Choosing a Recording Guitar

[Alexrkstr]

For those of you who have experience recording and have been doing this for a while amateur or professionally...

I was talking a listen to my recordings and I'm not crazy about the way they sound. My question is more related to the material of the guitars and teh body shape (if you have clips that would be great to hear too).

I have two acoustic guitars and this is what I have found:
814ce (RW / Spruce): It sounds too thin and somewhat muddy. Not sure how the pro's do it since there was an issue on Wood&Steel about this one guy doing all his recordings with the 814ce.... ? Anyone here has any clips?
Larrivée LV-03e (Mahogany / Spruce): I like this sound better but it doesn't have the 'oomph' that I am looking for. It does come close clarity wise.

I have seen WALNUT and MAPLE record well.
I do mostly strumming (not fingerpicking or flatpicking)
My style is Rock/Pop/Alternative

Thoughts?

[Bob Womack]

If you are doing mostly strumming and want a guitar with "chirp" to cut through an ensemble, maple/spruce is probably the very best combo. With a good small diaphragm condenser pointed at the joint between neck and body and spaced out 12-16" in a good room, you just about can't miss. A couple of weeks ago I recorded a Takamine maple/spruce for an indie pop combo. I mic'd it with a pair of AKG451Bs set at 90' and pointed as above. I simply rolled off a little bit of the bass. Strumming perfection.

Bob

[Guit Hacker]

While I was typing Bob beat me to it.

It might also help to know if you're recording with a band or solo. The acoustic might take on a different role in the mix.

[Alexrkstr]

While I was typing Bob beat me to it.

It might also help to know if you're recording with a band or solo. The acoustic might take on a different role in the mix.

Yep, my tracks usually consist of the following:
- Drums
- Acoustic Guitar
- Electric riffs or "effected" guitar
- Bass
- Soft-synths

I only have the MXL combo 990/991 though. Do you think that's a problem? I'm not sure if the difference is huge to the next step up mic? In any case, I am always EQ'ing the guitars, doubling tracks, compressing, etc to make them sound fatter.

[Herb Hunter]

Is the opening post a request for how to make satisfying recordings with the guitars at hand or a question about which wood combinations result in a guitar that is easy to record?

If it is the former, it would be helpful to know what specific microphones were used to produce the disappointing recordings and how the mics were positioned relative to the guitar in order to provide suggestions on how to make better recordings.

[rick-slo]

It is mostly how you record (gear, using the gear you have). You can get good recordings with a wide variety of guitars having different price points, body sizes and wood combos. Of course I am not saying the guitar recorded does not make a difference but it sounds like from your post you have some other issues to deal with that make or break recording sound.

[Alexrkstr]

Is the opening post a request for how to make satisfying recordings with the guitars at hand or a question about which wood combinations result in a guitar that is easy to record?

If it is the former, it would be helpful to know what specific microphones were used to produce the disappointing recordings and how the mics were positioned relative to the guitar in order to provide suggestions on how to make better recordings.

Hi HH, the post is about the wood combination that is easiest to record for clear/fat defines strums.

It is mostly how you record (gear, using the gear you have). You can get good recordings with a wide variety of guitars having different price points, body sizes and wood combos. Of course I am not saying the guitar recorded does not make a difference but it sounds like from your post you have some other issues to deal with that make or break recording sound.

Perhaps. For the recordings that I don't like I am using a pencil condenser at the 12th fret about 4-6 inches away....

[Doug Young]

Perhaps. For the recordings that I don't like I am using a pencil condenser at the 12th fret about 4-6 inches away....


There's a bit more to it than that :-) How are your room acoustics, for example? What is this "pencil condenser"? And that is far from the only placement that can work. You have to experiment. A fraction of an inch can change the sound. What's the rest of your recording chain? Strings can change the sound, your pick can dramatically change the sound. how you play can affect your sound. Your guitar can affect the sound, but for pop rhythm guitar, an 814 should be pretty darn near perfect.

[Alexrkstr]

There's a bit more to it than that :-) How are your room acoustics, for example? What is this "pencil condenser"? And that is far from the only placement that can work. You have to experiment. A fraction of an inch can change the sound. What's the rest of your recording chain? Strings can change the sound, your pick can dramatically change the sound. how you play can affect your sound. Your guitar can affect the sound, but for pop rhythm guitar, an 814 should be pretty darn near perfect.

