mics for acoustic guitar, harmonica, voice

[sfitz]

Hello everyone,

I am new to recording. I recently bought a used Rolland VS-2480 (it has phantom-powered mic inputs), but don’t have any microphones yet. I write folky stuff and play acoustic guitar and harmonica and sing (the guitar playing ranges from loud and energetic strumming to more detailed finger picking). I have about $1000 to spend on mics (and other things I haven’t thought much about like cables, boom, headphones etc.).

What would be the best mic or mics for the guitar (one or two mics is part of the question here). A friend recommended starting with just one mic for the guitar; the Shure SM81 or the Audio Technica 40/50. For voice and harmonica he recommended the AT40/50. An AT40/50 at $600 is a real killer…is there anything with a similar sound quality that is cheaper?

Any input (especially that comes from experience with acoustic guitar recording) would be really welcome.

 

[JTC111]

If you're going to spend $600 on an AT 4050 and you're also budgeting cables and stands in that $1000, that probably leaves you enough for these...
MXL 603 Stereo Pair
They're an incredible bargain for the money.

 

[antichef]

Most people here would probably think of three different mics for those three different things. You'll hear very good things about the AT4050 for vocals and other stuff (even acoustic guitar), but I've never thought of using one for a harmonica, especially up close, if that's what you intend to do (disclaimer -- I've two AT4033s, but not the 4050).

For harmonica, I tend to think of some dynamic mics, like the Electro Voice RE10 (which can be cheap used, but make sure you clean well yuck ), but if you're doubling up vox and harp, you might consider the Shure SM7b, which is cheaper (about $350) than the 4050, and highly regarded for most male vocals -- I don't hear as much about it for female vocals. I've done nice harp recordings with it, and, while nothing can rescue my voice, it comes closest. I don't know anything about the VS-2480, but it's worth noting that the SM7b needs more gain than a condenser like the 4050 (and more than a lot of other dynamics, too). If you're ultimately recording to digital media and using a digital audio workstation, then the gain thing doesn't matter as much, since you can digitally boost gain pretty easily. In fact, if you're recording to digital in an uncontrolled home environment like me, I argue that you should actually *prefer* low gain mics, since they'll reject more unwanted ambient noise, of which there's plenty in my case.

For the acoustic, it's nice to use small diaphragm condensers like those MXL603s, and it's also nice to have a stereo pair. I'm a big fan of the Shure SM81 (not everyone around here is), which are about 200 each used, and generally don't need to be matched for stereo recording (that is, you can get two from different places and they'll likely work for stereo). Another good option would be a [matched] stereo pair of Oktava MK-012 - they can get spendy, possibly because of the rabid fan base they have, and there are fakes on the market, but if you have some time and energy, they're worth looking into. For the price and ease of purchase, though, it'll be hard to beat those 603s, yes.

edit: more on the acoustic -- the reason a lot of people prefer small diaphragm mics to large diaphragm mics for acoustic is because the small diaphragm responds more quickly to changes in the sound, and so picks up more detail. This is different, but not always "better" depending on what you want, or what you discover you can work with. I've used the AT4033s (sort of a "medium" sized diaphragm) on acoustic, and the tracks sounded awesome, albeit with less detail than the SM81s. But stereo is nice in any event, and two 4050s would be too much $.

 

[whiskeyfoot]

i'm a full on newbie, but i've done a bunch of reading on mics, if it were me buying a mic to record the simplest form of music, i would also keep it simple and traditional. I'd probably buy the best large diaphram condenser i could get for the money. i'm old school though. i've seen alot of records done with a single mic that keeps it classic and traditional (bob dylan for perfect example).

 

[Big Kenny]

I've seen pics of Dylan recording his harmonica into a vintage U87......so....what are you saying?
p.s. Antichef has good advice there

 

[mixsit]

... In fact, if you're recording to digital in an uncontrolled home environment like me, I argue that you should actually *prefer* low gain mics, since they'll reject more unwanted ambient noise, of which there's plenty in my case.

