Compressor for Acoustic Guitar and Male Vocals

  • Thread starter Thread starter JTC111
  • Start date Start date
The OP was asking about compression on both ac gtr and vocals.

They're two completely different subjects.

I've used an LA3A and an 1176 on acoustic gtr. I wouldn't use either one when tracking to correct widely varied levels. I might use them for effect later though. The LA3A was very nice. Vocals, sure... compress away during tracking.

The OP's situation re recording levels in fingerpicking and strumming aren't something best handled with a compressor. That's best handled by consistent playing technique, varied mic positioning for fingerpicking/strumming, good gain staging, possibly different takes for fingerpicking/strumming, volume automation. If one is getting inconsistent and noisy results during quiet fingerpicking, a compressor during tracking isn't a good cure. It's a bandaid.
 
XLR said:
The OP was asking about compression on both ac gtr and vocals.

The OP's situation re recording levels in fingerpicking and strumming aren't something best handled with a compressor. That's best handled by consistent playing technique, varied mic positioning for fingerpicking/strumming, good gain staging, possibly different takes for fingerpicking/strumming, volume automation. If one is getting inconsistent and noisy results during quiet fingerpicking, a compressor during tracking isn't a good cure. It's a bandaid.
Click to expand...

Something you wrote gave me an idea. I'm not sure if this is something that's done, but in my head it seems like it could work.

Instead of a two mic setup, do a four mic setup with two up close and two backed off a bit. The close mics would be set to levels to capture the softer parts and the distant mics the louder parts.

Or....

A doubled up two mic set up where each pair is gained to capture the soft or loud parts without a difference in distance. This might be the better setup of the two.

When the tracks are complete, you have strong stuff throughout to draw upon for automated volume or you can cut and paste a composite track.

Is there any reason why either of these would be bad ideas?
 
JTC111 said:
Something you wrote gave me an idea. ...Instead of a two mic setup, do a four mic setup with two up close and two backed off a bit. The close mics would be set to levels to capture the softer parts and the distant mics the louder parts.

Or....

A doubled up two mic set up where each pair is gained to capture the soft or loud parts without a difference in distance... When the tracks are complete, you have strong stuff throughout to draw upon for automated volume or you can cut and paste a composite track.
Click to expand...
Now you're getting it.:)
 
JTC111 said:
four mic setup with two up close and two backed off a bit. The close mics would be set to levels to capture the softer parts and the distant mics the louder parts.
Click to expand...
This could be a phase relational nightmare... especially with mic distance difference.
JTC111 said:
A doubled up two mic set up where each pair is gained to capture the soft or loud parts without a difference in distance. This might be the better setup of the two.

When the tracks are complete, you have strong stuff throughout to draw upon for automated volume or you can cut and paste a composite track..
Click to expand...
This is more like it... although I think we're just back to automation again... if you were to try and comp these tracks I think the tone and ambiance would be markedly different on the two... and make your edits stand out above anything else in the track. And how do you propose recording the softer passages at a higher gain without clipping on the louder passages... You'd have to back these clipped sections out totally on the mix... and would have some very strange audio things going on as you switch from two mics to one, to two... back to one

I'm still not convince that the best solution isn't to just record at 24 bits, adjust your gain for the highest peaks, then work out the volume issues later, either by gain riding, automation, or light compression... It's all just personal choice... each will acomplish the same in a slightly different manner... probably more naturally then the suggestions listed above
 
MOFO Pro said:
This could be a phase relational nightmare... especially with mic distance difference.
Click to expand...
First, it's not a matter of mixing the two sets of mics, it's a matter of using one pair for fingerpicking and the other for strumming.

Secondly, even if the two pairs were to be mixed later, it's no nightmare at all, as the time-arrival difference is easily compensated for by sliding the waveforms in the software. I've used two mic pairs on solo guitar many times. Pairs of mic's that share the same line of direction coming from the guitar have never had phase problems for me when time aligned. Setting up two pairs of mic's, and using one or the other for the soft and loud guitar parts is similar to good vocal mic technique... backing up when you sing loudly... eating the mic when singing softly.
 
Big Kenny: I own an LA2a and an 1176..not bragging at all mind you..it took me YEARS of working a 2nd job landscaping in the evenings to save up for the high end stuff I own. Actually it has taken me 6 years to amass 2 API 312's, A 2 Channel Forssell pre, a John Hardy pre and the 2 comp/limiters ..oh and a custom designed (but built by moi) tube pre called a MILA...You can't go wrong with the 1176..from smashing to subtle it has the vibe of pop/rock. I love my LA2a as well but it is on a case by case scenario..awesome on Bass and some vocals...Purple Audio makes a modern 1176 called an MC77 that gets raves from guys that like the 1176 vibe...

Cheers,
Ray
 
MOFO Pro said:
This could be a phase relational nightmare... especially with mic distance difference. This is more like it... although I think we're just back to automation again...
Click to expand...

Yes we are back to automation but now it makes more sense to my addled brain.

MOFO Pro said:
if you were to try and comp these tracks I think the tone and ambiance would be markedly different on the two... and make your edits stand out above anything else in the track.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I also think this could eliminate almost all need for compression on those tracks.

MOFO Pro said:
And how do you propose recording the softer passages at a higher gain without clipping on the louder passages... You'd have to back these clipped sections out totally on the mix... and would have some very strange audio things going on as you switch from two mics to one, to two... back to one
Click to expand...

You're right, but I already knew that. So yes, I'd have to pull the clipped parts out of the mix and I'd also have to pull the soft parts off the mix on the other tracks because those are going to wind up adding more noise than music.

MOFO Pro said:
I'm still not convince that the best solution isn't to just record at 24 bits, adjust your gain for the highest peaks, then work out the volume issues later, either by gain riding, automation, or light compression... It's all just personal choice... each will acomplish the same in a slightly different manner... probably more naturally then the suggestions listed above
Click to expand...

So here's how I think I'd go about this.
I'd do a doubled-up two mic set up (four mics set up the same way I'd set up two). On one pair I'd set the gain to get the best recording of the softest passages and on the other pair to get the best recording of the loudest.

I'd leave the tracks separated and use automation (instead of compression) to even out the volume. Obviously, on the tracks that were hot to pick up the softer fingerpicking, I'd have to cut the louder stuff, and vice versa.

Once the levels were where I'd want them to be, I'd bounce the four tracks down to two tracks. I'd probably get some pops but I can go in and redraw those lines to get rid of them. Voila!

I think this could work. I'm not ready to try it yet though. I don't have two mic pairs. Or maybe I don't need TWO pairs. Maybe I can get away with one pair and one non-pair if I split the pair to capture both ends (example: use a C451B for the left side high gain and another C451B for the right side low gain). Then use a couple of different LDCs to complete the set up. This would insure that the sonic qualities of the 451 would be evident throughtout the track but still allow for the fact that there will be sonic differences between the softer and louder passages. So I probably have to pick up another mic. Or maybe I'll try it with 4 different mics just to see how it sounds.

It might flop, but I'm having some fun in my head thinking about it.
 
You have to experiment and see what works with your guitar sound and taste. There are many solutions. Different mic distances is one, and can be done many different ways... single mic's, pairs in XY, ORTF, spaced. A-B pairs on gtr don't even need to be the same models and can often be better that way.

Try everything and decide for yourself.

The main point is to do the tracking by using good mic technique for whatever's being played rather than finding a processing fix for ineffective mic'ing.
 
XLR said:
Setting up two pairs of mic's, and using one or the other for the soft and loud guitar parts is similar to good vocal mic technique... backing up when you sing loudly... eating the mic when singing softly.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree XLR... at least in what I understand the original poster is trying to achieve... using the two mic combination to maintain consistent levels across the entire dynamic range of the acoustic performance.

By moving closer or further from the vocal mic you're not impacting the ambient room noise... but by recording with two different mics at two different gain levels, you are... The mic set up to capture the quieter passages at the same perceived loudness as the louder material on the reduced gain mic is going to clip during these louder sections... there's no way around it... these sections will have to be discarded resulting in a mixed performance that bounces from one mic to two, and/or from one mic to another... and in his application, this performance will be the featured and probably only track accompanying his vocals... I think it would be distracting unless recorded in an anechoic chamber (which could be literally nauseating).

The more JTC111 posts I see the more convinced I am that a compressor is just what he needs... sure, use as many mics as you want, but stage them properly, and capture the dynamics, then screw with the levels in the mix... by all the afore-mentioned methods

I concur on your phase observation… and in fact had originally added that manner of resolution in my original post… but removed because it actually contradicted the point I was making… Touché!!
 
MOFO Pro said:
...The mic set up to capture the quieter passages at the same perceived loudness as the louder material on the reduced gain mic is going to clip during these louder sections...
Click to expand...
The close mic isn't going to be used during the loud sections in the scenario I suggested. The fingerpicking could even be done in a different take than the strumming.

...resulting in a mixed performance that bounces from one mic to two, and/or from one mic to another...
Click to expand...
This can sound very natural if it's done sensibly. Close mic at 10 inches. Far mic at 2 or 3 ft. It won't sound odd at all. Move the far mic back 10 ft and sure, that will sound weird with the change back and forth.

This is just one possible solution of many for the OP's problem. But it works well if done well. And it sounds way more natural than a compressor.

In fact the ideal solution is for the OP to strengthen his fingerpicking technique to get a bigger sound, then mic it the same take for both strumming and fingerstyle sections.
 
Last edited:
OK, I am going to give you the be-all end-all answer to your original question.

"what can I expect from a better compressor should I decide to upgrade down the road?"

It depends on the compressor, but as Daisy pointed out, yes, better compressors tend to sound better and cost more. Want the best way to go? Go on eBay and get a used Mackie version of the UAD-1 card. Comes with the 1176 and LA2A plugs for free. Runs about $300. Are they as good as the hardware? Not quite, but they are VERY good. If you get to liking one of the emulations, buy the hardware version. You can also demo the new DBX comp emulation, or the Fairchild.

With the UAD, you will be able to get a better grasp on compression, and once you do YOU will be able to answer your question. Really, you are the only one that will know what comp is right for you.
 
XLR said:
Waves Linear Phase Multiband comp is the KING of natural-sounding ac gtr dynamics control.:p:p:p
C4 is good too.

Voxengo Soniformer, also a multiband comp, is good but clumsier to use.
Click to expand...

Unpossible!

I've always liked an LA2A on Acoustic, but VERY little. I like a very natural sound though, and make the guitar player play the dynamics the way he wants them, I don't make many adjustments "in the mix".

My "be all, end all" comment was meant in jest, there are literally endless ways to go on this, but I do think the UAD will let you sample many of the "studio standard" compressors for very little money. Heck, the cheapest waves bundle is like $1800 isn't it?
 
NL5 said:
...the cheapest waves bundle is like $1800 isn't it?
Click to expand...
The Masters bundle, that has the linear multiband in it, is less.

The reason it's good is that most ac gtr dynamics problems are in the low mids, common on some guitars even when well-mic'd in a good room. The multiband allows that to be corrected pretty invisibly - keeping the richness you'd sometimes lose by cutting with EQ, but avoiding "squashing" artifacts. The way I'm talking about controling dynamics is more of a subtle dynamic EQ to correct very minor imbalances. If there are big imbalances it was tracked badly. And the MB compression I'm thinking of here is a different thing than a player's expressive dynamics control, which I believe a compressor of any type shouldn't mess with.
 
Last edited:
XLR said:
The Masters bundle, that has the linear multiband in it, is less.
Click to expand...

Thank you Tim!

I looked awhile back, and every bundle was $1800 and up. I really just wanted the C-4 and the LinEq - maybe the L2 (although I like the precision limiter better). I didn't know they had just the bundle for me! Just those three plugins. I don't care for Waves stuff much myself, but the C4 is nice sometimes, and for surgical EQ I used to use the LinEQ and loved it. But, I sold off my old waves software when I got the UAD's. :(

Might have to put that on the wish list........
 
  • Like
Reactions: XLR
You're welcome.

Great bundle IMO, with the linear multiband, linear EQ and L2.

I think it's around $700 now. A lot more for the protools version though.
 
I'm reading what you're all saying. However, let me throw this in the mix...

There's a reason I'm still running ProTools 6.x on OS9 rather than having upgraded to the newer version: plugins. If I upgrade ProTools to a newer version, I lose the majority of the 3rd party plugins I purchased because they won't work in OSX. This has kinda soured me on the whole plugin thing. I know that any hardware I buy can stay with me should I choose to upgrade software, plugins... not so much.

My preference now is to spend the money on better front end gear that I know I can keep and won't become obsolete.
 
JTC111 said:
I'm reading what you're all saying. However, let me throw this in the mix...

There's a reason I'm still running ProTools 6.x on OS9 rather than having upgraded to the newer version: plugins. If I upgrade ProTools to a newer version, I lose the majority of the 3rd party plugins I purchased because they won't work in OSX. This has kinda soured me on the whole plugin thing. I know that any hardware I buy can stay with me should I choose to upgrade software, plugins... not so much.

My preference now is to spend the money on better front end gear that I know I can keep and won't become obsolete.
Click to expand...


UAD-1 is a PCI card - the plugins will work on any system that has the card in it. But, I do understand the hardware thing. Good analog outboard is an asset that will tend to rise in value over time - software, not so much. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top