Thought I saw a post here on acoustic guitar micing and stereo width that I now can't for the life of me find.

[DrewPeterson7]

...and maybe I dreamed it? Who knows, but it was an observation I remember seeing quickly in passing that stock with me.

Someone (Rob maybe?) mentioned not loving "wide" acoustic micing strategies because an acoustic guitar isn't really a "wide" instrument, so trying to create a single take recording with a very wide stereo spread was kind of like trying to create something that didn't exist in nature, and if you wanted that kind of spread, double track it.

And, maybe I made this up or maybe it was something I really did see around here, but it was something I was just skimming that really stuck with me. I think this is probably a large part of why over the last decade I *have* switched from various stereo strategies to simply recording two tracks with one mic a piece and panning hard L/R. Most "wide" stereo approaches I've tried left me feeling like something was missing the wider the stereo spread got, and while I hadn't really thought much about it I could see using some room mics to create space around a more central guitar and adding stereo spread via distance and depth, even something fairly moderate like one neck joint mic and another mic over the body from ear position felt like there was something missing in the middle when panned hard L/R. Basically, if it's just one guitar, I want "mass" more than width, and the reason for that is as a guy who often sits and plays an acoustic I'm not used to experiencing it on a huge stereo stage.

Idunno. For an interaction I may have totally made up and was a very quicky-skimmed in passing thing if it really happened, it generated some real philosophical musings over why I like what I do like about recording an acoustic guitar.

 

[rob aylestone]

this one I think

 

[DrewPeterson7]

this one I think

YES! I'm NOT going crazy.

It was a really helpful observation, as it put into words something I think I'd kind of realized on a gut level but hadn't really articulated, even to myself. So, thanks!

Even compared to a piano, where you as the performer DO hear a wide stereo spread as you play... a guitar is pretty much a mono instrument from a single point. You can hear the space around the guitar and can add stereo spread that way without really messing with the "mass" of a guitar, and you can have a couple mono guitars playing left and right and that just sounds like multiple instruments in different parts of the stereo spectrum and that's fine.

But, a pronounced stereo guitar, to quote a certain Bilbo Baggins, sounds like of stretched thin, like too little butter spread on too much toast.

 

[RFR]

Bilbo knows what he’s talking about. And when he’s wrong……. Gandalf helps him out.

 

[Old Music Guy]

While I haven't tried it, in my mind, I would record it this way:
A condenser mic positioned right about the 12th fret, and a foot to a foot and a half away. Record it dry.
If you have electronics, plug into a DI and record it dry.
Once in the DAW, duplicate each track. That would be 4 tracks.
"Group" both tracks to make 1 track for mixing. That will be 5 tracks.
Mixing:
Move the condenser track slightly off center to the left. Add just a touch of DI all the way left.
Move the DI slightly off center to the right. Add a touch of the condenser all the way to the right.
Use the "Group" track into the center, and add some plate reverb and factor in some delay. This should be subtle, but noticeable.

Think of it like this: Left side: The condenser and DI will net two different and distinct sounds. Spread them out. EQ PRN.
Same with the Right channel. Spread them out.
Then in the center mix as though it's coming back at you from the rear. If you want to get funky, reverse the phase on the center channel (That's a very VERY old trick for adding a center channel)

Consider your audience: Front row, balcony and cheap seats should all hear the guitar the same way, at the same time.

 

[rob aylestone]

Me personally, I think we make too much use of the word ‘stereo’ and all the proper stereo techniques. With a guitar, we get different sounds from its various parts. Depending on the player, it can be a drum, with body thumps and even deliberate swishes with the left hand. Then we get the transient stuff, like pick of nail noise, and untwanged notes played with the left fingers only, sort of the releases, hard fretted finger movements and pull offs. Thre can be a lot going on, and one mic wont capture all of that, so you take two, and blend them like a recipe. In the mix, they can even get different EQ and processing. The end result is the sound you want. If you pan them apart, that too is an effect, not ‘stereo’. Hard panning these can be quite disturbing, but for a certain purpose, a great effect.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

If you have electronics, plug into a DI and record it dry.

