The Acoustic Guitar Forum

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 08-08-2020, 01:34 AM
Wrighty Wrighty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Itchen Stoke, UK
Posts: 2,136
Default Recording critique - next steps

Hi all



After posting my last recording in my newly treated space, I received some really helpful feedback around stereo image, EQ and mic positioning.



In this latest recording I have worked hard to improve my critical listening and have come back to the recording over several days to ensure I am still hearing what I think I am.



I settled on a closer spaced AB position, using a 30cm bar to hold the mics - both were at a slight angle outwards so that one was pointed at the bridge area and the other around 10-12th fret. I have found that this offers a slightly narrower stereo image but gives a warmer and fuller tone that I like.



I had several reference mixes of this but both sounded a little too harsh in the trebles to me and so I wanted to balance enough clarity and cut with some warmth.



Mics are AT2020 and interface is Audient ID14 into Reaper.



Room is a small study - rectangular and treated with my home made panels of various sizes.



The final version has some limiting (not much but just to bring the level up), a high pass filter, some EQ applied to the mid/highs and then some reverb.



I have also posted a version without the main EQ but still the high pass applied along with the reverb etc.



I am going to go out on a limb and say, that to my “still learning” ears this sounds like the best overall sound I have achieved to date. It sounds warm but still has enough clarity and balance.



My questions to anyone willing to have a listen, are;



1. Does the mix sound good - are there any areas you don’t like or would change? Stereo image ok?



2. Is there any (Too much) room noise or reflections you hear? (That I am not hearing) - does my room treatment need further work?



3. EQ vs no EQ?

4. Anything else you might wish to add!



Thanks for listening.









Here’s a setup shot;

IMG_1433.jpg
__________________
Burguet AC-007 (2003 - Cedar/Rosewood)
Webber OM (2009 - Sitka/Sapele)


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8A...2TVEhWes2Djrig

Last edited by Wrighty; 08-08-2020 at 04:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-08-2020, 03:47 AM
RodB's Avatar
RodB RodB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SW France.
Posts: 1,649
Default

Hi Peter,
Given the "...anyone willing to have a listen..." my observations as a fellow amateur:

Either to my ears is your best to date, but I actually prefer the non-EQ version -easier to listen to - fuller, rounder sound. Personal preference and what we have already in our head makes the difference no doubt. I listened only on headphones, both the AKG K240, and more detailed Grado SR80.

With the reverb added I can't personally comment on room contribution, in any case at that distance and orientation you would not expect a large contribution. [Edit: now see your set-up - so further from you than I imagined. I don’t detect a room issue] Also a matter of taste I would have liked a bit less reverb - or at least to hear a version without. Just a matter of taste though.

I would add that this is one of your best played recordings as well IMHO, I get the impression you know and feel this piece well.

It will be interesting to see comments of the more experienced contributors to the forum.
__________________
Rod,

My music Website or Soundcloud
Some videos on Youtube

Last edited by RodB; 08-08-2020 at 05:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-08-2020, 05:27 AM
Wrighty Wrighty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Itchen Stoke, UK
Posts: 2,136
Default Recording critique - next steps

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodB View Post
Hi Peter,
Given the "...anyone willing to have a listen..." my observations as a fellow amateur:

Either to my ears is your best to date, but I actually prefer the non-EQ version -easier to listen to - fuller, rounder sound. Personal preference and what we have already in our head makes the difference no doubt. I listened only on headphones, both the AKG K240, and more detailed Grado SR80.

With the reverb added I can't personally comment on room contribution, in any case at that distance and orientation you would not expect a large contribution. [Edit: now see your set-up - so further from you than I imagined. I don’t detect a room issue] Also a matter of taste I would have liked a bit less reverb - or at least to hear a version without. Just a matter of taste though.

I would add that this is one of your best played recordings as well IMHO, I get the impression you know and feel this piece well.

It will be interesting to see comments of the more experienced contributors to the forum.
Hi Rod

Thanks a mill - really appreciate you taking the time to critically listen and comment.

I also mix in headphones (AKG701) so that's useful to know.

I have posted below a version with no eq and greatly reduced reverb (Simon tends towards a lot on this track hence me using a bit more..)

It's funny how you prefer the no real eq version - listening to it now, I do like it too but when compared to my two reference tracks (one posted below) mine sounded lacking in clarity?





