Rhodes mike or DI?

[mos]

I was wondering whats the best way to record real rhodes. I'm looking for a dwele\d'angelo\jillscott type a rhodes sound. Are these all miked up or are they just recorded using a DI?

[chetatkinsdiet]

If you're talking a stage Rhodes, then mic it up with a real, vintage Fender Twin. Or should I say, hook it up to that, then mic the amp as you normally would.
That's what they were meant to be played into by Fender. Really, any funky old tube amp should work, but the Fender chime and bell tones with their reverb is ideal for the rhodes. IMO.
later,
m

[MJGreene Audio]

Originally Posted by chetatkinsdiet

If you're talking a stage Rhodes, then mic it up with a real, vintage Fender Twin. Or should I say, hook it up to that, then mic the amp as you normally would.
That's what they were meant to be played into by Fender. Really, any funky old tube amp should work, but the Fender chime and bell tones with their reverb is ideal for the rhodes. IMO.
later,
m

Yep. Thats what I do or sometimes I use an old Ampeg amp. Jet I think it is? Something like that. If it is a suitcase Rhodes then I mic both speakers with anything from a couple of 57's, 87's or a couple of 414's. In a pinch I have used a couple of Octava 012's and it sounded great. For me it just depends on how the suitcase sounds and how much warmth I want out of it.

If its a stage then take a DI and also send the out of the DI to an amp. That will give you some nice options in the mix depending on what works best.

Michael Greene

[James Guitar]

rhodes 73 -> 1977 fender twin works very well for me. search this topic in the archives as there are a number of threads that discuss this in greater detail.
-J

[jbuntz]

Something I've noticed on rhodes is that since they have so little harmonic content, the mic does not make a huge difference but there definately is a very big difference between mic'd and DI'ed. Rhodes through an amp will definately be fatter and softer and you can drive it, DI'ed will be chimey, brighter and probably cleaner. Rhodes into a leslie is fun.

[James Guitar]

i also found that the chimey thing really stands out with some proper eq'ing. i ran my rhodes (thru the amp) into a pultec eqp the other day and started messing around and the difference was incredible. i really got that bell-heavy tone without really trying. i'm sure it doesn't have to be a pultec (but it prob doesn't hurt! )
-J

[lowswing]

I often record Rhodes through di and splited to fender twin (sometime boss chorus before the amp) miking than the amp with beyer m160 or akg 414 do a nice job.
saying this I often use only the di'd sound, I find it mixed well in the song when the rhodes must not be heard too loud.

[Midlandmorgan]

We mic ours with a MusicMan RD100 head pushing an open back JBL D120...mic'd with a combination of an AKG D202 and AT 4033...

Tried the DI approach once, just didn't sound like a Rhodes to me....Rhodes = air...real air, not from a reverb.

Just my opinion.

[Nutmeg II.]

I usualy prefer a little amp in the recording path.
Usualy a Musicman 212HD sixty-five.
Sometimes a JCM800 with a Hiwatt 4x12" (more bottom and dirt)
I also realy like the mix of two amps or amp + DI.

[Arka]

When talking about amps for Rhodes you cant forget about the Roland JC120 Jazz Chorus.

[paultools]

I'll be the contrarian here (as usual).

DIRECT unless you want the tremelo from the built-in speakers.

Use an old dbx 160 if you can find one... API pre and eq or of course Neve.

The old MXR stomp boxes (phaser, flanger) for color, or that old Boss stereo chorus.
Envelope Follower in the chain is tasty as well.

There's the Dyno-My-Piano for that dfegad Pop 80's sound, but you want old soul.

Dwele is incredible.

[MMinton82]

i love it mic'd with a 57 or 414 through my 65 gibson falcon tube amp, sounds so sweet. especially when i want that overdriven sound, your not going to get that direct. if the clean sound is what you want that direct would work. a trick i like to do is put a wah-wah in the chain before the amp and just find the right position on it and leave it there. alot of people do this with guitars, most famously Santana, and it sounds great with a rhodes aswell. also probobly more obvious but i sometimes throw my mxr phase 90 in there and that works. I could go on and on about my rhodes. its my favorite insturment

[A LaMere]

I've done both.... and more and more I think it depends on the rest of your mix and where you want the rhodes to sit in relation to the song you are working on... That being said...

I would probably usually mic it as I have this idea that the tracks breath a little bit different/better when mic'd....

One official vote for: It depends on where you are putting it in the mix that you are working on....

[zarembo]

Hey I just had a difficult session with a Rhodes 73 > Fender Twin.

Tried putting an Avalon DI before the amp and man was it noisy!

SO I ended up putting two mics on the Twin and called it good, except now I find the player changed levels on his Boss overdrive often while tracking and sometimes it was a bit too quiet and then too loud and even more distorted out the amp. Wish I had a nice clear even di signal to mix with that.

good luck.

