Guys, its time to find a good means to record my acoustic guitar.
Early this year I asked about recording my vocals and my voice sounding a bit thing. I was using a Rode NT1. Someone suggested singing closer, mouth to mic. So I purchased one of those foam pop shields that go over the mic and I'm getting much better results. Happy days

So with my Guitar I'm using a Rode NT5. I like this mic but I'm finding I need to roll off the crisp top end, its just too toppy. I think I'm after a more rounded sound but keeping as much bass as I can. So I was wondering if a good Dynamic mic might be worth trying. Any suggestions?
If not, what do you guys use for acoustic Guitar? I really want to capture a good sound recording at source and not have to faff about with EQ.

One thing I've always wondered about is a valve stage, pre amp or mic. Would that give me the sound I'm after?

Well it's a bit tricky this...You can get a really cool thing with something like a 441 or even just a 57 on an acoustic. It's sort of contained and thick. But they're insensitive and you need a lot of gain. And it can lack subtlety. It works best with a louder strummed part. But then I imagine that's the sort of part that you're getting too much brightness from?

The other thing to try is a ribbon. Again a traditional passive ribbon can suffer from the same issues as a dynamic in this context but the newer active ribbons will give you more gain and a condensor like response without being so 'zingy'.

BUT

What you're doing here is correcting an issue with the sound using the mic. Which is fine, but it's not the ideal solution. The best acoustic guitar sounds tend to be the ones where the mic has ample high frequency response but the guitar itself is dull, and not overly complicated in sound. In other words it's drier sounding, without a lot of crazy complicated harmonics flying around. The problem is that those sorts of acoustics are quite hard to find. They tend to be old Gibsons and Martins in the most part. While I have heard 'posh' modern acoustics sound ok recorded (Steve Hill has a Taylor Cujo that's really special in that respect) they're usually MUCH too bright, and much too complicated. If you find a good D18, a 60's Hummingbird or J45/J50 you can immediately see how that 'perfect' acoustic sound is done. The cheapest of these options is probably a solid 70's D18. Mahogany back and sides tend to work rather better than Rosewood which is bigger and brighter.

Now obviously you might not have a grand to fifteen hundred lying around to spend on a new guitar (!) and you might not feel confident in buying some thirty year old guitar with no guarantee that it's going to do what you want. But a lot people go spending a grand on a microphone trying to solve this problem, and it's not the way. The right guitar with your NT5 will do that clear attack without zingyness thing.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

I'm with Jack on this one. NT5 is a pretty good mic for acoustic guitar and also there's a huge amount of variance possible by trying different mic positions. So whilst it's obviously possible to use a ribbon or good dynamic, I'd be questioning whether the guitar it self is presenting the sound you're after.

I bought a Chinese made Guild for the studio not long ago, mahogany top, back and sides specifically because I knew it would record well and because many guitars that come through the door do not record well.

Still, it's not as good as my 30 year old Maton, but in 30 years, it probably will be.

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

Again, +1 to what Jack says. Look at the source rather than the mic. There are some nice old 70s Yamaha acoustics that might do the job rather more affordably (a few £100), but it's hard to find them and try them out before you buy at that price.

BUT I get the sense that you're getting a nice enough sound with EQ and the NT5. So why not just save a suitable EQ preset, or place an EQ in the chain while recording acoustic guitar? that way, you are EQing, but at least you don't have to faff around.

Thanks guys.

I get what you are saying, the Guitar I have is I guess in the mid range but it does stand out from the crowd. I do love Martin Guitars and when budget permits I'll be looking at a Martin or Lowden.
But I think perhaps I need to try some different mic positions and see if I can get closer to the sound I'm after. I've never owned a ribbon mic, are there any decent ones under £300?

Also, regarding mic position. Its tricky because recently I've found that recording the Guitar & Vocals at the same time give a much MUCH better performance. I've worked for years putting the Guitar down to a click and then doing vocal overdubs but my recent change has improved my results ten fold so I'm sticking with this method. Problem is getting enough separation. The vocals isn't too bad because I'm singing right up to the mic and its easy to position it away from the Guitar soundhole. But the Guitar mic is a little more limited. Ideally I'd like to get it way way back from the Guitar which does give a more natural sound but then I get too much vocal in there. So its really a matter of close micing. That's why I was wondering about a dynamic mic.

Most ribbon mics are figure-of-eight, which in theory makes it possible to get very good separation on the guitar if you can get the null pointing at your mouth. The flip side of this is that they also have masses of proximity effect so get very boomy when you put them close to the guitar. And of course the position where you get maximum rejection of the vocal might not be the position that makes the guitar sound good!

