Inline recording demos
 

Here's sound clips of my Gibson plugged in direct without and with "EQ"

No EQ:



Eq:


Hmmm. Kinda early to make a decision, but I like mics better. However, recording inline does force me to think about playing cleaner. :hmm:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I'm sure you would have close to 100% agreement.

However, setting up mikes and levels - unless they are ready to go at all times - is time-consuming.

Anything involving sudden inspiration can require capturing just as suddenly. Seconds and minutes can count; too many of them and it is gone.

You can always re-record an idea with a mediocre tone. It's often impossible to retrieve an idea when you've spent 15 minutes getting set up.

Both approaches are good for different things.

I wouldn't want to listen to that tone for long, but it is definitely good enough to get a point across quickly.

For capturing something quick, like an idea or a rehearsal, I just use my phone.

I made the mistake of listening with my windows open. When I looked up, all these guys had suddenly appeared.

https://www.organicauthority.com/.im...NTY2/ducks.jpg

:D :D

I have a M1 active packed away somewhere. I wonder if it would sound just as bad in my Avalon. :)

There’s nothing unpleasant there at all for those listeners who are not players or perhaps players that don’t record at all or infrequently. It’s like tasting wine where many of us are quite happy with cheaper wines while a more refined consumer would be more critical.

For quick recordings, straight to your H5 seems like the best solution if you appreciate those differences.

I've used an M1A with a Taylor. It didn't sound bad, but it seemed to be intermediate between acoustic and electric. I probably wouldn't use it for a solo acoustic, but for a backing part it was fine.

D.H.

Sorry but preferring "mic'ed sound" over "direct in" is totally subjective taste, period...... And totally subjective taste is the actual and only influence of preference when listening to, or playing, or recording, related to the difference between direct in and mic'ed acoustic sound.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with amount of experience of being a "player" or a recordist. No more so then preferring chocolate over vanilla, is due to experience in eating or being a candy maker.


I totally get it---- the majority here are after that "in the room totally acoustic sound" which is great (heck I prefer that sound most of time ) But,,,,, I understand it is preference not experience,,,, jusss sayin'

I think if we dig deep, we are on the same page there Kev :up:

Most likely :guitar:

I think it's more akin to preferring chocolate over rum raisin. I think there is an actual listener preference outside of our world for mic-ed guitars on recordings. If it didn't matter, the amount of recordings with mics vs pickups would be split more evenly. That recordings lean so heavily to mic-ed guitars when it's a heckuva lot easier to just plug in, isn't likely just some accident.

I think that's a better analogy for "taylor vs martin". For me, related to recording, I'd say more like drinking cabernet vs gasoline :-)

But I agree with the point, everything related to sound is personal taste. Some years back, we had a thread here on people's "ideal acoustic sound". To my ear, many of the examples posted were completely unlistenable. But they were someone's "ideal tone". So as a guitarist, you have to make yourself happy, knowing some will like it, some won't.

Ouch,,, gasoline really ? Don't equivocate just tell us where you stand .....

I have heard some of your pickup recordings I would say more like deep chocolate vs. watery Vanilla :D.

I'm partial to sherbet and I have no idea how that factors into this thing.

Well sorbet is supposed to cleanse your palate so maybe sherbet can cleans you ears. A bit messy what the heck