Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
Ahhhhh too many questions...........
First off, if it was me I wouldn't add another mic, I might even remove one of the ones you are using now. What are you using for a pre amp now? A good pre amp will help alot. Just watch out for the not so good pre amps and the starved tube, so called tube mic pres. Yes you can get a good mic for under $1000, even under $800. It probably won't have a tube in it though. To get a decent tube mic it's gonna cost you over $1000 though, more like 2x's that minimum. Possibly if you have to have a tube you could dig up something like a AKG C61, even a Neumann/gefell M582 will only run you about $700, and the M94 capsule would be good on the acoustic guitar. If it was me doing it, first off I'd get a good tube pre, before I got a good tube mic. The 2 ch Peavy is a real tube pre and runs about $600-700 used on ebay. A Telefunken/tab/seimens V77 module would be better, but then you need to add phantom power, and some way to attenuate it(like a shure variable pad), and a step up transformer as well. I say keep the SM81's, they aren't that bad. Used in X/Y your going to get minimal if any phase cancelation. Now take your $1000 and get a good, REAL tube pre amp. If you dont' know which ones are real or not, ask here, I"M sure some one will recomend one in your price range(like the Peavey) Twist Turner http://tinyurl.com/ul70 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
Ahhhhh too many questions...........
First off, if it was me I wouldn't add another mic, I might even remove one of the ones you are using now. What are you using for a pre amp now? A good pre amp will help alot. Just watch out for the not so good pre amps and the starved tube, so called tube mic pres. Yes you can get a good mic for under $1000, even under $800. It probably won't have a tube in it though. To get a decent tube mic it's gonna cost you over $1000 though, more like 2x's that minimum. Possibly if you have to have a tube you could dig up something like a AKG C61, even a Neumann/gefell M582 will only run you about $700, and the M94 capsule would be good on the acoustic guitar. If it was me doing it, first off I'd get a good tube pre, before I got a good tube mic. The 2 ch Peavy is a real tube pre and runs about $600-700 used on ebay. A Telefunken/tab/seimens V77 module would be better, but then you need to add phantom power, and some way to attenuate it(like a shure variable pad), and a step up transformer as well. I say keep the SM81's, they aren't that bad. Used in X/Y your going to get minimal if any phase cancelation. Now take your $1000 and get a good, REAL tube pre amp. If you dont' know which ones are real or not, ask here, I"M sure some one will recomend one in your price range(like the Peavey) Twist Turner http://tinyurl.com/ul70 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
What is your recording set up, tape? Computer? A good 2' 24Trk can sound
"Bigger" than a Pro Tools Computer... BIG sound comes from your ARRANGEMENT your PLAYING your ROOM your Equipment your MIX and mastering... Takes a long time to get this stuff down... Hang in there... -- Steven Sena XS Sound www.xssound.com "Steven Dillon" wrote in message news:EFcvb.109$Yt4.31@lakeread05... Hello, First, I must say that this is my first post on this group. I have been reading your archives and sifting through searches for some help. It seems that what I am looking for is far too subjective for any one answer. Given that (and my general lack of knowledge regarding microphones) I have decided to come ask the experts for some opinions or maybe just some plain old guidance. I am a solo acoustic fingerstyle guitarist and my story is that I want a "bigger" guitar sound for my next CD. For my debut CD I used two SM81's in X/Y. It's a decent sound, but it's not big enough. So, I am considering adding another mic to the mix. I know Jon Best posts around these parts - Jon helped me put together my home studio. Other folks where Jon used to work have told me over the years that tube mics can make a guitar sound as big as a grand piano! For me, that would be exactly what I am looking for. Just for a bit more background information, I also mic my amps and use the direct outs as input right to the board. So the tracks are composed from all of the inputs (unplugged and amplified). What's the problem? Well, I need some help or guidance as to just where to start. Your archives are full of, "let your ears decide", "there is no one mic that fits every solution or every guitar", "some mics when run through the right pre sound better than a tube mic", etc... The more I read, the more I became confused about where I should even be starting this journey... Here's a couple of questions that I fully understand may have about 100 answers that all begin with, "that depends". Are there any non-tube mics that compare well (sound wise) to tube mics? If I buy a tube mic, do you recommend using a pre-amp? What exactly is the "right" pre-amp going to give me that I have yet to capture using my SM81's by themselves and should I consider getting a pre-amp for my SM81's? About how much does a "good" pre-amp that would work with the SM81's cost (keep in mind this is for a home studio on a budget)? If I am only ever going to record acoustic guitar, can anyone recommend a few large diaphram condensers mics that are generally real good for that purpose? Can I buy a "good" large diaphram condenser for less than $1000? How about less than $600? Am I even pointing in the right direction here - that is, am I looking in the wrong place for a bigger sound? Is adding another mic to the mix (one that will surely give more depth to my sound) the right way to approach the problem or is this just a matter of getting the mix right? Sorry for the inane, neophyte questions you've seen 1000 times before, but I think if someone can just help me eliminate choices, give me a few good things to keep in mind, or a product line to investigate, I'll be much better off than I am right now... Thanks in advance for any help you can give. Regards, Steven Dillon http://www.stevendillon.com http://mp3.com/stevendillon |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
