Your Thoughts On Acoustic Recording With a Mashall 603s Mic.

  • Thread starter Thread starter frank_1
  • Start date Start date
frank_1

frank_1

New member
What are your opinions on the Marshall 603 and guitar acousitc recording? I think most of you know that I have a V67 already, I was wondering if the extra $90 was worth a new mic. Do I need it, I don't know, only if is gives a "much" better sound. What do You think...

Tech 21 SansAmp Bass Driver Di . Yes, look at this!! ;)
 
Last edited:
I rather the sound of the v67 on acoustic combined with a sm57....my preference only......
 
I haven't heard the 67, but I briefly tried the 603 (before wrapping for christmas) on my Larrivee dreadnaught (cedar top), and on first listen actually prefered it over my tube mic. Go figure. Anyway, for $79 at 8th street it was a no-brainer for me. Well worth the money.

BTW, there's an article in the Jan Recording Mag about replacing the board in cheap large condensors to improve the sound. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but the 67 was mentioned and I think the board was only about $20. Anybody see this? Could be a nice inexpensive upgrade for an already nice mic.
 
I think it sounds pretty mucky. Works well in combination with a brighter mic though.

Slackmaster 2000
 
I'm more interested in them as overhead pairs. Mucky meaning not hyped? That might be good for overheads as it wouldnt make the cymbals tear your head off as bad.
Whats the concensus on these as overheads? They seem to be decently regarded on other groups, though not overly praised. For $160 for a pair, well... you know...
I like mics with a lot of clarity and detail... if mucky means no detail, then I'm out...
 
I don't find them to be very detailed at all, which is why I don't like them on acoustic. Mucky=unrealistic lack of top end OR overemphisized mid & lower range....which I've found useful a few times. I think harvey may have mentioned using them for drum overheads, I haven't used them for drums.

Now it could just be my inexperience, since I believe harvey likes the 603 on guitar...but I remember Emeric used 603's on one of his songs and I recognized the sound immediately.

Slackmaster 2000
 
Someone posted a clip of an acoustic recorded with a v67 and a 603, and I much rathered the v67....was that you, Slack?.....
 
It might have been...because I did do a comparison. Personally I didn't like either, but the V67 was certainly more detailed than the 603.

Slackmaster 2000
 
Obviously, this is a pretty subjective thing. That's why I mentioned the guitar I was using. Dreadnaughts produce boom, and my tube condensor really picked this up with any position when close micing. I had to roll of the bass every time I got closer than 18 inches. That's why I'm surprised to hear Slack say the 603 has a boosted mid-lower range. I didn't notice that at all, athough I must admit I only tried it that one night. Further use may change my opinion.

Aren't small condensors noted for their ability to reproduce the higher frequencies? I also remember Harvey saying it had a very similar sound to the oktave MC012--a mic that has been noted to excell on acoustic guitar.

Note: I do not have golden ears or a huge amount of experience.
 
You recognized that Mucky=unrealistic sound right off the bat in one of my tunes? hehe.. I can't remember what track that was, but I know what you mean.

I'm not a big fan of them on acoustic, I've messed with them a bit but keep migrating back to either a NT-1, V67 or C1000. The 603 can do a decent job, but like anything, the player and the room and the electronics beyond are fairly critical variables

For overheads, their ok. But , I find I like aspects of the C1000's better. What aspects? Here comes the subjective words. I find the C1000's to be 'tighter' and in a stereo config gives me a 'wider' sound. Since the 603's aren't as tight a pattern, I suppose that's one explanation. I find the c1000's more detailed than the 603 but a touch more 'harsh' (as overheads), the 603's are not 'silky smooth' either, but for the money there a good mic. With this room I'm in, I don't think a pair of $10,000 overheads would help me, so it's mostly irrelevant in my case. I large part of my vague conclusions I attribute to the acoustics of my recording room.
 
I've just used a pair of 603's as overheads for a drum track and there are a couple things I noticed:
First, I havene't ever used a decent small diaphragm condenser on overheads before. Second, I noticed that the stereo image wasn;t was wide as I thought it would be although it is definately there (china cymbol on hard right side). Third, and this could be due to mic plaement/bad preamps, but i didn't feel like there was enough attack at all. The drummer is very aggressive and heavy on the cymbols which helps the band stay powerful and the mics didn't bring that forward enough. We are going to try again on the drums, but give ourselves more time for fooling around with mic placement. Haven't used them with acoustice guitar, but it seems that what some people dislike about certain mics on acoutsic is actually what the acoustic needs to stand out in the mix.