So, my new Collings (and I really need to do some better clips of that, at a minimum with better playing, my fingers were SHOT, lol) has an aftermarket K&K transducer pickup added... which I hear are on the better end of piezo pickups, but I haven't even plugged the thing in because I've never heard a piezo that sounds real. I HAVE heard people do some great things with IRs nxd piezos, but...

I think if I were doing a single-performance solo acoustic thing tonight, I'd probably start with a single mic positioned close to your starting point (14th, for me, as both my acoustics are 14th fret neck joints), and then maybe try a pair of more distant mics elsewhere in the room to capture my room's natural ambiance and distance, and start with the main mic centered and then slowly bring the two distant mics up hard L and R and see what adding space did. If that worked, great! If it sounded like dogshit, then I do like the over-shoulder, ear-level approah, especially for a "strummed" guitar, to pick up more of the sound of the pick.

Me personally, I think we make too much use of the word ‘stereo’ and all the proper stereo techniques. With a guitar, we get different sounds from its various parts. Depending on the player, it can be a drum, with body thumps and even deliberate swishes with the left hand. Then we get the transient stuff, like pick of nail noise, and untwanged notes played with the left fingers only, sort of the releases, hard fretted finger movements and pull offs. Thre can be a lot going on, and one mic wont capture all of that, so you take two, and blend them like a recipe. In the mix, they can even get different EQ and processing. The end result is the sound you want. If you pan them apart, that too is an effect, not ‘stereo’. Hard panning these can be quite disturbing, but for a certain purpose, a great effect.

...sort of like this, really. Using a second mic to add something to the first, rather than to make a wider soundstage. This is how I approach two mics on an electric; get a "core" sound going with a SM57, and then bring in a second, phase-aligned, mic to flesh out that first and add something I want to hear that the SM57 isn't doing on its own. Which, come to think of it, if I ever do find myself bothering with two mics on an acoustic again, I should approach it the same way and fine-tune position with one of them out of phase trying to make things sound as BAD as possible, before flipping phase and tracking.

It was just kind of an interesting comment, for me, and I think it's VERY easy to get sucked into recording technique and mixing technique and focus on the purely technical "how" side of this... but often times the more impactful discussion is the philosophical "why" part.

Rob - I've been running a blog on my website, to an audience of like seven, as I've been tracking this new album I've been working on. Acoustics are long tracked and I've alreay posted something about tracking approach, favoring two mono tracks over stereo approaches, etc... but I think this could be an interesting update (and, I do have an intro I want to add to one song, partly to use that Collings on something and partly because I think it makes a smoother transition from the acoustic driven song before it into what's the heaviest song on the album, even if with somewhat bluesy elements in there too). Do you mind if I quote that original post of yours in part? I'd be happy to either attribute it by name, or if you'd prefer, just leave it a generic "someone on a recording discussion forum I read." Otherwise I'll just mention a comment and a vague paraphrase before jumping into how this all fits together for me philosophically. Your call!

 

[rob aylestone]

I’m happy for you to pinch what you think will help others, no problems at all. Attribute as you think it fits your needs. I’m just now of the age where there’s so much disinformation out there, that newcomers take as fact, then re-promote it. Hobbies, that evolve into real jobs used to be built on experimentation. Now they’re built on YouTube advice. Ten year ago, the internet warned me off a video camera model I really wanted to buy. Everyone was saying the same things. Great but no good for X, and that was exactly what I wanted them for. A year ago, I bought one second hand. I now have 3, I know where the comments came from, but for me, it’s perfectly doable. I now have a crazy mic collection. I’m firmly of the opinion that miking things up requires you to have done it less well before. Four things matter. Changing my acoustic to a better one made a huge difference. Playing it in a nicer space made a big difference too. The other things are which mics and where, and you have choices to make. With a stranger with a new guitar to me, until I hear it, I have no idea which mic to get out. If they just strum all the strings, then there is no point in making it complicated. So probably one mic. If it’s a boomer, I’ll pic a condenser. If it’s horribly bright, a dynamic. Which one? An educated guess, and unless it was plainly wrong, I rarely change. EQ can then do its job.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

I’m firmly of the opinion that miking things up requires you to have done it less well before.

