Recording acoustic guitar

[Big Kenny]

Don't shoot!!!!!!!! I am just wondering if it is in my best interest to pursue a pair of sdc's to record my taylor 615 and Gibson songbird. I am getting good takes with my large and medium diapragm mics but I notice a great deal of conversations about c4's 603s and mk012's lately. What is your take?

 

[Henri Devill]

Sure why not...If you are getting good results now,you could just stay with what you got!..I use a large alot for acoustic guits myself{KSM44}..Sometimes a small..It depends on the guit the song/production/style...I'd get some of the Oktava 12's..Cheap and pretty nice for a different flavor..Good luck

 

[OnTheBlackRock]

although I'm new with the MXL 603s I use two of them one behind the guitar and one at the twelth fret pointing towards the soundhole and then my studio projects B1 3-4' away ... take in mind I'm recording this in my tiled bathroom haha though... you may not need a room mic, but I'd get some SDCs for future projects if your not recording just yourself.

 

[Flatpicker]

One difference I’m beginning to notice is that LDCs tend to expand certain lower-mid frequencies, making the guitar sound bigger than it really is. At first I thought the SDCs were compressing those frequencies, but then I realized it was the other way around. I guess that’s what folks mean when they say LDCs add “color”.

 

[sdelsolray]

There are many ways to record acoustic guitar. One you might want to consider is one LD and one SD.

 

[StevenLindsey]

I love the sound of a 603 on the neck and a MD441 on the bridge.

 

[btr31]

One difference I’m beginning to notice is that LDCs tend to expand certain lower-mid frequencies, making the guitar sound bigger than it really is. At first I thought the SDCs were compressing those frequencies, but then I realized it was the other way around. I guess that’s what folks mean when they say LDCs add “color”.

well....color i would say would come from the fact that large diaphrams high end is a little different then a sd's high end. but yeah....large diaphram mics pick up ALOT more low end then sd. but, like someone said, it depends on what your doing with it. if its in a mix with alot of stuff like drums bass and guitar, you are gonna want to eq all that low end out and pretty much only use the 1K and up type of stuff. so, sdc are pretty good for this i would say. but, if its just an acoustic song you probably need the low end from the LDC and may want to use both. just depends.

 

[freshmattyp]

I like LD's for recording acoustic strumming, and SD's for quieter stuff. I've also had a lot of luck using 2 SD's at the 12th fret and an Omni LD about 2 feet out.

 

[DJL]

One difference I’m beginning to notice is that LDCs tend to expand certain lower-mid frequencies, making the guitar sound bigger than it really is. At first I thought the SDCs were compressing those frequencies, but then I realized it was the other way around. I guess that’s what folks mean when they say LDCs add “color”.

Yeap, and Harvey covers this in detail in the big mic sticky thread. In a nutshell, in most cases LDC mics add more color than SDC mics... which may or may not be a good thing, depending on what your trying to do.

 

[waitingroom]

I like this article: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug01/articles/recacgtr0801.asp

 

[Phosphene]

Good link. Yea AKGC1000s are good when you are with a bunch of drunks playing songs of the Amber Waves of Grain and you don't care what it sounds like. I thought of selling the 2 that I own, but then I don't need the piddley money that I'd get for them anyway.

BK, so you don't own any SDCs? It sure is always good to have them around and you might like them better. I'm in the phase right now of micing a LDC & SDC and blending them. KM184 and Dragonfly sounds the best to me on my 1973 Guild Jumbo.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

well....large diaphram mics pick up ALOT more low end then sd. but, like someone said, it depends on what your doing with it. if its in a mix with alot of stuff like drums bass and guitar, you are gonna want to eq all that low end out and pretty much only use the 1K and up type of stuff. so, sdc are pretty good for this i would say. but, if its just an acoustic song you probably need the low end from the LDC and may want to use both. just depends.

No, that's wrong. A larger diaphragm size is not an indicator of more low end response. It's a common mistake.

