Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

XY recording, acoustic guitar

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 2:40:23 AM

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

I'm in the process of recording a number of different acoustic guitars. The
purpose of this ongoing project is to document the tonal character of a
variety of high quality acoustic guitars that I come into contact with, and
so I am trying to get recordings that are clean, accurate and truthful. I'll
be putting these files up on my site at some point as a reference tool for
guitar shoppers, and will also use these files to demonstrate guitars from
my own stable that I want to sell. The final product will be a stereo mp3
file, and I want to avoid adding effects, EQ or compression if at all
possible - both for the goal of "warts and all" accuracy and also as a
matter of practicality.

I've been using XY-stereo micing, with a matched pair of Oktava mc-012 mics
with cardiod capsules (soundroom) going into an FMR RNP, then to a m-audio
delta 44 (slated for upgrade) and am pleased with the results for the most
part, but I have some questions and would greatly appreciate any useful
input!

1) Seems like I get a very nice sound with the mics in XY position at about
the 12th fret, and with the guitar about 8-12" away, at a slight angle (neck
toward the mics, lower bout away.) But there is a noticable difference in
level between the mic pointing toward the lower bout (louder) and the one
pointing in the neck direction (softer). This is to be expected, I suppose,
but it makes for a lop-sided listening experience. Is it acceptable to boost
the quieter side of the signal to match, by increasing the mic gain at the
preamp, or afterwards in the software? Or is this no longer a true/accurate
stereo image if I do that? Am I too close to the mics, and thus getting more
of a spot-micing effect rather than a developed stereo image at the mics, or
is that not much of a factor?

2) In the interest of keeping things easy for myself and also to provide
accurate, unbiased sound samples, I want to concentrate on getting the best
recording possible (using good equipment, ensuring that the room sounds
good, etc.) and keep post-recording processing to a minimum. Right now, I
record into Cubase as a stereo track, export (stereo interleaved) and
convert to MP3. I don't add effects or EQ, and no compression either. Is
there anything else I can do to optimize the export and to make this a
consistent listening experience from one sample to the next? I have no
control over the listening end of the equation, but then again, who does! Is
normalizing a good idea? Again, the final product is one stereo mp3 file per
guitar - just the stereo guitar track, nothing else. I know mp3 is not the
preferred choice for critical listening, but it works well for web. I am
archiving the wav files, too.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts/input.

David Ingram
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 5:10:06 AM

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

If you are concerned about the quality of the sound of the end
product, you might consider recording the guitars with a single mic,
and then making MONO mp3s out of the recordings. Try it and
compare...

Al

On Mon, 2 May 2005 22:40:23 -0700, "David Ingram"
<news@nospamveryheavy.com> wrote:

>I'm in the process of recording a number of different acoustic guitars. The
>purpose of this ongoing project is to document the tonal character of a
>variety of high quality acoustic guitars that I come into contact with, and
>so I am trying to get recordings that are clean, accurate and truthful. I'll
>be putting these files up on my site at some point as a reference tool for
>guitar shoppers, and will also use these files to demonstrate guitars from
>my own stable that I want to sell. The final product will be a stereo mp3
>file, and I want to avoid adding effects, EQ or compression if at all
>possible - both for the goal of "warts and all" accuracy and also as a
>matter of practicality.
>
>I've been using XY-stereo micing, with a matched pair of Oktava mc-012 mics
>with cardiod capsules (soundroom) going into an FMR RNP, then to a m-audio
>delta 44 (slated for upgrade) and am pleased with the results for the most
>part, but I have some questions and would greatly appreciate any useful
>input!
>
>1) Seems like I get a very nice sound with the mics in XY position at about
>the 12th fret, and with the guitar about 8-12" away, at a slight angle (neck
>toward the mics, lower bout away.) But there is a noticable difference in
>level between the mic pointing toward the lower bout (louder) and the one
>pointing in the neck direction (softer). This is to be expected, I suppose,
>but it makes for a lop-sided listening experience. Is it acceptable to boost
>the quieter side of the signal to match, by increasing the mic gain at the
>preamp, or afterwards in the software? Or is this no longer a true/accurate
>stereo image if I do that? Am I too close to the mics, and thus getting more
>of a spot-micing effect rather than a developed stereo image at the mics, or
>is that not much of a factor?
>
>2) In the interest of keeping things easy for myself and also to provide
>accurate, unbiased sound samples, I want to concentrate on getting the best
>recording possible (using good equipment, ensuring that the room sounds
>good, etc.) and keep post-recording processing to a minimum. Right now, I
>record into Cubase as a stereo track, export (stereo interleaved) and
>convert to MP3. I don't add effects or EQ, and no compression either. Is
>there anything else I can do to optimize the export and to make this a
>consistent listening experience from one sample to the next? I have no
>control over the listening end of the equation, but then again, who does! Is
>normalizing a good idea? Again, the final product is one stereo mp3 file per
>guitar - just the stereo guitar track, nothing else. I know mp3 is not the
>preferred choice for critical listening, but it works well for web. I am
>archiving the wav files, too.
>
>Thanks in advance for your thoughts/input.
>
>David Ingram
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 11:27:00 AM