[goldphinga]

DI'd sound all the way for me at the mo.

rhodes>avalon U5>amek cib>dbx160

I use the stereo trem plugin in logic to autopan the sound. A lot of the sound is the setup of the instrument as well. I dont use the suitcase part of my rhodes these days as its too hissy and the speakers aren't the greatest.I spoke with Herbie's tech a while back and he said he replaced the mid range hammer tips on Herbies rhodes with harder tips from the upper mid range. He also uprated the speakers to JBLs and thus had to reinforce the speaker cab to cope with the added weight. Changing the tips for harder grade gives much more attack to the sound.

I have to disagree with the comment about the Rhodes lacking harmonics. Mine has a super wide and super-harmonically rich sound which often needs to be tamed!, but this is after several years of tweaking and refining the setup. For that classic 70's fusion sound the early seventies models with half wood hammers and wooden harp blocks are the best imo. The later model mk1's (1976-198?) and 2's have all plastic hammers and metal harp supports and a different feel and sound though they can be made to sound like the earlier models if you know what you are doing! Most of the rnb artist i have seen live (dwele,erykah badu,d'angelo)were all using mk2 suitcases and had their rhodes' set for a smoother more bell like sound.

I really love the sound of amped rhodes as well, but im gonna save that for my next album! Im pretty sure Herbie ran his rhodes di only on the classic 70's recordings-for me his sound on recordings such as sunlight,mr hands,manchild and thrust have never been bettered. In regard to amps its has to be fender twin or musicman. I used a musicman 112rp blended with the clean di sound on the recent tour on my mk2 and that was a lovely sound especially with the phaser on from the amp.

[cl516]

i second goldphinga -
i run my rhodes stage 73 mark1 into the avalon U5 and that alone is really thick and fat sounding. for what i wanna do, i can't imagine needing it to take up anymore space in the mix.
what's great though is i recently picked up a used voce spinII pedal, and it sounds amazing on the rhodes.

[cactusleaf]

This is the oldest tread ever.. six years since the last post. But still, I just found it and I'm way into Rhodes sounds, especially OP's R&B thing. I can't not chime in!

I've found that DI+eq is one of the best ways to get that kind of sound, and I have a few EQ tips I've learned over .. geez, 14 years of recording Rhodes.

Well, first I'll say that my favorite sound is DIing the Suitcase amp. The two outputs on the side of the cab come straight from the preamp. I have a strong feeling that's a big part of Jamiroquai's sound on some tunes, and probably a good sonic basis for dialing up a good R&B sound from Stages too. The lack of room tone and air with DI really helps with the intimacy of slow grooves like Dwele's stuff, especially for stereo tremolo (if you want clean, dramatic hard panning).

The main trick I've learned and learned quick when I first started recording was that thick, fat Rhodes sounds lack almost any information above about 2k. You can (and maybe should, for this kind of sound) lowpass pretty harshly down to 2-3k and be really close to that sound, especially when DIing to cut all the tinkly bell-y stuff. A boost at 2k will help with a Suitcase-type of bark, because that's exactly what Suitcase amps do. But it's not necessary, and a cut somewhere in upper mud range will help bring out that sweet thickness between like 700 and 2k.

Miking a Suitcase amp is another great way, because the cabinet will cut lots of frequencies above 4 or 5k and the sweet Suitcase preamp boosts around 2k.. which is why the Suitcase is inherently awesome and fat. My fave mic to use is a Beta 52, which shapes the sound a little bit more, cutting highs and peaking in a great presence range, and especially maintaining a good bottom end. I also like ribbon mics a lot, especially darker ones. Treating it like a bass cab seems to be a good approach, since it's such a large cabinet and uses, essentially, a modified bass preamp. (Incidentally, Suitcase amps are KILLER bass amps, miked AND DIed.)

Running a Rhodes through a Twin Reverb and miking it of course is a great classic sound, but it'll be a whole lot more trebly and crunchy than that thick soul sound. Tube crunch and tine-y bell-like tones are nice in jazz or groove or indie rock or whatever, but it's not totally my bag. (Actually I think the original Return to Forever albums had Chick playing through a Twin and it's basically the best sound ever.. although the older tines and wood hammers the piano would have had at that time would account for lots of that bite! Also he played with a wah-wah switched-on and toe-down sometimes.)

Setup and voicing of the Rhodes is probably as important as signal chain for this sound, I think. I've found that voicing the tine-pickup relationship for a good amount of harmonic content (tines pointed closer to the center of the pickups), compared to a hollower, more bell-like sound (tines positioned farther up on the pickups), is much better for fat R&B sounds, although too much harmonics and it'll start to sound a little thin at quiet dynamic levels. A good setup gives you a fat, round tone when quieter, and a hard, satisfying bite played hard. A hollower fundamental voicing is better for heavier stuff like rock, for tinkly 70s-80s ballads, and when you want more dirty, growling bark than cutting bite at higher dynamics.

