Recording "real" acoustic guitar

Kelly · Post by **Kelly** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:24 pm

I just got invited to work on a recording session tonight, so any fast answers would be great.

I went to this same studio to work on another session a few weeks ago involving strings. I had one of those "revelation" moments regarding realistic recording. Basically what I did is I took a KM184 and stuck it on an overhead about 3 feet or so over the shoulder of the violinist pointed at the body between the neck and where the sound holes usually are. I also had a Microtec Geffel M-71 behing the player on the other side of the room. This was after the mic was in a slightly different position I wasnt happy with (sounded thin).

What happened is I walked into the control room and couldnt believe my ears. It sounded exactly like I was standing in tracking room with the violin player. Crazy! I didnt know that it was actually possible to do that. It was enough so that I checked to make sure the door wasnt open between the the tracking and control rooms.

Anyway, I was wondering what the typical setup would be to get a similar effect with acoustic guitar. I plan on doing pretty much the same thing(Over the shoulder pointed between the neck and sound hole), wondering if this is likely to work as well as it did with violin.

Also, since this is a basic "guy with acoustic guitar" type of thing, what is a good starting point for recording acoustic in stereo?

For a bit of variety, what would be a good mic/position and pre to grab a "vibey" acoustic sound? This studio has a Manley pre, Avalon, the protools HD ones, Presonous M80, and the Art Pro channel. Mics are the standard AT 4040s, TLM103, KM184s, MD421s,(No 451s though, which I would love to try on acoustic..), that kind of stuff.

I may not be able to grab the Manley or Avalons though, as they're in different rooms..

Also, this guy aparently has a "springteen" type of voice, so an suggestions on the type of mic and software compressor (They have tons for protools) that would be good for grabbing the "grit" in is voice would be helpful as well.

Sorry for asking for so much in such a short time frame.

Thanks

- kelly

billiamwalker · Post by **billiamwalker** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:35 pm

to get a cool stereo acoustic effect on my last acoustic session was i placed one mic in the middle of the neck point to the twelth fret and then another mic to the middle of the end of the guitar and the hole ( the area of hte body after the bridge) pointed to the hole. i made she both mics were in phase (by switch the polarities and listening for anything) and i panned both hard to seperate speakers. this made it so that it sounded like your in front of the guitar with the neck being more on one said and the strumming on another. the mics were about 2 feet away from the player. just move the mics around for a better sound...but the stereo imaging is cool. (it also keeps us from having to double track to add depth.)

JONMD · Post by **JONMD** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:15 pm

So first off, Do what ever you have to to get ahold of that manley pre. Your gonna need it for the vocal. If you have to use software for comp. on his voice, use a Waves RVox. For your Agts, use a km184 on the neck (anywhere between the 6th and 12th fret, and 6 to 18 inches away). Take the at4040 and do your over-the-shoulder idea. And of course, check your phaseing. -Id record this way for the main agts, then find a really cool single mic position (most likely a roomy sound with the at4040), and double it. This is assuming your tracking vox and agt sep. -Then if your really pro, add reverb. -Jon

KennyLusk · Post by **KennyLusk** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:16 pm

I've always felt my most convincing recordings of acoustic guitar were tracked with a single mic in mono, doubled with a second performance. Straight forward and simple. Then play with a little mult'ing during mixdown to see hear if a few engineering tricks could enhance the magic. But usually the straight forward mono approach has been my favorite approach.

Ryan Silva · Post by **Ryan Silva** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:59 pm

When I was 17 and bought my first condenser mic (c1000s) I was just recording basic acoustic stuff and only had one mic stand and it couldn't get low enough to place close to the soundhole or the neck. My only option was to go high and point it strait down. Years after when I got little more equipment (one more mic and boom stand) I found it very hard too get use to the close micing techniques I had heard about. It just never sounded right to me. It might as well have been an electric guitar, miced like that I thought.

Even today I will always throw up a overhead on acoustic, even if it's just an option track.

It's always amazing to me how the most natrual way to mic somthing may be the most unlikely posistion for a set of ears to be placed.

llamaj · Post by **llamaj** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:42 pm

find the sweet spot for the guitar.
I just used a 421 on acoustic about 9 in from the neck somewhere between where the neck meets the body and the sound hole and played with the bass roll off till it was right. ran it through a NY2a and there was "vibe" if vibe means sort of a vintage acoustic. going into digital I hate crisp clean acoustic tracks. it still had snap and articulation just not bear claw to chalk board
it wasnt AS pretty as a condenser but it WAS what i was going for.
if you must have stereo try one close (like within two inches) down by the tuning pegs pointed towards the nut
on its own it sounds almost like nothing or very thin but when panned with one picking up the sweet spot its perfect. or use your method of up over the guitar and the nut. there are alot of harmonics at the nut and along the neck that make up what you hear with your ears in a room with a guitar.
some acoustics have bigger sweet spots then others. Martins for instance do. I like my gibson J50 but its a bitch to mic.
about the vox ive heard that Springsteen hated comps on his vocal so the engineers would try to sneek it in until he couldnt tell

You may want to make the acoustic sound different for each song so whoever hears it (and maybe you if you mix it) wont get bored.

llamaj · Post by **llamaj** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 8:45 pm

i forgot to mention
i have two 421's. the one i used sounded much better than the other in this instance.