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

"David Ingram" <news@nospamveryheavy.com> wrote in message
news:2MOdncpMrN5Xk-rfRVn-2g@comcast.com...

> 1) Seems like I get a very nice sound with the mics in XY position at
about
> the 12th fret, and with the guitar about 8-12" away, at a slight angle
(neck
> toward the mics, lower bout away.) But there is a noticable difference in
> level between the mic pointing toward the lower bout (louder) and the one
> pointing in the neck direction (softer). This is to be expected, I
suppose,
> but it makes for a lop-sided listening experience. Is it acceptable to
boost
> the quieter side of the signal to match, by increasing the mic gain at the
> preamp, or afterwards in the software?

No. The lion's share of the sound is coming from the body of the guitar,
which is on the left as you face the instrument from that 12th-fret
position, and making it otherwise is not an accurate representation.

>Or is this no longer a true/accurate
> stereo image if I do that? Am I too close to the mics, and thus getting
more
> of a spot-micing effect rather than a developed stereo image at the mics,
or
> is that not much of a factor?

You're a little close, but in many rooms you're better off too close than
too far. It's a distance I've found to be good for a lot of guitars.

> 2) In the interest of keeping things easy for myself and also to provide
> accurate, unbiased sound samples, I want to concentrate on getting the
best
> recording possible (using good equipment, ensuring that the room sounds
> good, etc.) and keep post-recording processing to a minimum. Right now, I
> record into Cubase as a stereo track, export (stereo interleaved) and
> convert to MP3. I don't add effects or EQ, and no compression either. Is
> there anything else I can do to optimize the export and to make this a
> consistent listening experience from one sample to the next?

Well, it'll never be *perfectly* consistent, since the whole point is to
illustrate the sounds of different guitars! Seriously, you need to decide
whether to set all the volumes equal; some guitars are louder than others.
Me, I'd leave them be.

One thing to consider, though, is that a microphone that close will probably
sound a bit bassy on many guitars, particularly larger instruments, due to
proximity effect. You may want to roll off the bass to make the recording
sound more like the instrument sounds in the room. Start with 6dB/octave,
100Hz rolloff and play with frequency until it sounds right. Of course, that
presupposes you have some monitors you trust implicitly.

Other stuff you already know: play the same pieces on each guitar; hearing
flatpicked jazz on guitar A and fingerpicking blues on guitar B will be
highly useless. Make sure you've got the desired strings on each guitar, and
that they've been on for 2-3 days. Use the same picks.

Peace,
Paul
Related resources
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 1:03:40 PM

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

> One thing to consider, though, is that a microphone that close will
> probably
> sound a bit bassy on many guitars, particularly larger instruments, due to
> proximity effect. You may want to roll off the bass to make the recording
> sound more like the instrument sounds in the room. Start with 6dB/octave,
> 100Hz rolloff and play with frequency until it sounds right. Of course,
> that
> presupposes you have some monitors you trust implicitly.

