Recording Acoustic guitars tutorial.

[malice]

I don't know if you remember about this one, but it was an unfinished business of ours.

I don't have the slightest pretention to challenge Slippy on his electric gtr thread, but I would hate to leave this to oblivion, and I certainly hope we'll keep this up to date.

more to come

malice

[malice]

Ok guys, this is going to be a long thread.

As all instruments with sound coming from everywhere, miking is critical. You have sound from the hole, sound from the bridge, sound from the table, fret sound. This is worse than a soprano saxophone, worse than a nickelharpa.

The problem is that a natural sound is the combination of it all and by miking the instrument, you will insist on certain aspects of it and miss others.

Sometimes, it is not a big deal, because the acoustic guitar track can have many purposes in an arrangement: you need more grit than bottom, or a cutting medium sound, or beef some parts for some reasons. Actually, it is not everyday that you need a full Martin Jumbo sound exactly as you don't need a concert Steinway D. Those things takes space and can handle a song by themselves.

This is nevertheless an interesting instrument and it can be as long to explain as Slipperman took to explain the art of recording distorted guitars because, even if it will invoke less amp technicalities, it surely will invoke more different microphones and more different placements.

And even more than that, we will have to talk about guitars as well as my experience is that sometimes, even the 10,000 $ Martin you rented will be put to shame by a 450 $ Takamine for a given song. No matter how long you take sometimes to find the sweet recording spot to do a track with a great axe, sometimes, the killer sound you had in the previous song is just not what you need for the next performance. No matter how many acoustic guitars you buy in your life, you WILL use them all.

next entry: mono and stereo mic placement.

malice

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++

Time to learn how to place the mikes guys.


Ok, let's say you found the right gtr for the job in a reasonable good sounding room with a skilled guitar player that won't move like a mofo and squeak like starving baby mice (huh, yeah, I know). Don't worry, this will be extensively covert as soon as Chapter 3.

The first thing you want to decide is wether you need a large stereo natural sound or a mono sound. Why would you like to narrow you sound ? Why is this thing mono anyway ? Is it the sixties again ?

Well, why indeed ?

Several reasons actually. The first one, is that you don't always have space for stereo. If your arrangement is thick already, you might just aim for something you can stick somewhere in the left to balanced the killer tambourine you just did on the right, so why spending precious time fighting phase issues with a stereo setup you won't use in the end ?
The second one would be that you are planing to record several tracks of this Johnny Cash wannabe too widen things up. In this case, recording stereo might end in a track number nightmare like 4 tracks for the rhythm, 4 other tracks for that bridge he wanted to double with different chord position, 2 tracks for that solo he did, 4 tracks for that little gimmick in the chorus : damn, I forgot the room mics !!!! Kill me.

In any case, mono is sometimes your friend. Simple, effective. Mitchel Froom don't record stereo, so why the hell would you ?

How to do it ? (and pay attention, as stereo recording will use combination of what I'm going to explain)

1) Over the player shoulder : don't laugh, this works from time to time. Same idea as the drums over the shoulder techniques our former moderator and great recordist recorderman explained. This is working in good sounding room, not too roomy and with guitars a bit boomy. Of course, the guitarist shouldn't sing (that is why I don't use it for drums btw)

2) in front of the guitar.

A - Of axis, facing an area going from the part where the neck joins the body and the 12th fret: between 6 and 12 inches. That way, you are going to get bright and even lows. As always, the proximity effect might induce a bump but it will be less critical as if you point the hole.

B - Facing the hole : This might get boomy babe, but it is used in stereo, I will explain later. I very rarely use it, and if I do, with an omni for the proximity effect.

C - 10 cms from the bridge, of axis: this gives an agressive sound, it generally lacks lows wich might is what you are looking for. But in a way, you will record what you will miss from position A (you know by now where I wanna go with this, right ?)

D - Facing the table (bottom of the gtr body) and even picked from the rear of the guitar (behind the player). This is warmer than position C. Going behind is best in combination and you will have to check the phase if you do that.

3) Bad news, this fucker wants to sing and play harmonica at the same time, he must have been listening to Bob Dylan too much.

Basically, this is a PITA. I recommend the A position aiming down at 45° and the vocal mike close miking, 45° but up, and I would advise you to use a dynamic if you can as you will have bleed. What you can do is use a small iso panel to separate his head from his hands, place in-between the two mikes. Figure eight patern helps too if you use te nulls to minimise the bleed.

lemme quote Aardy on this :

"As for micing voice and acc gtr a'la Bob Dylan...the old fig 8 on the guitar with the null at 90 degrees to the cardioid vocal mic is nice way to start. I like an LDC for both in this case but a ribbon has done me well on guitar like this before. This usually gets the sound hole into the null zone and that really helps keep the woof down to manageable levels. It has the added advantage of the vocal mic rejecting much of the guitar.

If you have a real boomy acoustic like a D-35 get yourself a 4x4 piece of 1/4 inch plywood and screw in two eye hooks 2 feet high and two inches from the edge. Bend the board to create a parabolic reflector and use a light chain or rope to keep it in position via the eye hooks. Play into it from a few feet back and mic the sweet spot of the reflections with an SDC. There will be no more low end issue and you can get a real nice jangly tone that doubles as a splendid hi-hat remover should you pan it carelessly!"

Thanx Aardvark.

Now I leave you with Bob while you explain this to him.

He won't be happy with this, I tell ya.

Well : this is YOUR problem. If he says it's gay, tell him you learned the trick from Kenny Gioia.

I'll see if I do stereo techniques tonight, stay tuned.

malice


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++

Ok, now stereo. A test might take place any time, so you better stay focused.

basically, any combination of the aforementioned technique should work, however, my preference goes to A/C combination drifting to A/D (front version) : I told you to pay attention In any case, check your phase. The old rule of 3/1 should apply here : for the slow learner, microphones should be three time more distant than the source to avoid cancelation (Goddamn, must I explain every fucking thing here) but still, sweet spots can be found experimenting. I doubt you will have an assistant yet, but you can always check with the headphones and fine tune listening to the speakers after.

This "separate technique gives a wide image and this mic combination is interesting as it covers the whole frequency spectrum of the guitar.

You can, in case of double track recording, favore one mic for the left and the other for the right, it is always interesting to have two different tone when you double.

However, I have tried a combination with the "over the shoulder" and the A position that worked nicely. Not too stereo though, but you should try. Very natural.

Now the classic forgiving stuff.

coincident XY couple (I'll do a drawing for Jules and the ones that are a bit lost)

As a reminder, coincident is two cardioids, capsule as close as they can be, 90° angle (this is the 101).

you can place this couple in front of the hole, not too close, but I prefer aiming the center of the neck (12th fret). It gives mono compatibility although it wont be as wide as the previous method. Distance should be the same as for A (I told ya) and depending on how good the room sounds and boomy the gtr is.

I won't advise ORTF couple (I wouldn't advise to use 7 feet high ceiling for drum tracking either, but I digress) as if you want wide gtr, better tweak the separate technique first.

