recording acoustic guitar

[rob aylestone]

Personally - the string decision is a playing one, rarely a recording one - is it OK to play and listen to in the space? If it is - then turn up the HF and give it a bit of shimmer and reverb to liven it up - not swampy church reverb, just a little sizzle at the top one.

 

[Gtoboy]

I have used a 57 and found for me that it works best very close to the fretboard, like 3-6 inches close and pretty close to the center of the fretboard around the 5th fret. I know it's different from using a condenser but that is what works for me.

 

[ecc83]

I have used a 57 and found for me that it works best very close to the fretboard, like 3-6 inches close and pretty close to the center of the fretboard around the 5th fret. I know it's different from using a condenser but that is what works for me.

Yes, my lad has used a 57 on classical guitar that close and quite likes the result but it is just too easy to clout the bloody thing! He has used a FetHead to get clean gain and that allows the mic to be over a foot away. Of course that allows more 'room' in but his flat does not sound too shabby.

Dave.

 

[rob aylestone]

You’re all slipping into the habit of making sort of rules instead of following guidelInes. A 57 in a certain place is great, for that guitar, but might fail on another. One guitar might be really mellow sounding but you need a bright sound, so that’s a condenser needed probably, but another bright, jangly one needs a dynamic mic. That’s why the most useful second mic you buy will be the opposite type, or an identical one if you record stereo. Your third mic then does the jobs the first two don’t do so well. My first proper mic was a 57. Still use it. Second one was a condenser pencil type that always was mega bright. Can’t even remember what it was! Everyone’s advice is spot on here, based on their own experience. We just have to face that the only rules are sort of everybody adding their own stories and that gives newbies more choices,

 

[Yesman]

.

 

[Yesman]

Yes, my lad has used a 57 on classical guitar that close and quite likes the result but it is just too easy to clout the bloody thing! He has used a FetHead to get clean gain and that allows the mic to be over a foot away. Of course that allows more 'room' in but his flat does not sound too shabby.

Dave.

ECC83 you gave me a good idea. i am going to use the cloudlifter to try and lower my noise floor. The 57's force me to use too much gain on my pre. being that my electrical is a bit noisy i am hoping it can help with the electrical noise being that i will drive the pre less hot.

 

[rob aylestone]

Just a thought - you have a rather nice preamp and the I found a SoS review of it from 2006 where they make the comment that if you want a clean sound, it's important to have the input gain lower and crank up the output gain to make use of the output stage's very good performance. Using the input gain triggers the 'character' the unit is good at - so probably you don't need the preamp, just a re-evaluation of how you are using it?

The review is here.

 

[Yesman]

Just a thought - you have a rather nice preamp and the I found a SoS review of it from 2006 where they make the comment that if you want a clean sound, it's important to have the input gain lower and crank up the output gain to make use of the output stage's very good performance. Using the input gain triggers the 'character' the unit is good at - so probably you don't need the preamp, just a re-evaluation of how you are using it?

The review is here.

the sample i shared was exactly that. i cranked the output full blast and lowered the gain saturation as low as i can go without getting a super low signal. i still get a bit of hiss on it. normally i use the 57 on drum type of things that are loud so it doesnt really matter about the gain level because i dont have to drive it so hot anyway. but on the guitar it is much quieter than a drum, it has trouble with gain. that coupled with maybe my electrical is not the best it may help. IDK i will give it a shot and let you guys know

I love the preamp because exactly that. it allows you alot of line level output without having to drive the pre to hot. its why i purchased it. and its a great all around pre. I have also had that issue on other preamps with the 57. If you drive them too hot you get the hiss. that is why i never used 57's on things like guitars. If i was in a quiter studio maybe it wouldnt be an issue. but i gotta work with what i have. I had to drive the gain to about 40 to 45 to get a decent level on the signal. And that was after driving the line out full blast. i think thats what makes 57's great for drums. They can handle a s&%T load of SPL's and still sound clean but when it comes to low signals and cracking them they get noisy!