Thanks for the kind words - I enjoyed this piece :-)
__________________
Burguet AC-007 (2003 - Cedar/Rosewood)
Webber OM (2009 - Sitka/Sapele)


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8A...2TVEhWes2Djrig

Last edited by Wrighty; 08-08-2020 at 06:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-08-2020, 06:05 AM
RodB's Avatar
RodB RodB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SW France.
Posts: 1,649
Default

Listening to your final test - no EQ less Reverb, I hear a warmth but not really a lack of clarity. I am making a distinction here between clarity and treble content, which could be higher, but I felt the EQ'ed version a little bit 'brittle' for my ears (compared to without), for want of a better way of saying it! Always difficult to describe nuances like this.

My preference would be to move mics rather than EQ. The reference track sounds more open, perhaps it's the mics he is using but with the improved room maybe you would benefit from wider spacing the mics or going for a near-coincident arrangement?

If it were me I would just add a bit more reverb to your final test - again I stress personal taste.

Hope this helps.
__________________
Rod,

My music Website or Soundcloud
Some videos on Youtube

Last edited by RodB; 08-08-2020 at 06:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-08-2020, 07:04 AM
keith.rogers's Avatar
keith.rogers keith.rogers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,695
Default

Not clear on the distance from the guitar to the mics in your setup, but I think these are all quite nice, if a tiny bit of finger/technical noises that might start to bother me on repeated listening. (My own are worse!).

Personally, I'd probably go with the EQd version and maybe a bit less reverb, somewhere in between the first "final" and that last one, though that is really a matter of what you want.

I preferred yours to the reference because of the additional warmth and weight in the lower frequencies. I've only listened on my old Sony MDR-V6s, but I generally trust those. Might try the open back Sennheisers later when the legs are ready to get my carcass up the stairs.
__________________
"I know in the morning that it's gonna be good, when I stick out my elbows and they don't bump wood." - Bill Kirchen
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-08-2020, 07:13 AM
Wrighty Wrighty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Itchen Stoke, UK
Posts: 2,136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodB View Post
Listening to your final test - no EQ less Reverb, I hear a warmth but not really a lack of clarity. I am making a distinction here between clarity and treble content, which could be higher, but I felt the EQ'ed version a little bit 'brittle' for my ears (compared to without), for want of a better way of saying it! Always difficult to describe nuances like this.

My preference would be to move mics rather than EQ. The reference track sounds more open, perhaps it's the mics he is using but with the improved room maybe you would benefit from wider spacing the mics or going for a near-coincident arrangement?

If it were me I would just add a bit more reverb to your final test - again I stress personal taste.

Hope this helps.
Thanks again Rod - good feedback.

I have moved to a closer mic position because I feel that although I like the stereo image the width provides, I find that the warmth disappears - that's been the trade off...
__________________
Burguet AC-007 (2003 - Cedar/Rosewood)
Webber OM (2009 - Sitka/Sapele)


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8A...2TVEhWes2Djrig
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-08-2020, 07:15 AM
Wrighty Wrighty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Itchen Stoke, UK
Posts: 2,136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keith.rogers View Post
Not clear on the distance from the guitar to the mics in your setup, but I think these are all quite nice, if a tiny bit of finger/technical noises that might start to bother me on repeated listening. (My own are worse!).

Personally, I'd probably go with the EQd version and maybe a bit less reverb, somewhere in between the first "final" and that last one, though that is really a matter of what you want.

I preferred yours to the reference because of the additional warmth and weight in the lower frequencies. I've only listened on my old Sony MDR-V6s, but I generally trust those. Might try the open back Sennheisers later when the legs are ready to get my carcass up the stairs.
Hi Keith

Distance is about 30cm mic to guitar.

Thanks for the feedback - I also like the EQ but certainly could dial down the reverb and find the happy middle.

Keep well.

Peter
__________________
Burguet AC-007 (2003 - Cedar/Rosewood)
Webber OM (2009 - Sitka/Sapele)


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8A...2TVEhWes2Djrig
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-08-2020, 07:18 AM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 19,884
Default

So it appears as if you are in an upstairs room with the angled ceiling being the bottom of the vaulted roof rafters (correct ? ) Which is actually fine, and perhaps better than a low flat ceiling. That said in rectangular room (and only generally speaking and depending on actual room dimensions ) you might want to position the mics more out into the room and not so close the end wall. Start approximately in a 1/3 to 2/3 position in relation to the long side
Generally while you "do want" to be centered (between the two long sides) but "do not" want be in the center length wise.