Hello,
First, I must say that this is my first post on this group. I have been reading your archives and sifting through searches for some help. It seems that what I am looking for is far too subjective for any one answer. Given that (and my general lack of knowledge regarding microphones) I have decided to come ask the experts for some opinions or maybe just some plain old guidance. I am a solo acoustic fingerstyle guitarist and my story is that I want a "bigger" guitar sound for my next CD. For my debut CD I used two SM81's in X/Y. It's a decent sound, but it's not big enough. So, I am considering adding another mic to the mix. I know Jon Best posts around these parts - Jon helped me put together my home studio. Other folks where Jon used to work have told me over the years that tube mics can make a guitar sound as big as a grand piano! For me, that would be exactly what I am looking for. Just for a bit more background information, I also mic my amps and use the direct outs as input right to the board. So the tracks are composed from all of the inputs (unplugged and amplified). What's the problem? Well, I need some help or guidance as to just where to start. Your archives are full of, "let your ears decide", "there is no one mic that fits every solution or every guitar", "some mics when run through the right pre sound better than a tube mic", etc... The more I read, the more I became confused about where I should even be starting this journey... Here's a couple of questions that I fully understand may have about 100 answers that all begin with, "that depends". Are there any non-tube mics that compare well (sound wise) to tube mics? If I buy a tube mic, do you recommend using a pre-amp? What exactly is the "right" pre-amp going to give me that I have yet to capture using my SM81's by themselves and should I consider getting a pre-amp for my SM81's? About how much does a "good" pre-amp that would work with the SM81's cost (keep in mind this is for a home studio on a budget)? If I am only ever going to record acoustic guitar, can anyone recommend a few large diaphram condensers mics that are generally real good for that purpose? Can I buy a "good" large diaphram condenser for less than $1000? How about less than $600? Am I even pointing in the right direction here - that is, am I looking in the wrong place for a bigger sound? Is adding another mic to the mix (one that will surely give more depth to my sound) the right way to approach the problem or is this just a matter of getting the mix right? Sorry for the inane, neophyte questions you've seen 1000 times before, but I think if someone can just help me eliminate choices, give me a few good things to keep in mind, or a product line to investigate, I'll be much better off than I am right now... Thanks in advance for any help you can give. Regards, Steven Dillon http://www.stevendillon.com http://mp3.com/stevendillon |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
In Article EFcvb.109$Yt4.31@lakeread05, "Steven Dillon"
wrote: Hello, First, I must say that this is my first post on this group. I have been reading your archives and sifting through searches for some help. It seems that what I am looking for is far too subjective for any one answer. Given that (and my general lack of knowledge regarding microphones) I have decided to come ask the experts for some opinions or maybe just some plain old guidance. Steven, Guitars that sound great in air often don't record well and vice versa. ALthough your post is quite detailed. I doubt if anyone could really solve your problem without knowing (hearing) what you're getting and dealing with understanding what you think you want. "Not big enough" can be interpreted in so many different ways that no single solution exists. What you're likely to get is a list of, "Here's what I do." which may or may not solve your problem. Could be your guitar just doesn't record well. Could be the mics in the wrong place, could be its the wrong mic in the wrong place. Could be a combination of all or some of the previous. Could be your expectations are impossible to meet. So far, little has beat the sound I get from a Schoeps CMC641 on acoustic guitar. I have a short sample of that in the audio archive on my site. I also have an mp3 of a Gefell M296 omni that really impressed me. See if that's what you like. Regards, Ty Ford **Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address. Please remove it if you want to email me directly. For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews, click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
Hello Steven. Welcome to the party.
