Recordings dont reflect playing

[d03nut]

Heres one for you:

 

You know how when youre messing around with your right-hand technique -with all due respect to the left- e.g. pick angle, pressure, placement, palm-muting, "finger-involvement", etc.- you can get different sounds from your guitar.

 

For example, attack a "D" chord a certain way and you get "feather-y", change said variables a little for a more jangly sound, or strike them strings in a hammer-like fashion for a more bassy tone.

 

Well, how come then when I record my guitar, I cant really hear all those nuances in the final product?

 

Ive experimented with a few cheap mics (placement and angles considered) but at the end of the day, the only way to get different timbres (if thats the correct musical term) is to play around with the track volume. Which, only gives the "appearence" of a change in the guitars voice. Not the ideal solution.

 

Also, Im not looking for an EQ solution here. Theres no EQ involved when Im playing by myself.

 

What am I missing? An expensive mic, perhaps?

 

Or is this why I keep reading that an acoustic guitar is meant to be played "unplugged"? That the true sound of it cant really be captured on record.....

[JasmineTea]

Originally posted by d03nut What am I missing? An expensive mic, perhaps?

Yes. I've heard it with my own ears. If you are ultra seriouse about recording, you will often spend more for a mic than you will for a guitar. No {censored}.

 

But, it pays off because with a realy good mic you can hear every nuance of a cheap or expensive guitar. Again, no {censored}.

 

try one of these, it's an AKG414. Two of them in stereo will make you wet your pants.

[solitaire]

Oh, but every mic or p/u is EQed to begin with. Then of course it's down to sensitivity of the mics involved and their price and construction. Had I had a Blue the Bottle or someth, I'm sure every nuance would be there. Well, you could fiddle with dynamics and EQ, but at the end of the day, a cheap mic is a cheap mic and you just have to accept that.

[lalatingstrings]

ditto to the akg!!!recording in stereo also does do WONDERS!!!!!!i use 2 mics on my classical and on my steel string i use a mic to one channel and run the pickup to the other,pan one a little to the left and one a little to the right and SMOKIN!!!!!cheap mics suck,its worth saving up some $$$$$$

[solitaire]

Originally posted by lalatingstrings ditto to the akg!!!recording in stereo also does do WONDERS!!!!!!i use 2 mics on my classical and on my steel string i use a mic to one channel and run the pickup to the other,pan one a little to the left and one a little to the right and SMOKIN!!!!!cheap mics suck,its worth saving up some $$$$$$

 

I do agree on stereo recording but doesn't the AKG have teflon membranes? I prefer a small condenser at the neck and a large condenser at the 12th fret or so. Smaller condensers are usually more detailed than larger ones.

[JasmineTea]

Try one AKG414 directly in front of the guitar, 5 to 10 feet away. Then take two SM57s and put one on either side of the AKG, 5 to 10 feet from the AKG to the right and left. Feel free to adjust these measurements. IMO, micing from a distance sounds nice. Rooms have a huge effect.

This requires three tracks. Pan the SM57s R & L, AKG down the middle.

Call me in the morning.

[egordon99]

Don't forget the importance of a good (or grrrrrrreat preamp). I have a Great River MP2 and it really brings out ALL the details of my playing.

As you get more sensitive and better equipment, the room comes more into play as well. Oh, and your converters, and then your monitors to make sure you can hear the recording properly during playback.

GEAR-acquisition-syndrome is just as bad as GUITAR-acquisition-syndrome!

[Herb Hunter]

AKG 414s start at around $1000. A RODE NT1-A can be had for around $200 and has got very good reviews. Electonic Musician Magazine called the NT1 "the best microphone at any price."

I have not compared the 414 with the NT1 but I would try both before I bought either.

If you are stuck with inexpensive microphones I found I got better results from an omnidirectional mic than with a cardioid even though my cardioids have a bass attenuation switch for close-up use.

One setup that works well is to place one microphone very close to the fret board and another above the guitar. Exactly where above the guitar requires experimentation.

[d03nut]

Thanks for all the great info & advice. As I suspected, all the usual suspects such as room acoustics, preamp, converters, etc. were suggested. Which is what I feared actually. More labor, more costs.

This was one time I was hoping I was doing something wrong. Not that that's not the case. But judging from your responses, the "good mic" factor simply can't be ignored.

The search begins........

