The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 05-02-2016, 03:57 AM
whiteshadow whiteshadow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 62
Default

The Rhode NT1 or NT1A are great for the money.

I've got the NT1A and it's really nice.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-04-2016, 03:05 PM
Eclectic Guitar Eclectic Guitar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 28
Default Heil dynamic cardioids for acoustic guitar & voice;

Both the Heil PR-30 & PR-40 are supposed to be great for Acoustic guitar & voice.

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned these mics on this guitar forum.

Does anyone know of the relative merits of the Heil PR-30 and Heil PR-40 re acoustic guitar recording ?

As the PR-40 is said to have great rear sound rejection, -maybe it could be an answer for my recording situation ?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-08-2016, 11:13 AM
Eclectic Guitar Eclectic Guitar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 28
Default -other mic considerations;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic Guitar View Post
Both the Heil PR-30 & PR-40 are supposed to be great for Acoustic guitar & voice.

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned these mics on this guitar forum.

Does anyone know of the relative merits of the Heil PR-30 and Heil PR-40 re acoustic guitar recording ?

As the PR-40 is said to have great rear sound rejection, -maybe it could be an answer for my recording situation ?

(My research so far tells me that the Heil PR-30 is the one for acoustic guitar & vocal recording.)

-Also the very affordable Audix 0M5 dynamic cardioid has lately come to my attention, -it is said, by some to be the best sound dynamic on the market. It is supposed to have a condenser like sound (-a "very very good sound") and a tight pick-up pattern, & also "has the best rear rejection of any mic made."

In lue of the knowledge that condensers will not in fact pick up more room noise than dynamic cardioids (per say), -it seems also well worth while considering the the CAD E-100s -tight pattern, good on acoustic guitar and vox. (-A real gem for a great price.)

-A fellow recently advised me, "If ambient/environmental noise is an issue, I would refrain from most LDC's. *One exception I have to that is the CAD E-100s (US version)."

It's supposed to be quite good for acoustic guitars & many other things.

-He said, "Over an RE-20, SM-7b, and the PR40. Even my C414xls has nothing over it in terms of detail or pick-up pattern."

Doeas anyone have any experience with the Audix OM5 dynamic cardioid or the CAD E-100s LDC ?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-08-2016, 04:24 PM
Doug Young's Avatar
Doug Young Doug Young is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 6,728
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic Guitar View Post
My research so far tells me that the Heil PR-30 is the one for acoustic guitar & vocal recording.
I'm curious what your research says? I've not come across that mic, but I have never heard that it's one that commonly used for recording acoustic guitar. When I think about using something that no one else is, I start to ask myself if there's a reason. But maybe this is *the* mic to use, and I've just been oblivious.

I'm sure I've said all this before, but just in case :-), I doubt you can find a mic that will solve noise and bad acoustics. if you really want a good sound, you need to fix the real problem. Any mic sensitive enough to pick up your guitar will also pick up the fridge, or the truck across the street, or....

If I'm remembering, it sounds like you may have 2 issues you're trying to address, bad acoustics, and noise (right?)

The real cure for bad acoustics (which is very common) is room treatment. Lacking that, you can reduce (but not eliminate) the problem with close micing. There's actually a new ribbon mic that sort of is meant to address this issue, the AEA N22. Even tho they're figure 8's, they have so little proximity effect (and a big low end rolloff), that they seem to work best literally 2-3 inches away from the guitar. That tends to reduce the room sound relative to the guitar. Not perfect, but one option. Mics that have tight patterns may help, but there's a catch-22, mics that are more directional tend to have more proximity effect, so you may not be able to get them as close to the source, with the result that they pick up more room.

If you have noise, that's tougher (and very common). The only real cure is to get rid of the noise. Send the kids to bed, turn off the TV or the fridge, record at 3am when there's less traffic, whatever. Lacking that, again *very* close micing can increase the guitar volume relative to the noise, which helps. You have the same catch-22 with directional mics in this case, tho. In addition, a good noise reduction program, like iZotope RX can be a life-saver for a home studio.
__________________
Doug Young
----------------
Music on Pandora
You Tube Channel
website: http://www.dougyoungguitar.com
Fingerstyle Christmas Tunes: A DADGAD Christmas
Hymns Book: Hymns for Fingerstyle Guitar
CDs: Closing Time, Laurel Mill
Pickup tests: http://www.dougyoungguitar.com/pickuptests/

Last edited by Doug Young; 05-08-2016 at 06:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-09-2016, 08:04 AM
Joseph Hanna Joseph Hanna is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Topanga Canyon, CA
Posts: 2,566
Default

Years ago now when I was working for an embryonic company called Digidesign I found myself visiting a fair amount of high-end studios that had made the commitment to what was then the uncharted waters of DAW's. It was a fun time to be in that world yet many first rate studios found themselves a bit hapless with this brave new world. I'd guess for two solid years my primary job description was getting things running in some of the best recording environments in the Eastern and Mid-Western areas of the country.

There is a guy (who'll go un-named) who despite a long string of major hits chose to remain and live in the Mid-West. The entirety of what I had previously known as to what made a good recording environment was shattered when I spent an afternoon in his studio. I suspect there was hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in tuning and treating the rooms (if not more) but the sound in the control room of an old Gibson strummed with a couple of Nuemans sitting miles from the source was simply overwhelming.