I've got a whole lot of thoughts about your situation, but which point is most important is hard to say since I don't know what your recordings actually sound like now. First of all, those SM81s are more than capable of recording some huge-sounding acoustic guitar. The best acoustic guitar recording I've ever done was with a pair of SM81s. Which is somewhat of a coincidence, since I am able to make great recordings with a other mikes as well. But you do not need a tube in there, and acoustic guitar does not in any way benefit from using "big" microphones (large-diaphragm condensers or any gimmicky junk with an oversized body). The secret lies largely with technique, but before that I would suggest a few other things: Get rid of your DI channels. And did you say AMPS? If you want a recording of an acoustic guitar that sounds "huger," you need to record THE GUITAR and ONLY the guitar. You might think adding "more guitar" tracks will give you a "bigger" sound, but it really does just the opposite. If you take the time to listen extensively and closely, you'll start to learn that FEWER microphones makes for a BIGGER sound. A pickup will detract from the sound in the same way as another microphone (due to slight timing differences which cause phase cancellations). Besides that, there is not an acoustic guitar pickup in the world that sounds like a REAL acoustic guitar. Stick with the microphone(s). This is critical if you want a realistic, natural guitar sound. This is true of all acoustic instruments, including drums, cello, an entire orchestra, or whatever. I once had a client's friend tell me, "But if the drums sound good with four microphones, just imagine how much better they'll sound with like twelve!" To which I replied, "If they sound good with four mikes, just imagine how much better they'll sound with ONE!" The mic preamp you choose can be an obstacle if it's real junk or if it doesn't load the microphones properly, but it's a rather minor point relative to a lot of other factors you should worry about first. The most important is mic placement. After that, you can still make the guitar sound "larger than life" by using some gentle compression. Also: The idea that tube gear (microphones, preamps, or compressors) sound "bigger" or "warmer" than solid state gear is a myth. Tube circuits that are implemented well are very clean. Crappy tube circuits add distortion. Most tube circuits use transformers, which are responsible for the "warmth" associated with tube gear, but there are plenty of solid state preamps that use tubes also. But forget about gear for a while. Let's talk about mic placement. Okay, so I would say only use one microphone, except you want a stereo recording, so no I'll say you should only use two microphones. For acoustic guitar with a pair of cardioids, I think it makes the most sense to arrange them in an "XY" coincident pattern. A narrowly spaced pair (ORTF) could work too, but there are some reasons I'll get to shortly why XY will probably be better for you. In an XY arrangement, you put the capsules of the two microphones as close together as you can get them, without causing excessive acoustic interference between them. In a practical sense, this means that the capsules will be almost touching, but arranged in a way such that neither mic casts an acoustic "shadow" on the other. The effect is that the two microphones pick up sound from effectively the same location, so there are no timing differences between them. The stereo image is due only to intensity differences caused by their directional pickup patterns and the fact that they're angled 90 to 120 degrees apart. Okay, now you have the microphone "assembly" and you have to figure out where to put it. This is where the whole "let your ears be the guide" thing kicks in. Everybody has their own favorite spot. While one person plays the guitar, another person needs to move around with one finger in their ear until they find the "magic" spot. It will depend on the room, the guitar, and the player. It might be straight out in front of the player; it might be over their shoulder pointing downward; it might be a bit to the left or right or high or low. You'll find out for yourself. But one important consideration is how far away from the guitar you place the microphones. An acoustic guitar is a rather large, oddly shaped resonator and it produces a variety of tones from various parts of its whole. If you shove the mikes up against the sound hole, you will not record the "whole" guitar. You'll get some thin trebly stuff from the strings, and a bunch of boomy, woofy junk from the sound hole, and you'll be missing a whole lot of "body." It's important to pull back far enough from the instrument to capture its entirety. Three issues arise with pulling away from the instrument. First of all, directional microphones exhibit a tendency called "proximity effect" which is a low-frequency boost on signals arriving from very nearby. This is generally considered a good thing because it adds a sense of body and richness that can enhance a recording. It can add a "sense" of realism that makes up for the REAL sense of realism you lose by virtue of not seeing the performance you're listening to a recording of. Anyway, you pull away too far and you lose the proximity effect. Secondly, when you pull the pair of microphones further away, your stereo image of the guitar gets narrower because the "angular separation" between one end of the guitar and the other appears smaller, from the perspective of the microphone. Since there's not a whole lot of stereo information there in the first place, you kind of want to keep what you can. Thirdly, as you pull away from the guitar, the ratio of direct sound to reflected sound hitting the microphones will decrease. You'll hear the room more; or as a greater portion of the overal sound. In a bad-sounding room this is a bad thing. But if you're recording acoustic guitar in a bad-sounding room, you're pretty well ****ed anyway. In a good-sounding room, you'll love hearing the whole room excited by the guitar and THIS is where that "bigness" (like a grand piano, you said?) comes from. You'll get some new "stereo" information because the room sound is being recorded in stereo. You will lose some high-frequency crispness as the reflections add (and subtract) with the direct sound, but it will sound realistic. In the right room, that realism is a good thing. Okay, so what will finally be the "correct" distance from the microphones to the guitar? That's another thing I can't answer for you. It depends mostly on the room, but also on the directionality of the microphones, the tonality of the guitar, and of course your personal tastes. In most cases anything less than a foot is going