Kelly · Post by **Kelly** » Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:42 am

Thanks guys. I (we) just got back from the session and here's what went down (post is a tad long I know):

We arrived and found out that we got put in the "d" room instead of one of the mains (which was what was planned). The only pres we had were from the control24/protools HD system.

We grabbed the a bunch of mikes (KM184, Geffel M-71, AT4050, NT-2). I would have prefered 2 184s for the stereo and maybe on ldc for the center channel. We ended up with the 184 between the neck and sound hole and stuck the AT4050 on the edge of the soundhole on the base side of the guitar. If it were me, I would have put the 4050 someplace else, but I dont like to rule sessions if I'm working with other assistants or engineers, so I let it slide.

What happened was that the 184 sounded a little bright, with not so much body, while the 4050 sounded dull but woody. I was like "crap" in my head, but once they were blended together, they sounded pretty good. Not "in the room" good, but decent.

The person who was running the session (really, she was just watching and would step in if we needed help) made a suggestion which I'm probably going to be using when I can. The idea was when micing acoustic guitar, in order to detect if your sound is too dull or too bright, listen in the control room and then quickly go to the tracking room and note the difference between what you're hearing. And then adjust the mic for brightness or darkness depending on what you heard. Not a bad idea I think.

The second eye opener was the AT4050. I've always considered the 4040s to be strong mics, which is why I picked it. I've never really heard them being really bad on anything... The 4050 worked well with both the male and female vocals. But it really showed itself when the male vocals were doubled though. Surprising smooth sounding.

We're supposed to finish up the tracking in a couple days. I'm going to suggest doubling the guitar, see how that does. It sounds pretty good right now when the full mix is in, but when the 4050 and 184 are panned out, the difference between the two speakers dont sound entirely natural when the gt is by itself. I think panning out dual mono might sound better.

Sorry for the rant. This session felt good though, so I'm hyped.

Anyway, thanks for the help people.

jspartz · Post by **jspartz** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:20 pm

I love my 4050's. They work great on so many things. I know what you mean by the "dull" comment. One thing you might want to try is using the 4050 up close to the acoustic but have it in omni. It helps give a natural sound without the bass boost. Something to try.

Jason

the brill bedroom · Post by **the brill bedroom** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:22 am

Is there any info anywhere on the net about how they recorded the acoustic guitars on "Wildflowers" by Tom Petty? That' s the benchmark of great modern acoustic rock to my ears.

JWL · Post by **JWL** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:35 am

No doubt, brill. That album sounds fantastic. Yet another winner for Mr Rubin....

Slider · Post by **Slider** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:45 pm

the brill bedroom wrote:Is there any info anywhere on the net about how they recorded the acoustic guitars on "Wildflowers" by Tom Petty? That' s the benchmark of great modern acoustic rock to my ears.

You get a really great acoustic guitar with an awesome player, then put a really expensive mic in front of it and compress it with an 1176.
You're done.

cgarges · Post by **cgarges** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:26 am

Slider wrote:You get a really great acoustic guitar with an awesome player, then put a really expensive mic in front of it and compress it with an 1176.
You're done.

It's funny--I often find that really nice, expensive acoustic guitars sound great with relatively cheap mics, and vice-versa.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

honkyjonk · Post by **honkyjonk** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:10 am

That Tom Petty record is about as Martin-y as anything I can think of, 'cept maybe a few Neil Young records. He was using a Martin right?

Great sound for sure. I wonder about the mics, because like Garges said, I've also often found that with a super aweseome hi-fi guitar, an Sm57 beats out a whole buttload of hi-fi condensors. It's often just too much, especially if the room is live.

the brill bedroom · Post by **the brill bedroom** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:20 pm

I've always had a deep desire for a nice old Gibson acoustic- a Hummingbird or J-200 or somthing- but "Wildflowers" got me all Martin-ed up for sure. I think, from the photos I've seen, those tracks were done with very nice German mics. I personally love the sound of a Beta 57 on acoustic.

Message Board

Recording "real" acoustic guitar

Recording "real" acoustic guitar

Re: Recording "real" acoustic guitar

Who is online