Mixing an acoustic guitar

[Svedde]

Right now I'm mixing a song in which the acoustic guitar is the primary instrument (except for the vocals), at least in the beginning. I am a lucky person because I have a big room in my house, so I recorded the guitar there. I used one mic just about 20-30 cm from the hole in the guitar and one mic up about 2,5 meters up facing one of the corners of the room. I also recorded the guitar twice and now I've come to mixing it. The only thing I've thought of so far is panning one of the recordings left and the other one right.

My question is what I can do with the EQ to make the guitar(s) come more to the front of the mix. Right now it's kinda muddy and doesn't feel so present and I suppose I should cut at the range where I boost the vocal parts. What can I use when it comes to plug-ins?

Later on a distorted guitar comes in and should be the primary instrument. What changes should I make to the acoustic part then?

/Svedde

 

[zazz]

one of my all time favourite recordings of acoustic guitar has to be the yellow brick road album by elton john.....i say this because the acoustic comes across so strong and immediate ..even with all the other stuff going on.

trick is that you need to pull down the middle range and let the main low body plus the upper harmonic and percusive pick range ring out.

also from what you have said i would be inclined to put a mike right on the hole at least and a good acoustic sound should be attainable in mono on one mike without having to resort to trickery...need to keep it real simple to start off with.

all the eq and reverb ect can be added later but the signal must be pure.

there is another aspect to this whole thing and that is playing technique ...the ability to wring out of an acoustic guitar the optimum sound for recording....comes with time..lots of time.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

also from what you have said i would be inclined to put a mike right on the hole at least and a good acoustic sound should be attainable in mono on one mike without having to resort to trickery...need to keep it real simple to start off with.

First part's the right idea, but wrong execution - the second is a matter of personal preference.

An acoustic guitar is a very naked, organic sounding instrument. If you're listening to the guitar in your mix and you're thinking that you probably need to do some pretty substantial work to get it to really cut, then you probably want to scrap the take and re-record the whole thing. You can certainly do some EQ tweaking to make it shine a little more - juicing around 11khz a bit to add some "shimmer," say - but my sense is that this is only really a good idea if the take is already most of the way there. Anymore than that and, to borrow a phrase from the current political climate, you're putting lipstick on a pig.

That said, micing the sound hole is probably a bad idea in 99% of recording situations. The soundhole will be very boomy, with a lot of air moving out into the mic, and will tend to sound overly bassy and indistinct. On top of that, your second mic is pointed out into a large room, which is further compounding the problem - the room sound will favor the low end, and will add a bit of a washy natural reverb. This is really what your most fundamental problem is - you've used two mic positions that emphasised low end and didn't really do much to capture the natural high end shimmer of the acoustic. You've probably got a pretty good pick attack from the soundhole mic, but that just gives you a bassy, percussive tone, rather than a rich, lush, expansive sound.

Personally, for sparse acoustic driven stuff I'm kind of a fan of multi-micing. Two small diaphram condensors in an X-array pointing at the 14th fret, maybe an inch above the fretboard, from 6-8" away has treated me well in the past. Normally I'd just leave it at that, but if you want to add an entire second take, I might do a large diaphram condensor, a little more to the center of the mix (maybe slightly offset the X-array take towards one side, and the LDC a little towards the other, for a broader stereo field - experiment)

Couple different options for when the electrics kick in - how audible do you want the acoustic too be? You could either mix it back a bit further and let the electric come forward, or maybe kick in a low-pass filter to take a lot of the body out but just leave the sparkle from the acoustic in the mix (a better idea with really heavily distorted guitars - here I'm thinking of the Smashing Pumpkins, the faintly audible acoustic at the start of the chorus for "Cherub Rock." There's not much there, but it adds a lot to the thickness of what the electrics are doing.

 

[Monsterpop]

nothing at all to add to this thread,,
except that my first band was called Zazz(Kilroy)

 

[Svedde]

You could either mix it back a bit further and let the electric come forward, or maybe kick in a low-pass filter to take a lot of the body out but just leave the sparkle from the acoustic in the mix (a better idea with really heavily distorted guitars

The thing about leaving just the sparkle sounds as a really good idea to me!
Should I cut everything below a certain frequency then? Below about what frequency?

Thanks, I'll probably re-record the parts then

(maybe slightly offset the X-array take towards one side, and the LDC a little towards the other, for a broader stereo field - experiment)

That's excactly what I'm after; a broad and fat sound.