On the other hand, you might be lucky with M/S couple if you have mikes to do it. This of course gives total mono compatibility and let you control width better.

I will extend on a three mic technique later when I get to the type of mic chapter.

You ask for something similar to Slippy's electric gtr. You will get it, no matter how long it will take me.

I haven't started with this shit yet.

As Slippy would say:

Stab me with a fucking brick

malice

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++

more trick from Aardvark:

"Nice doubling trick number 173.a-9


Capo up the second time through and note how nice the chords stack.

(If you are in D, capo up two and play in C as a start...when you play the capo "G" the highest note in the chord is now an A....if the first track has the 5 chord played in primary position it's highest note will be an E)


Trick 173.a-10


Grab a beater guitar and keep it as a high-strung. Doubling with the high-strung is a good old Nashville technique. There will be no low end smearing issues this way.


Trick 173.a-11


I own a Baby Taylor that I use to double my D-35, the smaller guitar is also best sounding when tuned much higher so the capo effect is also nicely in play here.



Cheers,
Aardvark"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++

Okay, about mics

One thing great with acoustic gtrs, it's that you can use about anything, it will give you interesting results. And that include piezzos and electro-magnetic pick ups.
And about every polar pattern has it's use. That is what makes the recording of this instrument so fucking complicated to master.

As for polar patterns for instance, omnis are interesting because of the absence of proximity effect that might be an issue with acoustic guitars. Still cardioid might be preferred for to avoid getting to much room or if you want to use XY couple.
Maximum rejection from the side, as Aardy stated earlier might be very handy, although it can show as well an annoying proximity effect.

In every separate mic technique I explained, let's say you can use omni or cardioid. Hyper cardio, well, hmmm, I'll explain how to deal with moving bastards. You know, the guy that things that perpetual motion is kinda cool.Later.


As for microphone types : TRY EVERYTHING !

1) you can use dynamics. Well, it might not be a go for everything trick, but as stated earlier, a 57 (or a Beyer 201, better) slammed into a compressor might help in some situations. A MD441 is not to be dissmissed as well, but let's say it is not what I would try first

2) Small diaphragm condensers : that should be the first thing to try, at least for rythm gtr. B&K shines, 4006, 4007 up to 4011 etc). Schoeps CM5/CM6 works as well, so ar KM84/100 series, KM86 (oh, so great !) KM 54/56 (if you can find them) . Geffell M300 (close to 84) On a budget side, I kinda like the Neumann 184, it's a little brighter than a 84, but the little drop around 200 is nice for this. The Josephson C42 are also nice and very inexpensive although a bit noisy.AKG 451 is well underestimated. A bit to bright, but sometimes, just what you need to make this damn gtr cu into the mix. AKG460 and 480 are even better.Still The best results I had was with omni DPA's. With a nice D35, you cannot go wrong, even in mono (position A). I like transformerless as well. I'll tell you why in the LD section: but DPA SD TL series are worth trying.

3) For LD: U48/47, U47fet, U87, U89,U67 (a bit aggressive for my taste) the great M269C, M49, the stereo SM1 (evil), SM69 tube and fet. Someone mentioned the C800g, I don't know, seems very bright to me, but I'll give it a shot one day. Brauner VM1 (bright too), PhantomC/V... Soundelux 195, Geffel UM70/75 Tons of possibilities.

No a bit about controvertial stuff.

I do love TLM on acoustic gtrs. that is SD (like DPAsTL) or LD like TLM 170,193,103 (bit too bright). I know that appart from the TLM 170, the two others are considered as shite by top AEs, especially the 193. I don't agree at all (well, the first series might not be great up to serial 1500# I guess). But a 193 is a great tool on acoustic.
The advantages of transformerless is more accuracy on the bass, less harmonic distortion, and higher sensitivity. Take well EQ as well, so very handy and cheap.

The "less" distortion part might be what makes this interesting for ac gtrs. Anyway, I found that with the right pre, it can really do the trick.

4) Ribbons are great: no shit. They take away the harshness, you can eq them better than any other microphone. I used an Royers (both R121 and SF12), Coles, Beyer 160 with great luck, but my favs were AEA84 and my stereo BM5 B&K (moogus can attest this, I wonder if I had still the clip). The SF12 was copied from the BM5 btw, but to my taste, it is a bit in between the R121 and the SF12.

Note that only the Beyer is cardioid, all the ribbons are generally figure eight.

The great thing is that you have a very natural sound without artificial attack.

Next time I'll talk about a great piezzo I tried on acoustic, but I gotta gather some useful infos first. I'll talk about acoustics in amp too, I'm nuts.

I probably missed some mics, but there are those I had good experience with and that my 128k of flash ram memory I have in the head can remember without overloading too much.

later

Or as Slippy would say : Kill me ...

malice



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

About strings :

Archtop:


"My absolute #1 biggest greatest acoustic gtr. thing.

Brand new strings.

No, not "I just put 'em on last week man"

I'm talkin' the first hour out of the package "NEW".

can't fake it."



Otek:


"Another thing about strings - the gauge is tremendously important. Most quality acoustics are made for light (.012) to medium (.013) strings. Some sound better with light strings, some with medium.

The trick here is to find gauges that exert the right amount of tension on the top. Too little, and the top won't move properly, which causes a thinner tone. Too much, and you'll end up "choking" the guitar, causing a drop in volume and a "deader" sound.

Parlor guitars and other small-body instruments will often sound better with lighter gauges.

In addition to all the great miking tips so far by malice, Skwai, 6x2 and others, I would like to add that a PZM on the floor a few feet in front of the performer can be a great way to increase the sence of space and depth to the guitar. I also sometimes place a stereo pair of condensers behind a performer to give some size to the guitar sound. This will make for a very diffuse sound which has very little of the "direct" sound radiation from the instrument. This often works great for sparser settings or solo guitar.

In general, for classical guitar I will back the mics away more. Most classical guitars' sound really comes together at a few feet's distance, and also this helps with the very strong resonances these instruments can have, particularly in the higher positions on the bass strings. This method of course places a lot more demands on the quality of the room."

Otek


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[nobby]

dbbl

[nobby]

In any case, mono is sometimes your friend. Simple, effective. Mitchel Froom don't record stereo, so why the hell would you ?

As for microphone types : TRY EVERYTHING !

[DISCLAIMER: NOBBY IS NOT EXACTLY MALICE. THIS WEBSITE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR INJURY OR DEATH INCURRED AS A RESULT OF TAKING NOBBY'S ADVICE]

I don't really have the time to try every mic or technique. I've tried stereo mic'ing with one (SM81) mic at an angle towards the point where the neck mets the body and another towards the bridge and fooled around with that until it sounded decent. But I'm recording myself, and setting up the mics, walking off to hit record, then sliding behind the mics and getting into position is a PITA.

I recently tried using an EV 635a which is an omni dynamic mic, figuring it would pick up the guitar more evenly without the placement of the mic being so critical. ( I also wanted to pick up the foot tapping.)

