Acoustic guitar sound

I'm trying to get a "great" acoustic sound, which in my ears I'm not quite getting. 
(this is my first actual recording of a acoustic guitar mic'ed up - so please bear over with me...)

https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=54535DFADF5E09B9!2079


(this all started with me trying to find out which mic sounded the best...)

I have done the following:
recording 1: 2 mics - AKG D880 and a Sennheiser(dont remember the model number just now) panned one left and one right
recording 2: Røde NTK

Ideally I wanted to record all 3 at once, but I did not have 3 XLR cables at the moment (I don't know where all those cables disappear...?)

Well, I decided to send all 3 guitars to the same stereo bus - which has compressor, then a BBE sonic and a harmonic maximizer.
So a tad of reverb (a reverb bus)

The tracks are untouched besides that. 


I think it gets a bit "phaser" / 12 string sound, which is not the actual sound I'm after. 
I want more of a fat acoustic sound. 

Anyone have any suggestion? 

And - please notice this is my first acoustic mic'ing. 
I'm used to just tweaking my POD 

The sound hole often produces a boomy sound. I think some processing is quite OK but not stupid things like the BBE and the harmonic maximiser. They won't do anything for your sound other than ruin it.
I would use some EQ perhaps (subtly) and perhaps a compressor to tame levels a little. 

I posted a message in a similar thread in this section.

http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=2812083


There's a chapter in Craig Anderton's Advanced Workshop video that really provides excellent info on this.

lawajava


I posted a message in a similar thread in this section.

http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?m=2812083


There's a chapter in Craig Anderton's Advanced Workshop video that really provides excellent info on this.

Craig offers an Electronic Musicians' perspective on how to electronically manipulate a signal so as to mimic acoustic phenomena.


Unfortunately, advice of this sort is often leveraged and re-presented as a suggestion that recording acoustic instruments AS acoustic instruments is somehow complicated and requires special instruction, tutorials etc.


Those of us who work with acoustic instruments frequently can often get results that satisfy the musicians they are working for by avoiding as many electronic manipulation techniques as possible. 

Once you are accustomed to straight forward acoustic music the electronic techniques leave all sorts of tell tale characteristics. Acoustic music enthusiasts often consider the results of techniques like "virtual mic'ing" to seem cheezy sounding. 

Electronic musician enthusiasts consider the same quirks to seem interesting and inventive. It's a stylistic choice.


Craig is really good at Electronic Music and he presents ideas that appeal to people who enjoy electronic music.

Those of us who work with and for acoustic performers more so than electronic enthusiasts have been offering very practical advice in the the recent threads.


The best advice for recording acoustic guitar is to make sure that the person playing the guitar is competent and confident. The mics give best results when they are hearing something that sounds good.

The better the player... the less work you will do placing the mic.

It's easy and once you get a taste for straight up acoustic guitar you may end up feeling like all the post process manipulation techniques are really only suitable for polishing turds.

The good acoustic stuff just doesn't seem to get better when you "polish" it, so some of us think the very best advice is to encourage people to learn how to hunt for and harvest the good acoustic stuff and leave all the fancy post process techniques to folks who don't have a chance to record good acoustic stuff.




all the best,
mike 




 

I managed to track down the concept that Craig is referring to. It is more about starting with a mono recording, copying it to two further tracks and using the three tracks to create a stereo image. I assume this is the approach here:

http://www.guitarplayer.com/article/stop-stereo-miking-acoustic-guitars/147557

Craig's approach still starts with a decent mono recording so not much has changed from what the OP is still trying to achieve. It is merely processing a single mono recording in three different ways and panning the results accordingly. (Note: Assuming this is the approach that lawajava keeps referring to, Craig does not explain how to get the decent mono recording in the first place, it assumes you have already done that)

However a nice (natural) stereo recording can also sound excellent and does not require the approach that Craig is suggesting either. I don't agree that stereo mics require a lot more work to set up and that there is twice as much pre amp noise. Setting up an extra mic is not much work and any modern clean pre amp is not really going to introduce noticeable amounts of noise. We are dealing with pretty quiet preamps these days. Two channels of low noise pre amps is not a big deal either and their combined noise will also not be audible. 