 

[ecc83]

I've had a quick shufti at the review of that GR pre amp and they do say "Not the cleanest of pres around" .

The first principle of getting the lowest noise from a mic pre is to get as much gain in the first stage as you can. Once you have raised the signal to about -20dBu the noise of subsequent stages (if they are of half decent design!) becomes insignificant.
So yes, if you have a Cloudlifter put that between SM57 and interface mic input. I am betting that will get you a pretty solid mic signal with low hiss levels and thus allow the mic to be backed off a bit.

But you might like the sound from the very close mic? That is probably a touch of bass boost,proximity effect and I think you could duplicate that in EQ post tracking? There are other problems that come with a mic that close. The practical one I mentioned but also the mic will pick up string squeaks and other 'action' noises.

To be a bit pedantic? Yes, impossible to 'overload' an SM57 unless you have a Saturn V handy but they don't "get noisy" on low volumes sources. That is all due to the electronics.

And Rob? I am not sure if you have bollocked me or nay?



Dave.

Dave.

 

[Yesman]

I've had a quick shufti at the review of that GR pre amp and they do say "Not the cleanest of pres around" .

The first principle of getting the lowest noise from a mic pre is to get as much gain in the first stage as you can. Once you have raised the signal to about -20dBu the noise of subsequent stages (if they are of half decent design!) becomes insignificant.
So yes, if you have a Cloudlifter put that between SM57 and interface mic input. I am betting that will get you a pretty solid mic signal with low hiss levels and thus allow the mic to be backed off a bit.

But you might like the sound from the very close mic? That is probably a touch of bass boost,proximity effect and I think you could duplicate that in EQ post tracking? There are other problems that come with a mic that close. The practical one I mentioned but also the mic will pick up string squeaks and other 'action' noises.

To be a bit pedantic? Yes, impossible to 'overload' an SM57 unless you have a Saturn V handy but they don't "get noisy" on low volumes sources. That is all due to the electronics.

And Rob? I am not sure if you have bollocked me or nay?



Dave.

Dave.

If i can get the hiss down enough i would like to back it off a bit and check it out but also i am trying to eliminate the room as much as possible as i am not looking for too much room acoustics for this recording. I will try a few setups out and post in a week or so. it will be much better regardless because i will shut my window and put my mats up so we will hear a big difference on that end. As far as the hiss i would hope the cloudlifter can help a bit. we will see.

Also i have had this issue with other preamps not just the GR. When it comes to 57's and 7b's that just take massive gain energy. Never been an issue until now when i am trying to use them to track lower signals.

 

[rob aylestone]

No Dave - I was just digging into the preamp and discovered its main feature is er, added, er, flavour. SoS said they liked it but struggled with clean a bit, but found turning the output up and keeping the input down worked better. Just seems to me a very strange combo - hundred quid mic, and 1600 quid preamp? Especially if it then needs an extra preamp on the preamp? No bollocking intended or warranted as usual.

 

[Yesman]

No Dave - I was just digging into the preamp and discovered its main feature is er, added, er, flavour. SoS said they liked it but struggled with clean a bit, but found turning the output up and keeping the input down worked better. Just seems to me a very strange combo - hundred quid mic, and 1600 quid preamp? Especially if it then needs an extra preamp on the preamp? No bollocking intended or warranted as usual.

I think if you put the 57 on any preamp and crank the gain you will probably get the hiss. i have tried it on atleast 3 and get some level of hiss. but only when cranking it up high. for drums never an issue.

 

[ecc83]

I think if you put the 57 on any preamp and crank the gain you will probably get the hiss. i have tried it on atleast 3 and get some level of hiss. but only when cranking it up high. for drums never an issue.

The Signal to Noise Ratio you can achieve with the 'mic/pre/room/instrument level/interface' involved can be complicated and much depends upon expectation and application.