to be too close, and anything more than about six feet will probably be too much for you. If you started at two and a half feet, you could then assess whether you're hearing too much room tone. Okay, so let me reach back to my mention of spaced cardioids for a minute. There's an "official" technique called ORTF which is a pair of cardioids spaced something like 90 or 100cm apart, and angled slightly away from one another. This was primarily used for orchestral work, but you could use it to record acoustic guitar as well. The catch, in my opinion, is that in order for it to be effective, it would have to be placed much further away from the source than what we've been discussing. Since the microphones are spaced, there will be phase cancellations between them on any sounds arriving from the side. If the microphones are too close to the guitar, overtones coming off the far ends of the guitar will hit the microphones obliquely, and there will be a very slight time delay between them, which can cause realism-shattering phase discrepancies. In summation, Steven, let me suggest that you save your money for a while and in the meantime experiment much more with choice of venue and microphone placement. A single pair of microphones in front of an acoustic guitar into a digital recorder is a fairly portable situation, so you should be able to take a few field trips to find out what some local temple has to offer; or a friend's living room; or the locker room down at the YMCA, or whatever. In the meantime, you can save up your money so that if you DO end up buying another piece of gear to help your recording process, you can take your time figuring out what it ought to be, and hopefully have the budget to buy the best tool for the job. Great River preamp. ulysses In article EFcvb.109$Yt4.31@lakeread05, Steven Dillon wrote: Hello, First, I must say that this is my first post on this group. I have been reading your archives and sifting through searches for some help. It seems that what I am looking for is far too subjective for any one answer. Given that (and my general lack of knowledge regarding microphones) I have decided to come ask the experts for some opinions or maybe just some plain old guidance. I am a solo acoustic fingerstyle guitarist and my story is that I want a "bigger" guitar sound for my next CD. For my debut CD I used two SM81's in X/Y. It's a decent sound, but it's not big enough. So, I am considering adding another mic to the mix. I know Jon Best posts around these parts - Jon helped me put together my home studio. Other folks where Jon used to work have told me over the years that tube mics can make a guitar sound as big as a grand piano! For me, that would be exactly what I am looking for. Just for a bit more background information, I also mic my amps and use the direct outs as input right to the board. So the tracks are composed from all of the inputs (unplugged and amplified). What's the problem? Well, I need some help or guidance as to just where to start. Your archives are full of, "let your ears decide", "there is no one mic that fits every solution or every guitar", "some mics when run through the right pre sound better than a tube mic", etc... The more I read, the more I became confused about where I should even be starting this journey... Here's a couple of questions that I fully understand may have about 100 answers that all begin with, "that depends". Are there any non-tube mics that compare well (sound wise) to tube mics? If I buy a tube mic, do you recommend using a pre-amp? What exactly is the "right" pre-amp going to give me that I have yet to capture using my SM81's by themselves and should I consider getting a pre-amp for my SM81's? About how much does a "good" pre-amp that would work with the SM81's cost (keep in mind this is for a home studio on a budget)? If I am only ever going to record acoustic guitar, can anyone recommend a few large diaphram condensers mics that are generally real good for that purpose? Can I buy a "good" large diaphram condenser for less than $1000? How about less than $600? Am I even pointing in the right direction here - that is, am I looking in the wrong place for a bigger sound? Is adding another mic to the mix (one that will surely give more depth to my sound) the right way to approach the problem or is this just a matter of getting the mix right? Sorry for the inane, neophyte questions you've seen 1000 times before, but I think if someone can just help me eliminate choices, give me a few good things to keep in mind, or a product line to investigate, I'll be much better off than I am right now... Thanks in advance for any help you can give. Regards, Steven Dillon http://www.stevendillon.com http://mp3.com/stevendillon |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
I think ulysses' comments are on the money, especially the part about getting
rid of the pickup signal and ONLY recording from the microphones. I often record guitars in XY, and it gives me a good, naturalistic recording. But if you want a bigger-than-life sound, and am not worried about mono compatibility or radio readiness, try spacing the microphones apart, pointing one at the fingerboard around the 16th fret, the other one just below the bridge. They should be parallel to one another, and equidistant from the guitar; experiment to find what distance works for you. Again this is NOT natural, but boy, can it sound big. SM81s can do fine with this setup. By the way, something very important: what kind of guitar are you playing -- make and model? Peace, Paul |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
"Steven Sena" wrote in message ... What is your recording set up, tape? Computer? A good 2' 24Trk can sound Hey Steven, I use an Alesis XT-20 ADAT... Not too bad for what I can afford... "Bigger" than a Pro Tools Computer... I haven't used a computer for anything recording related... Yet... BIG sound comes from your ARRANGEMENT your PLAYING your ROOM your Equipment your MIX and mastering... Ok.. I only have control of some of those things... Takes a long time to get this stuff down... That's the understatement of the last year!! It really is an art much like playing an instrument. All that a musician can really bring to the equation is that they, hopefully, have a fairly well trained ear. The rest of it is like learning a whole new, and very different, instrument... :-\ Thanks, Steven Dillon http://www.stevendillon.com http://mp3.com/stevendillon |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1069379915k@trad... Generally when people want a "bigger" sound, they want to hear something on the recording that isn't there on the guitar. A mic won't help. You need to start messing with signal processing tricks, doubling and tripling your