Sax on the Web Forum banner

Preamp for sax recording

8K views 21 replies 7 participants last post by  Woody Reed 
#1 ·
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).
 
#3 ·
This post would be much better answered if it is posted at gearslutz forum.
The mic and mic pre selection is made according to the music and the room.
For micpres I have the two best extremes, from one side is the ultra clean, neutral and spacious Forssell preamp in jfet topology.
The other extreme is the groove tubes vipre, with cinemag in and out transformers, 7 valve fully differential signal path that sounds weighty, smooth, vintage, rich, warm.
Both are very quite and they will really enhance any mic they will be paired with.
I have used also dw fearn tube pre and was also fantastic. I just love the sound of tubes for sax. But not cheap tubes, that is nasty.
I found a bit of compression helps n general.
 
#4 ·
There isn't really a specific preamp for recording saxophone. You have some decent mics. The only thing might be that the Coles needs more gain than other mics (not sure but that is my experience with ribbons in general).

Once you get into the realms of decent preamps (as opposed to your computer mic input) that are then quailty ids often down to personal preference - provided you follow basic good gain structure and mic placement)

A couple of my ribbons need exceedingly high gain and for those I use a dedicated ribbon mic preamp: the AEA TRP. However for my other mics I will use either that or the built in preamp with my A/D converter which is a Apogee Ensemble Thunderbolt.

When I used to record to tape or 16 bit digital I would use some gentle compression while recording but since 24 bit digital there is no need and all compression is done in mixing.
 
#5 ·
Even if you have the best equipment it will mean nothing if the room is not up to task. That is critical.
Your equipment is good enough to produce some excellent results if you use them in a descent room and you have the right recording and mixing etc. techniques.
Maybe is better if you tell us what you think is the problem if any to make you post in the first place
 
#6 ·
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.
 
#11 ·
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.
 
#12 ·
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.
The saxophone has many more harmonics and a much richer sound over all compared to the human voice. It's also louder. So when you play, the the room will accentuate all of the bad modes of the room for your saxophone more than it will voice.

You really can't "treat" a bad room. Just putting up some foam panels or off the shelf bass traps isn't going to do much other than lighten your bank account. The room itself has to be built a certain way, with specific building techniques and angles, materials and insulation specifically meant for sound absorption, isolation, and reflection.

On the other hand, maybe you still need some work on your tone too. Set a mic up maybe 8 to 10 feet away and see what it sounds like, rather than close micing.
 
#13 ·
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.
 
#14 ·
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.
 
#21 ·
That is impossible to say. It depends on every variable of the recording situation: the player, the horn, the room, the mic, the mic position, the pre, the mix, etc etc etc

In general, though: Use as little EQ as possible. Cuts are better than boosts. I don't EQ during tracking, only mixing. When reaching for EQ, ask yourself if you might be trying to solve a problem that might be properly solved with better balances or dynamics control or a better musical arrangement.

These days, I only ever use tiny bits of EQ (+/- 3 dB is a lot for me), and sometimes none on any track.
 
#20 ·
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.
 
#22 ·
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.
In my experience the 87 does like a bit of distance like you've got, but it sounds like you have it a bit low. Bell height and 3 or 4 feet out pointed down at a 45 would probable be pointing at your feet. Imagine there is a laser pointer on the mic. You really want it pointing at the G key, back of bell. Tip of the bell will make it honky. Try your head height for the mic pointed down at a 45 next time. Also, 3 to 4 feet away will bring more of the room acoustic into the picture. If it's a bad sounding room, you'll pick up more of the that. I prefer a more "intimate" sound. Which requires a closer micing. That's probably why I like a 414 so much. They don't mind being close to the source.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top