Digital Brittle

[mikerofone]

My knowledge of home recording is pretty basic; not at all advanced. I am able to capture the richness and depth of my Martin dreads pretty well (D18V and HD28V) but there is always a bit of a harsh edge...digital brittle I call it. Any tips for getting digital recordings to approach the warmth of analog? My set-up is as follows:

Neumann KM184 and AKGC214>MAudio Fast Track Ultra 8R>Cubase6

I tried to embed a clip; not sure if it worked

 

[moresound]

Nice sound and all Mikero. Great playing as well.

How do you have the microphone placement. Let's start there.

 

[JimmyS1969]

Nice playing!

I'm not hearing the 'brittle' you speak of. Though, I may be deaf.....

 

[moresound]

I think that is just the nature of the guitar.

 

[Massive Master]

"Digital brittle" should be banned from the lexicon. But that's for another thread.

Anyway -- I'm not hearing anything short of what sounds like a nice recording of a nice performance on a nice instrument. That's not to say that it couldn't potentially benefit from preamps with "more character" (API, GAP73 - Something with some nice gooey transformers) or maybe a FatHead or something as an "anchor" -- If I noticed anything "distracting" it was the lack of a solid anchor in the center... You might try recording a "body" mic (lower quarter of the board) on both takes and keep those centered - and pan only the more "glittery" mic (maybe at the neck joint or something along those lines).

Blah, blah, phase, blah, blah, experimentation -- But technically speaking, this doesn't sound all "digital" or anything.

 

[Ethan Winer]

digital brittle I call it.

You've been reading too many recording type magazines.

I'm with Massive - that word and words like it convey only misinformation. A competent digital system captures exactly what you give it. If the high end is more true to the source than an old-school analog recorder, that's not the fault of "digital." If anything, analog recording is more brittle because when you boost the highs you bring out the crunchy distortion.

--Ethan

 

[snus]

"Digital brittle" should be banned from the lexicon. But that's for another thread.

Anyway -- I'm not hearing anything short of what sounds like a nice recording of a nice performance on a nice instrument. That's not to say that it couldn't potentially benefit from preamps with "more character" (API, GAP73 - Something with some nice gooey transformers) or maybe a FatHead or something as an "anchor" -- If I noticed anything "distracting" it was the lack of a solid anchor in the center... You might try recording a "body" mic (lower quarter of the board) on both takes and keep those centered - and pan only the more "glittery" mic (maybe at the neck joint or something along those lines).

Blah, blah, phase, blah, blah, experimentation -- But technically speaking, this doesn't sound all "digital" or anything.

I agree with this. A different preamp would really give this some character.

There does seem to be a lack of a foundation, which has NOTHING to do with the recording format.

Neither of those mics could be considered "high end" either. I gave up on the 184's long ago. They just never seem to deliver for me. I have never heard anything recorded with them that wowed me.

George Massenburg once stated in an interview that the AT 4033 was his "go to first" mic for acoustic guitar, which I found fascinating, because in all my years, I have found it to be the preference 9 times out of 10 when I am doing a "shoot out" for an acoustic mic for a project.

An old standby mic that doesn't always seem to be suggested in a Shure SM81. If you are looking for a bit more of an "old school" sound on an acoustic, this just might be the mic for you!

 

[miroslav]

If anything, analog recording is more brittle because when you boost the highs you bring out the crunchy distortion.

Yeah...but I think analog brittle is creamier than digital brittle....though personally, I prefer peanut brittle over both.

 

[mikerofone]

Well as I stated in the OP, i"m not very technically knowledgeable so brittle may not be the correct terminology to use; I just notice that in professional recordings of the pickers I admire most (very often playing Marin dreads) there is a softer nature to the sound of their acoustics and the recordings in general.

I think I was incorrect when I stated in the OP I used both a KM184 and an AKGC214. For this recording, I think I only used the KM184 positioned about 6" off the 12th fret. No mic preamp was used. However, in recordings I've made where I've used both mics, with the Neumann about 6" off the 12th fret, and the AKG about 15" off the bridge, the final results still have had that slight hard edge to it.

It's quite possible too that I just don't have realistic expectations for what can be achieved with the gear I have and my limited knowledge.

Thank you all for the comments (and compliments).

 

[miroslav]

Well as I stated in the OP, i"m not very technically knowledgeable so brittle may not be the correct terminology to use...

I wasn't making fun of your use of the word "brittle"....it's a legitamte term in describing audio quality.

Just kidding around about the whole analog/digital thing...

 

[gecko zzed]

but there is always a bit of a harsh edge...digital brittle I call it. Any tips for getting digital recordings to approach the warmth of analog?

By using the term 'digital brittle' you run the risk of misdiagnosing your problem; presuming the cause before investigation.

There are many things that affect the sound of your recordings, and each could be a factor contributing to an apparent brittleness of sound before anything gets into the computer. Some have been mentioned above: choice of mikes, mike placement, choice of pre-amp and so on. The room in which you are recording could be causing problems, and so could your monitoring system.

Trying to fix something after the event is a strategy of last resort.

 

[Supercreep]

I'd be checking out the effects of different strings, picks, mics, and mic placement first.

 

[Armistice]

No mic preamp was used.

Erm, yes it was... your MAudio preamp...

I know what you mean, it's what I call "honk" and I've struggled with it for years, especially in single string stuff such as you have going on in the right channel. It took me a while to realise that the guitars I record make a certain sound, which isn't a Martin sound, or any other sound, but just the sound they make, and it's big and bright.