guitar parts, playing with short delays, reverberation, comprssion of low level signals, and generally commit all sorts of mayhem to get something that doesn't sound like your guitar, but sounds like what you wished it would. Hey Mike, I thought that there might be a little of that going on as well. Seems like there are about 400 different variables all of which matter in the end and only an expert like yourself knows how all of the pieces fit together. Someone like me trying to do this in their home, has a real tough time learning enough about the various aspects to be able to pull it off and get a decent sound... I'm thinking that I might just find me someone that can play all of those games during the mixing process. I can do the best I can at capturing the sound and spend my time getting things right (I like to record in single takes - over dubbing and fixing things is not my idea of recording, but that's a whole other topic) without it costing a small fortune like it would in a good studio. And, then, let someone who really knows how to paint with sound, put the pictures together! Thanks, Steven Dillon http://www.stevendillon.com http://mp3.com/stevendillon |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
"Ty Ford" wrote in message
... In Article EFcvb.109$Yt4.31@lakeread05, "Steven Dillon" Guitars that sound great in air often don't record well and vice versa. ALthough your post is quite detailed. I doubt if anyone could really solve your problem without knowing (hearing) what you're getting and dealing with understanding what you think you want. Hey Ty, I have tunes up on MP3.com and Real Audio (they are pretty crappy) on my own site. Though I'm not even sure if MP3.com is active any more. I guess if I had to pick something to compare it to, it would be Preston Reed's sound in his latest Handwritten Notes or maybe some of Don Ross's stuff (Huron Street or Passion Session). Those CD's feature pretty large sounding guitars. Both artists also use an amplified sound blended with their acoustic sound. For my stuff, and some of theirs as well, you simply MUST use the amplified sound to capture all of the nuances of some of the techniques involved. An example would be false harmonics that are tapped. No mic will be able to reproduce that sound because it barely exists in the air and surrounding area of the guitar. It takes an amplifier to hear it... What you're likely to get is a list of, "Here's what I do." which may or may not solve your problem. Could be your guitar just doesn't record well. Could I think that there is some of that going on... My Webber is pretty thin sounding, but that's what I was after for that guitar as well. It sounds fast... be the mics in the wrong place, could be its the wrong mic in the wrong place. Could be a combination of all or some of the previous. Could be your expectations are impossible to meet. Hah... That would be a first! ;-) I always expect and want the impossible. But, in the end, that can be a good thing because even though I might not get there, I'll likely get close to where I wanted to be and I'll be WAY better off than having not tried at all to improve what I can get... So far, little has beat the sound I get from a Schoeps CMC641 on acoustic guitar. I have a short sample of that in the audio archive on my site. I also have an mp3 of a Gefell M296 omni that really impressed me. See if that's what you like. Thanks for the samples. That was good to hear. Were these just the mics all by themselves (no pre-amp or adding in delay between the left and right sides)? Thanks for everything, Steven Dillon http://www.stevendillon.com http://mp3.com/stevendillon |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
Ulysses,
Thanks man! This is some of the best information I have seen anywhere on recording acoustic guitar! This one is going in my archive!! See my comments and further questions interspersed below... "Justin Ulysses Morse" wrote in message m... Hello Steven. Welcome to the party. I've got a whole lot of thoughts about your situation, but which point is most important is hard to say since I don't know what your recordings actually sound like now. First of all, those SM81s are more than capable of recording some huge-sounding acoustic guitar. The best acoustic guitar recording I've ever done was with a pair of SM81s. Which is somewhat of a coincidence, since I am able to make great recordings with a other mikes as well. But you do not need a tube in there, and acoustic guitar does not in any way benefit from using "big" microphones (large-diaphragm condensers or any gimmicky junk with an oversized body). The secret lies largely with technique, but before that I would suggest a few other things: Get rid of your DI channels. And did you say AMPS? If you want a recording of an acoustic guitar that sounds "huger," you need to record THE GUITAR and ONLY the guitar. You might think adding "more guitar" tracks will give you a "bigger" sound, but it really does just the opposite. If you take the time to listen extensively and closely, Yikes.... That hurts to hear... I'm afraid I'm stuck with needing my amps... :-( There are certain techniques that I use that I don't believe a microphone can pick up. Not many, mind you, but a few. And enough to where I'll need an input to the board from an amp to hear it. Perhaps this is just a matter of shaping the mix afterwards. Make the sound big without the amp on the parts where adding the amp will take away from the sound, and then put the amp in where the opposite is true... Does that make sense? you'll start to learn that FEWER microphones makes for a BIGGER sound. A pickup will detract from the sound in the same way as another microphone (due to slight timing differences which cause phase cancellations). Besides that, there is not an acoustic guitar pickup in the world that sounds like a REAL acoustic guitar. Stick with the So true, so true... Now, with that point agreed upon, I'll say that I'm not necessarily after the "true" acoustic sound. It's a tad more raw than that... More like Preston Reed's sound... It's got balls that an unplugged acoustic guitar just doesn't have. microphone(s). This is critical if you want a realistic, natural guitar sound. This is true of all acoustic instruments, including Right, so what rules can we bend or how does the playing field change if we allow for a sound that is sort of real but still has elements of being amplified? drums, cello, an entire orchestra, or whatever. I once had a client's friend tell me, "But if the drums sound good with four microphones, just imagine how much better they'll sound with like twelve!" To which I replied, "If they sound good with four mikes, just imagine how much better they'll sound with ONE!" I can try