Of course I know none of us have a spare million sitting around to throw at room treatment but until you have the chance to hear what a good room sounds like I think the idea is often distilled into something less significant. It's simply the single most important element (past the talent themselves) that effects the outcome of a recording.

Fix the room, not the mic
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-09-2016, 08:37 AM
KevWind KevWind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 11,200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna View Post
Years ago now when I was working for an embryonic company called Digidesign I found myself visiting a fair amount of high-end studios that had made the commitment to what was then the uncharted waters of DAW's. It was a fun time to be in that world yet many first rate studios found themselves a bit hapless with this brave new world. I'd guess for two solid years my primary job description was getting things running in some of the best recording environments in the Eastern and Mid-Western areas of the country.

There is a guy (who'll go un-named) who despite a long string of major hits chose to remain and live in the Mid-West. The entirety of what I had previously known as to what made a good recording environment was shattered when I spent an afternoon in his studio. I suspect there was hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in tuning and treating the rooms (if not more) but the sound in the control room of an old Gibson strummed with a couple of Nuemans sitting miles from the source was simply overwhelming.

Of course I know none of us have a spare million sitting around to throw at room treatment but until you have the chance to hear what a good room sounds like I think the idea is often distilled into something less significant. It's simply the single most important element (past the talent themselves) that effects the outcome of a recording.

Fix the room, not the mic
Early Digidesigns ....... I took a 5 day PT training corse from a gentleman (can't remember his name ) who had been on the design team for the Digi 002
but by 2003 or 2004 had set up a PT certified school, in the silicon valley area
Palo Alto if I remember correctly.
__________________
" Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...


KevWind at Soundcloud
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-11-2016, 07:26 PM
dmoss74 dmoss74 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 782
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna View Post
There is a guy (who'll go un-named) who despite a long string of major hits chose to remain and live in the Mid-West.
there's not a lot of mystery as to whom you are referring. has this artist gone by two different names during his career? and the stuff on the room is correct. in the early '90s, i was lucky enough to record some solo acoustic/vocal tracks at one of the last of the great studios in north hollywood. my buddy was an ae there, and he was allowed to use it after midnight, if nobody was tracking. yes, they had a closet full of the best mics in the world, and all the fixin's (mic pres,etc), but even throwing a 57 in front of the guitar (taylor 710 at that time) produced some sublime sounds.

i think we finally decided on an old akg c12 for the guitar mic, but like i said, anything would have sounded great. it was quite humbling. of course, i lost the old ampex 2" tape somewhere along my divorce a couple years alter, and we were mixing down to vhs tape. shoestring, late night budget...these were just demos i was trying to use at the time. i will never forget how good those tracks sounded, though.

Last edited by dmoss74; 05-11-2016 at 07:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-12-2016, 09:40 PM
Joseph Hanna Joseph Hanna is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Topanga Canyon, CA
Posts: 2,566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmoss74 View Post
there's not a lot of mystery as to whom you are referring. has this artist gone by two different names during his career? and the stuff on the room is correct. in the early '90s, i was lucky enough to record some solo acoustic/vocal tracks at one of the last of the great studios in north hollywood. my buddy was an ae there, and he was allowed to use it after midnight, if nobody was tracking. yes, they had a closet full of the best mics in the world, and all the fixin's (mic pres,etc), but even throwing a 57 in front of the guitar (taylor 710 at that time) produced some sublime sounds.

i think we finally decided on an old akg c12 for the guitar mic, but like i said, anything would have sounded great. it was quite humbling. of course, i lost the old ampex 2" tape somewhere along my divorce a couple years alter, and we were mixing down to vhs tape. shoestring, late night budget...these were just demos i was trying to use at the time. i will never forget how good those tracks sounded, though.
Yes that guy Not to mention his guitar player also had a really nice little place in Bloomington as well.

I try with some gusto to sell two general ideas here when it comes to "rooms". That based on the very fortunate fact that I've had the inspiring experience to hear some of these fantastic yet dodo bird rooms first hand.

The first is the broad brush stroke that a great tuned and musical room to record in trumps every spec, pre-amp, converter, DAW and microphone in existence. The second is the more difficult idea that tuning a room is much, much more than buying auralex and slapping it on the wall and in the corners. In truth the only real "starting point" is first identifying the actual problems in a very specific way. Auralex (or insert your preference of treatment here) is not a self adjusting product. Assuming its mere presence solves problems is probably not a good idea. Conceivably it could create more problems than it solves.

That said I'm also certainly painfully aware that going down that road takes an enormous investment in education, trial and error, time and worst of all money. There simply has to be some kind of sizable compromise that most of us must make in the journey unless there's a spare bucket of money laying around. It's an unfortunate reality. Compromise is ok but compromising with out actually identifying the problem is a tad gooney.

For those that have a dedicated space I'd submit the idea of room treatment might be a process of identifying the problems first and foremost then setting about a methodical process of addressing those problems when finances allow.

My two cents and YMMV.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-17-2016, 01:08 AM
travisbrown travisbrown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim1960 View Post
As for the MD441, honestly, I don't think a dynamic mic should or could be your best choice.
Ever used a 441? One of the best and most versatile mics ever made. They can do just fine on guitars.

It's hard to go wrong with a good ribbon mic too. They are dynamics.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=