Love this, and can strongly relate. I'm reasonably happy with my ability to record the instruments I play (although, I'm learning how instrument sensitive this can be, as despite the Collings I just bought not being all THAT much smaller than my Martin, cocobolo OM vs a mahogany 000-sized, I'm quickly finding that my default mic approach for the Martin probably ins't the best way to capture the Collings), but I do think a lot of that comes from starting off and being very BAD at it, and doing a lot of experimentation to gradually figure out what works for 1) the instruments I have, and 2) the sounds I want to hear.

I'll cite you by name if it's cool, for the observation that an acoustic isn't a stereo instrument, which is one of those things that I suppose is so self-evident that it DOES need to be said because otherwise you just don't give it the thought that it deserves.

I do think starting from philosophical levels and then working down from there is probably a more powerful approach to recording and mixing than it's given credit for.

 

[Steenamaroo]

The problem with the term 'stereo', I think, is that people use it with reference to different things, without clarification.

Describing an acoustic source as mono or stereo isn't particularly help in most cases, IMO.
No matter how you describe the source, the propagation of sound waves is never symmetrical and a listener,
no matter their position, will hear different information in their left and right ears.

A two microphone setup attempts to capture that difference, and that's a stereo representation of the performance.

Whether it's considered natural, or realistic is a different matter,
A stereo pair four meters away may be seen as more natural or realistic than a pair four inches away,
but they both capture a real-world left/right difference.



If you single-microphone double-track a guitar part, pan them left and right, then have it printed to vinyl you've constructed something unnatural,
but the person cutting your vinyl is going to label it as 'stereo'. It is - the same way Sgt Peppers' is.
It's not stereo capture but it's a manufactured stereo field on a stereo medium, through stereo playback system.


It's important to clarify exactly what's meant by stereo - The source, the environment, the recording method, the medium, the playback system,
and then further clarify what the intention is with it; artificial, constructed, natural...


I'm not suggesting everyone should run around using these terms for clarity, for what it's worth,
but when someone says they've made a stereo recording of their guitar, it's usually accepted or assumed that
they used some form of left+right facing, or positioned, microphones to capture what happened in the room.

That may often be up close and exaggerated in the studio, but it's still preservation of real acoustic left/right differences.

 

[ecc83]

The problem with the term 'stereo', I think, is that people use it with reference to different things, without clarification.

Describing an acoustic source as mono or stereo isn't particularly help in most cases, IMO.
No matter how you describe the source, the propagation of sound waves is never symmetrical and a listener,
no matter their position, will hear different information in their left and right ears.

A two microphone setup attempts to capture that difference, and that's a stereo representation of the performance.

Whether it's considered natural, or realistic is a different matter,
A stereo pair four meters away may be seen as more natural or realistic than a pair four inches away,
but they both capture a real-world left/right difference.



If you single-microphone double-track a guitar part, pan them left and right, then have it printed to vinyl you've constructed something unnatural,
but the person cutting your vinyl is going to label it as 'stereo'. It is - the same way Sgt Peppers' is.
It's not stereo capture but it's a manufactured stereo field on a stereo medium, through stereo playback system.


It's important to clarify exactly what's meant by stereo - The source, the environment, the recording method, the medium, the playback system,
and then further clarify what the intention is with it; artificial, constructed, natural...


