Thanks!

 

Hi, Pawel! Everyone has different preferences when it comes to microphones, as I'm sure you'll find as you get to experiment and record with more and more. I, personally, don't like the Shure Beta mics at all, and I actually prefer the old-school SM57 and 58 to the Beta version! Perfectly serviceable, solid-sounding mics for around $100 USD.

There are some very good dynamic mics that I prefer over all the Shures, though, and they're a bit more expensive but well worth it. They're also widely available on the used market, and they tend to be quite durable and rugged, so you can buy used with more confidence than a more fragile condenser. The Sennheiser MD421 is a reliable standard, I've done recording sessions and live shows with it and always like how it sounds quite a bit! The more expensive Sennheiser MD441 is probably the best dynamic microphone ever made, and it's expensive for a dynamic, but still much less expensive than top-tier condensers (a third of the price of a Neumann u87 or similar). I had a 441 on my tenor for my band's whole first record:

Another German company, Beyerdynamic, is (I believe) credited with inventing the dynamic microphone, and they still make some of the best in the world! The Beyerdynamic M88 is very well-loved as a versatile and top-quality mic for horns, drums, guitar/bass amps, and vocals, and I'm planning on buying one soon. The M201 is a bit more affordable but still very well liked as a versatile instrument mic, kind of like an SM57 but preferred by a lot of engineers. They're both more expensive than Shures but still very affordable compared to good condensers. Try some if you can!

 

My preference goes to the Rode NT-2a.

An interesting thing to note: all the microphones in the video, despite different in type (large capsule condenser, mid size capsule dynamic, very small capsule clip-on condenser), are in their categories considered "bright" microphones.

The Rode provides more (sound) informations, a more detailed sound... brighter in colour but hugely manageable.
Not usable with success in every condition (think playing heavy electric stuff, on a small stage, with no isolation between different instruments...).

Not every large capsule studio condenser mic is bright.
Same for clip microphones and dynamic handled microphones.

Another German company, Beyerdynamic, is (I believe) credited with inventing the dynamic microphone, and they still make some of the best in the world! The Beyerdynamic M88 is very well-loved as a versatile and top-quality mic for horns, drums, guitar/bass amps, and vocals, and I'm planning on buying one soon. The M201 is a bit more affordable but still very well liked as a versatile instrument mic, kind of like an SM57 but preferred by a lot of engineers. They're both more expensive than Shures but still very affordable compared to good condensers. Try some if you can!

There are some backstories about the M88.
It has changed a lot in more than 40 years.
Most people loves the early ones because the sound significantly warmer.

Three weeks ago I've found a vocal coach (on YouTube) M88 addicted: he compared many M88 from different eras and they all sound significantly different. I mean... you really notice the differences.
Sometimes was the capsule, sometimes was the circuitry, sometimes was due the antipop filter.

In general it's an awesome microphone for an "old but not that old" dynamic meaty sound.
(The next step for getting more meat is the RE20/27ND... maybe a Telefunken M82).

The modern fashion (in microphones tastes) is... ultra warm dark sound but highly detailed.

P.S.: I think the MD441 was a perfect choice with that recording layout... and in general for the sound of the horn in a fusion situation.
Plenty of detail, smooth silky german sound.

Small booth can be odd for highly sensitive condenser.
You don't have bleed from other instruments but you get too much unwanted "early reflection" sound.
Did you try the SM7b before moving to the MD441... or you went directly for the MD441?

 

I like my Beyerdynamic M201TG. It's quieter, but maybe more natural-sounding, than my Electrovoice ND46.

 

Another vote for Beyerdynamic. I use their M160, M201, M88, M69 on every session I record. They're "only" dynamic mics, but the sound is so balanced and classy.

 

441 da bomb for sax and especially flute.

 

Cool - thanks for your feedback. I'll take a closer look at these microphones. I'm quite happy with my condensers but definitely miss something in the Beta 57A. It would be great to have a Sennheiser 441 but it's pricey. Also thought about trying a Heil PR22.

 

See if you can try a Beyer M88! It's often considered a good alternative to a 441, and many engineers actually prefer them. Thomann should have them for a very reasonable price, they're very affordable in Europe.

 

I did some recordings with a MD 421 (thold grey tuchel version) and noticed some annoying harsh sounding higher frequencies. After talking to a tec, I know well, I decided to buy the Beyerdynamic M201, which he called the poor man's MD 441. This sennheiser is a great micro (I liked it especially for flute) but it did not see one below 500€ used.

 

I prefer to use a small diaphragm condenser for instrument recording, be it guitar or sax.

 

Also thought about trying a Heil PR22. I don't record but I have a PR20 & a PR22ut. I feel they're a poor man's EV20. Very neutral, A wee bit down on power. A great vocal mic as well.

 

The PR22UT is the same as the PR22. The difference is that the PR22UT comes with a stainless steel grill, and the PR22 comes with a black, gold and silver grill. They are the same mic, just one is less expensive package.

 

That first sentence is from Pawel. Also EV RE20.

 

I love my heil pr30B on stage and in the studio.

 

The PR30 is a great mic.

