Good budget setup for stereo mic recording acoustic guitar?

J

jazzadellic

New member
I own a shure sm57 already. I'm thinking of getting a second one and some type of preamp / audio interface. It seems like a good (inexpensive) dual channel preamp with usb is possibly non-existent. I've found plenty of dual channel that were not usb (but then how do you get the signal into your pc??). I've found plenty of single channel ones. I actually found one dual channel usb and thought that I had finally found the one and then every reviewer in the comments said it worked terrible with dynamic mics! lol! A second shure sm57 would be around $100, so I guess I could even consider getting two $50 condenser mics, if those would be likely to give me much better results and options for preamps. I'm also wondering if tube or solid state preamp is the way to go. I'm just going to be using the mics to record classical guitar in various stereo formations. I've been using my $300 nylon electric-acoustic with it's built in piezo pick-up thus far and needless to say it sounds terrible. I'm thinking even a budget stereo mic setup should be vastly better sound quality. Having a mic setup will also allow me to use my $2000 nylon guitar to record with, which has a vastly better tone then my cheapo electric-acoustic. I'm hoping I can get the gear I need for under $250. Any suggestions?
 
jazzadellic said:
It seems like a good (inexpensive) dual channel preamp with usb is possibly non-existent.
Click to expand...

Hey,

Take a look at
  • focusrite 2i2
  • tascam us122
  • presonus audiobox
  • steinberg ur22
  • behringer um2
  • maudio fast track/mtrack
  • alesis io2
  • lexicon alpha
  • apogee duet

Maybe you're using the wrong search terms?
What you're looking for is a USB audio interface.
On all of the above, preamps are built in.

The cheap 'n' nasties may not fare well with dynamic mics. Look for something with plenty of gain, or good reviews re sm58s/57s.
For acoustic guitar you might want to look into rode nt5s, shure sm81s, oktava mk012s, or even samson CO2s, on a shoestring.
 
All good advice regarding a two channel usb interface and list is good and ranges depending on your budget, i would add focusrite forte and RME baby face, and think Universal Audio, all on the higher side of the list. Plus with two channel interface, you will get outputs too and other useful functions.

yeah in the end the SM57 pair is going to be very bright and unforgiving. just another mic recommendation on a budget and I am in agreement regarding the types of recommendation made above, the Audio Technica are great for the money, as well as the beyerdynamic MC or Opus series, does;t need to be the more expensive MC930s.


Steenamaroo said:
Hey,

Take a look at
  • focusrite 2i2
  • tascam us122
  • presonus audiobox
  • steinberg ur22
  • behringer um2
  • maudio fast track/mtrack
  • alesis io2
  • lexicon alpha
  • apogee duet

Maybe you're using the wrong search terms?
What you're looking for is a USB audio interface.
On all of the above, preamps are built in.

The cheap 'n' nasties may not fare well with dynamic mics. Look for something with plenty of gain, or good reviews re sm58s/57s.
For acoustic guitar you might want to look into rode nt5s, shure sm81s, oktava mk012s, or even samson CO2s, on a shoestring.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I agree with the view that the SM57 is not the best mic for stereo recording. As well as having a low sensitivity, compounded by the fact that you want a stereo setup much further away from the source than a mono one, you are very unlikely to find an other sample any where near matched for response*. Add to this that dynamic mics hardly "sparkle" and are not considered "hi-fidelity" which is after all a big reason for going stereo?

These look very good..
Product Review - Rode M5. For about the same money you could buy two AKG Perception 170s . I have the earlier P150 and tho' not a match pair, were bought at the same time same place and sound very similar(they do have a ~2dB diff' in sensitivity but that is easily corrected.)
For knockabout trial, Behringer do a pair for about a nifty? Reported to be surprisingly good.

I assume in all this you are talking "Co-Incident" stereo? If spaced pair, you will need omnis I think? (but CO-I is the PROPER way to do it!) .

For an interface, I shall once again shamelessly plug the Native Instruments KA6! Several reasons.
The mic amps are very clean and quiet and have slightly more gain I think than my Scarlett 8i6.
The drivers are beyond reproach. NEVER had such a stable audio device, just fekkin' WORKS! (To be fair, the 8i6 has been no trouble but only had a few hours on two computers. The KA6 has had 100 or more on at least 5, including Blista Bizz and Linux!) .

The instrument (guitar DI) input is both quiet and has ample headroom (not all AIs are as good in this respect!)

It has two further balanced line inputs, therefore should you get a BOOteek pre amp in the future? Rock and roll! It also has S/PDIF so a very high quality pre amp like the Audient Mico could go in and bypass the KA6 converters ( NOT! That they are poor, far from it. I would say unless you go for RME or Apogee, you will not get better and even then I doubt you would hear it!) .

It is completely bus powered so if like me you have a very quiet laptop (HPi3) just plug and play.

*Not being matched for response means the image will "smear", not be as sharp over the audio band as it should. This might not matter to you for personal recordings. The P170s, if bought together should be very close even tho' AFAIK they are not available as matched pairs.

Dave.
 
Why don't you just record it in mono? What's the point of a stereo recording here? Get the best capacitor mic you can afford on Ebay (check out CAD mics--very good, and often very cheap), get an M-Audio dmp3 or even an ART TPS 2 or something like that, and experiment. A lot depends on the acoustic environment and whatever software you're using too. If you're serious about recording yourself, then get the best you can afford. If you've got a $2000.00 guitar (!), then think about spending for it.
 
"Why don't you just record it in mono? What's the point of a stereo recording here?"

An oft put point in this age of "cheap" recording gear Tim. Many reasons.

Firstly it is the "natural" way we experience the world (nothing to do with two ears. "Stereo" means solid. When I was vastly deafer in right rather than left ear I still had directional ability (f'all above ~2kHz in right lug mind!). Sadly lefty has now caught up!). Might as well ask why we don't shoot everything in black and white.

Sounds do not exist in isolation, they are part of an acoustic. Now admittedly the acoustic of yer bog -s bedroom is not going to be that good but no matter HOW much you try to kill it, it is still there and so long as there are no major "honks" it lends a veracity to the recording. If you happen to be blessed with a really nice church hall it would be a sin NOT to capture it!

I also find that because (co-I) stereo captures the "real" room sound it does not sound so bad and artificial on playback compared to a one lunged effort?

Instruments, even voices, have dimension. Not all the qualities of a guitar especially, are radiated toward any particular mic position. A stereo pair, being rather further away will grab a good deal more "information". A mono drumkit is pretty boring?
Then...PEOPLE MOVE! Sax players, flautists all tend to move around and there is little one can (or should?) do to stop them. This can result in weird level and even response changes that are noticed on "blind" playback. Stereo puts these gyrations in context.

It does not cost anything like twice as much to make stereo recordings and HDD space is dirt cheap. Let us not remain in the Edison recording era? I know the "modern way" is to make a gaggle of mono recordings, pan them together and call it stereo. But it ain't REALLY you know!

Dave.
 
^^^

Wot ecc83 said about stereo--it really does make a difference on acoustic guitar.

A couple of other things:

First off, on the list of possible interfaces, definitely look at the Focusrite Scarlett 2i2--nice sounding pre amps and good stable drivers. If the Scarlett is over your budget, consider the M Audio M Track. I just bought one for a specific project and was pleasantly surprised--drivers worked fine first try and the pre amps (while not setting the world on fire) have plenty of clean gain for dynamics.

That said, let me also recommend a pair of small diaphragm condensers. I find they give a much more detailed and natural sound to guitars. Another make and model to consider would be sE 1A. It's actually available as a stereo pair but, in my experience, the quality control is good enough that two standard ones work just fine if you don't want the wooden box.
 
ecc83 said:
"Why don't you just record it in mono? What's the point of a stereo recording here?"

An oft put point in this age of "cheap" recording gear Tim. Many reasons.

Firstly it is the "natural" way we experience the world (nothing to do with two ears. "Stereo" means solid. When I was vastly deafer in right rather than left ear I still had directional ability (f'all above ~2kHz in right lug mind!). Sadly lefty has now caught up!). Might as well ask why we don't shoot everything in black and white.

Sounds do not exist in isolation, they are part of an acoustic. Now admittedly the acoustic of yer bog -s bedroom is not going to be that good but no matter HOW much you try to kill it, it is still there and so long as there are no major "honks" it lends a veracity to the recording. If you happen to be blessed with a really nice church hall it would be a sin NOT to capture it!

I also find that because (co-I) stereo captures the "real" room sound it does not sound so bad and artificial on playback compared to a one lunged effort?

Instruments, even voices, have dimension. Not all the qualities of a guitar especially, are radiated toward any particular mic position. A stereo pair, being rather further away will grab a good deal more "information". A mono drumkit is pretty boring?
Then...PEOPLE MOVE! Sax players, flautists all tend to move around and there is little one can (or should?) do to stop them. This can result in weird level and even response changes that are noticed on "blind" playback. Stereo puts these gyrations in context.

It does not cost anything like twice as much to make stereo recordings and HDD space is dirt cheap. Let us not remain in the Edison recording era? I know the "modern way" is to make a gaggle of mono recordings, pan them together and call it stereo. But it ain't REALLY you know!

Dave.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure how you got to the business about the mono drumkit--I certainly would not record a drumkit with a single mic--but an acoustic guitar? I record in a heavily treated room, but even if I didn't, it seems like stereo recording of a guitar is going to be even more dicey in a bad room. and ultimately, it's about the room and not the mics or the pre-amps. My original suggestion was made knowing the OP didn't have a treated room. I know acoustics are very often recorded on single mics in a professional setting, and that its certainly possible to get a fine-sounding recording with a single mic.
 
TimN said:
Well, I'm not sure how you got to the business about the mono drumkit--I certainly would not record a drumkit with a single mic--but an acoustic guitar? I record in a heavily treated room, but even if I didn't, it seems like stereo recording of a guitar is going to be even more dicey in a bad room. and ultimately, it's about the room and not the mics or the pre-amps. My original suggestion was made knowing the OP didn't have a treated room. I know acoustics are very often recorded on single mics in a professional setting, and that its certainly possible to get a fine-sounding recording with a single mic.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the paradox,and source of all confusion about "stereo" and panned mono.
I did not ever suggest recording a drum kit with a SINGLE mic but the usual construction of kick,snare and overheads as a basic setup is NOT stereo! Where those mics are put in the acoustic landscape is up to the recording engineer.

The same is true of acoustic guitar. There is a very well entrenched school of miccing at the 12th fret and the lower bout. Two mics (often different op' principles) but it still ain't "stereo" because nobody listens to a guitar like that!

Recordings were made for decades, much of the "best" jazz and blues, on a single mic or a few mics mixed to mono. The acoustics ranged from superb to appalling but that's life. Better we have it, warts and all? (actually, with the very clever processing we now have some of the worst acoustics can probably be improved upon?)

"Proper" stereo, whatever system you chose to use, is just a further step towards better fidelity.
Of course, the vast majority of modern music is not about fidelity or telling it like it was. But that is a whole other bag of worms!

Dave.
 
TimN said:
Well, I'm not sure how you got to the business about the mono drumkit--I certainly would not record a drumkit with a single mic--but an acoustic guitar? I record in a heavily treated room, but even if I didn't, it seems like stereo recording of a guitar is going to be even more dicey in a bad room. and ultimately, it's about the room and not the mics or the pre-amps. My original suggestion was made knowing the OP didn't have a treated room. I know acoustics are very often recorded on single mics in a professional setting, and that its certainly possible to get a fine-sounding recording with a single mic.
Click to expand...

It's down to personal taste, isn't it? I know many people record acoustic guitar with a single mic but, to me, that always sounds a bit "flat" and I much prefer a stereo recording with SDC mics.

The room is less of an issue that you say--I'll only distance mic if it's a really nice sounding space. Otherwise, I mic the guitar pretty close and add some artificial room reverb later.

There's no right or wrong, it's just the way I like to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top