Not happy with microphone capture

[Scott Whigham]

Sounds really nice, Rick. I like the reverb in the front - nice and airy. Which reverb did you use? Is that the IR1 maybe? It's a nice one.

It's interesting that you added the time shift. I had done a mix of it as well and I didn't think to do that - it sounded solid and I never even looked at the wave form. I went back and did a quick look + mix/listen with adding that to mine. The more I looked at the wave forms, the more confused I became actually! At the beginning of the track, clearly the mics are a few ms apart in one direction, but later on (even just 6 seconds in), they seem to "catch up" to one another. Even later on, they flip-flop! I'm guessing that's just natural movement. My ear doesn't really pick it up, I guess, until it's a fairly big movement (10-15ms? I don't know exactly). .

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

It surprises me no one has mentioned this?!??

Yeah, I heard the same. Even without compression, the raw file still has a weirdness in that regard. Probably just something easy to figure out.

[rick-slo]

Scott, the delay I used was 0.5 milliseconds. That is more than I usually have used on other recordings. I look at a correlation meter for starters but ultimately go by ear (all before adding reverb naturally). The reverb I used here is a Lexicon Native Reverb chamber.

[Scott Whigham]

Cool - thanks. I've never used a "correlation meter" - love to learn about new gadgets! I'll have to go tinker with one now, of course

And you can hear 0.5ms worth of time shift? I'm floored. I feel inadequate now!

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Scott Whigham

And you can hear 0.5ms worth of time shift? I'm floored. I feel inadequate now!

With headphones yes. Whether it matters much with floor speakers is questionable.

[Doug Young]

Hey Ian, nice job there! I don't think your track sounds bad at all, it's quite good, and the playing's fantastic. I think it's fine as-is, but if you're trying to take it to the next level, it might benefit from "opening up" a bit, so I'd try spaced pairs. It sounds a little narrower than it could be, and getting a more spacious sound without being buried in reverb would really highlight your playing. I messed with it just a bit, and widening the sound with a very tiny delay, as Rick did, really makes a big difference, but I think it'd be better if you did that naturally. But honestly, I'd be more than happy with that track without changing a thing. The playing carries it, no matter what you do with the recording!

[DarkestDreaming]

Originally Posted by Scott Whigham

When I place my mics by headphone, I just listen for the best sound. I'm not worried about how it translates to the monitors; I simply want to see where it sounds the best. I find it impossible to hear "natural sounding" with headphones anyway - the "real world" just isn't binary like headphones are so the forced separation really messes with my head (particularly in a spaced pair setup if the mics are close to the guitar). Everyone here is going to do this differently though - there's no right or wrong, I think.

Yea thats my approach as well... i still can't help but feeling its mostly guesswork, and that the headphone monitoring isnt really doing all that much for me

Originally Posted by Cocobolo Kid

Ian,

I don't have a problem with the sound of your YouTube video.

However, if you're trying to get a better sound, I did notice one thing in the video. It appears that are playing the treble strings with your right hand close to the bridge. This may be just the camera angle, but this might be another thing you can adjust or be aware of during the recording process.

I'm sure you know that the sound changes quite a bit depending on how you position your right hand on the strings relative to the sound hole and the bridge.

Great song you chose, by the way.

John

thank you, John. My right hand hovers somewhere at the edge of the soundhole. Indeed it tends to sound throaty and less bassy.. i think its a knockback to the time i was playing some bass

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Ok, I took your spaced cardiod clip from above and

1. balanced the R and L channel volume
2. added a small bit of delay to one channel to
put R and L a little more in phase
3. added a couple of decibels with moderate Q
centered at 78 hz
4. added a reverb for the first time through, and
a drier reverb on the repeat (just so you could
compare the two).

http://dcoombsguitar.com/Guitar%20Mu...dCardioids.wav

It sounds fine to me.

Rick, i thought xy miking eliminated the phase implications of the recording? Also I barely moved my position in the record.. i wasn't aware that there might be a phase issue.. how and why does that happen?

EDIT: Sorry I just reread and noticed that you mentioned the SPACED CARDIOIDS clip.. Will listen to it when im home. Thanks for taking the time to do this. Much appreciated

Also I'm downloading your mix right now. Im currently outside on laptop speakers but i look forward to hearing it when I'm back home, which should be in a couple of hours

[DarkestDreaming]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

Ian...killer playing and killer recording.

I dunno what you're heading for but this recording is as soulful and impact-full as those you hold up as examples of "better". I do hear an uncomfortable "crunch" when you hit harder and I'd guess that's some kind of compression/compressor. It surprises me no one has mentioned this?!??

That last 4% or 5% in a recording chain is a difficult one and it comes only with time and patience and adjustments that are exceedingly small. It seems to me you're a long way down the road.

Stay the course and continue to make small adjustments man....it sounds wonderful.

Hey Joseph, is it present in the raw track as well? If it is in the youtube version, its because i put in a light compression (at least what i thought wasn't audible) to accomodate the huge dynamic range in the song and to bring the quieter parts up to a decent level. Its still pretty soft to me now... Scott says he notices it in the raw file as well, which was recorded 6db or so below threshold.. Any of you hear that as well?