taking some of the inputs away and see if I can get the sound to be bigger. I had not thought of that until reading this! The mic preamp you choose can be an obstacle if it's real junk or if it doesn't load the microphones properly, but it's a rather minor point relative to a lot of other factors you should worry about first. The most important is mic placement. After that, you can still make the guitar sound "larger than life" by using some gentle compression. I don't think my compressor is good enough to make a difference. It's an el'cheapo Alesis that came with my studio in box... But, that is something that I could have a real studio apply during the mix down, yes? Also: The idea that tube gear (microphones, preamps, or compressors) sound "bigger" or "warmer" than solid state gear is a myth. Tube circuits that are implemented well are very clean. Crappy tube circuits add distortion. Most tube circuits use transformers, which are responsible for the "warmth" associated with tube gear, but there are plenty of solid state preamps that use tubes also. But forget about gear for a while. Let's talk about mic placement. Okay, so I would say only use one microphone, except you want a stereo recording, so no I'll say you should only use two microphones. For acoustic guitar with a pair of cardioids, I think it makes the most sense to arrange them in an "XY" coincident pattern. A narrowly spaced pair (ORTF) could work too, but there are some reasons I'll get to shortly why XY will probably be better for you. In an XY arrangement, you put the capsules of the two microphones as close together as you can get them, without causing excessive acoustic interference between them. In a practical sense, this means that the capsules will be almost touching, but arranged in a way such that neither mic casts an acoustic "shadow" on the other. The effect is that the two microphones pick up sound from effectively the same location, so there are no timing differences between them. The stereo image is due only to intensity differences caused by their directional pickup patterns and the fact that they're angled 90 to 120 degrees apart. Okay, now you have the microphone "assembly" and you have to figure out where to put it. This is where the whole "let your ears be the guide" thing kicks in. Everybody has their own favorite spot. While one person plays the guitar, another person needs to move around with one finger in their ear until they find the "magic" spot. It will depend on the room, the guitar, and the player. It might be straight out in front of the player; it might be over their shoulder pointing downward; it might be a bit to the left or right or high or low. You'll find out for yourself. But one important consideration is how far away from the guitar you place the microphones. An acoustic guitar is a rather large, oddly shaped resonator and it produces a variety of tones from various parts of its whole. If you shove the mikes up against the sound hole, you will not record the "whole" guitar. You'll get some thin trebly stuff from the strings, and a bunch of boomy, woofy junk from the sound hole, and you'll be missing a whole lot of "body." It's important to pull back far enough from the instrument to capture its entirety. Three issues arise with pulling away from the instrument. First of all, directional microphones exhibit a tendency called "proximity effect" which is a low-frequency boost on signals arriving from very nearby. This is generally considered a good thing because it adds a sense of body and richness that can enhance a recording. It can add a "sense" of realism that makes up for the REAL sense of realism you lose by virtue of not seeing the performance you're listening to a recording of. Anyway, you pull away too far and you lose the proximity effect. Secondly, when you pull the pair of microphones further away, your stereo image of the guitar gets narrower because the "angular separation" between one end of the guitar and the other appears smaller, from the perspective of the microphone. Since there's not a whole lot of stereo information there in the first place, you kind of want to keep what you can. Thirdly, as you pull away from the guitar, the ratio of direct sound to reflected sound hitting the microphones will decrease. You'll hear the room more; or as a greater portion of the overal sound. In a bad-sounding room this is a bad thing. But if you're recording acoustic guitar in a bad-sounding room, you're pretty well ****ed anyway. In a good-sounding room, you'll love hearing the whole room excited by the guitar and THIS is where that "bigness" (like a grand piano, you said?) comes from. You'll get some new "stereo" information because the room sound is being recorded in stereo. You will lose some high-frequency crispness as the reflections add (and subtract) with the direct sound, but it will sound realistic. In the right room, that realism is a good thing. Okay, so what will finally be the "correct" distance from the microphones to the guitar? That's another thing I can't answer for you. It depends mostly on the room, but also on the directionality of the microphones, the tonality of the guitar, and of course your personal tastes. In most cases anything less than a foot is going to be too close, and anything more than about six feet will probably be too much for you. If you started at two and a half feet, you could then assess whether you're hearing too much room tone. Okay, so let me reach back to my mention of spaced cardioids for a minute. There's an "official" technique called ORTF which is a pair of cardioids spaced something like 90 or 100cm apart, and angled slightly away from one another. This was primarily used for orchestral work, but you could use it to record acoustic guitar as well. The catch, in my opinion, is that in order for it to be effective, it would have to be placed much further away from the source than what we've been discussing. Since the microphones are spaced, there will be phase cancellations between them on any sounds arriving from the side. If the microphones are too close to the guitar, overtones coming off the far ends of the guitar will hit the microphones obliquely, and there will be a very slight time delay between them, which can cause realism-shattering phase discrepancies. Excellent information - should be in a FAQ someplace if it isn't already! In summation, Steven, let me suggest that you save your money for a while and in the meantime experiment much more with choice of venue and microphone placement. A single pair of microphones in front of an acoustic guitar into a digital recorder is a fairly portable situation, so you should be able to take a few field trips to find out what some local temple has to offer; or a friend's