I've got a set of 20/20bas that I like a lot, but my listening room is a
problem... I am building a basement studio but am currently stuck in a 12x12
untreated room. Wonderful boomy resonance at 440/A, quite delightful! That's
another reason I'd rather not mess with EQ right now. I record in the living
room, which is larger and sounds better. Still have to play back in the
small room, though.

David
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 3:37:49 PM

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

In article <2MOdncpMrN5Xk-rfRVn-2g@comcast.com> news@nospamveryheavy.com writes:

> I've been using XY-stereo micing, with a matched pair of Oktava mc-012 mics
> with cardiod capsules (soundroom) going into an FMR RNP, then to a m-audio
> delta 44 (slated for upgrade) and am pleased with the results for the most
> part, but I have some questions and would greatly appreciate any useful
> input!
>
> 1) Seems like I get a very nice sound with the mics in XY position at about
> the 12th fret, and with the guitar about 8-12" away, at a slight angle (neck
> toward the mics, lower bout away.) But there is a noticable difference in
> level between the mic pointing toward the lower bout (louder) and the one
> pointing in the neck direction (softer). This is to be expected, I suppose,
> but it makes for a lop-sided listening experience. Is it acceptable to boost
> the quieter side of the signal to match, by increasing the mic gain at the
> preamp, or afterwards in the software?

Neither, if you're trying to preserve a stereo image, but you're
really too close to the guitar to record it (and the room) in stereo.
You could move the mic pair back another two or three feet, but then
you might get too much room sound (and too much noise, due to the
increased amount of gain needed because of the distant position) for
your taste.

Stereo acoustic guitar is sometimes a useful effect in a mix, but it
isn't particularly useful to define the sound of the guitar. I'd
suggest that you start off with a single microphone, recording in
mono, and perhaps augmenting that with a second microphone to fill the
sound out a bit. When using two mics on an acoustic guitar, I'll often
use one mic 12-18" away, aimed at the point where the neck joins the
body, and a second mic aimed at the top in the quadrant below and
behind the bridge, angled slightly toward the sound hole.

I'll start out panning those mics to the same place, usually the
center, bringing up the one at the neck end first, then bringing up
the body mic and listening to be sure that adding the two mics doesn't
cause cancellation of frequencies that make the guitar sound strange.
If I hear this, I'll change the distance of one or the other mic until
cancellation isn't a problem. Then I'll adjust the relative level of
the two mics to get the tone I like. Finally, I might pan them
slightly off center (one to each side) to add a little width. But
panning them full left and right would be unbalanced (that's where you
came in) and wouldn't sound natural.

> 2) In the interest of keeping things easy for myself and also to provide
> accurate, unbiased sound samples, I want to concentrate on getting the best
> recording possible (using good equipment, ensuring that the room sounds
> good, etc.) and keep post-recording processing to a minimum.

Since I guess you're doing all of this yourself, I'd suggest that you
not shy away from post-processing. You don't need to fool with EQ, but
you can pan and blend the mics using your DAW after you have the basic
sound recorded. If you find that you have a problem with cancellation
when you sum the mics, you can shift one channel relative to the other
by a few samples to correct this. You won't be able to change the
proximity effect this way, but you can help with phase cancellation.