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Hey Ian, nice job there! I don't think your track sounds bad at all, it's quite good, and the playing's fantastic. I think it's fine as-is, but if you're trying to take it to the next level, it might benefit from "opening up" a bit, so I'd try spaced pairs. It sounds a little narrower than it could be, and getting a more spacious sound without being buried in reverb would really highlight your playing. I messed with it just a bit, and widening the sound with a very tiny delay, as Rick did, really makes a big difference, but I think it'd be better if you did that naturally. But honestly, I'd be more than happy with that track without changing a thing. The playing carries it, no matter what you do with the recording!

Doug, I uploaded a copy of the tune played in the same room at a spaced pair setting. I think its the 1st post on page 2 of this thread.. Can you please have a listen and see how it compares to the initial xy version?


Also, i guess the main question for me is:
How do i take things to the next level, then? It matters to me that i get the absolute best sound i can with the gear thats available to me... is it mostly just post-production from this point? Because I still kind of think that the raw capture can be improved on. I might not have noticed if it were not for the AB-ing... again im sorry if it sounds pretty vague., but to me somethings quite off with the recording. Almost like the source is a cheap guitar, which isnt the case

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by DarkestDreaming

same room at a spaced pair setting. I think its the 1st post on page 2 of this thread.. Can you please have a listen and see how it compares to the initial xy version?

I'll check it out.

Also, i guess the main question for me is:
How do i take things to the next level, then? It matters to me that i get the absolute best sound i can with the gear thats available to me... is it mostly just post-production from this point? Because I still kind of think that the raw capture can be improved on. I might not have noticed if it were not for the AB-ing... again im sorry if it sounds pretty vague., but to me somethings quite off with the recording. Almost like the source is a cheap guitar, which isnt the case

I'd say it's mostly in post at this point, your recording's fine. You can almost always do better with the initial recording, but at some point you just have to say you got a good take, well recorded and move on. You can drive yourself nuts A/Bing, in the end, no one but a few of us recording nut cases will be comparing your recording to anyone else's, they'll just listen to the music! Your sound has come so far from when you first started working on recording!

[DarkestDreaming]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I'd say it's mostly in post at this point, your recording's fine. You can almost always do better with the initial recording, but at some point you just have to say you got a good take, well recorded and move on. You can drive yourself nuts A/Bing, in the end, no one but a few of us recording nut cases will be comparing your recording to anyone else's, they'll just listen to the music! Your sound has come so far from when you first started working on recording!

Thanks, Doug. A lot of the improvement came as a result of feedback and knowledge selflessly shared by you and the other members of this forum.

I think the reason that i'm bordering on obsessive on this is that i plan to record an album of my own material with my home setup. I fully acknowledge that i won't be fighting on the same plane as a proper studio recording, with a better room, gear, mic selection etc. but i'm dead set on doing this. Which is why I need my setup to be the absolute best that it can be.

[Doug Young]

I think the spaced pairs sounds better, but it's a matter of taste. I just tend to like the more spacious sound. Rick and Scott did nice mixes, I don't have much to add, but here's a quick crack at the spaced pairs. Just added a little low end to warm it up a bit, a touch of compression, and some reverb.

Spaced Pairs mix

[DarkestDreaming]

Doug, Rick and Scott:

I took the time to listen to your mixes of the clip.. thank you for taking the time to do this. They definitely sound better than the initial capture.

I certainly can see why there is a consensus that spaced cardioid seems to be preferred.. It does indeed sound wider.. i think i for the most part gravitated towards the xy because to me it sounded more 'focused', probably because of the louder center image.

In mixing the track, you guys also boosted some of the lows, right? Is this a common approach in post? I've been trying to wring out a stronger and more solid lows at the recording stage, but have not been succesful so far. the proximity effect on the rode and guitar seem to be very stubborn.. if its far, there is neglible amount of boost, but at some point there seems to be too much bass, seemingly no in-between that works.

Changing where the mics point to the guitar as well has not really helped (I have pretty much stuck a mic at any given point on the guitar). What do you guys think of the lows on the captured track? The guitar in itself isn't very bassy acoustically, so it may not have been a capture issue.

[Scott Whigham]

Really nice sounding, Doug. Is that the Bricasti? It would be interesting to compare the dry versions of the mixes.

Is it common to {add low end | tame harshness | cut where there is a body resonance | clear up some mud | add sheen}? Sure, if the track needs it. Both of your tracks needed boosting in the low end. Is that from mic placement? Maybe. Or it could be just the response of those mics. Either way, the mixes clearly show that this is not something worth worrying about - this is a true situation when "We'll fix it in the mix" actually holds true. It took me less than 10 seconds to dial in what I thought was the right amount of bass and I'm sure Doug/Rick took the same amount of time. NBD.

