Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
advice on mics/recording classical guitar
Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK.
I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122 into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved alot of time messing around with placement. So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the 603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions?? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Rick Ruskin" wrote in message
... On 7 Nov 2004 18:49:34 -0800, (caveplayer) wrote: Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK. I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122 into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved alot of time messing around with placement. So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the 603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions?? 1. Stay away from Guitar Center's audio Tinker Toys. 2. Get a decent preamp. ($475.00 gets you an FMR RNP from either me or several other dealers that haunt this list.) 3. If the better mic pre doesn't do it all for you, check out the Neumann KM-184 series, Sennheiser mkh 40, and/or offerings from Josephson. http://liondogmusic.com if you have two cardioid mics that are the same model, try a stereo x/y pair. point the mics close together towards each other at a 90 degree angle and back it away and not right over the hole. -greg |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"caveplayer" wrote in message om... Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK. I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122 into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved alot of time messing around with placement. So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the 603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions?? What specifically is wrong? jb |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"reddred" wrote in message ...
"caveplayer" wrote in message om... Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK. I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122 into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved alot of time messing around with placement. So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the 603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions?? What specifically is wrong? thanks for a sensible question. Well let me put it simply, It (the recording) doesn't sound as good as is does to my ears while playing. It seems to lack depth. The classical guitar has some beautiful nuances that the mics are just not catching. They reproduce the mids very well but the rest is lacking. jb |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:59:51 -0500, caveplayer wrote
(in article ) : "reddred" wrote in message ... "caveplayer" wrote in message om... Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK. I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122 into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved alot of time messing around with placement. So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the 603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions?? What specifically is wrong? thanks for a sensible question. Well let me put it simply, It (the recording) doesn't sound as good as is does to my ears while playing. It seems to lack depth. The classical guitar has some beautiful nuances that the mics are just not catching. They reproduce the mids very well but the rest is lacking. jb Well THAT sounds like the mics, preamps and A/D converters. You may have to kick it up a notch equipment-wise. The best way to do that might be to go to a real studio. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
reddred wrote:
I can't make the 603's sound decent in my living room without a bunch of goboes and some gating, which defeats the purpose. In your average untreated house, the more directional the mic the better IMO. The 603's are pretty wide. For many acoustic music recording situations it's not enough for a mic to sound acceptable on-axis. So much off-axis sound must be part of the capture for anything realisitic, i.e., not your ear in the soundhole, that the off-axis performance becomes really important. Hence the difference between 603's and Schoeps, Josephson, etc. Most home recordists are looking for 'the best condensor mic' etc. but the irony is that good dynamic mics often get much better results. Indeed. Lots of folks would be better off with a pair of 57's and an RNP to get their mic positioning act together and thereafter pinpoint what they'd prefer in better mics. -- ha |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
hank alrich wrote: For many acoustic music recording situations it's not enough for a mic to sound acceptable on-axis. So much off-axis sound must be part of the capture for anything realisitic, i.e., not your ear in the soundhole, that the off-axis performance becomes really important. Hence the difference between 603's and Schoeps, Josephson, etc. I hear this an awful lot but has anyone made an attempt to measure and quantify these particular differences between the good and the bad? In theory, you don't get anything like independat control of on-axis and off-axis responses of a design. The overall geometry, of which there is little variation in design, determines how one morphs into the other. I think this is one of those things that has been hardened into fact by repitition, not science. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Cain wrote:
hank alrich wrote: For many acoustic music recording situations it's not enough for a mic to sound acceptable on-axis. So much off-axis sound must be part of the capture for anything realisitic, i.e., not your ear in the soundhole, that the off-axis performance becomes really important. Hence the difference between 603's and Schoeps, Josephson, etc. I hear this an awful lot but has anyone made an attempt to measure and quantify these particular differences between the good and the bad? In theory, you don't get anything like independat control of on-axis and off-axis responses of a design. The overall geometry, of which there is little variation in design, determines how one morphs into the other. Yes, some folks have, and Sank's JAES paper has some discussion of it. And yes, the difficulty in controlling off-axis response is part of why it's become a problem. Note that response in the right-left plane is more important that response in the top-down direction. Remember if you are recording with a coincident pair, the center of the stereo image where the most important stuff is, is way off-axis. Maybe as much as 60 degrees off-axis. I think this is one of those things that has been hardened into fact by repitition, not science. If your primary signal source is 60' off-axis, it would seem clear that response at that point was important. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Cain wrote:
hank alrich wrote: For many acoustic music recording situations it's not enough for a mic to sound acceptable on-axis. So much off-axis sound must be part of the capture for anything realisitic, i.e., not your ear in the soundhole, that the off-axis performance becomes really important. Hence the difference between 603's and Schoeps, Josephson, etc. I hear this an awful lot but has anyone made an attempt to measure and quantify these particular differences between the good and the bad? In theory, you don't get anything like independat control of on-axis and off-axis responses of a design. The overall geometry, of which there is little variation in design, determines how one morphs into the other. Yes, some folks have, and Sank's JAES paper has some discussion of it. And yes, the difficulty in controlling off-axis response is part of why it's become a problem. Note that response in the right-left plane is more important that response in the top-down direction. Remember if you are recording with a coincident pair, the center of the stereo image where the most important stuff is, is way off-axis. Maybe as much as 60 degrees off-axis. I think this is one of those things that has been hardened into fact by repitition, not science. If your primary signal source is 60' off-axis, it would seem clear that response at that point was important. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
hank alrich wrote: For many acoustic music recording situations it's not enough for a mic to sound acceptable on-axis. So much off-axis sound must be part of the capture for anything realisitic, i.e., not your ear in the soundhole, that the off-axis performance becomes really important. Hence the difference between 603's and Schoeps, Josephson, etc. I hear this an awful lot but has anyone made an attempt to measure and quantify these particular differences between the good and the bad? In theory, you don't get anything like independat control of on-axis and off-axis responses of a design. The overall geometry, of which there is little variation in design, determines how one morphs into the other. I think this is one of those things that has been hardened into fact by repitition, not science. Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:03:59 -0500, hank alrich wrote
(in article ): reddred wrote: I can't make the 603's sound decent in my living room without a bunch of goboes and some gating, which defeats the purpose. In your average untreated house, the more directional the mic the better IMO. The 603's are pretty wide. For many acoustic music recording situations it's not enough for a mic to sound acceptable on-axis. So much off-axis sound must be part of the capture for anything realisitic, i.e., not your ear in the soundhole, that the off-axis performance becomes really important. Hence the difference between 603's and Schoeps, Josephson, etc. Absolutely. Not every mic sounds as good off-axis as on. And remember, even though the mic is pointing AT the instrument. it's still picking up off-axis sound from the instrument that is bouncing around the room. (the sound, that is, not the instrument.) Very few home environments sound pretty. As such, eliminating the room's nasty reflections is an improvement. That's where a couple of Schoeps cmc641 shine. They ignore the room and still sound sweet. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Ty Ford wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:03:59 -0500, hank alrich wrote (in article ): reddred wrote: I can't make the 603's sound decent in my living room without a bunch of goboes and some gating, which defeats the purpose. In your average untreated house, the more directional the mic the better IMO. The 603's are pretty wide. For many acoustic music recording situations it's not enough for a mic to sound acceptable on-axis. So much off-axis sound must be part of the capture for anything realisitic, i.e., not your ear in the soundhole, that the off-axis performance becomes really important. Hence the difference between 603's and Schoeps, Josephson, etc. Absolutely. Not every mic sounds as good off-axis as on. And remember, even though the mic is pointing AT the instrument. it's still picking up off-axis sound from the instrument that is bouncing around the room. (the sound, that is, not the instrument.) Very few home environments sound pretty. As such, eliminating the room's nasty reflections is an improvement. That's where a couple of Schoeps cmc641 shine. They ignore the room and still sound sweet. Regards, Ty Ford I have found a single LDC(I am using a 4050) positioned at mouth level slanted slightly down like a 103 does a very good job of vocal and guitar at the same time g |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Ty Ford wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:03:59 -0500, hank alrich wrote (in article ): reddred wrote: I can't make the 603's sound decent in my living room without a bunch of goboes and some gating, which defeats the purpose. In your average untreated house, the more directional the mic the better IMO. The 603's are pretty wide. For many acoustic music recording situations it's not enough for a mic to sound acceptable on-axis. So much off-axis sound must be part of the capture for anything realisitic, i.e., not your ear in the soundhole, that the off-axis performance becomes really important. Hence the difference between 603's and Schoeps, Josephson, etc. Absolutely. Not every mic sounds as good off-axis as on. And remember, even though the mic is pointing AT the instrument. it's still picking up off-axis sound from the instrument that is bouncing around the room. (the sound, that is, not the instrument.) Very few home environments sound pretty. As such, eliminating the room's nasty reflections is an improvement. That's where a couple of Schoeps cmc641 shine. They ignore the room and still sound sweet. Regards, Ty Ford I have found a single LDC(I am using a 4050) positioned at mouth level slanted slightly down like a 103 does a very good job of vocal and guitar at the same time g |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:03:59 -0500, hank alrich wrote
(in article ): reddred wrote: I can't make the 603's sound decent in my living room without a bunch of goboes and some gating, which defeats the purpose. In your average untreated house, the more directional the mic the better IMO. The 603's are pretty wide. For many acoustic music recording situations it's not enough for a mic to sound acceptable on-axis. So much off-axis sound must be part of the capture for anything realisitic, i.e., not your ear in the soundhole, that the off-axis performance becomes really important. Hence the difference between 603's and Schoeps, Josephson, etc. Absolutely. Not every mic sounds as good off-axis as on. And remember, even though the mic is pointing AT the instrument. it's still picking up off-axis sound from the instrument that is bouncing around the room. (the sound, that is, not the instrument.) Very few home environments sound pretty. As such, eliminating the room's nasty reflections is an improvement. That's where a couple of Schoeps cmc641 shine. They ignore the room and still sound sweet. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Then book some time in a decent studio, shut up, and play your guitar.
