Quote:
Originally Posted by SprintBob
Would appreciate any feedback here.
First topic - Read a UAD blog on solo acoustic mic placements. In spaced pair suggestions, they used an SDC for the front mic (pointed at the neck junction) and an LDC for the mic pointed at the bridge section of the lower bout. Would they use the LDC because the cardioid pattern would be larger (than the SDC) to cover the larger area of the lower body of the guitar? Last night I did some recording using a KM184 for the front and a Rode NT1A for the body and it sounded quite nice.
Second topic - Compression used specifically for solo acoustic guitar recording. From what I have gathered from articles and videos, you should not need it if you get a good raw recording. The last few weeks I’ve been using two KM184’s for recording and played around with mixing the tracks through a Focusrite compressor plug-in and the effects seem to be very subtle at best. If the recording is relatively balanced, it seems like compression is not really needed.
Thanks again!
|
Since the desired sound is subjective there is not really a "standardized" industry method . Renowned engineers have used different mic'ing methods to successfully achieve the sounds they are after.
Pairs of the same exact mic models in both SDC and LDC configurations. ,,,,pairs of the same type (SDC or LDC) but different models or mixed brands . And also using pairs of different types and or brands , one SDC and one LDC. All of these different methods have been used to make great sounding recordings. In other words the "rule" is there are no rules ,,,, only results
"Compression"
First the phrase "should not need" is subjective and ambiguous at best
A more accurate statement would be ...
Is compression "required" to a good recording ? NO
Is compression "desirable" that is totally subjective to the individual .
In compression "subtle" ( or judicious) use,, can often be exactly what you might want,,, and usually yields a more natural effect of moving the sound forward in the sound field , while not sounding "pumped" or artificial.
Consider that the notion that, in the "good old days" the engineers often did not add EQ or Compression (especially on solo instrument recordings) , is based on largely on an ambiguity.. Because recording to Analog Tape itself, provides subtle forms of both EQ and compression type results , regardless of whether it is also added or not, from the recording console or outboard gear.
Excerpt from article on analog tape
"
While it’s still extremely common to see analog preamps and tube mics in a modern studio setting, tape machines are a somewhat rarer bird. While you'll still find them in many studios, the industry-wide shift to working in the box has made bypassing tape a somewhat more feasible practice. Because of this, many engineers feel that modern music is missing something.
Recording to tape gives music a certain character. It rolls off the high-end and adds a small bump in the lows, similar to an equalizer. It rounds off transient peaks, creating a subtle form of compression. Perhaps most importantly, it adds a unique form of saturation, primarily boosting what are known as 3rd order harmonics.
3rd order harmonics mimic the frequency response of a signal two octaves above the source material. For instance, if you recorded a low E on a bass guitar, the root frequency would be 40Hz. 2nd order harmonics, which are typically added by tubes, boost one octave above the source (80Hz). 3rd order harmonics are primarily added by analog tape, and boost two octaves above the source (120Hz). This helps signals “cut through” a mix by adding higher frequencies in a musical way, instead of simply boosting the top band on an EQ. As with all good things, too much can cause negative effects.