Hi,
I know this has probably been done to death many times .....

I'm recording my mate on his acoustic guitar in a couple of days, and
its just for him really, but I want it to sound as good as I can get it.
We aren't going anywhere special to record, so its basically my living
room (should be interesting making it silent enough ... !!! DAW *cough*
pipes *cough*).

I'm going to use a couple of C-42's on the acoustic guitar, and a U195
on vocals. I'm guessing he's going to want to play the guitar and sing
at the same time. Is the bleed between the mics going to cause me grief
do you think ? I'm worried about phase issues mainly.

Also, what stereo configuration is nice for acoustic guitar ? I've
researched a bit, one option seems to be 1 mic pointing at the 12th
fret, the other at the bridge.

I quiet like this idea because then you'll get the differences in sound
from the different parts of the guitar. Again though, I do worry about
phase.

Another is the coincident pair which eliminates the phase problems, but
the mics are right up at one end of the guitar, like the 12th fret, so
perhaps I won't get quiet a full range of sound.

Then there is distance apart, and distance from guitar. I don't want
the sound to change too much, but on the other hand its probably better
to be fairly close to the guitar, because I don't think the room will be
offering many favours.

Sorry to ask all this generic stuff, I know I should experiment, but
basically I've not used these mics yet, and he wants to record this
thursday night (only time he has available!) to give to his girlfriend
on sunday (birthday thing), so not much prep time really ! I just need
some "ball-park" areas to get me started.

Oh one final thing. I only have an exceptionally cheap pop filter (with
a crappy gooseneck that likes to slowly straighten itself). I'm worried
about it colouring the sound, worst case reducing clarity. Should I be
? Its soon to be replaced, but its all I have for thursday.

Cheers ! :-)

Mark.
--

In article , Mark wrote:

I'm going to use a couple of C-42's on the acoustic guitar, and a U195
on vocals. I'm guessing he's going to want to play the guitar and sing
at the same time. Is the bleed between the mics going to cause me grief
do you think ? I'm worried about phase issues mainly.

Try skipping the vocal mike and position a single pair to get both the
guitar and vocal. THEN once you get that down, look at trying to get
both of them seperately. It's much easier to get a good sound on the
first try this way because you don't have to worry about separation and
you are using the leakage as a tool.

Oh one final thing. I only have an exceptionally cheap pop filter (with
a crappy gooseneck that likes to slowly straighten itself). I'm worried
about it colouring the sound, worst case reducing clarity. Should I be
? Its soon to be replaced, but its all I have for thursday.

If you pull the mike back, popping becomes a non-issue. Of course, then
you get leakage. Life is just that way. Leakage can be your friend or
your enemy.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article writes:

I'm going to use a couple of C-42's on the acoustic guitar, and a U195
on vocals. I'm guessing he's going to want to play the guitar and sing
at the same time. Is the bleed between the mics going to cause me grief
do you think ? I'm worried about phase issues mainly.

Why not try setting up the C-42s as an X-Y pair and finding a spot
where you can get a good balance between the guitar and his voice, and
not so far away so that you pick up ugly ambience, and just go with
that. Saves lots of mixing time, and it will probably end up far
enough away from (or off axis from) his mouth so that a pop filter
won't be necessary.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Thanks to you both (Mike and Scott). I will experiment with your
suggestions, either way it'll be fun and a learning experience :-)

Cheers !

--
Mark Simonetti.
Freelance Software Engineer.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
Hi,
I know this has probably been done to death many times .....

I'm recording my mate on his acoustic guitar in a couple of days, and
its just for him really, but I want it to sound as good as I can get it.
We aren't going anywhere special to record, so its basically my living
room (should be interesting making it silent enough ... !!! DAW *cough*
pipes *cough*).

I'm going to use a couple of C-42's on the acoustic guitar, and a U195
on vocals. I'm guessing he's going to want to play the guitar and sing
at the same time. Is the bleed between the mics going to cause me grief
do you think ? I'm worried about phase issues mainly.

Also, what stereo configuration is nice for acoustic guitar ? I've
researched a bit, one option seems to be 1 mic pointing at the 12th
fret, the other at the bridge.

I quiet like this idea because then you'll get the differences in sound
from the different parts of the guitar. Again though, I do worry about
phase.

