Greetings-
For some time I have been watching the threads on recording acoustic
guitar.Really great advice floating around.

I have gotten two sm58s to finally do quite a pleasing job on acoustic
guitar recording---one mic @ 12th fret, one at bridge, both *really*
close. But I noticed that the signal is not what it could
be---(although tweaking it has not bruised the signal much).
Question: I use a ('60s-era?) Sunn 6-ch powered pa mixer to drive my
speakers.
After seeing lots of talk about mic preamps, I would like to know if
having that mixer linking microphones and Roland 2400 would be feasible
or foolhardy.
Thanks in advance

bonzadog wrote:

I have gotten two sm58s to finally do quite a pleasing job on acoustic
guitar recording---one mic @ 12th fret, one at bridge, both *really*
close. But I noticed that the signal is not what it could
be---(although tweaking it has not bruised the signal much).
Question: I use a ('60s-era?) Sunn 6-ch powered pa mixer to drive my
speakers.
After seeing lots of talk about mic preamps, I would like to know if
having that mixer linking microphones and Roland 2400 would be feasible
or foolhardy.

Well, it will work. That's a good first step, and there are some
wonderful recordings that were made on lesser equipment (Robert Johnson,
Django Reinhardt). But you can do much better.

I'd start with better mic pre's. While I'm not a snob about mic pre's,
you should be able to significantly clean up the sound without spending
too much money by getting a modern commodity small mixer (Mackie,
Behringer, Yamaha. etc. ). That's probably the biggest bang for buck
improvement. Next, I'd look at better mics than the venerable 58, but
now we're talking multiple hundreds (or thousands) of dollars.

After that, it's endless incremental improvements with diminishing
returns. How far do you want to take this?

//Walt

Walt wrote:
bonzadog wrote:

I have gotten two sm58s to finally do quite a pleasing job on acoustic
guitar recording---one mic @ 12th fret, one at bridge, both *really*
close. But I noticed that the signal is not what it could
be---(although tweaking it has not bruised the signal much).
Question: I use a ('60s-era?) Sunn 6-ch powered pa mixer to drive my
speakers.
After seeing lots of talk about mic preamps, I would like to know if
having that mixer linking microphones and Roland 2400 would be feasible
or foolhardy.

Well, it will work. That's a good first step, and there are some
wonderful recordings that were made on lesser equipment (Robert Johnson,
Django Reinhardt). But you can do much better.

I'd start with better mic pre's. While I'm not a snob about mic pre's,
you should be able to significantly clean up the sound without spending too much money by getting a modern commodity small mixer (Mackie,
Behringer, Yamaha. etc. ). That's probably the biggest bang for buck
improvement. Next, I'd look at better mics than the venerable 58, but
now we're talking multiple hundreds (or thousands) of dollars.

After that, it's endless incremental improvements with diminishing
returns. How far do you want to take this?

//Walt

I ask myself that everytime I purchase another piece of equipment. I'm
taking it in increments---3 parts self-education : 1 part spending.
I tend to absorb comments whereby responders such as yourself emphasize
that
quality is not *always* commensurate with $ outlay.
I appreciate the advice about the small preamp purchase. So you are
saying that I won't see smoke by temporarily using the Sunn config?
Regarding 58 replacement, the mind swoons at the choices. Saw a lot of
enthusiasm about the AKG D880. Bought one yesterday to see what the
excitement is about. I'll work my way up eventually.
Thanks, Walt

bonzadog wrote:
Walt wrote:

bonzadog wrote:
Question: I use a ('60s-era?) Sunn 6-ch powered pa mixer to drive my
speakers.
After seeing lots of talk about mic preamps, I would like to know if
having that mixer linking microphones and Roland 2400 would be feasible
or foolhardy.

I appreciate the advice about the small preamp purchase. So you are
saying that I won't see smoke by temporarily using the Sunn config?

