What I think would help people immensely

[Scott Whigham]

What do you guys/gals think of us coming together to create a small group of WAV file examples of short acoustic guitar tracks (0:30) that are completely unprocessed? I could host them (or someone else could - doesn't really matter) and then we could have a sticky that says, "What a well recorded guitar sounds like before it is mixed and mastered" for folks. It could be something like this:

• Acoustic guitar - Single mic - cardioid.wav
• Acoustic guitar - XY - cardioid.wav
• Acoustic guitar - ORTF - cardioid.wav
• Acoustic guitar - Spaced Pair - cardioid.wav
• Resonator guitar - Single mic - cardioid.wav
• Resonator guitar - XY - cardioid.wav
• Resonator guitar - ORTF - cardioid.wav
• Resonator guitar - Spaced Pair - cardioid.wav
• Nylon String - Spaced Pair - cardioid.wav
• What Boxy Sounds Like.wav
• What Proximity Effect Sounds Like.wav

You get the idea - maybe it's 10 files or 20. Whatever. I thought of this today as something that I wish I had years ago (hell, I still wish it!). I think it would shorten the learning curve immensely for newbies to have a direct comparison between "This is what a community of my peers agrees is a well recorded spaced pair" and "This is what my recording sounds like." It's almost not fair to tell newbies, "Go buy yourself a few recordings that you like the sound of (not MP3!), and listen to those in comparison to what your tracks sound like." The comparison of a mastered track to an unprocessed one can often be quite different and, for folks new to this, it might help them.

I know that Doug's Evolution thread/video does this so maybe this is ... ahem, the evolution of that thread. You could make it complicated ("Everyone plays the same piece") or as open as you want ("Whatever, dude, as long as it sounds good"). I don't think it would matter which way you went with it as long as the final result was useful as a comparison by folks. I'd volunteer to do some of it. I think it would be best to have a small group of 4-5 people participating rather than too many folks. Maybe even a peer group review (privately?) before a track is added to the "library".

And yes, I realize that this is a no-win situation. What you like is different from what I like, etc. But we can agree "This recording sounds good", can't we? And that's all this is intended to do - to give newbies an idea of what one mic in an unprocessed state sounds like vs. two mics so that they can compare these on their own easily to their own unprocessed recordings. Ideally it takes mixing skill or mixing equipment out of the equation all together.

What do you think? Just thinking out loud here, I guess.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that, to me, it makes the most sense to leave product names and brands out of the equation. If not, this can become a pretty long list of SDCs vs LDCs vs Neumman vs Schoeps vs ADK vs Rode vs etc.

[Hucklebilly]

As a newbie, I think this is an awesome idea!

[Fichtezc]

Sounds interesting.... I feel like there are far too many variables but that's not to say it wouldn't be useful. I agree that it would be best if a few people did it...Ideally one or two but that could end up being a lot of work.

[Scott Whigham]

I think if you split it up to 4-5 folks, it could be an hour of work per person.

1) Set up and record with one mic
2) Set up and record a spaced pair
3) Set up and record in ORTF
4) Set up and record in XY

Bam - done. If we were to give people 60 files, it's just information overload. If we give people 10-20 files that are 20-30 seconds long apiece, I think you've covered enough of the bases to make it hit most people's needs. If one person can do omni and another person does cardioid, both on steel string acoustic, that would be great. I have a pair of hypercardiods and an omni that I can do on a resonator and/or steel string.

Doug's great Evolution video does this already, of course, but how many newbies are sitting around saying, "I have two cardioid mics and one stereo ribbon... I wonder what my mic placement sounds relative to Doug's?" I'm sure there are some folks - I've been there, for example, w/ my Cascade X15 - but it's just that, once you get to the point when you effectively want to hear what four mics sound like, you aren't likely to be a newbie anymore.

[Doug Young]

This could potentially be useful. I've started to do a "mic placement" comparison demo a number of times, and always got bogged down, or ended up thinking it was less useful than I expected. My evolution thing was certainly more complex than most starters but I was trying to demo something real. I do like simple, even contrived simple examples, tho, for exactly the reasons you point out. Simple is better for learning. The challenge is there are so many variables, and everyone's taste is different. It might be better to have the dry examples, then show what various things do: here's what 2db at 3K sounds like, here's what adding reverb, or compression, sounds like, etc. It'd be an almost online class. I'd be game for helping somewhere, if I can find the time.