For over a decade we have had posts from 'bedroom recordists' having serious problems getting a decent SNR with a dynamic mic and a modest interface. Sometimes that is because the interface pre amps are just too noisy for the purpose but that problem has been pretty well eliminated in the last say 5 years and even rather 'budget' AIs now have very good low noise inputs* with sufficient gain WHEN USED INTELLIGENTLY. The usual problem (for vocal work) is that the punter expects the DAW to hit -10dBFS with soft speech at a foot from the mic. The 57/58 is, along with most dynamic mics, intended for close work. Mouth certainly no more than 2 inches away and for some situations, touching the lips.

Small wonder then that acoustic guitar which is quieter than most singers causes the signal to be noisy. A good test to see if you are asking too much of the system is to stuff the mic under a duvet and set the interface for the gain you would use to get -20dBFS with the mic 2" from cake O and "Mary Had" then record the 'silent' mic. If you get a noise floor of better than -75/80dBFS I doubt you can do better.

Thanks Rob. Greatly relieved!

* And about bloody time! Making a mic pre with a noise performance only a dB or so better than the physical limits (Johnson noise from a 200 Ohm resistor) has been dirt cheap and quite easy for two decades.

Dave.

 

[Yesman]

i a

The Signal to Noise Ratio you can achieve with the 'mic/pre/room/instrument level/interface' involved can be complicated and much depends upon expectation and application.

For over a decade we have had posts from 'bedroom recordists' having serious problems getting a decent SNR with a dynamic mic and a modest interface. Sometimes that is because the interface pre amps are just too noisy for the purpose but that problem has been pretty well eliminated in the last say 5 years and even rather 'budget' AIs now have very good low noise inputs* with sufficient gain WHEN USED INTELLIGENTLY. The usual problem (for vocal work) is that the punter expects the DAW to hit -10dBFS with soft speech at a foot from the mic. The 57/58 is, along with most dynamic mics, intended for close work. Mouth certainly no more than 2 inches away and for some situations, touching the lips.

Small wonder then that acoustic guitar which is quieter than most singers causes the signal to be noisy. A good test to see if you are asking too much of the system is to stuff the mic under a duvet and set the interface for the gain you would use to get -20dBFS with the mic 2" from cake O and "Mary Had" then record the 'silent' mic. If you get a noise floor of better than -75/80dBFS I doubt you can do better.

Thanks Rob. Greatly relieved!

* And about bloody time! Making a mic pre with a noise performance only a dB or so better than the physical limits (Johnson noise from a 200 Ohm resistor) has been dirt cheap and quite easy for two decades.

Dave.

i agree 57 not best for guitar. that is why i only use them for drums. i am exploring it though. probably will end up using DI in the end lol as i am not really looking for a super acoustic sound. But one loves to explore and try new things. I do love the sound of it though if it would just be more silent. also will try a few other mics

 

[TalismanRich]

We've certainly changed directions since the first post. You were concerned with soundstage, and now we're trying to gain staging preamps and cloudlifters. I'm still curious about what type of soundstage or ambience you are looking to achieve. Do you want close mic and intimate, or something that sounds like you're on a small bar stage? Something in between? I still think you could do it with the 103, by trimming the highs with a LPF and maybe a bit of a nice reverb.

I've recorded acoustic guitar using only an SM57 into a Tascam interface, no extra boosting or preamps, and the noise was not a problem. It wasn't the sound that I wanted, but it wasn't unusable from a "technical" standpoint. Again, listening to your sample, I really couldn't tell anything about the system noise due to the ambient sounds intruding.

I'm curious as to what the guitar is that you are recording. What type of pickup system does it have?

If you have more than one input on your interface, I would record both ways and either pick one, or use a blend until you get the tone you want. For sure that's a reason I would never recommend something like a Focusrite Solo. Minimum 2 inputs, preferably 4 or 8.

 

[rob aylestone]

I've been using 57s for years and have never had issues with them, noise wise. Going to lighter strings will make the guitar even quieter! If I get a chance I'll try my old acoustic via the cheap Chinese interface I got the other day with a 57 and see what it sounds like.