Well that sort of sums it up, and you are right! problem is, i will never be able to play a piece clean in a studio. I'd have to book it for a week to get all the stuff i want recorded. But thanks, that's probably the best advice i got on this post. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:04:55 -0500, caveplayer wrote
(in article ) : Then book some time in a decent studio, shut up, and play your guitar. Well that sort of sums it up, and you are right! problem is, i will never be able to play a piece clean in a studio. I'd have to book it for a week to get all the stuff i want recorded. But thanks, that's probably the best advice i got on this post. Not a problem. If your ego can stand it , you can do pickups and a good engineer can edit them together flawlessly. I do it all the time. The only problem I've run into is if the performer can't play the piece the same way so I can find a good edit point. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:12:48 -0500, Mike T. wrote
(in article ): On 7 Nov 2004 18:49:34 -0800, (caveplayer) wrote: Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK. I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122 into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved alot of time messing around with placement. So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the 603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions?? You don't say what it is about the recorded guitar sound that doesn't make you completely happy. So I'll guess. The MXL603s is not bad, but it does have an artificial brightness. Some classical guitarists are very sensitive to the plasticky sound of the 1st string. Using mics that have a bright top end usually makes that even worse. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Mike T. wrote in message . ..
On 7 Nov 2004 18:49:34 -0800, (caveplayer) wrote: Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK. I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122 into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved alot of time messing around with placement. So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the 603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions?? You don't say what it is about the recorded guitar sound that doesn't make you completely happy. So I'll guess. The MXL603s is not bad, but it does have an artificial brightness. I've never listened to a Tascam us122, but I'll have to guess that it's the weak link. The sound of a guitar can include some extreme transients. A preamp with little headroom will clip and distort them. It is, of course, a very transient distortion, but it dan destroy the magic that you're looking for. Try a better preamp. For starters, see if you can borrow a better preamp. The problem could be in the A/D converters in the us122. Mike T. please see my reply to the other guy about the specific problem. Basically, it's just not capturing the full range of sound that my ears hear. And people (not you), stop telling me it's the room, the room is superb, at least to my ears. thanks! |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"caveplayer" wrote in message
om... Mike T. wrote in message . .. On 7 Nov 2004 18:49:34 -0800, (caveplayer) wrote: Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK. I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122 into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved alot of time messing around with placement. So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the 603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions?? You don't say what it is about the recorded guitar sound that doesn't make you completely happy. So I'll guess. The MXL603s is not bad, but it does have an artificial brightness. I've never listened to a Tascam us122, but I'll have to guess that it's the weak link. The sound of a guitar can include some extreme transients. A preamp with little headroom will clip and distort them. It is, of course, a very transient distortion, but it dan destroy the magic that you're looking for. Try a better preamp. For starters, see if you can borrow a better preamp. The problem could be in the A/D converters in the us122. Mike T. please see my reply to the other guy about the specific problem. Basically, it's just not capturing the full range of sound that my ears hear. And people (not you), stop telling me it's the room, the room is superb, at least to my ears. thanks! Maybe you need to place the microphones where your ears are. That's really the only spot where the instrument sounds like you hear it. Steve King |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve King" wrote in message
... please see my reply to the other guy about the specific problem. Basically, it's just not capturing the full range of sound that my ears hear. And people (not you), stop telling me it's the room, the room is superb, at least to my ears. thanks! Maybe you need to place the microphones where your ears are. That's really the only spot where the instrument sounds like you hear it. Lest you think he's being sarcastic...he isn't. A microphone up above the guitar, at about head level, pointing down, can get remarkable results. A pair of them, on either side, can do well too. However...I don't know of any recording system, with any microphone, that can capture everything your ears hear. I don't care what you use, it will not sound the same. You can get recordings that sound wonderful, that communicate the joy and sorrow of your music, that are sumptuous and rich and warm and sparkly and all the things a good guitar can be, but they'll still be less than what your ears hear. In some ways, the art and science of recording and playback are still pretty darn primitive. Oh, and rooms that sound wonderful to the player are often dreadful for recording. Microphones don't hear the way people do. That said, you can have a lot of fun. Let's start with a basic question: what are the dimensions of your room, and is it carpeted? Peace, Paul |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message