..except for that being a function of pattern and off axis response and not gain/efficiency.. carry on.

 

[antichef]

..except for that being a function of pattern and off axis response and not gain/efficiency.. carry on.

Yeah, fair enough -- maybe with the condensers I just tend to have the gain up too high (or sometimes can't pad it down enough) and so my tracks are too hot, and as a bonus, have proportionally inflated background noise

 

[sfitz]

Thank you for your input Antichef. Yes, I’ve been wondering about trying to do voice and harmonica on a single mic. My “singing” style is kind of more like talking (in that Dylan, John Prine, way) so it is not loud at all. When I play though I like to play with the harp around my neck and record it not as a separate track, but live with the guitar and singing. The harp is very loud. Both times I’ve been in a studio they recorded voice/harp with a U87. The thing I love about those recordings is that it really picked up the nuances and little inflections etc. in the comparatively quiet vocal and still allowed the harp to blaze and not over power things or break-up.
Right now, my understanding of mics is still limited, but from reading I was getting the impression that the dynamic mic is maybe better for loud things, but not as sensitive for more quiet things. Will a dynamic mic like the SM7b still give me those vocal nuances or is that more a function of a large condenser? I want the vocal nuance and the loud harp in balance; am I spoiled by the U87 or are there cheaper mics that can give me both?

 

[whiskeyfoot]

I've seen pics of Dylan recording his harmonica into a vintage U87......so....what are you saying?
p.s. Antichef has good advice there

Well, first of all, i am not trying to make myself sound any better than anyone else, especially being totally new to recording. I was just throwing an idea out there to a fellow newbie who also is interested in folk music, and that if i had $1000 laying around on a new mic, i would be more likely to buy a real nice condenser, say a 414, rather than a few other mics. I definately didn't mean to come off as if i had better advice than a seasoned vet
lord only knows how much advice i get talking to you guys!

 

[antichef]

My “singing” style is kind of more like talking (in that Dylan, John Prine, way) so it is not loud at all. When I play though I like to play with the harp around my neck and record it not as a separate track, but live with the guitar and singing. The harp is very loud. Both times I’ve been in a studio they recorded voice/harp with a U87. The thing I love about those recordings is that it really picked up the nuances and little inflections etc. in the comparatively quiet vocal and still allowed the harp to blaze and not over power things or break-up.
...
am I spoiled by the U87 or are there cheaper mics that can give me both?

OK - your inquiry is now officially over my head (didn't take long , and btw, I'm still basking in the possibility that I posted a helpful comment, but it would be irresponsible of me to not dispel any impression that I knew what I was doing when compared to many others on this board)

I know that people have had long, heartbreaking, and unsuccessful campaigns to replicate what the U87 does with something cheaper, but I bet there are folks here who can provide some helpful specifics. And it may be that the particular subset of U87 goodness that matters to you is accessible in a cheaper way. I don't have any experience with the U87, but I will not be surprised if the SM7b doesn't catch the nuances the same way. It does have a good dynamic range, which should be wide enough for what you're describing, and it's fantastic for actual spoken word -- it's a "broadcast" mic.

I was lucky enough not long ago to pick up a 414 (C414B-ULS) used for very cheap, and I'm still learning how to use it -- if I had a stereo pair, I'd be trying it close on the acoustic more -- as is, I'm using it further back to supplement the SM81s and falling victim to my untreated room syndrome. I have recorded some harmonica with it from a distance, and the results were good, but maybe too sterile (maybe depends on what you're going for, and what kind of player you are -- I'm going for gritty and I suck ). The SM7b works better for my voice -- but as I noted, that may be more of a voice issue than a mic issue. That said, the 414 is impressive, and the more I use it, the more I like it.

 

[JTC111]

This is a total guess, but I'd think that a darker mic would be best on harmonica since the instrument itself is pretty shrill.

Someone shoot me down quickly if I'm wrong.

