Need Some General Considerations for Recording Acoustic Guitar

[blackscot]

I'm working on a collection of 70's-era "organic" rock tunes (CSNY, America, etc., stuff I grew up with) adapted for solo 6- and 12-string acoustic guitar . The material is entirely solo acoustic, and has lots of open chords and arpeggios. Recording is via ProTools/Mbox with stereo input from a pair of Audio Technica condenser mics -- large diaphram over the sound hole and small diaphram over the neck joint.

 

The raw tracks sound boxy/mid-rangy to me, so applying a scooped graphic EQ seems to open up the sound. I'm also using a separate high-Q parametric EQ in places to try to filter out string squeaks and other noise, but with mixed success. The only other processing is the RTAS compressor, which so far I've just been using with the factory-default settings. I've been experimenting with a couple of aspects of the processing, but thought I might ask around to possibly make the trial-and-error effort a little more efficient.

 

(1) Is there any general rule for what order the in-series processors should be placed, i.e. compressor before EQ, or the opposite? Switching them sometimes produces a difference I can hear, but other times sounds the same either way. Also, should the parametric EQ go before or after the graphic?

 

(2) I'm comfortable experimenting with the EQ settings, but am not sure how best to approach altering the compressor. Are there any general guidelines particular to using compressors on acoustic guitar recordings?

 

Any other considerations that come to mind are also welcomed. The processed recordings already definitely sound better than the raw tracks, but I'd like a better idea of how good I might get them to sound, and how to do so. I realize too of course that experience is the best teacher.

 

Thanks for any help.

[Zooey]

Personally, I would get rid of the LDC over the sound hole. How does the SDC sound on its own?

[blackscot]

 

Personally, I would get rid of the LDC over the sound hole. How does the SDC sound on its own?

 

 

Why?

[Zooey]

 

Why?

 

 

Micing the sound hole of an acoustic guitar with a LDC is a 100% guaranteed way to achieve an acoustic guitar tone that will be unusable without extensive EQ.

 

If you want to keep the LDC, I would recommend moving it to the body of the guitar pointing below the bridge. Some people have good luck pointing it over their shoulder, angled down (roughly the way your ears are pointing when you play). I've done away with LDCs for acoustics altogether because I've found SDCs to sound most natural.

 

I think you're a ways off from worrying about processing, but once you get a listenable sound with the mics alone, I would recommend putting comp after EQ. Most likely you'll be scooping out some low mid muck that would pump the compressor.

[UstadKhanAli]

I often record an acoustic with an LDC perpendicular to where the neck meets the body, which gets great results. An SDC at this same point will also give you great results. The positioning (and obviously all the rest) is more important than whether it's an SDC or LDC, in my opinion.

[blackscot]

Thanks for the replies and clarification. I'm glad I thought to mention the mic set-up. I had been thinking this was mostly a processing problem. I'll try some new recordings along the lines suggested and see how they compare with the earlier material.

[Flogger59]

Set up the mics so that you get the sound from them, not processing. As for compression, try two very mild compressors in series. You'll get the gain control with less pumping.

[Jon Chappell]

I'm working on a collection of 70's-era "organic" rock tunes (CSNY, America, etc., stuff I grew up with) adapted for solo 6- and 12-string acoustic guitar . The material is entirely solo acoustic, and has lots of open chords and arpeggios. Recording is via ProTools/Mbox with stereo input from a pair of Audio Technica condenser mics -- large diaphram over the sound hole and small diaphram over the neck joint.

 

Sounds like a nice project, and that you're approaching it with taste and reasonableness.

 

The raw tracks sound boxy/mid-rangy to me, so applying a scooped graphic EQ seems to open up the sound. I'm also using a separate high-Q parametric EQ in places to try to filter out string squeaks and other noise, but with mixed success.

 

I am really leery of using graphic EQs, and especially mixing them with parametrics (which have more task-specific duties). Like other respondents to your opening post, I would change mic positions and/or the mics themselves rather than resorting to graphic EQs. Parametrics and compressors are necessary, but consider "going back to nature" before getting a graphic in there.

[blackscot]

 

......consider "going back to nature" before getting a graphic in there.

 

 

Everything I have been reading is compelling me to start over from scratch and play around with mic placement to get the raw tracks sounding as good as possible.