 

The question of whether to use a dynamic or condenser mic for a saxophone is a tough one, and really depends on your circumstances.

In general, dynamic mics will be better suited for live performance and condenser mics will be better suited for studio use. Though both can and have been used in either setting.

Dynamic mics are often less susceptible to extraneous noise such as other instruments on stage or stage monitors. Condenser mics often have a wider frequency bandwidth, usually something like 20Hz to 20kHz, which makes them sound more natural and clear. Dynamic mics often have a higher low frequency roll off, such as 50, 80 or 100Hz, and usually will only extend up to 14kHz to 16kHz. Though there are notable exceptions to both of these rules.

I have used condenser mics for live sound many times. Everything from large diaphragm condensers like Audio Technica AT4050s and AKG C414s and Neuman TLM170s, to small condensers like Shure SM81s, and Neumann KM184s, and AKG C451Bs, and miniature elements like the Shure Beta98s and DPA 4099s. In theatre every singer and actor is miced up with a miniature lavaliere element, which is basically a condenser mic. And there can be 40 or 50 of them on stage at a time.

Really the more important aspect of the microphone is the pick up pattern. Mics like the Heil PR22 and PR30B have a nice wide pick up patter with an extreme rejection behind the mic. This makes them very useful for live stage work because they tend to reject the sound coming from the stage monitors which are usually in front of the player (and behind the mic). But super- and hyper cardioid mics also have a narrow pick up patter to help reject stage noise also. Mics like the Neumann KMS105 also make good saxophone mics for live stage work.

With proper choice of microphone type and application and proper gain staging, you can use either type just as successfully as the other in either situation.

For the most part, I find that if a particular microphone sounds good for the human voice, it is well sited for saxophone.

 

The question of whether to use a dynamic or condenser mic for a saxophone is a tough one, and really depends on your circumstances. ......

And also discussed many times before, eaxh mike is different and you can probably find good arguments supporting any briand and type out there, the general principles, though, apply

https://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?262025-Condenser-mic-vs-dynamic
https://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?4963-Dynamic-vs-condenser-mics
https://forum.saxontheweb.net/showt...hread.php?347874-Which-one-is-best-for-recording-Tenor-Sax-Condenser-or-Dynamic
https://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?72611-Condenser-vs-dynamic

I am sure that reading through these ( and more) will help (or not)

 

Anyone here using a Shure SM7B to mic their sax?

 

This can get controversial (and an experienced audio engineer like JCBigler might disagree with me, take his word over mine!)... but I'm one of the folks that tends to think that the sonic difference between an SM7 and an SM57 is so small that it's not worth the extra cost of the SM7. If I were going that route, I'd save a few hundred bucks and stick to a 57. No shortage of perfectly good used ones on the market, and they're rugged as hell.

If I were shopping for a dynamic mic in that price range I'd definitely be looking at Beyer or Sennheiser over Shure, or maybe an EV RE20. I like what I've been reading about the Heil PR30 and PR40, too, but I've never used either so I can't really comment.

 

The SM7b and the SM57 sound way different one from each other.

Both initially born as "broadcaster microphones"... even the loved/hated SM57 (much before the people started to use it on snare drums and guitar cabs).
... but they were designed for different sounds... in mind.

 

To be honest, I've never actually used the SM7B. Our guitar player on tour carried one with him to use in his hotel, but I never got to hear it.

The pretty much live in the same sphere as the EV RE20 and Heil PR30/40. And definitely an order of magnitude better than the SM57. But we never see them used in live sound. It's largely a radio and voice over mic.

 

To be honest, I've never actually used the SM7B. (...)

The pretty much live in the same sphere as the EV RE20 and Heil PR30/40. And definitely an order of magnitude better than the SM57.

Indeed, it is.

The odd thing about the SM7b is that requires tons of gain. So you need a preamp with a very very low noise.
Mics with a hotter output are very useful in a live situation.

Blue has a series of active dynamic microphones (dynamic microphones with an internal preamp power by the Phantom Power) to help in this matter.

 

The SM7B is typically used together with a Cloudlifter or similar device because of its gain requirement and the fact that turning up the gain also typically increases noise.

When I owned a vintage Sennheiser MD441 I also found that best results were obtained by using it with a Cloudlifter.

I’ve since sold all my mics (including a couple of Neuman U87’, Royers and Coles ribbon mics when I bought a Townsend Lab Sphere L22. It models (very well and accurately) pretty much every high end and most expensive mic out there (including condensers, ribbons and dynamics). I can even choose what type of mic to use after I track, e.g., during the mixdown (or which combination since it has 2 capsules and can record in stereo mode with the same mic model or different models on each side).

 

The SM7B is typically used together with a Cloudlifter or similar device because of its gain requirement and the fact that turning up the gain also typically increases noise.

When I owned a vintage Sennheiser MD441 I also found that best results were obtained by using it with a Cloudlifter.

I use a similar device for lower output dynamics.
It's called "Fet Head": https://www.tritonaudio.com/fethead

I've since sold all my mics (including a couple of Neuman U87', Royers and Coles ribbon mics when I bought a Townsend Lab Sphere L22. It models (very well and accurately) pretty much every high end and most expensive mic out there (including condensers, ribbons and dynamics). I can even choose what type of mic to use after I track, e.g., during the mixdown (or which combination since it has 2 capsules and can record in stereo mode with the same mic model or different models on each side).