I think this works okay (YMMV)

The main track with foot tapping is center; I used two add'l tracks hard panned L&R (http://www.theconveyors.com/audio/ACHILLES-NewEngland102906.m3u)

.

[maccool]

Thanks for bringing this one to the new digs malice, keep up the good work.

[dnafe]

Gonna pass this along to a buddy who's constantly recording acoustics with so-so results

Thanks Malice

[Comte de St Germain]

I'm a fan of omnis on acoustics when the room suits it. Even a small deadened area can work for the wide thing with omnis.

Bova balls are a favorite of mine and yes, they work in an ORTFish style implementation.

But we're assuming that the acoustic is going to play a major role with this treatment and the acoustic is sometimes a glorified high hat in which you want the right amount of pick to suit your needs.

The pick is a huge part of the equation.

More than the mic at times, especially in omni or other patterns that don't allow the luxury of putting the pick in the null.

Then again a well placed, well preamped 57 can be the end all for a slamming rock track.

Yeah, Ortman's favorite.

[oudplayer]

I've been kinda stuck on using a dynamic and cardiod fake-stereo paid on acoustics. Josephson C42 pointed towards the 12th fret (or the 7th or 17th fret depending on the amount the guitarist feels he needs to turn in his chair to look cool), Beyer M88 or Audix i5 more towards the sound hole, both capsules as close as possible, and the whole assembly located .5-.75 m from the guitar, in front of the guitarist's face. If the guitarist has unpleasant vocal utterances (ooh babie, grunts, or snorting noises - sadly, most guitarists do), I'll place the assembly below the soundhole of the guitar.

Works better on nylon string classical guitar than on hollow body electrics like ovations, which require a very different treatment.

[malice]

I'm a fan of omnis on acoustics when the room suits it.


I second that. I love omni Dpa's for that reason.

malice

[martinw2k]

Just stick a pickup in there, job done!
Wink

[CaptainHook]

I love omni Dpa's for that reason.


Sometimes using a pair of omni dpa's here too.
Sometimes not at all but you know.. :P

[otek]

For smaller bodied instruments (like parlor guitars and even mandolins) I find you often get more body and less of the pick-on-the-string noise if you mic from behind the bridge. This may help such instruments to project in a dense mix.

The resulting midrange can easily get a bit much on some instruments so caution is recommended. Move the mic until you get the optimum balance.

[Unfcknblvbl]

I don't have the slightest pretention to challenge Slippy on his electric gtr thread, but I would hate to leave this to oblivion, and I certainly hope we'll keep this up to date.

malice

Sticky?

[TSTW]

Gearslut question:

Is there a stereo mic people would recommend?? an industry standard perhaps?

[J.G.]

This thread is TRES appreciated in our neck of the woods, as we have a session coming up where we'll be recording an acoustic player toot sweet-like.

MERCI, gents!

: J

[malice]

Gearslut question:

Is there a stereo mic people would recommend?? an industry standard perhaps?


I wouldn't necessary recomand a stereo mic here. I'm not sure that it would give you the flexibility of two paired mic (like the rather cheap C-42)

But I had great results with SF12 from Royer (ribbon) and with B&O BM5 (somehow in between an SF12 and R121)

Neumann SM2 are nice.

but they are bioth difficult to find and expensive.

malice

[rockdart]

Good Stuff!


Any thought to ever doing a video of one of these? It's easier to picture something when there's a picture. For us visual people...

[otek]

Good Stuff!


Any thought to ever doing a video of one of these? It's easier to picture something when there's a picture. For us visual people...


I'm sure if you ask Jules at Gears.l.u.t.z., he will draw a picture for you. :D

[Mixerpuppet]

I might add a technique known as listening :)

Every room is slightly different and where you place the player and the guitar in the room can effect which mic and which technique.

I typically have an LDC on a stand in my hand as I walk around the player and try to identify the sweet spot. Once I find it thats where I put the LDC... Then I take an SDC, usually a hypercardioid .... and then point it where I think the guitar sounds the smoothest... usually "somewhere" around the 12th fret at the farthest from the soundhole. I make sure my mic and stand adjustment are parallel with the LDC capsule so I can slide the mic fwd and aft (linear) for a fine tuning of the phase co"hear"ancy...

Sometimes I throw a X-Y config coincident with the ldc capsule to widen the image and still have access to pulling the faders on the X-Y to refocus....

YMMV

[rockdart]

I'm sure if you ask Jules at Gears.l.u.t.z., he will draw a picture for you. :D

thx... but no. Was just curious. I thought I might spark an idea or two, not a navigation suggestion.

[malice]

thx... but no. Was just curious. I thought I might spark an idea or two, not a navigation suggestion.

We are discussing this video tutorial thing very seriously. I have no doubt we will implement this soon.


malice

[studjo]

guys that would be a lot of fun but I dunno if I wanna see Slippy's better end on my puter ...


Jo

[seagate]

Just stick a pickup in there, job done!
Wink

Dont know about that, I've got a fishman under the bridge of mine and never have been able to get usable pleasing sound out of it...

Sounds plasticy.

[otek]

I've got a fishman under the bridge of mine....


So by your comment, it seems you've (rightly) deduced that in order to get a good, natural acoustic sound, you pretty much have to use a mic.

Though a piezo pickup can be a very useful complement to a mic, if used the right way. On a lot of rock and country records, it is used in combination with the mic to make the guitar sound cut more.

Some artists use it a lot even for solos. Trevor Rabin of Yes features the piezo prominently and has created a sound with it. So does Adrian Legg. Michael Hedges used it in combination with a mic to run FX.

One thing to watch out for is that when the player moves, the phase relationship between the piezo signal and the mic changes. I have even used a clip-on mic on the guitar to circumvent this problem at times when I knew the piezo track was gonna be featured a lot.

[seagate]

So by your comment, it seems you've (rightly) deduced that in order to get a good, natural acoustic sound, you pretty much have to use a mic.

Correct. Never really felt the need to add the output of the piezo to the mic signal though, mind you most of the acoustic I do is for filling holes in my tracks.

Waste of money really, but you live and learn...


:Roll eyes:

[otek]

Correct. Never really felt the need to add the output of the piezo to the mic signal though

Don't knock it 'til you try it.... :Wink:

[Old Man]

Hi there, this is only my 2nd post in the Womb so I am new here.

For me, I usually have very good luck in mono with a 67 aimed at the neck/body joint with a cardioid pattern and a distance of approx 8". It would not be unusual for me to hi pass anywhere from 75 to 150 depending on the music/instrument/intent, etc.
I will also follow that with an LA-2a type of comp.

I love adding a capo'd/higher pitched o/d to that if appropriate.

[Swafford]

Some great tips Malice, lot's of things to think about next time I stick a mic in front of my guitar.

Here are a few things I've done or had done to me in the past that worked good:
Solo w/voice - RCA 44 about 6 feet in front. Very live and natural.

'Dosey' mod Oktava 012's in X/Y on a dreadnaught. I find these to give a nice balance.

In large (6-8 piece)band playing rhythm - this is where the piezo can work well.

