mando tone on stage/in studio

[erick]

I feel very lucky to have a job as recording engineer /producer, where I spend my days listening to ( mostly ) well-played instruments and good singers, largely in the folk/bluegrass/singer songwriter world. Regrettably, I also suffer from MAS, and in this affliction I've acquired a number of fine instruments over the years, including mandolins by Gibson, Collings, Rigel, Holoubek, and Phoenix. I've also had the pleasure of recording a Loar F-5, 3 Zeidlers, an Apitius, several Webers, and many other mandos I can't remember.

Tonight I sat down and played several mandolins for my wife, (secretly wondering if she'd get mad seeing them all in one place) under the pretext of having her listen to the differing tones . Well, she didn't get mad, and even better, she was able to hear and articulate significant differences in the sound of the instruments. ("See darling,that's why I have so many, no one mandolin can meet all my needs all the time...") This experience led me to want to start a discussion of mandolin tone and applications, so here goes.

I've often found the mandolin perplexing and fascinating in all its options for tone possiblities- body shape, pick choice, strings,bracing etc. all interfacing to create a signature "sound". ( and this leaves out the long discussion of microphone/pickup choices and techniques ) This signature sound, for me , can often work really well in some applications, and poorly in others.

For example, the sweet warm tones of a Gibson Bush F-5 can be totally right in the studio on a mellow jazz or folk track, and be all but lost on the audience of a loud bar gig. In contrast, the Phoenix neo-Bluegrass model is a fantastic bar mando-- it totally cuts throught the din and makes people pay attention, but I'd be hard-pressed to use it in the studio on something mellow. One exception was a time when the client needed some high sparkling notes ( "fairy dust", he called it) and the Phoenix worked just right..

It's been hard to know what's going to work in the studio just by listening as I play the mando; I've really got to mic it up and hear it through speakers. For example, the Collings MF-5, which has clear tone and clean attack all the way up the neck, sometimes sounds harsh to my organic ears, but then it mics up beautifully with the woody tone coming through. I've had similar experiences with Zeidlers, where I was sure the thing would be way too bright for the track, and had it work fine. The question I keep asking myself ( and the client) is "where do you see the mandolin fitting on the song" , and it seems that the louder they're willing to have the mando in the mix, the darker the tone you can get away with. If they only want subtle "fairy dust", I'm guessing you're gonna want a bright sounding instrument.

I guess I should also say that I'm a strong believer in the "It's the Indian, not the arrow" theory. I hear Chris Thile's Dude and Bush's Hoss in different recordings by various artists, and it's hard to believe it's the same instrument/artist. No doubt that the skill of the picker (and the chops of the engineer ) have much interplay in the final results.

Anyway these are a few ideas that 've occurred to me over the years; hope it doesn't seem self-aggrandizing. I'm interested to hear other experiences and stories, and curious if you've heard an instrument that meets your live and studio needs all the time.

[John Flynn]

Very interesting perspectives! Thanks. I have not yet had the privledge of playing any of the mandos above, so your insights are valuable.

[Scotti Adams]

..very interesting and I totally agree with you..

[John S]

I thought the same thing of the Collings as compared to my Gibson MM... in comparison (live), it was a little harsher sounding. But you're right, recording seems to be a whole different ball game. My band has taken forever to get our CD done, so in the process I think I've used 4 different mandolins -- a Rigel CT-110, an Old Wave F5, a Nugget F5 (borrowed), and a Gibson MM. My perceptions of them live were suprisingly different than recorded. I think the Nugget and the Gibson did the best to mask my poor technique http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif They are really punchy on the attack, which I think improves the clarity. The Old Wave is also loud with good woody tone but doesn't have quite the attack as the Gibson & Nugget; however, it really cuts through and so it's great for gigging.

The above evaluation of the Old Wave was before I had a Price tailpiece and Brekke professionally installed on it, which really seemed to make a difference. I brought it to practice for the first time after the mods (and did not tell anyone about them), and the band members were very surprised when they realized I was playing the Old Wave and not the Gibson. Our banjo player, who is the owner of the superb Nugget F I had borrowed, commented that it sounded so woody that he thought for sure it was the Gibson before he looked at the headstock. So now I'm anxious to record with the Old Wave again and hear the recorded tone.