As to your recordings .
I am at this point listening on lap top ear buds SO with that in mind :

As to mixing (again speaking only generally ) but a good rule of thumb is ......Clarity is much much more a function of "Subtractive EQ" =cut, then "Additive EQ" = boost.

In general judicious "Subtractive EQ" will increase clarity and presence and will maintain balance throughout the entire frequency range.
Where as "Additive EQ" can often actually reduce clarity by creating unnatural buildup in the frequency/s being boosted and begin to skew the frequency balance, and introduce an edge or harshness to the mix (reducing warmth) .

BTW it sounds to me like you boosted EQ somewhere in the mid's or upper mid's and that the EQ'ed track is somewhat louder than the no EQ track, which will automatically (at first blush and when starting out ) tend to make it sound "better" But in reality it isn't , its just louder .

Reverb is very subjective BUT (if you have not already done it ) I would put the reverb on its own track, set 50ms to 60 ms "pre delay" and send to it . I would run it at 100 % wet and reduce that Reverb track faders (to taste) try somewhere between 10 db to 20 db reduction,
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...

KevWind at Soundcloud

KevWind at YouYube
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD

System :
Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1

Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Ventura 12.2.1

Last edited by KevWind; 08-08-2020 at 07:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-08-2020, 07:36 AM
Wrighty Wrighty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Itchen Stoke, UK
Posts: 2,136
Default Recording critique - next steps

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
So it appears as if you are in an upstairs room with the angled ceiling being the bottom of the vaulted roof rafters (correct ? ) Which is actually fine, and perhaps better than a low flat ceiling. That said in rectangular room (and only generally speaking and depending on actual room dimensions ) you might want to position the mics more out into the room and not so close the end wall. Start approximately in a 1/3 to 2/3 position in relation to the long side

Generally while you "do want" to be centered (between the two long sides) but "do not" want be in the center length wise.



As to your recordings .

I am at this point listening on lap top ear buds SO with that in mind :



As to mixing (again speaking only generally ) but a good rule of thumb is ......Clarity is much much more a function of "Subtractive EQ" =cut, then "Additive EQ" = boost.



In general judicious "Subtractive EQ" will increase clarity and presence and will maintain balance throughout the entire frequency range.

Where as "Additive EQ" can often actually reduce clarity by creating unnatural buildup in the frequency/s being boosted and begin to skew the frequency balance, and introduce an edge or harshness to the mix (reducing warmth) .



BTW it sounds to me like you boosted EQ somewhere in the mid's or upper mid's and that the EQ'ed track is somewhat louder than the no EQ track, which will automatically (at first blush and when starting out ) tend to make it sound "better" But in reality it isn't , its just louder .



Reverb is very subjective BUT (if you have not already done it ) I would put the reverb on its own track, set 50ms to 60 ms "pre delay" and send to it . I would run it at 100 % wet and reduce that Reverb track faders (to taste) try somewhere between 10 db to 20 db reduction,


Thanks Kev - that's very helpful.



You are correct, the angel ceiling is only about a 40% of the room with threat being normal height. I record under the vaulted part as you saw - I had pushed up against the end wall to be as close as I could be to the acoustic panel on that wall but I can certainly move further back. I record in a spot of booth with 3 sides treated along with the ceiling so if I do move further back I move out of this protected space a little.



The EQ piece is really interesting - mine is boosted starting at about 1k and running up to 8k (not in a linear fashion but by Izotope's EQ match to the ref track.



Screenshot 2020-08-08 at 14.34.56.jpg


Where would you suggest subtracting from to increase clarity?



Reverb - it's on a separate bus at 100% wet but pre-delay is lower at about 25ms.



Cheers



Peter
__________________
Burguet AC-007 (2003 - Cedar/Rosewood)
Webber OM (2009 - Sitka/Sapele)


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8A...2TVEhWes2Djrig

Last edited by Wrighty; 08-08-2020 at 08:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-08-2020, 07:41 AM
RodB's Avatar
RodB RodB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SW France.
Posts: 1,649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrighty View Post
Thanks again Rod - good feedback.

I have moved to a closer mic position because I feel that although I like the stereo image the width provides, I find that the warmth disappears - that's been the trade off...
That’s why I suggested trying a near-coincident approach if you haven’t already. I have used both ORTF and NOS approaches and liked the results.
__________________
Rod,

My music Website or Soundcloud
Some videos on Youtube
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-08-2020, 07:44 AM
Wrighty Wrighty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Itchen Stoke, UK
Posts: 2,136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodB View Post
That’s why I suggested trying a near-coincident approach if you haven’t already. I have used both ORTF and NOS approaches and liked the results.