Most recently Shik stuck a Beyer M88 on the f-hole some doofus cut into the lower bout of my Martin 00-18. Sounds good under a band mix.

Recently tracking demos I tried something my friend Alex suggested - LDC (Gefell UM-70) out front like Malice's 'A' suggestion, SDC (Gefell m300) placed very close to the back of the headstock. Requires no movement. The M300 produced a kind of highend shimmery sound and when mixed with the UM-70 added some interesting highend to the slightly midrangey sound the UM-70 was capturing. I used a plinky Guild M-20 for this.

Recording myself, I always have trouble finding a 'sweet spot', but I'm usually doing demos, so it's not critical.

[otek]

Recording myself, I always have trouble finding a 'sweet spot', but I'm usually doing demos, so it's not critical.

This is where your headphones may come in handy.

Crank the mic input in the cue, and use that to listen for the tonal balance while you move the mic around.

Granted, headphones will not tell you the whole story, but you will get a pretty good idea of where the low end balance happens, and if you're using a stereo config, how wide your image is.

[Swafford]

This is where your headphones may come in handy.

Crank the mic input in the cue, and use that to listen for the tonal balance while you move the mic around.

Granted, headphones will not tell you the whole story, but you will get a pretty good idea of where the low end balance happens, and if you're using a stereo config, how wide your image is.

Great point. I need to work more with headphones to get a more efficient workflow. Fact is, I do so much stuff on the fly - 8am while the kid's baking to Barney or while she's painting or strangling the cat, I rarely think about putting them on anymore.

[jerryskid]

I've had very good luck using an AKG 414 aimed where the neck meets the body...It makes my Alverez sound like it's as big as a house !!

[Old Man]

Which version of 414 would that be? I ask because the different versions sound very different from one another.
:)

[jerryskid]

AKG 414-ULS ....this one...

[otek]

Which version of 414 would that be? I ask because the different versions sound very different from one another.

It's interesting that you ask for which version of the mic, but not which version of the acoustic, which has far more bearing on the sound. :Roll eyes:

We may also wanna ask by far the most important question, namely which one of Jerry's kids is playing, but then that's probably the one factor we won't be able to change, assuming "the kid" wants to lay down his own parts. :D

[Grapestomper]

Typicaly when I record, I'm working alone, which leads me to this question:


Is moving the guitar relative to the mic roughly equivalent to moving the mic?


When I go looking for a good mic placement, usually I'll set up a mic and then move around it with the guitar, listening in earphones untill I think I have something roughly like what I'm after. Once I've done that, I'll take the cans off and decide where in the room I should be based only on how the guitar sounds to me. Finally, I'll re-set the mic in the position (relative to the guitar) that I'd decided on, but positioned in the room based on the results of my "walk-about".

The reason is simply workflow: taking off first the cans, then the guitar, and then moving the mic, over and over again, tends to bring me out of "musician mode" and into "engineer mode", which is probably more detrimental to the takes than non-ideal micing anyway.

On the other hand, if I do this, the mic winds up being in the same position in the room for each try, and then a different postion in the room for the actual take.

The results can be (not surprisingly) hit or miss.

I'd love to hear some ideas about recording acoustic guitar with no asistance, and still maintaining a musician's perspective.

Watching this thread with interest,
M

[Old Man]

Good point re: which guitar. In that vein, we could get into what kind of strings, what type of music, is it a solo section or part of a track, etc, all valid questions indeed.

For me personally, I can make the 67 work for just about any situation, and I go to that mic first because of years of experience doing just that. Of course there can be exceptions to any rule and I do not dispute that. On the rare occasions where the 67 does not work for me, 2nd choice will be a KM84. But that is rare. Various Martins, Gibsons, Taylors, Guilds, steel or nylon string, whatever,, have worked quite well with the 67 as I described it.
:)

[malice]

Typicaly when I record, I'm working alone, which leads me to this question:


Is moving the guitar relative to the mic roughly equivalent to moving the mic?



M


Theoriticaly, no. But that is what I do when i'm alone as well.

I try to find a sweet spot with the headphones, I play a little and control the recording before going further.

Not ideal, but workable.

If you have a good room, putting the mic in omni minimize the parameters involved. It is often the patern I prefer for recording steel acoustics.

btw, U67 is great. m269c is even better with acoustic.

but that's just me being a great fan of that mic.

malice

[dwoz]

guys that would be a lot of fun but I dunno if I wanna see Slippy's better end on my puter ...


Jo

neither does malice, I'm sure.


dwoz

[Old Man]

Dwoz said"btw, U67 is great. m269c is even better with acoustic."

Cool, I'm up for it if the situation arises. Can't hurt to try.

[PRobb]

Great thread! Lots if interesting stuff in here.

I am a big believer in putting the phones on and moving around a bit while playing until the sound focuses.

And,this may be heresy, but I really don't like brand new strings. They sound thin and metallic to me. I would rather have a day or two of playing to take the edge off.

[lebouche]

I'm quite liking my cheap NT1's
Heres a recording I did recently, 3 takes together no comp no eq nothing, single mic recording just above the boom on a $500 Taylor Guitar played by my friend Slim.
Thinking of adding about 3 of colour on colourtone LA3 but like it already.

[airborne]

I'm quite liking my cheap NT1's

I have an NT1A and sounds stunning compared to what I expected. I've A/Bd it with way more expensive/famous mics and on many occasions didn't really think the latter kicked the Rode's ass that much..

[lebouche]

Figure eight patern helps too if you use te nulls to minimise the bleed.

If you have a real boomy acoustic like a D-35 get yourself a 4x4 piece of 1/4 inch plywood and screw in two eye hooks 2 feet high and two inches from the edge. Bend the board to create a parabolic reflector and use a light chain or rope to keep it in position via the eye hooks. Play into it from a few feet back and mic the sweet spot of the reflections with an SDC. There will be no more low end issue and you can get a real nice jangly tone that doubles as a splendid hi-hat remover should you pan it carelessly!"


attention In any case, check your phase. The old rule of 3/1 should apply here : for the slow learner, microphones should be three time more distant than the source to avoid cancelation (Goddamn, must I explain every fucking thing here) but still, sweet spots can be found experimenting. I doubt you will have an assistant yet, but you can always check with the headphones and fine tune listening to the speakers after.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

1.)OK....so what are nulls???

2.)Unable to visualize the descrition of hanging the board....does anyone have a link to any pics? Same with the mic placement...

3.)Being of slow learner disposition....3 x more distant than what? the source....it says but I dont get it.

Thanks:Confused:

[malice]

1.)OK....so what are nulls???



http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/images/mic-polarpattern-bi.gif

In a figure eight, or bidirectional pattern, you have two lobes in phase opposition. 0° and 180°. side by side of the lobes (90° and 270°) are the "nulls". The figure eight is VERY directional. that means that you don't pick much sound on the null axis. That is a powerfull tool as you can aim a sound source while aiming what you don't want (bleed) with the null axis and get as little of it as possible. Get it now ?