Incidently, we kicked around the idea of a big effort, some kind of book/video along this line for AG, but it hasn't happened. BUT watch for a "how to record guitar" article from AG by me, probably any day now, with a pretty lengthy series of videos shot in my studio. Of course, with typical magazine article limits, it still just scratches the surface, and we focused more on early stages and less on the post stuff. So it's nothing as exhaustive as you're proposing, but at least we go over simpler scenarios than my 4-mic thing :-)

[Fichtezc]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

This could potentially be useful. I've started to do a "mic placement" comparison demo a number of times, and always got bogged down, or ended up thinking it was less useful than I expected. My evolution thing was certainly more complex than most starters but I was trying to demo something real. I do like simple, even contrived simple examples, tho, for exactly the reasons you point out. Simple is better for learning. The challenge is there are so many variables, and everyone's taste is different. It might be better to have the dry examples, then show what various things do: here's what 2db at 3K sounds like, here's what adding reverb, or compression, sounds like, etc. It'd be an almost online class. I'd be game for helping somewhere, if I can find the time.

Incidently, we kicked around the idea of a big effort, some kind of book/video along this line for AG, but it hasn't happened. BUT watch for a "how to record guitar" article from AG by me, probably any day now, with a pretty lengthy series of videos shot in my studio. Of course, with typical magazine article limits, it still just scratches the surface, and we focused more on early stages and less on the post stuff. So it's nothing as exhaustive as you're proposing, but at least we go over simpler scenarios than my 4-mic thing :-)

I'm certainly excited for this! I've been recording for 6 years now I think and I still love seeing how tos.

[Scott Whigham]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

This could potentially be useful. I've started to do a "mic placement" comparison demo a number of times, and always got bogged down, or ended up thinking it was less useful than I expected. My evolution thing was certainly more complex than most starters but I was trying to demo something real. I do like simple, even contrived simple examples, tho, for exactly the reasons you point out. Simple is better for learning. The challenge is there are so many variables, and everyone's taste is different. It might be better to have the dry examples, then show what various things do: here's what 2db at 3K sounds like, here's what adding reverb, or compression, sounds like, etc. It'd be an almost online class. I'd be game for helping somewhere, if I can find the time.

Cool - thanks for the offer of help. I think the mixing part - that's probably better off in a separate-but-related thread (or rather, that's my initial opinion). That way it's sort of a process: (1) get your ability to record well down, and then (2) learn a little bit about mixing afterwards. Like you said - at some point, time becomes the problem... I'll PM you ideas/details.

[Howard Emerson]

Hi Scott,
My suggestion is different.

I think it would be very helpful for people who have finished their recordings, and who are happy with them, to post the raw track, and the finished track.

They can supply the guitar & mics used, general location, room, recording desk, software, hardware, etc. The minutia that everybody seems to hyper focus on........

More importantly, I believe, it would also be very helpful to talk about how long, or short, the particular track took, and the artist's general outlook on what makes for a good session/project.

If people want to comment or give opinions they're certainly welcome, but it's more important to show those who aren't happy with their own stuff, what others do that makes them happy.

Becoming comfortable in ones own skin is something that a lot of players have trouble with. Remember the first time you heard your speaking voice recorded........?

HE
It Ain't Necessarily So: http://howardemerson.com/music2.html

[Scott Whigham]

I just heard from Doug in a PM - he's going to try to tackle four acoustic steel string things this weekend:

1) Set up and record with one mic
2) Set up and record a spaced pair
3) Set up and record in ORTF
4) Set up and record in XY

I'll do the same with my resonator this week/end also. Any volunteers for nylon string?

[Scott Whigham]

Originally Posted by Howard Emerson

Hi Scott,
My suggestion is different.

Hey Howard - we must have been replying at the same time.

I agree that what you posted is super helpful. Darkest Dreaming/Ian did that this week in his thread and it worked out great. I think we all enjoyed his playing, his choice of song, the quality of the recording, and the general feel in the thread. I will say that I am a bit confused though - if you'd asked me, "What do people use the RECORD forum at AGF for?", I would've probably answered with something similar as what you listed. Maybe that would be a good idea for a sticky here? Something like a template with a title "How to post your track/recordings for feedback" and, in it, you outline what they should say/omit. Seems like a good idea.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Howard Emerson

I think it would be very helpful for people who have finished their recordings, and who are happy with them, to post the raw track, and the finished track.

