Need Some General Considerations for Recording Acoustic Guitar

[blackscot]

Need Some General Considerations for Recording Acoustic Guitar -- FOLLOW UP ADDED

I'm working on a collection of 70's-era "organic" rock tunes (CSNY, America, etc., stuff I grew up with) adapted for solo 6- and 12-string acoustic guitar . The material is entirely solo acoustic, and has lots of open chords and arpeggios. Recording is via ProTools/Mbox with stereo input from a pair of Audio Technica condenser mics -- large diaphram over the sound hole and small diaphram over the neck joint.

The raw tracks sound boxy/mid-rangy to me, so applying a scooped graphic EQ seems to open up the sound. I'm also using a separate high-Q parametric EQ in places to try to filter out string squeaks and other noise, but with mixed success. The only other processing is the RTAS compressor, which so far I've just been using with the factory-default settings. I've been experimenting with a couple of aspects of the processing, but thought I might ask around to possibly make the trial-and-error effort a little more efficient.

(1) Is there any general rule for what order the in-series processors should be placed, i.e. compressor before EQ, or the opposite? Switching them sometimes produces a difference I can hear, but other times sounds the same either way. Also, should the parametric EQ go before or after the graphic?

(2) I'm comfortable experimenting with the EQ settings, but am not sure how best to approach altering the compressor. Are there any general guidelines particular to using compressors on acoustic guitar recordings?

(3) Would a different mic set-up give me a better quality sound to start with?

Any other considerations that come to mind are also welcomed. The processed recordings already definitely sound better than the raw tracks, but I'd like a better idea of how good I might get them to sound, and how to do so. I realize too of course that experience is the best teacher.

Thanks for any help.

 

[NYMorningstar]

I would work on fixing it before hitting the record button.

Listen to the quality you are creating through earphones and get that right first.

The room is half the battle. You want to capture the perfect reverb if possible. Find where it sounds best and record there. It might be facing a corner in a foyer, in a hallway, etc., who knows but you, right?

Once you find the right place then move the mics around and listen, move, listen, move listen... Zero in on it. You might even end up with one of the mics facing the corner or pointed to the ceiling. Take your time be creative, you'll be surprised.

If you do it right then the only editing you'll need is for performance mistakes. Hopefully you won't even need to do that because all that time you'll be saving on processing you can use to practice. Practice makes perfect ~00~

 

[blackscot]

......The room is half the battle.......

I didn't think to mention that the room is a semi-dedicated recording space and fairly well treated with acoustic panels, corner traps, etc.

The more I am reading, the more I am feeling compelled to start over from scratch, playing with mic placement until I get the best possible raw tone.

 

[NYMorningstar]

There's no need to restrict yourself to one room. I find often that treated rooms sound dead. Large open rooms do best for me with an acoustic. Lots of trial and error to walk through but it's all a learning and training process for your ears.

 

[blackscot]

.....Large open rooms do best for me with an acoustic.....

Well I've got that too, a 15x30 ft with wood floors. Even has a baby grand at one end. I've played in there plenty of times, but not recorded. Only problem with that is (1) it is on the other level of the house from my recording gear, and (2) my wife is usually in there on the piano.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'd also concentrate on your mic placement on the guitar. First off, I'd try taking that one mic off of the sound hole, as that's where most of the "boxy" kind of sound from an acoustic guitar tends to come from. While it's called the "sound hole", that hole is actually not where most of the good sound of the guitar actually comes from.

If you insist on double-miking the guitar (it is only an option to do so), I'd try one of two things; either taking that mic and moving more towards the saddle, possibly even putting it a bit higher or lower than the strings and angling it towards the saddle, so that you're off-axis from the sound hole, or pulling it back a good three feet from the whole guitar body, so that you're using that mic to get the sound of the whole body instead of just a local part of it.

G.

 

[blackscot]

.....I'd try taking that one mic off of the sound hole, as that's where most of the "boxy" kind of sound from an acoustic guitar tends to come from......

.......either taking that mic and moving more towards the saddle, possibly even putting it a bit higher or lower than the strings and angling it towards the saddle, so that you're off-axis from the sound hole, or pulling it back a good three feet from the whole guitar body, so that you're using that mic to get the sound of the whole body instead of just a local part of it.

I am definitely going to be experimenting with a lot of this kind of thing ASAP.

 

[gcolbert]

\

I'd try one of two things; either taking that mic and moving more towards the saddle, possibly even putting it a bit higher or lower than the strings and angling it towards the saddle, so that you're off-axis from the sound hole, or pulling it back a good three feet from the whole guitar body, so that you're using that mic to get the sound of the whole body instead of just a local part of it.
G.

Just a stoopid newbie note...

I just spent three hours trying to figure out where my monitor sound was leaking into my recording main. Checked cables, interface stttings, computer settings etc. Pretty frustrating. Turns out (sheepish grin) that I had moved my microphone up higher and angled down on the guitar body (to get it to sound more like what I hear when I'm playing). Turns out that the microphone was picking up my monitoring feed FROM MY HEADPHONES!! Listen closely to each track after making position changes to make sure you aren't getting any unexpected bonus sounds.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I just spent three hours trying to figure out where my monitor sound was leaking into my recording main. Checked cables, interface stttings, computer settings etc. Pretty frustrating. Turns out (sheepish grin) that I had moved my microphone up higher and angled down on the guitar body (to get it to sound more like what I hear when I'm playing). Turns out that the microphone was picking up my monitoring feed FROM MY HEADPHONES!! Listen closely to each track after making position changes to make sure you aren't getting any unexpected bonus sounds.