2.)Unable to visualize the descrition of hanging the board....does anyone have a link to any pics? Same with the mic placement...

Gonna try to find something, I was quoting this from Aardy, maybe ha has some picks.


3.)Being of slow learner disposition....3 x more distant than what? the source....it says but I dont get it.

Thanks:Confused:

Distant from each other. 3 time more distant from each other than the source.

example : If the first mic is 10 inches from a source, the second mic should be placed at least 30 inches from the second mic.That will minimize phase problems created by the time delay between mics.

malice

[lebouche]

http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/images/mic-polarpattern-bi.gif

In a figure eight, or bidirectional pattern, you have two lobes in phase opposition. 0° and 180°. side by side of the lobes (90° and 270°) are the "nulls". The figure eight is VERY directional. that means that you don't pick much sound on the null axis. That is a powerfull tool as you can aim a sound source while aiming what you don't want (bleed) with the null axis and get as little of it as possible. Get it now ?



Gonna try to find something, I was quoting this from Aardy, maybe ha has some picks.



Distant from each other. 3 time more distant from each other than the source.

example : If the first mic is 10 inches from a source, the second mic should be placed at least 30 inches from the second mic.That will minimize phase problems created by the time delay between mics.

malice
Thank you v much...
on the 3 time rule....this suprises me much. I was under the impression that if you were stereo recording you would want both mics the same distance from the source...which wouldnt be possible with the 3 time rule. eg. I've been setting my ovhds up equidistant to the snaredrum.
Cheers,

[malice]

Thank you v much...
on the 3 time rule....this suprises me much. I was under the impression that if you were stereo recording you would want both mics the same distance from the source...which wouldnt be possible with the 3 time rule. eg. I've been setting my ovhds up equidistant to the snaredrum.
Cheers,


This rule is to be applied when you want to record a source (a guitar and a singer for example) with two microphones.

If you put your vocal mike 30cm from the singer and another aiming the guitar, like close to the 12th fret, like 20 cms from it, you will have to take in acount the distance between each mike. Or you are going to have phase anomalies.

In this case, you will probably end with closer miking to avoid that, because in my example, there is no way you will put the two mikes nearly one meter from each other.

Now in the case of a stereo recording, you have another set of rules that are taking more or less the phase anomalies into account (coincident and M/S will have less anomalies than nearly coincident or spaced pairs) , but it is a completly different issue.

The rule of 3/1 is really dealing with multi microphone setups.

notably, it helps you avoiding problems when miking an entire band by putting the players and their respective mikes within safe distance from each other.

hope this is not too confusing.

malice

[lebouche]

Perfect...all makes sense now.
Thank you for your time:grin:

[FredSanford]

Back on the subject of stereo mics.....A couple of years ago I was using a Rode NT4 because it was all I had. The attached recording is an example.

I have since started using a C-60 and a 414 TLII in a Mid/Side setup. With the M/S setup if you need to use mono for the sake of the arrangement just mute the Figure8 mic.

[lebouche]

Like the track...sounds good. Think I recognise the NT sound. They always sound a little thin and toppy but they are the best option I have. One of these days I'll step up to some others. I'll check out the c60's and I've been drooling over the 414's for a while.
Those guys are very gypsy kings!
:)

[FredSanford]

Yep a little thin, but the NT4 will do while you save up for something better. The track is myself on guitar and bass with some friends and family on vocals and percussion. Flamenco guitar is my day job. :)

By they way if you happen to pick up a C-60 and you can also fine a CK4 capsule to put ontop of it, you have yourself the poor man's Telefunken Ela M 250/251
http://www.saturn-sound.com/Curio's/poor%20man's%20ela%20m250.htm

I think there is an AKG C-60 on Ebay right know. I got an email from someone who thought I might like to buy a second one. I wish I could afford it.

[lebouche]

I was going to ask who was playing guitar but thought it was too good....had to be a spanish client or a gypsy. I can see why its your day job..nice work dude.:Thumbsup:

[studjo]

I can see why its your day job..nice work dude.:Thumbsup:


Nice work - fuuuuuuucking brilliant IMO
I'm trying to get my head around my first flamenco chops

:Confused:


long live the machissmo :Thumbsup:


Jo

[nobby]

Flamenco guitar is my day job. :)


Don't quit your day job :Thumbsup: :Thumbsup:

[nobby]

A friend of mine is a luthier, and he gets orders for steel string acoustic flattops (we used to call them "folk guitars") that have small bodies compared to jumbo flattops. He sells these to recording artists and studios primarily in Nashville.

Now I understand that, particularly in ensemble mixes as opposed to solo guitar or guitar & vox, you want to get out any boominess/ low end in order to avoid masking other sound sources using those frequencies.

But what is the advantage of having a smaller, less boomy guitar over using a jumbo flattop and using subtractive EQ?

[malice]

Back on the subject of stereo mics.....A couple of years ago I was using a Rode NT4 because it was all I had. The attached recording is an example.

I have since started using a C-60 and a 414 TLII in a Mid/Side setup. With the M/S setup if you need to use mono for the sake of the arrangement just mute the Figure8 mic.

Wow, dude


This is most impressive.

See guys, we are discussing miking, and capturing gtr sound, but ultimately, the performance is what really matters anyway.

malice

[otek]

But what is the advantage of having a smaller, less boomy guitar over using a jumbo flattop and using subtractive EQ?

In a word - Projection. The midrange of a small-bodied guitar will have more cutting power, which is great for dense mixes.

With a Jumbo sometimes, all you hear is the sound of the pick scraping against the strings. EQ can mitigate the problem, but ultimately it's always better to get the sound naturally from the instrument. Too much corrective EQ will sound unnatural.

There are several different smaller-body guitars, the Parlor guitar being the smallest (with regular tuning). The Concert and Auditorium body styles are fairly full-sounding, yet with more midrange and less boom than a Jumbo.

[nobby]

Thanks Otek. That's exactly the info I was looking for.

[FredSanford]

See guys, we are discussing miking, and capturing gtr sound, but ultimately, the performance is what really matters anyway.

Thanks Malice,
I agree the performance and the instrument are very important, but I think that it is equally important that they be recorded well. Flamenco has a rich history of great performances recorded like crap and that in my opinion is a shame.

Before I picked up the C-60 and the 414, there was some recordings I did of myself with 2 Octava 012's in an xy config recorded through 2 ElectroHarmonix 12ay7 Mic Pre's. :) Check the attachment.

This is an unreleased recording, so it hasn't recieved the Bernie Grundman treatment like the last one I posted. I am recording one of my students with the C-60/414 MS setup over the next couple of weeks. If you guys don't mind I will post a tune when I get things sounding decent.
I think it might be nice to see the how things changed sonically as I aquired better mics.

[nobby]

Thanks Malice,
I agree the performance and the instrument are very important, but I think that it is equally important that they be recorded well. Flamenco has a rich history of great performances recorded like crap and that in my opinion is a shame.