Glad you bring that up... I guess where I am going with this thread is - Is it worth it to get a 614ce to record or can I achieve the same results with my 814 and LV03?

Investigating a little more I found this video which is pretty helpful...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2yEhHc-LeI

BUt I still don't know if I should pull the trigger on a 614ce. It seems that I should go with a cheaper option of improving my setup.... ?

[Doug Young]

BUt I still don't know if I should pull the trigger on a 614ce. It seems that I should go with a cheaper option of improving my setup.... ?


You're unlikely to get radically different results just by changing Taylors, maple or not. I think you should tell us more about your recording setup for starters, and especially try lots of different mic placements. One guess about your "muddy but thin" problem is that you say you're micing at the 12th fret, that would account for some thinness, mostly string sound there. And 4 inches away, your going to get proximity effect (bass buildup from the mic being too close), depending on the mic. Try moving it further out. Try 8 inches, 10 inches, 12 inches, etc, and also try bring it in more toward the body, 14th or 15th fret. If it's a directional mic, try tilting it toward the soundhole if it's too thin, away from the soundhole if it gets too boomy. There are dozens of other spots, you could spend weeks carefully experimenting with mic location to dial in the sound you want.

[Alexrkstr]

You're unlikely to get radically different results just by changing Taylors, maple or not. I think you should tell us more about your recording setup for starters, and especially try lots of different mic placements. One guess about your "muddy but thin" problem is that you say you're micing at the 12th fret, that would account for some thinness, mostly string sound there. And 4 inches away, your going to get proximity effect (bass buildup from the mic being too close), depending on the mic. Try moving it further out. Try 8 inches, 10 inches, 12 inches, etc, and also try bring it in more toward the body, 14th or 15th fret. If it's a directional mic, try tilting it toward the soundhole if it's too thin, away from the soundhole if it gets too boomy. There are dozens of other spots, you could spend weeks carefully experimenting with mic location to dial in the sound you want.

Doug, you have to be one of the most succinct guys in the forum. I understand exactly what you are saying and it makes complete sense... I did check some of my old recordings with my Larrivée and they sound really nice. I think it does have to do with the mic placement more than with the guitar or the microphone themselves.

My set up consists of either the Larrivée or the Taylor mic'd up with the MXL 990/991 combo or alone. I prefer to use the pencil condenser because it is easier to manipulate than the large diaphragm 990... I am in a 12 x 10 room with my bed behind me and a wall in front of me, not too many ricky corners in my room and I don't think that would impact much at where I am right now.

[Doug Young]

The MXL should be fine. You'd be amazed at how much difference a little bit of room treatment could make, or even moving to different spots in the room. A 10x12 room is exactly what most home recordists have to work with, and it has a lot to do with why the results usually sound like a home recording. Fortunately, with fairly close micing and a bit of attention to the acoustics of the room, you can get away with it for acoustic guitar. But the muddy and indistinct issue is another typical result of a non-treated room. Some online searches on room acoustics should give you lots of info. Just don't get sucked into buying lots of stuff. Experiment with what you have. Pillows, blankets, curtains, carpet. Its not ideal, but it can all make a difference if you mess with it enough. You can also try different rooms. A furnished living room is often not a terrible starting point.

Room acoustics and mic placement is 99% of the home recording puzzle. Once you get a good sound with some guitar, any guitar, you can get into whether you're looking for the subtle differences in how various tonewoods record.

[Alexrkstr]

And that just summarizes it so I go do homework :) thanks Doug!

[Doug Young]

Don't let me talk you out of a new guitar if you just want a new guitar, of course :-)

[rumi11]

You're unlikely to get radically different results just by changing Taylors, maple or not. I think you should tell us more about your recording setup for starters, and especially try lots of different mic placements. One guess about your "muddy but thin" problem is that you say you're micing at the 12th fret, that would account for some thinness, mostly string sound there. And 4 inches away, your going to get proximity effect (bass buildup from the mic being too close), depending on the mic. Try moving it further out. Try 8 inches, 10 inches, 12 inches, etc, and also try bring it in more toward the body, 14th or 15th fret. If it's a directional mic, try tilting it toward the soundhole if it's too thin, away from the soundhole if it gets too boomy. There are dozens of other spots, you could spend weeks carefully experimenting with mic location to dial in the sound you want.