Ian
 
There are so many factors regarding the "correct" miking of acoustic guitars, that I thought I'd add my few cents worth about some things to consider when talking about mics "working" or "sucking" or "muddy" versus "bright".

The way a guitar radiates sound is different, depending on the note being played. During one session, I had to:

1. Move the mic, depending on the key and style of the song.
2. Use a differnt mic, depending on the key and style.
3. Use aggresive EQ, depending on the key and style.

Just because one particular mic, in one particular position, works great for a specific song, guitar, and player, is no gurantee that it will work great for the next song, guitar, or player.

Any time you get in close with any mic (to where you are in the "near field" of the instrument), all bets are off - the results may be spectacular, or it can sound like pure crap. It depends entirely on the particular song, the specific guitar, the particular player, the specific mic, and the exact mic placement. Change any of these factors (even a little bit) and the sound can change dramatically.

The ONLY "one size fits all" mic/position I've ever found is a neutral-sounding omni over the shoulder of the player, since it avoids a lot of the nearfield and proximity problems that are more common with other mic techniques, and it gets pretty close to what the player nomally hears. But it's NOT a cure-all, or the best method for every situation.

You have to use your own ears and your imagination to get the sound the way you want it. Sometimes it's the over the shoulder thing, and sometimes it's in close. What are you trying to achieve? Here are some things that I think about as I'm trying to get a good guitar sound. It may help you as well:

1. Listen to the player. What mics do you have that will get the sound he's playing?

2. Listen to the guitar. Walk around and listen to find a spot that sounds good.

3. Pick a mic that you think will best bring out the sound the player wants to hear. Place it in the spot you picked.

4. Listen to the sound thru the mic. Are you hearing too much of something or not enough of something else? Can you move the mic a little bit to back off the "too much" and increase the "not enough" parts?

5. Do you have a different mic that might get closer to the ideal sound you're looking for?

6. If one mic is getting "most" of what you want, can you add a second mic to get the rest?

7. Is the second mic causing other problems?

8. Can eq do a better job than adding a second mic?

9. After you have everything just right, listen again to see if this sound is going to fit in with the rest of the instruments. The "perfect guitar sound" soloed may not be the best sound for the song.

10. Don't be afraid to scrap everything and start from scratch if it isn't working. Sometimes, you have to rethink stuff when it's not working, even if it means starting all over again.

Finally, remeber that there is no "best" mic, there's only a range of mics that will work for a particular song, and a bunch of mics that won't. When you can hear "which is which" in your head, you're on the way to becoming a great engineer. Because something worked perfectly in the past is a good reason to at least consider it for this task, but it may not be the best choice for the current job.

Trial and error (and remembering what the results were) leads to learning. Don't say, "that sucks" - say instead, "Interesting, I'll hafta remember that next time I want something weird-sounding".

Every combination of sounds has a potential use. A hollow, phasey guitar sound may be the "perfect sound" for some future recording. If you run across a hollow, phasey guitar sound accidently today, remeber how you got it - it might be great for a track tomorrow.
 
You're right, what works in one situation might not work in another.

I'm sorry if I misled anyone. I simply do not like the 603 on my acoustic guitar, simple as that, and I stated the reasons why. I like a very lively acoustic sound. I have somewhat successfully used the 603 by setting it up about 6" off, aiming straight at the guitar neck around the 5th fret. But that's a goofy sound for obvious reasons.

Recently I've used the 603 in combination with the ECM8000 and was pretty happy with the results. The two microphones do compliment eachother in my case...although it's not exactly a great sound, it works.

What I really like the 603 for is recording some of the more, *ahem*, obnoxious sounds that I make...it really takes the edge off. (anybody who listened to my last project knows what I mean by obnoxious)

I'll state again as I have many times in the past: I am an amature and my opinion is not based on a wealth of experience. I just feel I should keep saying that because some people see "moderator" and a high post count and get the wrong idea.

Thanks for the information once again Harvey! You're a great asset to this board!

Slackmaster 2000
 
And don't listen to me, simply because I just happen to be located in Sanger Texas, one of the "hotbeds" of the music recording industry. If something makes sense to you, try it, but don't take anything as gospel if it doesn't make sense to you.
 
Thanks, Harvey. You just gave me another mini-article to add to my recording notes.

Slack, you didn't mislead anyone. We can always trust you to talk from experience, never from bullshit.
 
I've used the mxl 603's on a friend's Ovation roundback that sounds muddy as hell and had old dead strings on it. They sounded muddy and old and dead. Pretty accurate recording if you ask me.:) I like them on other guitars though.
 
Well, with the advice of you guys, I just ordered a 603s, I'll let you guys know what I think...
 
Back
Top