--
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
May 3, 2005 3:37:50 PM

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

>> I've been using XY-stereo micing, with a matched pair of Oktava mc-012
>> mics
>> with cardiod capsules (soundroom) going into an FMR RNP, then to a
>> m-audio
>> delta 44 (slated for upgrade) and am pleased with the results for the
>> most
>> part, but I have some questions and would greatly appreciate any useful
>> input!
>>
>> 1) Seems like I get a very nice sound with the mics in XY position at
>> about
>> the 12th fret, and with the guitar about 8-12" away, at a slight angle
>> (neck
>> toward the mics, lower bout away.) But there is a noticable difference in
>> level between the mic pointing toward the lower bout (louder) and the one
>> pointing in the neck direction (softer). This is to be expected, I
>> suppose,
>> but it makes for a lop-sided listening experience. Is it acceptable to
>> boost
>> the quieter side of the signal to match, by increasing the mic gain at
>> the
>> preamp, or afterwards in the software?
>
> Neither, if you're trying to preserve a stereo image, but you're
> really too close to the guitar to record it (and the room) in stereo.
> You could move the mic pair back another two or three feet, but then
> you might get too much room sound (and too much noise, due to the
> increased amount of gain needed because of the distant position) for
> your taste.
>
> Stereo acoustic guitar is sometimes a useful effect in a mix, but it
> isn't particularly useful to define the sound of the guitar. I'd
> suggest that you start off with a single microphone, recording in
> mono, and perhaps augmenting that with a second microphone to fill the
> sound out a bit. When using two mics on an acoustic guitar, I'll often
> use one mic 12-18" away, aimed at the point where the neck joins the
> body, and a second mic aimed at the top in the quadrant below and
> behind the bridge, angled slightly toward the sound hole.
>
> I'll start out panning those mics to the same place, usually the
> center, bringing up the one at the neck end first, then bringing up
> the body mic and listening to be sure that adding the two mics doesn't
> cause cancellation of frequencies that make the guitar sound strange.
> If I hear this, I'll change the distance of one or the other mic until
> cancellation isn't a problem. Then I'll adjust the relative level of
> the two mics to get the tone I like. Finally, I might pan them
> slightly off center (one to each side) to add a little width. But
> panning them full left and right would be unbalanced (that's where you
> came in) and wouldn't sound natural.
>
>> 2) In the interest of keeping things easy for myself and also to provide
>> accurate, unbiased sound samples, I want to concentrate on getting the
>> best
>> recording possible (using good equipment, ensuring that the room sounds
>> good, etc.) and keep post-recording processing to a minimum.
>
> Since I guess you're doing all of this yourself, I'd suggest that you
> not shy away from post-processing. You don't need to fool with EQ, but
> you can pan and blend the mics using your DAW after you have the basic
> sound recorded. If you find that you have a problem with cancellation
> when you sum the mics, you can shift one channel relative to the other
> by a few samples to correct this. You won't be able to change the
> proximity effect this way, but you can help with phase cancellation.



Mike - thanks for this - really helped me think about the problem and what I
am trying to accomplish. And thanks to everyone who has responded to the
thread so far - very helpful! I am going to take the advice of working with
one primary mic and getting a good sound, and then adding in a second one
further backed off. I will also start shopping for an omni.

Thanks

David Ingram
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 6:20:39 PM

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

On 5/3/05 1:40 AM, in article 2MOdncpMrN5Xk-rfRVn-2g@comcast.com, "David
Ingram" <news@nospamveryheavy.com> wrote:

> I'm in the process of recording a number of different acoustic guitars. The
> purpose of this ongoing project is to document the tonal character of a
> variety of high quality acoustic guitars that I come into contact with, and
> so I am trying to get recordings that are clean, accurate and truthful.
(SNIP)

A quiet room (much carpet and drapes and bookshelves)
A single omni About 3' or so out from the guitar
'where it sounds good'

This is where one finds the truth in a guitar.

After you find the right place to sit and to place the mic, you can start
playing with a pair of mics.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 6:20:40 PM

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

>> I'm in the process of recording a number of different acoustic guitars.
>> The
>> purpose of this ongoing project is to document the tonal character of a
>> variety of high quality acoustic guitars that I come into contact with,
>> and
>> so I am trying to get recordings that are clean, accurate and truthful.
> (SNIP)
>
> A quiet room (much carpet and drapes and bookshelves)
> A single omni About 3' or so out from the guitar
> 'where it sounds good'
>
> This is where one finds the truth in a guitar.
>
> After you find the right place to sit and to place the mic, you can start
> playing with a pair of mics.

Omni, eh? I notice soundroom has omni capsules for the oktavas I have... are
they worth a try? Or should I pick up a purpose-built omni? I am trying to
put together a good mic locker on a budget, and am not very far in to that
process, so I have options. I really like my friend's blue mouse - I know
that's cardiod but I love the sound of it. But if a good omni is what I
need, I can shift gears and get one. Any recommendations for this
application?