I think these mixes show that mic placement and gear are not problems for you. However, what this also shows to me is that other people who have a better monitoring setup are able to identify "things" that you seem to have been unable to hear. So I would say "Congratulations!" on clearing the first hurdle (getting a good recorded sound) and that it's time to focus on the next aspect: getting your room in order so that you can more accurately hear what you've recorded. I'm sure that Rick and Doug would agree with me when I say, "If you could hear how great this sounds on really nice monitors, your jaw would drop." So for you to have started out saying you weren't happy with your mic capture *and* to have to picked the wrong clip to share (IMO) shows that you would benefit greatly from improving your monitoring setup.

That being said, I would not wait to start working on your album until your room/monitors/etc are in place. It would be a mistake, IMO, to say, "I'll start recording once I have x in place." You are able to track a really nice sounding track and you are an excellent player. That's all you need to start.

[Howard Emerson]

Originally Posted by DarkestDreaming

Doug, Rick and Scott:

I took the time to listen to your mixes of the clip.. thank you for taking the time to do this. They definitely sound better than the initial capture.

I certainly can see why there is a consensus that spaced cardioid seems to be preferred.. It does indeed sound wider.. i think i for the most part gravitated towards the xy because to me it sounded more 'focused', probably because of the louder center image.

In mixing the track, you guys also boosted some of the lows, right? Is this a common approach in post? I've been trying to wring out a stronger and more solid lows at the recording stage, but have not been succesful so far. the proximity effect on the rode and guitar seem to be very stubborn.. if its far, there is neglible amount of boost, but at some point there seems to be too much bass, seemingly no in-between that works.

Changing where the mics point to the guitar as well has not really helped (I have pretty much stuck a mic at any given point on the guitar). What do you guys think of the lows on the captured track? The guitar in itself isn't very bassy acoustically, so it may not have been a capture issue.

Ian,
I don't think they boosted the bass at all, and in fact I believe they actually limited it a bit to get rid of possible extraneous rumble. Doug mentioned his refrigerator, specifically.

I watched your video, Ian, and your playing and sound lack nothing. The only thing I'm getting from this thread is your sense that the grass is always greener on the other side.

It isn't.

The final piece of the puzzle is you. It's not your guitar or your recording.

Regards,
Howard
It Ain't Necessarily So: http://howardemerson.com/music2.html

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by DarkestDreaming

Doug, Rick and Scott:





In mixing the track, you guys also boosted some of the lows, right? Is this a common approach in post? I've been trying to wring out a stronger and more solid lows at the recording stage, but have not been succesful so far. the proximity effect on the rode and guitar seem to be very stubborn.. if its far, there is neglible amount of boost, but at some point there seems to be too much bass, seemingly no in-between that works.

You initial clip had enough bass, and it was a natural sound for a guitar. I added only a small boost in bass in the about 65 to 110 hz region and cut the bass below that region. It really did not change the sound very much though. However with reverb added (depending on which reverb and on the raw recording) cutting the lows can clean the reverb sound up.

Proximity effect for me, with the mikes I have used, has been tricky and I tend to not mike super close (under 12"). If you move in close the bass boost you get tends to muddy up the recording so you probably need to apply a high pass filter starting from around the lowest note played on the guitar - but it does not perfectly solve the problem.
Sometimes proximity effect can be heard on the higher frequency notes and it gives added body to them. That I like.

Almost all recordings you compare your raw recordings to have been processed in one way or another.

Hardly anyone is totally satisfied with the sound they get, even people getting great sounds. For example here is an email I got from Pete Huttlinger:

"Rick;


Glad you like my tone. It is something that I am always working on and trying to improve
both in the gear that I use and my room that I record in.


I did use KM-84's on Santa Rita. I was using a UA 2-610 mic pre. It was mostly my OM1-A but
sometimes my OM1. I record a fairly hot signal. I don't do any converting on my end. As far as
post recording just reverb and some really light compression which is mainly used for anything that
jumps out of the mix too much. My attitude towards compression is that if I can hear it, it is too much.


These days my sound has improved greatly. I'm using mainly a pair of Neumann KM-254's from the
1960's. The pre amp I like now is made by Vintech Audio. I'm using two X81's but the X73's are every bit
as good. I think my mic and pre-amp choices make the biggest difference in the sound and I don't mind spending extra for really great gear.


I'm learning that not everything has to be miked really close. A lot of that had to do with the
room I last recorded in --- it was small and didn't sound very good acoustically. I've since moved and treated the new room with bass traps in the corners and insulation on the walls. Not all the walls, just two of them. I've got hardwood flooring so that helps to have a reflective surface and the insulation helps to keep sounds from bouncing all over the room and the mics. I'm also able to use a wider spread of the mics and capture more of the guitar in a stereo field because of the better room. I've got a new CD coming out in a little over a month and I have to say that I am really happy with the sounds. I think it's getting a little better each time."

[Doug Young]

I don't usually boost bass, but on your track, I thought a bit more warmth would be nice. These little tweaks are no big deal, it's just the kind of stuff a mastering engineer would do to any track. Your recording's good to go, from my perspective, any of the mic set-ups would do. Howard's right about the grass always being greener, both with other's recordings, and the choice of mic setup. The focus of xy, or the spaciousness of spaced pairs? I could go back and forth...