We're getting too far.

 

The Cl-Z has an impedance variator... it's definitely something more than a just inline preamp/booster.

Maybe the SM7b is less popular than the RE-20... and if people decided to go with the RE-20 for the recording, if they have the real thing, they use the real thing instead of an emulation.
Same on live a situation.

 

The Cl-Z has an impedance variator... it's definitely something more than a just inline preamp/booster.

Maybe the SM7b is less popular than the RE-20... and if people decided to go with the RE-20 for the recording, if they have the real thing, they use the real thing instead of an emulation.
Same on live a situation.

I actually think it's the opposite. I participate in recording/mic forums and FB groups, and the SM7b is more widely used than the RE-20 (particularly for vocalists -- and there are more vocalists than instrumentalists who are making recordings). The fact that it has been selected to be modeled indicates it is more in demand compared to the RE-20.

Anyway, my point was that both the Sm7b is RE-20 are cheap enough (~$300) for people to generally be able to afford to get the real mics. Initially, the Sphere L22 only modeled really expensive mics ($1,000-$10,000+), the point being to make these mics accessible to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford 1 or 2 of them, much less all of them.

Now that they've modeled the cheaper SM7b, I'm hoping there'd be enough demand for them to model the RE-20 as well (and the MD441, too).

 

I think you're right, @jman1977 -- the RE20 is more popular among instrumentalists like us (particularly for saxophones, brass, and upright bass), but the SM7 is all over the vocal recording world, and they outnumber us by a wide a margin.

It would make a ton of sense for Townsend to model the 441 if they're already modeling the SM7. It's definitely the best dynamic mic I've ever used, personally, and the most expensive dynamic that I'm aware of, too.

 

I agree, the 441 is the best dynamic I've used, too. I sometimes still feel a twinge of regret about selling mine -- it was a mint condition 441 with a serial number that dated back to the early 70's. There's some consensus that the earlier versions of some mics -- including Neumanns and AKG's (the older AKG C414 B ULS remains one of the most coveted models of that line) -- are warmer and smoother compared to current versions, whether by design (the type of music that's popular today require more brightness and "oomph") or because of wear to, and accumulation of stuff in, the capsules that actually produce desirable results (desirable to some, at least). I was in the process of building out my mic locker, but once I got the L22 a little over a year ago, I sold every other mic I had and have not even considered buying another one since then.

Now all I'm hoping for is for Townsend to add the mics I really liked (including the RE-20 and 441) to the stable of modeled mics. I probably don't need them since the 40+ mics already modeled at present is more than sufficient (my favorite for the alto sax is a combination of the Telefunken Ela M 251E and RCA 44 -- due to the dual capsule it's possible to record in stereo mode and use a different mic model on each channel) but this is a case where it doesn't hurt to have more.

 

I agree, the 87 and 67 are my favorites in general, with the 87 surprisingly getting the edge... which is nice since it's half the price of a 67 reissue. The u67 was probably the mic used to make my favorite saxophone recordings ever, though: Wayne Shorter on Miles Davis' "ESP" and "The Sorcerer" records... but Miles was on an M49 for those, and I'd love to hear what that's like on tenor.

Come to think of it, I came CLOSE to recording on a 251 once. There's a studio here in Austin owned by a great engineer who has this crazy hybrid Telefunken franken-mic (a Telefrankenfunken I guess). It's something like the capsule of a 251 with the circuitry of a u47, I think. Neumann vs AKG in the same mic. It's really great! The sessions I did on that mic still haven't been released, but I really look forward to listening back to those tracks. I'll post them on the forum if they ever see the light of day.

 

If you're looking for a good budget condenser mic, the MXL V57M works well for me in the practice room. I wouldn't necessarily use it in a gig, but hey everyone has to start somewhere.

 

As for dynamic mics, my voice is for Beyerdynamic M201TG and Rode NT-2A. However Shure Beta 57A is also great.

 

The Rode NT-2A is a condenser mic. And I usually only use Shure mics when I don't have anything else left, or if I don't like someone.

 

I'm rather skeptical of that poster's, ah, authenticity... But yeah, that NT2A is most definitely a condenser (presumably someone who claims to have the "best microphone reviews" would know that) and as far as Shures go, I specifically do NOT like the Beta 57. I'll take a regular 57 first, any day, and... ideally something much better.

 

I used a Shure SM81 for flute last week in a jam where I usually use a Sennheiser 441 and it sounded better.
Both through a smaller QSC powered speaker with a Yamaha mixer.

 

I had a '78 MD441. I liked the sound but it was too silky and kind of midrangy... super super smooth, really valuable mic.
My sound concept on tenor doesn't match the sound qualities of the MD441... and I always like and liked more large diaphram condenser and dynamics.
For dynamics, the RE27N/D (with the presence cut switched on!) is my go-to dynamic microphone. RE27N/D - Broadcast announcer's microphone with neodymium capsule and Variable‑D by Electro-voice