I'm not suggesting everyone should run around using these terms for clarity, for what it's worth,
but when someone says they've made a stereo recording of their guitar, it's usually accepted or assumed that
they used some form of left+right facing, or positioned, microphones to capture what happened in the room.

That may often be up close and exaggerated in the studio, but it's still preservation of real acoustic left/right differences.

I agree but might I suggest a true "test" if you will for "proper" stereo?

When recording an instrument or indeed an ensemble, the 'engineer' should consider how people listen to such a performance in real life. Audiences do not have one ear one foot from the 12th fret and another pointed at the guitar's bum!
No, they are usually a minimum of 6 feet from the musicians and often far more. There is an almost infinite combination of mic setups that can genuinely be called stereo but they all should be where the listener sits (old recording engs' used to say "find the best seat in the house")

So, IMHO unless the idea is to capture a live performance such that when reproduced it bears SOME semblance to the original it ain't "stereo".

Dave.

 

[Steenamaroo]

You were the main person I had in mind with my array of conditions, exceptions and disclaimers.

 

[ecc83]

You were the main person I had in mind with my array of conditions, exceptions and disclaimers.

Kindly I trust!?

Dave.

 

[Steenamaroo]

Of course.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

I'm not suggesting everyone should run around using these terms for clarity, for what it's worth,
but when someone says they've made a stereo recording of their guitar, it's usually accepted or assumed that
they used some form of left+right facing, or positioned, microphones to capture what happened in the room.

That may often be up close and exaggerated in the studio, but it's still preservation of real acoustic left/right differences.

I think where I was going with this is that any left/right differences in an acoustic guitar, with a resonant top that's maybe in the 2' range, are pretty minor, and pretty quickly collapse to "effectively negligible" as you start to pull back farther than 2' away from the source. And, even from the perspective of a player, if you wanted to consider, say, the sound as captured from the fret where the neck meets the body and the sound of the body resonating itself as "heard" from an over shoulder ear level mic, as two examples, as coming from different points in the stereo spectrum... they're not THAT wide, bigger picture - maybe a 45 degree spread. Taking two mics and panning them hard L and R is objectively an exaggeration of the "width" of a guitar in the room, even from the player's perspective, much less from someone in the second row of the audience.

I'd never really thought about it that way, and it explains a LOT of how I've found myself over time thinking about acoustic guitars.

 

[ecc83]

I think where I was going with this is that any left/right differences in an acoustic guitar, with a resonant top that's maybe in the 2' range, are pretty minor, and pretty quickly collapse to "effectively negligible" as you start to pull back farther than 2' away from the source. And, even from the perspective of a player, if you wanted to consider, say, the sound as captured from the fret where the neck meets the body and the sound of the body resonating itself as "heard" from an over shoulder ear level mic, as two examples, as coming from different points in the stereo spectrum... they're not THAT wide, bigger picture - maybe a 45 degree spread. Taking two mics and panning them hard L and R is objectively an exaggeration of the "width" of a guitar in the room, even from the player's perspective, much less from someone in the second row of the audience.

I'd never really thought about it that way, and it explains a LOT of how I've found myself over time thinking about acoustic guitars.

My son is 54 and now is trying to make a career playing classical guitar* He has done all the rock/blues/jazz stuff over the years. In his flat he records himself but then adds a whiff of a nice room. This is the essence of "proper" stereo. No, a solo guitar has virtually no size in a room but in a nice hall or church it DOES have a position in the acoustic and the recording should capture that AND the nice acoustic.

*We are presently looking into ways to give it some modest "reinforcement".

Dave.

 

[Steenamaroo]

Someone (Rob maybe?) mentioned not loving "wide" acoustic micing strategies because an acoustic guitar isn't really a "wide" instrument, so trying to create a single take recording with a very wide stereo spread was kind of like trying to create something that didn't exist in nature, and if you wanted that kind of spread, double track it.