I'm saying this based on very little experience recording a harmonica. The few times I've done it, I used an AKG Solidtube. But I can't think of many the OP can pick up and stay within that $1000 budget if he's hoping to get two mics, stands, and cables after dropping $600 on the 4050. Something that might get him/you close is the MXL 67 (about $100) or for a bit more, the MXL 69me or an Oktava MK319 (both around $300).

 

[sfitz]

SM7 with harmonica?

Well, I was starting to get pretty psyched about the SM7 for vocals. But I need my vocal mic to work with harp too. Has anybody out there ever tried recording harmonica with the SM7? If so, how did it sound?

 

[Big Kenny]

It'll work better than a condenser, pretty well

 

[guitar junkie]

I use an MXL V67G mic for harp and vocals live in the studio, then I have used an AT4040 on guitar with the phase flipped. I think a couple key things with recording harps is to make sure you have good ones, that sound "right" I used to use Marine Bands but I found that for my playing style they are brittle and harsh... I since moved to a smaller maker called Bushman using one of their harps changed my tone and the way I play a great deal! Best sounding harps I have ever used. They also don't bend and warp out of tune and stay there.


I used to record guitar and vocals with one mic, and you can do that pretty well with a good condenser by setting it about chest high either standing or sitting down, anywhere for 1'-2' out from you... This will only work well if you have a good sounding room though, without a decent room the sound is gonna be like every other folky act peddling MP3's on myspace....


I am about to make a new record with just an MXL960 on guitar and vocals.

 

[tdukex]

I've used the AT4033s (sort of a "medium" sized diaphragm) on acoustic, and the tracks sounded awesome, albeit with less detail than the SM81s.

I read an article a few of years ago where a lot of engineers in Nashville loved the 4033 on acou guit. What else do you like it on? Back in the early days of this Board, Ed Rei used to use it on vox as well (I don't think he had a lot of options at that time, though).

 

[antichef]

I read an article a few of years ago where a lot of engineers in Nashville loved the 4033 on acou guit. What else do you like it on? Back in the early days of this Board, Ed Rei used to use it on vox as well (I don't think he had a lot of options at that time, though).

The only other things I've used the 4033 for are little percussion instruments and my baby daughter's "tap-a-tune" toy piano with 4 big plastic keys that hit xylophone-style chimes - that is, they were sort of utility mics for me. Now I'm using a C414 for most sundry duties, but I plan to use the 4033s for drum overheads (but haven't yet, because I don't record drums generally). I played around with one of them for vocals, but there was a little too much high end - that might be good in some instances, but that hasn't happened for me yet.

 

[hairylarry]

EV 649b

Thank you for your input Antichef. Yes, I’ve been wondering about trying to do voice and harmonica on a single mic. My “singing” style is kind of more like talking (in that Dylan, John Prine, way) so it is not loud at all. When I play though I like to play with the harp around my neck and record it not as a separate track, but live with the guitar and singing. The harp is very loud. Both times I’ve been in a studio they recorded voice/harp with a U87. The thing I love about those recordings is that it really picked up the nuances and little inflections etc. in the comparatively quiet vocal and still allowed the harp to blaze and not over power things or break-up.
Right now, my understanding of mics is still limited, but from reading I was getting the impression that the dynamic mic is maybe better for loud things, but not as sensitive for more quiet things. Will a dynamic mic like the SM7b still give me those vocal nuances or is that more a function of a large condenser? I want the vocal nuance and the loud harp in balance; am I spoiled by the U87 or are there cheaper mics that can give me both?

Hi,

I play harp on a rack too. I use an EV649b lav mic velcroed to the harp rack with the harp pushed all the way to the right and the lave mic on the left. Works great.

Plus I got my EV 649b mic on ebay for less than $30. That leaves you with $970 for the rest of the stuff.

Be sure to budget at least $150 for preamps.

Do you have any mp3 downloads?