Lately I've been experimenting with an old Bang & Olufsen stereo ribbon, which sounds lovely, though you have to put up with some preamp hiss because the output is so low.

There are a lot of fairly cheap ribbons around at the moment, though I don't know how good most of them are. For that money you might get a Beyer M130 or M160 (which is hypercardioid unlike most ribbons), always a solid bet and useful for lots of other things too.

...or if you want a dynamic mic that can be shoved right up against the guitar, there are designs that use various clever tricks to eliminate proximity effect. The Electro-Voice RE20 could be a good choice. Or if you want to risk buying one second hand, the old AKG dual element mics like the D202 and 224 are very nice and also have very little proximity effect (but are not very reliable so be careful when buying).

AKG once made a mic called the D19 which uses a similar method to the RE20 to cut proximity effect. I've found that in situations where you absolutely need to ram a mic right up against the guitar, it works surprisingly well. It is a rather bright mic though and often horribly overpriced on the second-hand market.

I would recommend buying the omni capsule for your NT5 (about £60), which will give a fuller sound to the guitar (as it picks up more of the resonating parts of it), and you can get it closer to the instrument without the bass tip-up of the cardioid capsule. This might help a bit with singing at the same time, as you can get the mic closer to the guitar, but of course you may pick up a lot of voice due to the omni pattern anyway. You could try putting one of the smaller Reflexion Filter style barriers between the voice and the guitar mic.

It also depends a bit on how you're using the guitar in the song - if it's a strumming pattern in a mix of other instruments, then an SM57 dynamic might be perfect and help it blend in nicely. OTOH if you're finger-picking or otherwise playing delicately, and it's on its own or quite exposed, it's worth persevering with the positioning of a small diaphragm condensor in order to capture the details you want to hear clearly in the recording.

I think the NT5 has a fixed capsule -- it's the NT55 that has switchable caps.

+1 to Jack. Don't under-estimate the difference between a good guitar and a guitar that records well. That's why, in the good old days, almost every studio had a couple of battered 'house' guitars lying around and why many top producers to this day buy good old guitars even though they can't play guitar. It's definitely worth searching for one of those recording gems, and they needn't be expensive either. Get a friend to play while you get your ear up close to the neck/body join and anywhere you might place a mic capsule. And listen for something that sounds nicely balanced up close.

Andy

--------------------
When the going gets weird, the Weird turn Pro.

All of the Rode mics have a bright sound though. All of them have a top lift somewhere. The NT5 has about a 2dB lift starting at 5kHz, only rolling off at about 15kHz. Maybe that's what the OP is not liking? An XY pair in close almost always sounds best to me. The Beyerdynamic MCE530 is great for stringed instruments, a pair is around EUR200.

--------------------
madtheory creations
Synths and pianos for Kontakt

Quote Jack Ruston:

---

BUT

What you're doing here is correcting an issue with the sound using the mic. Which is fine, but it's not the ideal solution. The best acoustic guitar sounds tend to be the ones where the mic has ample high frequency response but the guitar itself is dull, and not overly complicated in sound. In other words it's drier sounding, without a lot of crazy complicated harmonics flying around. The problem is that those sorts of acoustics are quite hard to find. They tend to be old Gibsons and Martins in the most part. While I have heard 'posh' modern acoustics sound ok recorded (Steve Hill has a Taylor Cujo that's really special in that respect) they're usually MUCH too bright, and much too complicated. If you find a good D18, a 60's Hummingbird or J45/J50 you can immediately see how that 'perfect' acoustic sound is done. The cheapest of these options is probably a solid 70's D18. Mahogany back and sides tend to work rather better than Rosewood which is bigger and brighter.
J

---

A good guitar is a very important aspect of the chain, but I would say upgrading your guitar might something to keep in mind but for now why not use some 'darker' sounding strings, eg 'Silk and Steel' variety?

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/earwighoney

Quote Sam Inglis:

---

I think the NT5 has a fixed capsule -- it's the NT55 that has switchable caps.

---

The Rode NT45 omni capsule is a supplied accessory with the NT55 mic, but can be purchased separately. The capsule threads on the NT5 and NT55 are identical.

Quote caveman82:

---

A good guitar is a very important aspect of the chain, but I would say upgrading your guitar might something to keep in mind but for now why not use some 'darker' sounding strings, eg 'Silk and Steel' variety?