Thanks

David Ingram
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 6:47:31 PM

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

On Mon, 02 May 2005 22:40:23 -0700, David Ingram wrote:

> 1) Seems like I get a very nice sound with the mics in XY position at
> about the 12th fret, and with the guitar about 8-12" away, at a slight
> angle (neck toward the mics, lower bout away.) But there is a noticable
> difference in level between the mic pointing toward the lower bout
> (louder) and the one pointing in the neck direction (softer). This is to
> be expected, I suppose, but it makes for a lop-sided listening experience.
> Is it acceptable to boost the quieter side of the signal to match, by
> increasing the mic gain at the preamp, or afterwards in the software? Or
> is this no longer a true/accurate stereo image if I do that? Am I too
> close to the mics, and thus getting more of a spot-micing effect rather
> than a developed stereo image at the mics, or is that not much of a
> factor?

XY is essentially an ambient stereo micing technique. The implication is
that you're trying to capture a sound field from a single point in space.
The idea being that the even though sound source might be big &
heterogeneous (think orchestra), at some distance away the various sounds
will blend together nicely & that's where you put your mics.

You can think of your guitar like a mini-orchestra (with all the
instruments playing in unison?). The sound at the bridge is different from
at the neck, which is different from at the soundhole, etc. You need to
get the mics out far enough for all those sources to blend. For guitar,
that's usually at least as far away as the longest body dimension. At that
point, your room will, As Paul said, become either your friend or your
enemy.

But if the goal is to document the sound of the guitar, then you probably
don't want too much room. With the goal being documentation, I'd agree
with Al that mono it probably the best way to go. Use the most accurate
mic you can lay your hands on. Start about 18-24 inches out in front of
the soundhole & move around until it sounds on tape
the way it sounds _to you_ in the room (you can't get away from some
amount of subjectivity here).
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 9:06:14 PM

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

On 5/3/05 12:06 PM, in article d5KdnROOIewhPOrfRVn-gg@comcast.com, "David
Ingram" <news@nospamveryheavy.com> wrote:

>
>>> I'm in the process of recording a number of different acoustic guitars.
>>> The
>>> purpose of this ongoing project is to document the tonal character of a
>>> variety of high quality acoustic guitars that I come into contact with,
>>> and
>>> so I am trying to get recordings that are clean, accurate and truthful.
>> (SNIP)
>>
>> A quiet room (much carpet and drapes and bookshelves)
>> A single omni About 3' or so out from the guitar
>> 'where it sounds good'
>>
>> This is where one finds the truth in a guitar.
>>
>> After you find the right place to sit and to place the mic, you can start
>> playing with a pair of mics.
>
> Omni, eh? I notice soundroom has omni capsules for the oktavas I have... are
> they worth a try? Or should I pick up a purpose-built omni? I am trying to
> put together a good mic locker on a budget, and am not very far in to that
> process, so I have options. I really like my friend's blue mouse - I know
> that's cardiod but I love the sound of it. But if a good omni is what I
> need, I can shift gears and get one. Any recommendations for this
> application?

If indeed you have VERY few mics (as in count em all on one hand) then, if
you can manage the cash, buy a complete additional mic rather than an
additional capsule (though that's a fine choice if you don't NEED several
mics at once). An average omni is WAY more worth having than an average
card.

"love the sound of it" is a VERY important thing...
But it makes impartial decisions difficult...

Scott is a good reference for your first omni or two...
I like my 451/ck22's but then I fell into those decades ago...
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 9:48:10 PM

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

"David Ingram" <news@nospamveryheavy.com> wrote in message
news:D 5KdnROOIewhPOrfRVn-gg@comcast.com...

> Omni, eh? I notice soundroom has omni capsules for the oktavas I have...
are
> they worth a try?

They're not bad; if you buy them, though, don't point the mic at the guitar.
They have a big high-frequency peak on-axis, but they're reasonably flat
off-axis. So point them at the ceiling. Only go to omnis if you have a good
room, though.

> Or should I pick up a purpose-built omni? I am trying to
> put together a good mic locker on a budget, and am not very far in to that
> process, so I have options. I really like my friend's blue mouse - I know
> that's cardiod but I love the sound of it. But if a good omni is what I
> need, I can shift gears and get one. Any recommendations for this
> application?