To some extent that's what you get with dreadnoughts, and mine in particular. I have a friend with a mahogany Martin and there's a huge difference in the sound when recorded.

To soften it a bit you could experiment more with positioning. I rarely get as close as 6 inches these days - a bit further back perhaps is worth trying. Then, just for kicks, try a second mic parallel to your guitar/fret board about 12 inches out, and then blend the two... see if that gets it any better for you.

I'm also usually doing a bit of notch filtering in the "honk" zone as well... and rolling off highs.

Not that there's much "wrong" with what you have, but I do know what you're referring to (I think!). Good luck...

 

[Mo Facta]

I think I was incorrect when I stated in the OP I used both a KM184 and an AKGC214. For this recording, I think I only used the KM184 positioned about 6" off the 12th fret. No mic preamp was used. However, in recordings I've made where I've used both mics, with the Neumann about 6" off the 12th fret, and the AKG about 15" off the bridge, the final results still have had that slight hard edge to it.

In my opinion you should forget using both mics for now and focus on getting a good sound with one. I would start with the KM184 and point it more toward the sound board or the hole, striking a balance between the two by way of positioning.

It always interests me why it is a common approach to mic the 12th fret of the instrument. I would never do it this way simply for the fact that all the sound we hear from an acoustic guitar resonates from the sound board. Conventional internet "wisdom" is to avoid mic'ing close to the sound hole because the sound will be too "boomy". This is often nonsense. Granted, you generally don't want to put a microphone right in there because yes, the lower midrange is definitely a bit more pronounced but if you move the mic around the sound board whilst capturing a BIT of what's coming out the hole, you can achieve a good acoustic guitar sound.

Another thing to know about acoustic guitars IN A MIX, is that is is common practice to cut out a lot of the low end, compress it to a substantial degree, and to address how much top end you want to be heard. This is due to the fact that the acoustic guitar fills up quite a huge amount of the spectrum and will fill a mix very quickly. Note that is this is typically the case in full mixes where there are other instruments competing for space. The general rule of thumb is that the more sparse the music, the less attention is given to the acoustic guitar. For instance, in music where there is just acoustic guitar and voice you would want to keep the guitar nice and full. For other music where there is lots of instrumentation, it will require more attention.

Cheers

 

[MrWrenchey]

No mic preamp was used.

Just for the record, you did use a mic preamp, or you wouldn't have even been able to hear that signal... The mic preamp would be in your interface you're using.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I'd be checking out the effects of different strings, picks, mics, and mic placement first.

Exactly, and don't forget that EQ is a useful tool to shape the sound quality to be more pleasing. Better to roll off excessive high end than try to compensate for too little.

--Ethan

 

[grimtraveller]

In my opinion you should forget using both mics for now and focus on getting a good sound with one. I would start with the KM184 and point it more toward the sound board or the hole, striking a balance between the two by way of positioning.

It always interests me why it is a common approach to mic the 12th fret of the instrument. I would never do it this way simply for the fact that all the sound we hear from an acoustic guitar resonates from the sound board. Conventional internet "wisdom" is to avoid mic'ing close to the sound hole because the sound will be too "boomy". This is often nonsense. Granted, you generally don't want to put a microphone right in there because yes, the lower midrange is definitely a bit more pronounced but if you move the mic around the sound board whilst capturing a BIT of what's coming out the hole, you can achieve a good acoustic guitar sound.

Another thing to know about acoustic guitars IN A MIX, is that is is common practice to cut out a lot of the low end, compress it to a substantial degree, and to address how much top end you want to be heard. This is due to the fact that the acoustic guitar fills up quite a huge amount of the spectrum and will fill a mix very quickly. Note that is this is typically the case in full mixes where there are other instruments competing for space. The general rule of thumb is that the more sparse the music, the less attention is given to the acoustic guitar. For instance, in music where there is just acoustic guitar and voice you would want to keep the guitar nice and full. For other music where there is lots of instrumentation, it will require more attention.

I agree with alot of that. As I get more and more into recording, I favour a variety of approaches and one of the great things about a forum like this with so many disagreeable souls {} is that you get so much stuff that on the surface is conflicting, but which, actually, is quite workable or at least worth experimenting with because it has worked for someone.
Miking an acoustic guitar at the 12th fret gets a particular sound. Miking it at the soundhole gives you another. Miking it away from the soundhole but pointing at an angle towards it gives you another. Miking behind the acoustic or above the acoustic or indeed anywhere in the room will net you a huge variety of sounds if you're really that particular. Stereo miking in a variety of combinations of positions will net you more sounds as will using two dynamics or two condenser mics or one of each.
And the beauty is that when you're done, no one need ever know !

 

[Mo Facta]

Also, miking the lamp in the corner of the room gives you a particular acoustic guitar sound.

Cheers

 

[grimtraveller]

Also, miking the lamp in the corner of the room gives you a particular acoustic guitar sound.

A very bright sound, I'm told !

 

[Mandodave]

Mikerofone, I hear EXACTLY what you are talking about. I too have struggled with that harsh metallic sound quality in my mandolin and guitar recordings. I started with an MAudio interface... Then a firestudio project... Then a babyface.. Same thing, harsh and yes brittle. I have an AT 4051b, a km184, and a rode NT1a. None of them help. Then I got a grace m101 pre.. No luck, then a GAP pre73... no luck. I'm still searching. Maybe that smooth acoustic instrument sound we seek is just not obtainable on prosumer grade equipment?