... "Steve King" wrote in message ... please see my reply to the other guy about the specific problem. Basically, it's just not capturing the full range of sound that my ears hear. And people (not you), stop telling me it's the room, the room is superb, at least to my ears. thanks! Maybe you need to place the microphones where your ears are. That's really the only spot where the instrument sounds like you hear it. Lest you think he's being sarcastic...he isn't. A microphone up above the guitar, at about head level, pointing down, can get remarkable results. A pair of them, on either side, can do well too. You're right. I wasn't being sarcastic. However, even putting the microphone(s) where you're ears are will not duplicate what your ears hear. Paul talks about some of the reasons below. Another factor is the polar response of microphones vs. the polar frequency response of your ears. The 'room' you hear is different than the 'room' the microphone hears. Cardioid mics, typically, will accentuate this difference; however, even many omni capsules are not really omni throughout the frequency spectrum. Fussy is good. But, physics is physics. Steve King However...I don't know of any recording system, with any microphone, that can capture everything your ears hear. I don't care what you use, it will not sound the same. You can get recordings that sound wonderful, that communicate the joy and sorrow of your music, that are sumptuous and rich and warm and sparkly and all the things a good guitar can be, but they'll still be less than what your ears hear. In some ways, the art and science of recording and playback are still pretty darn primitive. Oh, and rooms that sound wonderful to the player are often dreadful for recording. Microphones don't hear the way people do. That said, you can have a lot of fun. Let's start with a basic question: what are the dimensions of your room, and is it carpeted? Peace, Paul |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Stamler" wrote in message ...
"Steve King" wrote in message ... Lest you think he's being sarcastic...he isn't. A microphone up above the guitar, at about head level, pointing down, can get remarkable results. A pair of them, on either side, can do well too. However...I don't know of any recording system, with any microphone, that can capture everything your ears hear. I don't care what you use, it will not sound the same. You can get recordings that sound wonderful, that communicate the joy and sorrow of your music, that are sumptuous and rich and warm and sparkly and all the things a good guitar can be, but they'll still be less than what your ears hear. In some ways, the art and science of recording and playback are still pretty darn primitive. Oh, and rooms that sound wonderful to the player are often dreadful for recording. Microphones don't hear the way people do. That said, you can have a lot of fun. Let's start with a basic question: what are the dimensions of your room, and is it carpeted? Peace, Paul OK, let me rephrase that. It doesn't sound as good as other classical guitar recordings i have on disk. You know, like professional ones. I'm afraid I'll get pounced on when i describe the 'room' but here it goes. I sit on the top of a stairway in a hallway facing the stairs, all stairs and floors carpeted, ceiling is about 20 feet high in front of me but about 9 feet high above my head. it's too complicated to describe dimensions further than this because the stairway curves around. Nonetheless, the acoustic sweetspot of my house. There is a little reverb from the hall but not too much. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Stamler" wrote:
However...I don't know of any recording system, with any microphone, that can capture everything your ears hear. I don't care what you use, it will not sound the same. You can get recordings that sound wonderful, that communicate the joy and sorrow of your music, that are sumptuous and rich and warm and sparkly and all the things a good guitar can be, but they'll still be less than what your ears hear. In some ways, the art and science of recording and playback are still pretty darn primitive. Oh you got THAT right buddy. I recently threw on a Telarc CD right after a live concert. Ich. Never listen to a recording right after listening to live music. The recording sound nice, but it sure doesn't sound anything like the real thing. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Stamler" wrote:
However...I don't know of any recording system, with any microphone, that can capture everything your ears hear. I don't care what you use, it will not sound the same. You can get recordings that sound wonderful, that communicate the joy and sorrow of your music, that are sumptuous and rich and warm and sparkly and all the things a good guitar can be, but they'll still be less than what your ears hear. In some ways, the art and science of recording and playback are still pretty darn primitive. Oh you got THAT right buddy. I recently threw on a Telarc CD right after a live concert. Ich. Never listen to a recording right after listening to live music. The recording sound nice, but it sure doesn't sound anything like the real thing. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe you need to place the microphones where your ears are. That's really
the only spot where the instrument sounds like you hear it. Steve King Bingo! We have a winner! Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Ty Ford wrote in message ...
