Recording nylon string guitars

[adventureboy]

Hi there, I'm recording on a budget, I've been playing guitar over 20 years and play fingerstyle. I have a Takamine EG522sc nylon electro-acoustic that I'm using on one song as main guitar. I mic up with a Behringer C1 condenser facing the 10th/12th fret running through an Art MP Tube pre-amp. I also utilise the guitar's on-board bridge piezo pickup through a Behringer Mic 100 pre-amp. Both signals run into an M-audio interface and record on separate L-R channels in Cubase SX. After a couple of days experimenting with configurations, making notes and moving/monitoring the mic sound on enclosed beyerdynamic HD20 pro headphones, I've managed to get a surprisingly quiet noisefloor and sound I've settled on.
When I play back the resultant recording, I want the natural mic sound of my guitar to be more forward in the mix and the DI sound to just subtly help fill out the sound. Panning them at about 10 o'clock and 2 0'clock gives a nice stereo image. What I've found is that the mid and high range on the microphone signal are naturally not as loud as the DI signal, so what I did was dropped the DI signal back down in the mix and boosted the mic'd signal around the midrange by about 3db and it seems to bring the clarity back to that range. Apart from a high-pass filter on the low end I've not done anything else and the recording sounds full without being too boomy and I can hear the mids nicely and to be honest I'm staggered at the sound I'm getting for a home recording. The project is for a collection of songs with just singer and acoustic guitar.
My question is has anybody else ever needed to boost in the mids area to get the sound they desire? As I said, my studio is hobby project and I'm amazed what you can do at home these days. Interested to hear your views and experiences of anything similar or similar recording set ups
Kind thanks
Rob

[DonM]

A:

Quick response, there are no formulas in recording. That actually is both good and bad news. I have been recording for over 30 years. I have recorded orchestra's and solo instruments for CD, NPR and Film. On the 'nylon guitar' side I have recorded Manuel Barrueco, David Russel, Antigoni Goni, John Holmquist, Jason Vieux, and I'm sure some others I can't remember!)

Some thoughts on my approach to classical (or nylon) guitar recording:

#1 What is the purpose of the recording?
If the recording is live for broadcast my microphone choice and placement would be different if it were in a closed studio for CD. For example I recall that Barrueco used a Coles ribbon at Abbey Road (amongst other mics)for one of his CD's while I used DPA 4006 condensers in the live recording. In fact as I recall, I also used Neumann LDC condensers along with the DPA's in that recording.

So if I am recording a live concert my placement and choice would be intending to recreate that live experience. If I am recording a guitar (nylon) in a studio for a pop, jazz, or flamenco multitrack project - I would select a different microphone(s) since that track will be mixed with other tracks.

If I am recording my guitar to evaluate my personal performance of a piece and that recording is not going anywhere but my car for me to listen to ... I capture that in mp3 on my Zoom H4n. - It's all about suitable tools for the objective of the recording.

#2 The recording environment

As you have already indicated your placement of the mic is critical. Some things to consider in placement

2A. Source to Environment Ratio - Pattern and Placement
Any 'studio' be it Abbey Road, Your Bedroom, or the Bell Labs Acoustic Chamber all have a huge influence on how a source (nylon guitar) and the environment will result in the way a transducer (microphone) will capture the sonic energy in that space. One of the properties of acoustics and physics is that the majority of sound is reflected and only about 11% is direct in most environments. Obviously every space is different, but the key here is that direct and reflect are what we are actually 'dancing' with when we move our microphone(s) around. The pattern you select (Cardiod, Figure 8, Omni Directional) all have a huge impact on the direct/reflect ratio and equally on the bandwidth captured. In fact rotating a cardiod microphone off axis to source is the same as changing the EQ.

Summary: The capture distance of the microphone to source, coupled with it's pattern, and the characteristics of the environment all contribute to the placement of a microphone when recording. It is for this reason that I suggest to many of my students to record with one microphone (mono) when at home.

#3 Blending DI and Mic sounds
I am definitely not a fan of this. But again - suitability to task. In a pop flamenco recording I did exactly as you have here and blended the two sources. The challenge of comb filtering and phase alignment was time consuming and very frustrating in the mixing process. If the artists move the guitar less than one inch during the recording (which is almost impossible to avoid) there are issues with comb filtering - It is for this reason that I rarely use this blending with outboard mics. A possible solution would be the DPA 4099 clip on mics and blend that with the DI pickups - in the case of the DPA the mic's position is permanent with respect to moving the instrument.

#4 Regarding Boosting the Mids

I have three near field monitor pairs in my control room and five far field monitors in my mastering suite. I use RTA in the box and in the rooms to evaluate my EQ choices. I use Bob Katz's techniques for monitor position (which has nothing to do with 'where they are') - in summary over the years I have faced many gain and EQ questions as you are, but now I can make those choices with repeatable results and independent of equipment.