Phasing can be eliminated by doing either XY coincident micing or an M/S setup as well. Both will yield a very nice sound without phase issues. The further away the two mics are that are being used in any stereo situation the more likely you might be open to phase problems. The two micing approaches I have mentioned put the mic diaphragms in the same spot so phasing should not really be an issue at all. Never has been for me.

But even before getting into stereo micing or applying Craig's approach one must start by learning to make a fine mono recording first. And that can be done by simply following the suggestions I have made in post #2. (and other good posts too) And if you are careful you will end up with a very nice sounding track that will need little or no processing.

Take that further by all means, apply either the method that Craig is suggesting or make an actual stereo recording. Neither of these approaches is better than the other but simply different. There will always be situations where one approach to creating that final stereo image will work better than the other. Craig's approach does work well though if you do have a great mono acoustic guitar recording (already) and you want to give it some stereo spread. It does not have to be or sound electronic in nature. 

Tip: You don't have to copy a mono guitar track to two other tracks. This will take up track real estate and occupy three mixer channels. (you could put them into a folder track) Another approach is to send the single guitar track to three stereo busses and apply the filtering there on the busses. Use the send panning to position them and balance them using the buss return levels. Also make the three guitar busses invisible (as you can in Studio One) so you don't even see them. No wasted real estate anywhere but you have now created the effect. Overall guitar level can still be set back at track level (assuming post fader sends of course)

Thanks Roger for mentioning it. I think it looks like a good approach for sure. I have just been approached by a client who wants me to mix a whole bunch of tracks for her. She has tracked everything which is a good sort of job. No more tracking, just mixing and mastering.

She has tracked everything rather well including the acoustic guitar tracks. There is quite a lot going on in the music but a single main acoustic guitar and vocals are the driving force though. The guitar for example is very well recorded but only in mono though. (I am glad because I much prefer a good mono recording to a bad stereo one)

In this type of situation putting the guitar into stereo is a nice option. It widens it and keeps it away from the vocal track. I will definitely be giving this a shot to see how well it works out. It could mean the difference in terms of not using reverb on the guitar just to get it to sound more stereo. And if the guitar is wide already then very a light tight convolution reverb of a smallish room might just be the ticket to enhance it further.

Will Ackerman and Windham Hill?

I worked with those guys back in the early 1980s. :-)

I miss Michael Hedges. We had some good times.


best regards,
mike

I like to enjoy all the differences in guitars when I am playing them. They are all so different it is remarkable. I just love learning about each one.

When I am recording other folks I have found, time and again, that it's the way the player whacks the strings on their instrument that really makes the sound unique.

Most any guitar will do it if the player is up for it.


I try to use X/Y or M/S because I personally like that clean sound. I use what ever mic I'm in the mood for. I like to use small diaphragms, large diaphragms, ribbons. Sometimes I like omnis. 

On occasions I use a MKH70 shotgun mic if I want some distance but not 2 much room. (it's also a favorite on cello)

I like to get down on my knees and listen for the sweet spot when I'm looking for the place to put the mic array.

I happily ask the performer to move around the room if we need to search out a sweeter spot for the instrument.

I spend most of my time encouraging the musician to play with aplomb as it seems like that is the most influential aspect of producing a good guitar track.



all the best,
mike

Good thread! I also recently started using the M/S technique and like the results. The one thing I would also add is the importance of a decent sounding room. Don't overlook room treatment. It makes a huge difference in the quality of your acoustic sound.

