| Advice on mics for recording fingerstyle steelstring [6] |
|---|
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@netcom...>
Subject: Re: Advice on mics for recording fingerstyle steelstring
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 01:21:20 GMT
In article <<32DE4CB8.23D4@auburn...>> <roorr@auburn...> writes:
>I know this question has probably been answered many times, but I would
>like to get some advice on mics to use for an upcomming project. This
>will be solo steel string fingerstyle, with a fair dynamic range.The
>guitar is a Taylor 712 koa, which is a 000 size, smaller than the D
>size most people use for bluegrass. The tone of the guitar is well
>balanced, not too boomy. I have been told that the Shure SM 81 is a good
>mic to use. I was wondering if this is confirmed by those who know, and
>would there be any better mics to use in this price range, or slightly
>higher? Also, any mic placement techniques would be appreciated. I
>plan to use two mics direct to DAT.
The SM-81 sounds harsh to me, but a lot of people like it. The omni
version, the SM-80 is what I would tend to prefer, but although it's a lot
more balanced on the low end, it's still harsh on the top. The Crown CM-700
is a cardioid in the same price range that has a smoother top end but
like the SM-81 (or any cardioid) it will get boomy up close. Some of the
Audio-Technica omnis might be worth looking at. I use the B&K omnis and
like them a lot.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Derek Studios <derekstu@berkshire...>
Subject: Re: Advice on mics for recording fingerstyle steelstring
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 12:02:11 -0500
Organization: Derek Studios
Robert Orr wrote:
>
> I know this question has probably been answered many times, but I would
> like to get some advice on mics to use for an upcomming project. This
> will be solo steel string fingerstyle, with a fair dynamic range.The
> guitar is a Taylor 712 koa, which is a 000 size, smaller than the D
> size most people use for bluegrass. The tone of the guitar is well
> balanced, not too boomy. I have been told that the Shure SM 81 is a good
> mic to use. I was wondering if this is confirmed by those who know, and
> would there be any better mics to use in this price range, or slightly
> higher? Also, any mic placement techniques would be appreciated. I
> plan to use two mics direct to DAT.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Robert
Hey Robert
Your working with a nice instrument, that's half the story. You have to
capture an image that's solid and workable (in a mix) on tape. As you
know any instrument produces sound from & through it's whole body, so,
your task is to mic it in a way that conveys the
information that you ears need to construct a good image over speakers.
Microphones are one part of that process. Another thing is that ADAT
(digital in general) has less than ideal low level resolution, so you
need to accentuate that aspect of your mic/pre combination. The low
level stuff is what really lets you "hear through" the mics and
electronics.
That said, Shure SM-81s are not bad for guitar. I would generally not
use them for a primary guitar but they are fine for second guitars or
things that want to have an identity easy to separate in a mix. For a
Taylor I like to use a mic on the point where the neck meets the body.
Usually a Neumann KM-84, maybe an AKG 460. Angle it downward from
outside the point you're aiming toward. Then I grab a Beyer ribbon, 160
or even 260 for the wood side. Listen to the body there below the
bridge, find the spot that sounds most characteristic of the wood
element of the guitar and place the mic so it gets that and a little of
the bridge as well. If you have decent outboard mic pres us them, a
really good pair of tube pres, however, will make all the difference
especially going to ADAT. I generally use Telefunken V-76s's. Those are
amazing sounding and they are also the quietest preamps (good for the
ribbons) you'll run into.
If the guitar has a pickup, take a piece of that and print it. That
might be useful come mix time.
If your budget won't allow major purchases, maybe you can spring for a
decent ribbon to use with what you already have. that'll make you and
your customers happy. You don't have to go broke, you just have to keep
upgrading to satisfy your longing for sonic excellence and head towards
sounds that will inspire & differentiate you from your competition.
Greg Steele
chief engineer
Derek Studios
From: Orhay <orhay@aol...>
Subject: Re: Advice on mics for recording fingerstyle steelstring
Date: 21 Jan 1997 21:47:02 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Both Neumann KM 184s and AT 4051s (which I own)
sound great for acoustic guitar (are better than the SM 81 IMHO).
One technique with which Ive been experimenting is using
a quality dynamic mic (ie Sennheiser 441) in tandem with a
quality condensor. This seems to yield a fat hybrid sound
which you might enjoy.
Orrin Star
From: Marc Stager <ssound@ix...>
Subject: Re: Advice on mics for recording fingerstyle steelstring
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 01:43:00 -0500
Organization: Stager Sound Systems
Orhay wrote:
>
> Both Neumann KM 184s and AT 4051s (which I own)
> sound great for acoustic guitar (are better than the SM 81 IMHO).
>
> One technique with which Ive been experimenting is using
> a quality dynamic mic (ie Sennheiser 441) in tandem with a
> quality condensor. This seems to yield a fat hybrid sound
> which you might enjoy.
>
> Orrin Star
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In an interview a few years ago. I remeber Chet Atkins being
asked which microphone he considered best for an acoustic
steel string guitar.
He answered that his favorite microphone was an RCA ribbon,
not too close to the soundhole.
I've used an RCA BK5B on a Guild D-50 with beautiful results.
I think Chet knows what he's talking about.
_____________________________________________________ MS
From: Alan Salvin <asalvin@cyberus...>
Subject: Re: Advice on mics for recording fingerstyle steelstring
Date: 22 Jan 1997 06:02:24 GMT
Organization: Cyberus Online Inc.
I didn't see the original of this post, so that's why it looks like I'm
replying to a reply... ;-)
If you are recording direct to DAT and want a clear, natural sound on solo
guitar, you don't want to go messing with dissimilar mics for "wood" and
"neck" and so on as this dude suggests. I think he must have misread you
and assumes you are multitracking (note the reference to "mix time"!)
You need to take a look at how classical guitar recordings are done.
1. Find a room with nice sound (moderately to very reverberant, nice and
quiet). Many great recordings are done in small churches -- particularly
rural ones where noise is not a major problem (for example all of Julian
Bream's major recordings)
2. set up a near-coincident stereo pair of identical cardioid condenser
mics. I've had very good success with ORTF pair -- 17cm between capsules at
110 degree angle. Picks up very well relatively close (down to 4ft or even
less!) and has a 180 degree pickup angle. It's relatively easy to make a
jig that will hold the two mics in place on a single mic stand -- makes it
much easier to reposition without having to measure all over again -- and
note that the distance (between the _capsules_ themselves, remember) and
angle are CRITICAL. (There's lots more about various stereo arrays in
Woram)
3. Find the right spot for your player -- where there are no reflective
surfaces too close (except the floor -- if there is no carpeting you may
need to bring some to cover the area under him and extending almost to the
mics) Try various spots and listen for the room sound.
4. experiment with mic placement until you get the ideal sound. You can do
your preliminary sound check with your ears, then place your mics where
your head was when it sounded good, then work from there. The closer you
get, the less room ambience (reverb) and the more direct guitar. The
further back you go, the more the sound blends, but the less level you get.
As a basic starter, I recommend starting with mics higher than the guitar,
say 5-6ft up for a seated guitarist, and about 5ft away, mics angled down
toward the player. Run those mics through decent mic pres direct into the
DAT, discrete left and right, and it will sound as though you are there.
Clean, clear and detailed. Don't rush this part of the job -- it's worth
spending a whole session to get the sound just right. Use playback to
audition and compare, rather than just listening through phones. You might
even want to do test recordings in various setups, carefully noted, then
take them home to audition and choose carefully.
4. Make copious notes of your player position, mic position, distance,
levels etc etc etc and you will be able to reproduce the sound exactly for
subsequent sessions.
This works very well for small ensembles, too. Good luck!
Derek Studios <<derekstu@berkshire...>> wrote in article
<<32DFAFF9.13C7@berkshire...>>...
> Robert Orr wrote:
> >
> > I know this question has probably been answered many times, but I would
> > like to get some advice on mics to use for an upcomming project. This
> > will be solo steel string fingerstyle, with a fair dynamic range.The
> > guitar is a Taylor 712 koa, which is a 000 size, smaller than the D
> > size most people use for bluegrass. The tone of the guitar is well
> > balanced, not too boomy. I have been told that the Shure SM 81 is a
good
> > mic to use. I was wondering if this is confirmed by those who know,
and
> > would there be any better mics to use in this price range, or slightly
> > higher? Also, any mic placement techniques would be appreciated. I
> > plan to use two mics direct to DAT.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Robert
>
>
> Hey Robert
>
> Your working with a nice instrument, that's half the story. You have to
> capture an image that's solid and workable (in a mix) on tape. As you
> know any instrument produces sound from & through it's whole body, so,
> your task is to mic it in a way that conveys the
> information that you ears need to construct a good image over speakers.
> Microphones are one part of that process. Another thing is that ADAT
> (digital in general) has less than ideal low level resolution, so you
> need to accentuate that aspect of your mic/pre combination. The low
> level stuff is what really lets you "hear through" the mics and
> electronics.
> That said, Shure SM-81s are not bad for guitar. I would generally not
> use them for a primary guitar but they are fine for second guitars or
> things that want to have an identity easy to separate in a mix. For a
> Taylor I like to use a mic on the point where the neck meets the body.
> Usually a Neumann KM-84, maybe an AKG 460. Angle it downward from
> outside the point you're aiming toward. Then I grab a Beyer ribbon, 160
> or even 260 for the wood side. Listen to the body there below the
> bridge, find the spot that sounds most characteristic of the wood
> element of the guitar and place the mic so it gets that and a little of
> the bridge as well. If you have decent outboard mic pres us them, a
> really good pair of tube pres, however, will make all the difference
> especially going to ADAT. I generally use Telefunken V-76s's. Those are
> amazing sounding and they are also the quietest preamps (good for the
> ribbons) you'll run into.
> If the guitar has a pickup, take a piece of that and print it. That
> might be useful come mix time.
> If your budget won't allow major purchases, maybe you can spring for a
> decent ribbon to use with what you already have. that'll make you and
> your customers happy. You don't have to go broke, you just have to keep
> upgrading to satisfy your longing for sonic excellence and head towards
> sounds that will inspire & differentiate you from your competition.
>
>
> Greg Steele
>
> chief engineer
> Derek Studios
>
From: Jeff Olsen <jeffo@efn...>
Subject: Re: Advice on mics for recording fingerstyle steelstring
Date: 22 Jan 1997 02:13:38 -0800
Organization: Oregon Public Networking
>Robert Orr wrote:
>>
>> I know this question has probably been answered many times, but I would
>> like to get some advice on mics to use for an upcomming project. This
>> will be solo steel string fingerstyle, with a fair dynamic range.The
>> guitar is a Taylor 712 koa, which is a 000 size, smaller than the D
>> size most people use for bluegrass. The tone of the guitar is well
>> balanced, not too boomy. I have been told that the Shure SM 81 is a good
>> mic to use. I was wondering if this is confirmed by those who know, and
>> would there be any better mics to use in this price range, or slightly
>> higher? Also, any mic placement techniques would be appreciated. I
>> plan to use two mics direct to DAT.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Robert
I like AKG 460's better than SM-81's; they are considerably more detailed
and less colored to my ears. They are a couple huindred bucks more
apiece, too, and if that matter a lot them 81's are fine. A good or at
least decent outboard preamp will help enormously; in the cheaper price
range try the Rane, Symetrix, or the no-longer-made dbx 760x. In the
spendier range, the Millenia Media is regarded as perhape the most
uncolored pre out there. As far as preamps that add significant color,
there's a million of 'em.
Nuemann KM84's would be an alternative for just a little more $$$ than the
460's, although 460's are pretty damn good mics.
A larger diaphragm mic like an AKG 414, AT 4033, or AT 4050 has a beefier
sound, usually. With a flattop guitar, you will be rolling off bass end
anyway, most likely, or at least hunting for LF "humps", and for close
mic'ing small diaphragm condensers work better for me. A larger
diaphragm mic works better a little farther away; the AT 4033 makes a
great 500 dollar room mic; a little on the bright side but that is good
for a room mic..
As important as the mics and pres is the placement. A time-honored spot
is up near the neck/body joint 5 or 6 inches out from the soundboard.
Another is behind, below, or on top of the bridge. If you have a
great-sounding room, and a quiet preamp, you can pull the mics back to
let in more room sound at the cost of having to turn up the preamps.
A world-class recorded tone from a flattop is quite difficult, actually,
and you are lucky that the player brings a 712 to the session- that
should have a very even response for fingerstyle. Still, I would guess
that a very good parametric EQ would be a handy thing to have- the Rane
PE17 would be about the minimum quality I would use. If you
can't get a good one, though, don't bother; a bad EQ can undo all the
detail and air of your good mic's and preamps.
-jeff
| Micros for Accoustic Guitar. [2] |
|---|
From: <???>
Subject: Re: Micros for Accoustic Guitar.
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 12:01:21 -0800
Organization: Demonotronics, Inc.
Jan Wolfgang Huelsberg wrote:
>
> I have a nylon 6-string and a steel 12-string guitar and for studiowork
> I'd like to have a good recommandation how to catch the sound of both
> best.
> What microphone would YOU recommend and where should it be placed.
>
> As I am not often in these groups, please email me.
> Any hint are appreciated.
>
> Jan.
>
> Jan Wolfgang Huelsberg <<huelsber@ruf...>>
As the saying goes, your results may vary but here's my 2 cents:
You'll need to experiment a little bit with mics/mic placement but this
will get you started:
For the steel string, place the mic about 6 inches to one foot (approx.
15 to 30 cm) away from the soundhole, slightly off-axis and above or
below the soundhole.
For the nylon string, mic closer to the bridge. The closer you get to
the soundhole the louder the guitar will be (good for live applications)
but the guitar will sound boomier. Try rolling off the low end a bit
with your EQ.
As for mics...most folks prefer condenser mics for this application.
The standard is the Neumann U86 or U67. Big $$$$. So you might want to
shop around a little bit for something a little cheaper. Check out
AKG. You can make almost any pro quality mic sound good with a little
experimentation.
I've been hearing about a brand called (I think) Microtech-Geffel. MG
was built up from the ashes of the old Neumann factory in East Berlin.
Microphones were a state secret (used for spying) so a lot of research
was put into making good ones. I've been hearing MG mics go for about
half of what a comparable Neumann goes for. Maybe in Germany they're
even reasonably priced who knows? Anyway if you should find one let me
know, I'd like an opinion.