Before I picked up the C-60 and the 414, there was some recordings I did of myself with 2 Octava 012's in an xy config recorded through 2 ElectroHarmonix 12ay7 Mic Pre's. :) Check the attachment.

I'm a bit skeptical that the EH units are delivering the best fidelity.

That said, I love the sound of the guitars on Distancias (fantastic album BTW :Thumbsup: :Thumbsup: ) so whatever you were using is fine by me!
I am recording one of my students with the C-60/414 MS setup over the next couple of weeks. If you guys don't mind I will post a tune when I get things sounding decent.
:lol:

Looking forward to it :Coolio:

[FredSanford]

EH preamps are definitely not the highest fidelity. I need to get something better. They do sort of soften the attack of a player with an aggressive technique which is sort of nice.

[Stick]

I got a pretty epic solo acoustic guitar sound one time by using (I think... it's been years) a 4033 at the 12th, up close, and a U89 facing the sound hole a foot or so away and from below a little, and the kicker, was recording the direct pickup sound too. I had to nudge the pickup later to match the mics, and I rolled off everything but probabaly 200 and down. Just some low rumbly stuff to add thickness.

This was on a beautiful Sobell handmade arch top acoustic played by a pretty awesome player... kind of like this (http://www.sobellguitars.com/index.htm?http://www.sobellinstruments.com/Info_NewWorld.htm).

[DaveC]

Great thread!

The only thing I don't quite get is the curved ply wood reflector thing. Any chance of more detailed explanations of what exactly it is doing, what it is, where it should go, what happens if it's in the wrong place, and some pictures?

Thanks

[HOOK]

If it is the "classical acoustic" sound your´e after try to put a DPA 4006 (or similar) as if you where trying to record the git.players voice, aiming the mic towards his/her chest (the upper part, don´t stare!! ;) ) approx. 40 cm infront of the instrument.
( If there is a crotch mic tecnique for drums this is the "cleavage mic tecnique" for acoustical guitar :D )

Combined with a nice stereosetup at some distance ( a matched pair of 4011 :) ) this will give you a pleasent and naturalsounding guitar with a full body and shimmering top.


..ofcourse this tecnique is useless if the guitarist has astma or just cant stop humming... :Razz: ( some tape might help..:Twisted: )

...if you want some more zizzle try a piece of hardwood in front of the players feets to strengthen floor-reflections (mainly HM and HF ) a bit
...or place your player on a tiled floor....or maybe not... the variations are endless...

as someone said; Use your ears ;)




HOOK

[Slipperman]

I have heard rumors of these "ampless guitars" being used on records but have never seen it done personally.

Are they in any way related to those "bonfire starters" I have employed for years with great effectivity?

One question though...

Why do they bother with the strings and tuning pegs on the torch handle?

I know the hollow wooden cavity is where you put the various accelerants... but I never got the purpose of the steel or nylon wires you usually see attached. They always come snapping off after the unit is full engulfed.

No matter. Nothing gets a really big fire going like a D-28 filled with nitromethene and thermite.

SM.

[otek]

Why do they bother with the strings and tuning pegs on the torch handle?

Not to mention how much they get in the way when you swing the thing for proper velocity, just before it hits the concrete wall.

[HOOK]

:grin: :grin: :grin: :Twisted: :D :D

[malice]

I have heard rumors of these "ampless guitars" being used on records but have never seen it done personally.

Are they in any way related to those "bonfire starters" I have employed for years with great effectivity?

One question though...

Why do they bother with the strings and tuning pegs on the torch handle?

I know the hollow wooden cavity is where you put the various accelerants... but I never got the purpose of the steel or nylon wires you usually see attached. They always come snapping off after the unit is full engulfed.

No matter. Nothing gets a really big fire going like a D-28 filled with nitromethene and thermite.

SM.


:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


Did I mentioned you can put these bonfire starters in guitar amps as well ?

malice

[STUDIORAT]

go figure plasticy huh!!! you are better off giving some one else your money instead of wasting it on a pick up
try this they are relativly inexpensive but worth it
a pair of akg c414 b uls the primary focus here is at the neck junction approx. 6-10 inches away however the body of the sound comes from a another placed over the body of the guitar at about 4 feet from the player and at a 45 degree toward the body up about 2 feet above the sitting player (ear level for me as I am a twirp) try this I have had good luck with it it isnt true stereo kind of a hybrid but usually yields pleasing reslts:Thumbsup: :D :Thumbsup:

[seagate]

I've been using a dual set up lately, a 57 at the 12th tilted towards the sound hole a bit, about a foot and a half away and a AKG C3000B at 2 o'clock from the players perspective about 4ft away at ear height.
Sounds nice and full, pity one has to eq that fullness back out...:Sad:

PS: I'm a hack...

[Barska]

Gearslut question:

Is there a stereo mic people would recommend?? an industry standard perhaps?

Wouldn't use stereo mic solely on acoustic gtr, but had some good experiences with Schoeps MSTC 64 U on string quartet session. ORTF stuff, good stereo image but a bit noisy. Goes for 2,5k...

[Azraphael]

Just a quick note here...

This thread freakin' rocks. Malice (et al) thanks for the amazingly useful information. You have no idea how helpful this is to me as someone who has a) just built my first "real" recording setup, and b) starts with acoustic guitar for pretty much everything he writes in the pop/rock genres.

So, that being the case, recording acoustics is rather critical for me at the moment, so this thread couldn't have come at a better time!

Who knows, once I've messed about a bit more, I might even have something to contribute. :)

Cheers,

Dave

[maccool]

I want to talk about the room.

I'm an amateur recordist, with a limited choice of gear, and an amateur guitarist with four very nice guitars. I've been playing guitar for a long time, but only recently come to the recording side of things.

Like everyone else, I'm trying to get the best recording I can, and all the points raised about which instrument, which mic's and where to position them, the importance of performance, &c. &c. are all well taken, but from my own recent experience I have come to the conclusion that the acoustic properties of the room and how they interact with the guitar are of the first importance.

I've been trying to record in an untreated space with a low ceiling. It just doesn't work. The axial modes of the room, and especially the one between floor and ceiling, cause resonances with the soundboard which preclude me from ever achieving the kind of recorded sound I'm looking for. The better the mic, and the bigger the guitar, the worse it is.

As my ears have become more educated I can not only hear the problem in my recordings, but have come to understand why some rooms are just so right to sit in and play, and in others the magic is just never there; and that feeds back (excuse the pun) into the performance too. I have recently acquired a very nice OOO-28VS Martin, but I can't record it in my space, it sounds awful if I try! My good mic's just make things worse, 'cause they hear all the shit. My best result at the moment come from a parlor guitar into a '57.

I must (and will) fix the room's axial modes, and until I do, all the nice guitars and mic's will be pretty much unusable.

So, for armatures like me, the most important thing to get right isn't the mic's, or their placement, or the guitar, or the performance; it's the room.

[HOOK]

So, for armatures like me, the most important thing to get right isn't the mic's, or their placement, or the guitar, or the performance; it's the room.

