG 414, which has a pad selector that will change the pattern; it can keep out unwanted audio very nicely, and sounds great; get one and you'll treat it as valuably as your horn.

[Joe]

Sorry, guys, many times acoustic just isn't possible. I once heard Brecker playing with Steve Gaad and, even though I was three feet away directly in front of Brecker's bell and he was miked, all I could hear was drums. I finally ended up moving to the back of the club so I could get a little balance from the PA.

TenorReinier, there are several things to mention. First, most people place the mic directly in front of the bell since 40% of the sound comes out of the bell. This might seem obvious, but I've seen players try the mic to the side and it gets less tone, more key noise, and is very uneven in different registers. The biggest problem in front is the low notes booming, which can be avoided by turning slightly when you play them. You may not want to avoid it. Some players dig the monster ringing low sound and use it for effect like Brecker.

Second, be aware that the mic is going to add brightness to your sound. If the PA system is vocal columns with a bunch of 4 inch speakers, it's going to add a LOT of brightness. This can be balanced out a little on the equalizer by boosting the low a little, the mid a lot, and cutting the highs a whole lot. Remember, the mic is only a foot or two away and will pick up all kinds of things that wouldn't otherwise be heard. You'll either need a sound tech out front that you trust or a tape recorder to hear what's actually coming across. You might want to have a variety of different sounding reeds available to be able to adapt to the system and room. I used to play different set ups for different acoustic situations, now I just adjust my sound with my air/embouchure so that what I want the audience to hear is what they get.

Third consideration is a moniter. The reason horns overblow is that they can't hear themselves acoustically in a sea of electronic instruments. You need a good moniter with the horns boosted a little to avoid overblowing.

The fourth consideration is balance. No big time professional show will ever attempt to perform without a seasoned sound man out front. I've seen great bands ruined and mediocre bands made to sound really nice just by a sound guy's work. Once again, if you're running your own board from the stage, get a decent tape recorder and record your sound check, making sure to leave time to make adjustnments based on what you hear. You may be shocked as what's happening on stage and what comes across out front are very often two completely different things. Ideally, if you're playing a big room, have a big PA, and are using a sound guy, all the amps and even drums should be miked and run through the PA so the sound guy can control all levels.

[Dave Dolson]

Joe: Your description of Brecker NOT being heard from three feet away, even while mic'd, makes my point. There he was but his sound was coming out from somewhere else, buried in the total amplified sound of the ensemble - a circumstance that tends to confuse listeners. Like I said before, "There he is but where is his sound?" His sound is coming from somwhere other than where he is standing (the speakers off somewhere else), and that just isn't a natural thing. I'll bet you could have heard him much better without the mic.

And Hornstar: The original question was, "I was wondering what you think of playing a sax into a mike?" True, he also asked other questions, but this is what I think about it. It stinks.

Can a good sound person and equipment improve an ensemble's sound? Maybe, but most of us don't experience those perfect circumstances. Regardless, even the best equipment and the best technician will probably struggle to make a saxophone sound as good as it can sound without a mic. And believe me, no animosity here - just my opinion. DAVE

[max]

Again, of no use to the original question, but...

However, on one recording, we used stereo mics placed some distance in front of the three horns (a trad jazz band) and no one played directly into a mic.

My group is two horns, bass, and drums. We generally close-mic the horns, but also have room mics like you describe. Mixing the room and the close mic gives a very natural, organic sound that still lets each horn's nuances come through.

[Cameron Wigmore]

Using a stationary mic is best for joe-soundman. They aren't ussually familiar with clip on bell mics, and unlees you know some about mics and amplification, feedback, etc, I'd suggest going with a Sure SM 58. Soundmen know what to do with those.
Put the mic near the top of you bell for a brighter sound, and near the bottom for a less edgy tone.

[tomsch]

Since I play in a loud R&B/Funk band there is always a challenge to hear yourself over the drums/bass/guitar/keyboard. The sound out of the monitors, is often brighter and not a good representation of the sound coming out of your horn. Our band is getting better at keeping stage volume down. We have also had the same soundman for over a year now so he is familiar with how we want to sound out front.
Lately, I've been backing away from the mic and using a SoundBack to get more of my direct (well, reflected) sound vs. the monitor. This is also a benefit because I'm not right on top of the mic, which results in a fuller sound out of the PA.

[Bill Mecca]

The reality is we compete with electrically amplified instruments, so a mic is a necessary evil if you will. It can effect the tone, and you have to learn how to minimize or maximixe that depending upon your desires.

I think the Brecker anecdote points this out... acoustically from 3 feet away, he was unable to be heard, it woudl be nice to get drummers and electric guitarists and bassists to turn down to "human" levels, but good luck with that. Many feel electric guitars don't sound good unless the amp is turned up to "11."

I do have, I think it's a Bob Mintzer CD, with crayon artwork on the cover, where they recorded with just one or two mics, and varied the sound levels of different instruments by phyisically moving closer to and farther away from the mic. I havent listened to that one in a while.

As others have said distance from the mic has a great effect on the tone. I find the further away the thinner the sound, as it emphasizes the upper partials, when recording, in a live situation if the overall volume levels are listenable, being further away from the mic lets more of the horn's natural sound come thru and the mic serves only as reinforcement.

[TenorReinier]

Hey,

thanks for your replies. Doesn't really matter if it's not an perfect answer to my question (see discussion about this above), I just find this subject interesting and a bit overlooked. You all mentioned some problems with playing amplified (yes, I prefer acoustic as well, naturally, but sometimes you have no choice -> large venues) but somehow many players seem to accept this. Ah, the soundguy this and the soundguy that. My philosophy: just make the best out of it you can. You have to cope with bad sound engineers and bad amps etc, but the audience is not interested in tphis, they just want to hear some good music, so make the best out of it.

If you know the situation will create a bright sound, just pick a darker mouthpiece. Also: bring your own mike which you know well. I take my SD System everywhere I play amplified. The good thing about this mike (accept great sound quality): you can mute and equalise yourself a bit with the beltpack. I always tell sound engineers not to mute me, because I will do it myself. Most of them are pretty relieved. And for me, not the half of my solo will be lost because Joe Sound can't find the mute button...

Realise the bad circumstances of playing amplified and then see what you can do to reduce bad influences of this. Like I said, I pick a darker and less agressive mouthpieces for instance. On of my question was: do you change something like this when playing amplified?

TenorReinier 8)
ps; about the distance to the mike: my SD Sys is attached to the bell, so that won't work...