[guit30]

I use a live room, no carpet, high ceilings to get some natural reverb and one cheap omnidirectional Shure, I place it above where I am sitting so I can sing too, and put the levels on my tape deck pretty high, comes out pretty nice. Use type 2 cassette tapes.
Jim

[sdelsolray]

Originally posted by d03nut Heres one for you: You know how when youre messing around with your right-hand technique -with all due respect to the left- e.g. pick angle, pressure, placement, palm-muting, "finger-involvement", etc.- you can get different sounds from your guitar. For example, attack a "D" chord a certain way and you get "feather-y", change said variables a little for a more jangly sound, or strike them strings in a hammer-like fashion for a more bassy tone. Well, how come then when I record my guitar, I cant really hear all those nuances in the final product? Ive experimented with a few cheap mics (placement and angles considered) but at the end of the day, the only way to get different timbres (if thats the correct musical term) is to play around with the track volume. Which, only gives the "appearence" of a change in the guitars voice. Not the ideal solution. Also, Im not looking for an EQ solution here. Theres no EQ involved when Im playing by myself. What am I missing? An expensive mic, perhaps? Or is this why I keep reading that an acoustic guitar is meant to be played "unplugged"? That the true sound of it cant really be captured on record.....

 

 

Although higher quality recording gear will improve the recording, what you are describing may be more attributible to "emoting". What you "hear" when you play different ways is a mixture of your desire to hear that difference, coupled with what you are actually hearing from the guitar. This is a good thing. For instance, you want to hear a bright strummed chord, so you strum nearer to the bridge. Sure, the guitar puts out a brighter sound, but what you are actually hearing is even brighter because of the desire for a bright sound plus the expectation of it.

 

Of course, when you record, the recordng does not emote, so when you listen to the recording, the differences you hear are less, sometimes much less than you remember hearing when you played it live.

[LDF]

OK, let's everyone move into the recording forum; single file, take your belongings with you...........

[Herb Hunter]

Originally posted by sdelsolray Although higher quality recording gear will improve the recording, what you are describing may be more attributible to "emoting". ... you want to hear a bright strummed chord, so you strum nearer to the bridge. Sure, the guitar puts out a brighter sound, but what you are actually hearing is even brighter because of the desire for a bright sound plus the expectation of it.

 

 

While there may be a psychological component, the fact remains that no recording, regardless of what equipment is used, can faithfully recreate the original sound. There are nuances of any performance that don't get reproduced.

 

If I hear someone recording his guitar in a well equiped studio, the playback never sounds as good.

 

Also, no one has mentioned that the speakers used as monitors may not reproduce everything that the microphone picked up. One needs good speakers as well.

 

It is a little late to go marching off to another forum.

[Cldplytkmn]

i was using a dynamic mic for a while, and kinda knew in the back of my head that i'd need a condenser at some point... finally broke down and shopped around and ended up with a Blue Bluebird. I need to post a clip sometime... i'd have done it by now, but cubase has been eating my lunch.

[JasmineTea]

Originally posted by Herb Hunter While there may be a psychological component, the fact remains that no recording, regardless of what equipment is used, can faithfully recreate the original sound. There are nuances of any performance that don't get reproduced. If I hear someone recording his guitar in a well equiped studio, the playback never sounds as good. Also, no one has mentioned that the speakers used as monitors may not reproduce everything that the microphone picked up. One needs good speakers as well.

Lot of variables in recording.

 

Speakers: I have a $100 pair of headphones that bring more detail through than I'd like. Don't know the mod# off the top of my head. Good studio moniters can cost a lot, but you can get good "enough" moniters at Best Buy for a couple hundred bucks with the same specs as average studio moniters.

 

My only comment on the psycological component, is that I try like heck to hear what's realy happening.

 

I've heard a few well equiped studios myself, and I gotta say, there are some mics that "hear" much better than we do.

[kwakatak]

I use a Behringer UB1202 mixer and a ATR-20 dynamic microphone that I connect to my PC where I edit in Audacity. The quality is a lot better than when I used to use just a cheap desktop omni-mic but now I'm having trouble keeping the signal as stong clean (hissing and EM-interference buzzing). My next piece of gear is probably going to be a large condensor microphone with an XLR jack. I also need to pick up a mic stand. I'm using my guitar stand right now and it's not cutting it.