Mics for recording acoustic guitar

  • Thread starter Thread starter missiondisguise
  • Start date Start date
M

missiondisguise

New member
Hey guys. I'm planning on recording a demo of 3-4 songs soon. They'll consist of drums, bass, vocals, guitar. The arrangements are primarily driven by acoustic guitar. I.E lots of heavy percussive chords with drone notes, and lots of lead picked sequences on top. I play a Taylor 614ce.

I want to record in stereo. I have two mics in mind to get: AKG C414, and Neumann KM184 (or possibly 84 on ebay). I know they're both fantastic mics, and each have their own merits. In a way, it's almost like comparing apples to oranges, since you're dealing with a large diameter condenser, and a small diameter condenser in comparison.

I've had trouble picking between the two. However, I've just recently wondered. Why can't I use both? Do I necessarily have to use a stereo pair of just one type of microphone? For example, I was previously thinking of doing the ole' X-Y with a pair of KM 184's or something similar. However, though I love the high up detail on the KM 184's, I also love the sense of space and expanse of the C414 (made even more appealing with it's many patterns).

So, do you guys think it's a good idea to potentially buy a KM 184 (or 84!) for the 12th fret placement spot, and then snag a C414 for something like a 'just over my ear' mic to capture more of the room and reverb of guitar? I figure if I carefully space things out, follow the 3-to-1 ratio rule, and experiment with positioning, I should be able to avoid phasing issues. That way, I'd get the high end detail from the Neumann mic, and then get more low end and space from the AKG. Again, since my acoustic guitar would be the main drivers of the songs (not just accompaniment), I want a full spectrum, and I'm also interested in finding unique stereo image sounds that perhaps two different types of mics would perhaps be able to give me.

Anyways, that was long winded. I would love to hear what people think. What have been your experiences with recording acoustic? Is recording with stereo pairs always necessary? Would this mic combo make some sense?

Thanks!
 
The short answer is that you can try whatever you feel like. Matched mics, mismatched mics, stereo, mono, etc. Acoustic guitar usually gets recorded in mono when in a mix with lots of others instruments, and in stereo when it is the main instrument with only some vocals. That's not a rule though.

My question for you is this, and I mean no disrespect by it: Have you ever done this before?

You can follow all the best techniques with the best mics in the best room, and if you don't have considerable time under your belt recording acoustic guitar, you might be very unhappy with your results. I'm happy with the results I get recording my acoustic guitar with two $100 mics in M/S setup - a very realistic sound in stereo. However, some people aren't looking for a "realistic" sound.

Best of luck.
 
Sounds to me like a plan. BTW, I own a pair of KM184's and a C414B-ULS, and a Taylor 710CE. I play heavy chords also, so I'm really speaking from experience here. What you are describing is not stereo recording, which creates a model of what you would have heard if you had been there. In order for it to be true stereo recording, you would have to have 2 ears that hear things differently. Just because you use 2 mics does not make it a stereo recording. But- that said, there is no reason on Earth why you have to do stereo recording. The KM184 and C414 are both mics that shine on acoustic guitar, and the way you are talking about using them should sound great. There are a ton of other ways you could use those 2 mics to record an acoustic, so experiment, and be guided by your room, your ears, and your gut. It'll work fine.
 
Richard Monroe said:
Sounds to me like a plan. BTW, I own a pair of KM184's and a C414B-ULS, and a Taylor 710CE. I play heavy chords also, so I'm really speaking from experience here. What you are describing is not stereo recording, which creates a model of what you would have heard if you had been there. In order for it to be true stereo recording, you would have to have 2 ears that hear things differently. Just because you use 2 mics does not make it a stereo recording. But- that said, there is no reason on Earth why you have to do stereo recording. The KM184 and C414 are both mics that shine on acoustic guitar, and the way you are talking about using them should sound great. There are a ton of other ways you could use those 2 mics to record an acoustic, so experiment, and be guided by your room, your ears, and your gut. It'll work fine.
Click to expand...

ok, quick question, what is the definition of a stereo recording? I always thought it was just two mics recording the same thing from different positions, and panned (probably a more precise definition than this, but you get the general idea).
 
Thanks for the comments everybody.