--
Greg
Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future.
--Niels Bohr
From: Andior <andior@aol...>
Subject: Re: Micros for Accoustic Guitar.
Date: 28 Jan 1997 04:54:08 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
My favorite multi-purpose, do-all mic is the AKG C1000 S - It sells for
about $300 -$350. I've used it for recording - both guitar and vocals -
I've also used it as a "choir mic" when I was helping a friend run an open
mic night. He bought one a couple of days later. I've recommended it
to a lot of friends for recording and performing and we are all of the
consensus that it will one day be considered a classic.
Andy
| AKG 414 B/ULS vs. B-TL vs. TL2 [3] |
|---|
From: C N FLETCHER <blkno9@ix...>
Subject: Re: AKG 414 B/ULS vs. B-TL vs. TL2
Date: 28 Jan 1997 14:32:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom
In <<32ED69DC.457E@worldnet...>> HTT <<554142024@worldnet...>>
writes:
>
>Mick F. Cantarella wrote:
>>
>> AKG 414 B/ULS vs. TL2
>>
>> A friend of mine is thinking of getting an AKG 414, but is not sure
>> whether to get the B/ULS, B-TL, or spend the extra bucks on a TL2.
He will be
>> recording classical guitar and is very concerned with how the mic
records
>> the acoustic space as well as the detail of the instrument. Has
anyone
>> reading this had any experiences with these mics? Also, is the B-TL
still
>> in production?
>>
>> Thanks, -Mick
>>
>Get the TL2 and do not hesitate, it's a sure bet.
There are 5 microphones that I can think of off the top of my head that
will do the job better and cheaper.
1) Wright Monitor and Microphone Co. TSR-II ($650)
2) Earthworks ($475)
3) Neumann KM-184 ($675)
4) Neumann KM-64 (tube) ($1,250...OK may be pushing budget a bit)
5) AKG C 451 w/CK-1 capsule and Neve 1272 mic amp ($975-package)
As for the C 414 TLII...to quote my Dad..."a smart man wouldn't do it,
and a lazy man wouldn't do it."
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
From: paul tumolo <ptumolo@csuhayward...>
Subject: Re: AKG 414 B/ULS vs. B-TL vs. TL2
Date: 28 Jan 1997 18:40:55 GMT
Organization: csu hayward
<blkno9@ix...>(C N FLETCHER) wrote:
>
>There are 5 microphones that I can think of off the top of my head that
>will do the job better and cheaper.
>
>1) Wright Monitor and Microphone Co. TSR-II ($650)
>2) Earthworks ($475)
>3) Neumann KM-184 ($675)
>4) Neumann KM-64 (tube) ($1,250...OK may be pushing budget a bit)
>5) AKG C 451 w/CK-1 capsule and Neve 1272 mic amp ($975-package)
>
>
most of the time i think flechter's advice is excellent, but here i have
to disagree. i've tried 3 of the four mics he names (earthworks, 184 and
451/ck1) against the 414uls on classical acoustic guitar and the 414 was
the clear winner. i don't like the tl 'cause, to my ears, it doesn't
sound as much like the real thing as the uls does. both the 184 and 451
are much brighter sounding and the earthworks is a bit too noisey. also,
i think the 460/ck61 is a better choice than the 451 (less bright). i've
used two uls 414s in an m/s pair on guitar with excellent results (i've
also used the 414 as the "s" and a B&K 4011 is the "mid" mic with
excellent results). my current fav for close micing, in stereo, an
acoustic guitar is a 414uls on the body (about the 12th fret, slightly
lower than the first string, pointer slightly toward the sound hole)
through a demeter pre and a 4011 on the bridge, through a millenia hv3,
both mics are about 6 inches from the instrument. (sometimes, i use this
combination but with the position of the two mics reversed). produces a
many faceted sound. if you are worried about accurately producing the
"room", i doubt you'd be unhappy with the 414uls, particularly through an
accurate pre such as the hv3. good luck.
From: David L. Rick <drick@hach...>
Subject: Re: AKG 414 B/ULS vs. B-TL vs. TL2
Date: 29 Jan 1997 00:55:13 GMT
Organization: Hach Company
The discussion is about mics for recording classical guitar. This seems
destined to become one of those threads that goes on for weeks, because
every guitar is different. In classical recording, you want some of
the room sound, and every room is different too. Here's my nickle's
worth, anyway.
<blkno9@ix...> (C N FLETCHER) diss'd AKG 414s for the application
and suggested:
>1) Wright Monitor and Microphone Co. TSR-II ($650)
>2) Earthworks ($475)
>3) Neumann KM-184 ($675)
>4) Neumann KM-64 (tube) ($1,250...OK may be pushing budget a bit)
>5) AKG C 451 w/CK-1 capsule and Neve 1272 mic amp ($975-package)
Some of these choices are reasonable, but don't bother with the Earthworks
-- they are just too noisy for classical work. I don't really comprehend
the Neve preamp suggestion either -- maybe for the intro on a rock song?
The KM-184 is a reasonable choice, try it in ORTF.
paul tumolo <<ptumolo@csuhayward...>> writes:
>most of the time i think flechter's advice is excellent, but here i have
>to disagree. i've tried 3 of the four mics he names (earthworks, 184 and
>451/ck1) against the 414uls on classical acoustic guitar and the 414 was
>the clear winner.
The 414s generally make the room reverberance sound darker than the
small-diaphragm mics. Sometimes I like this, sometimes I don't.
>i don't like the tl 'cause, to my ears, it doesn't
>sound as much like the real thing as the uls does. both the 184 and 451
>are much brighter sounding and the earthworks is a bit too noisey. also,
>i think the 460/ck61 is a better choice than the 451 (less bright).
I've got a pair of the 460s, and I don't usually like the way the
high end sounds. They're stunning on wind ensembles, but that's not
the current application.
Paul continues:
>i've
>used two uls 414s in an m/s pair on guitar with excellent results (i've
>also used the 414 as the "s" and a B&K 4011 is the "mid" mic with
>excellent results).
I've done the same thing with a 414 and a B&K 4003. The result was
very natural sounding when aimed slightly below the bridge. I also
tried a 4050 for the side mic. Its reverberance pickup was quite
unpleasant.
Then there are the minimalist approaches using two B&Ks. Scott Dorsey's
got an article on this in the current issue of recording. His technique
(well, Jecklin's) uses them close together with a baffle. Some people
dispense with the baffle and increase the spacing. There used to be a
Bruel&Kjaer demo disc that had lots of classical guitar tracks recorded
with spaced pairs. The tracks sound very uncolored, but the imaging is
pretty poor. The Jecklin arrays produce a somewhat better image.
>my current fav for close micing, in stereo, an
>acoustic guitar is a 414uls on the body (about the 12th fret, slightly
>lower than the first string, pointer slightly toward the sound hole)
>through a demeter pre and a 4011 on the bridge, through a millenia hv3,
>both mics are about 6 inches from the instrument. (sometimes, i use this
>combination but with the position of the two mics reversed). produces a
>many faceted sound. if you are worried about accurately producing the
>"room", i doubt you'd be unhappy with the 414uls, particularly through an
>accurate pre such as the hv3. good luck.
I've also used the 414 successfully at the 12th fret, but how you aim
it depends a lot on the size of the guitar. Irrespective of that, the
Millennia HV-3 is the one thing that we'll probably all agree on. Paul's
got one, Scott's got one, I've got one, and I think Fletcher sells 'em.
Alas, buying one will blow the budget before any mics are purchased.
Have you noticed any pattern in the above (apart from everyone liking
the HV-3)? No, I didn't think so. There isn't any pattern, because
all guitars and rooms are different. The only real solution is to
get several of the above on approval and try them out on the actual
guitar in the actual room. If you're inexperienced with microphone
placement, get someone with experience to help. Then buy what works.
David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording
<drick@hach...>
"Every time I think I know the formula, it blows up in my face."
| AT-4033s and acoustic guitar - opinions? |
|---|
From: Not A Speck of Cereal. <Xchrisshe@microsoft...>
Subject: Re: AT-4033s and acoustic guitar - opinions?
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 02:15:03 GMT
Organization: Remove X's from my email address to reply
<nextop@aol...> (Nextop) wrote:
[] One possible problem using 4033s on guitar is that it only has one
[] pattern. Put it anywhere near the guitar and you get a real "boomy"
[] proximity effect.
I've found in actual application that the boominess is tamed well
with the roll-off filter. I've close miced my acoustic in stereo and
mono mic configs. I worried that I would be loosing lower frequencies
required for a solo guitar recording, but most of my acoustic tracks
go into a mix with other instruments, especially bass guitar. It also
helps to read this (in a prior thread subject "AT 4033 Question")
excerpt from a post from Andy Garcia on comparison tests:
[] [...] it was unanimous that the AT4033 (with bass
[] rolloff) was almost indistinguishable from the Neumann U-87A--and the
[] general concensus (on an individual querry) was that the AT4033 sounded
[] slightly more present than the U-87A.
So using the bass roll off emulates a venerable Neumann--what's
not to like about that?
Chris
----
"The quality of our thoughts is bordered on all sides by our
facility with language." -- J. Michael Straczynski
............................................................ Remove X's from my email address above to reply<chrisshe@microsoft...> -- Snohomish, WA. -- Studio Ponderous
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
| C1000 - best use |
|---|
From: Jammer <pwillis@hondo...>
Subject: Re: C1000 - best use
Date: 7 Feb 1997 13:09:36 GMT
Organization: Cyberverse Online (310-643-3783)
NEIL WILS (<neilwils@aol...>) wrote:
| I got a C1000 from a friend...
| does anyone have a recommendation on the best applications for this
| mic...
I've used a C1000-S in the studio sucessfully for these:
-acoustic guitar
-elec. guitar ambiance mic (haven't tried close micing yet)
-vocals (realise though that it is a mid-size; not a large diaphram...
It did ok but, of course it's no Neuman.)-hi-hat
-snare (top & bottom)
-cymbals
I have also used it live on acoustic guitar and it did great.
Another good thing about this mic that I like is that, if needed, you can
use an internal 9-volt battery to supply the phantom power. This makes it
a great _mono_ mic to take on sampling expeditions with a portable DAT
recorder.
____ | |____ _____ _____ ____ _____ _____ | \__ \ / \ / \_/ __ \/ __ \ <_____> /\__| |/ __ \| . . \ . . \ ___/| | \/ \________(____ /__|_| /__|_| /\___ >__| \/ \/ \/ \/-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: I neither read nor reply to UN-solicited e-mail responses to my
Usenet postings. This includes both unwanted advertisements AND flames.
So don't even waste your time...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Guitar Mic Results |
|---|
From: Philip Pilgrim <pilgrim@atcon...>
Subject: Guitar Mic Results
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 11:14:35 -0800
Organization: Lab Audio Works
Hi all,
I recently had the opportunity to record a great slide guitarist in
my new studio. It was a wonderful opportunity to try out some mic
placement type experiments. Everything went according to the books
except I found that the best mic for the job was quite unusual.
We placed a small desktop mic stand on the floor in front of the
Mesa Boogie Mark III's speaker. The mic's element was placed about
2" in from the speaker's edge and pointed about 30 degrees (relative
to normal) towards the speaker's centre.
SPL was about 120dB.
We tried:
Shure Beta 57
AKG D222
Sennheiser MD 416
THe D222 (dual element) was clearly the best sounding in our oppinions.
It did not have a muddy/boomy bottom end like the others. (I guess the
dual elements eliminated the proximity effect).
Apart from the boominess there was little difference in the mics. Their
Midrange variations were not offensive and minor compared to the drastic
variations available through the Boogie's Preamp settings.
SPL was high enough so that mic sensitivities did not matter.
Likewise High Freq response did not seem (sound) to be an issue.
I did not check but a LF roll off of the "muddy" mics may have been
a solution.
Anyway I figured I'd pass on the qualitative data from this crude
experiment.
Philip
--
Philip Pilgrim The Lab Audio Works
5 Evan's Drive - Analog/Digital Recording/Processing
Hammonds Plains - Acoustic Analysis and Consulting
Nova Scotia, Canada - Analog Synth Modification and Repair
B4B 1M8 - Computer/Synth Interfacing
- Hardware/Software DevelopmentHome Phone +1.902.835.7844
Work Phone +1.902.868.2400
Home: <pilgrim@atcon...>
Work: <ppilgrim@teleglobe...>
| acoustic gtr mic question |
|---|
From: Fletcher <blkno9@ix...>
Subject: Re: acoustic gtr mic question
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 23:04:48 +1000
Organization: Mercenary Audio
For what it's worth..and it's overbudget ($650) the Wright Omni mic is
the best I've ever used on acoustic guitars...it is without question the
best mic I've ever used on a gut string (you need a really good player,
it will reveal player deficencies blatantly)...and work well on Gibson,
Guild and Martin steel srings...something that I have found in no other
mic for the purpose....
Prior to this I was using a Stephen Paul modified 414 on Martins, a
KM-56 on Guilds, and a KM-54 on Gibsons...the Wright seems to capture
the tone and character of each of these guitars with excellent, but not
excessive, clarity. It actually seems to enhance the emotion of the
musical statement...How do it know?
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
<watermuse@aol...> wrote:
>
> In article <608irl$jso$<1@newssvr03-int...>>,
> <EXYF41B@prodigy...> (Richard Kuschel) wrote:
> >
> > <redtenor@aol...> (Redtenor) wrote:
> > >
> > >In article <<34271AF0.2C83@blah...>>, <blahh@blah...> writes:
> > >
> > >>I'm in the process of recording an acoustic guitar based album at home
> > >>and am looking for a good mic setup. Any opinions? I'm willing to
> > spend
> > >>a little (maybe 3 or 4 hundred), but am unfortunately unable to go for
> > >>the super top of the line stuff. Recommendations would be greatly
> > >>appreciated
> > >>
> > >>Neil Miller
> > >>Biodynamic Music Forge
> > >
> > >For that money, Sunrise magnetic soundhole pickup. Or other to your
> > liking.
> > >Redtenor
> >
> > Are you kidding? He wants the instrument to sound like an acoustic guitar.
> > Even an SM57 will produce a better acoustic sound than any magnetic
> > pickup.