 

[krash]

FWIW I dig Behringer ECM8000 for acoustic guitar much better than any of my other mics, but I don't have 012's or 603's to compare them to.

However I would say that if you like the sound you're getting now, then why change it?

 

[lpdeluxe]

A LDC will pick up more room sound and if you are recording in a boomy room it will sound bassier on the recording. Personally I like a fairly tight sound and a SDC (SM81) works better for me.

 

[eeldip]

A LDC will pick up more room sound and if you are recording in a boomy room it will sound bassier on the recording.

ummm.... the amount of room that ends up on the recording is based on the mic's pick-up pattern, not the size of the diaphram.

an LDC set to cardiod will have less room for example than an omni SDC

 

[chessrock]

As Harvey mentions, it's a pretty common misconception that LDC's have more bass response than their smaller-diaphragm counterparts.

There might be a small sliver of truth to the theory, though, only from another perspective: For example, most LDC's tend to be designed for vocal work, and are usually intended to color the sound/voice in certain flattering ways, which often means extra peaks and valleys in the freq. response. Indirectly, this often results in what we perceive to be a "bigger" sound due to the built-in smiley-face curve.

Another common theme you'll find is that a lot of larger diaphragm condensers tend to be more directional. Again, you can't make the general statement that LDC's are more directional. But you probably could make a case that more of them are just designed that way for whatever reason. And greater directionality does most often mean more proximity effect, and hence a heftier, bassier sound.

Again, though . . . just because a lot of LDC's tend to sound a certain way, and SDC's yet another way . . . doesn't mean that all of the differences are attributable to the size of the diaphragm.

 

[darnold]

Im more into using LDC with acoustic guitar just because i kinda like being able to chose my colors. I dont think there is anything wrong with using colored microphones but i guess the problem is, you need a variety of them for it to work right.

If your getting a good sound now, dont think just because its a small diaphragm its going to make it better. Just different. Try one out first.

Danny

 

[Chip Evans]

A different approach....

For about forty years I have experimented with most every accustic guitar miking configuration known. Some rivaled the Kama Sutra in terms of "geometric madness". I now place a LDC directly in front of the sound hole, as close as possible without interfering with the client's play and place a SDC at the traditional 14th fret neck position. Again, as close as possible. The sound hole LDC will have to have at least a -10/15 cut on the LF for this to work for me. Some clients insist on the "over the back" method which I will gladly do as they are the client but after an A/B of both techniques, most choose the former. My biggest pet peeve on accustic guitar recording is the fact a guitar may sound great but seems to be ten feet away and is very challenging to place in the mix.

Just scattershooting......

 

[CanopuS]

Cool stuff. If anyone has some clips of different positions etc, I'd love to know. Keep up the good conversation

 

[krash]

For about forty years I have experimented with most every accustic guitar miking configuration known. Some rivaled the Kama Sutra in terms of "geometric madness". I now place a LDC directly in front of the sound hole, as close as possible without interfering with the client's play and place a SDC at the traditional 14th fret neck position. Again, as close as possible.

I have recently been trying this kind of a technique, and others as well, and I get varyingly pleasing results. Placing the mics this close really restricts movement of the player without dramatically affecting sound. This technique does not work very well for some guitars. I find that mixing this type of recording is really hard.

For the best, most natural and most usable acoustic guitar recordings, I find that a Jecklin Disk in front of the guitar with a pair of decent omni condensers (in my case Behringer ECM8000's work fine) sounds tremendously good and fits in a mix really easily (if you can handle a stereo track). Placement is not all that critical. About a foot away works fine. For double-track acoustic guitars, play one track facing one side, the other track facing the other side, or record two guitarists at once with them each facing each other and the Jecklin Disk in between. This is far and away the easiest, most consistent, and most natural recording technique I've tried for acoustic guitars.

Lately I've been trying to get a more hypey-pop acoustic guitar sound for a particular artist and I'm just not happy with any of the routine techniques. I will probably go back to my Jecklin Disk.