stereo miking steel string acoustic

[garth04]

I have a matched pair of Neumann KM184's that I want to record my guitar with in stereo.

I have read about many different ways to go about doing this.

Some people say to mike close 6-8 inches, others say mike far 40-60 inches away. I have tried the close approach but end up getting too much boominess. I tried the far approach and it sounds too distant. I have tried many in betweens and angles but still have not found the right spots. In theory there must be an infinite array of positions.

I also have a Rode NTK and a SM58 I can substitute or add to the setup. I was planning to use the sm58 for vocals once I get the guitar setup right.

It sounds really nice with a rode and a neumann working together but again the boominess makes it fail. I read about it in an article. I place the rode angled towards the floor just below the body of the guitar about a foot away. They recommend six inches away?? How is that possible without boominess? I have one neumann aimed at the 12th fret. I may retry that approach because I am not getting the tone I'm looking for as yet.

I think I have spent more time messing with placement than anything else. Anyone else have any good ideas, approaches?

As far as height of the mics, I have tried below the body of the guitar angled up and above angled down as well as staight on. Many people never even mention the height but I think that is as important as distance.

I was wondering if having the mics set apart the same distance as the ears would be a good approach? It would go against some rules like the 3:1 rule but I have tried it anyway to see the results. It sounds pretty good but you miss out on some tones from the guitar body if they are concentrated on the 12 fret area. If you target the soundhole it's just boominess and the end misses the sparkle.

I want to get the most organic, natural sound I can possibly get. Could some kindly expert who has been through this please lend their expertise? I want to move on to recording. Thanks.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

You might read the big thread at the top of the mic forum, and also look for a thread about "Matching Mics - Fact and fiction".

 

[Armistice]

After you've recorded, if it's too boomy, try reversing the polarity on one of the recorded channels, if you can do that. Did that by accident on one of my mixes and I ended up with a really pleasant sound.

I have no idea why though - could have been just a once off.

 

[grinder]

Make sure to use the low cut switch, if the mics have them. Try moving the mic farther down the fret board, towards the headstock and one near the bridge, each 12-18" away from the guitar.

 

[royharper3220]

does anyone use shockmounts for miking acoustic guitar? I dont own any so I dont know if they make any difference, or if they're even used for anything other vocals.

 

[garth04]

Thanks for the advice and tips guys. I think I'm going to stick with the Neumann's for the guitar and use the NTK for vocals. After reading your thread Harvey, I started to wonder about the panning in relationship to spacing of the mics and distance from the source.

Is there some sort of ratio that you can apply for spacing of mics to panning amount. My ears tell me about 30 to 40 percent to each side sounds natural. Is there a certain point at which the panning will no longer be in the natural realm? I would guess anything above 50 would be unnatural. Then again, that point where it becomes unnatural would depend on the spacing and distance from the source wouldn't it?

I want to achieve a good spaced pair since x/y didn't suit my taste much. Say I have a mic aimed at the bridge and another aimed at the 12th fret. These mics are 18'' away from the guitar. What would a natural panning amount be?

I pulled out an old physics book and saw something about the nature of sound waves. It said that the waves tend to flatten out as they go further from the source. At long distances the waves are almost planes. Using this theory wouldn't the waves still be curved at 18"? So wouldn't tilting the mics toward the main source, the sound hole, slightly give a more natural reproduction? Would I be correct in thinking this? Or is the difference negligible?

On the other hand, your ears point to the sides, so would tilting them away from the soundhole be an even better idea?
Then again, if they are straight on won't they get a more distinct tone from the vibration of the guitar top?

 

[grinder]

does anyone use shockmounts for miking acoustic guitar? I dont own any so I dont know if they make any difference, or if they're even used for anything other vocals.

I always use the shock mounts with condensers.

 

[c7sus]

Harvey has a good thread in the Mic Forum right now re: stereo micing techniques. It's also covered in the Big Thread.

The technique with the capsule pointing at the floor works well, and sounds very much like what you're used to hearing. I've used it with the capsule about ear-high pointing a couple inches behind the bridge on a D-35 and a D-45 with good results. It's not TRUE stereo, as Harvey explains in his thread.

You might get some boom out of your X-Y recordings with a low-cut filter set to 80-100Hz. It could be your placement in your room is compounding the matter, too.

 

[garth04]

I read and printed out the large thread already. That's how I figured out which mics I needed. I read the new ones yesterday about Stereo myth/facts. That was just what I needed at the moment. Thanks for the pointer Harvey.