> >
> > The suggestion of the SM81 was correct. Other microphones worth trying
> > include the AKGc1000, Crown CM700 and the A-T 4041.
> > -
> > RICHARD KUSCHEL
> > "I canna change the law o' physics." -Scotty
>
> while technically it is true that "even an sm 57 will produce a
> better'acoustic' sound" , the sunrise pickup is capable of excellent
> recorded sounds, is quite good live, and may be used in conjunction with
> a microphone. the crown cm 700 is a good value though.
> watermuse
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
| mic suggestions: classical guitar [4] |
|---|
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@netcom...>
Subject: Re: mic suggestions: classical guitar
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 14:53:15 GMT
Organization: Institute for Boatanchor Studies
In article <<narayan-ya02408000R1201980755000001@news-serv...>> <narayan@spamport...> (narayan nayar) writes:
>i have a friend who is a great classical guitar player, and he's finally
>getting into buying himself some recording equipment. he was in the
>process of buying a used AKG 414, undoubtedly a good mic. many of the
>recordings he owns were recorded with 414s, but then again, he doesn't like
>the sound of many of the recordings he owns.
>
>i thought i would post here to troll for suggestions for mics used strictly
>for recording classical guitar. i'm not dissin' the 414, just wondering if
>there's something out there that's better.
The 414 is very bright sounding, and makes the room tone kind of unpleasant
sounding. I'd tend to go with a Beyer M160 as a first choice, and then any
one of a number of small diaphragm condensers as a second choice.
But if he wants a very close, very forward and bright sound, the 414 might
make him very happy.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Richard Kuschel <EXYF41B@prodigy...>
Subject: Re: mic suggestions: classical guitar
Date: 12 Jan 1998 15:42:56 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY
<narayan@spamport...> (narayan nayar) wrote:
>
>i have a friend who is a great classical guitar player, and he's
finally
>getting into buying himself some recording equipment. he was in the
>process of buying a used AKG 414, undoubtedly a good mic. many of the
>recordings he owns were recorded with 414s, but then again, he doesn't
like
>the sound of many of the recordings he owns.
>
>i thought i would post here to troll for suggestions for mics used
strictly
>for recording classical guitar. i'm not dissin' the 414, just wondering
if
>there's something out there that's better.
>
>oh yeah, about $700 used would be a nice price.
>
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>narayan
><narayan@spamport...>
>replace "spam" with "thought" (interesting proposition, eh?) from reply-
to
>address if you wish to email me
It depends upon the sound that he wants, If a bright forward souns is
what he is looking for, a 414 may be the correct choice.
Another good mic to use for a bright open sound is the Neumann KM184
which I used recently on classical guitar (ORTF @ 6 feet) I found my KM
84's too dark for the music I was recording which wasn't classical but
rather a mixture of pop tunes played on classical guitar.
-
RICHARD KUSCHEL"I canna change the law o' physics." -Scotty
From: Andre Vare <avare@freenet...>
Subject: Re: mic suggestions: classical guitar
Date: 12 Jan 1998 17:41:25 -0500
Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet
In article <<narayan-ya02408000R1201980755000001@news-serv...>>,
<narayan@spamport...> (narayan nayar) wrote:
>recordings he owns were recorded with 414s, but then again, he doesn't like
>the sound of many of the recordings he owns.
>
What does he not like about the recordings? That would help alot.
>oh yeah, about $700 used would be a nice price.
Excellent! Posts without a price range are almost useless. The price
point helps alot. At this price point you are able to select from many
microphones that are suitable for the task.
>i thought i would post here to troll for suggestions for mics used strictly
>for recording classical guitar. i'm not dissin' the 414, just wondering if
>there's something out there that's better.
>
There are no professional microphones used exclusively for guitar. The
question of which microphone is selected besomes one of taste for the
colorations, or relative lack of them that microphones have.
The AKG 414 series is a studio standard and in my opinion one of the
better of the large diaphragm microphones. It is also one the furst I
pick up when trying to get an accurate guitar sound. There are people,
including several on this newsgroup, that think it is too bright, and
brittle (or put in other adjectives for too much high end). The 414 has
come in various models over the years, each of which certain unique
colorations. If you want more info about them, do search Dejanews for
them. There was an excellent post summing up the different models
posted about a year or so ago.
Other large diaphragm microphones within the budget are the Microtech
Gefell 71 and the Neumann 193. The 193 has one pickup pattern
(cardioid) whereas the other two mentioned have switchable pickup
patterns.
Then there are the small diaphragm condenser microphones that are
frequently (as in standard use) on guitar. These include the AKG 45x,
46x, and 48x series. The 48x series is relatively new and I think
outside of the budget. These use capsules which are screwed to the
microphone body,a nd depending on the pattern, the last digit changes,
or it is just known as a xx0 with a "pickup pattern". The most comon
version is the cardioid which makes the xx1 microphone. Neumann makes a
similar (separate capsule) series currently known as the KM 100 series.
The last two digits vary with the capsule used. The previous
incarnation was known as the KM 80 series, with the KM84 being about the
most popular. Nuemann also makes a fixed capsule cardioid version
KM184. Sennheiser makes a superb series of condenser microphones
known as the MKH series, but I THINK that they are out of the budget,
even used.
What is consodered by some to be the bargain of the moment is the Oktava
012 microphones from Russia. The last I recall reading (which was on
this newsgroup, so Dejanews can help) there is a company importing them
again to North America and for the budget two could purchased, with
three capsules per microphone.
Moving to dynamic microphones, several ones that I have used
successfully for classical guitar include the: Beyer M160, Electro
Voice RE20, Sennheiser MD 441 and Shure SM53.
I have heard glowing statements about using the Coles ribbon microphone,
but I have not tried that myself.
I hope this is enough to give an idea of the scope of your question. If
you can post what you friend does not like about some of his recordings
that would help a lot. It may not seem obvious, but a lot of the sound
of the recording is also dependent on the location of the microphone.
Good luck!
--
Andre Vare Hamilton Freenet: <avare@hwcn...>
From: David Lloyd <sasdrl@mvs...>
Subject: Re: mic suggestions: classical guitar
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:58:11 GMT
> i thought i would post here to troll for suggestions for mics used
strictly
> for recording classical guitar.
> oh yeah, about $700 used would be a nice price.
>
I may get panned for this, but I have had wonderful success with a stereo
coincident pair of Shure SM-81's (I believe are still around $400 ea.). I
find these mics extremely useful in a variety of situations and quite a
bargain. Some HATE them...I don't.
The Neumann TLM-170 has worked well for me also, but is a bit more than
$700.00.
Best of Luck.
| KM 184/Wrights/Earthworks for recording acoustic guitar/overheads?? [3] |
|---|
From: Fletcher <Fletcher@mercenary...>
Subject: Re: KM 184/Wrights/Earthworks for recording acoustic guitar/overheads??
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 07:33:50 -0400
Organization: Mercenary Audio
Eleven Shadows wrote:
>
> I'm very interested in getting a pair of small diaphragm condensers,
> probably cardioid (I have a home studio, so I am a bit concerned about
> ambient noise). I am recording primarily to analog multi-track,
> although occasionally straight to DAT. I don't mind "bright" mics, but
> do mind strident ones. I'd prefer it to sound detailed and open, esp.
> where acoustic guitars are concerned.
Where Acoustic guitars are concerned, especially gut string guitars, the
Wright omni rules. Hands down, tonally. It does most acoustic
instruments better than anything else I've used...but it is an Omni.
Versatility of these mics to> other applications, such as perhaps percussion or guitar cabinets, is a
> major bonus,
Depending on the percussion, it's a toss up. I like the Neumann KM-184s
for guitar cabinets (Instant Angus Young, just add a decent player) for
overheads, the Earthworks would be my mic of choice from the three you
have listed.
but I am concerned mostly with acoustic guitars and> overheads.
>
Then we're leaning between Earthworks and Wright. Oh shit, they're both
Omni's...guess it'll have to be the KM-184 if the Cardioid thing is
really important...Wright makes a Cardioiod too...but I found it
really boxy sounding, and therefor won't recommend it.
> The acoustic guitars I typically record are picked steel strings and the
> occasional nylon strings. The general mic setup that I seem to prefer
> currently is to mic the guitar x-y from approximately 2-3 ft. away. I
> am also interested in using the mics for rock drum overheads (not much
> jazz). I'd be interested in using the two mics not only in a spaced
> pair configuration, but also with one mic hanging down directly over the
> snare, and the other condenser on the floor tom side, down lower, aiming
> directly at the center of the snare.
>
We're down to the Earthworks, but it's still an Omni.
> My budget is probably around $1200, maybe $1400 tops for the pair --
> cheaper would be even better! <g> At this price range, I should be able
> to get something that I am satisfied with. My aim here is to try and
> determine which mics I would audition. Earthworks, I'm not sure about,
> as I have not heard anything about their new cardioid mics, and am
> concerned about their self-noise; I have some noise already since I'm
> not soundproofed and am recording analog most of the time.
Their self noise has been overdramatised by the spec sheet crowd. Here
are 3 reasons why I've never had a problem with noise from the
Earthworks mics...
1) Marshall/Fender guitar amps
2) My tube limiters also have a high level of self noise...
3) I rarely use more than 40db of gain with them.
KM-184s are> a consideration as well. The Wrights that Fletcher mentions are omnis,
> and I am definitely not ruling out omnis, but am again concerned about
> ambient noise in the house. If you have any input or advice that I
> should listen for, I would be most appreciative. This is a large
> investment for me, so your answers are especially valued!
I wouldn't rule out Omni mics...the best uses I have found for the
KM-184s are Congas and Guitars...they're a bit brighter/brasher than the
original KM-84s, so they're not usually a Hi/Hat option. The Earthworks
are really very general purpose, and the Wrights do acoustic instruments
better than anything I've ever used.
Oh shit, we're back to square one...
> --
> Ken/Eleven Shadows
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
From: Fletcher <blkno9@ix...>
Subject: Re: KM 184/Wrights/Earthworks for recording acoustic guitar/overheads??
Date: 3 Feb 1998 18:57:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom
In <<19980203140501.JAA01223@ladder02...>> <henryshap@aol...>
(HenryShap) writes:
>
>>>>Wrights do acoustic instruments
>better than anything I've ever used. <<<
>
>How much are these suckers and what kind of mic pres do you reccommend
with
>them
$675 each...I recommend using a good pre...I've used them with
Manley's, Neve's, Hardy's...it kind of depends on what you have lying
around, what else you've used, where you want the pre to take it...the
mics just sound great on acoustic instruments, no matter what pre's
I've used.
I use the pre as a secondary color to the tone.
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
From: John Deacon <johnd@sig...>
Subject: Re: KM 184/Wrights/Earthworks for recording acoustic guitar/overheads??
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 08:31:50 -0600
Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com
I have been using the wright for a number of things since i got it from
fletch about 6 months ago and must say i am more impressed than with the
earthworks mics, the only this i dont like about them is the XLR
connection to the mic does not lock in solidly, and i have to tape the
cable to the mic. The first time i powered it i was recording a 1964
gibson J45 acoustic, these things are a little brittle in the first place,
but the mic seemed to reproduce faithfully the clarity of this guitar,
earthworks did sound a lil hissy compared to the wright, I was using an
NT2 for acoustic before that, never again, same results on acoustic with
nylon strings, wanted to try this on the 335 with an old pro reverb but
the mic didnt come with info sheet on response and spl etc etc (or even
patterns, fletch can you send me something on this). I have also tried
this mic on live drums(well tv studio drums)as far as i can tell with the
tascam console at the tv station. I wanna say this sounded good, i would
rather say it sounded as good as the console allowed it to. I am generally
very happy with the wright, comapred to the earthworks, and will probably
be getting more this year
bad thing
wooly sock thing too big for mic and falls off
mic clip supplied was just a spring one, breaks real easy
no documentation on the mic supplied
otherwise all other comments are good
john deacon
austin tx
On 3 Feb 1998, Eleven Shadows wrote:
> I'm very interested in getting a pair of small diaphragm condensers,
> probably cardioid (I have a home studio, so I am a bit concerned about
> ambient noise). I am recording primarily to analog multi-track,
> although occasionally straight to DAT. I don't mind "bright" mics, but
> do mind strident ones. I'd prefer it to sound detailed and open, esp.
> where acoustic guitars are concerned. Versatility of these mics to
> other applications, such as perhaps percussion or guitar cabinets, is a
> major bonus, but I am concerned mostly with acoustic guitars and
> overheads.
>
> The acoustic guitars I typically record are picked steel strings and the
> occasional nylon strings. The general mic setup that I seem to prefer
> currently is to mic the guitar x-y from approximately 2-3 ft. away. I
> am also interested in using the mics for rock drum overheads (not much
> jazz). I'd be interested in using the two mics not only in a spaced
> pair configuration, but also with one mic hanging down directly over the
> snare, and the other condenser on the floor tom side, down lower, aiming
> directly at the center of the snare.
>
> My budget is probably around $1200, maybe $1400 tops for the pair --
> cheaper would be even better! <g> At this price range, I should be able
> to get something that I am satisfied with. My aim here is to try and
> determine which mics I would audition. Earthworks, I'm not sure about,
> as I have not heard anything about their new cardioid mics, and am
> concerned about their self-noise; I have some noise already since I'm
> not soundproofed and am recording analog most of the time. KM-184s are
> a consideration as well. The Wrights that Fletcher mentions are omnis,
> and I am definitely not ruling out omnis, but am again concerned about
> ambient noise in the house. If you have any input or advice that I
> should listen for, I would be most appreciative. This is a large
> investment for me, so your answers are especially valued!
> --
> Ken/Eleven Shadows
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> * Eleven Shadows * ES songs on Real Audio * Music Reviews
> * Travels-India * Tibet * Real Audio Radio Shows * More...
> http://www.theeleventhhour.com
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
| Good mic for classical guitar [2] |
|---|
From: Monte P McGuire <mcguire@world...>
Subject: Re: Good mic for classical guitar
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 02:02:25 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
In article <6dsr86$vsn$<1@news2...>>,
new.iol.ie <<whatever@iol...>> wrote:
>Just wondering ,has anyone got a suggestion for a mic to record a classical
>guitarist. I would like a warm sound ,not too tinny and not extravagant
>price-wise.
Try a small diaphragm tube mike, like an AKG C60, C61, C28, Neumann
KM54, U64 or others. A transistor mike would be nice too, but it
might be a little too 'hard' sounding: try a KM84 or if you're tight
on $$, a Crown CM700. Avoid dynamic mikes and beware of ribbons too;
they are frequently so lacking in HF that you might not like what you
hear. The Beyer ribbons like an M130 or M160 are OK, but they'll be
noisier than a condenser; a tube condenser would be my first choice.
A good preamp is unfortunately also important and may cost more than
the mike. I just used the Great River Electronics MP-2 preamp with an
AKG C60 plus an RCA BK5B on clean-ish electric guitar and it was
beautiful. It also sounded incredible on vocals; this guy's voice was
perfect on a TLM-170 and the combination was gorgeous. A Symetrix
SX202 is not a bad preamp though and it's lot cheaper. The treble is
not as sweet (unless you replace most of the components inside), but
it works a lot better than all of the other cheap preamps. If you're
handy with a soldering iron, you can modify them to sound a lot
better. Just replace the three BA4560 chips with Burr Brown OPA2132
and it's a really nice preamp. Not a Great River, but very workable.
Best of luck,
Monte McGuire
<mcguire@world...>
From: Fletcher <Fletcher@mercenary...>
Subject: Re: Good mic for classical guitar
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 07:51:36 -0400
Organization: Mercenary Audio
martin wrote:
>
> I have a CAD E200 and E300, I find them excellent all rounders and very cheap
> for the quality, the E200 is fletter overall, but doesnt have the warmth of the
> 300, either would do a good job on a classical guitar, there are a zillion mics
> that will do the job, but most are expencive, the easiest way to get the best
> mic you can afford is to set a budjet and find out what fits in, I could
> reccomend lotsa Neumanns several AKGs, Breulls etcetc, but could you afford em?
>
I have most of the Neu,mann/AKG/etc's in my collection...but the best
mic I have found for the majority of acoustic guitars; especially gut
string guitars, is the Wright mic. It retails for $650,so it's notlike
it's going to break the bank, and it works really well!!
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
| Recording Acoustic guitar -- matched mikes or matched makers? [2] |
|---|
From: Bill Thompson <wst3@bellatlantic...>
Subject: Re: Recording Acoustic guitar -- matched mikes or matched makers?
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 18:08:44 -0500
Organization: KPMG
<SteveKlim@worldnet...> wrote:
>
> I'm getting a lot of mixed feedback in dejanews regarding
> the recording of acoustic guitars. It seems there are two
> preferred methods: using matched (same make and model, at
> least) mikes to record in stereo (panned hard left and right),
> or using two mikes by the same maker (for example, and AKG
> 414 and a 451) and not panning so hard. <SNIP>
Ah, my favorite topic!!!
The good news is that there is no best way, right way, or anything
else!!! Trust your ears.
My efforts over the years have included some real lame mics, and some
pretty cool ones. I've tried various mono and stereo (and even more)
methods. I think I've discovered my favorite way, but that could change
tomorrow, or with the next song!! A lot of it has to do with matching
the resulting sound with the song, and some of it has to do with _MY_
perception of what a steel stringed acoustic guitar ought to sound
like!!!
My current techniques include:
For my D-18, which is usually pretty gentle on the whole recording
process, I use a Groove Tubes MD1 or AKG C12a (cardiod pattern) placed
6" - 12" from the bridge, angled so that it sits out of the way, and an
AKG C61 or AT 4031 angled 45 degrees from the neck, pointed at the 14th
fret, and usually sitting pretty close to the guitar.
Just to highlight the vagaries of this endeavor, a year ago I had the
mics swapped, with the small capsule mic pointing at the bridge etc etc
etc.
You also need to know that I have a pretty pitiful room to record in, it
is a one room affair, and I use baffles to isolate the recording from
the rest of the gear, so it is pretty dry.
For my other dreadnaught, a D28 type that sounds like every D28 I've
ever wanted, I don't use large capsule condensor ics. It is a very boomy
guitar, and difficult to record, even for finger style stuff. I have
tried a number of things, and usually end up with a pair of small
capsule condensors on it. Sometimes it is the AKG C61's, and sometimes
it is a pair of Sennheiser MKH-405's which are omni's. The room being
less than ideal, the omnis are tough to use.
I have tried several large capsule cardiod condensors located above my
right shoulder, trying to capture what my ears hear, but so far that has
only been effective a couple of times. Again, I need a better room.
Both of these guitars have piezo pickups in them, but I rarely use them.
Sometimes I will run the pickup to an extra track, but when I try to mix
it in I just hate it<G>!
I also have a Yamaha APX-10, which is a maple guitar. It excels playing
in bars and such, and much to my surprise, it records well too! I didn't
even bring it into the studio for the first several years I owned it. I
record it much like the D18, except that I also track the electronic
pickup outputs. It has a neat little feature that lets me assign the
strings either L=1,2,3 R=4,5,6 - or L=1,3,5 R=2,4,6. It can add an
interesting animation effect to the mix.
I guess I should also add that I record on an old MCI 2" 16 track, and
use several mic preamps direct to tape. These include some Melcor cards,
a Gaines Audio MP2, and a pair of Groove Tubes preamps. I also have a
Bellari stereo tube mic preamp, but have found that it makes a better
direct box, though I will use it sometimes. I almost never use a
compressor while tracking, mostly because I am trying to become a better
player<G>!!
I know it isn't much, but hopefully this will get you started. And be
forwarned, if you ask me this again next week my answer could change!!!
Bill
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Recording Acoustic guitar -- matched mikes or matched makers?
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 02:09:33 GMT
Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com
On Mon, 09 Mar 1998 18:08:44 -0500, Bill Thompson
<<wst3@bellatlantic...>> wrote:
MKH-405's are cardiod, not omni. The omni of that series/vintage is
the MKH 105
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
> and sometimes
>it is a pair of Sennheiser MKH-405's which are omni's. The room being
>less than ideal, the omnis are tough to use.
>
| best tube mike preamp for recording acoustic guitar? |
|---|
From: Fletcher <Fletcher@mercenary...>
Subject: Re: best tube mike preamp for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 06:59:31 -0400
Organization: Mercenary Audio
<moshstud@uol...> wrote:
>
> In article <6ei6i7$<9es@dfw-ixnews11...>>,
> <equus@ix...> (Equus) wrote:
> >
> > I would like to get some opinions on what is considered the best mike
> > tube preamp for recording acoustic steel string and nylon string
> > guitar (dual channel under $900.00)
> >
> > Thanks in advance for all responses..
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> Under US$. 900.00???
> Almost impossible.
>
> Oswaldo
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Not at all...the Wright retails for $650, and is without question the
best mic I have found for the application. I have many far more
expensive mics, tube mics, large diaphragm, small diaphragm, blah, blah,
blah...this mic kills them all!!
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
| My sm81? [2] |
|---|
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: My sm81?
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 23:25:46 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<warrgo@aol...> (WarrGo) wrote:
>In article <<znr895149778k@tr...>>, <mrivers@d-and-d...> (Mike Rivers) writes:
>
>>Don't sweat it. EQ is there to make things sound right. When you get
>>close, start turning the knobs. But get as close as you can with mic
>>placement first - EQ is not a replacement for poor choices, environment,
>>or technique. It's either a modifier (to make sometihng sound like it
>>doesn't) or it's a tweak. It's not duct tape for you mix.
>
>How close? I am doing some acoustic recording and I'm not spending alot of time
>for mic placement[ except on the 5-string banjo]. I seem to get better sound a
>micing a little farther away.
Yup, a good rule of thumb is to be about as far away as the
longest dimension of the body of the instrument.
>On the D-45 Martin [A bright sounding D model that mics well in a live
>performance] I mic'd with a SM-81 at the bridge from about 6" away.
Try starting around 20" away and move the mic in an arc around the
guitar (with the center point at the bridge) till you find the
best balance. If you can't find the exact sound you want, start an
arc using the neck/body joint as your center point.
>On the HD-28 [A boomy guitar with dead strings that mics poorly but is awsome
>in a jam{my guitar}] mic'd at the 12 fret 4" away with a SM-81.
You're balancing out the boom by mic placement. Another spot would
be about 4" back of the bridge.
>On the F-5 mandolin [A woody deep sounding mandolin] mic'd 12" away with pad
>on.
That distance (12" to 16") sounds about right to me. An A-2 would
be about the same, but mic placement would be more critical.
>Banjo[loud medium depth with lots of ring] mic'd with N/D 357 III dynamic[also
>tryed a SM-57 and SM-81] 6" away.
From the rest of the instrumentation, I'm gonna take a wild guess
and guess you're recording a Bluegrass group, so I'm assuming a
Mastertone or a 250 with a resonator (as opposed to an open back
folk model banjo). Back up a little bit to catch some of the
bottom end that comes from the resonator.
>any recomendations? I am using the mic pre's in a 1604VLZ to a DA-38 and mics
>are two SM-81's, two SM-57's, four N/D 357 III dynamic's,and a couple Altec
>654A's?.
Most of it is gonna be trial and error, but your best bet is a
good set of monitor headphones and an assistant to move the mic
around while you listen over the phones. If you can't do that, try
putting the instrument and mic in another room, while you
experiment. (Assistant moves mic around till you find best spot
for that instrument/mic combo.)
Harvey
From: Gendelta <gendelta@aol...>
Subject: Re: My sm81?
Date: Unknown
>On the D-45 Martin [A bright sounding D model that mics well in a live
>performance] I mic'd with a SM-81 at the bridge from about 6" away.
Hmmm... for a bright sounding guitar, you've chosen a bright sounding mic
placement. Move the mic to the area where the neck joins the body.
>On the HD-28 [A boomy guitar with dead strings that mics poorly but is awsome
>in a jam{my guitar}] mic'd at the 12 fret 4" away with a SM-81.
Again you've chosen a placement that is likely to exaggerate the instrument's
tendencies. Move this mic to a position on the lower bout, somewhere between
the bridge & about halfway to the endpin.
>On the F-5 mandolin [A woody deep sounding mandolin] mic'd 12" away with pad
>on.
Don't know what you don't like about the tone on this one, maybe a placement
slightly below the mando, aiming up at the f-hole.
For live work I've placed the mic slightly below the banjo, aimed at the rim,
at or slightly behind the bridge. Recently tried an Equitek E-100 on banjo, &
liked far better than any other mic I 've used on them. Placement of the e-100
was about 6" off, pretty much straight on at the bridge. We were working live,
so I didn't want to get to far away. The guy also played guitar and mando, so
he kept adjusting the mic whenever he switched axes. Placements were therefore
somewhat variable. The E-100 did a great job on the banjo and the mando, was
only fair on the guitar. This particular mic showed a rolloff of about 8 dB
at 20k, not usually what you want in a condenser mic... but it worked really
well in this app.
You also may want to experiment with 2 mics on the guitar, maybe the 357or the
57 on the lower bout, and the 81 (with the 2nd rolloff curve) on the neck/body
joint. Observe the 3:1 thing and mix the 2 signals to taste. I got pretty
good results on a Guild jumbo with this, using an 81 & an MD409.
-glenn
| Mic advise |
|---|
From: JamesPVW <jamespvw@aol...>
Subject: Re: Mic advise
Date: 7 Jun 1998 14:16:26 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Hi Mark,
There are no definitive answers to your questions, but I'll answer as best I
can out my own, limited, home recording experiences.
You'll want to stick with condenser microphones (as opposed to dynamic), as
they will provide much more detail. Be aware that many condensor mics require
phantom power, so be sure your mixer can provide it or you'll have to buy an
external phantom power supply.
I currently use a single AKG C1000 mic. Can't get much of a stereo image with
one mic :-) but it suits my needs just fine. If I was buying new mics, I'd
probably pick up a pair of the $600US-or-so Neumanns (what are those, the
KM184s?)
At one point I used a dual large diaphram condensor (CAD Equitek E200) together
with the C1000. I played with positioning quite a bit and found that I liked
the E200 about 8 inches away from the guitar and pointing about halfway between
the top of the soundhole and the top of the guitar. Then I'd place the C1000
about 6 inches from the guitar and pointing to a spot about 3 inches behind the
bridge. I'd pan them at 11:00 and 1:00 and let reverb fill out the image. I
realize that those are pretty exact locations, but I got there through lots of
experimenting. I bet you'd come up with something better.
One common technique is to take a pair of identical mics, typically small
diaphram condensors, and orient them so they are perpendicular to each other,
with their heads forming a 90 degree angle. I believe that's called an X/Y
pair, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Take that pair and
experiment with positioning. This technique often yields an excellent stereo
image. When I have been in real studios the engineers have invariably used
this technique with good results. This is the reason I'd like to get that pair
of Neumanns. Some day I might settle on another C1000 or a pair of Shure
SM81s.
Any of these mics are going to do a great job with vocals, although I gravitate
towards my Shure Beta 58 dynamic mic because it coveres up some of my voice's
abundant inadequacies. Sometimes I wish I still had that E200, though. It was
beautifully warm when I recorded a good voice with it.
I guess that after all of that rhetoric comes my real advice: A compelling
performance recorded through mediocre equipment is still a compelling
performance. A mediocre performance recorded through $4000 microphones into
$1000 mic preamps onto an outrageously expensive digital multitrack recorder is
still a mediocre performance. There is little you can do to mask that. After
years of being a gearhound I have decided to put my efforts into creating the
best music I can instead of the best sound that I can.
Good luck!
Jim Van Winkle
In article <<memo.19980607103159.257J@mark...>>, <spam@swsoft...>
(Mark Woollard) writes:
>I'm setting up a home studio and wondered if anyone has advise on mics
>and miking techniques for recording acoustic fingerpicking. Looking get
>good stereo image and detail. Would want mics to be useable for vocals and
>other acoustic instruments too. Thanks for all input!
| Good mic for recording acoustic guitar |
|---|
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Good mic for recording acoustic guitar
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 20:20:52 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
"Randall C. Grimshaw" <<rgrimsha@syr...>> wrote:
>l really like my EV 301 instrument mic for both basement recording and stage.
>
>> studio, but nothing that would compare with the sensitivity of my AKG
>> C1000S's. I'd really like to get one of those Neumann T103's next. Maybe
>> next year? :-)
>>
>> Lisa
Folks,
Please keep in mind that no one mic is perfect for every guitar or
even every song with the same guitar. The Neumann TLM103 is a great
mic, but I've found that it (like every other mic I own) won't always
work on everything.
Best advice I can give anyone is to find a good large diaphragm
condensor (like the 103), a good ribbon mic (Beyer 260 or Coles 4038),
a good small condensor mic (Shure SM-81, Crown 700), and a good
dynamic mic (Shure SM57 or Sennheiser MD421), and use your ears. Mic
choices are not limited to the above examples - those are just typical
mics in their categories.
Things to listen for: harshness in the higher overtones, out of key
ringing overtones, boomy bass, thin sound, a boxy tone, excess finger
squeak or pick noise. These are all (or can be signs) of incorrect mic
placement or the wrong mic choice. Most new recordists tend to mic
guitars way too close - start at about two feet away, then adjust from
there.
One more thing - the sound hole in a guitar is a port - the same kind
of port you find in a bass reflex cabinet. If you were going to record
sound from a loudspeaker cabinet, you wouldn't point the mic at the
port.
The bridge is the part of the guitar that transfers the vibrations of
the strings to the body of the guitar - start there, pointed at the
bridge.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
| Ever heard of a Speiden mic? (Christ Whitley's new CD) [4] |
|---|
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@netcom...>
Subject: Re: Ever heard of a Speiden mic? (Christ Whitley's new CD)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 14:07:49 GMT
Organization: Institute for Boatanchor Studies
In article <<35df778c.1063467@news...>> <chadward@pipeline...> writes:
>Just read an article in the Sept. Acoustic Guitar about Chris
>Whitley's new album. It was recorded with a Speiden stereo ribbon
>mic, which according to the article, is made from a gun barrel.
>
>Ever heard of this mic?
Yes, it's a poor quality copy of the B&O stereo ribbon mike. Very low
output, very high noise. Still nice high end, though.
>I'm picking up the album tomorrow, so it should be interesting to hear
>how this thing sounds. For you purists out there, the record was
>recorded with just this one mic and two preamps to a 1965 Ampex 1/4"
>mastering deck.
What kind? There's a big difference between a 400 and an MR-70....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@netcom...>
Subject: Re: Ever heard of a Speiden mic? (Christ Whitley's new CD)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 21:54:07 GMT
Organization: Institute for Boatanchor Studies
In article <<35e026c2.479923@news...>> <chadward@pipeline...> writes:
><kludge@netcom...> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, it's a poor quality copy of the B&O stereo ribbon mike. Very low
>>output, very high noise. Still nice high end, though.
>
>Hmmm, never heard of the B&O mic either. I'm intrigued by the idea of
>a stereo ribbon mic. Any additional information would be appreciated.
It's basically a Blumlein pair in a single case, nothing all that fancy.
Very small ribbons and comparatively weak magnet.
The B&O was intended as a consumer, semi-pro sort of thing and was sold
with B&O tape decks in the seventies.
If you want something similar with modern mikes, a pair of Beyer M-130s
would be a good starting place.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: <mgod@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Ever heard of a Speiden mic? (Christ Whitley's new CD)
Date: 24 Aug 1998 15:37:03 GMT
Organization: Monkey God Music
In article <<kludgeEy5B91.6rH@netcom...>>, <kludge@netcom...> (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:
> >Ever heard of this mic?
>
> Yes, it's a poor quality copy of the B&O stereo ribbon mike. Very low
> output, very high noise. Still nice high end, though.
Bullshit. It's a great sounding mic if you've got a good source. Speiden's
demo DAT shows it in both it's glory, good players in a good room, and in
a less flattering circumstance to let you make up your own mind.
I can't wait to get one.
For you purists out there, the record was> >recorded with just this one mic and two preamps to a 1965 Ampex 1/4"
> >mastering deck.
>
> What kind? There's a big difference between a 400 and an MR-70....
Agreed, MR-70 is much superior.
DS
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@netcom...>
Subject: Re: Ever heard of a Speiden mic? (Christ Whitley's new CD)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 15:49:25 GMT
Organization: Institute for Boatanchor Studies
In article <<mgod-2408980755070001@pool001-max2...>> <mgod@earthlink...> writes:
>In article <<kludgeEy5B91.6rH@netcom...>>, <kludge@netcom...> (Scott Dorsey)
>wrote:
>
>> >Ever heard of this mic?
>>
>> Yes, it's a poor quality copy of the B&O stereo ribbon mike. Very low
>> output, very high noise. Still nice high end, though.
>
>Bullshit. It's a great sounding mic if you've got a good source. Speiden's
>demo DAT shows it in both it's glory, good players in a good room, and in
>a less flattering circumstance to let you make up your own mind.
True, it sounds pretty good. But do an A/B comparison with the original
B&O mike, and the midrange on a B&O is a lot cleaner and more open. I
thought the mikes were the same until I tried both of them on the same source.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Re: Mic techniques for acoustic guitar question
| Mic techniques for acoustic guitar question |
|---|
From: david b <xxx@yyy...>
Subject: Mic techniques for acoustic guitar question
Date: xxx, 02 Sep 1008 10:45:58
Posted by david b on September 02, 1998 at 12:58:52:
: I just recieved a rider for a "power" bluegrass group and the guitar player has to be mic-ed. I know
there are going to be problems bringing him out in the mix-----it will need to be as loud as possible. Do
any of you have any tips to get the job done? Monitors are going to need to be loud etc,etc. I can already
hear the feedback and requests to "turn it up" It is an outside show which should help.I have plenty of out
board at my disposal.SUGGESTIONS?? Bill
Hmmm,that's a tough one.
Years back i submitted that very same question to my "guru" and his advice was to go home and hang
myself in the shower.
In that time we didn't have the processing we have now, and the norm was sticking a mic in front of the
sound hole. We found that a mic without proximity effect such as AKG-202 did a better job. The reason
for our troubles was that when the player changes his position relative to the mic the bass tip-up effect
throws the system into feed back and also there are some wild fluctuations in the level,making the whole
experience a nightmare. The 202 kept things under better control.
With today's gear we place the mic ( any good cardioid)pointing more towards the place where the
soundboard meets the neck (if you try in front of the bridge, it may give also a good sound, but the players
hand will pass in front of the mic and it will sound rather weird), cut a lot of lows in the monitor and limit as
needed ( not too much, if you have to recover the gain lost during compression by means of the output
level control it will feedback again) .
I would also ask the player for some tips. If they insist on micing up the guitar they must have some
reason for that and you probably are not the first engineer they work with.
best of luck!
david
| MIC and MIC Preamp for classical guitar recording [2] |
|---|
From: GuySonic <guysonic@aol...>
Subject: Re: MIC and MIC Preamp for classical guitar recording
Date: 09 Sep 1998 22:37:46 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
In article <6t65jr$ll2$<1@ul3...>>, "Pablo Marfil"
<<pcmidi@concentric...>> writes:
>Subject: MIC and MIC Preamp for classical guitar recording
>From: "Pablo Marfil" <<pcmidi@concentric...>>
>Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:59:23 -0300
>
>Hi everybody. I want to record myself playing classical guitar with good
>quality, and have nearly all of the elements required: nice guitar, nice
>sound card, and a large hard drive.
>But I really need yout opinion on two subjects:
>- MIC: ¿Event's Rode NT1, AKG 3000, or Audio Technica Pro 37 R?.
>- MIC Preamp: ¿ART tube or Midiman's Audio Buddy?. A small mixer like
>Spirit's Folio Notepad could be the third chance.
>
>As you can see, I have a limited budget: say $500 or $600. Love to hear what
>anyone have to say on the matter. Thanks by now...
>
>Pablo Marfil - <pcmidi@concentric...>
>
Acoustic Classical Quitar is one of my very favorite sounds. I suggest that
you take a look at my site's content of stereo microphones and recording
techniques using the DSM microphone.
A good primer on a variation of ambient stereo technique can be found at:
http://www.sonicstudios.com/multitrk.htmTo get the richest, most satisfying sound of any acoustic instrument, you
really need to involve a stereo recording technique that replicates how we
normally hear acoustic sounds. This is only accomplished easily with using two
matched omni mics mounted with a properly designed acoustic HRTF baffle between
these matched mics.
The matched omni Mics themselves must be fairly small in size as not to get in
their own way of capturing an accurate acoustic.
Mic distance from a quitar will vary with ambient conditions and desired
effects of the mix of direct quitar sound to ambient (room) sounds, but
generally is from a few feet to 6 foot max. distance.
Choice of quitar, microphone & mic usage technique will have much more effect
on the recording quality than choices of other supporting equipment.
Best Regards in Sound & Music, Leonard Lombardo
Sonic Studios(tm) "Making Audio History With DSM(tm) Microphones"
Ph.541-459-8839 USA Free:1-888-875-4976 WEB: www.sonicstudios.com
"A bit of knowledge coupled to a great deal of wisdom serves us best"
From: Daniel Mahoney <mahoney@_nospam_dcache...>
Subject: Re: MIC and MIC Preamp for classical guitar recording
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 11:45:20 -0700
In that price range - you'll get very good results with
an AT825 stereo mic & the spirit Mixpad or Notepad mixer.
Wont be studio-quality of course but you'll be smiling &
its easy to set up.
Check it out
| Help Pls: Recording Acoustic Guitar Techniques |
|---|
From: Decibeldoc <decibeldoc@aol...>
Subject: Re: Help Pls: Recording Acoustic Guitar Techniques
Date: 19 Sep 1998 17:09:17 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Help Pls: Recording Acoustic Guitar Techniques
>From: <bob@bob...> (BOB)
>Date: Sat, Sep 19, 1998 04:26 EDT
>Message-id: <<36036934.3586917@news...>>
>
>I am currently in the process of recording my first project in a new
>home studio - I have been fortunate enough to inherit some new
>equipment recently and would like to know what would be the best way
>to record my Applause acoustic (fat body) guitar:
>
>Cubase w/ Gina / Waves Plugs
>Spirit Folio F1 mixer
>Rode NT2
>Shure SM57
>JoeMeek VC3
>
>What mic placement would be best? Should I attempt to use both mics
>for stereo placement? What EQ spots are most often tweaked with
>acoustic guitars? If someone could point me in the direction of any
>useful resources it would be a great help. Thanks.
></PRE></HTML>
there is no secret setup that can be used on all guitars in all settings. you
say nothing of the room acoustics, or the way you attack the strings of the
instrument for the type of music you are playing.
the joe meek vc-3 is a very fat sounding, very thick sounding unit.
the nt-2 is a very nice sounding large diapragm condenser mic.
try recording directly to your recording medium of choice (the cubase) through
your mic pre/and microphone then listening back and using the board eq to tweek
your sound upon playback.
try experimenting with mic placement by moving the mic nearer and further away
from the sound source. do you find the room acoustics that come into play while
the mic is further away to be pleasant? or not?
make sure that your signal path is not overdriven at either the source (the
mic) or at the preamp stage or the input into your computer.
now listen to your ears and trust yourself as to what you are hearing.
you'll get the hang of it
aaron
if you have any more questions, please feel free to go to our webpage at www.
decibeldoc.com. we have a page called ask the doc and will be more than happy
to offer you whatever wisdom is available to us
| Tube Mic shootout |
|---|
From: Eleven Shadows <elevenshadows@theeleventhhour...>
Subject: Re: Tube Mic shootout
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 21:42:19 -0700
Organization: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc.
> I'm ready to buy a tube mic specifically for recording vocals, but I
> would like to buy one that has low self noise so I can use it on solo
> acoustic guitar. I'm looking at the Rode Classic, Lawson, etc. in the
> $1000--$2000 range street price. Any comments are appreciated....
I'm in love with the Lawson L47 MP right now. Big, fat, juicy tone,
continuously variable patterns, and Gene Lawson is a great guy! See some
of the AES/Neumann M-147 posts for more info. I have never heard the Rode
Classic, although Jon Best seems to have made a very good a capella vocal
recording with one, if memory serves correctly. Another option is to wait
for a while for the M-147 and see how that is. I don't see how it could
possibly suck! Now, ultimately, a lot of your choice will depend on what
kind of voice, audio chain, tastes, acoustic guitar, etc. you have, so
you'll eventually have to listen for yourself! BTW, why are you looking
for a tube mic specifically? Just curious.
--
Ken/Eleven Shadows
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eleven Shadows * ES songs on Real Audio * Music Reviews * Travels:
Peru-Ladakh-Kashmir-India-HK * Tibet * Real Audio Radio Shows
http://www.theeleventhhour.com/elevenshadows
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Recording classical guitar: EQ question [2] |
|---|
From: Monte P McGuire <mcguire@world...>
Subject: Re: Recording classical guitar: EQ question
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 09:07:38 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
In article <6vckfk$js9$<1@tibro...>>,
Manco <<jonb@nospameurobell...>> wrote:
>I am recording a classical guitar directly onto hard
>disc, and it sounds like I need to tweak the EQ. The
>results so far sound rather 'boomy' and muddy in the mid
>range.
[snip]
>-What EQ settings could I try to improve the sound?
Try a peaking cut somewhere around 140Hz to 200Hz. Sometimes you'll
find one or maybe two narrow bandwidth resonances in that region and
if you knock those down with an equally narrow filter, sometimes only
by a few dB, the guitar will sound much better. You can try to find
the resonance(s) by making the EQ reasonably sharp, boost by 6-10dB
and sweep frequency 'til you find it. If you don't have an adjustable
bandwidth, look for another EQ; this is a narrowband problem and it's
best solved with a narrowband EQ.
Of course, you can also reduce the amount of LF by changing mike
positions or by going to an omni instead of cardioid, but it's not
always necessary and it's no guarantee that you won't have a bass
light track that still has a boomy resonance; a good peaking EQ cut
can handle this problem easily and end up with a nicely balanced
track.
After you tame the "boom", you might also want to use a shelving LF
cut if the track is still too bassy and/or some HF boost to add
sparkle, depending of course on what you want it to sound like.
>-would it be better to add these 'live' (mic the guitar
>up through my fx unit) or tweak the EQ after recording
>(using my software)?
Do whichever sounds better. I always like to push that off until
mixdown, because you really don't know how much you need to cut (or if
you need to cut at all) until the mix is up, but that's because I have
good EQ on mixdown. Make a test recording and see how your various
EQs handle it.
If you cut while tracking, make sure you don't go too far, since you
might end up sterilizing the track and making it a lot less intimate
sounding. It's a judgement call, and "in the mix" is the best time to
decide, IMHO.
Best of luck,
Monte McGuire
<mcguire@world...>
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@netcom...>
Subject: Re: Recording classical guitar: EQ question
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 14:44:16 GMT
Organization: Institute for Boatanchor Studies
In article <6vckfk$js9$<1@tibro...>> "Manco" <<jonb@nospameurobell...>> writes:
>I am recording a classical guitar directly onto hard
>disc, and it sounds like I need to tweak the EQ. The
>results so far sound rather 'boomy' and muddy in the mid
>range.
Try using a different microphone and/or a drier room.
>I am using N-track and Cool Edit to handle the recording
>& editing (and possibly for EQ and FX) but I also have a
>Yamaha FX500 guitar effects processor. I have two
>questions:
>
>-What EQ settings could I try to improve the sound?
Without listening to the thing, I couldn't tell you. This is like
asking me if you should add more garlic to your tomato sauce.
>-would it be better to add these 'live' (mic the guitar
>up through my fx unit) or tweak the EQ after recording
>(using my software)?
I'd look at the mike and the room before touching the EQ.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
| B-Band / dynamic mic versus B-Band / Mills [3] |
|---|
From: Adrian Legg <leggman@**dicron.co.uk>
Subject: Re: B-Band / dynamic mic versus B-Band / Mills
Date: 9 Oct 1998 22:00:42 -0100
Organization: loose
In article <<361e67bb.0@newsread1...>>
Adrian Legg, leggman@**dicron.co.uk writes:
>Subject: Re: B-Band / dynamic mic versus B-Band / Mills
>From: Adrian Legg, leggman@**dicron.co.uk
>Date: 9 Oct 1998 20:44:59 -0100
>>In article <6vl1rl$67q$<1@nnrp1...>> ,
><mikecloud@my-dejanews...> writes:
>>Subject: B-Band / dynamic mic versus B-Band / Mills
>>From: mikecloud
>>Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 13:08:05 GMT
>>>I'm interested in opinions about sound quality of amplifying an acoustic
>>guitar with a B-Band and a dynamic mic (like a Shure SM57)
>
>I think I'd be concerned about the 3k peak in
>the SM-57. ++++snip++++ Shure do quite a nice one - I've
>forgotten its number right now - a long thin
>chrome coloured one that is used more often for
>miking top kit -anybody help ?+++snip+++
It looks like my files got purged -I'm pretty
sure (hah!) that Shure condenser was the SM84 .
Tne AKG 451 was around at the time I used it (10
years+ ago ..?) and that seems to have
disappeared - it was MUCH more sensitive than
the 84, but didn't sound as good to me.
I guess a current equivalent of the AKG451 would
be the 460B. I fancied trying it with the CK63
hypercardioid capsule. The CK61 is cardioid and
also pretty flat, so you'd need some bass roll
off somewhere along the line to counter
proximity effect for either of these capsules.
These are expensive here (UKlist plus vat for
the 460B and CK61 kit is UKpounds581, and
probably it's marginally worse by the time they
get to the US).
My favourite stand condenser is the MB ( a
German company in Mosbach I think) MBC 640. This
was a wonderful all-rounder for an artist to
carry, you could run it on 48volt phantom or on
an internal PX27 battery. The battery meant it
was possible to convert it to unbalanced line
for a small unbalanced club p.a. without having
to carry a separate phantom supply. The downside
is that it doesn't like the phantom voltage
dropping at all.
It too seems to have disappeared, but the KA400
capsule that I really like, cardioid with a very
useful bass roll-off, is still around
(UKpounds221), and you could put it together
with an MB648 pre-amp at UKpounds144.50 and get
yourself a nice little guitar stage mike for
somewhere under USD700 ? What would the govt.
hit you for on import ? 100 bucks max. ?Less...?
MB does another pre-amp, the 603, which willdeal with a peak s.p.l. just over130dB which has
a good looking spec., but you probably don't
need that kind of performance unless you're
planning to fire guns on stage.
The last story I heard about US import of these
was that the guy who handled it had had a heart
attack, and no-one else had picked up his job.
That was a few years ago. It would be really
nice to see them around again.
Meanwhile, if you fancy it, the UK importers are
Canford Audio at 011 44 191 415 0044. Maybe they
have some bumf they cansend you ?I assume that
export stuff doesn't attract UK v.a.t..
I saw a bluegrass band at a now defunct club in
Boston some years ago, and everybody was using
SM57s. The mandolin shone and sparkled, and the
guitar trudged along some way behind it. At the
break, we switched the guitar onto my MB, and
second set it shone and sparkled up with the
mandolin.
Seriously, dynamic mikes are stodgy things for
guitars. The reason the 57 is popular is because
it's cheap and takes a beating, not because it
sounds good.
I just listened to a guy this lunchtime using
SM58s. They have a similiar response curve to
the 57, with a bit more sibilance.It sounded
like someone was phoning the guitar in.
http://www.roe.ac.uk/mjpwww/legghead.htm
E-mail may not be answered for months during
extended and computerless motel-hopping
frenzies.There are management addresses at the
web page.
From: Adrian Legg <leggman@**dicron.co.uk>
Subject: Re: B-Band / dynamic mic versus B-Band / Mills
Date: 12 Oct 1998 21:48:30 -0100
Organization: loose
In article
<<36223C01.371EA817@spacenet...>> Tom
Loredo, <loredo@spacenet...> writes:
>Subject: Re: B-Band / dynamic mic versus B-Band / Mills
>Given that the fellow specified a dynamic mic, and specified
>that it would be used with a Blender, it seems a bit strange
>to me to see recommendations for (1) specific condensers that
>by themselves cost more than the entire setup he suggested,
>and (2) condensers that require phantom power and thus cannot
>be used with the Blender (which technically provides T power,
>not the P48 power required by mics).
+++snips+++
Mike said > I don't really care
>about convenience (being tied to a stationary mic, etc.), I'm interested in
>quality of tone.
Tone. That was my cue to haul out a big piece of
fat for a good chew.. I don't think it can be
had cheap, sadly.....
>If you already have a 57, give it a try. I don't use them, but
>I do feel Adrian exaggerated the problems with them. In particular,
>it is not fair to judge them by the sound of an SM58. The 58
>uses the same dynamic element, but adds a pop filter and enhances
>the presence peak to optimize it for vocal use. Heck, I don't
>even like the 58 on vocals!!!
Um...maybe I exaggerate a little, but imho the
whole point of miking is for tone.
There is definitely a 3k peak in the 57 that I
feel causes a significant tonal problem, and if
you're going to put up with a tonal problem,
there are better volume trade-offs to be had
from piezo pick-ups. I own both Beta57 and the
Beta58, they're very, very similiar around the
3k mark, the 58 just adds more peak higher up. I
do like the 58 for muttering at audiences [I
have promised never to sing at them - I think it
might be part of my visa conditions :-) ] - I
have tried a lot of stage mikes around the
country, and found the 58's usually superior
resistance to p.s,t.s and breath noises to be
well worth a little extra weight in my baggage
Yes - the C1000 is very harsh, but it will run
on a battery. I tried it during a period of
trying everything I could lay my hands on, and
in the volume/tone trade off, I felt that Barcus
Berrys [Berries ? :-)] were a better deal.
The Shure SM94 worked similiarly, is anelectret, but sounded better on an instrument
than the C-1000 - it too will run on a battery.
I don't think it's possible to avoid opening the
worm can, perennial as it is, if we're to
discuss mikes and the guitar.
From a volume perspective, they contribute
little that will be any use in the majority of
gigs. If a person is lucky enough to be working
gigs where a nice miked acoustic tone is a
possibility, then imho the kind of tonal
deficiences of something like the SM57 are going
to be apparent. In that case I'd go for broke.
[...well, I have and I am :-) ]
I did notice with a variety of condensers that
diaphragm size was significant, and I think this
is why I ended up abandoning lavaliers and
similiar small mikes inside the guitar and going
for stand mikes. What the small onboard mikes
added quality-wise seemed to be little that
could not be added for a better volume return by
a carefully sited piezo running into a small
parametric.
Maybe it's a bit perfectionist, but every time I
saw a condenser mike chart with a nice straight
line across it, I knew that if I could sort out
proximity effect, I could get somewhere near a
decent sound. The delight of the 81 was that on
top of the really rather nice tone (there was
something quite ribbony about it I thought),
bass roll off was a simple business of turning a
switch on the mike barrel. If, as another
writer said, they're around the 400bucks mark,
that seems to me to be a reasonable cost to do a
decent guitar justice, and dropping to
unbalanced after a phantom supply would be
simply a matter of plugging in line a
transformer that Shure can supply.
There were a few dynamics during this try-out
period that were very interesting - an old Shure
whose number I've forgotten which was
beautifully flat; a Beyer ribbon mike, very flat
with a treble I loved; and the Sennheiser MD441
- a condenser-like chart and a bass roll-off on
the end of the square barrel. Tonally, used on a
guitar, they all left the 57 standing unless I
used the in-line eq that knocked out the 57's 3k
peak, and in terms of sensitivy, they would all
have worked much better as brass mikes.
Admittedly, the one thing the 57 has going for
it is the bass roll-off, and maybe in a band,
the 3k peak will be covered over enough to be
less of a pain than in Mike's posited solo
situation.
I think if economy is a significant factor,
mikes are likely to be frustrating and
disappointing. Having thrown money at the guitar
for 30 years, I think I would say that mike
quality is absolutely crucial if the
principle is to work at all, and even a good
quality mike is likely in most working
situations to be frustrating - you can only get
them so loud.
With respect Tom, for "affordable" my experience
tends to print funny sounding.
I saw John Renbourn at the Purcell Room here a
few years ago. It' s an open room with no
obvious acoustic drawbacks, and a quiet crowd.
He used a Sunrise and an AKG 414 - a nice
sensitive condenser( dynamic range of 126dB,
capable of dealing with 140dB spls unpadded,
160dB padded, switcheable polar patterns, nice
big diaphragm size, all that good stuff),justly
known as a studio work-horse. I might winge
about the presence rise starting around 3k, but
this is a good, good mike, and switched to
cardioid, an unusual (probably because it's so
ugly) but technically viable stage mike.
He couldn't get enough volume from the balance
of mike and pick-up to be able to play gently
and still be heard, and in the end, abandoned
any attempt at balancing with the mike and had
the engineer turn up the pick-up separately.
I've seen similiar things happen, and had them
happen to me, so many times across the years,
and it seems to me this is where many of us end
up with mikes. We have to leave them behind
simply in order to be heard.
I think if a player is going to sing and use a
strummed guitar for support, she or he is in
with a chance with a mike in a quiet venue. If
they're going to finger-pick, and there's an
espresso machine or bar traffic around, there's
a problem that even a good sensitive cardioid
condenser is going to have trouble with, and
that in the end, pick-ups and e.q. will have to
solve.
Adrian.
http://www.roe.ac.uk/mjpwww/legghead.htm
E-mail may not be answered for months during
extended and computerless motel-hopping
frenzies.There are management addresses at the
web page.
From: Adrian Legg <leggman@**dicron.co.uk>
Subject: Re: B-Band / dynamic mic versus B-Band / Mills
Date: 13 Oct 1998 22:14:15 -0100
Organization: loose
In article <6vl1rl$67q$<1@nnrp1...>> ,
<mikecloud@my-dejanews...> writes:
+++big snip++++
I just cleared out a badly dinged suitcase that
United are going to repair and found the
in-line gizmo that knocks out the peak on an
SM57.
It says here:
Shure Response Shaper model no. A15RS
The output is still balanced, impedance 150 ohms.
It might be a cheap way out if the peak does
sound too scratchy.
I hope this helps.
Adrian
http://www.roe.ac.uk/mjpwww/legghead.htm
E-mail may not be answered for months during
extended and computerless motel-hopping
frenzies.There are management addresses at the
web page.
| mic for vocals/acoustic [2] |
|---|
From: Jordan A Slator <jazz@v-wave...>
Subject: Re: mic for vocals/acoustic
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 17:46:48 -0600
Organization: Videotron Communications Ltd.
Actually, the C1000 does NOT need phantom power. It has the option of using phantom
power or a 9 volt battery. I find it to be a very good multi-purpose condenser for a
fairly low-budget home studio.
Jordan Slator
<jazz@v-wave...>
Jon Best wrote:
> Not really- phantom power means little switch marked 'phantom' or '+48' on your
> board or mic pre.
>
> <smack4u@yahoo...> wrote:
>
> > In article <<361D1388.2ADA@synnet...>>,
> > Brian Rost <<brost@synnet...>> wrote:
> > > <smack4u@yahoo...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > i have a few $100 shure mics that i used to mic drums and electric
> > > > instruments that are good enough for what i need, BUT question is i would
> > > > like one good mic for recording vocals and acoustic guitar ... is there any
> > > > good quality mics for this under $200? under $300? thanks for any input
> > ...
> > > > i don't know my mics very well ...
> > >
> > > The AKG C1000 condenser now has a street price of $200 and will do a
> > > very nice job on guitars.
> > >
> > > As far as vocals, you may find that the mike choice really depends on
> > > the voice you're recording. The C1000 is a good vocal mike but for some
> > > singers an SM58 is better, for others a U87.
> > >
> > > The C1000 also is a nice mike for drum overheads or other miking of
> > > "room" sounds.
> > >
> > > Keep in mind the C1000 requires phantom power.
> > >
> >
> > thanks for the info, but excuse my ignorance ... does phantom power mean
> > pre-amp?
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
> --
> Jon Best
> Recording Guy
From: Anahata <Anahata@freereed...>
Subject: Re: mic for vocals/acoustic
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 16:25:03 +0100
Organization: First Equity
Andre Simoes Brito - LEF <<ascb@students...>> writes
>About the C1000 I heard that it also works with a 9V battery but I'm not
>sure hat... my cousin has this mic and he loves it
>
True, it can work with an internal 9V battery, controlled by a switch on
the mic barrel. The battery is automatically cut out if the mic is
plugged into a device that supplies phantom power.
Anahata
<anahata@freereed...> + http://www.freereed.demon.co.uk/
<anahata@locust...> email to mobile phone 8 line messages max
0171 638 5577 (W) 0171 229 6076 (H) 0976 263827 (mobile)
| Acoustic Room |
|---|
From: <donkinr@crisny...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Room
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 02:25:38 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
In article <72niqt$6r2$<1@ash...>>,
"David Morefield" <bluesbassdad@earthlink.net> wrote:>
> Gloriann Berkel wrote in message
> <<16670-364F1297-2@newsd-214...>>...
> I was wondering if anyone had any opinions on what type of environment
> is best for recording acoustic guitar.
> I just bought a CD that Roy did. I believe he recorded it in his own studio
> in his home. His Lowden sounds very good (that's about as technical as I am
> qualified to get) on said CD.
Thanks for passing around the kind words. Who knows, maybe I'll even
sell a few more CDs! (shameless plug...)
Yes, I recorded over 1/2 of the CD at home although you'd be hard pressed to
call it a home studio. Naming it "Third Floor Studios" on the disk was more
a joke than anything else. I recorded onto my computer using an Event Darla
recording card and Cool Edit Pro software through part of our stage set-up: a
Mackie 1202 board, a Digitech Studio 100 digital effects unit, and a dbx 262
compressor (which I used a bit too much of on one or two songs). For the
guitar sound, I was trying to capture my live sound. My philosophy there is
not that I want to get an acoustic sound louder so much as I want to get an
acoustic sound bigger. For this reason, I used my stage set-up as 2/3s of
the recording set-up for the material I did at home.
I used a borrowed AKG C3000 condenser mike panned to the left about 9:00, my
Sunrise pickup down the middle, and my McIntyre pickup - which is mounted on
the bridge plate - to the right about 3:00. The pickups both went through a
Sunrise stereo pre-amp and the Sunrise through some old electric guitar stomp
boxes.
The room is nothing special in either direction although we did have to wait
for planes to fly by a few times as we're underneath one of the flight paths
for the Albany airport 8-( It is carpeted with a lot of glass and
asymmetrical ceilings.
The studio material was recorded on 16 track 2 inch tape with 5 sources from
the guitar... the two pickups through the same electronics, a small diaphragm
condenser pointed at the 14th fret, and two Crown PZMs about 6 feet away at
either end of the guitar.
The vocals were another story altogether.
All in all, I was very pleased with the sound we got and learned how to get
an even better sound next time ;-)
If you want to hear more about the CD, drop me a note (another shameless
plug).
Roy
http://www.crisny.org/users/donkinr
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
| Miking Acoustic Guitar [8] |
|---|
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Miking Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 19:12:08 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<steve@lord-schein...> wrote:
>All:
>
>I'm doing some recording this weekend and I would like some
>recommendations on the miking of an acoustic guitar. I have one AKG
>C3000 and other average vocal mics available.
>
>Please let me know what you think.
Steve,
The AKG C3000 wouldn't be my first choice, but I've had good results
with it by putting the C3000 about 2 feet out from the player, about
even with the top of his head, then angled down toward the guitar.
Anything closer, and the C3000 high-end peak kicks in and it sounds
too bright. Any closer and boom kicks in.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
From: BrownSnd14 <brownsnd14@aol...>
Subject: Re: Miking Acoustic Guitar
Date: 28 Nov 1998 05:11:21 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>The AKG C3000 wouldn't be my first choice, but I've had good results with it
by putting the C3000 about 2 feet out from the player, about even with the top
of his head, then angleddown toward the guitar. Anything closer, and the C3000
high-end peak kicks in and it sounds too bright. Any closer and boom kicks in.>
What's wrong with bottom on an acoustic? Everytime I have to mix something
that was recorded in a home studio everything sounds thin. Bottom is good as
long as it's not boomy. I'd rather have too much while tracking so I can roll
it off while I mix.
By the way, a C3000 is ok, put it about 2' in front of the guitar aimedat the 12th fret. Putting the mic closer to the soundhole will add more bass,
the neck will add more highs. The 12th fret is usually a good place to start.
You could always place the mic up by the player's ears so you hear what he
hears. Run it through a good pre and add a pinch of compression, no more then
4:1 if it's a strumming part and you should be pretty good. Don't forget to
use your ears.
-Jay Kahrs
Brown Sound Studios
Morris Plains, NJ
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Miking Acoustic Guitar
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 06:56:20 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<brownsnd14@aol...> (BrownSnd14) wrote:
>>I said:
>>The AKG C3000 wouldn't be my first choice, but I've had good results with it
>>by putting the C3000 about 2 feet out from the player, about even with the top
>>of his head, then angled down toward the guitar. Anything closer, and the C3000
>>high-end peak kicks in and it sounds too bright. Any closer and boom kicks in.
>
>What's wrong with bottom on an acoustic? Everytime I have to mix something
>that was recorded in a home studio everything sounds thin. Bottom is good as
>long as it's not boomy. I'd rather have too much while tracking so I can roll
>it off while I mix.
Uhhh, Jay,
Did you read what I said? Let me repeat my last line:
>"Any closer and boom kicks in."
Now, let me repeat your third line:
>Bottom is good as long as it's not boomy.
Now, your question (to me) was:
>What's wrong with bottom on an acoustic?
Here's my answer:
>Bottom on an acoustic is good, as long as it's not "boomy".
Moving an AKG C3000 much closer to an acoustic guitar results in more
"boom", NOT more "bottom", in my humble opinion. YMMV. I'm not crazy
about moving any microphone into an instrument's near field, unless
absolutely necessary. Drums, Leslie organ speakers, harmonicas,
electric guitars, and certain vocalists are the exceptions, for some
types of music.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
From: BrownSnd14 <brownsnd14@aol...>
Subject: Re: Miking Acoustic Guitar
Date: 29 Nov 1998 20:17:49 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Uhhh, Jay,
>
>Did you read what I said? Let me repeat my last line:
>
>>"Any closer and boom kicks in."
My bad. If you look at the time of the post it was at 1am or something like
that. Plus I had a really stressful day.
-Jay Kahrs
Brown Sound Studios
Morris Plains, NJ
From: Larry <lund1@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Miking Acoustic Guitar
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 06:03:57 -0500
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
<steve@lord-schein...> wrote:
> All:
>
> I'm doing some recording this weekend and I would like some
> recommendations on the miking of an acoustic guitar. I have one AKG
> C3000 and other average vocal mics available.
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Steve
Hi Steve,
You post is alittle too general. What are your goals? Do you have a
preamp? Is this solo guitar/background, stumming/fingerpicking(metal
fingerpicks/fingernails/pads of fingers)? What kind of guitar are you
using: dreadnought, 00series, concert acoustic etc.
For starters, what I have done, is find your best mike-the one that will
require the least amount of tweaking.. Record each mike individually
without any efx. Place the mike in a generally acceptable place (12th
fret, aim at the sound hole, ~12-18" away). Find your second best mike
using the same method. Try recording some stereo tracks using the
generally acceptable x-y position. Of course this is just a suggestion.
Sometimes I've done what I've just told you and then when it comes time
to add efx(eq/reverb etc), I just haven't been able to get it the way I
want. So, I'll run the track to tape/HD dry(maybe w/ slight compression)
then through my efx to monitor the sound. Sometimes I find the mike
placement is just too funky for these efx I want, or I might have the
wrong mike. Experiment is often the key. Hell, I even found switching
from phos-bonze strings(which were great for live, but the trebles too
bright for recording) a real boost.
Let me know about your goals and setup.
Larry
From: lund1 <lund1@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Miking Acoustic Guitar
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 10:16:56 -0500
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
Larry wrote:
> <steve@lord-schein...> wrote:
>
> > All:
> >
> > I'm doing some recording this weekend and I would like some
> > recommendations on the miking of an acoustic guitar. I have one AKG
> > C3000 and other average vocal mics available.
> >
> > Please let me know what you think.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Steve
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> You post is alittle too general. What are your goals? Do you have a
> preamp? Is this solo guitar/background, stumming/fingerpicking(metal
> fingerpicks/fingernails/pads of fingers)? What kind of guitar are you
> using: dreadnought, 00series, concert acoustic etc.
>
> For starters, what I have done, is find your best mike-the one that will
> require the least amount of tweaking.. Record each mike individually
> without any efx. Place the mike in a generally acceptable place (12th
> fret, aim at the sound hole, ~12-18" away). Find your second best mike
> using the same method. Try recording some stereo tracks using the
> generally acceptable x-y position. Of course this is just a suggestion.
> Sometimes I've done what I've just told you and then when it comes time
> to add efx(eq/reverb etc), I just haven't been able to get it the way I
> want. So, I'll run the track to tape/HD dry(maybe w/ slight compression)
> then through my efx to monitor the sound. Sometimes I find the mike
> placement is just too funky for these efx I want, or I might have the
> wrong mike. Experiment is often the key. Hell, I even found switching
> from phos-bonze strings(which were great for live, but the trebles too
> bright for recording) a real boost.
What I meant to say, was switching from phos-bronze to a regular bronze
string has improved my recordings.....highs are more pleasing.
Larry
>
>
> Let me know about your goals and setup.
>
> Larry
From: Mike Turk <mturk@globalserve...>
Subject: Re: Miking Acoustic Guitar
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 09:00:13 -0500
Organization: Globalserve Communications Inc.
Larry wrote:
>
> <steve@lord-schein...> wrote:
>
> > Larry:
> >
> > Thanks for the thoughts. Session is pushed until Tuesday. The
> > environment is a home studio although I have some decent equipment
> > including a Mackie 24x8 analog board and Tascam DA-38's for storage.
> > I also have some average sound processing gear including a DBX1066
> > compressor/limiter and a Lexicon MPX-1. Sadly (he says blushing) my
> > only quality mic is the C3000. I have some Pioneer karaoke mics
> > (don't laugh) which are actually pretty good for vocals.
>
I think how you mic an acoustic is totally dependant on to the
context of what you want to acheive. If it's going to be like an
accompianment (strumming) with a lot of other things happening at the
same time
I would use a bright mic and just go for the click of the pick
on the strings to sort of match it with a hi-hat. So for that use
your tightest paterned brightest mic. Try not to point it into the
soundhole, all I ever get there is boom and mud, but every player
strums at a different place (some close to the neck, some close to the
bridge) so you have to experiment. If the guitar will be the main
part of the music or second only to a vocal I would use two mics and try
to acheive a nice stereo image. I had good results having two mics
about one to two feet away from the soundhole, one on top of each other
pointing not at the hole but one toward where the neck ends on the
body and slightly higher and the other pointing to roughly the bridge
and a little lower with the mics being around 110 degrees apart. Beware
though that if the guitarist moves around the image will get spoiled.
Also when you mic close, compression will probably be required but if
your not careful you can wipe out your nice crisp highs. Remember when
a mic is further away from a source the air is your compressor but
then you might get other unwanted things like the room sound which might
not be good. So there are pros and cons with everything you do.
Ultimately
you have to decide what is important and base your decision on that.
--
Mike Turk
From: ian.thompson-bell <ruffrecords@geocities...>
Subject: Re: Miking Acoustic Guitar
Date: 29 Nov 1998 20:29:43 GMT
Organization: FreedotNet Sunscriber
Don't apologise for using AKG C3000s. I use them all the time and on
acoustic guitars too. They have a good sensitivity and low self noise so
with a good mic pre you can keep a reasonable distance from the guitar.
Just two pieces of advice I would offer.
1. Remember the acoustic of the room plays a very important part in the
overall sound if you mic at a distance. You will notice two things:
increased 'presence' in the sense the guitar will appear more realisticaly
in the final stero image and: no boominess and reduced high frequencies.
2. Micing close is quite possible especially if you want to emphasise the
crisp sound of steel strings. Remember to keep away from the hole (half
way up the neck is my favourite) and possibly use the bass cut switch on
the C3000.
Ian
--
Ian Thompson-Bell
Ruff Records
URL: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Amphitheatre/8163/
email: <ruffrecords@geocities...>
<steve@lord-schein...> wrote in article
<<3660917c.34854844@news...>>...
> Larry:
>
> Thanks for the thoughts. Session is pushed until Tuesday. The
> environment is a home studio although I have some decent equipment
> including a Mackie 24x8 analog board and Tascam DA-38's for storage.
> I also have some average sound processing gear including a DBX1066
> compressor/limiter and a Lexicon MPX-1. Sadly (he says blushing) my
> only quality mic is the C3000. I have some Pioneer karaoke mics
> (don't laugh) which are actually pretty good for vocals.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't know what kind of acoustic guitar it is yet.
> I'll post this info when I find out and if I have time left for it to
> matter.
>
> I'll experiement with it.
>
> By the way, I've often seen two mic setups for recording an acoustic
> guitar. Given my second mic choice, would it make sense to place this
> mic somewhere (not a straight line)?
>
> Thanks for the help!
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 06:03:57 -0500, Larry <<lund1@earthlink...>> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> ><steve@lord-schein...> wrote:
> >
> >> All:
> >>
> >> I'm doing some recording this weekend and I would like some
> >> recommendations on the miking of an acoustic guitar. I have one AKG
> >> C3000 and other average vocal mics available.
> >>
> >> Please let me know what you think.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >
> >Hi Steve,
> >
> >You post is alittle too general. What are your goals? Do you have a
> >preamp? Is this solo guitar/background, stumming/fingerpicking(metal
> >fingerpicks/fingernails/pads of fingers)? What kind of guitar are you
> >using: dreadnought, 00series, concert acoustic etc.
> >
> >For starters, what I have done, is find your best mike-the one that will
> >require the least amount of tweaking.. Record each mike individually
> >without any efx. Place the mike in a generally acceptable place (12th
> >fret, aim at the sound hole, ~12-18" away). Find your second best mike
> >using the same method. Try recording some stereo tracks using the
> >generally acceptable x-y position. Of course this is just a suggestion.
> >Sometimes I've done what I've just told you and then when it comes time
> >to add efx(eq/reverb etc), I just haven't been able to get it the way I
> >want. So, I'll run the track to tape/HD dry(maybe w/ slight compression)
> >then through my efx to monitor the sound. Sometimes I find the mike
> >placement is just too funky for these efx I want, or I might have the
> >wrong mike. Experiment is often the key. Hell, I even found switching
> >from phos-bonze strings(which were great for live, but the trebles too
> >bright for recording) a real boost.
> >
> >
> >
> >Let me know about your goals and setup.
> >
> >Larry
> >
> >
>
>
| External Mics/Gillian Welch [2] |
|---|
From: BobApplg8 <bobapplg8@aol...>
Subject: Re: External Mics/Gillian Welch
Date: 6 Dec 1998 02:51:58 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>(b) any
>suggestions/comments/drawbacks on using external mics in a live setting?
Re: using external mics as opposed to pickups:
The advantages from a sound quality perspective can be tremendous under certain
circumstances. The optimum results can be achieved when using the following
setup: (IMHO as a sound system designed and guitar player/performer)
Generally:
1. Fewer live mics (four for Gillian Welch)
2. Low to very low stage volume (monitor speakers)
3. Good Sound person using correct speakers for room and correct spacing to
additional delayed speakers. Even under the best conditions it is not normally
possible to achieve a "throw" distance of more than three times the microphone
to loudspeaker distance, even with significant EQ.
4. Narrow band filters (notch filters or parametric) which can be assigned on a
per channel basis for the feedback prone instrument mics.
5. Loudspeakers and microphones chosen for both sound quality and pickup
pattern, the tighter dispersion / pickup patterns give more gain before
feedback - all else being equal.
6. Use of in the ear monitors (if monitors are required) gives a substantial
increase in quality and gain before feedback.
7. Plenty of time available for a sound check to iron out the feedback demons.
When all these suggestions cannot be followed, it often times requires the
compromise of some type of pickup system (with or without mic). However, if
all these items can be addressed and the audience is quiet, the results can be
tremendous with mics (only).
Bob Applegate
From: David K. Brooks <david.k.brooks@boeing...>
Subject: Re: External Mics/Gillian Welch
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 20:44:09 GMT
Organization: The Boeing Company
G&D did a songwriting workshop at the Acoustic Guitar Festival this
summer in San Rafael, Ca. Their answer to this question was that they
travel with their own collection of SM57's and 58's and arrange them in
whatever way sounds best for that particular venue. Sometimes they use
the SM57's for instruments and 58's for vocals, sometimes the opposite
and sometimes a combination (one setup for Gillian, another for David).
Their general comment was that they liked the dynamics of the live mics
and that due to the quality control of the Shure mfg. line (this was
David's way of saying that there was no control and thus each mic had
it's own personality, sound and set of characteristics) they could vary
the sound they get widely depending on the needs. They also said they
used their own mics so that over time, they get familiar with said
characteristics and could get the sound they want quickly.
Hope this helps!
db
Philip Wheelock wrote:
>
> In article <747rr2$cdl$<1@nnrp1...>>, <jhath3@my-dejanews...> wrote:
>
> > Monday night I had the privilege of attending a show by Gillian Welch and
> > David Rawlings. One of the finest evenings of acoustic music I have ever
> > heard. I was blown away by the sound they created e he wants.
> > ...(snip)...
> > Does anyone have any idea (a) what type of mics this duo uses? or (b) any
> > suggestions/comments/drawbacks on using external mics in a live setting? The
> > sound was so good (and in a club not known for that) that I am truly intrigued
> > as to whether I could use such an approach rather than chasing the internal
> > amplification grail.
>
> In live performances, they use whatever equipment the sound engineers set
> up for them. I heard them in concert in Somerville, MA a few months back,
> and they sounded great going through a couple of Shure SM58's. The spare,
> minimal style that they have wouldn't carry as well if they plugged in,
> IMO.
>
> The key, it would seem, is to be good enough to rate a top quality sound
> engineer doing the mix. Otherwise, an AKG or Shure condenser mike and the
> coaching of a very good friend who has a fair ear and is willing to do
> sound for you might do the trick.
>
> Philip
>
> --
> *** Anti-spam tactics used. Please remove *spam_be_gone*
> from the return address when replying.
--
"What the wise do in the beginning, the fools do in the end."
--- Warren Buffett--
David K. Brooks
MR&D Consulting Engineer
M/S 06-KA 266-8806
<dbrooks@misty...>
| Anyone ever use the Microvox? |
|---|
From: Bob Mills <decision@tigger...>
Subject: Re: Anyone ever use the Microvox?
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 98 18:58:35 GMT
Organization: Verio Northeast
In Article <<36680070.326888530@news...>>, <jdyer@fte...> (jd) wrote:
> Has anyone ever used the Microvox system, specifically the
>Duo? (http://www.microvox.demon.co.uk/duopage.htm).
>If so, any thoughts'd be appreciated. I'm curious how the
>microphone sounds.
>thanks.
Hi Jamie,
Yes, I use the single MicroVox on all my instruments. Have done so for 8
years with my band instruments (tenor banjo, mandolin, etc), and also the
last 2 years performing live with my Taylor 812c.
The important thing about the mics in the MicroVox system is that they are
omni, which sounds way better but is more feedback prone. In my band
experience, this was not a problem in acoustic bands, except in one venue.
However, with the guitar, I've taken to putting the element inside, which
actually sounds pretty good compared to outside (having the omni outside
would pick up bleed from the monitors, which compromised the sound). This
has also cut the feedback situation, but it might still be a problem with a
larger guitar.
mills
mailto:<decision@tigger...>
- new music from generations of tradition -
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bobmills
| Crown CM700, AT4041, or Shure SM-81? [2] |
|---|
From: Oleyar <oleyar@aol...>
Subject: Re: Crown CM700, AT4041, or Shure SM-81?
Date: 19 Dec 1998 17:27:17 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I just bought a pair of CM700's and they're very good for the price, just bear
in mind that they are not a very strong output. The SM81 has WAY more gain at
low setting. The preamp ought more than make up for it. Still, a vey nice mic
for the money. I've seen them on the market for a little over a deuce, and the
Shure is around a three-ce.
No experience with the AT.
best,
gary
From: <ishur@apv...>
Subject: Re: Crown CM700, AT4041, or Shure SM-81?
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 20:47:26 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
In article <<1dk901l.1rwxobogkh4dnN@alm-ts1-h1-27-176...>>,
walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich) wrote:> Steve W. WhisenHunt <<whisnhnt@seaotter...>> wrote:
>
> > P.S. Would I have better results if I get a VMP-2
> > preamp first and use it with SM-57s, or would it
> > be better to get some better mics and use my
> > Yamaha mixer?
>
> Personally, I would do that first. Many of us go round and round about
> that, but recently I got a Great River MP2 and I am seriously pleased
> with its performance with every mic I've tried so far: U87, C451,
> EV654A, SM57, Beyer M500, M88 and M160, Shure SM7, Sennheiser 441, Crown
> EM101, Wahrenbrock PZM. The thing for me now is that a really good pre
> adds a lot to any mic I already have while sticking with say, a Mackie
> for pre puts that particular sound onto every mic, including the best I
> have. It's far more impressive to me to move the 57 from a Mackie to the
> Great River, than it is to swap out the 57 into the Mackie for the U87
> into the Mackie. (I'm willing to bet mileages will vary...:-)
FWIW, I agree; my Rode NT-2 (and even my C1000s) sounds unbelievably better
through my Manley pre than my old Mackie pres. Yes, I'd love a Lawson, and a
Neumann, and well you get the idea, but until then, an excellent pre will
breath new life into your mics, whatever they are.
Irwin Shur
--
<ishur@apv...>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
| How to audition mics? [6] |
|---|
From: Dean Richard <drichard@execpc...>
Subject: Re: How to audition mics?
Date: 19 Dec 1998 20:52:01 GMT
Organization: ExecPC Internet - Milwaukee, WI
A few months ago I planned a pilgrimage to the Guitar Center in Chicago (an
hour and a half from me) to audition several mics. I called ahead to work it
out with a salesman that I could bring my own mic preamp and headphones. I made
sure I went on a weekday, early in the morning, when the store was not busy. I
also brought along a blank DAT tape. When we got there we talked the salesman
into setting up so that we could record to the DAT (using my preamp) with each
of three mics. Because it was early and he wasn't busy, he had time to be very,
very helpful. He even lent us a 12-string guitar. My friend and I took turns
recording the acoustic 12-string and each of us sang into all three of the
mics. I walked out of the store with 20 minutes of DAT recording, which I have
since transferred into my computer. I have edited the recordings, and am
now able to compare the mics side by side in my own studio on my monitors, with
my voice, with my friend's voice, and on 12-string acoustic guitar. I'm not
sure if they would do this for everyone, but it sure was beneficial.
Dean
In article <<19981219025047.07302.00001282@ng-cf1...>>, <yoshka1@aol...>
says...
>
>This may be a stupid question, but how do you audition mics at a retail store
>like Guitar Center. In particular I want to audition a pair of Oktava 012's
>because their quality control is supposedly awful. I seriously doubt GC will
>let me set them up as overheads and a/b them with sm-81's or km-184's. In
>addition, as an engineer with a shitty voice how can I audition vocal mics.
>"Check, check, check" isn't exactly the scientific method.
>Joe(<Yoshka1@aol...>)
>"Most people wouldn't know music if it bit them on the ass"
>-Frank Zappa-
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: How to audition mics?
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 22:35:17 GMT
Well, I look like an idiot doing it, but I'll make exaggerated popping
sounds (buh, puh, duh kinda stuff), hiss into it, hum into it, all the time
changing my distance from the mic (to hear proximity, etc), and going around
the sides and back of the mic (to check pickup pattern).
I'll stomp my feet, hit the mic stand, and thump the mic body to see how it
responds to vibrations and shocks.
I'll shout into it to see if and how the diaphragm distorts or if it
overloads and craps out.
I'll actually sing normal-sounding stuff at this point.
I'm used to the sound of my recorded voice, and it's not too bad a starting
point.
But take a mic home for a test drive if you at all can.
--
Lyle
The RAP CD in Blue web site is at:
http://www.hoohahrecords.com/rap/index.htm
Yoshka1 <<yoshka1@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<19981219025047.07302.00001282@ng-cf1...>...
>This may be a stupid question, but how do you audition mics at a retail
store
>like Guitar Center. In particular I want to audition a pair of Oktava
012's
>because their quality control is supposedly awful. I seriously doubt GC
will
>let me set them up as overheads and a/b them with sm-81's or km-184's. In
>addition, as an engineer with a shitty voice how can I audition vocal mics.
>"Check, check, check" isn't exactly the scientific method.
>Joe(<Yoshka1@aol...>)
>"Most people wouldn't know music if it bit them on the ass"
>-Frank Zappa-
From: Eleven Shadows <elevenshadows@theeleventhhour...>
Subject: Re: How to audition mics?
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 01:52:49 -0800
Organization: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc.
Yoshka1 wrote:
> This may be a stupid question, but how do you audition mics at a retail store
> like Guitar Center. In particular I want to audition a pair of Oktava 012's
> because their quality control is supposedly awful. I seriously doubt GC will
> let me set them up as overheads and a/b them with sm-81's or km-184's. In
> addition, as an engineer with a shitty voice how can I audition vocal mics.
> "Check, check, check" isn't exactly the scientific method.
Sometimes I bring a friend along who is a singer, and have her sing through the
mics I am auditioning. Sometimes I have the salesman do it! <g> Sometimes I ask
to borrow them and throw them on my credit card, and then return the ones that I
don't want. And sometimes, I bring along a blank DAT and record a few things with
each mic straight to DAT and then go home and evaluate them, where I have time on
my side. Probably none of these methods is completely ideal, but they're
certainly better than nothing. Hope this helps.
--
Ken/Eleven Shadows
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eleven Shadows * ES songs on Real Audio * Music Reviews * Travels:
Peru-Ladakh-Kashmir-India-HK * Tibet * Real Audio Radio Shows
http://www.theeleventhhour.com/elevenshadows
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d...>
Subject: Re: How to audition mics?
Date: 20 Dec 1998 07:15:37 -0500
Organization: D and D Data
In article <<19981219025047.07302.00001282@ng-cf1...>> <yoshka1@aol...> writes:
> This may be a stupid question, but how do you audition mics at a retail store
> like Guitar Center.
You use a credit card with a healthy limit. You buy them, take them
back to your studio, try them out under the conditions (and with the
voices and instruments) under which you expect to be using them, and
return the ones you don't want. The risk here, of course, is that you
decide you want to keep them ALL.
If your dealer won't let you do that, find a dealer who will. After
you've made a few purchases and they know you're a real customer, you
won't have to put the money up front to take things home to try (well,
maybe at GC you always will - national company policy and all that).
And they'll let it slide if they figure you're "borrowing" a mic for a
special session but could never afford to own it.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (<mrivers@d-and-d...>)
From: John Lowther <jrlii@nospamsprynet...>
Subject: Re: How to audition mics?
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 14:02:59 -0600
Organization: Sprynet News Service
Health reasons?
At first I thought that was about the stupidest thing I ever heard.
Then I thought of the rockers I've seen screaming into a hand held mike with
the business end darn near in their mouths... Then it makes a minute amount
of sense for that to be a restriction on hand held vocal mike types, which I
suppose are the vast majority of the mikes a music store sells...
But still, Health reasons?
- John Lowther.
JsonBrady wrote in message <<19981220084821.00528.00001676@ng-cd1...>>...
>My experience with GC in Southern Cal is that they won't let you return
mics
>due to "health reasons."
>
>
>Jason Brady
>
>"sometimes ya gotta let art just wash over you"
>
From: Jim Ruberto <jruberto@plinet...>
Subject: Re: How to audition mics?
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 17:34:47 -0700
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions start here!
I was told this the other day at Guitar Center. I was buing
a vocal mic for a Christmas gift & was looking at the
Audio-Technica 4054 & 4055 (same mic, one is flat the other
rolls off low end) and was not sure which one would suit her
voice best. I asked about returns & was told that they
"can't due to health department guidelines". He said I
could return it if it was a drum mic or an instrument mic,
but these are decidedly vocal mic's...
But then I asked the sales guy to A/B them for me (he was a
singer) and he proceeded to howl into both of them. Hmmm.
>Health reasons?
>
>At first I thought that was about the stupidest thing I
ever heard.
>
>Then I thought of the rockers I've seen screaming into a
hand held mike with
>the business end darn near in their mouths... Then it makes
a minute amount
>of sense for that to be a restriction on hand held vocal
mike types, which I
>suppose are the vast majority of the mikes a music store
sells...
>
>But still, Health reasons?
>
>- John Lowther.