The sound of the room only becomes more involved the further away the mic is away from the guitar. In a room there is a point where the room sound equals the direct sound from the guitar. You are on either side of this. Move the mic further away and the room sound increases, direct sound decreases. Move the mic mush closer and the direct sound increases a lot and the room sound diminishes away very quickly and is not involved with your sound so much at all.

People are scared of close micing and for some reason everyone thinks the only good results happen when you are away from the source. This is true of certain things like classical guitar, banjo and violin perhaps. They don't appreciate you getting to close with the mic.

Acoustic guitar is one of those things that can sound very good when micing up close. 12th fret is a good place to start and 10" away is also a good place to start. You will get a lovely crisp big sound. And it will require even less processing and sit very well in a mix. Try also moving further away but slowly eg 15" then 20" etc..Vocals sound good up close too. 

A single mic in these positions is a good start. Then X/Y co incident pair in the same positions and you will start hearing stereo width. No phase issues while the two diaphragms are close to each other. Then X/Y near co incident pair is another good option. Finally M/S in the same positions also works a treat with added control after the recording event. You can also try moving the whole assembly around toward the sound hole and also around towards the nut. That will give you some more tonal variations. 

I sometimes have also utilised the recording space. I have some baffles with hard surfaces on one side I can move around and form a small room with an odd shape to minimise flutter echos and combined with a tiled floor can produce a nice live room sound. Micing 3 feet or so back is also nice in this situation and stereo micing is a must in this situation too. (M/S is very good in this mode as it gives you lots of control as to how wide this overall recording ends up sounding) Obviously this is good in an overdub situation. You end up with the guitar very much in its own space and it also sits well in a mix because its own room sound puts it up front in a mix and you usually afford the luxury of turning it down in the mix but still hear it clearly.

Perhaps I should have used the word reluctant. It can be as if close micing is no no. But I think that it is equally as valid as more distant micing. Sometimes you do want that guitar to sound just like James Taylor. Anyway that is not a bad thing especially if it is being played as well.

I love the detail in close miced sounds. Proximity effect is easy to control. The signal to noise or signal to room tone ratio is very good too. It is great and you can also get into the concept of using less reverbs and send the closed miced tracks to same reverbs. Distant micing in different locations with all their ambiences may start to get cluttered after a while and things may not gel because there are too many different sounding rooms involved. 

There is a bit of a balance involved. Closed miced things with their own reverbs added plus instruments recorded in room ambiences. 

Just for a couple of counter-suggestions ;)

I haven't much success with M/S on an acoustic guitar. The side is picking up mainly what comes back from the room, and in a room that's treated with absorbers, that's not much.

I like a mic at near head height, over the shoulder on the fretboard side, positioned to catch some of the front of the instrument, that's a different option to try.

Sometimes it works to spread a guitar in stereo as if it were a piano with high notes towards the right and low towards the left, but don't overdo it! Clone the track, High pass one of them and pan right, low pass the other and pan left, and you'll get some spread which (if you're careful) will collapse to mono without some of the odd effects that time-based wideners can introduce.

Ah, perfect guys - now I have a few ideas what to try! :) 

I'll have to use some time this weekend to try the different options then.

Awesome topic!

I'll add:

1) Employ several to many takes

2) Block early reflections with clothing or such

3) Honestly, because acoustic guitar is so forgivable (compared to vocals, drums, and other delicate instruments) ... its difficult to fail, IMHO.

4) Danny Danzi (has accepted many of my 'mediocre' acoustic guitar performances in our collabs ... despite my 'perceived' inferior timbres, inferior skillfulness, etc.  ... like if it fits in the SONG as a whole, use it; performance just isn't so critical to every muse.

5) But the greatest advice I know was to given to me by that elusive guru, YEP: (iirc)  "Hire a seasoned guitarist (i.e., a rock star) to perform your guitar tracks when things get guitar-intensive".  So! 

When guitars get too confusing for my simple mind, I enlist Danny ... and things get fixed fast. :):):)  (I'm sure many here concur with this.)