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)

All - Jeff's comments are well said. And thanks for tracking down a generally available link.

I would just add that Craig's tutorial includes a really inspiring demo on how to EQ the acoustic track and extra copy tracks that really makes the acoustic guitar recording zing.  The before and after is like the difference between a home recording versus something produced by Windham Hill for one of their featured acoustic guitarists - just by taking the existing track and adding some know-how - which he illustrates clearly.

It's one approach and I wanted to let folks know it's a cool one to know about. I've found it really works well.

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.

oh, love it guys. This thread is just getting better and better!

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

We have not mentioned the guitars much up to this point. I have been lucky as I used to have a good friend who lived near me that owned two Martins and they were quite different from each other. Both worth a lot each. One had a bigger overall sound while the other had a more delicate sound.

I have got a nice Washburn, not real expensive but around $1000 or so. It has got a lighter sound too. Craig is right about microphone choice. I use a large format condenser valve mic on the big Martin sound. It comes out fat, deep and crisp. You can move it a little further out and maybe a touch round toward the sound hole end. 

A small diaphragm condenser such as the AKG451 is terrific on the lighter sounding guitars. Crisper, more transient and percussive. Also a little closer and up toward the nut end but only a little. Things sound different there. I am also talking overdubs here not using the two mics at once although you certainly can and with mics that good the results will always be very pleasing. (A plug in with variable phase shifting abilities can sort out two mics a reasonable distance apart.)

On playback I was always hearing a full bottom end, lovely mids and crisp top end with zero processing involved. A really nice place to start.

The playing needs to have timing that is rock solid with the beat and just in perfect time with it. Then it is up to interesting chord rhythms, voicings and tasty lead playing. (Frank Gambale can really PLAY acoustic!!!Tommy Emmanuel is not bad either )

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

I haven't read the posts, so I'm sorry if this is redundant.

You should try to use a M/S recording technique;

You can find many good examples on youtube by searching midside recording guitar.

And then perhaps look at widening the stereo image if it's not the lead instrument.

Also, I "really" like this plug for acoustic guitar?

http://www.pspaudioware.com/plugins/dynamic_processors/psp_vintagewarmer2/

With the clean guitar preset (on the acoustic guitar bus after M-S is sent to it). Get a trial and give it a try. 

And don't forget to put a high pass filter on that acoustic guitar bus...   

you can hear my latest acoustic recording using these techniques here;

https://soundcloud.com/rockinrobby/

at the top "Walking shoes"

An acoustic guitar, a dobro, and a mandolin. It's just me and the wood and steel... 
(and an electric fretless bass) 

I did this in 4 hours last Friday.

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.

Since you are just starting to record acoustics, you should start by simplifying.

Ditch the 3 mic approach and get it sounding good with one mic. Experiment by trying different mic positions so you can begin to understand how it all interacts with the guitar. I generally use a couple main positions depending on the sound I am after - 12 fret is likely the most used, but I sometimes place a mic toward the bridge. By using just one mic you eliminate the phase issues. Once you start getting good results consistently - try introducing a 2nd mic if you want. Others are suggesting MID-SIDE and that's fine - but you need to walk before you run. Just my opinion!

I would use mid-side for a solo acoustic project, but not when the acoustic has to sit in a mix. It's two different approaches to capturing the instrument.

Keep the processing to a minimum for the best "natural" results. For me it's usually a touch of compression, some gentle "cut" eq and reverb to taste - never over doing the reverb.