 

On another not-yet-mentioned point, I have been recording in an acoustically treated space (corner bass traps, etc.). Should I consider another room with some natural reverb?

[Jon Chappell]

Everything I have been reading is compelling me to start over from scratch and play around with mic placement to get the raw tracks sounding as good as possible.

 

That's all well and good for you. But how do you expect to generate scores of forum pages with salacious, confrontational, and entertaining posts if you're going to be reasonable and actually follow the advice presented to you?

 

On another not-yet-mentioned point, I have been recording in an acoustically treated space (corner bass traps, etc.). Should I consider another room with some natural reverb?

 

It sounds like the answer should be "yes," and perhaps in a perfect world it would be, but I think it's better to record dry and apply a good convolution reverb in the mixing/post-production stage. Convolution reverbs are so good now, and post-production-applied reverb is so convenient and versatile, that these factors outweigh all but the absolute best acoustic space in which to record. (Printing with effects, as you would do in a live room, is gutsy.)

 

Since you already have a well-treated room, I would go this way. After all, why did you go to the trouble in the first place, if not exactly for this type of project? Again, it's easy to argue for the "ideal," but this sounds like a "real world" project to me.

[blackscot]

 

.....Since you already have a well-treated room, I would go this way.......

 

 

That would certainly simplify the operational logistics considerably.

[LeonardScaper]

Set up the mics so that you get the sound from them, not processing. As for compression, try two very mild compressors in series. You'll get the gain control with less pumping.

 

Audition each mic position on its own merits and really listen to them closely so you can hear what they have to offer.

 

And........once you get your mics set and sounding close, don't be afraid to move your playing position in subtle ways until you are truly smiling at what you are hearing.

 

When it's time to track, record each on it's own mono track. You'll find that each one adds a different dimension to the sound and you can use that difference to help EQ the combined sound.

 

Microphone position is so important with acoustic guitars. When you start doing a lot of processing after the fact you are bound to introduce anomalies that will affect the natural sound that you have captured.

 

Sounds like a great project. Have fun!

[UstadKhanAli]

The advice that flogger59 and LeonardScaper are giving you (above) are right on. Get the sound from microphone/mic preamp choice and positioning. This is the best "EQ" and sound you can ever get, so take your time and get it right here. Also, this is sometimes oddly overlooked, but the sort of strings you use can make a difference, and whether they're new or old. And it goes without saying that the guitar, room, and player (and how you are playing it and the pick you use) make a difference. Apologies if this is pedantic, but I figured I'd mention it in case it helps.

[Ernest Buckley]

 

The advice that flogger59 and LeonardScaper are giving you (above) are right on. Get the sound from microphone/mic preamp choice and positioning. This is the best "EQ" and sound you can ever get, so take your time and get it right here. Also, this is sometimes oddly overlooked, but the sort of strings you use can make a difference, and whether they're new or old. And it goes without saying that the guitar, room, and player (and how you are playing it and the pick you use) make a difference. Apologies if this is pedantic, but I figured I'd mention it in case it helps.

 

 

+1

 

I didn`t read every response but I just want to add that the guitar pick you use actually has a huge impact on your sound.

[blackscot]

 

.......the guitar pick you use actually has a huge impact on your sound.

 

 

Thanks for all the continued great advice, and don't hestitate to include anything however obvious it may seem. I have a long distinguished career of overlooking the obvious.

 

I install new strings before beginning any recording project. I play them just enough to loosen up a little before doing any takes. I also like to leave the guitar out for the duration of the project (on a stand in a protected corner) so it will remain acclimated to the room temperature and humidity.

 

I also am very pick-sensitive, not just for recording but general playing as well, and for the feel as much as the tone. I like Fender thins for any kind of acoustic or rhythm electric, and mediums for electric lead. Fresh picks are needed to avoid a nasty squeek that comes from too worn edges.

 

Any more tips, please bring 'em on!

[UstadKhanAli]

Sure! I just don't want to come across as one of these people who answers a question like "What's a really great condenser for ____?" and then someone goes, "Well, you know, the player makes the biggest difference!"

 

I also wanted to reiterate a good point that Zooey made about NOT micing the sound hole. While this will give you the loudest sound, it'll also be rather boomy and unbalanced.