[mandoJeremy]

Again, tone is in the ear of the beholder! Hoss just has the tone. He is not nearly as loud as everyone thinks, he just sounds great and has that tone. I must admit that my Bush model sounds great recorded and also live, but to my ears! I very much think that MM's, Loars, and especially the old Ferns are very deceptive to most people's ears when they first play them. Try recording with them and they come alive even much more than when played live. I think the Ferns are probably the most deceptive when it comes to that tone!

[mandoJeremy]

Also, don't forget that we mando players have to hear the tone and volume from a weird position and every other band member gets to hear it from out front. That makes a world of difference. Have someone else play your mandos while you stand in front of it. By the way, poor Nugget mando having to belong to a b&**jo player! That is just not right at all.

[Jonathan Reinhardt]

Good thread erick. I think much has been said here already. The frequency of the mandolin is such that the specific instrument itself has a huge influence on our (and our audiences') prime hearing range.
That Collings (#1) in Mandotasting 2004 had a full, rich sound so unlike the others. So 'harsh' is a word I wouldn't arbitrarily use in conjunction with Collings. Those of you who haven't spent time on that thread, I recommend you do.
I enjoy the sound of my mandolins more every day. They differ, and I get to use them to best advantage more and more each day and each gig. Although sometimes I wish I had more options that all the other beautiful mandolins I read about here offer, I am thankful for what I have, and that I don't overburden myself with more than I can possibly truck around or choose from.

[Pete Martin]

Care to share your favorite signal change for recording mando? Mic position, etc? Thanks much.

[Pete Martin]

Sorry, that should be "signal chain" http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Jim Hilburn]

I was listening to Thile and Marshalls "Into the Cauldron" the other day, and wondering how they could sound like deep caverns when they do those power chops. They're both playing exceptional instruments with the best technique, but I think they were quite liberal with the "dark hall" settings on the digital reverb.

[sunburst]

At a shop I once worked in there was some fairly obscure CD playing on the stereo. I don't remember what or who it was, but anyway, after one mandolin break I said to a co-worker "that sounds like John Reischman". He said "let's see" and looked at the liner notes. "No", he said triumphantly and read the name of the player, not Reischman, I don't remember who.

Later, while I was reading the liner notes on the album I got to the part where they thank a bunch of the people that helped out and found "thanks to John Reischman for the use of the mandolin".

Is that mandolin so distinctive that I could really pick it out with somebody else playing it on a recording?
Were they trying for "that Reischman sound" and got it?
What do ya think?

[WJF]

I was listening to Thile and Marshalls "Into the Cauldron" the other day, and wondering how they could sound like deep caverns when they do those power chops. They're both playing exceptional instruments with the best technique, but I think they were quite liberal with the "dark hall" settings on the digital reverb.
Hi Jim,

If I recall correctly I think that reverb you hear is actually a cathedral or large church of some type. I believe Mike & Chris recorded the tracks, then played 'em in a church and recorded that sound to to get the 'verb. Minimal if any digital fx at play there.

Again, I could have this wrong but seem to recall hearing this account from a 'reliable' source.

Best,
Wayne

[AlanN]

I remember reading somewhere that Grisman recorded one of the Quintet F-5 tunes (first record) in a stairwell to get that 'verb quality going.

[WJF]

Just checked and am happy to report that my brain is functioning properly even witout the benefit of a morning cup of coffee today! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

From Co-Mando Interview With MM ...

Q - Can you tell us a little about your mastering process for Into the Cauldron? I think I remember reading somewhere that you (or someone) played it back in a chapel of some kind to get a natural reverb sound? anyway just curious thanks.

A - Yes we recorded to a multitrack in a dry room. Then brought everything into a beautiful church. We put my Genelex speakers at the front of the church and put Chris into the left speaker and me in the right and played the tape back through the speakers.

We tried different mic placements and volume levels until we got what we considered a nice sounding reverb and recorded this sound onto two separate tracks of the multitrack machine.