That's a good comment. I usually point the mic (a directional mic, like cardioid or figure-of-8) to the soundhole (but not directly in front of it). Moving it away allows for a more even sound, there are less problems with finding the sweet spot. Although the room acoustics get more important then, it can sound much better and more natural if the mic is further away. Don't get fooled by the "thinner" sound you get from moving the mic further away. If you have the same audio levels you will often find that it sounds more natural and relaxed than close miking. Apply some EQ if it's really too thin.

Proximity effect might make your recordings sound dull. Move further away and you get less of it. You don't want those bass frequencies from the acoustic guitar in a crowded pop song anyway.

I often start with the spot around the 14th fret, pointing towards the sound hole, 1 to 2 feet away. I often move the mic higher, and sometimes also closer to the sound hole, always pointing to the sound hole.
So the best spots in my experience are between 14th fret straight and above the sound hole, always pointing to the sound hole.

If the acoustic guitar plays a dominant role, try multiple miking, like spaced omni, or a second mic above the right shoulder of the player, pointing down... The variations are endless. Be aware of phase problems, though. Apply the 3-to-1 rule: The mics should be 3 times further apart from each other than from the source. And most of all, use your ears! Flip the phase on one channel and see what you get. If the sound is really thin, you're fine, if there are lower frequencies, it might be problematic. A little bit of phase is unavoidable, and if you pan the mics in the stereofield this is not an issue.

Take your time and experiment! That's the best advise.

You can totally destroy the sound of a guitar by wrong mic placement, and alter it beyond recognition.

Changing the guitar probably won't be the solution for your problem. Changing the mics or the mic preamps might be. But the starting point is the mic placement.


FYI, I have been recording acoustic guitars for 25 years, and am a professional guitarist as well as a professional audiophile mastering and recording engineer. If you have any further concrete questions feel free to PM me.

[rumi11]

I just read all the way through the thread... What Doug writes is good. Also, try changing the position where the player is, where the mics stand, etc. There are better and worse spots in a room, both for the player as well as for the mics.

I've heard quite good recordings of acoustic guitars made with MXL pencils. I would use the pencil on the 14th fret, and the LD from above the soundhole.

If you want to treat the room, I would recommend fiberglass. Put it completely in packing paper, build a wooden frame around the packed fiberglass, and cover it with some nice fabric on the front.

Be highly aware that you don't touch the fiberglass, wear gloves and a mask! It's ugly, for the skin as well as for the lungs.

If you go to my website you will find some pics of such absorbers. They are better than any foam.

You might also use a thin board with holes in it in front of the fiberglass, or stripes of wood, because the sound of the room will get duller and muddier with more acoustic absorbtion (the high frequencies are absorbed first, but they are most often not the problem). Having reflective material in front of a part of the absorber lightens the sound up, while still absorbing the mid and lower frequencies. Avoid treating all the walls with foam or fiberglass.

You can start experimenting with matresses (quite effective!), carpets, curtains. Be aware that thin absorbing material only takes away the high frequencies (which is not what you want), and the further away the absorber is from the wall, the deeper the frequencies are that are absorbed.

There is a bass increase in corners, so putting absorbers into corners takes away more bass than the equal amount of absorbers mounted on walls. Again, the further away from the corner, the deeper the absorbed frequencies.

Egg carton is completely useless.

While the floor is no problem, the ceiling gives the listener a lot of information about the room size. If it's less than 3 meters (9 feet), cover it with absorbers (foam). In natural environments we always have a floor below, so we are used to that sound. But our hearing is quite sensible to the sound of reflections coming from a ceiling; we use that to determine the size (height) of the room. In a recording a high ceiling (or a ceiling made "invisible" through absorbers) gives more "air", literally. So, while a wooden floor could sometimes be preferable (although probably not for acoustic guitars), a ceiling is to be acoustically eliminated as well as possible, by either having it be more than 3 meters high, or treating it with absorbers.

Another approach to get rid of room information is diffusion: A bookcase can have a good effect, or a wooden board that is bent and hung on a wall. The longer it takes for the early reflections to come to the mics the bigger the room sounds. If they bounce around your room for a while before they finally get to the mic this will lower the "small room" impression. The worst is parallel walls and direct reflection. So avoid to place the player and the mics parallel to near walls. Apply Billard rules here.

Nathan Eldred has some good tips on his website. I forgot the name of the site, but you should find it.