Thanks,

Hairy Larry

 

[Richard Monroe]

Yo Sfitz! Welcome to the board! The SM7 is a very good, relatively inexpensive (as they go) dynamic mic. It will work fine for vocals and harp. It has very low output, which can be a problem with the Roland, because its preamps are, frankly, mediocre. I don't think that will be a problem with vox and harp, because both can be done up close and personal. When you back off, as with acoustic, you'll have to crank the pres on the Roland, which won't be pretty- so as you have already figured, you need another mic for guitar. And- you need to have some money for cables, cans (headphones), stands, etc.
I agree with your friend that starting with one mic for guitar is OK, and the SM81 he suggested is a pretty good choice.
Just some general suggestions- for headphones, I like Sennheiser HD280's. You'll find there is a fairly cheap footswitch out there that will allow you to start and stop the Roland from across the room, if you are recording alone- Boss FS-5U. For a boom, the only one I have found for under $100 that doesn't suck and really is heavy duty is On Stage SB96+ (plus). Here's a link-

http://www.musician.com/product/OnStage-Stands-SB96-Studio-Boom-Microphone-Stand?sku=452082

Yes, of course, you will discover the sticker shock of studio monitors and the increasing need for room conditioning, and countless other things, but we all have to start somewhere.

Not too long ago, in another thread, I talked a little about acoustic guitar recording. I'll try to dig up that link-

www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=2850508#post2850508

So you know where I'm coming from, I'm not a badass engineer, but I did record a full length serious commercial CD on a Roland, which is largely acoustic. I used a boatload of outboard gear, and my budget exceeded yours by a good deal. Yours will, too, if you stick with it. My last piece of advice, (for now) is- there's an effects program in your Roland called "clean comp". That's clean compression. Unless you are going to have a recording professionally mastered, you'll find it quite useful. It's a noise reduction program for basic cleanup of a finished mix, in other words, a general purpose mastering program. It will make most things sound better without messing them up too much. Best of luck. Send me a PM, and we can discuss 101 ways to bypass the things the Roland doesn't do well- It only takes piles of money and hours of practice, my friend.-Richie

 

[BudgetMC]

Sfitz,

You're dealing with my meat and potatoes here. I spend most of my time these days recording myself (Vocals and Guitar) and a buddy (Vocals and Harp). For my vocals I've been very very happy with an MXL 960 with a tube swap, and I've had good luck on guitar with a pair of Naiant MSH-2's and a MCA SP1. That's a mighty cheap setup, and it can sound pretty dang good. I've also found a pair of CAD e70's to work pretty well, as does a Blue Bluebird. My buddies vocals often come through best on an MXL V67G.

Acoustic harmonica, however, is pretty tricky. Interestingly, some of the best harp sounds I've gotten have been, of all things, recorded with a Rode NT-1 (an older, Aussie version). Yeah yeah, its got a rep for being a bit harsh on the high end, and you'd think that would be murder on a harp, but the proof is in the pudding. I bought a Cascade Fathead figuring that a dark mic would be the ticket, and the result wasn't stellar (found lots of other uses for it, luckily).

Here's a thread from GearSlutz that I started on the subject of recording harp: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/163441-advice-recording-harmonica.html

Here are some tunes with my buddy the harp player (who is something of a hotshot... Jason Ricci is a bud of his): http://myspace.com/46long

 

[Gorty]

A friend recommended starting with just one mic for the guitar; the Shure SM81 or the Audio Technica 40/50. For voice and harmonica he recommended the AT40/50. An AT40/50 at $600 is a real killer…is there anything with a similar sound quality that is cheaper?

Any input (especially that comes from experience with acoustic guitar recording) would be really welcome.

The mic's from Naiant, MSH-1's (matched pair) are great for acoustic guitar, mandolin etc. I have an AT4050 and although a very good mic I turn to the MSH's.
I believe Naiant is in the process of producing an upgrade to the MSH-1's at the moment or something or other. The matched pair of Naiants cost me $60 Australian including shipping as opposed to the $700 AT4050.