That's kind of what I was struggling with in my reply. What I generally want is backwards from Scott's idea - I hear some sound I like, and I think, "I'd like to get that sound". Then I'm faced with the issue Scott starts with, "how do I know what my raw recording should sound like so it ends up like that after some unknown processing happens?" Your latest tracks are a great example, I'd never get your sound without knowing about the pitch change trick. I'd be pulling my hair out trying to find the right mic placement to match that. But if I started with "I like Howard's sound", and could work hear your raw tracks and start by trying to come close to them, maybe I'd get there.

but I think the idea of a library of common setups is useful. If nothing else, a place to go and hear, "this is what XY sounds like" and so on.

[Howard Emerson]

Originally Posted by Scott Whigham

Hey Howard - we must have been replying at the same time.

I agree that what you posted is super helpful. Darkest Dreaming/Ian did that this week in his thread and it worked out great. I think we all enjoyed his playing, his choice of song, the quality of the recording, and the general feel in the thread. I will say that I am a bit confused though - if you'd asked me, "What do people use the RECORD forum at AGF for?", I would've probably answered with something similar as what you listed. Maybe that would be a good idea for a sticky here? Something like a template with a title "How to post your track/recordings for feedback" and, in it, you outline what they should say/omit. Seems like a good idea.

Hi Scott,
I was not clear enough.

This would be to show before and after of recordings that have been pressed and released, and no feedback is needed. It's really for the benefit of those who are not confident about what they're going through in the process for whatever reasons, such as Ian, and many others, are going through.

The players would talk about their experience with recording that particular track, from soup to nuts.

Recording, on one level, is a science, but it's also a psychology & mind set.

Regards,
Howard

[Howard Emerson]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

That's kind of what I was struggling with in my reply. What I generally want is backwards from Scott's idea - I hear some sound I like, and I think, "I'd like to get that sound". Then I'm faced with the issue Scott starts with, "how do I know what my raw recording should sound like so it ends up like that after some unknown processing happens?" Your latest tracks are a great example, I'd never get your sound without knowing about the pitch change trick. I'd be pulling my hair out trying to find the right mic placement to match that. But if I started with "I like Howard's sound", and could work hear your raw tracks and start by trying to come close to them, maybe I'd get there.

but I think the idea of a library of common setups is useful. If nothing else, a place to go and hear, "this is what XY sounds like" and so on.

Hi Doug,
You know as well as anybody that when you hear a particular sound that somebody else got, it's only obtainable with that person, their touch & attack, that guitar(optional), those mics(optional), the right humidity(mandatory), etc........:-P

At least you have hair to pull out.............I'd kill for a bad hair day.

:-)

HE

[Rudy4]

While the idea is great, I think implementation would be very hazy at best.

Given all of the variables from performance space, player, instrument, mic selection (make/model/pattern) , mic technique, external analog gear, interface pres, A/D converter, recording format, engineering skills used for recording, storage format, complicated by the playback side of the equation (D/A conversion, amplification, monitor selection, room acoustics) I think this would be a very subjective process.

Anyone on the other end trying to recreate the performance with what THEY use is going to face a daunting task. I would think it would be time better spent reading one of the multitudes of mic use guides and working with the equipment one has to get the best out of what you have to work with. That's just MHO, though.

Here's an example of one of the many free resources available from well-respected publications:

http://www.recordingmag.com/resource...etail/346.html

Note that this is an excellent all-around series of articles for the recording musician and features a MULTITUDE of audio examples of every aspect that is covered, including mic placement, microphone types, distances, etc.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Howard Emerson

Hi Doug,
You know as well as anybody that when you hear a particular sound that somebody else got, it's only obtainable with that person, their touch & attack, that guitar(optional), those mics(optional), the right humidity(mandatory), etc........:-P

Yep, that is the single biggest issue, for sure. People think if they get this gear or that, they'll sound like someone else, but we all sound like us no matter what we do. I've spent a lot of time trying to understand other people's recording, while trying to filter that out - just looking at things like the stereo balance, phase, EQ curves, how much reverb, etc. It's illuminating, but in the end, the biggest piece is the player's touch, and I almost never can nail that. So somehow, any effort along this line has to keep that in mind.

But I generally like what Scott's going for here. I think there are a couple a ways of thinking that get you in trouble. Some people think a good sound is all in post, and so they think there's a lot of "studio magic" that will take their bad sounding recordings and fix them. Then others try to compare their dry recordings to finished, master recordings, and then get discouraged. The truth's in the middle, of course. That's what I was going for in my you tube video - not so much "here's how to record with 4 mics", but "here's how a sound gets transformed along the way". I think Scott just wants to show that for some more common (and simpler) mic setups. Seems useful.