Thanks alot guys!!
/Svedde

 

[Svedde]

trick is that you need to pull down the middle range and let the main low body plus the upper harmonic and percusive pick range ring out.

What do you mean when you say middle range? 200-800 Hz? If it is.. shall I boost below 200 and above about 2 kHz, or just let those frequencies be?

Thanks
/Svedde

 

[TelePaul]

Mic the top, not the hole. Vibrating top = sound

 

[muttley600]

Mic the top, not the hole. Vibrating top = sound

Yep, that's it. Not much going on in front of the soundhole except a bunch of air going in and out in a very static kind of way. The soundhole is there solely to free up the top to allow it to push more air out front.

 

[tdukex]

First part's the right idea, but wrong execution - the second is a matter of personal preference.

An acoustic guitar is a very naked, organic sounding instrument. If you're listening to the guitar in your mix and you're thinking that you probably need to do some pretty substantial work to get it to really cut, then you probably want to scrap the take and re-record the whole thing. You can certainly do some EQ tweaking to make it shine a little more - juicing around 11khz a bit to add some "shimmer," say - but my sense is that this is only really a good idea if the take is already most of the way there. Anymore than that and, to borrow a phrase from the current political climate, you're putting lipstick on a pig.

That said, micing the sound hole is probably a bad idea in 99% of recording situations. The soundhole will be very boomy, with a lot of air moving out into the mic, and will tend to sound overly bassy and indistinct. On top of that, your second mic is pointed out into a large room, which is further compounding the problem - the room sound will favor the low end, and will add a bit of a washy natural reverb. This is really what your most fundamental problem is - you've used two mic positions that emphasised low end and didn't really do much to capture the natural high end shimmer of the acoustic. You've probably got a pretty good pick attack from the soundhole mic, but that just gives you a bassy, percussive tone, rather than a rich, lush, expansive sound.

Personally, for sparse acoustic driven stuff I'm kind of a fan of multi-micing. Two small diaphram condensors in an X-array pointing at the 14th fret, maybe an inch above the fretboard, from 6-8" away has treated me well in the past. Normally I'd just leave it at that, but if you want to add an entire second take, I might do a large diaphram condensor, a little more to the center of the mix (maybe slightly offset the X-array take towards one side, and the LDC a little towards the other, for a broader stereo field - experiment)

Couple different options for when the electrics kick in - how audible do you want the acoustic too be? You could either mix it back a bit further and let the electric come forward, or maybe kick in a low-pass filter to take a lot of the body out but just leave the sparkle from the acoustic in the mix (a better idea with really heavily distorted guitars - here I'm thinking of the Smashing Pumpkins, the faintly audible acoustic at the start of the chorus for "Cherub Rock." There's not much there, but it adds a lot to the thickness of what the electrics are doing.

This is all good advice IMO. Depending on the sound you want, XY near the 12th or 14th fret or neck joint will usually get it done without a whole lot of fuss. Backing the mic up to 18" - 24" will give you more of the room if that's what you want, but it will never sound as forward or focused in the mix--at least not in my experience.

 

[Rokket]

Google the over-the-shoulder technique and give that a go. More than likely, the site you find it on will give some other mic techniques to help you get the guitar tracked right.

As far as in the mix, it's going to depend on the other instruments and vocals. If you are just doing one guitar and one vocal, all you really need to do is either sparse delay or a little reverb. You may or may not need to high pass it. If you do, aim for around 100hz or so. Most often, you really only need to do that if you have bass and drums in the mix, as the bottom would start to muddy up. The key is the best sounding guitar with the right mic. Experiment. You will be surprised at what you can accomplish. Just don't expect a $60 Yamaha starter guitar to sound as good as a Martin D-45.

 

[Svedde]

You may or may not need to high pass it. If you do, aim for around 100hz or so. Most often, you really only need to do that if you have bass and drums in the mix, as the bottom would start to muddy up. The key is the best sounding guitar with the right mic. Experiment. You will be surprised at what you can accomplish. Just don't expect a $60 Yamaha starter guitar to sound as good as a Martin D-45.

Ok, I will bear the thing about the guitars in mind . At first, it's only guitar and vocals, but then the bass and drums comes in at the same time (then a distorted guitar comes in). Do you think I should start by not high passing it and when the bass and drums come in, I do, or will it make to much difference between before and after?

Mic the top, not the hole. Vibrating top = sound

What do you mean when you say 'the top'? Where the fretboard meets the body?

Thanks alot guys! I really appreciate your good answers

 

[muttley600]

What do you mean when you say 'the top'? Where the fretboard meets the body?

