Also, do you guys use compression while tracking?
Preamp for sax recording
What preamp do you guys use to do sax recordings? I currently use a Daking pre with EQ and a Daking compressor but am wondering if there might be a better option out there. My mics are a Coles 4038, a Sennheiser MD441-U and a Neumann U-87 a i (yup, the one with a space between the "a" and "i"). I had a Royer R-122, but I sold it an decided to keep the Coles (sometimes I wonder if that may have been a mistake).
1 - 10 of 22 Posts
Thank you all for your responses. My main issue is getting that warm, fat sound to translate onto the recording. When I play back my recording, the sound I hear is different from what I hear (or at least think I hear) as I'm playing. There's a bit more of a "honky" tone to the recorded sound. The sound is also thinner. It may be the room as well. I do use a portable vocal filter that's set up at the back of the mic, but maybe that's not enough? The room is carpeted, has plaster walls and is pretty small (maybe around 100-150 sq. ft.). One side of it has a make-shift open "closet" where I hang a lot of my clothes (the girlfriend has pretty much commandeered all the regular closets in the condo unit).
On the other hand, it also may be that I just don't know how to use my current Daking equipment properly as I've only had them for about 4 months now. I used to have an ISA Two and no compressor.
On the other hand, it also may be that I just don't know how to use my current Daking equipment properly as I've only had them for about 4 months now. I used to have an ISA Two and no compressor.
To add further context, when I play live (church, etc.) and someone records it, I sound like the way I want to sound (fat, warm). However, when I record at home, I encounter the issues described above.Thank you all for your responses. My main issue is getting that warm, fat sound to translate onto the recording. When I play back my recording, the sound I hear is different from what I hear (or at least think I hear) as I'm playing. There's a bit more of a "honky" tone to the recorded sound. The sound is also thinner. It may be the room as well. I do use a portable vocal filter that's set up at the back of the mic, but maybe that's not enough? The room is carpeted, has plaster walls and is pretty small (maybe around 100-150 sq. ft.). One side of it has a make-shift open "closet" where I hang a lot of my clothes (the girlfriend has pretty much commandeered all the regular closets in the condo unit).
On the other hand, it also may be that I just don't know how to use my current Daking equipment properly as I've only had them for about 4 months now. I used to have an ISA Two and no compressor.
Thanks again to you all for the tips. I’ll certainly look into treating the room. The thing is, I also sing and I’ve been doing vocal recordings for awhile in the same room. I find that my voice translates accurately (if not a bit enhanced) to the track when I record. However, my sax recordings do not. As I indicated, the sound on track sounds thinner and a bit honky compared to the actual sound I hear when I play. I guess they’re just different and require different approaches.
It's certainly true that I need to keep working on my tone. However, as indicated in a previous post, I'm pretty happy with my sound in recordings of my live performances. It's only my recordings in my home studio that I'm not all that happy with, for the reasons mentioned in my previous posts.The room you use is far too small to achieve any quality results, especially if it is square or even worst cube, but if properly treated at least you could use it to practise and record some demos.
Depending on your budget and if you own the property perhaps it will be better to sell all those mics and invest in treating the room.
There are lots of products for acoustics that have appeared in music stores during the last years but are overpriced and you will need a lot of them. More importantly you ll need to have at least some basic knowledge of acoustics to know what to do with them.
If you are good with DIY then it is much better solution for cheaper and better products and you can find plenty of details online.
Still, consulting an acoustician will be money wisely spent.
As a very basic rule avoid placing yourself and the microphone in any line of symmetry in the room. The worst place is to put yourself or the mic in the exact middle of the room, including middle between floor and ceiling. Experiment a lot with the placement.
Dont try to correct bad acoustics with eq , doesnt work that way
Try to practise in much bigger rooms to get a broader perspective of your sound.