You can also use stands with absorbing material, and put them behind the mics and behind the player. I use some modular stands that I can velcro foam absorbers on that I built myself. Works very well, and I can move it around, and put it away afterwards.

Have fun experimenting!

Rumi

[rumi11]

One last thing: In pop songs acoustic guitars are often EQ'ed very heavily. Solo'ed they often sound more like shakers, but in the mix it sounds great. So your initial recording doesn't have to sound absolutely gorgeous on its own. Solo acoustic guitar or sparse acoustic music is a completely different task.

[Alexrkstr]

Changing the guitar probably won't be the solution for your problem. Changing the mics or the mic preamps might be. But the starting point is the mic placement.


Thanks so much rumi, I think your comment reasserts that most of the quality of the recording will be from the microphone placement rather than the guitar.

I will keep experimenting with mic placement with my XML 990/991 mics. Do you think these are decent enough mics to get a semi-pro recording?

http://clubplur.com/Mics-MXL-990-991.jpg

[Doug Young]

Do you think these are decent enough mics to get a semi-pro recording?


Of course, tho with a focus on the "semi" :-) These are meant for budget home recording. You probably won't see them in a real pro studio, but they're plenty good enough for home recording. The difference a mic makes is subtle. Check out Fran Guidry's web site and home recording blog for a bunch of comparisons and to see how small the difference is between even big price ranges. I think there have been plenty of really good sounding recordings posted here, recorded with the MXLs.

rumi had good advice on the fiberglass, I was trying to not to go there, to avoid going down a big studio construction project rathole. I have tons of fiberglass, Owens Corning 703, very dense stuff, in my recording space. My web site has a bunch of details about how I built my space. Fran has a bunch of stuff on his blog about what he's done as well. But I'd start simple before you spend all your time building a studio instead of playing. There are places you can buy soundpanels that look nice and are relatively cheap - a lot less money than a new guitar :-) if you do want to go that route. But I'd try different spots in the room, different mic placements, etc,first. You'll probably get what you want or close without a lot of work.

[Alexrkstr]

Rumi, Doug - you guys are extremely helpful. I'll keep experimenting and let you know how it goes. Thanks guys!

[rick-slo]

Or use mineral wool instead of fiberglass.
http://www.atsacoustics.com/panels
I ran an air purifier for a few days after putting up the panels and it has been fine.

[Doug Young]

Or use mineral wool instead of fiberglass.


yeah, that's nicer stuff. And of course ATS will sell you finished panels so you don't have to deal with it at all. The last pieces I added to my studio, I used "acoustic cotton", basically recycled blue jeans or something, I think. Really wonderful to work with after fighting with fiberglass. No breathing issues at all, and it has better specs than fiberglass. More expensive, tho.

[wcap]

Wow, a very timely and useful thread for me. I've been experimenting with recording, with mixed results. My classical guitar records quite well, but my Martin 000-15 has been seeming overly bright and a little thin and too percussive, and I had been wondering whether it was basically just not the best guitar for recording my sorts of music. I need to try out some of the ideas presented in this thread to alter the sound I'm getting (among other things, I think I've had the mic too close, and too far from the soundhole) - I suspect that this will allow me to get better recordings of this lovely-sounding guitar.

So, why are small condensor mics (rather than large condensor mics) generally recommended for acoustic guitar recording?

I've been using a Rode NT1-A (large condensor) but they had a deal going for a second mic for $1, so an M3 (small condensor) mic is on the way. It will be interesting to see how the results differ.


I also need to work on room acoustics, though I've also been thinking of maybe trying to do a little recording in an empty church or in the big auditorium in the music building at a local college (I definitely have the go ahead for the latter, but it is SO MUCH more cumbersome and time consuming to do this than to go down into the basement in the evening).



By the way, Doug.....

I've recently discovered your stuff on YouTube, and on your web site. I LOVE your arrangements. Simply lovely. Very melodic, yet with lots of interesting things going on - I'm feeling humbled by how much simpler my arrangements tend to be (actually, I think they might not be that much simpler but just different - anything new and novel always initially seems better than what one comes up with one's self I guess). I recently learned your Shenandoa arrangement, and just started Bring a Torch. This has been so much fun!

(sorry for sidetracking this thread)

[Bob Womack]

So, why are small condensor mics (rather than large condensor mics) generally recommended for acoustic guitar recording?A couple of reasons:

1. Large diaphragm condensers have greater low-end sensitivity and can be harder for a new recordist to get a handle on. They also transduce more LF environmental noise for the same reason.
2. Small diaphragm condensers tend to have a more sparkly high-end. Of course, if you are trying to tame a bright guitar, a large diaphragm condenser could help.