Assuming that there is a line level output on the Sunn, you won't blow
up anything. You'll just be using 35 year old transistor gear that was
considered mediocre at the time. It'll work, but will hardly be the
best sound.

If all you have is a speaker level output, then you still won't see any
smoke, but you will probably find the result distorted, noisy, or both.


Regarding 58 replacement, the mind swoons at the choices. Saw a lot of
enthusiasm about the AKG D880. Bought one yesterday to see what the
excitement is about. I'll work my way up eventually.

If you're in the mood to spend money, a $40 Behringer mixer should
improve your situation much more than $40 worth. There are better units
available, of course, but at this price it's hard not to replace the Sunn.

//Walt

Walt wrote:

bonzadog wrote:

I have gotten two sm58s to finally do quite a pleasing job on acoustic
guitar recording---one mic @ 12th fret, one at bridge, both *really*
close. But I noticed that the signal is not what it could
be---(although tweaking it has not bruised the signal much).
Question: I use a ('60s-era?) Sunn 6-ch powered pa mixer to drive my
speakers.
After seeing lots of talk about mic preamps, I would like to know if
having that mixer linking microphones and Roland 2400 would be feasible
or foolhardy.

Your Sunn PA head will likely give a rather poor noise level but it'll surely
work adequately at least, if intended for low-Z mics. ( the key here typically
is 'does it have XLR inputs ? ' )


Well, it will work. That's a good first step, and there are some
wonderful recordings that were made on lesser equipment (Robert Johnson,
Django Reinhardt). But you can do much better.

I'd start with better mic pre's. While I'm not a snob about mic pre's,
you should be able to significantly clean up the sound without spending
too much money by getting a modern commodity small mixer (Mackie,
Behringer, Yamaha. etc. ).

Yes. A couple of mics needs only one of those really baby $60 ? jobs from
Behringer.

That's probably the biggest bang for buck
improvement. Next, I'd look at better mics than the venerable 58, but
now we're talking multiple hundreds (or thousands) of dollars.

Not at all. The 58 is such rubbish that buyers of our cheap Asian 'copy' of it
we sold for 1/3 the price of a '58 were actually preferred over the genuine item
by many customers for its improved clarity. !

Look at Sennheiser and AKG is my biased dvice.

Graham

Pooh Bear wrote:

Your Sunn PA head will likely give a rather poor noise level but it'll surely
work adequately at least, if intended for low-Z mics. ( the key here typically
is 'does it have XLR inputs ? ' )

I'd start with better mic pre's. While I'm not a snob about mic pre's,
you should be able to significantly clean up the sound without spending
too much money by getting a modern commodity small mixer (Mackie,
Behringer, Yamaha. etc. ).

Yes. A couple of mics needs only one of those really baby $60 ? jobs from
Behringer.

This is a very cost-effective way to go.


That's probably the biggest bang for buck
improvement. Next, I'd look at better mics than the venerable 58, but
now we're talking multiple hundreds (or thousands) of dollars.

Not at all. The 58 is such rubbish that buyers of our cheap Asian 'copy' of it
we sold for 1/3 the price of a '58 were actually preferred over the genuine item
by many customers for its improved clarity. !


It seems that the 58 works better for live sound than the cheaper
knock-off's since they are not as sensitive to popping and pick up less
noise for singers who like to eat (yuk!) the microphone. For recording,
however, there are much better choices for comparable prices.

jwvm wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

The 58 is such rubbish that buyers of our cheap Asian 'copy' of it
we sold for 1/3 the price of a '58 were actually preferred over the genuine item
by many customers for its improved clarity. !

It seems that the 58 works better for live sound than the cheaper
knock-off's since they are not as sensitive to popping and pick up less
noise for singers who like to eat (yuk!) the microphone.

It's also almost indestructible. I know a few ppl who wish that really wasn't so too !
You can never get shot of the damn things.

For recording,
however, there are much better choices for comparable prices.

So very, very true. Inexpensive electrets for example.

Graham