Thanks, this is very helpful. I also use the mics (particularly the Neumann) on vocal recordings and they work pretty well for that purpose even with the untreated room, so I'm not inclined to sell them. Cost is not really an issue to me as long as it's worth the cost, but I don't own the condo unit I currently live in, so options for treating the room are limited to what I'm allowed to do under the lease. Will be buying a house in the near future, so my options will be far more extensive then.The room you use is far too small to achieve any quality results, especially if it is square or even worst cube, but if properly treated at least you could use it to practise and record some demos.
Depending on your budget and if you own the property perhaps it will be better to sell all those mics and invest in treating the room.
There are lots of products for acoustics that have appeared in music stores during the last years but are overpriced and you will need a lot of them. More importantly you ll need to have at least some basic knowledge of acoustics to know what to do with them.
If you are good with DIY then it is much better solution for cheaper and better products and you can find plenty of details online.
Still, consulting an acoustician will be money wisely spent.
As a very basic rule avoid placing yourself and the microphone in any line of symmetry in the room. The worst place is to put yourself or the mic in the exact middle of the room, including middle between floor and ceiling. Experiment a lot with the placement.
Dont try to correct bad acoustics with eq , doesnt work that way
Try to practise in much bigger rooms to get a broader perspective of your sound.
Thank you for sharing your suggestions and thoughts. Interestingly enough, I just bought the 441 very recently based on chatter in other forums extolling their virtues for the sax (I've also seen very positive feedback for the EV-RE20's, but ultimately decided on the 441 since majority of the opinions in the other forums appear to favor the 441.I'm gonna disagree strongly with that one. I've recorded in some far less then optimum locations with good results. Probably wouldn't want to use the ribbon mic there though. Ribbons are figure 8 pattern, which means it will pick up as much from the rear as the front. Also, the 441 will be a thin and bright representation of your sound. The 87, though I'm not the biggest fan of for sax, will give you the thickest tone. Placement is more crucial when your room is tight. A nice 45 degree angle pointed at the top of the bell a foot out will do the trick.
As for your original question, I'm a big fan of the neve 1073 mic pre on sax
I will note that the U-87 has indeed given me the thickest sound out of all the mics I've tried (the ribbon coming in second -- haven't used the 441 that extensively yet to be able to play around with gain and other settings) but still not quite the sound I want. In the past, I'd also tried the Royer R-122 and various AKG C414's (all of which I've since sold).
Last night, I tried to use the DPA4099s I bought about a week or so ago for live performances to record for the first time. The initial results were promising (mic pointed not directly down the bell but towards the keys immediately above the bell), although I probably need to get more familiar with it and how it interacts with the rest of my chain.
Do you have any experience with the Aurora GTQ preamps? I'm interested in it since from what I've heard and read, it outputs a darker, rounder sound, which at least theoretically should be great for counterbalancing the natural sound of the sax.
I also had the usual SM-58 and SM-57 before, but I hated my sax recordings using those mics. Too shrill/honky (especially the SM-58). They were passable for vocal recordings, though not as good as even basic condensers such as the AT-2035.
A quick follow-up: how do you folks EQ the various frequency ranges (boost, cut, etc.) when doing your recordings?
PS: I';ve found that using the U-87 and setting the stand up to be at the level immediately above the bell (with the mic tilted downwards at 46 degrees) and standing 3-4 feet away while recording has greatly improved the quality of my recordings. Almost no honkiness now and the sound is much smoother and fuller.
I’ve not been able to try the MD 441 yet as the groove on the mic clip that connects to the stand is way too small and I’ve had to order an adapter.
I’ve not been able to try the MD 441 yet as the groove on the mic clip that connects to the stand is way too small and I’ve had to order an adapter.
1 - 10 of 22 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Sax on the Web Forum
A forum community dedicated to saxophone players and enthusiasts originally founded by Harri Rautiainen. Come join the discussion about collections, care, displays, models, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
SHOZZA
444 Replies
belliott
367 Replies
jazzbluescat
331 Replies
Recommended Communities