It's a valid point. A solo guitar isn't what you'd call a wide source and if you're in a home studio setting where the environment isn't contributing something nice, or considered part of what you're trying to capture, then you end up close micing and, yeah, that's not what I'd call 'natural' or 'realistic'.*
I wouldn't jump to 'double track instead', though.
That has a completely different sound and you should choose the one which suits your project.

There's no rule that says something has to be realistic or natural sounding, unless your project dictates that.

Most "wide" stereo approaches I've tried left me feeling like something was missing the wider the stereo spread got

...Basically, if it's just one guitar, I want "mass" more than width

A lot of what's been said here is general information but bringing it back to you and your particular projects,
it sounds like you want a nice solid single mic recording, and maybe the option to dial in ambience with left/right differences... (i didn't say the word!!!).
You can achieve that dial-in ambience with a nice reverb plugin or, if you have a desirable environment, an additional l/r pair a good distance away from the guitar; the kind of distance a listener might be.

*I mean, if we want to deal in realism someone can argue no one ever listens to a guitar from ~1' distance even with that single mic setup.
No one ever listens to a piano a a few feet distance with the ears six feet apart but that's how you're likely to mic up for a pop/rock record.
A classical concert? Probably not so much.

I'm not sure hard rules are as valuable as understanding what you're doing and making a choice for your project.

 

[ecc83]

Ah! Let me be clear Steen mate, I am NOT saying everyone must strive only to record guitar/piano/ clarinet..... in a "realistic" way. No, the choices and techniques are infinite and part of the creative process of making 'records' .

What I AM saying is that capturing the position in space* and the acoustic of
an instrument (or voice) is the only way worthy of the name "stereo". OK yes, you can have a collection of mono sources skillfully pan potted across the sound stage with a wash of 'verb that SOUNDS very good and many will call that stereo, but is is really? I am not sure but I do know that two mics at foot from a guitar picking up different bits of it ain't!

*Then we have Ambisonics and Dolby Atmos!

 

[rob aylestone]

If you use an analogy in video. You can have a wide shot of a football field. Proper football, with people who kick the ball, hands not allowed. A camera on the half way line, goals visible left and right. If the ball is kicked by a the goal keeper, and you have a big screen TV with decent sound, then that kick appears to come from the left. If you had no sight, you would know from the audio, where the ball was kicked and even how far away it probably was. Let's assume the image does not change and when the ball lands, it is kicked back the way it came from. That too can be heard. You could tell if that kick was near the centre of the picture and if it was further away or on the camera side of the pitch. Let us assume the goalkeeper kicked it as far as the other goal keeper who returned that - the viewer with or without sight would get it. Stereo audio in it's rawest. If the camera cuts to a head to foot shot - full body of the player who kicks it back, where would the audio placement be? strictly speaking if it matches the player in the frame then the sound should be centre - or should it reflect the actual position of the player, to help somebody just listening? The classic video dilemma. The old vison rule about not crossing the line, as in putting a camera on the other side of the pitch (because left and right then reverse) would also mean should sound remain constant or change to reflect the reverse? Nowadays, crossing the line happens and I think is very confusing when a team suddenly appears to be going the other direction? Sport TV have very tricky decisions to make that us in the studio do not have - but in reality, this is exactly what we are talking about. Does that guitar use up the real stereo field, or do we pick a small part of it, or even extend a narrow field to use the wider image we can create. Instruments like trumpets don't have any real width at all. Outside, in a field a trumpet is the most mono it can be - or is it? What happens if the player turns left or right when they are playing. The volume goes up and down, but the tone changes? So is a trumpet actually worth recording with two mics? An X/Y mic position wouldn't work because they're going to hear the same thing - but a spaced pair of cardioids would capture the trumpet player turning - NOBODY has been promoting spaced cardioids for stereo, but it would work? Maybe?

I guess what we are doing is just expanding our 'rules'. Interesting stuff I think.

 

[PorterhouseMusic]

Proper football, with people who kick the ball, hands not allowed