Yeah, that can definitely happen, and you bring up a good point. Glad you caught it, at least .

G.

 

[grimtraveller]

I've found a dynamic about a foot away from the soundhole but lightly strummed with a small light pick {up until 7 weeks ago, I was a heavy handed player with a large heavy pick} has been doing some cute things for me of late. A big improvement on my old sound. I do experiment with all different set ups though, single condenser, 2 condensers, condenser and dynamic, one mic and one DI for a little zing.....

But it's all so subjective. In a thread a few weeks back, I said I really liked this guy's acoustic sound. And I did. And I do. Then others weighed in citing it's lack of mids {I couldn't tell}. Then others weighed in basically stating it was a heap of shit or suchlike. But I liked it ! It's a good thing I believe in paradoxes.

Turns out that the microphone was picking up my monitoring feed FROM MY HEADPHONES!!

I had the same thing happen at the start of the year doing some backing vocals with two friends. After each pass, we could hear whistling. I had whistled the guide melody. Anyway, while listening to what we'd done, I could hear this faint but noticeable high pitched sound. We couldn't work out what it was or where it was coming from. It was only after they'd gone that I realized that the guide had carried over into the mics via the phones.
I'm so glad it wasn't a poltergeist.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It's a good thing I believe in paradoxes.

But wait, it would be a real paradox if you didn't believe in paradoxes. But then that paradox would not be there. But. then... ouch, my head hurts....

G.

 

[gecko zzed]

Try miking with the mikes a bit further away, and as Glen says, avoid having one poking directly at the sound hole.

As for string squeaks, I have a view that they are part of the whole sound, and I personally would just leave them.

 

[aaronmcoleman]

if you have a bad room (such as mine), then close micing is probably going to be best. I place one 45 degrees toward the body straight out from the 12th fret, and another 45 degrees toward the sound hole but 6 inches below and 6 inches back. I usually use two SDCs (NT5s), and this has been my best placement so far. For a poor room this does well at capturing the guitar and not much room.

 

[blackscot]

Well I spent a goodly part of the weekend on a semi-systematic evaluation of various mic placements. Bascially by trial-and-error and process-of-elimination, I found that the overall most full and rich sound comes from using the SDC at the neck joint on the 6-string Martin DM, and at about the 18th fret on the Guild-12 (about midway between the neck joint and the sound hole). Other positions higher up the neck sound more tinny on both guitars. Additional placements were also tried, including over the bridge/bout area, set back away by a couple of feet into the room, and high up overhead. These mostly gave tones that were either more boomy or boxy. The overhead gave an interesting reverb-like effect on quiet passages -- which was not unpleasant -- but sounded much more harsh and grating with hard strumming (recording levels were kept from reaching distortion).

Trying the same with the LDC produced only subtle differences from the SDC. The far greater effects were among the different placement positions.

I think I will be re-mixing some of my earlier recorded material using just the SDC/neck-joint tracks, and possibly adding double tracking where feasible to open the tone further.

 

[tonesponge]

I recommend this sticky thread on acoustic guitar recording. It's in the recording techniques section, and not in the acoustic guitar section, so maybe you overlooked it.

https://homerecording.com/bbs/gener...iques/acoustic-guitar-recording-101-a-290919/

Some things that I hear over and over again are:

don't point the mic at the soundhole;
do point the mic at the neck around fret 10 or 12 or 14 or so;
don't expect a guitar that sounds great live to sound great recorded; and
cheap guitars that you would never perform with often make the best recording guitars.

My personal experience has been pretty frustrating trying to record my Taylor with a mic or DI. I tried combining the DI with a mic, and got really noticable phase change with even the tiniest movement of the guitar.

But in the end, try everything you can think of, and do whatever works best for you. For now, I've settled on dynamic micing a cranked acoustic combo amp and applying EQ and parallel compression in the box, because soft fingertyle playing with fingertips presents a lot of SNR type problems that are made worse by condenser micing, and mostly resolved by dynamic micing a cranked cab.

 

[blackscot]

I recommend this sticky thread......maybe you overlooked it......

Some things that I hear over and over again are:

don't point the mic at the soundhole;
do point the mic at the neck around fret 10 or 12 or 14 or so........

I did digest that thread in detail -- great info.

And those general guidlines are now sounding familiar to me too, with another addition being double tracking (which I'll be trying next).

 

[aaronmcoleman]

I agree that sometimes cheaper guitars sound better recorded. Maybe in the hands of a better engineer it wouldn't be true, but in my experience it's very unpredictable.

I have a small body Taylor 512 that sounds great recorded. But my cheap Recording King sounds better than my old Martin D18.

Who knows maybe I just suck (well definitely I just suck).

 

[blackscot]

Well a guy at my work who is also into recording has all along been swearing by double tracking, with the two tracks panned all the way to opposite sides. I finally got around to trying it for the first time yesterday. What a difference! It's like after your ears pop and you hear everything you've been missing.

I now need to go back to all of my earlier stuff to add the second track. It will be a challenge to keep in-sync in places, likely requiring a lot of additional time for multiple takes, but will be worth it.