Not just for amateurs. But pros (should)have sorted their rooms out or choosen an untreatened room with the right ambience...

...but recognizing that aspect of recording is some proof that you have emerged from the depth of noobnes even if you label yourself "amateur" :)



HOOK

[lebouche]

Some may have built their room and had to deal with their earlier idiocy.:Confused: :Confused:
NYway...
I recorded some acoustic guitars I really like....but they dont work in the mix. Too boomy and warm but I like that. Once I eq it out a little they sound shit but the mix is better. Maybe its a problem for the mastering engineer?? Thoughts anyone..:)

[studjo]

well sounds that work on their own don't allways make it into the mix - MVHE


Jo

[robmacki]

This is a great thread!
No one yet has mentioned the contribution of tone by the pick.
Several years ago I switched to Clayton Ultem Gold (http://www.steveclayton.com/ultem.html). Amaaaaazing sounding pick!

[Immanuel]

Cooper, alu, felt, different kinds of plastic ... shapes ... thicknesses ... all make big changes to the sound ... and feel of the guitar ... which again changes how the guitarist plays ... and thus again changes the sound ... but more important ... the feel :)

[Test4Echo]

Hi all,

I was mowing my lawn yesterday when my lawn mower suddenly broke down. So I did some test recording acc guitars instead.

As one does. :lol:

I did the tests without reading this thread (Duh!), but when I found this, I thought it would be fun to share.

The tests are by no means scientific, but they give a good picture what happens moving the mic, changing mics and changing guitars.

I used three different mics and two guitars. Mics are:

- Rœde NTK
- JLabs (cheap ass mic)
- Rœde NT4 (XY mic)

Guitars:

- Ovation Legend (Deep Bowl) 1982. New-ish strings.
- Ovation Glenn Campbell (Mid deep Bowl), 1979. Filthy strings.

Everything is recorded in the same room, guitars in the same position. All mics go straight in to RME FireFace 800:s pre, and no eq used anywhere. Mic placement is aimed between the hole and 12:th fret, and mic distance from the guitar varied from that. What you hear in each file is this:

JLab/Legend: Mic distance 10, 40 and 80 inch (download (http://homepage.mac.com/bihlring/.public/ack_testmp3/JLab.mp3) 1 MB)
Rœde NT4/Legend: 10, 40 and 80 inch (download (http://homepage.mac.com/bihlring/.public/ack_testmp3/NT4.mp3) 2.1 MB)
NTK/Legend: 10 and 40 inch (download (http://homepage.mac.com/bihlring/.public/ack_testmp3/NTK.mp3) 0.7 MB)
NTK/Campbell: 10 and 40 inch (download (http://homepage.mac.com/bihlring/.public/ack_testmp3/NTK_Campbell.mp3) 0.7 MB)

Cheers
/T4E

[lambro]

for picks I always use pickboy metacarbonates. They are more accurate and have better tone than fender heavies

I never touch medium or thin picks, a good player will have enough wrist control to make a heavy pick (1.0mm) dynamic, and of course you will need the heavy pick to do any solo work that involves speed

on myspace I have a tune "Daydream" that is a

Lowden F-32 I played and recorded with a Royer 121 and TLM-103 > UA 2-610 Tube Preamp

Using Waves L2 converter SPDIF > PT LE 002R.

[ghostyhead]

so, if you are using a figure 8 pattern, and making use of the nulls for rejection, surely you have the opposite field picking up (in the case) the room? one side the guitar and the opposite field :the room or what ever is in the opposite direction? Ive never understood using figure 8`s for off axis rejection without picking up whatever is opposite what you want to pick up?? Or have got the wrong idea?
Cheers in advance

[Swafford]

For just me and guitar, I like to use a Royer, but I'm thinking the volume on the side facing the guitar is so much greater then what the other side is picking up in the room, the room sound becomes inconsequential.

so, if you are using a figure 8 pattern, and making use of the nulls for rejection, surely you have the opposite field picking up (in the case) the room? one side the guitar and the opposite field :the room or what ever is in the opposite direction? Ive never understood using figure 8`s for off axis rejection without picking up whatever is opposite what you want to pick up?? Or have got the wrong idea?
Cheers in advance

[otek]

Ive never understood using figure 8`s for off axis rejection without picking up whatever is opposite what you want to pick up?? Or have got the wrong idea?
Cheers in advance

Swafford kind of said it - the proximity of the guitar outweighs the room reflections. Also, the figure-8 rejects the sides, leaving the 180 degree lobe, which can be goboed off easily if required. It's a tighter pattern, and the off-axis stuff often sounds more natural.

Also, if you're recording an ensemble (e.g. horns), side rejection is more important since leakage from the other instruments is more of a problem than the 180 degree room reflection.


otek

[smicisbri]

Works great! Thank you for posting this.

[kludge]

Here's something that has worked nicely for me. I'm in a band with another guitarist whose style is rather different from my own (she plays left-handed and upside down, among other things). I like to track the two of us playing a song together with an XY pair, one aimed at the neck-body joint on my guitar and the other aimed at the same place on hers. I use Electro-Voice BK1 mics, but whatever you like will do. Pan hard left/right.

This approach has two big advantages. First, it captures a very "live" feel... not just because we're playing together, but because of the stereo spread. Second, the two guitars are panned pretty hard left and right rather than centered, leaving lots of space for vocals, etc. It works best for songs where a pair of acoustic guitars can be the primary harmonic/rhythmic structure, with guitarists who play well together and contrast nicely.

[DeckyH]

Cool thread this, normally I'll go for a dryish sound and use acoustic panels around the player, although sometimes a wooden floor can add a nice brightness. Set up wise I'm a sucker for a condenser (U87) near where the fretboard meets the body about 6 inches away. Usually find the sweet spot with headphones. For a stereo sound I've had good results with a Royer just over the shoulder combined with the 87

[Dave.R]

We are discussing this video tutorial thing very seriously. I have no doubt we will implement this soon.


malice

was this ever done?

[SASman]

My favourite technique is 2 x AT4033 on the Ac. guitar, or 1 on each guitar (if there is 2) and fairly widely panned. Usually 4 inches away in the normal positions.

[samc]

My favourite technique is 2 x AT4033 on the Ac. guitar, or 1 on each guitar (if there is 2) and fairly widely panned. Usually 4 inches away in the normal positions.

You pan the 2 mics on the guitar? Why? Does everything have to be stereo or some kind of wide mono?

[Mesmer]

Dear Acoustic Guitar Inquisition:
I did this... and it sounds good*
* = with some problems.


The deed.
I used a figure 8 pattern microphone; placed with it's end-fire (helical "shotgun" , the top) null pointing at me. With about 8" separation from my body, this meant that the rear lobe got my voice, and the front lobe got my acoustic guitar. There was a slight inclination too, such that the lobe pointing down, pointed down and away (a little bit); the one pointing up, pointed up and near (ma' face, well, ma' jaw).