Another is the coincident pair which eliminates the phase problems, but
the mics are right up at one end of the guitar, like the 12th fret, so
perhaps I won't get quiet a full range of sound.

Then there is distance apart, and distance from guitar. I don't want
the sound to change too much, but on the other hand its probably better
to be fairly close to the guitar, because I don't think the room will be
offering many favours.

Sorry to ask all this generic stuff, I know I should experiment, but
basically I've not used these mics yet, and he wants to record this
thursday night (only time he has available!) to give to his girlfriend
on sunday (birthday thing), so not much prep time really ! I just need
some "ball-park" areas to get me started.

Oh one final thing. I only have an exceptionally cheap pop filter (with
a crappy gooseneck that likes to slowly straighten itself). I'm worried
about it colouring the sound, worst case reducing clarity. Should I be
? Its soon to be replaced, but its all I have for thursday.

Cheers ! :-)

Mark.
--

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:17:46 -0400, Mark wrote
(in article ) :

Thanks to you both (Mike and Scott). I will experiment with your
suggestions, either way it'll be fun and a learning experience :-)

Cheers !

--
Mark Simonetti.
Freelance Software Engineer.

Mark,

Do you have a good figure of eight?

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

one final thing. I only have an exceptionally cheap pop filter (with
a crappy gooseneck that likes to slowly straighten itself). I'm worried
about it colouring the sound, worst case reducing clarity. Should I be
? Its soon to be replaced, but its all I have for thursday.

Sheer Energy panty hose is thin enough to add very little coloration.

Peace,
Paul

Ty Ford wrote:
Do you have a good figure of eight?

Well I'm on a diet so... Oh ! I see. Nope I'm afraid not :-( Whats
your suggestion anyway for future reference ? I'm sure I'll have one
eventually.

--
Mark Simonetti.
Freelance Software Engineer.

"Mark Simonetti" wrote in message
...
Ty Ford wrote:
Do you have a good figure of eight?

Well I'm on a diet so... Oh ! I see. Nope I'm afraid not :-( Whats
your suggestion anyway for future reference ? I'm sure I'll have one
eventually.

The AT4050 is a good choice for figure-8 on a budget.

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

Hal Laurent wrote:
The AT4050 is a good choice for figure-8 on a budget.

I kinda meant what was the suggestion on how to use the figure-8 best
for the described scenerio.

Thanks for your input though 8-)

--
Mark Simonetti.
Freelance Software Engineer.

Paul Stamler wrote:
Sheer Energy panty hose is thin enough to add very little coloration.

And what about if your single ? I think a pair of y-fronts would add
too much colouration personally ;-)

--
Mark Simonetti.
Freelance Software Engineer.

In article ,
Mark Simonetti wrote:
Hal Laurent wrote:
The AT4050 is a good choice for figure-8 on a budget.

I kinda meant what was the suggestion on how to use the figure-8 best
for the described scenerio.

Figure-8 on the vocal, guitar in the null. If you have a second one,
put it on the guitar with the vocal in the null, but frankly guitar leakage
into the vocal mike tends to be more of a problem than vocal leakage into
the guitar mike. (On the other hand, unpleasant comb filtering on the
guitar will be less annoying than it will on the vocal).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Figure-8 on the vocal, guitar in the null. If you have a second one,
put it on the guitar with the vocal in the null, but frankly guitar leakage
into the vocal mike tends to be more of a problem than vocal leakage into
the guitar mike. (On the other hand, unpleasant comb filtering on the
guitar will be less annoying than it will on the vocal).
--scott

Thanks Scott, when I have figure-8's I will experiment with this. He
has said we might be able to do a scratch track and then re-record the
guitar and the vocals seperately.

If it ruins the feel, which is IMHO more important than quality, then
we'll perhaps settle for Mike's suggestion. In this case I will still
use the U195 just so I have another track to play with incase it
benefits in some way, won't hurt.

--
Mark Simonetti.
Freelance Software Engineer.

Mark Simonetti wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Figure-8 on the vocal, guitar in the null. If you have a second one,
put it on the guitar with the vocal in the null, but frankly guitar leakage
into the vocal mike tends to be more of a problem than vocal leakage into
the guitar mike. (On the other hand, unpleasant comb filtering on the
guitar will be less annoying than it will on the vocal).

Thanks Scott, when I have figure-8's I will experiment with this. He
has said we might be able to do a scratch track and then re-record the
guitar and the vocals seperately.