Summary - the equipment you monitor on, the environment that equipment is in, what you have just listened to, and the monitor position you listen at can all affect your gain and EQ choices - it is even worse day to day if you don't follow a highly repeatable monitoring workflow. Having said that - EQ changes are essential for you to meet the sonic you have in mind as an engineer. I suggest reviewing the EQ choices made in recordings you like and compare them to yours. Personally I favor the choices made by Norbert Kraft on the Naxos Label.

Long Answers - Hopefully something was useful!

Best

-D

[moon]

Originally Posted by adventureboy

My question is has anybody else ever needed to boost in the mids area to get the sound they desire?

If it fits the piece, I quite often use a fairly heavy reverb with the top and bottom lopped off (high pass & low pass on the way in). This has the effect of boosting mid-range, and sustain.

PS: Oktava Mk012 or ADK A6 are much better mics than the C1, although still fairly inexpensive.

[DiGeorge]

Originally Posted by DonM

A:

#1 What is the purpose of the recording?

So if I am recording a live concert my placement and choice would be intending to recreate that live experience. If I am recording a guitar (nylon) in a studio for a pop, jazz, or flamenco multitrack project - I would select a different microphone(s) since that track will be mixed with other tracks.

-D

Hi,

Thank you for the useful information to the OP and DonM.

I've been struggling to get nice recordings out of my nylon guitars for the purpose of multitrack jazz recordings. The guitars sound underwhelmed in a way, they don't sit well in mixes. I can't seem to get that nice mellow ring and chime I hear on some jazz recordings (Earl Klugh).
Last year I did a few takes with a tube mic which I thought sounded fine, but I have no access to it anymore. Best results so far I got was from a spaced pair of the matching mics about a foot each from the guitar. It's difficult to nail, but those the best results I achieved. Direct the guitars sound awful IMO.
Which mics and recording technique would you recommend for the purpose? I have a pair of Rode NT5, an AT 4050, and an AKG C451 EB. Preamp is Vintech 1272 (a Neve clone).

[DonM]

Originally Posted by DiGeorge

Hi,

Thank you for the useful information to the OP and DonM.

Last year I did a few takes with a tube mic which I thought sounded fine, but I have no access to it anymore. Best results so far I got was from a spaced pair of the matching mics about a foot each from the guitar. It's difficult to nail, but those the best results I achieved. Direct the guitars sound awful IMO.
Which mics and recording technique would you recommend for the purpose? I have a pair of Rode NT5, an AT 4050, and an AKG C451 EB. Preamp is Vintech 1272 (a Neve clone).

D:
Isn't it funny that sometimes the setup that achieved the 'best' results is no longer available to us

If you are using a spaced pair about 12 inches from the guitar and that is currently your baseline, I'd try experimenting with one microphone as well/

Regarding the problem of the guitar seeming 'underwhelming' in the recording - I have been right there with you. I had a pop record that had a nylon solo in it that no matter what I did I couldn't get that nylon guitar to sit in the track the way I wanted it to.

Each of the mic's you've mentioned have their own characteristics and in their own way are to some degree suitable. At the risk of major flames here - I have never been able to get a good guitar sound with the NT5 - I know a lot of people that have gotten great recordings with them (including Roger Nichols!) but for me I never use the two I own.

Given the choices you've offered, I work with the 451's until I got what I wanted. My reasons are as follows:

#1 I have more experience with the 451's and have been able to get what I want from them reasonably well
#2 I prefer the SDC over the LDC (4050) for guitar (except the AKG 414 on Wide Card) - so I do prefer SDC over LDC in more cases.

Considering Technique:

I suspect you mean placement - I would have to hear the instrument and the room it's in to make that recommendation. For example, I once used a Neumann 184 SDC on a 1919 (gibson?) banjo - and I mic'ed it from behind! Whoda thunk that?

Let me know what your experiments reveal

Best

-D

[DiGeorge]

Originally Posted by DonM

D:
Isn't it funny that sometimes the setup that achieved the 'best' results is no longer available to us

Thank you for the detailed reply. I feel like I'm hijacking the thread. I hope the OP would benefit from the information as well.
I'm seriously considering a tube mic of some sort as my next mic purchase. I totally loved the tone! It has a slightly saturated character which is so important for being able to sit in the mix well.

Originally Posted by DonM

If you are using a spaced pair about 12 inches from the guitar and that is currently your baseline, I'd try experimenting with one microphone as well/

Experiment with one SDC at 12th fret at 45 degree angle towards the sound hole? Sure, so far this placement gave me best results. The mic has to grab some of the nail action or it will sounds weak. My spruce top nylon projects better than the cedar one. What is your recommendation?