The reason
I hadn't had the opportunity to record A.G. after reading the Mixerman book. Even though I have been happy with my A.G. recordings in the past, I thought someone should try this config. in order to solve the dilemma he and Malice expose in the book and the OP. To badly paraphrase: If you want to multi-mic a singer-songwriter you better be prepared for some phasyness. I suppose many people have tried it before me; I just wanted to report and also see what kind of results you've gotten.

The Problem
with this set-up. I really liked how present both signals are in the resulting mono file. They are blended, but still very clearly distinct from one another. The main difficulty here for me, with my cheap ribbon mic is this: The guitar signal is a little bit louder than I wish it would be. Also, related to that, I find myself wishing to plug-in a gentle low-cut EQ to the guitar signal only. I imagine that since the low strings end up being closer to the mic, this might happen. Plus, my current guitar is kind of bass heavy (in a kickass way).

Next Try
I will invert the microphone, such that the gentler lobe points at the guitar. Also, I may move the mic a little bit further away. Also, I want to see how much I can implement a gentle low-cut eq through my own playing style.


Is this a worthwhile pursuit?
Have you tried this yourself, how did it turn out?
Is this Malice approved?

[otek]

It seems a little awkward to go for a figure-8 pattern with ONE microphone. I cannot visualize exactly how you set it up, but it seems that the two lobes of the figure-8 would have to be practically vertical in order to pick up both guitar and voice, which would cause both sources to be slightly off-axis (see image), unless the player hunches forward in an unnatural way. It also doesn't provide a chance to adjust the balances afterward (like you would if you were using TWO figure-8s on a straight angle, which is the standard way of using this type of configuration).

It seems to me that a regular cardioid would be simpler, since it would allow you to aim the mic straight at the performer and control your balance by way of mic placement.


otek

[Mesmer]

Yes,
just like that.

Plus, that's why I said a little bit of inclination;
Just like the top setup in your picture, but the ribbon mic. not lined up with a 0 degree ray, more like a .... 345 degree ray.

Plus, Otek, the purpose of this experiment was to _not_ have to deal with bleed. I think if I adjust my playing style, I might actually get away with this. For me the exciting thing is that it is already balanced/eq-ed. If I can make it work. Plus my room is not the greatest, I would think, this helps me hear it less.

If you ever try it (for kicks) let me know!
-h

[otek]

Yes,
just like that.

I guess I am not making myself clear. Neither front nor back lobe will end up in an optimal, on-axis position for the two sources. If you aim one lobe towards the mouth, then the other will be off-axis to the guitar, and vice versa. Unless you are in a very awkward position, hunched over forward with the guitar angled upward, the figure-8 pattern will most likely reject part of the sound from one of the sources.

Plus, Otek, the purpose of this experiment was to _not_ have to deal with bleed.

Bleed from where? If you are using ONE mic, you will not be able to control guitar/vocal balances afterwards anyway. The objective is to get BOTH instruments on-axis with the mic's pickup pattern. Unless you are talking about bleed from other instruments around you, in which case you would likely not be worse off with a tight cardioid.


otek

[Mesmer]

Yes both signals hitting both lobes are off-axis, but not in a tragic way. With my mic, not the best, it still sounded pleasing. Both sound sources are very close to the mic anyway.

The bleed I mention is the one you get by using two or more mics on the singersongwriter. Guitar sounds on the vocal track. Voice sounds on the guitar track. Plus the phase issues implied.

Also, I haunch a little naturally. As you say it would be uncomfortable and awkward to try to make the incidence directly on-axis. On the other hand, playing with a portable-gobo-absortion-wall between me and my guitar, doesn't sound all that comfortable either.

Look, I'm not saying it's teh magic technique. I was just eager to see if anyone had tried this or discounted it for some reason.

[otek]

Yes both signals hitting both lobes are off-axis, but not in a tragic way.

Wouldn't it be better to look at it from the perspective of "great", rather than "not tragic"?

With my mic, not the best, it still sounded pleasing. Both sound sources are very close to the mic anyway.

Understood, but because a figure-8 generally has very narrow lobes, you are probably still not hitting the sweet spot - with EITHER of the sound sources. Which is my whole point. Again, see the enclosed image.

The bleed I mention is the one you get by using two or more mics on the singersongwriter. Guitar sounds on the vocal track. Voice sounds on the guitar track. Plus the phase issues implied.

But neither of these will be an issue if you are putting BOTH sound sources in the sweet spot of ONE cardioid mic (or even an omni if you're getting too much low end), and adjust the balance by aiming the mic. You can do this with your figure-8 ribbon, too - simply put a gobo behind the mic if you get an undesirable amount of room from the rear lobe.

playing with a portable-gobo-absortion-wall between me and my guitar, doesn't sound all that comfortable either.

FWIW I never suggested gobos between the guitar and singer (which would be ridiculous almost regardless of the circumstances). Gobos would be absolutely pointless to isolate the sound sources since we are still talking about ONE mic. There would, by definition, not be any "bleed".

Btw, a way of minimizing bleed between two mics in this scenario would be to use TWO figure-8s, as indicated earlier. Picture a Blumlein configuration laid on its side, with one side pointing toward the mouth, the other toward the guitar, at a 90 degree angle. Each figure-8 will cancel out much of the other one, plus the angle will further minimize phase issues.


otek

[John Eppstein]

Or you can do what I did and purchase a Seymour Duncan Mag Mic as mentioned by Mixerman in his book. It sounds pretty good, takes case of the phase problem and also solves the problem of the guitar moving around relative to the mic. Street price is around $225. I got mine for about $180 through a band member who got employee discount at a music store.

[Mesmer]

but but but ...
aww.
I was feeling so smartypants! thanks for putting it in perspective.


Btw, a way of minimizing bleed between two mics in this scenario would be to use TWO figure-8s, as indicated earlier. Picture a Blumlein configuration laid on its side, with one side pointing toward the mouth, the other toward the guitar, at a 90 degree angle. Each figure-8 will cancel out much of the other one, plus the angle will further minimize phase issues.


this seems super; can't wait to try it out.

Better yet, if you mail me your best ribbon, I'll put it up with both of mine and then we can do a ... what was it called ... I can't seem to remember the term now ... wait a second ... wait for it ... everybody's favoUrite ... a double-blind test! :icon_eek: ... I can even unhook the mackie and run it through there!!!

cheers.
-h

[Mesmer]

Or you can do what I did and purchase a Seymour Duncan Mag Mic as mentioned by Mixerman in his book. It sounds pretty good, takes case of the phase problem and also solves the problem of the guitar moving around relative to the mic. Street price is around $225. I got mine for about $180 through a band member who got employee discount at a music store.

that seems too much like cheating Epp!
what's next, faders that move by themselves?!!
:Wink:
-h

[John Eppstein]

what's next, faders that move by themselves?!!
:Wink:
-h

Got those as well!:Coolio:

[centinel]

I've done the A/D combo before but the A/C combo for stereo micing sounds great. 10cm off the bridge off axis with another mic off axis around 12th fret. This sounds like the 10cm will add the thinner quality I have been looking for. I'm trying this tonight. Thanks for the tips. :beer: