Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

advice on mics/recording classical guitar

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 9:49:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK.
I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122
into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm
extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement
and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one
good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved
alot of time messing around with placement.
So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the
room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your
money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time
i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the
603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few
hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions??
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 10:10:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 7 Nov 2004 18:49:34 -0800, cruth@hologic.com (caveplayer) wrote:

>Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK.
>I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122
>into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm
>extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement
>and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one
>good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved
>alot of time messing around with placement.
>So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the
>room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your
>money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time
>i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the
>603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few
>hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions??

1. Stay away from Guitar Center's audio Tinker Toys.
2. Get a decent preamp. ($475.00 gets you an FMR RNP from either me
or several other dealers that haunt this list.)
3. If the better mic pre doesn't do it all for you, check out the
Neumann KM-184 series, Sennheiser mkh 40, and/or offerings from
Josephson.



http://liondogmusic.com
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 10:19:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Rick Ruskin" <liondog@isomedia.com> wrote in message
news:6koto0lg0aqjbv75vn435eh9m9pj7samer@4ax.com...
> On 7 Nov 2004 18:49:34 -0800, cruth@hologic.com (caveplayer) wrote:
>
> >Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK.
> >I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122
> >into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm
> >extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement
> >and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one
> >good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved
> >alot of time messing around with placement.
> >So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the
> >room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your
> >money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time
> >i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the
> >603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few
> >hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions??
>
> 1. Stay away from Guitar Center's audio Tinker Toys.
> 2. Get a decent preamp. ($475.00 gets you an FMR RNP from either me
> or several other dealers that haunt this list.)
> 3. If the better mic pre doesn't do it all for you, check out the
> Neumann KM-184 series, Sennheiser mkh 40, and/or offerings from
> Josephson.
>
>
>
> http://liondogmusic.com

if you have two cardioid mics that are the same model, try a stereo x/y
pair. point the mics close together towards each other at a 90 degree angle
and back it away and not right over the hole.
-greg
Related resources
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 2:13:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"caveplayer" <cruth@hologic.com> wrote in message
news:e1aab564.0411071849.7bd7e21a@posting.google.com...
> Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK.
> I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122
> into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm
> extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement
> and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one
> good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved
> alot of time messing around with placement.
> So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the
> room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your
> money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time
> i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the
> 603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few
> hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions??

What specifically is wrong?

jb
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 8:12:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 7 Nov 2004 18:49:34 -0800, cruth@hologic.com (caveplayer) wrote:

>Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK.
>I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122
>into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm
>extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement
>and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one
>good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved
>alot of time messing around with placement.
>So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the
>room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your
>money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time
>i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the
>603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few
>hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions??

You don't say what it is about the recorded guitar sound that doesn't
make you completely happy. So I'll guess.

The MXL603s is not bad, but it does have an artificial brightness.

I've never listened to a Tascam us122, but I'll have to guess that
it's the weak link. The sound of a guitar can include some extreme
transients. A preamp with little headroom will clip and distort them.
It is, of course, a very transient distortion, but it dan destroy the
magic that you're looking for. Try a better preamp.

For starters, see if you can borrow a better preamp. The problem could
be in the A/D converters in the us122.

Mike T.
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 8:12:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:12:48 -0500, Mike T. wrote
(in article <ml9vo0p8quf86gjltnno8i0osgcsh6ctbd@4ax.com>):

> On 7 Nov 2004 18:49:34 -0800, cruth@hologic.com (caveplayer) wrote:
>
>> Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK.
>> I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122
>> into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm
>> extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement
>> and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one
>> good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved
>> alot of time messing around with placement.
>> So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the
>> room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your
>> money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time
>> i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the
>> 603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few
>> hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions??
>
> You don't say what it is about the recorded guitar sound that doesn't
> make you completely happy. So I'll guess.
>
> The MXL603s is not bad, but it does have an artificial brightness.

Some classical guitarists are very sensitive to the plasticky sound of the
1st string. Using mics that have a bright top end usually makes that even
worse.

Regards,

Ty Ford





-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 8:59:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"reddred" <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<fbydnYg-YoTXbBPcRVn-rg@adelphia.com>...
> "caveplayer" <cruth@hologic.com> wrote in message
> news:e1aab564.0411071849.7bd7e21a@posting.google.com...
> > Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK.
> > I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122
> > into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm
> > extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement
> > and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one
> > good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved
> > alot of time messing around with placement.
> > So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the
> > room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your
> > money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time
> > i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the
> > 603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few
> > hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions??
>
> What specifically is wrong?
>
thanks for a sensible question.
Well let me put it simply, It (the recording) doesn't sound as good as
is does to my ears while playing. It seems to lack depth. The
classical guitar has some beautiful nuances that the mics are just not
catching. They reproduce the mids very well but the rest is lacking.

> jb
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 9:08:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike T. <miket@invalid.net> wrote in message news:<ml9vo0p8quf86gjltnno8i0osgcsh6ctbd@4ax.com>...
> On 7 Nov 2004 18:49:34 -0800, cruth@hologic.com (caveplayer) wrote:
>
> >Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK.
> >I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122
> >into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm
> >extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement
> >and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one
> >good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved
> >alot of time messing around with placement.
> >So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the
> >room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your
> >money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time
> >i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the
> >603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few
> >hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions??
>
> You don't say what it is about the recorded guitar sound that doesn't
> make you completely happy. So I'll guess.
>
> The MXL603s is not bad, but it does have an artificial brightness.
>
> I've never listened to a Tascam us122, but I'll have to guess that
> it's the weak link. The sound of a guitar can include some extreme
> transients. A preamp with little headroom will clip and distort them.
> It is, of course, a very transient distortion, but it dan destroy the
> magic that you're looking for. Try a better preamp.
>
> For starters, see if you can borrow a better preamp. The problem could
> be in the A/D converters in the us122.
>
> Mike T.

please see my reply to the other guy about the specific problem.
Basically, it's just not capturing the full range of sound that my
ears hear. And people (not you), stop telling me it's the room, the
room is superb, at least to my ears.
thanks!
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 12:52:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"caveplayer" <cruth@hologic.com> wrote in message
news:e1aab564.0411081808.57756261@posting.google.com...
> Mike T. <miket@invalid.net> wrote in message
> news:<ml9vo0p8quf86gjltnno8i0osgcsh6ctbd@4ax.com>...
>> On 7 Nov 2004 18:49:34 -0800, cruth@hologic.com (caveplayer) wrote:
>>
>> >Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK.
>> >I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122
>> >into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm
>> >extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement
>> >and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one
>> >good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved
>> >alot of time messing around with placement.
>> >So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the
>> >room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your
>> >money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time
>> >i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the
>> >603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few
>> >hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions??
>>
>> You don't say what it is about the recorded guitar sound that doesn't
>> make you completely happy. So I'll guess.
>>
>> The MXL603s is not bad, but it does have an artificial brightness.
>>
>> I've never listened to a Tascam us122, but I'll have to guess that
>> it's the weak link. The sound of a guitar can include some extreme
>> transients. A preamp with little headroom will clip and distort them.
>> It is, of course, a very transient distortion, but it dan destroy the
>> magic that you're looking for. Try a better preamp.
>>
>> For starters, see if you can borrow a better preamp. The problem could
>> be in the A/D converters in the us122.
>>
>> Mike T.
>
> please see my reply to the other guy about the specific problem.
> Basically, it's just not capturing the full range of sound that my
> ears hear. And people (not you), stop telling me it's the room, the
> room is superb, at least to my ears.
> thanks!

Maybe you need to place the microphones where your ears are. That's really
the only spot where the instrument sounds like you hear it.

Steve King
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 11:20:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve King" <steve@REMOVETHISSPAMBLOCKsteveking.net> wrote in message
news:iOWdnYfwe8xwow3cRVn-jw@comcast.com...

> > please see my reply to the other guy about the specific problem.
> > Basically, it's just not capturing the full range of sound that my
> > ears hear. And people (not you), stop telling me it's the room, the
> > room is superb, at least to my ears.
> > thanks!
>
> Maybe you need to place the microphones where your ears are. That's
really
> the only spot where the instrument sounds like you hear it.

Lest you think he's being sarcastic...he isn't. A microphone up above the
guitar, at about head level, pointing down, can get remarkable results. A
pair of them, on either side, can do well too.

However...I don't know of any recording system, with any microphone, that
can capture everything your ears hear. I don't care what you use, it will
not sound the same. You can get recordings that sound wonderful, that
communicate the joy and sorrow of your music, that are sumptuous and rich
and warm and sparkly and all the things a good guitar can be, but they'll
still be less than what your ears hear. In some ways, the art and science of
recording and playback are still pretty darn primitive.

Oh, and rooms that sound wonderful to the player are often dreadful for
recording. Microphones don't hear the way people do.

That said, you can have a lot of fun. Let's start with a basic question:
what are the dimensions of your room, and is it carpeted?

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 11:20:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:G5%jd.81009$OD2.54478@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Steve King" <steve@REMOVETHISSPAMBLOCKsteveking.net> wrote in message
> news:iOWdnYfwe8xwow3cRVn-jw@comcast.com...
>
>> > please see my reply to the other guy about the specific problem.
>> > Basically, it's just not capturing the full range of sound that my
>> > ears hear. And people (not you), stop telling me it's the room, the
>> > room is superb, at least to my ears.
>> > thanks!
>>
>> Maybe you need to place the microphones where your ears are. That's
> really
>> the only spot where the instrument sounds like you hear it.
>
> Lest you think he's being sarcastic...he isn't. A microphone up above the
> guitar, at about head level, pointing down, can get remarkable results. A
> pair of them, on either side, can do well too.

You're right. I wasn't being sarcastic. However, even putting the
microphone(s) where you're ears are will not duplicate what your ears hear.
Paul talks about some of the reasons below. Another factor is the polar
response of microphones vs. the polar frequency response of your ears. The
'room' you hear is different than the 'room' the microphone hears. Cardioid
mics, typically, will accentuate this difference; however, even many omni
capsules are not really omni throughout the frequency spectrum. Fussy is
good. But, physics is physics.

Steve King


> However...I don't know of any recording system, with any microphone, that
> can capture everything your ears hear. I don't care what you use, it will
> not sound the same. You can get recordings that sound wonderful, that
> communicate the joy and sorrow of your music, that are sumptuous and rich
> and warm and sparkly and all the things a good guitar can be, but they'll
> still be less than what your ears hear. In some ways, the art and science
> of
> recording and playback are still pretty darn primitive.
>
> Oh, and rooms that sound wonderful to the player are often dreadful for
> recording. Microphones don't hear the way people do.
>
> That said, you can have a lot of fun. Let's start with a basic question:
> what are the dimensions of your room, and is it carpeted?
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 12:21:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Maybe you need to place the microphones where your ears are. That's really
> the only spot where the instrument sounds like you hear it.
>
> Steve King


Bingo! We have a winner!

Ty Ford





-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 12:23:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:59:51 -0500, caveplayer wrote
(in article <e1aab564.0411081759.1c702191@posting.google.com>):

> "reddred" <opaloka@REMOVECAPSyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<fbydnYg-YoTXbBPcRVn-rg@adelphia.com>...
>> "caveplayer" <cruth@hologic.com> wrote in message
>> news:e1aab564.0411071849.7bd7e21a@posting.google.com...
>>> Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK.
>>> I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a tascam us122
>>> into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm
>>> extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement
>>> and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one
>>> good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved
>>> alot of time messing around with placement.
>>> So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the
>>> room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your
>>> money, souncard or mic. The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time
>>> i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the
>>> 603. What gives there? Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few
>>> hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions??
>>
>> What specifically is wrong?
>>
> thanks for a sensible question.
> Well let me put it simply, It (the recording) doesn't sound as good as
> is does to my ears while playing. It seems to lack depth. The
> classical guitar has some beautiful nuances that the mics are just not
> catching. They reproduce the mids very well but the rest is lacking.
>
>> jb

Well THAT sounds like the mics, preamps and A/D converters. You may have to
kick it up a notch equipment-wise. The best way to do that might be to go to
a real studio.

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 1:46:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message news:<G5%jd.81009$OD2.54478@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Steve King" <steve@REMOVETHISSPAMBLOCKsteveking.net> wrote in message
> news:iOWdnYfwe8xwow3cRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> Lest you think he's being sarcastic...he isn't. A microphone up above the
> guitar, at about head level, pointing down, can get remarkable results. A
> pair of them, on either side, can do well too.
>
> However...I don't know of any recording system, with any microphone, that
> can capture everything your ears hear. I don't care what you use, it will
> not sound the same. You can get recordings that sound wonderful, that
> communicate the joy and sorrow of your music, that are sumptuous and rich
> and warm and sparkly and all the things a good guitar can be, but they'll
> still be less than what your ears hear. In some ways, the art and science of
> recording and playback are still pretty darn primitive.
>
> Oh, and rooms that sound wonderful to the player are often dreadful for
> recording. Microphones don't hear the way people do.
>
> That said, you can have a lot of fun. Let's start with a basic question:
> what are the dimensions of your room, and is it carpeted?
>
> Peace,
> Paul
OK, let me rephrase that. It doesn't sound as good as other classical
guitar recordings i have on disk. You know, like professional ones.
I'm afraid I'll get pounced on when i describe the 'room' but here it
goes. I sit on the top of a stairway in a hallway facing the stairs,
all stairs and floors carpeted, ceiling is about 20 feet high in front
of me but about 9 feet high above my head. it's too complicated to
describe dimensions further than this because the stairway curves
around. Nonetheless, the acoustic sweetspot of my house. There is a
little reverb from the hall but not too much.
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 4:53:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

caveplayer <cruth@hologic.com> wrote:
>OK, let me rephrase that. It doesn't sound as good as other classical
>guitar recordings i have on disk. You know, like professional ones.
>I'm afraid I'll get pounced on when i describe the 'room' but here it
>goes. I sit on the top of a stairway in a hallway facing the stairs,
>all stairs and floors carpeted, ceiling is about 20 feet high in front
>of me but about 9 feet high above my head. it's too complicated to
>describe dimensions further than this because the stairway curves
>around. Nonetheless, the acoustic sweetspot of my house. There is a
>little reverb from the hall but not too much.

Some of that is the difference between the Marshall mikes and something
like a Schoeps or B&K.

Some of that is the difference between your room and a multimillion dollar
facility with controlled acoustics.

Some of it might be due to the difference between your guitar and John
Williams' guitar too.

The other differences are comparatively small.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 9:43:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve King" <steve@REMOVETHISSPAMBLOCKsteveking.net> wrote in message news:<TLmdnef6u_qtTA3cRVn-gA@comcast.com>...
> "Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:G5%jd.81009$OD2.54478@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "Steve King" <steve@REMOVETHISSPAMBLOCKsteveking.net> wrote in message
> > news:iOWdnYfwe8xwow3cRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> >
> >> > please see my reply to the other guy about the specific problem.
> >> > Basically, it's just not capturing the full range of sound that my
> >> > ears hear. And people (not you), stop telling me it's the room, the
> >> > room is superb, at least to my ears.
> >> > thanks!
> >>
> >> Maybe you need to place the microphones where your ears are. That's
> really
> >> the only spot where the instrument sounds like you hear it.
> >
> > Lest you think he's being sarcastic...he isn't. A microphone up above the
> > guitar, at about head level, pointing down, can get remarkable results. A
> > pair of them, on either side, can do well too.
>
> You're right. I wasn't being sarcastic. However, even putting the
> microphone(s) where you're ears are will not duplicate what your ears hear.
> Paul talks about some of the reasons below. Another factor is the polar
> response of microphones vs. the polar frequency response of your ears. The
> 'room' you hear is different than the 'room' the microphone hears. Cardioid
> mics, typically, will accentuate this difference; however, even many omni
> capsules are not really omni throughout the frequency spectrum. Fussy is
> good. But, physics is physics.
>
> Steve King

and the sad part is I'm a fussy physicist, no kidding.
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 9:46:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message news:<cmr3n2$eja$1@panix2.panix.com>...
> caveplayer <cruth@hologic.com> wrote:
> >OK, let me rephrase that. It doesn't sound as good as other classical
> >guitar recordings i have on disk. You know, like professional ones.
> >I'm afraid I'll get pounced on when i describe the 'room' but here it
> >goes. I sit on the top of a stairway in a hallway facing the stairs,
> >all stairs and floors carpeted, ceiling is about 20 feet high in front
> >of me but about 9 feet high above my head. it's too complicated to
> >describe dimensions further than this because the stairway curves
> >around. Nonetheless, the acoustic sweetspot of my house. There is a
> >little reverb from the hall but not too much.
>
> Some of that is the difference between the Marshall mikes and something
> like a Schoeps or B&K.
>
> Some of that is the difference between your room and a multimillion dollar
> facility with controlled acoustics.
>
> Some of it might be due to the difference between your guitar and John
> Williams' guitar too.
>
> The other differences are comparatively small.
> --scott

well lets assume I'll never sound like john williams, would i still
benefit by investing in a better mic? and if so what should i look
into.
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 10:36:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2004-11-09, caveplayer <cruth@hologic.com> wrote:

>Nonetheless, the acoustic sweetspot of my house.

What sounds good when you're playing/listening might not
be good for recording. Sounds like a nightmare to me.
Make a tent of old duvets, and tape in there, for a contrast.

Seems like a 20 foot ceiling at the top of a stairwell is going
to have some very ugly reflections.
Anonymous
November 9, 2004 10:36:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

james of tucson <fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com> wrote in message news:<slrncp272q.bfv.fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com>...
> On 2004-11-09, caveplayer <cruth@hologic.com> wrote:
>
> >Nonetheless, the acoustic sweetspot of my house.
>
> What sounds good when you're playing/listening might not
> be good for recording. Sounds like a nightmare to me.
> Make a tent of old duvets, and tape in there, for a contrast.
>
> Seems like a 20 foot ceiling at the top of a stairwell is going
> to have some very ugly reflections.

i knew this would happen. It's like throwing chum to the sharks. OK,
actually i was wrong. i went home and measured it. The ceiling is 8ft,
and there is a wall in front of mwe about 7 ft. The 20 feet is really
from the bottom of the stairs that curve around. trust me, it sounds
great there (to my ears again). This has been a good learning
experience.
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 12:00:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"caveplayer" <cruth@hologic.com> wrote in message
news:e1aab564.0411091843.79f913b8@posting.google.com...
> "Steve King" <steve@REMOVETHISSPAMBLOCKsteveking.net> wrote in message
> news:<TLmdnef6u_qtTA3cRVn-gA@comcast.com>...
>> "Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote in message
>> news:G5%jd.81009$OD2.54478@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> > "Steve King" <steve@REMOVETHISSPAMBLOCKsteveking.net> wrote in message
>> > news:iOWdnYfwe8xwow3cRVn-jw@comcast.com...
>> >
>> >> > please see my reply to the other guy about the specific problem.
>> >> > Basically, it's just not capturing the full range of sound that my
>> >> > ears hear. And people (not you), stop telling me it's the room, the
>> >> > room is superb, at least to my ears.
>> >> > thanks!
>> >>
>> >> Maybe you need to place the microphones where your ears are. That's
>> really
>> >> the only spot where the instrument sounds like you hear it.
>> >
>> > Lest you think he's being sarcastic...he isn't. A microphone up above
>> > the
>> > guitar, at about head level, pointing down, can get remarkable results.
>> > A
>> > pair of them, on either side, can do well too.
>>
>> You're right. I wasn't being sarcastic. However, even putting the
>> microphone(s) where you're ears are will not duplicate what your ears
>> hear.
>> Paul talks about some of the reasons below. Another factor is the polar
>> response of microphones vs. the polar frequency response of your ears.
>> The
>> 'room' you hear is different than the 'room' the microphone hears.
>> Cardioid
>> mics, typically, will accentuate this difference; however, even many omni
>> capsules are not really omni throughout the frequency spectrum. Fussy is
>> good. But, physics is physics.
>>
>> Steve King
>
> and the sad part is I'm a fussy physicist, no kidding.

Get help. Get help, now. Share the pain.

In response to another of your responses, look up a local film/video rental
house and rent a Schoeps or two for a day. That will tell you whether to
invest more money in microphones and might reveal something about whether
your room is really as good as you think it is... compared to those favorite
commercial recordings, which were almost certainly done in an acoustically
treated room. Even in a good room, there are sweet spots for certain
instruments... often designed that way.

Steve King
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 12:52:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

caveplayer <cruth@hologic.com> wrote:
>well lets assume I'll never sound like john williams, would i still
>benefit by investing in a better mic? and if so what should i look
>into.

Yes, but you'll also get a lot by investing in better acoustics.

Call a good local studio with an extensive mike cabinet. Tell them you
want an hour or so of time to try out some microphones, and you want them
to give you a deal on a weird block of time that wouldn't otherwise be
used (and can wait a while until one becomes available). Go in, record
yourself on a bunch of different microphones, and then listen to the
playback on decent monitors.

This will give you a sense of just how different the possibilities are,
and what kind of a range is available. It is also the first step toward
finding out how different things sound in your room compared with a known
good room.

I mean, I can tell you that the last time someone came in with a classical
guitar, it sounded best with a Sennheiser 441, and that the guy with a
Macaferri last month sounded great with an old RCA 77DX. But that does not
tell you anything useful, really.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 5:56:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cmr3n2$eja$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Some of it might be due to the difference between your guitar and John
> Williams' guitar too.


Caveplayer

what guitar are you playing . . . .. . it must be the guitar.:>)

Remeber those _Must_ be the shoes ads?

I spent a little money and got some good mic's , I happy with my sound, not
my playing , just my sound.

Good luck , I know how you feel.

Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
http://www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com/
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 11:25:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

caveplayer wrote:


> i knew this would happen. It's like throwing chum to the sharks. OK,
> actually i was wrong. i went home and measured it. The ceiling is 8ft,
> and there is a wall in front of mwe about 7 ft. The 20 feet is really
> from the bottom of the stairs that curve around. trust me, it sounds
> great there (to my ears again). This has been a good learning
> experience.


When you play anywhere, you hear it in the context of that space. If
you're in a kitchen (for example), it'll sound fine, because you expect
to be in the kitchen, but when that's recorded and you listen to it,
you're not expecting a kitchen anymore. It was natural to be in there,
but recording it moved the kitchen sound out of its context, making it
unnatural. The brain can work for you as well as against you. Your
stairwell reverb may be great for a stairwell, but maybe not so good out
of context.

If you try going to a studio and record just one track, it won't cost
much and you will learn more about your particular needs, if only by
contrast.
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 1:38:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 21:46:51 -0500, caveplayer wrote
(in article <e1aab564.0411091846.66af1658@posting.google.com>):

> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in message
> news:<cmr3n2$eja$1@panix2.panix.com>...
>> caveplayer <cruth@hologic.com> wrote:
>>> OK, let me rephrase that. It doesn't sound as good as other classical
>>> guitar recordings i have on disk. You know, like professional ones.
>>> I'm afraid I'll get pounced on when i describe the 'room' but here it
>>> goes. I sit on the top of a stairway in a hallway facing the stairs,
>>> all stairs and floors carpeted, ceiling is about 20 feet high in front
>>> of me but about 9 feet high above my head. it's too complicated to
>>> describe dimensions further than this because the stairway curves
>>> around. Nonetheless, the acoustic sweetspot of my house. There is a
>>> little reverb from the hall but not too much.
>>
>> Some of that is the difference between the Marshall mikes and something
>> like a Schoeps or B&K.
>>
>> Some of that is the difference between your room and a multimillion dollar
>> facility with controlled acoustics.
>>
>> Some of it might be due to the difference between your guitar and John
>> Williams' guitar too.
>>
>> The other differences are comparatively small.
>> --scott
>
> well lets assume I'll never sound like john williams, would i still
> benefit by investing in a better mic? and if so what should i look
> into.

Schoeps cmc64, or cmc641, probably the latter, about an inch or so off the
joint of the neck and body. It will change your life.


Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 1:45:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 21:53:04 -0500, caveplayer wrote
(in article <e1aab564.0411091853.5d25b2a7@posting.google.com>):

> james of tucson <fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com> wrote in message
> news:<slrncp272q.bfv.fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com>...
>> On 2004-11-09, caveplayer <cruth@hologic.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nonetheless, the acoustic sweetspot of my house.
>>
>> What sounds good when you're playing/listening might not
>> be good for recording. Sounds like a nightmare to me.
>> Make a tent of old duvets, and tape in there, for a contrast.
>>
>> Seems like a 20 foot ceiling at the top of a stairwell is going
>> to have some very ugly reflections.
>
> i knew this would happen. It's like throwing chum to the sharks. OK,
> actually i was wrong. i went home and measured it. The ceiling is 8ft,
> and there is a wall in front of mwe about 7 ft. The 20 feet is really
> from the bottom of the stairs that curve around. trust me, it sounds
> great there (to my ears again). This has been a good learning
> experience.

I can't imagine that it sounds good, interesting maybe, but not good.
Also, I would question whether any good recordings of classical guitar have
been made with a stairwell resonance. I think it's probably more likely that
you like the bouncy effect.

As to what to try, try NOT using the stairwell. Try putting the mic a lot
closer; 2 inched off the neck/body joint and angled back slightly to fill in
the bass.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 1:45:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:45:45 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
wrote:
<snip>
>
>As to what to try, try NOT using the stairwell. Try putting the mic a lot
>closer; 2 inched off the neck/body joint and angled back slightly to fill in
>the bass.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ty Ford
>
>
>
Gotta disagree with you about putting the mic a lot closer. Classic
guitars put out a lot more sound pressure than steel strung. I'd find
the deadest space and mic about 18" - 24" away. If the room is no
longer a problem, then I'd play around with capsule angle until the
closest thing possible to desired results are gotten. Then just like
nearly everyone else, I'd add eq and echo.


http://liondogmusic.com
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 9:03:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2004-11-10, S O'Neill <nopsam@nospam.net> wrote:

> When you play anywhere, you hear it in the context of that space.

Some of my best memories are from playing in warehouse spaces.
I'm *so* glad none of that was recorded.
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 9:22:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 2004-11-10, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:

> I can't imagine that it sounds good, interesting maybe, but not good.
> Also, I would question whether any good recordings of classical guitar have
> been made with a stairwell resonance.

I can't stop picturing the scene from Animal House, with the guy playing
the guitar and singing in the stairwell, and Belushi smashes it.
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 9:22:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <slrncp4n40.sed.fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com>,
james of tucson <fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com> wrote:

> On 2004-11-10, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I can't imagine that it sounds good, interesting maybe, but not good.
> > Also, I would question whether any good recordings of classical guitar have
> > been made with a stairwell resonance.
>
> I can't stop picturing the scene from Animal House, with the guy playing
> the guitar and singing in the stairwell, and Belushi smashes it.
>

That guy was Stephen Bishop, by the way.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 9:36:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

james of tucson <fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com> wrote in message news:<slrncp4n40.sed.fishbowl@radagast.home.conservatory.com>...
> On 2004-11-10, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I can't imagine that it sounds good, interesting maybe, but not good.
> > Also, I would question whether any good recordings of classical guitar have
> > been made with a stairwell resonance.
>
> I can't stop picturing the scene from Animal House, with the guy playing
> the guitar and singing in the stairwell, and Belushi smashes it.

funny, i was thinking about doing that myself last night.
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 10:03:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

reddred wrote:

> I can't make the 603's sound decent in my living room without a bunch of
> goboes and some gating, which defeats the purpose. In your average untreated
> house, the more directional the mic the better IMO. The 603's are pretty
> wide.

For many acoustic music recording situations it's not enough for a mic
to sound acceptable on-axis. So much off-axis sound must be part of the
capture for anything realisitic, i.e., not your ear in the soundhole,
that the off-axis performance becomes really important. Hence the
difference between 603's and Schoeps, Josephson, etc.

> Most home recordists are looking for 'the best condensor mic' etc. but the
> irony is that good dynamic mics often get much better results.

Indeed. Lots of folks would be better off with a pair of 57's and an RNP
to get their mic positioning act together and thereafter pinpoint what
they'd prefer in better mics.

--
ha
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 10:04:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

hank alrich wrote:

> For many acoustic music recording situations it's not enough for a mic
> to sound acceptable on-axis. So much off-axis sound must be part of the
> capture for anything realisitic, i.e., not your ear in the soundhole,
> that the off-axis performance becomes really important. Hence the
> difference between 603's and Schoeps, Josephson, etc.

I hear this an awful lot but has anyone made an attempt to
measure and quantify these particular differences between
the good and the bad? In theory, you don't get anything
like independat control of on-axis and off-axis responses of
a design. The overall geometry, of which there is little
variation in design, determines how one morphs into the other.

I think this is one of those things that has been hardened
into fact by repitition, not science.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 10:25:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>hank alrich wrote:
>
>> For many acoustic music recording situations it's not enough for a mic
>> to sound acceptable on-axis. So much off-axis sound must be part of the
>> capture for anything realisitic, i.e., not your ear in the soundhole,
>> that the off-axis performance becomes really important. Hence the
>> difference between 603's and Schoeps, Josephson, etc.
>
>I hear this an awful lot but has anyone made an attempt to
>measure and quantify these particular differences between
>the good and the bad? In theory, you don't get anything
>like independat control of on-axis and off-axis responses of
>a design. The overall geometry, of which there is little
>variation in design, determines how one morphs into the other.

Yes, some folks have, and Sank's JAES paper has some discussion of it.

And yes, the difficulty in controlling off-axis response is part of
why it's become a problem. Note that response in the right-left plane
is more important that response in the top-down direction.

Remember if you are recording with a coincident pair, the center of the
stereo image where the most important stuff is, is way off-axis. Maybe
as much as 60 degrees off-axis.

>I think this is one of those things that has been hardened
>into fact by repitition, not science.

If your primary signal source is 60' off-axis, it would seem clear that
response at that point was important.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 2:50:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

caveplayer wrote:

> Thanks for all the great advice, I'll keep you posted whether you like
> it or not.

LOL! By all means.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 11:51:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Paul Stamler" <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> However...I don't know of any recording system, with any microphone,
that
> can capture everything your ears hear. I don't care what you use, it
will
> not sound the same. You can get recordings that sound wonderful, that
> communicate the joy and sorrow of your music, that are sumptuous and
rich
> and warm and sparkly and all the things a good guitar can be, but
they'll
> still be less than what your ears hear. In some ways, the art and
science of
> recording and playback are still pretty darn primitive.



Oh you got THAT right buddy. I recently threw on a Telarc CD right
after a live concert. Ich. Never listen to a recording right after
listening to live music. The recording sound nice, but it sure doesn't
sound anything like the real thing.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 1:31:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

caveplayer <cruth@hologic.com> wrote:
>OK, i'm going to try to rent some mikes. I'm afraid if i go to a
>studio and it sounds great i'm going to drain my kids college savings
>and end up in studioholics anonymous.

Maybe, but sure not as fast as you will building one at home.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 1:47:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:05:00 -0500, Rick Ruskin wrote
(in article <eml4p0d5fkc5d95e531lmr55rjrdflmksf@4ax.com>):

> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:45:45 -0500, Ty Ford <tyreeford@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
>> As to what to try, try NOT using the stairwell. Try putting the mic a lot
>> closer; 2 inched off the neck/body joint and angled back slightly to fill
>> in
>> the bass.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ty Ford
>>
>>
>>
> Gotta disagree with you about putting the mic a lot closer. Classic
> guitars put out a lot more sound pressure than steel strung. I'd find
> the deadest space and mic about 18" - 24" away. If the room is no
> longer a problem, then I'd play around with capsule angle until the
> closest thing possible to desired results are gotten. Then just like
> nearly everyone else, I'd add eq and echo.
>
>
> http://liondogmusic.com

Rick,

Sure, no problem, disagree all you like. The schoeps work really well on
guitars that way though.

Regards,

Ty



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 1:53:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:03:59 -0500, hank alrich wrote
(in article <1gmxg6y.jsxt3j1vgn458N%walkinay@thegrid.net>):

> reddred wrote:
>
>> I can't make the 603's sound decent in my living room without a bunch of
>> goboes and some gating, which defeats the purpose. In your average untreated
>> house, the more directional the mic the better IMO. The 603's are pretty
>> wide.
>
> For many acoustic music recording situations it's not enough for a mic
> to sound acceptable on-axis. So much off-axis sound must be part of the
> capture for anything realisitic, i.e., not your ear in the soundhole,
> that the off-axis performance becomes really important. Hence the
> difference between 603's and Schoeps, Josephson, etc.

Absolutely. Not every mic sounds as good off-axis as on. And remember, even
though the mic is pointing AT the instrument. it's still picking up off-axis
sound from the instrument that is bouncing around the room. (the sound, that
is, not the instrument.)

Very few home environments sound pretty. As such, eliminating the room's
nasty reflections is an improvement. That's where a couple of Schoeps cmc641
shine. They ignore the room and still sound sweet.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 8:28:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ty Ford wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:03:59 -0500, hank alrich wrote
> (in article <1gmxg6y.jsxt3j1vgn458N%walkinay@thegrid.net>):
>
>
>>reddred wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I can't make the 603's sound decent in my living room without a bunch of
>>>goboes and some gating, which defeats the purpose. In your average untreated
>>>house, the more directional the mic the better IMO. The 603's are pretty
>>>wide.
>>
>>For many acoustic music recording situations it's not enough for a mic
>>to sound acceptable on-axis. So much off-axis sound must be part of the
>>capture for anything realisitic, i.e., not your ear in the soundhole,
>>that the off-axis performance becomes really important. Hence the
>>difference between 603's and Schoeps, Josephson, etc.
>
>
> Absolutely. Not every mic sounds as good off-axis as on. And remember, even
> though the mic is pointing AT the instrument. it's still picking up off-axis
> sound from the instrument that is bouncing around the room. (the sound, that
> is, not the instrument.)
>
> Very few home environments sound pretty. As such, eliminating the room's
> nasty reflections is an improvement. That's where a couple of Schoeps cmc641
> shine. They ignore the room and still sound sweet.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
>
>I have found a single LDC(I am using a 4050) positioned at mouth level
slanted slightly down like a 103 does a very good job of vocal and
guitar at the same time
g
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 12:00:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"caveplayer" <cruth@hologic.com> wrote in message
news:e1aab564.0411071849.7bd7e21a@posting.google.com

> Yes, i know there have been posts on this but I'm lazy, OK.
> I'm recording classical guitar with 2 MXL 603S's into a Tascam us122
> into laptop. Not completely happy with the sound. It's good but I'm
> extremely fussy. I've spent countless nights optimizing mic placement
> and am at the point of saying, well maybe i should have bought one
> good mic instead of two mediocre one's. At least i would have saved
> alot of time messing around with placement.

Let's play a game called "know your mics".

IME, the most notable thing about MXL 603s is that they are broad cardioids.
Therefore, when you work with them you get a lot more *room* in the track
than you would get with more typical, narrower cardioids. If the room is
good, then picking up room is a good thing. If the room is problematical,
well then you probably don't want to use 603s.

To me, the important thing is having alternatives. With *JUST* 603's your
life is a one-option feasibility study.

IME with mics, there is no such thing as one-size-fits-all. If there was,
then a mic like the 603 might be a good choice because it is reasonably
flat, has some directivity, and is not especially noisy. OTOH, the 603 is a
horrid hand-held vocal mic, for example. Put it on a stand with a good pop
filter, and it can do some nice stuff.

When I was looking for a true cardioid to be an alternative to 603s for live
sound, for better or worse I picked CAD 95s (current model = CAD 195, a
slightly different mic).

No surprise to me, I ended up using lot more 95s (8 used all the time) than
603s (4 used less frequently). They have an appreciably narrower true
cardioid pickup pattern, and they have really good shock and handling noise
resistance. They are designed to be a close-working vocal mic, but they are
sensitive enough and warm enough to be used over longer distances. These
mics cost me an average of $75 each after a few months of picking them off
when they showed up on eBay. No big investment, but performers like them,
and they work for me.

When I was looking for a true omni to be an alternative to 603s for live
sound, for better or worse I picked Behringer ECM 8000s. They are
incredibly omni. In a live sound context, such residual background noise
issues as they may have, are not problematical. I'm probably one of the just
three people in the universe who use omnis for live sound but they can work
in some contexts. Note, an omni is going to prone to being noisy, even if
they are electrically quiet. I learned that after using DPA 1006s for about
18 months. Again, the 8000s are relatively uncolored mics.

> So experts, please humor me and except the fact that it's not the
> room, not my playing, and not placement. Where would you put your
> money, souncard or mic.

Mics are very strong determining factors in sound color and sound quality.
Note, these are different things.

>The guy at guitar center, I cringe every time
> i walk in there, suggested i use an omni mic in combination with the
> 603. What gives there?

IME Guitar Center is a good place to stay away from. I can't buy an $3 XLR
connector or $1300 studio monitors in less than an hour, mostly spend
waiting around for too-little staff to deal with customers who don't know
what they want. Their staff does not impress me and I would never rely on
them for purchasing advice anyhow, so the time is a total loss.

> Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few
> hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions??

If I had to do it all over again, and I had only a pair of 603s, I'd pick up
a pair of 8000s and a pair of 195s and see where they took me. I'd do the
purchases online, even if it turned out that Musican's Friend (Guitar Center
in online drag) turned out to be the retailer of choice.
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 12:35:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:00:10 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article <vdSdnaeE_d_RlQfcRVn-2w@comcast.com>):

>> Anyway, i'm willing to spend maybe a few
>> hundred bucks on another mic if it helps. Any advice/suggestions??


Spending a few hundred on a mic won't help. You have to aim higher.

You have been advised by others that a KM84 works very nicely. It does. So do
Schoeps. They are in the over $1000 range.

You have an antagonistic circumstances. Great guitar, not so great recording
gear/space. You are a player and not a recording facility.

Accept that you may not be able to do it all to get the sound you want.
Settle for less, or pay more. It's a simple thing really, we all deal with
it. This is a no-brainer.

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 6:50:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <u9CdnTccHduhjQfcRVn-oA@comcast.com> tyreeford@comcast.net writes:

> You have an antagonistic circumstances. Great guitar, not so great recording
> gear/space. You are a player and not a recording facility.
>
> Accept that you may not be able to do it all to get the sound you want.
> Settle for less, or pay more. It's a simple thing really, we all deal with
> it. This is a no-brainer.

Great advice in general, but he said he's willing to pay more and he's
wondering if he'll get more or will still have to settle for less than
he's dreaming of. I think that until he works with the environment and
gets a good sound out of the mics he has, he won't get a significant
improvement with a $2,000 mic.

My first suggestion was that he spend some money at a studio, but he's
not ready for that yet (as a player).

I think he's fighting a learning battle.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 1:10:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:50:29 +0100, Mike Rivers wrote:


> In article <u9CdnTccHduhjQfcRVn-oA@comcast.com> tyreeford@comcast.net
> writes:
>
>> You have an antagonistic circumstances. Great guitar, not so great
>> recording gear/space. You are a player and not a recording facility.
>>
>> Accept that you may not be able to do it all to get the sound you want.
>> Settle for less, or pay more. It's a simple thing really, we all deal
>> with it. This is a no-brainer.
>
> Great advice in general, but he said he's willing to pay more and he's
> wondering if he'll get more or will still have to settle for less than
> he's dreaming of. I think that until he works with the environment and
> gets a good sound out of the mics he has, he won't get a significant
> improvement with a $2,000 mic.
>
> My first suggestion was that he spend some money at a studio, but he's
> not ready for that yet (as a player).

For most classical music, some distance between the instrument and
microphone is needed. If you are at a decent distance, the recording room
is important, often even more important than the microphones.
So, go to a studio with good gear and good acoustics, or make live
recordings during performances. If you make live recordings, first try to
find the best microphone position with the gear you have, then try
different microphones you rent.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 1:42:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

If you like the sound of recordings made in churches go visit a few and ask
to try their space.... It has to be better than a stairwell. Look for one
where the air handlers for the heating/cooling system can be turned off and
a location or time with no traffic noise problems.

Rgds:
Eric
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 9:23:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:42:25 +0100, Eric K. Weber wrote:

> If you like the sound of recordings made in churches go visit a few and
> ask to try their space.... It has to be better than a stairwell. Look
> for one where the air handlers for the heating/cooling system can be
> turned off and a location or time with no traffic noise problems.

Churches often do have some problems. I do recognise the problems, you
forgot to mention PA systems that are not turned off and spread noise and
hum. Some churches have had some acoustical treatment and do sound nice.

On http://www.serg.vangennip.com/www/piano.html you find some recordings:
Frédéric Chopin Valse opus 70 no 1, a well treated church.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart,Rondo in Dmaj KV485, a large church with
difficult acoustics.

--
Chel van Gennip
Bezoek Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
November 17, 2004 10:55:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Eric K. Weber" <eric-nospam@webermusic.com> wrote in message news:<u8Lmd.8$ul1.35296@news.uswest.net>...
> If you like the sound of recordings made in churches go visit a few and ask
> to try their space.... It has to be better than a stairwell. Look for one
> where the air handlers for the heating/cooling system can be turned off and
> a location or time with no traffic noise problems.
>
> Rgds:
> Eric

Why is everyone so skeptical about the stairwell? You haven't heard it
so how do you know what the sound is like? Not all stairwells are
created equal.

Anyway, this is turning into group therapy session and i am the only
client. So thanks everyone for being patient(although i think someone
was getting close to screaming at me). I'm all for trying out mics. In
fact, i love experimenting. I'm an experimental physicist for God's
sake. Problem is, I'm not sure i can order 10 different mics online
and return them, and there is no studio or good music store near me
that lends mics. So i think I'm back to experimenting more with my own
equipment (Yes Mike, i listened), even thought I've spent nights doing
so. You've also convinced me that the stairwell may sound good to me
but bad to my mics. I'll grant you that, so now I'm thinking of
building a room in my basement, specifically for playing and recording
("Oh noooo, they say, go to a F*%-ing studio"), but alas, I like
pursuing unsurmountable projects. This of course will be the subject
of another thread (how to build a soundproof recording room 101).
But getting back to reality. Question about the famous x-y pair. If i
have my two 603's at roughly 90 degrees, capsules almost touching, and
say, 1-2 ft in front of the 12th fret, neither of them is pointing at
the 12th fret or even close. Is this right?
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 12:04:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 11/17/04 7:55 PM, in article
e1aab564.0411171955.696f7034@posting.google.com, "caveplayer"
<cruth@hologic.com> wrote:

> "Eric K. Weber" <eric-nospam@webermusic.com> wrote in message
> news:<u8Lmd.8$ul1.35296@news.uswest.net>...
>> If you like the sound of recordings made in churches go visit a few and ask
>> to try their space.... It has to be better than a stairwell. Look for one
>> where the air handlers for the heating/cooling system can be turned off and
>> a location or time with no traffic noise problems.
>>
>> Rgds:
>> Eric
>
> Why is everyone so skeptical about the stairwell? You haven't heard it
> so how do you know what the sound is like? Not all stairwells are
> created equal.
>
> Anyway, this is turning into group therapy session and i am the only
> client. So thanks everyone for being patient(although i think someone
> was getting close to screaming at me). I'm all for trying out mics. In
> fact, i love experimenting. I'm an experimental physicist for God's
> sake. Problem is, I'm not sure i can order 10 different mics online
> and return them, and there is no studio or good music store near me
> that lends mics. So i think I'm back to experimenting more with my own
> equipment (Yes Mike, i listened), even thought I've spent nights doing
> so. You've also convinced me that the stairwell may sound good to me
> but bad to my mics. I'll grant you that, so now I'm thinking of
> building a room in my basement, specifically for playing and recording
> ("Oh noooo, they say, go to a F*%-ing studio"), but alas, I like
> pursuing unsurmountable projects. This of course will be the subject
> of another thread (how to build a soundproof recording room 101).
> But getting back to reality. Question about the famous x-y pair. If i
> have my two 603's at roughly 90 degrees, capsules almost touching, and
> say, 1-2 ft in front of the 12th fret, neither of them is pointing at
> the 12th fret or even close. Is this right?


The 603s are not the best mics for recording classical or acoustic guitar XY
for two reasons. First, they are a wide card pattern, which works OK in XY,
but not as well a card or hypercard. Second, they're pretty low end mics,
hyped highs with mud to boot.

Building a studio in your basement is a good idea. Recording in a stairwell
is not a good idea.

--
Stephen Boyke
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 7:32:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 17 Nov 2004 19:55:38 -0800, cruth@hologic.com (caveplayer) wrote:

>Why is everyone so skeptical about the stairwell? You haven't heard it
>so how do you know what the sound is like? Not all stairwells are
>created equal.

Newsgroups include six billion people; about half of us know how we
sound to ourselves singing in the shower. The other half are too poor.
But none would recommend recording there.

>Anyway, this is turning into group therapy session and i am the only
>client. So thanks everyone for being patient(although i think someone
>was getting close to screaming at me). I'm all for trying out mics. In
>fact, i love experimenting. I'm an experimental physicist for God's
>sake.

Reading through this whole thread, I've seen only a plea for
open-mindedness; never any personal attack.

Communication of all kinds is difficult enough in this world. But
don't give up or disparage one of the few remaining workable venues.
The clock's ticking on our world. It takes a freeway, or something.

Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 10:44:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"caveplayer" <cruth@hologic.com> wrote in message
news:e1aab564.0411171955.696f7034@posting.google.com...
> "Eric K. Weber" <eric-nospam@webermusic.com> wrote in message
news:<u8Lmd.8$ul1.35296@news.uswest.net>...
> > If you like the sound of recordings made in churches go visit a few and
ask
> > to try their space.... It has to be better than a stairwell. Look for
one
> > where the air handlers for the heating/cooling system can be turned off
and
> > a location or time with no traffic noise problems.

> Why is everyone so skeptical about the stairwell? You haven't heard it
> so how do you know what the sound is like? Not all stairwells are
> created equal.

Probabilities. You *may* have a good-sounding stairwell. But the odds are
very much against it.

> Anyway, this is turning into group therapy session and i am the only
> client. So thanks everyone for being patient(although i think someone
> was getting close to screaming at me). I'm all for trying out mics. In
> fact, i love experimenting. I'm an experimental physicist for God's
> sake. Problem is, I'm not sure i can order 10 different mics online
> and return them, and there is no studio or good music store near me
> that lends mics. So i think I'm back to experimenting more with my own
> equipment (Yes Mike, i listened), even thought I've spent nights doing
> so. You've also convinced me that the stairwell may sound good to me
> but bad to my mics. I'll grant you that, so now I'm thinking of
> building a room in my basement, specifically for playing and recording
> ("Oh noooo, they say, go to a F*%-ing studio"), but alas, I like
> pursuing unsurmountable projects.

If you put some care into it, choose your dimensions and room treatment
carefully, you can get a decent-sounding room. Smaller rooms are more
problematical than bigger ones, which is one reason studios tend to be
bigger, but you can get decent results.

>This of course will be the subject
> of another thread (how to build a soundproof recording room 101).

Go to the public library and check out one of F. Alton Everest's books on
building a studio. Don't start with the Master Handbook of Acoustics, but
with one of the simplified ones and work your way up. Yes, your background
in physics will help -- a lot -- but it's worth reading Everest's simplified
books because they include some sample designs which are worthy of study.
Then get the Master Handbook -- probably you should buy that one, since
you'll use it a lot.

> But getting back to reality. Question about the famous x-y pair. If i
> have my two 603's at roughly 90 degrees, capsules almost touching, and
> say, 1-2 ft in front of the 12th fret, neither of them is pointing at
> the 12th fret or even close. Is this right?

Right; that's why the off-axis response of microphones is so important when
you're doing XY. Oh, and the "almost touching" thing: The best way to do XY,
most of the time, is to place the microphones so that the capsules are
stacked, one above the other. If they're next to each other, but not
touching -- like this (exaggerated): / \ , well, do a gedankenexperiment.
Imagine a sound source to the left of the array. It will be louder in the
left-pointing microphone, because it's on-axis to that one and off-axis to
the other one. Well and good; that's how XY works. But it will arrive at the
right-pointing microphone first, because it's closer to that one. So you get
a loudness cue that the source is on the left (correct) and a time cue that
it's on the right (wrong), and your stereo image gets muddled as a result.
Probably not a huge amount if the mikes are half an inch apart, but I've
seen folks put them 5 inches apart, and the results were pure mush.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
November 18, 2004 12:40:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:55:38 -0500, caveplayer wrote
(in article <e1aab564.0411171955.696f7034@posting.google.com>):

> "Eric K. Weber" <eric-nospam@webermusic.com> wrote in message
> news:<u8Lmd.8$ul1.35296@news.uswest.net>...
>> If you like the sound of recordings made in churches go visit a few and ask
>> to try their space.... It has to be better than a stairwell. Look for one
>> where the air handlers for the heating/cooling system can be turned off and
>> a location or time with no traffic noise problems.
>>
>> Rgds:
>> Eric
>
> Why is everyone so skeptical about the stairwell? You haven't heard it
> so how do you know what the sound is like? Not all stairwells are
> created equal.
>
> Anyway, this is turning into group therapy session and i am the only
> client. So thanks everyone for being patient(although i think someone
> was getting close to screaming at me). I'm all for trying out mics. In
> fact, i love experimenting. I'm an experimental physicist for God's
> sake. Problem is, I'm not sure i can order 10 different mics online
> and return them, and there is no studio or good music store near me
> that lends mics. So i think I'm back to experimenting more with my own
> equipment (Yes Mike, i listened), even thought I've spent nights doing
> so. You've also convinced me that the stairwell may sound good to me
> but bad to my mics. I'll grant you that, so now I'm thinking of
> building a room in my basement, specifically for playing and recording
> ("Oh noooo, they say, go to a F*%-ing studio"), but alas, I like
> pursuing unsurmountable projects. This of course will be the subject
> of another thread (how to build a soundproof recording room 101).
> But getting back to reality. Question about the famous x-y pair. If i
> have my two 603's at roughly 90 degrees, capsules almost touching, and
> say, 1-2 ft in front of the 12th fret, neither of them is pointing at
> the 12th fret or even close. Is this right?

I personally think you're dealing pretty well with all of the input, even
though you still might have a bit of denial about the staircase thing..:) 

So it's the process for you (as it is for most of us) as well as the product.
If you want a world class classical guitar sound, that's one thing. If you
like experimenting with recording and acoustics, that's something else. Keep
the place where those two pursuits overlap fluid. Don't get too wed to any
concepts. Get a good foundation in recording practices. Learn the rules, then
learn to break them.

The fact that you're not happy with your technical efforts so far supports
the thought that the staircase may not be helping you. The 603's are NOT the
be all and end all of small diaphragm mics. The best placement in the
universe can not overcome that.

Meanwhile......

A lot of folks get sort of "digital" or bipolar.."Well if not THIS, then I'll
do THAT!" The best solutions are often in the middle.

Most of the folks who are trying to disabuse you of the staircase idea have a
lot of experience. Most of them (myself included) would probably abandon the
idea of trying to make a good acoustic environment in your situation and make
one with a really good reverb...or two.

You have an aversion to going to a studio. Get over it. And I'm not talking
about a typical basement studio. I'm talking about a really good studio with
the right gear, the right space and the people who know how to make the best
out of them. Where are you (geographically)?

You don't have to spend hours there. Do one piece and hope to be able to have
reached a point where you can actually understand the difference in what you
get there and what you get at home.

Don't worry about possibly feeling bad about your recording effort when you
hear the difference. You're there to put your dick in your back pocket and
learn.

As per your thoughts on XY recording, 90 degrees usually works. Almost
touching is not the exact thing to consider.

Try getting the diaphragms to occupy the same vertical axis so the sound from
the guitar arrives at both capsules at the same time. The less you pay
attention to that simple rule of physics, the more cancellation due to phase
(time) differences will occur.

Some prefer a left/right (horizontal) positioning. As I said before, keep it
fluid. Try up/down (vertical) positioning. That way the stereo spread goes
from treble to bass.

Mic placement in terms of how far away and where on the neck or body can not
be answered here, but a good starting position isusually near where the neck
meets the body. The farther away from the guitar, the more room you hear.

There is no right. There are many rights....and at least as many wrongs.

Regards,

Ty Ford





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