Bob

[Herb Hunter]

...So, why are small condensor mics (rather than large condensor mics) generally recommended for acoustic guitar recording? ...

Typically, small condenser mics tend to have a smoother, more accurate frequency response as well as better off-axis response and their placement isn't as critcal. A small diaphragm microphone is less sensitive to slight changes in angle or placement as compared to large diaphragm mics.

[wcap]

Thanks for the mic info. The Rode NT1-A came with a little pamphlet with a few suggestions for mic placement. For acoustic guitar it said that a lot of folks like to have a small condensor mic up close (near the 12th fret) and a large condensor mic farther away to capture other aspects of the sound. Then the two signals are mixed to get the desired result.

This now makes sense in light of the explanations of small and large condensor mics above.

It sounds like when my $1 M3 small condensor mic (special promotional deal with the purchase of the NT1-A) arrives it might become more of a workhorse for acoustic guitar recording than the NT1-A that I actually chose and bought!

Thanks.

[Doug Young]

Well, that's one approach, mostly if you want a mono sound, with a bit of room ambience. That assumes that the room sound the further away mic picks up is good. Hard to know till you try. Also, this gives you mono (probably won't sound good with two mics in stereo at different distances from the guitar), which is fine for mixing with other tracks, if the guitar is just one of many instruments, or isn't the main instrument. If you want a bigger sound, and one more suitable for solo use, or where the guitar is the featured instrument, try both mics at about the same distance from the guitar. Small diaphragm where the neck meets the body and the large down around the bridge is one common setup for stereo.

In the end, there are no rules, you have nearly an infinite number of locations for mics in a 3-D space around your guitar. You just try as many places as you can until you get something you like. It really helps to have a reference, some recording of guitar that you like, and then try to find a mic position that sounds like that. If it doesn't, try to figure out why, and move things around. it's a game of "getting warmer", "nope,colde', 'ok, warmer now', until you get in the ballpark you want

[wcap]

......If you want a bigger sound, and one more suitable for solo use, or where the guitar is the featured instrument, try both mics at about the same distance from the guitar. Small diaphragm where the neck meets the body and the large down around the bridge is one common setup for stereo.......

I'm assuming that for a stereo sound you would then pan one track a little bit to the left, and the other a bit to the right?

Before recently rediscovering the Acoustic Guitar Forum, I hung out sometimes at the Telecaster forum (TDPRI.com) - still do sometimes too. There are a lot of very nice helpful people over there, though most of them play different kinds of music and guitars than me. There is a recording subforum that I especially like. When I asked over there how to get a stereo sound when recording a solo guitar one of the suggestions was to duplicate a track, shift it a few milliseconds, and pan left and right. This works, sort of, but I find the purity and lovely tone of the guitar sound is degraded. An honest to goodness stereo recording the way you have described seems much more desirable.

Now I just have to wait for my second mic to arrive!

Thanks for the tips.

[Bob Womack]

Typically you want to create a stereo image by using some sort of array ot two microphones. There all sorts of arrays: Coincident - the heads of the two mics overlap. You probably want a matched pair of mics or two of the same model. A typical array is the X-Y 90' pair.
Near Coincident - the heads may be spaced a bit but the distance and anglel are calculated to give a nice sound and a decend mono compatibility. This option often yields a wider soundstage than the coincident pair but you want to find an array, such as the ORTF system (110' and 7" apart), that will yield predictible results. You probably want a matched pair of mics or two of the same model.

http://www.in2guitar.com/images/mictechniques.gif


Spaced Pair - The mics may be set up as a cohesive spaced array or placed for two different sounds and then panned as desired.

I've listed them from the most mono-compatible to the least mono compatible. Why do you need mono compatibility in this high-tech world? Well, for instance, YouTube LoDef is mono. If your two channels of stereo don't combine well to mono, you often get mush. This is especially true of the business of making two tracks and slipping one out of phase with the other.

Bob

[rick-slo]

For solo guitar recording I have given up on worrying about mono compatibility. If someone wants to listen in mono then they get what they deserve. :D There is a depth and fullness of sound you can get from spaced pairs you just can't get in coincident recording, at least in my recording space anyway.