 

There are a lot of great ways to mic an acoustic guitar, but an SDC or an LDC by the 12th fret (where the neck meets the body) is never a bad choice, offering a fairly balanced "view" of the instrument. I like to start with this as my starting point and then move the guitar farther/closer until I get the sound I want. For certain tracks, I may have the guitar 2 ft. back, while for other tracks, I may have it only inches from the guitar.

[blackscot]

......NOT micing the sound hole. While this will give you the loudest sound, it'll also be rather boomy and unbalanced. ......an SDC or an LDC by the 12th fret (where the neck meets the body) is never a bad choice........For certain tracks, I may have the guitar 2 ft. back, while for other tracks, I may have it only inches from the guitar.

 

The hole is definitely going to get un-mic'd. I have both an SDC and LDC, and hope to spend substantial time this weekend experimenting with various placements of both. I expect my 6-string Martin DM will require a different configuration than my Guild 12.

 

[blackscot]

Well I spent a goodly part of the weekend on a semi-systematic evaluation of various mic placements. Bascially by trial-and-error and process-of-elimination, I found that the overall most full and rich sound comes from using the SDC at the neck joint on the 6-string Martin DM, and at about the 18th fret on the Guild-12 (about midway between the neck joint and the sound hole). Other positions higher up the neck sound more tinny on both guitars. Additional placements were also tried, including over the bridge/bout area, set back away by a couple of feet into the room, and high up overhead. These mostly gave tones that were either more boomy or boxy. The overhead gave an interesting reverb-like effect on quiet passages -- which was not unpleasant -- but sounded much more harsh and grating with hard strumming (recording levels were kept from reaching distortion).

 

Trying the same with the LDC produced only subtle differences from the SDC. The far greater effects were among the different placement positions.

 

I think I will be re-mixing some of my earlier material using just the SDC/neck-joint tracks, and possibly adding double tracking where feasible to open the tone further.

[UstadKhanAli]

Cool, sounds like great experimenting. And as you discovered, some positions are good with certain kinds of playing and not others. Well, okay, you probably already knew that already...

[blackscot]

 

.....sounds like great experimenting......

 

 

Well a guy at my work who is also into recording has all along been swearing by double tracking, with the two tracks panned all the way to opposite sides. I finally got around to trying it for the first time yesterday. What a difference! It's like after your ears pop and you hear everything you've been missing.

 

I now need to go back to all of my earlier stuff to add the second track. It will be a challenge to keep in-sync in places, likely requiring a lot of additional time for multiple takes, but will be worth it.

[LeonardScaper]

Be careful about hard panning those two tracks as you may get some phasing anomalies happening.

 

I always pan them in quite a bit until they sound tight. Throw up a phase scope if you have one and have a look. When I get 'em sounded good I bounce them to a stereo track which can then be further panned to one side or the other in the mix.

 

Sounds like you're having fun.

[blackscot]

Be careful about hard panning those two tracks as you may get some phasing anomalies....... Sounds like you're having fun.

 

Yeah, I was kind of noticing that. The sound is biggest when fully panned but also kind of phase-ish, which bumping in a bit seemed to help.

 

And also yes, this is all utmostfully edjumicational.

[UstadKhanAli]

I don't always double-track my acoustics, but especially in certain rock tracks, it's a great sound, really textural. And yes, check your mixes by summing to mono to check for weird phase issues, and just to make sure it's still sounding good in mono.

 

I go in phases. I was using two SDCs in X-Y and recording my acoustic guitars in stereo for the longest time, and now, for the past few years, I've been recording my acoustic guitars with a single LDC instead. They both sound good and have their merits, but I've been really enjoying the directness and fullness of a single mic. But really, you can get fantastic results so many ways with different kinds of mics.

[LeonardScaper]

I have been stubbornly tracking my acoustics in stereo for....years.

 

Last night I threw up a tube condensor 18" in front of the soundhole and got the best sound I have yet to achieve.

 

Go figure.

[UstadKhanAli]

It's so funny how I went through a similar process of where I was really carefully stereo micing acoustic guitars for years, and then when I was recording an acoustic ensemble, I threw a LDC tube about a foot or more away from the acoustic guitar, and wow, did that ever sound good!

 

I now typically record acoustic guitars in omni, which to my ear sounds really great, open, and natural. Sometimes, I'll "stereoize" the mono signal via EQ, but often, I just leave it alone.