The big flat bit around the hole you mentioned.

The placement, angle and distance depend entirely on the guitar, mic, room and sound you are after. There is no one size fits all. Experiment away. Have fun.

 

[Rokket]

Ok, I will bear the thing about the guitars in mind . At first, it's only guitar and vocals, but then the bass and drums comes in at the same time (then a distorted guitar comes in). Do you think I should start by not high passing it and when the bass and drums come in, I do, or will it make to much difference between before and after?

Listen to the tracks dry with only the faders adjusted first. You may not need to do anything to get all instruments to fit.

Also keep in mind that most people will follow the mantra that it is always better to cut than to boost. What I do when I have an acoustic in the mix is to solo those tracks along with the distorted guitars and see where I have to carve to give each instrument a voice and space in the mix.

As far as bass and drums, the bass will eat all the room for your kick drum. A high pass will help you there, on the bass. I would take care of that before I started on the guitars.

 

[TelePaul]

What do you mean when you say 'the top'? Where the fretboard meets the body?

The top, the slab of wood opposite the back, the thing that the bridge is mounted on and the sound hole is carved out of.

Where the fretboard meets the body isn't actually a bad place to mic.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

The thing about leaving just the sparkle sounds as a really good idea to me!
Should I cut everything below a certain frequency then? Below about what frequency?

Thanks, I'll probably re-record the parts then

You gotta trust your ear, dude... I just start a high pass filter quite low (I think the default starting point on the EQ plugin I generally use for a high pass is 80hz), and then slide it up until I like what I hear. Try this - set a high pass so low it's not making much of an audible change (80 is a good starting point), close your eyes, hit play, and then start sliding up the base frequency slowly while you listen. When you think that you've hit a good point where you're still capturing a lot of the sparkle from the acoustic, but the "body" isn't getting in the way, stop playback, walk away for a few minutes, and then come back. If it still sounds good to you, then A/B it against an album that does a good job at the acoustic/electric thing you're trying to do. If it STILL sounds good to you, then you're probably OK.

For reference, my absolute favorite layered acoustic sound ever, for contrasting takes of acoustic with no electrics in the mix, is the third Days of the New album, particularly "Die Born." That's the most gorgeous acoustic tone I've ever heard.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

I guess re-thinking my post from yesterday, if your guitarist can double the parts perfectly, then do like a SDC positioned for a bit more brightness panned to one side (try pointed at the 14th fret, angled slightly inwards, from 6-8" away), and then a LDC from a bit further back (around 2') pointing a little more at the top of the guitar. The idea is to get a bright, sparkly tone on one side, and a darker, woodier sound on the other.

If he CAN'T double up the parts cleanly enough to sound good, then just do an X-Y array, pan each mic to a diifferent side, and be done with it. It won't be as lush as a couple different takes, possibly, but it will sound a lot tighter in the mix, and will still be a pretty full-sounding performance.

 

[Svedde]

The big flat bit around the hole you mentioned.

Haha! Okey, I'm not english-speaking, I just to blame it on that fact ...

For reference, my absolute favorite layered acoustic sound ever, for contrasting takes of acoustic with no electrics in the mix, is the third Days of the New album, particularly "Die Born." That's the most gorgeous acoustic tone I've ever heard.

Thanks for the description and I'll try to get hold of that album then !

If he CAN'T double up the parts cleanly enough to sound good, then just do an X-Y array, pan each mic to a diifferent side, and be done with it. It won't be as lush as a couple different takes, possibly, but it will sound a lot tighter in the mix, and will still be a pretty full-sounding performance.

Ok.. I think I'll try both tecniques to see what suits best.

Thanks again guys! I think my questions are answered !
/Svedde

 

[Svedde]

Thanks for the description and I'll try to get hold of that album then !

That song's sweet dude !! And certainly agree when it comes to the guitar!!

/Svedde

 

[DrewPeterson7]

That song's sweet dude !! And certainly agree when it comes to the guitar!!

/Svedde

Travis Meeks is a genius. For what it's worth, it sounds like the guitar has phosphor bronze strings on it, and there's at least two tracks of acoustic in play, one much darker and woodier than the other.

 

[Svedde]

Then I also just have to ask you guys, as a last question, if you always cut very much (or at least to me as a not so experienced mixer) on the instruments and vocals? I started being a little bit unsure when I saw Pinky's presets on this page: https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=147446 ... Should (or "should") one cut so much to make room for all instruments? Do you also have presets you REALLY would appreciate to share just so I get an idea??

/Svedde