---

Yes, and make sure that they're not new. Even on a nice old Gibbo you can't get a nice sound with new strings. They're much too shiny sounding. You have to wait until you just hear the notes and not the high frequency clutter. Sean Genockey has a 50's J45 that is amazing for recording. But if a string breaks it's out of action for weeks because you have to wait for the new set to settle down before you can record it again. It gets treated with kid gloves not only because it's extremely valuable, but because he who breaks a string will incur the wrath of the owner. It's exactly the same with electrics...There's a window after the HF stuff goes away and before the string loses intonation. It's a nightmare when you get a 'hand of death' player whose hands turn the strings to sticky black rope in half an hour. Evil. I have tried all sorts of things to get around the shiny period. I've tried taking sets out of their packets and then pulling the strings through my fingers a couple of times every day, and then leaving them for a few weeks open to the air. Not sure it really does anything. I think it might be something to do with the fact that as you play the instrument, the strings ever so slightly flatten where they make contact with the fret. This stops them from rattling so much as they end up making a better 'contact' with the fret. But I just don't know. I suppose we should look at one under a magnifying glass and see if that is happening.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

Quote:

---

when budget permits I'll be looking at a Martin or Lowden.

---

I'm not a fan of Martins, but if you want something reasonably unzingy then they'll do the job.

Lowdens are *VERY* zingy though. Sounds awesome acoustic, but close-micing might not be the best for them.

Also - check This SOS artcicle out. There's quite a detailed look at the process of recording acoustic guitar and they have lots of audio samples of different mics in almost every conceivable position! Very useful..

I'm not a Martin fan either ... recorded and live they can easily be all Boom and Tizz ... Maybe try some softer strings. Cover them in Fast Fret.

I HATE the sound of new strings. Especially on strumming. Especially on some Martins, except those lovely old smaller ones— and old ones in general.

Keep the mike you have, and change the positioning. Try the mike in the same places, but turn it 90 degrees-ish, so the side of the capsule is looking at the strings—not the end.
Try really mad places to mic. Some work really well. Remember the sound emerges from all over the guitar.
Try in a nice sounding room from further away.
Try playing quietly. Many stringed instruments go all 'compressey' and just sound messy after a certain volume.

--------------------
PA stuff on FB

its interesting that so many people think a Guitar can be at fault and one should force a player to play a Guitar that they can record well. I wonder if they ask people to have a throat replacement to get a voice that is compatible with their recording abilities!!!

Sorry guys I don't buy that. The Martin Guitars that I have tried and I've only tried a few, have had a lot of bass (which I enjoy) and a clean sweet top end. In my opinion this is what you tend to get with a quality Guitar, sweetness and clarity. Lowdens are a similar story.

In fact, the Guitar that I found most difficult to record in my attempts was an old 1970's Gibson Dove. A fantastic Guitar but as hard as I tried it had a boomy boxy bass. I would say I just didn't have the tools or perhaps the skill to get a good recording out of it.

Of course there is a difference between a £100 mass produced ply wood Guitar and something several times + its value but to argue that a Martin Guitar, or indeed any decent Guitar just isn't recordable and should be replaced says more about the engineer than the Guitar.

I certainly agree about new strings though. I've only ever tired one set of strings that sound great from new and they are Thomastik Spectrum. All other strings need an hour playing in before they come to life.

Quote WiredUp:

---

its interesting that so many people think a Guitar can be at fault and one should force a player to play a Guitar that they can record well. I wonder if they ask people to have a throat replacement to get a voice that is compatible with their recording abilities!!!

Sorry guys I don't buy that. The Martin Guitars that I have tried and I've only tried a few, have had a lot of bass (which I enjoy) and a clean sweet top end. In my opinion this is what you tend to get with a quality Guitar, sweetness and clarity. Lowdens are a similar story.

In fact, the Guitar that I found most difficult to record in my attempts was an old 1970's Gibson Dove. A fantastic Guitar but as hard as I tried it had a boomy boxy bass.

---

Well, you have to prioritise performance over sound in most cases. For example I recently did a project where the singer (who is a good player but not a 'guitarist' if you know what I mean) played his own guitar a lot better than anything else. It's not a good guitar. It's a small bodied modern Martin which sounds thin and a bit plastic. But he was familiar with it, and in that situation it was worth putting up with that, and ensuring that that part didn't attract attention to itself.

It's not a question of forcing someone to play an instrument that you can record 'well'. You can record anything. And you can certainly do things to minimise some of the aspects of that instrument that you don't like, and maximise some of those that you do. But as I said before, you find yourself in a position where you're trying to avoid a sound that the instrument is making. It's a clumsy approach because it's so rare that you can exclude that sound while retaining other characteristics that you do want.