Hey, Richard Monroe, you live in Framingham, MA? I live right near you, in Grafton, just south of Worcester! Cool. Thanks for the words of support. I've definitely got lots of time to experiment (and now the money and suitable room/treatment) to make good things happen. Just awesome that you have a Taylor too. Their guitars are incredible. That's why I can picture it as the centerpiece instrument driving songs (w/ chords and lead).

Given the right room/treatment and mics/preamps however, I still fully expect a long period of adjustment, experimentation, and screwing up. I've recorded before for years with a cheap Mbox preamp and a Shure Beta 87A, w/ no acoustic treatment in a small, boxy room, so I'm used to experimenting with the basics of recording, with just basic gear. Now, I'd like to move a step (or 10, equipment-wise. Thankfully, I've been around people recording with pretty good gear on their own, and I've got a good bunch of songs to use to practice recording and mixing with this new setup, before I get to the quality songs I eventually want to finish.
 
aaronmcoleman said:
ok, quick question, what is the definition of a stereo recording? I always thought it was just two mics recording the same thing from different positions, and panned (probably a more precise definition than this, but you get the general idea).
Click to expand...

This question seems to generate a bit of debate.

I think that stereo recording and stereo playback are separate, but related, entities.

To my mind, stereo is primarily about play-back. It's function is to create a soundstage with sound sources seemingly emanating from points in the space between (and in some cases outside) two loud-speakers.

One way to achieve this is by tracking sources individually using close mic technique in a controlled acoustic environment - say, a studio. later, in the mixer, each source track is fed into a stereo bus. The relative position of each source in that stereo mix is then determined by panning.

Stereophonic microphone techniques, however, aim to capture the soundstage plus the character of the recording space at the time of recording. These techniques require at least two microphones arranged in one of the classic mic configurations (AB, XY, ORTF, etc). Stereo mic techniques work because of sound time-of-arrival and amplitude differences (the math and psycho-acoustics of which are a bit beyond me). Mics are placed more distantly from the sound source, the placement chosen to achieve a balance of direct and ambient or reflected sound. Even if just a single instrument, for example, is played, if it is centrally located in the soundstage when recorded, it should also appear centrally located on play-back. This is the approach mostly used for acoustic performances - classical, jazz, folk, choir, etc. Panning is not used to create the stereo image, the mics do this at the time of recording. (Although some manipulation of stereo width is possible)

That's how I see it, anyway!

Paul
 
PRHunt said:
This question seems to generate a bit of debate.

I think that stereo recording and stereo playback are separate, but related, entities.

To my mind, stereo is primarily about play-back. It's function is to create a soundstage with sound sources seemingly emanating from points in the space between (and in some cases outside) two loud-speakers.

One way to achieve this is by tracking sources individually using close mic technique in a controlled acoustic environment - say, a studio. later, in the mixer, each source track is fed into a stereo bus. The relative position of each source in that stereo mix is then determined by panning.

Stereophonic microphone techniques, however, aim to capture the soundstage plus the character of the recording space at the time of recording. These techniques require at least two microphones arranged in one of the classic mic configurations (AB, XY, ORTF, etc). Stereo mic techniques work because of sound time-of-arrival and amplitude differences (the math and psycho-acoustics of which are a bit beyond me). Mics are placed more distantly from the sound source, the placement chosen to achieve a balance of direct and ambient or reflected sound. Even if just a single instrument, for example, is played, if it is centrally located in the soundstage when recorded, it should also appear centrally located on play-back. This is the approach mostly used for acoustic performances - classical, jazz, folk, choir, etc. Panning is not used to create the stereo image, the mics do this at the time of recording. (Although some manipulation of stereo width is possible)

That's how I see it, anyway!

Paul
Click to expand...

would it be a stereo recording if someone did an x/y recording of an acoustic and mixed it down to mono? I'd say yes it's a stereo recording even though it's a mono playback.
 
aaronmcoleman said:
would it be a stereo recording if someone did an x/y recording of an acoustic and mixed it down to mono? I'd say yes it's a stereo recording even though it's a mono playback.
Click to expand...

XY is a stereo recording technique, so yes, the recording would be stereo. What happens afterward is another story.
 
to the OP, when I do "stereo" recordings with two mics I rarely use a matched pair. I like either a ribbon or LDC on the body, and an SDC on the neck. So, yeah, your plan would probably sound outstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top