I'd avoid the Mouse for this project; it's a highly-colored microphone, with
a scorching peak up top.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 11:36:44 PM

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

On 5/3/05 1:48 PM, in article
uPOde.175947$cg1.24094@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net, "Paul Stamler"
<pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:

> "David Ingram" <news@nospamveryheavy.com> wrote in message
> news:D 5KdnROOIewhPOrfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>
>> Omni, eh? I notice soundroom has omni capsules for the oktavas I have...
> are
>> they worth a try?
>
> They're not bad; if you buy them, though, don't point the mic at the guitar.
> They have a big high-frequency peak on-axis, but they're reasonably flat
> off-axis. So point them at the ceiling. Only go to omnis if you have a good
> room, though.

Cautionary definition of 'good room'...
Your ears will tell you. I did some helpful explanatory test recordings with
a really marvelous Merl travis fingerpicker with a couple of his fav old
acoustics (Gibson Bluebird? Hummingbird? Apologies for not knowing my
instruments here) in his dedicated ABSOLUTELY unremarkable
sitting-room/recording-room which was a simple home-study/library and it was
really very reasonable.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 12:43:11 AM

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

In article <BE9D4B0A.70E8%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com writes:

> I did some helpful explanatory test recordings with
> a really marvelous Merl travis fingerpicker with a couple of his fav old
> acoustics

Hoodat?

--
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
May 4, 2005 6:19:29 AM

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

On 5/3/05 8:43 PM, in article znr1115158547k@trad, "Mike Rivers"
<mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:

>
> In article <BE9D4B0A.70E8%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
> writes:
>
>> I did some helpful explanatory test recordings with
>> a really marvelous Merl travis fingerpicker with a couple of his fav old
>> acoustics
>
> Hoodat?

Eddie Pennington
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 1:38:27 PM

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

In article <BE9DA971.7173%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com writes:

> Eddie Pennington

Eddie was in town? He didn't call.

Eddie mostly plays a handmade Gibsonlike guitar, a bit tubby for my
taste, but it sounds good when he plays it.

--
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
May 4, 2005 8:59:05 PM

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

"SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
news:BE9DA971.7173%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com...
> >
> >> I did some helpful explanatory test recordings with
> >> a really marvelous Merl travis fingerpicker with a couple of his fav
old
> >> acoustics
> >
> > Hoodat?
>
> Eddie Pennington
>
Eddie's great, and so is his son (who is now living in Nashville). Both of
them are part of the small group of 'really great Merle Travis
fingerpickers"

--
Dave Martin
DMA, Inc
Nashville, TN
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 9:13:37 PM

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

David Ingram wrote:

> 1) Seems like I get a very nice sound with the mics in XY
> position at about the 12th fret, and with the guitar about
> 8-12" away

5 feet is more like it, and mic pair in height with the players head,
both are room dependant and may need to be larger. Forget about rock
stage habits, this is about recording the entire instrument. Leave the
mics on the stand so that positioning and angle do not change between
recordings, and mark the floor where the players chair's legs are to be
placed as well as where the mic stand is to be placed.

Use the same gain for all recordings so that the level differences are
those that are caused by player and instrument interaction as well as
can be. It is the real world, so the operator of the musical instrument
in question will not be entirely consistent, other reasons than
differences in interaction with the instrument/string combination will
cause level differences between takes, a caveat should be made about
that in the context of the demonstrations.

> David Ingram


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 9:17:02 PM

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

On 5/4/05 9:38 AM, in article znr1115208307k@trad, "Mike Rivers"
<mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote:

>
> In article <BE9DA971.7173%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
> writes:
>
>> Eddie Pennington
>
> Eddie was in town? He didn't call.

Hey, this is back a few when I did the west coast tour for Joe and
experienced Eddie's truly fine Kentucky family hospitality.

You want to see frustration, he really truly tried to give me a beginner's
lesson in his fingerpicking style... I could just stare. He seemed to be
doing NOTHING, really, with his right hand but out comes 3-part stride
piano...
He was patient beyond all duty and NEVER cracked a smile at my embarassed
clumsiness at something so frustratingly alien on an intrument I'm supposed
to have SOME small level of competancy with...
His son can PLAY too...!