Artists want a particular sound, and this job is about knowing where that sound comes from. On occasion, yes, it's a certain mic or type of compressor, but much more often it's the instrument. That's why every producer has piles of guitars, drums, basses etc. It's not just because we're hoarders! It's a massive expensive pain in the arse. I'm starting a project in a few days and I was making a list of the stuff I need to take. There are two small racks containing mic amps and a couple of bits of outboard that I want in addition to what the studio already has. There are a couple of extra mics. And THEN there's a particular 4x12, a vintage fender super reverb, a lesie 16, a Ampeg 8x10, three heads, a huge flight case full of pedals, splitters, DI's etc, a vintage Les Paul Junior, a vintage tele, a P bass, eight tube traps, some DW shells, a black beauty, a ludwig 400 etc etc. I don't want to take all that! But those are the tools that make these types of recording. It's not pro tools, or a specific mic or pre. Those things are just the icing.

With vocals it's a slightly different story. You can't change the singer (usually) in the way you can change the instrument. So you have to make the best of what you have to work with. And sometimes it's less than ideal and the singer can't make the sound you wish they could. You can doctor things in the computer up to a point, but it's never as good as someone who just opens their mouth and sings beautifully.

In relation to the vintage guitars...You tried a 70's Dove and it wasn't nice. The 70's weren't a good era for Gibson in the most part, but besides that, not all these old guitars are any good. They're inconsistent. Some are great, some terrible. You have to kiss a lot of frogs!

I'm not saying that we as engineers should just be sloppy in our work and blame the result on the artist. There are times when we can do a lot to affect things, but the fact remains that even once we have done the best possible job of capturing something, of placing it in the best position, using the most appropriate tools, and techniques, we are still ultimately completely at the mercy of the sound that person makes on that instrument.


J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

WiredUp, I don't think anyone's forcing you or anyone else to change guitars! It's just that some guitars tend to sound a certain way, rather than another.

Jack makes some very good points. Probably the best thing is to keep what you have and do some wild experimentation: Most results will suck, but some may well surprise you.

It often happens that the instrument, room, and playing-style change recorded sound more than a mere mic change ... and don't let's mention mic pres...


--------------------
PA stuff on FB

Quote WiredUp:

---

its interesting that so many people think a Guitar can be at fault and one should force a player to play a Guitar that they can record well. I wonder if they ask people to have a throat replacement to get a voice that is compatible with their recording abilities!!!

---

I think this thread has gone slightly tangential but for good reason.

I guess people are saying its possible to get a good recording of acoustic guitar with an NT5 and if you can't there may be other factors at play, simple as that.

The obvious question to ask is - do you like the (acoustic) sound of your guitar? Yes, you can use recording techniques to enhance this, but its the sound source that is all important.

And yes, it's easier to change a guitar than have a throat replacement, plus it's less offensive to suggest the same!

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

Ok guys, well I was having a good listen last night. I did a couple of mix downs and bunged the thing through t-racks. Actually its not that bad.

What I did notice though is the mix as a whole is too toppy.
One recent album I really like the sound of is Robert Plant & Alison Krauss's Raising Sand. I'm guessing it was recorded on tape and a lot of vintage gear was used. It doesn't have that crisp top end, its smooth and rounded. It sounds good to me.
Since the 90's there has been this ability/fashion to take advantage of top end, the kinda cymbal range and I've got to say it just sounds harsh to me.
So I rolled off some top end with T-racks and its much better. Today I'll roll even more off.

Is there any thinking on top end in production?
Also, anyone have any details on the recording of Raising Sand? I know T-bone produced but the sound of the album really got my attention. I notice Robert Plants most recent and following album has the same sound again.

Quote WiredUp:

---

So I rolled off some top end with T-racks and its much better. Today I'll roll even more off.

Is there any thinking on top end in production?

---

Clean, clear natural top end is worth pursuing. Artificially adding top end is worth avoiding. But I wouldn't go rolling off high frequencies myself, unless there really was no other way to get an acceptable result.

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

An acoustic guitar has a lot of transient information which a dynamic mic will not capture - it might be the sound you're after, but I would experiment a lot before buying anything new. Try different mic placement first, and don't forget different picks.

I recently saw an interview with Jack Joseph Puig and he rolls off a lot of top end on guitars - I don't see much to criticise in his mixing.

--------------------
Daniel Davis
Edinburgh Recording Studio Windmill Sound

It does seem odd to me that the guitar should be made the villain of this piece!

My son was looking for a new acoustic some months ago and anong other things he was very insistant on an instrument with bang on intonation all up the fretboard. He also wanted something with an "even" tone, no strings that "stuck out". Together with playability he eventually found a Turner 80-00, Fishman pup, all in a nice hardcase for £500 (not a lot perhaps but the most we could scrape) To then put RECORDABILITY into the equation is cloud cuckoo land as far as we are concerned!

FWIW: He has found capacitor mics, AKG P150, rather "spiky" and much prefers the SM57,the pres' in our ZED10 can just about cope. He likes the sound of the Reslo RB but although hiss is just about acceptable using a 40quid Sowter 1:4 lift traff, hum is not.

Bob, in 30years you won't be able to tell!

Dave.

Quote ef37a:

---

Bob, in 30years you won't be able to tell!

Dave.

---

True, if I'm not dead by then, I'll be close enough to it to not much care!

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

Quote The Elf:

---

Quote WiredUp:

---

So I rolled off some top end with T-racks and its much better. Today I'll roll even more off.

Is there any thinking on top end in production?

---

Clean, clear natural top end is worth pursuing. Artificially adding top end is worth avoiding. But I wouldn't go rolling off high frequencies myself, unless there really was no other way to get an acceptable result.

---

That should really read "I wouldn't go rolling off high frequencies across the entire mix..."

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

I don't think anyone is making the guitar the villain of the piece.

What we are saying is that when you are close miking an acoustic guitar there is a compromise. No matter how good it sounds in the room through your two ears, what you are recording is it's sound from a single point 6 inches away from the body.

One way of tailoring that sound is to change microphones. Nice and easy if you have a large selection of mics to choose from, but not so easy to do if you have to go out and buy one before trying it. Especially when there is no concensus over what mic to buy and some of the suggestions are pretty expensive.

Alternatively, you can try a different guitar. It doesn't have to be expensive, and it doesn't even have to sound very good. All it needs to do is sound good at the point where the mic is placed. Some guitars just record better than others, that's all.

Andy

--------------------
When the going gets weird, the Weird turn Pro.

all due respect as this is a topical-topic for me. I'm recently really digging-in to recording my ole' guitar with an upgraded mic and mic pre

using the "point at the 12th fret in mono" technique with my fingerstyle, I'm having trouble with my breathing painting to tape (!!)

gonna keep working on that but I've found my dynamic(Shure beta 57a) to be a bit more succesful than the LDC AT 2020. Less "room" sound, slightly softer top-end with still plenty of detail

If the OP really dislikes the harsh top-end of his recordings(using good monitors ?); I like the silk & steel recco. They sound fantastic in the right setting and are super "playable"

best of luck

--------------------
____________
You Are Who You Google

Edited by Mister Natural (17/11/11 06:28 AM)

"I don't think anyone is making the guitar the villain of the piece.

With respect Andy I think peeps are! As I said, it was enough of a bind finding a guitar with good intonation etc. You say "it" the recording guitar, does not have to be expensive? Well believe me IF I could have found a cheaper alternative that was still in tune all the way up the fingerboard I would have bought it! And how to find such a recording paragon? Buy on on spec', get it home. "Nah! Sounds *hit!" Take it back and get another!!!

Someone said you have to record the voice you have been blessed(?) with. If you are lucky enough to have a piano or drum kit and the room for it all you would be VERY bloody lucky to have more than one choice!

Mister N. You could try the 57 as the main mic and the capacitor on a second track then add a wee bit to "sparkle" up the result?

Dave.

As for me and my house:

dead room + 35-year-old Guild + SM57 + Focusrite ISA One =

--------------------
http://ryanmead.net

Dynamics do capture transient information, just less so than condensers. Less transients may help the perceived top-end.
Some good ol' mics out there, like the the M 201, the MD 421, the RE 20, ... to mention but a few. These last two have an interesting design that gives them some 'je ne sais quoi', though I don't know what it is

--------------------
PA stuff on FB

I had a session the other day with a guitarist - playing a G-Series Takemine - pretty bright. Which I recorded with a pair of AKG C451e - also pretty bright, into a Focusrite Liquid 4Pre on the ISA110 setting.

Just about every take I stopped and checked the sound before he started - he swore he didn't move, but moving the mics by as little as an inch made a considerable difference to the tone. The plain fact is that an acoustic guitar has a lot of surface area with sound coming out of all of it - and your mic is pretty small, and does not capture all of it. You really do have a lot of tonal control just by moving the mic around.

--------------------
Daniel Davis
Edinburgh Recording Studio Windmill Sound