Maybe you need to place the microphones where your ears are. That's really the only spot where the instrument sounds like you hear it. Steve King Bingo! We have a winner! OK, i'm going to try to rent some mikes. I'm afraid if i go to a studio and it sounds great i'm going to drain my kids college savings and end up in studioholics anonymous. Also I realize alot of you are connected with that business so of course you're going to tell me to go there. By the way, i did some more expreiments with micing last night and i found a nice setting was one mic about 2 feet from the 12th fret, another about 2 feet from the bridge pointing slightly away, but at that distance I really don't need 2 mics anyway. I still say, it sounds fantastic to my ears no matter what blutarski (belushi) thinks. One reason i need the hall (here's some more chum) is because the artificial reverb i have in cakewalk sucks! At least, after an hour of playing with the 1000 controls they have i could not find a good setting. It all sounded fake to me. By the way, i have many classical guitar disks that were recorded in churches (like some of the Naxos guitar series) and they sound great, so you don't really need a studio. Thanks for all the great advice, I'll keep you posted whether you like it or not. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Ty Ford wrote in message ...
Maybe you need to place the microphones where your ears are. That's really the only spot where the instrument sounds like you hear it. Steve King Bingo! We have a winner! OK, i'm going to try to rent some mikes. I'm afraid if i go to a studio and it sounds great i'm going to drain my kids college savings and end up in studioholics anonymous. Also I realize alot of you are connected with that business so of course you're going to tell me to go there. By the way, i did some more expreiments with micing last night and i found a nice setting was one mic about 2 feet from the 12th fret, another about 2 feet from the bridge pointing slightly away, but at that distance I really don't need 2 mics anyway. I still say, it sounds fantastic to my ears no matter what blutarski (belushi) thinks. One reason i need the hall (here's some more chum) is because the artificial reverb i have in cakewalk sucks! At least, after an hour of playing with the 1000 controls they have i could not find a good setting. It all sounded fake to me. By the way, i have many classical guitar disks that were recorded in churches (like some of the Naxos guitar series) and they sound great, so you don't really need a studio. Thanks for all the great advice, I'll keep you posted whether you like it or not. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"caveplayer" wrote in message
om Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK. I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a Tascam us122 into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved alot of time messing around with placement. Let's play a game called "know your mics". IME, the most notable thing about MXL 603s is that they are broad cardioids. Therefore, when you work with them you get a lot more *room* in the track than you would get with more typical, narrower cardioids. If the room is good, then picking up room is a good thing. If the room is problematical, well then you probably don't want to use 603s. To me, the important thing is having alternatives. With *JUST* 603's your life is a one-option feasibility study. IME with mics, there is no such thing as one-size-fits-all. If there was, then a mic like the 603 might be a good choice because it is reasonably flat, has some directivity, and is not especially noisy. OTOH, the 603 is a horrid hand-held vocal mic, for example. Put it on a stand with a good pop filter, and it can do some nice stuff. When I was looking for a true cardioid to be an alternative to 603s for live sound, for better or worse I picked CAD 95s (current model = CAD 195, a slightly different mic). No surprise to me, I ended up using lot more 95s (8 used all the time) than 603s (4 used less frequently). They have an appreciably narrower true cardioid pickup pattern, and they have really good shock and handling noise resistance. They are designed to be a close-working vocal mic, but they are sensitive enough and warm enough to be used over longer distances. These mics cost me an average of $75 each after a few months of picking them off when they showed up on eBay. No big investment, but performers like them, and they work for me. When I was looking for a true omni to be an alternative to 603s for live sound, for better or worse I picked Behringer ECM 8000s. They are incredibly omni. In a live sound context, such residual background noise issues as they may have, are not problematical. I'm probably one of the just three people in the universe who use omnis for live sound but they can work in some contexts. Note, an omni is going to prone to being noisy, even if they are electrically quiet. I learned that after using DPA 1006s for about 18 months. Again, the 8000s are relatively uncolored mics. So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your money, souncard or mic. Mics are very strong determining factors in sound color and sound quality. Note, these are different things. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the 603. What gives there? IME Guitar Center is a good place to stay away from. I can't buy an $3 XLR connector or $1300 studio monitors in less than an hour, mostly spend waiting around for too-little staff to deal with customers who don't know what they want. Their staff does not impress me and I would never rely on them for purchasing advice anyhow, so the time is a total loss. Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions?? If I had to do it all over again, and I had only a pair of 603s, I'd pick up a pair of 8000s and a pair of 195s and see where they took me. I'd do the purchases online, even if it turned out that Musican's Friend (Guitar Center in online drag) turned out to be the retailer of choice. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:00:10 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions?? Spending a few hundred on a mic won't help. You have to aim higher. You have been advised by others that a KM84 works very nicely. It does. So do Schoeps. They are in the over $1000 range. You have an antagonistic circumstances. Great guitar, not so great recording gear/space. You are a player and not a recording facility. Accept that you may not be able to do it all to get the sound you want. Settle for less, or pay more. It's a simple thing really, we all deal with it. This is a no-brainer. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:00:10 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions?? Spending a few hundred on a mic won't help. You have to aim higher. You have been advised by others that a KM84 works very nicely. It does. So do Schoeps. They are in the over $1000 range. You have an antagonistic circumstances. Great guitar, not so great recording gear/space. You are a player and not a recording facility. Accept that you may not be able to do it all to get the sound you want. Settle for less, or pay more. It's a simple thing really, we all deal with it. This is a no-brainer. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"caveplayer" wrote in message
om Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK. I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a Tascam us122 into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved alot of time messing around with placement. Let's play a game called "know your mics". IME, the most notable thing about MXL 603s is that they are broad cardioids. Therefore, when you work with them you get a lot more *room* in the track than you would get with more typical, narrower cardioids. If the room is good, then picking up room is a good thing. If the room is problematical, well then you probably don't want to use 603s. To me, the important thing is having alternatives. With *JUST* 603's your life is a one-option feasibility study. IME with mics, there is no such thing as one-size-fits-all. If there was, then a mic like the 603 might be a good choice because it is reasonably flat, has some directivity, and is not especially noisy. OTOH, the 603 is a horrid hand-held vocal mic, for example. Put it on a stand with a good pop filter, and it can do some nice stuff. When I was looking for a true cardioid to be an alternative to 603s for live sound, for better or worse I picked CAD 95s (current model = CAD 195, a slightly different mic). No surprise to me, I ended up using lot more 95s (8 used all the time) than 603s (4 used less frequently). They have an appreciably narrower true cardioid pickup pattern, and they have really good shock and handling noise resistance. They are designed to be a close-working vocal mic, but they are sensitive enough and warm enough to be used over longer distances. These mics cost me an average of $75 each after a few months of picking them off when they showed up on eBay. No big investment, but performers like them, and they work for me. When I was looking for a true omni to be an alternative to 603s for live sound, for better or worse I picked Behringer ECM 8000s. They are incredibly omni. In a live sound context, such residual background noise issues as they may have, are not problematical. I'm probably one of the just three people in the universe who use omnis for live sound but they can work in some contexts. Note, an omni is going to prone to being noisy, even if they are electrically quiet. I learned that after using DPA 1006s for about 18 months. Again, the 8000s are relatively uncolored mics. So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your money, souncard or mic. Mics are very strong determining factors in sound color and sound quality. Note, these are different things. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the 603. What gives there? IME Guitar Center is a good place to stay away from. I can't buy an $3 XLR connector or $1300 studio monitors in less than an hour, mostly spend waiting around for too-little staff to deal with customers who don't know what they want. Their staff does not impress me and I would never rely on them for purchasing advice anyhow, so the time is a total loss. Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions?? If I had to do it all over again, and I had only a pair of 603s, I'd pick up a pair of 8000s and a pair of 195s and see where they took me. I'd do the purchases online, even if it turned out that Musican's Friend (Guitar Center in online drag) turned out to be the retailer of choice. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
mic location for classical guitar??? | Pro Audio | |||
mic location for classical guitar??? | Pro Audio | |||
Mic Questions | Pro Audio | |||
Microphone to record vocals + classical & acoustic guitar | Pro Audio | |||
mic placement for classical guitar | Pro Audio |