>
> Eddie mostly plays a handmade Gibsonlike guitar, a bit tubby for my
> taste, but it sounds good when he plays it.

One of his Babies at home is/was an older (yes I think I recall right)
Hummingbird? It's one of those instruments that just Has It. We played
around for a while showing him how different mic patterns actually 'sound'
differently. He really -has- the idea that a recording should sound like the
source does in real life. We tried a bunch of stuff that he had around the
house (usual cheap GC type stuff... He wanted to know what upscale mics he
ought to have instead) and that I had on the tour. Tried a 4050 in all
patterns, a 451/ck22, sm81, km84, 635, sm57.
The omni's won for what he was looking for as a reflection of the
instrument.
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 9:18:27 PM

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

On 5/4/05 11:13 AM, in article 4278E6A1.EA43E9E4@mail.tele.dk, "Peter
Larsen" <SPAMSHIELD_plarsen@mail.tele.dk> wrote:

> David Ingram wrote:
>
>> 1) Seems like I get a very nice sound with the mics in XY
>> position at about the 12th fret, and with the guitar about
>> 8-12" away
>
> 5 feet is more like it, and mic pair in height with the players head,
> both are room dependant and may need to be larger. Forget about rock
> stage habits, this is about recording the entire instrument.

Just a comment... This is boilerpate classic old-school The Real Deal
recording technique here,


>Leave the
> mics on the stand so that positioning and angle do not change between
> recordings, and mark the floor where the players chair's legs are to be
> placed as well as where the mic stand is to be placed.
>
> Use the same gain for all recordings so that the level differences are
> those that are caused by player and instrument interaction as well as
> can be. It is the real world, so the operator of the musical instrument
> in question will not be entirely consistent, other reasons than
> differences in interaction with the instrument/string combination will
> cause level differences between takes, a caveat should be made about
> that in the context of the demonstrations.
>
>> David Ingram
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 10:10:18 PM

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

In article <BE9E7BCD.7222%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com writes:

> > Eddie was in town? He didn't call.
>
> Hey, this is back a few when I did the west coast tour for Joe and
> experienced Eddie's truly fine Kentucky family hospitality.

Ah, that explains it.

> You want to see frustration, he really truly tried to give me a beginner's
> lesson in his fingerpicking style... I could just stare. He seemed to be
> doing NOTHING, really, with his right hand but out comes 3-part stride
> piano...

I had the opportunity to watch Merle Travis play a couple of times,
and he, too, never looked like he was doing much - with either hand.

> ... He wanted to know what upscale mics he
> ought to have instead) and that I had on the tour. Tried a 4050 in all
> patterns, a 451/ck22, sm81, km84, 635, sm57.

Yeah, seems to me the last time I saw him, it was at the Folklife
Festival a few years ago, he asked me some recording questions.

--
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
May 7, 2005 4:14:11 AM

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

David Ingram wrote:

> 1) Seems like I get a very nice sound with the mics in XY position at about
> the 12th fret, and with the guitar about 8-12" away, at a slight angle (neck
> toward the mics, lower bout away.) But there is a noticable difference in
> level between the mic pointing toward the lower bout (louder) and the one
> pointing in the neck direction (softer). This is to be expected, I suppose,
> but it makes for a lop-sided listening experience. Is it acceptable to boost
> the quieter side of the signal to match, by increasing the mic gain at the
> preamp, or afterwards in the software? Or is this no longer a true/accurate
> stereo image if I do that? Am I too close to the mics, and thus getting more
> of a spot-micing effect rather than a developed stereo image at the mics, or
> is that not much of a factor?

If you plan to keep doing this for a few years, or for lots of guitars,
consider treating your room such that you can pull the stereo pair back
from the guitars a distance roughly equal to the full length of a
full-size guitar. You will find less imbalance between the left and
right mics, which as close as you have them aren't hearing a whole
isntrument, but mostly those portions at which they're aimed. In
addition, cardioid mics that close will be subject to at least some
proximity effect, furthering the imbalance.

I think you would also appreciate better mics, and a Lynx card instead
of the Delta 44.