living room; or the locker room down at the YMCA, or whatever. In the meantime, you can save up your money so that if you DO end up buying another piece of gear to help your recording process, you can take your time figuring out what it ought to be, and hopefully have the budget to buy the best tool for the job. Great River preamp. There is a golden rule that audiophiles apply to mixing and matching components in high end stereo systems - the pieces have to match in quality or the higher piece will point out weaknesses in a lower piece. For example, running a boom box into $25,000 speakers shows that the output from the boom box stinks... You basically have to try to find equivalent gear (spec wise) and pair them together for the best sound. Does that rule apply to recording too? In other words, if I was to put my money towards a Great River and keep my Alesis studio in a box (using an Alesis XT-20 ADAT), is the pre-amp going to be so good that it will expose system wide weaknesses? Thanks for everything, you have been very helpful... Regards, Steven Dillon http://www.stevendillon.com http://mp3.com/stevendillon |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
"P Stamler" wrote in message ... I think ulysses' comments are on the money, especially the part about getting rid of the pickup signal and ONLY recording from the microphones. Hello Paul, Even if that is something that can be eliminated during mix down? I mean the amps and the mics are coming in on separate tracks. Getting rid of one just means not using that track in the mix down... Unless having it there to begin with somehow causes problems? I often record guitars in XY, and it gives me a good, naturalistic recording. But if you want a bigger-than-life sound, and am not worried about mono compatibility or radio readiness, try spacing the microphones apart, pointing one at the fingerboard around the 16th fret, the other one just below the bridge. They should be parallel to one another, and equidistant from the guitar; experiment to find what distance works for you. Again this is NOT natural, but boy, can it sound big. SM81s can do fine with this setup. Cool... Sounds like I'm going to have to really spend some time monkeying around with where I put the mics... By the way, something very important: what kind of guitar are you playing -- make and model? Well, there will be three of them again actually... They all have slightly diffirent voices. Huss And Dalton - Custom CM (Rosewood/Englemann) big, deep voice. Webber - Custom (Flamed Maple/Cedar) thin, fast voice. Huss And Dalton - Custom CM (Walnut/Englemann) mid range, big voice. Regards, Steven Dillon http://www.stevendillon.com http://mp3.com/stevendillon |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
In Article 4oCvb.507$Yt4.137@lakeread05, "Steven Dillon"
wrote: So far, little has beat the sound I get from a Schoeps CMC641 on acoustic guitar. I have a short sample of that in the audio archive on my site. I also have an mp3 of a Gefell M296 omni that really impressed me. See if that's what you like. Thanks for the samples. That was good to hear. Were these just the mics all by themselves (no pre-amp or adding in delay between the left and right sides)? Thanks for everything, Steven Dillon The solo guitar track .wav is one mic one guitar. The mp3 is one mic one time recording both voice and guitar. Each mic always requires a preamp. There are no effects on either track. Regards, Ty **Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address. Please remove it if you want to email me directly. For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews, click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
in article sUCvb.509$Yt4.246@lakeread05, Steven Dillon at
wrote on 11/22/03 12:56 AM: Well, there will be three of them again actually... They all have slightly diffirent voices. Huss And Dalton - Custom CM (Rosewood/Englemann) big, deep voice. Webber - Custom (Flamed Maple/Cedar) thin, fast voice. Huss And Dalton - Custom CM (Walnut/Englemann) mid range, big voice. Regards, Steven Dillon http://www.stevendillon.com http://mp3.com/stevendillon Steven, Your herd of instruments are not going to be the problem whatsoever. Most of the pros that post here deal with lower quality guitars from their clients (e.g., Martin or Taylor). It does sound like you want to blend two high quality stereo tracks from mics and a pickup track to pick up the specialized items (slapping harmonics, tapping, etc.) Consider running a Sunrise into a nice tube DI into a separate track. Michael Hedges' Aerial Boundaries was recorded in four channels : a pair of Neumann KM84s as a spaced pair (6' apart), a Neumann U67 in the center, back 6' or so, and a Sunrise. Can't remember what pres were used. -- Stephen T. Boyke |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1069508660k@trad... Perhaps what Paul and Justin were thinking is that the sound of a pickup is often thin and doesn't have the wood and resonance that Hey Mike, I would agree with that statement. They have yet to design a pickup that can accurately produce the "true" sound of an acoustic guitar. Mind you, they're close, but they aren't all the way there yet... Maybe it just isn't possible. For me, that's OK though... I don't need or want a "pure" acoustic sound. I like it with a touch of electricity going through it. In some cases a whole lot of electricity and some effects that give it an ethereal tone is just what a certain tune needs. makes a guitar sound big. If you're getting more of the sound that you want from a microphone on the amplifier cabinet, then start with that, and see what happens when you mix in some of the direct pickup sound, as well as the acoustic sound from a mic or two on the guitar. Right, but again, we're talking about during the mix down process, yes? Either that or I'm missing something here. If all of those sources come in on separate tracks, then it seems reasonable that the adding in that you are talking about happens when you bring it back from the tape and prepare it for mixing. One thing that's very helpful when experimenting with a mix of different paths from the same source is to keep things well isolated - make sure that the mic that's picking up the sound of the guitar body picks up negilgable sound from the amplifier. That will make mixing the two much more controllable. A good way to do this is to get some cables that are long enough so that you can put the amplifier in another room. You can hear the sound of the amplifier while you're recording by adding it to the headphone mix. Yep, that's exactly what I'm doing. Did that on the first CD too. The bathroom is just big enough to squeeze everything into it and the door closes so the sound mostly stays in