So: Voicing is important. DIing is great for this sound.. it requires quite a high cut but gets you a close, thick sound, especially if you use or emulate the DI off of a Suitcase amp (which still requires a bit of a high cut usually, for me). Clean and thick. Miking a Suitcase in a good dry room is great with bass-minded miking and mixing, and an awareness of treble again. DIing is my favorite method with a good amount of deliberate EQ shaping.

Them's my two or three cents.

Jack

PS: goldphinga you're right on all counts up there. I also always thought Herbie's classic stuff was DIed.. sure sounds that way and it's the standard for all Rhodes sounds since, for sure. Also I think when you say "bell like" you mean the opposite of what I'm talking about when I say it, meaning we're in agreement, haha.

[musicsus4]

probably crazy to comment on this old thread, but i see its been done above

if i DI my rhodes from the preamp i am guessing i will need to have a stereo DI box to get that hard paned tremelo.. is that correct?

right now i just have an avalon U5 to go into and i don't think thats going to get me any stereo love..

any pointers?


also i was planning on rigging some way to just come out of the stereo headphone jack.. seems like that signal would be great but i can't find an info that lines up with my way of thinking in that.... bad idea perhaps?


any help would be appreciated, i'm kind of newbie..thanks!

[jdsowa]

Originally Posted by musicsus4

probably crazy to comment on this old thread, but i see its been done above

if i DI my rhodes from the preamp i am guessing i will need to have a stereo DI box to get that hard paned tremelo.. is that correct?

right now i just have an avalon U5 to go into and i don't think thats going to get me any stereo love..

any pointers?


also i was planning on rigging some way to just come out of the stereo headphone jack.. seems like that signal would be great but i can't find an info that lines up with my way of thinking in that.... bad idea perhaps?


any help would be appreciated, i'm kind of newbie..thanks!

Just go out of the stereo headphone output. This will be a line level signal, so it won't need any additional boosting. Essentially, your Avalon U5 DI serves no purpose in this case. So you can just bypass that and run your stereo headphone output directly into your computer or whatever you use.

You can just buy a stereo splitter adapter, plug that into the rhodes, and then connect two 1/4" to 1/4" cables to it and run them to your computer input.

[The Real MC]

You want a DI with input impedance of 1Mohms or higher. I use the Countryman "Type 10" DI, they make a stereo version.

My favorite Rhodes amp is an old british Selmer Twin Thirty tube guitar amp with two Celestion alnico G12s. It is a very clean amp and it has a tube rectifier which does a good job of adding punch to the Rhodes. It puts a real nice color to the sound.

Regarding the lack of harmonics, it's all in the voicing. Angle of the tine relative to the pickup, the distance from the pickup to the tine. A phillips screwdriver and nut driver are all the tools you need. Not enough people spend the time to voice their piano.

Also the strike point and hammer throw distance affects the tone. The later pianos actually placed the harp assembly closer to the hammers which changed the tone to less harmonics. You can experiment with shims placed between the harp supports and harp assembly. This changes both the strike point and the hammer throw distance which will change the sound. The tradeoff is the heavier hammer blows will shorten the life of the tine - the reason why Rhodes lowered it in the first place was to reduce warranty claims from broken tines. If you decide you like the sound with the harp assembly raised with shims, you will need to reset the position of the dampers.

The rubber gromlets on the tonebars often dry out and/or deform, and this has a negative impact on the tone. If your hammer tips have worn grooves, put new ones on. These make a difference.

As you can see, voicing a Rhodes takes some elbow grease. Buying a used Rhodes may require some restoration.

I have a REALLY old 1960s Rhodes and raising the harp made a huge difference. I did a lot of voicing work on it and it sounds great. If you adjust the position of the old pickups close enough to the tine, it saturates the coil and adds a nice punch. With optimum positioning I got a piano that is touch sensitive - play lightly and it's a wonderful bell tone with some bark, dig in and the bark gets raunchy and punchy. Way cool control of dynamics with just your fingers.

[Jim Williams]

We cut Stevie Wonder's modified Rhodes with either 2 twin reverbs with JBL E-120 speakers or direct off the harp. Hear that on all those records and shows.

Suitcase speakers are tough to record. They have little top end so any treble boost creates a resonant peak right at the speaker's roll-off points = ice picks in the ears sound.

Change speakers and that all changes too. I used Eminence Beta 12-A's for the Mk7 Rhodes. Those are rated at 250 watts each, have good low end and an extended top end to 10k hz. Mic those and it's real nice.

For stock speakers, a compressor is usually needed as some notes jump out, others get buried.

[recorder2]

Is this not kind of genre specific...

Rock and pre-1988 style Pop gets a mic'd amp with a hint of room sound

1988-current style Pop gets DI?

[NYCruiser]

Obviously you need to use a Rode mic. Sorry, I'll apologize in advance.