--
ha
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 4:14:12 AM

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

SSJVCmag wrote:
>"Peter Larsen" wrote:

> > 5 feet is more like it, and mic pair in height with the players head,
> > both are room dependant and may need to be larger. Forget about rock
> > stage habits, this is about recording the entire instrument.

> Just a comment... This is boilerpate classic old-school The Real Deal
> recording technique here,

And if the room is even halfway decent, or if the recordist is keen on
finding a decent spot within a not-so-good room, this approach can
deliver the goods for a guitar track that sounds like a real guitar.

--
ha
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 6:26:52 AM

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

walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich) wrote in
news:1gw5grf.17kytauzyxp8qN%walkinay@thegrid.net:

> If you plan to keep doing this for a few years, or for lots of
> guitars, consider treating your room such that you can pull the stereo
> pair back from the guitars a distance roughly equal to the full length
> of a full-size guitar. You will find less imbalance between the left
> and right mics, which as close as you have them aren't hearing a whole
> isntrument, but mostly those portions at which they're aimed. In
> addition, cardioid mics that close will be subject to at least some
> proximity effect, furthering the imbalance.

"... consider treating your room ..."

The farther you pull back, the better your room and mics and preamp need to
be. Up close, the in-your-face tone is more easily captured. Farther back
you'll need less room noise, more preamp amplification, and more accuracy.
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 6:26:53 AM

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

On Sat, 07 May 2005 02:26:52 GMT, Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich) wrote in
>news:1gw5grf.17kytauzyxp8qN%walkinay@thegrid.net:
>
>> If you plan to keep doing this for a few years, or for lots of
>> guitars, consider treating your room such that you can pull the stereo
>> pair back from the guitars a distance roughly equal to the full length
>> of a full-size guitar. You will find less imbalance between the left
>> and right mics, which as close as you have them aren't hearing a whole
>> isntrument, but mostly those portions at which they're aimed. In
>> addition, cardioid mics that close will be subject to at least some
>> proximity effect, furthering the imbalance.
>
>"... consider treating your room ..."
>
>The farther you pull back, the better your room and mics and preamp need to
>be. Up close, the in-your-face tone is more easily captured. Farther back
>you'll need less room noise, more preamp amplification, and more accuracy.

I think in this case, he may not be wanting to make recordings that
contain a whole lot of much ambience... he's trying to sell guitars,
not make a record.

Al
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 8:42:41 PM

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

playon wrote:

> I think in this case, he may not be wanting to make recordings that
> contain a whole lot of much ambience... he's trying to sell guitars,
> not make a record.

Cool, but if I go guitar shopping I do not stick my face in the face of
the instrument. My suggestion was to balance the room ambience such that
one can present the sound of an entire guitar, not just portions of it.
The suggestion to go with decent omnis might also do the trick there.

--
ha
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 9:47:00 PM

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

"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message...

> The suggestion to go with decent omnis might also do the trick there.
>
> --
> ha


Believe it or nuts... I'd probably go 4 or 5 feet back with a jecklin disc.
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 11:39:28 PM

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

"David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in
news:o a7fe.1988$nX1.163@trnddc09:

> "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message...
>
>> The suggestion to go with decent omnis might also do the trick there.
>
> Believe it or nuts... I'd probably go 4 or 5 feet back with a jecklin
> disc.

Would the disk buy you much in this scenario? I'd expect omnis spaced a
few inches to a foot apart would sound about as good, given the single
source and minimal room effects.
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 12:06:02 AM

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

"Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns964F9F4F18E59gulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191...
> "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in
> news:o a7fe.1988$nX1.163@trnddc09:
>
> > "hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message...
> >
> >> The suggestion to go with decent omnis might also do the trick there.
> >
> > Believe it or nuts... I'd probably go 4 or 5 feet back with a jecklin
> > disc.
>
> Would the disk buy you much in this scenario? I'd expect omnis spaced a
> few inches to a foot apart would sound about as good, given the single
> source and minimal room effects.

The disc in this application, does something fairly unique with the imaging.
I dare say it could be any less accurate on a variety of guitars than an X-Y
up close... again, depending on how the room fits into the picture.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
!