there. It is now officially part of the studio... ;-) If hearing the amplifier sound isn't essential to your playing, you might try the "re-amp" technique, where you record (among other things) the direct sound from the pickup, and then when you're mixing, feed this to an amplifier and record a new track with a mic on the amplifier. This will help you in two ways. First, it will assure that the amplifier track is completely isolated from any other track. Second, it will allow you to play with different settings on the amplifier and experiment with how those contribute to your total guitar mix. You can even use different effects between the playback of the pickup track and the amplifier so you can record tracks each with different reverb settings, one that's clean, one that's distorted, one with a chorus, a few different delays. Wow, that sounds like a very cool technique! I wonder how you would get the two sound sources to be sync'd time-wise? Does this require two recorders that are somehow in sync with each other? While it might not be the sound that you're after, few people have as "big" an acoustic sound as Leo Kottke. I read an article about his rig (similar for live and recording) and he mixes about nine sources. You just have to play around and listen at every turn. Not sure if it was here or not, but I read a post where the guy was saying that since this business of getting your sound right is so wide open that there is probably a case for just about everything or anything that you can come up with. In other words, if you can think it up, someone has probably already tried it - and it may have worked. I know Richard Leo Johnson was telling me that for his first CD they used like 18 different mics! They had mics all over the place. In the room at diffirent heights, on the amp, in the room where the amp was, several on the guitar, more mics than he had ever heard of being used before. And the sound is incredible! But, I'm sure that the end result had a whole lot to do with the engineer that took all of those sources and figured out how and at what level of each of them needed to be brought back from the tape. The mixing process had to have been the key. Especially since this phase cancellation that everyone has been talking about must have gotten in the way. Regards, Steven Dillon http://www.stevendillon.com http://mp3.com/stevendillon |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
"Stephen Boyke" wrote in message ... Your herd of instruments are not going to be the problem whatsoever. Most of the pros that post here deal with lower quality guitars from their clients (e.g., Martin or Taylor). It does sound like you want to blend two high quality stereo tracks from mics and a pickup track to pick up the specialized items (slapping harmonics, tapping, etc.) Consider running a Sunrise into a nice tube DI into a separate track. Michael Hedges' Aerial Boundaries was recorded in four channels : a pair of Neumann KM84s as a spaced pair (6' apart), a Neumann U67 in the center, back 6' or so, and a Sunrise. Can't remember what pres were used. Hey Stephen, Ah, yes, Aerial Boundaries! Michael could get a big sound! Especially on tunes like Aerial Boundaries and Rickover's Dream... God that's good stuff... He changed the world of acoustic guitar forever with that CD!! Just thinking about it while writing this, I had to go put it on so I can listen to it. I had never even heard of Michael while he was alive. I'm sort of a second generation Michaels Hedges player; that is, the guys that have influenced my playing were influenced by Michael... I kept hearing so much about the guy that I decided to check him out. I watched a video that he had taped at Will's house (some party they were throwing) and was completely and totally taken.. :-0 I must have watched it like 100 times at work, over and over... I just couldn't believe the groove that he had (tune was Jitterboogie). I came home and ordered 3 of his CDs that night. Anyway, I do have a Sunrise on the Webber. But, I don't like it that much. It's too nasally (and I haven't been able to EQ that out of it). I only went that route because the Highlander that's also in the Webber has a really weak E string (1st). I use the Rane AP-13 to pull up the volume on the high side and balance it out with the Highlander. Now, the T.C. Electronics Stereo Chorus that Michael used, is a different story. They are fantastic! Nothing else I have tried even comes close. It's a little pricey, but worth it! When you talk about putting a mic back 6 feet from the player, how does the mic have enough input without a pre-amp? I got everything setup last night (the mics that I do have) and found that the SM81's need almost all the trim that's possible and I had to lift the input on the board a little too just to get them to have a respectable input level. I can't get either one of them to go green and they aren't that far from the guitar (14-16 inches). Compared to the Direct Out from the amps, which I had to turn nearly off to calm them down, I can barely hear the SM81's... :-/ Thanks, Steven Dillon http://www.stevendillon.com http://mp3.com/stevendillon |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Mic Questions
"Stephen Boyke" wrote in message ... All (well, nearly all) condenser mics need preamplification. You have preamps on your mixing board, along with phantom power (or else the SM81s wouldn't work). What model of board do you have. It doesn't sound right that you can't get enough gain out of the SM81s. Something sounds amiss. Hey Stephen, It's the "Alesis 24 studio in a box" board. I now know that the board does have pre-amps for the mics, and that not all pre-amps increase the level as much as my board does. I made sure that the attenuation was set to 0 on both SM81's and set both of them to roll the bass off. I can lift the input some more (I have room there), but I was afraid to do that just to get the meters to go green. I've been told that increasing the input of each mic at the board (the trim, which I'm assuming is the trim for the pre-amp, is already nearly wide open) is perfectly acceptable. So, more experimenting tonight... It's been fun... And, the sound is getting better, so I'm encouraged to keep trying to improve it. If you can think of anything that I'm doing wrong or something that may be wrong with my setup that would be lower the input coming from the 81's, I'm all ears. grin Thanks, Steven |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Audio Myths was "System I'm designing - two questions" | Car Audio | |||
Questions, questions, questions | Audio Opinions | |||
Seven Questions + | Audio Opinions | |||
questions that I just asked Behringer | Pro Audio | |||
Chrysler Neon Install...tech Questions | Car Audio |