Then we brought the tapes back to my studio and this became the reverb sound for the CD. We could use as much or as little as we wanted this way.

We also played around with delaying these reverb tracks to fit the space of the tune. It has the effect of moving the mics closer or further back from the speakers. (bigger or smaller reverb).

We also added some digital reverb as well.

[DrP]

[/QUOTE]At a shop I once worked in there was some fairly obscure CD playing on the stereo. I don't remember what or who it was, but anyway, after one mandolin break I said to a co-worker "that sounds like John Reischman". He said "let's see" and looked at the liner notes. "No", he said triumphantly and read the name of the player, not Reischman, I don't remember who.

Was the CD perhaps by a duo called Zubot and Dawson? When listening to one of their CDs that came out a few years back I remember thinking to myself how much the mandolin sounded like Reischman (at least the tone, not so much the style). Anyway, on reading the liner notes I saw the thanks to Reischman for the use of his mandolin - I was actually surprised that that particular instrument had a tone that was so immediately recognizable, even when played by another musician and not knowing it was the same mandolin.

[sunburst]

That CD could have been Zubot & Dawson, or who knows? I didn't really know who it was then, and can't remember at all now.
Perhaps the fact that two people have had the same experience indicates that that particular mandolin has a distinctive enough sound to be recognizable.

[Damnation Gulch]

Just checked and am happy to report that my brain is functioning properly even witout the benefit of a morning cup of coffee today! #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

From Co-Mando Interview With MM ...

Q - Can you tell us a little about your mastering process for Into the Cauldron? I think I remember reading somewhere that you (or someone) played it back in a chapel of some kind to get a natural reverb sound? anyway just curious thanks.

A - Yes we recorded to a multitrack in a dry room. Then brought everything into a beautiful church. We put my Genelex speakers at the front of the church and put Chris into the left speaker and me in the right and played the tape back through the speakers.

We tried different mic placements and volume levels until we got what we considered a nice sounding reverb and recorded this sound onto two separate tracks of the multitrack machine.

Then we brought the tapes back to my studio and this became the reverb sound for the CD. We could use as much or as little as we wanted this way.

We also played around with delaying these reverb tracks to fit the space of the tune. It has the effect of moving the mics closer or further back from the speakers. (bigger or smaller reverb).

We also added some digital reverb as well.
WOW! Thats a complete trip... and if you think about it, it sounds like a bunch of churches I've been in at least. Gonna play the CD tonight...

This thread is very informative BTW http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[erick]

Hi Pete- the signal chain I use varies somewhat on where the mando needs to be in the final mix and what the instrument sounds like on its own. For aggressive, driving solos, I'm a fan of old Neumann km-54's and their East German brethren the M-582's ( these mics are also a fave of Gary Paczosa of AKUS/Nickel Creek/ Dixie Chicks fame), then into an Earthworks ZDT 1024 preamp. Sometimes I'll compress lightly with an Empirical Labs FATSO or Cranesong STC-8, but I hate overcompressed mando sounds. Another mic that works well for crystal clear sparkly mando is the Schoeps CMC6-Mk4 pencil mic combo, though it's not quite as aggressive as the Neumanns.

For gentler stuff, I've used Neumann km-84's and sometimes even a U-47, through UA 2610 or Neve preamps. Also it's fun sometimes for overdubbed stuff to use an omni mic like an Earthworks QTC-1- it gives you more space around the sound, ie. it sounds more liek a mando really sounds when you hear it in a room.

I think Paczosa's stuff is incredible. He uses lots of esoteric preamps and very expensive eq's along the way, but you can get a great sound by starting with a nice mic and decent preamp and playing with the mic positioning and the position of the instrument in the room.

One last thing-I use a RADAR -24 multitrack digital recorder, which to my ears has a far richer, more natural, fatter sound than any ProTools or other digital system on the planet. Unless you're shelling out big change for boutique converter sytems, the RADARs A/D and D/A converters are a big part of what makes digital work for me. Happily,this sytem is pretty big in Nashville- I hear Ricky Skaggs owns a system.

Hope this helps- Eric