Somewhere in the MIC FAQ I followed a link to something about various stereo miking techniques. One was ORTF. I think it may be what I was looking for. I gave it a quick try late last night and it seems with a little honing it will work well. It accomodates my preferred approach, natural ear spacing and pickup/phasing. From all my experimenting a spaced pair is just not going to work.

I was thinking my room might need some treatment for bass frequencies. It's normal dry wall, carpeted floor, 10'x12'. One desk I use for my setup and the other to one of the 12' sides. It doubles as a control room and recording room. I'm going to thoroughly try the ORTF today and see if treatment is neccessary.

Once again, thanks guys.

 

[ds21]

I wouldn't be surprised if part of it was you room, if you can try it in a different room (preferably not the same dimensions) and see how that sounds.

 

[StevenLindsey]

try using your NTK on the bridge and the KM on the neck or vice-versa. The NTK does very well for the bottom end of an acoustic, IMO. You might find that a different mic combination sounds better on your guitar.

 

[tjohnston]

I wouldn't be surprised if part of it was you room, if you can try it in a different room (preferably not the same dimensions) and see how that sounds.

I am no expert of course but I second that. I almost quit recording after struggling for months and months with boomy guitar tracks. If someone had a gun to my head and my life depended on it I could not get rid of the boom without sacrificing something else. Finally I moved to a new house and things got better. I’m willing to bet that it was the walls that were causing the problem. My cheap apartment was made out of nothing but 2 pieces of plywood and studs. It was like playing inside of a drum. Anyway the point I am trying to make try switching rooms

 

[Armistice]

I think a few of us have been there tj!

Hey C7, if you come back to this post, I've seen your method posted here by you a few times, haven't really tried it in detail, but always wondered what you meant by saying that the "ear" mic was pointing a couple of inches "behind" the bridge.

The way I'm thinking is that the bridge is on the front of the guitar and a couple of inches behind means you're pointing at the body but still in the same plane as the bridge - ie. still the same distance from the nut as the bridge itself.

Is this what you meant or am I misinterpreting?

Cheers

 

[garth04]

The more I read, the more I realize that I shouldn't even be thinking about recording yet.

Damn, who would've thought this would be so complicated. Oh well, this part is interesting and becoming fun as I think of how a finished room might sound.

This sure makes you more appreciative of the natural mics on the side of your head.

I took a look at blue bear's studio and he has hard wood floors with rugs. I like that idea. I want something between dead and live without being chaotic.

I was thinking of putting up diffusing panels on the 12' sides and ceilings. Bass traps in corners. Some absorbtion here and there. I hear about people putting bookshelves as diffusers. I suppose I can leave the desk in then. I think I will end up taking it out in favor of more space though and putting up panels.

I live in a fairly quiet area so I don't think soundproofing will be necessary.

Back to the drawing board.

 

[c7sus]

I think a few of us have been there tj!

Hey C7, if you come back to this post, I've seen your method posted here by you a few times, haven't really tried it in detail, but always wondered what you meant by saying that the "ear" mic was pointing a couple of inches "behind" the bridge.

The way I'm thinking is that the bridge is on the front of the guitar and a couple of inches behind means you're pointing at the body but still in the same plane as the bridge - ie. still the same distance from the nut as the bridge itself.

Is this what you meant or am I misinterpreting?

Cheers

If you use headphones while dialing it in you'll find the sweet-spot quickly.

No, the mic isn't pointed at the body.

Imagine a line running parallel to the bridge, 2-3 inches towards the tailblock, about 2-6 inches IN FRONT OF the guitar's top.

Like I said, with headphones you'll find out real quick what sounds good and what doesn't.

 

[tubesrawsom]

if u use ur head and think alittle about were the sound is coming out of and place the mics were ur hearing instinks pop in u could get somewere and some how luckily ull get great sounding stereo guitar
it works for me when i did some overhead micing
goodluck

 

[c7sus]

That SOUNDS logical, but unless you can put your ear there and hear what's going on while the instrument is being played then it's still somewhat of a guessing game.

And that's not really my tek. I got it from somebody else right here on this very board. I liked it because it sounds a lot more like what I'M used to hearing as a player than traditional teks.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

This was a post I wrote about five years ago on an Acoustic guitar forum, but it may be helpful here. There was a lot more heated debate about the AKG C1000/C3000 for recording acoustic guitars back then. You may find some of this helpful:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Oct, 1999 on RMMG:

I hate this question - over and over and over again!!!! Lemme see if I can clear the air once and for all about what's "best" or "good" for acoustic guitar, and the AKG C1000/C3000's place in the universe.