Barring the figure-8, the KMS105 has a hell of a tight pattern and can be
a remarkably good vocal mike in this sort of job.

If it ruins the feel, which is IMHO more important than quality, then
we'll perhaps settle for Mike's suggestion. In this case I will still
use the U195 just so I have another track to play with incase it
benefits in some way, won't hurt.

The problem with the U195 is that the pattern is very wide and sloppy.
This can be a good thing on an isolated vocal but it can be a bad thing
if you want separation. BUT, a single U195 for both guitar and vocals
can be great, if mono.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

.. BUT, a single U195 for both guitar and vocals
can be great, if mono.
--scott

Thats why I want to use the U195 on vocals rather than just record the
whole thing with the C-42's. I'm not saying that I don't think C-42
would do a good job on vocals, I just think the U195 will be warmer,
escpecially in FAT mode, and I generally like having the control from
seperation.

Oh and obviously far less important is that its new and I'm aching to
use it ;-)

I've recorded him with an SM57 in the past. I'm going to try both
because he may even prefer the SM57 (or the C-42). From what I've read
in this group, its not unheard of.

The RNPs seem to really bring my SM57s to life after previously using
the Mackie VLZ-Pro mixer.

--
Mark Simonetti.
Freelance Software Engineer.

Mark Simonetti wrote:
.. BUT, a single U195 for both guitar and vocals
can be great, if mono.

Thats why I want to use the U195 on vocals rather than just record the
whole thing with the C-42's. I'm not saying that I don't think C-42
would do a good job on vocals, I just think the U195 will be warmer,
escpecially in FAT mode, and I generally like having the control from
seperation.

So, record it in mono. There's nothing wrong with mono. Put the mike
up, move it up and down until you get a good balance of guitar and vocal,
move it forward and back until you get a good balance of room and source.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 08:24:59 -0400, Mark Simonetti wrote
(in article ):

Paul Stamler wrote:
Sheer Energy panty hose is thin enough to add very little coloration.

And what about if your single ? I think a pair of y-fronts would add
too much colouration personally ;-)



Scott already halfway answered my figure of eight thought. Another very nice
approach is to use one very good omni in exactly the right place. If you go
to my website, there's a file called m296 in which I used a gefell m296 omni
to capture both voice and guitar in one pass.

If you can keep very consistent playing and singing levels with a mic like
the m296, you'll get a VERY nice recording. Not all omnis sound this good.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

In article writes:

If you can keep very consistent playing and singing levels with a mic like
the m296, you'll get a VERY nice recording. Not all omnis sound this good.

Naw, that requires too much skill on the part of the talent. Besides,
how are you going to retune the vocal?

g of course



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Hal Laurent" a écrit dans le message de
...

"Mark Simonetti" wrote in message
...
Ty Ford wrote:
Do you have a good figure of eight?

Well I'm on a diet so... Oh ! I see. Nope I'm afraid not :-( Whats
your suggestion anyway for future reference ? I'm sure I'll have one
eventually.

The AT4050 is a good choice for figure-8 on a budget.

Hal Laurent
Baltimore



For affordable multi-pattern, you must also consider the Rode NT-2000.
It's the last addition to my mic closet, and I'm very pleased with it.

The 4050 is a honest and versatile mic, I use it since many years;
but I was very surprised to listen how well the NT-2000 stands against it in
A/B tests.

André

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:40:41 -0400, "andré tremblay"
wrote:


"Hal Laurent" a écrit dans le message de
...

"Mark Simonetti" wrote in message
...
Ty Ford wrote:
Do you have a good figure of eight?

Well I'm on a diet so... Oh ! I see. Nope I'm afraid not :-( Whats
your suggestion anyway for future reference ? I'm sure I'll have one
eventually.

The AT4050 is a good choice for figure-8 on a budget.

Hal Laurent
Baltimore



For affordable multi-pattern, you must also consider the Rode NT-2000.
It's the last addition to my mic closet, and I'm very pleased with it.

The 4050 is a honest and versatile mic, I use it since many years;
but I was very surprised to listen how well the NT-2000 stands against it in
A/B tests.

Would you care to characterize the results of your comparison between
the AT4050 and the NT-2000? I'm interested... ever try the "key
jangle" test with either of these mics?

Al