Originally Posted by DonM

Regarding the problem of the guitar seeming 'underwhelming' in the recording - I have been right there with you. I had a pop record that had a nylon solo in it that no matter what I did I couldn't get that nylon guitar to sit in the track the way I wanted it to.

I know that certain saturation plugins help, but I prefer to track it properly. Nylons don't take compression too well.

Originally Posted by DonM

Each of the mic's you've mentioned have their own characteristics and in their own way are to some degree suitable. At the risk of major flames here - I have never been able to get a good guitar sound with the NT5 - I know a lot of people that have gotten great recordings with them (including Roger Nichols!) but for me I never use the two I own.

I'm somewhat satisfied with them. Next, I'd like to try a Oktava MC12 pair.

Originally Posted by DonM

Given the choices you've offered, I work with the 451's until I got what I wanted. My reasons are as follows:

#1 I have more experience with the 451's and have been able to get what I want from them reasonably well
#2 I prefer the SDC over the LDC (4050) for guitar (except the AKG 414 on Wide Card) - so I do prefer SDC over LDC in more cases.

Considering Technique:

I suspect you mean placement - I would have to hear the instrument and the room it's in to make that recommendation.

I fear I won't be able to get in a great room any time soon. Would you consider tracking in a tiled space, like a huge bathroom with 10' ceilings? It sounds great there...

[Ty Ford]

Rob,

Your C-1 Behringer may be the source of your lack of naturalness. The sound of a classical guitar is pretty fragile. The mic costs about $50. When you pay that little for a chinese condenser mic, it's not uncommon to have an artificial edge on whatever you record.

As you have found, your pickup system isn't helping either. That's also pretty normal.

To come to a conclusion about this mic, get someone else to play your guitar. Wearing headphones, move the mic around the face of the guitar and the neck joint to see if you can find a place that gives you the sound you like. My guess is, you won't.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[KevWind]

Another technique to try on any acoustic guitar recording before boosting with an EQ , ( provided your software has a multi band EQ with adjustiable , slideable frequency selection, and adjustable bandwidth or sometimes called Q ) would be to try Subtrative EQ. To start Pic a frequency at the low end use a narrow Q and boost all the way slowly slide the the frequency selector back and forth from 150 hz towards say 700 hz. You will hear one or more frequencies that sound particularly bad- ringy honky type sound. Very often somewhere around 500 hz will be bad. Then lower the boost untill you are in he minus range say 3 to 5 db. Widen the Q slightly . Then repetete this process throughout the freq. range of your instrument . Pic the the two or three most offensive frequencies to cut.

What will happen if done correctly and subtlely is, by clearing out the cluttered frequencies the rest of the sound will become more clear and start to stand out without any boost. Then if you do decide to boost you will get a better result with less .

[moon]

+1

Multi-band compressors can also be useful for tone-shaping, with an even finer level of control. For example, you could have a band set to attentuate only above a certain threshhold, otherwise passing through untouched.

There's a limit to what you can do though. A few small tweaks to a good source might work well but, if you're losing too much of the rich information of the sound in the mic, EQ can't put that back.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by moon

+1

Multi-band compressors can also be useful for tone-shaping, with an even finer level of control. For example, you could have a band set to attentuate only above a certain threshhold, otherwise passing through untouched.

There's a limit to what you can do though. A few small tweaks to a good source might work well but, if you're losing too much of the rich information of the sound in the mic, EQ can't put that back.

+ 2 no question the better the recording the easier the mix.

[Ty Ford]

Using ANY sort of processing to correct for a poorly designed mic or bad mic/preamp match is seldom, if ever, successful in achieving a natural sound.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

Using ANY sort of processing to correct for a poorly designed mic or bad mic/preamp match is seldom, if ever, successful in achieving a natural sound.

While I agree with your statement per se. And for certain it is viable to choose to not process. I would add this caveat. Not sure what you mean by "natural sound" But if you mean sound "exactly" like sitting in the room hearing it being played un amplified/recorded etc. Then I have yet to hear any mic/preamp combo, good, bad or ugly that sounds exactly the same. Or for that matter that did not have problem frequencies revealed if you narrow Q, boost and sweep. Ultimately of course it comes down to desired result based on personal aesthetic preference.

[Ty Ford]

"sound "exactly" like sitting in the room hearing it being played un amplified/recorded etc. "

The above doesn't exist in my universe.

Back to my main point. It's very likely the mic in this case.

There is one cheap mic I do like, this one.

Classical Guitar has a problem, the 1st and 2nd strings. They can sound "plasticky" very easily if the wrong mic is chosen. If you're not paying attention to what mic you're using it's easy to end up in plastic land.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[moon]

More info on the MXL MCA SP1.