For those of you who don't like being lectured to, I apologize in advance. (For those of you who don't like dangling participles, as in the previous sentence, it's just something you'll hafta put up with.)

Basic stuff:

Most things that vibrate (like guitars, banjos, and loudspeakers), and things that respond to vibrations (like microphones), don't respond evenly at all frequencies, especially frequencies whose wavelength is shorter than they are. Instead of acting like a single coherent source (i.e., like something coming from a rigid piston), they break up and generate peaks and dips that are not always related to the frequencies of interest.

For an acoustic guitar, this means that different sounds come from all over the guitar, because of the different thicknesses and shapes of the guitar's surface. This complex field of sound WILL CHANGE depending on the note being played. If you change keys, or even go to another chord, the sound of the guitar WILL CHANGE!!

In a microphone, peaks and dips occur when the microphone diaphragm ceases to move as a piston, usually at higher frequencies.

Begin Mind Experiment:

Think of a small rock being tossed into a calm lake. Ripples spread out thru the water from where the rock entered the water. Imagine a reed in the water a small distance away, Attached to the reed is a pen which sits lightly on a piece of paper which is moving past the point of the pen. A single rock thrown into the lake will cause the reed to move back and forth, and the attached pen will draw a nice even wavy line, which dies away gradually.

Now, throw in several rocks at once and try to imagine the ripple pattern and what the pen will draw. The multiple ripples are analogous to the soundwaves that are coming off the guitar.

Now, imagine a second reed/pen, but in another spot. The pen will draw a completely different pattern of the same event. In this mind experiment, the reed is analogous to a microphone, BUT...

Imagine the reed does not move evenly at all wavelengths; it likes some wavelengths, and doesn't respond well to others. So it imposes its own behaviors patterns on the pen, adding or subtracting in some cases.

End mind Experiment.

Even with an absolutely perfect flat microphone, where you place the mic in the guitar's complex sound field will change what the mic hears. Add mics which are less than perfect (like the AKG C1000), and they will add their own colorations to the sound.

No two acoustic guitars are EXACTLY alike, in looks or in sound - nature doesn't work that way. IF the microphone happens to be in the right spot in this 3 dimensional "sound lake", and IF the microphone's response characteristics happen to be complementary to the PARTICULAR guitar being miked, you will get a pleasing recording.

The AKG C3000 and the AKG C1000 have some peaks and dips in their upper end response. IF the guitar being recorded is VERY mellow, these mics MIGHT be a good choice to bring out top end, but with indeterminate uniformity, depending on all the interactions I've discussed above.

So the "best" mic really depends on 4 things: the specific guitar being played; where the mic is placed*; the key and style being played; and the mic's unique sonic characteristics. There CAN'T be a BEST mic for all guitars; there are too many factors which are outside the mic's contribution.

*NOTE: A mic placed closer than 3 feet from the guitar is in the guitar's "nearfield", where the sound will change dramatically with very small changes in mic positioning. You're also now in the mic's "nearfield", where the sound will also change dramatically with very small changes in mic positioning.

In general, SOME inexpensive mics (like C1000 and C3000) may have peaks and dips which flatter SOME guitars in SOME positions. The better small mics tend to be more neutral sounding, which can seem to add "warmth" by not emphasizing the treble response of the guitar with mic peaks.

Going into a recording situation with a mic that adds boosted treble automatically is not usually a recipe for success. That's why most people here advise against the C1000 and C3000. It MAY work for ONE guitar, but it's not going to be something that works on MOST guitars. That's the reason you'll usually always see recomendations here for mics like the Neumann KM184 and the Oktava MC-012 (which is similar in design to the 184).

It also takes a while to develop your ears to appreciate the differences between various microphones. People who rave about the AKG C1000 for guitar (when they first get it) usually become less satisfied with their purchase over time as their ears improve. They don't hear the peaks as peaks at first; only as improved clarity over their old mics.

Sorry for the rant, but maybe this will help some of the new people to understand how some of this basic junk works. For all of you who already know this stuff, sorry for taking up all this bandwidth.

 

[garth04]

ORTF is my new best friend.

I still have excess bass, but there is a huge difference now, and my room may just need ceiling corner traps. Gotta kill that bass.

I like the analogy, it helps me understand this better, thanks.

 

[garth04]

Here's a shot of my frequency analysis. This is the left channel while recording guitar only. The right looks almost identical.

Should bass be naturally higher? I saw someone else's analysis and it looks similar. Maybe he has a bad room too?

Is that high jump bad? What does a healthy analysis look like?