Got it - I will have a look at those set ups for these side entry AT2020’s
__________________
Burguet AC-007 (2003 - Cedar/Rosewood)
Webber OM (2009 - Sitka/Sapele)


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8A...2TVEhWes2Djrig
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-08-2020, 07:49 AM
RodB's Avatar
RodB RodB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SW France.
Posts: 1,649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
As to mixing (again speaking only generally ) but a good rule of thumb is ......Clarity is much much more a function of "Subtractive EQ" =cut, then "Additive EQ" = boost.

In general judicious "Subtractive EQ" will increase clarity and presence and will maintain balance throughout the entire frequency range.
Where as "Additive EQ" can often actually reduce clarity by creating unnatural buildup in the frequency/s being boosted and begin to skew the frequency balance, and introduce an edge or harshness to the mix (reducing warmth) .

BTW it sounds to me like you boosted EQ somewhere in the mid's or upper mid's and that the EQ'ed track is somewhat louder than the no EQ track, which will automatically (at first blush and when starting out ) tend to make it sound "better" But in reality it isn't , its just louder...
Maybe what I was hearing and couldn’t evaluate - helpful for me as well thanks
__________________
Rod,

My music Website or Soundcloud
Some videos on Youtube
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-08-2020, 07:57 AM
ChuckS's Avatar
ChuckS ChuckS is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 3,644
Default

I preferred your recording with less reverb and no EQ.

Compared to the reference track, I think the reference has more dynamics in playing, accentuating parts of phrasing, where yours seems less dynamic and gives a 'smoother' feeling. Just an observation, not a preference one way or the other.

As far as your comments on your initial mic placement experiments:
I can relate to preferring close mic-mic spacing (30cm) compared to greater mic-mic spacing (when the mic to guitar is pretty close around 30cm).
However, if you increase the distance from the mic to the guitar (maybe to around 56cm) and increase the mic-mic distance to about 42cm you get a bit less localized sound from the parts of the guitar into each mic, and you can adjust your stereo width by adjusting the mic-mic spacing (adjusting the mic-mic spacing to adjust the width of the stereo field does not seem to affect the overall character of the sound when the mics a back further from the guitar).
__________________
Chuck

2012 Carruth 12-fret 000 in Pernambuco and Adi
2010 Poling Sierra in Cuban Mahogany and Lutz
2015 Posch 13-fret 00 in Indian Rosewood and Adi

Last edited by ChuckS; 08-08-2020 at 08:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-08-2020, 08:11 AM
RodB's Avatar
RodB RodB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SW France.
Posts: 1,649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrighty View Post
Got it - I will have a look at those set ups for these side entry AT2020’s
Ahh, sorry - I overlooked that you have LDC's but may still give interesting results if your reduce the angle especially the NOS.
__________________
Rod,

My music Website or Soundcloud
Some videos on Youtube
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-08-2020, 08:32 AM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 19,884
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrighty View Post
Thanks Kev - that's very helpful.
You are correct, the angel ceiling is only about a 40% of the room with threat being normal height. I record under the vaulted part as you saw - I had pushed up against the end wall to be as close as I could be to the acoustic panel on that wall but I can certainly move further back.

The EQ piece is really interesting - mine is boosted starting at about 1k and running up to 8k (not in a linear fashion but by Izotope's EQ match to the ref track.

Where would you suggest subtracting from to increase clarity?

Reverb - it's on a separate bus at 100% wet but pre-delay is lower at about 25ms.

Cheers
Peter
First yes you can try(experiment with) moving a bit further away from the panels (everything is compromise and no one solution fits all)
Also the 50-60 ms pre daly is my personal preference for vocal and guitar (same reverb). 25 may be better for solo guitar or what you prefer, so its all good .

I am not familiar with iZotopes EQ, but looks to me like the Reaper "ReaEQ" will work fine.

While I do sometimes boost I never do that without first doing some subtractive "cutting" in the problem frequencies and usually only when I have first doing subtractive, and have multiple instruments and need to "carve out space" then highlight different instruments

What you want is multi bands on the EQ with adjustable "Q" (or bandwidth) , with the ReaEQ you can have the exact number of bands you want from only one, up to a bunch of them . Start with say 4 band plus a high and low pass, so 6 total

Start with the low end first ( everything is subject to experiment), BUT Start by setting the high pass, to filter out everything somewhere below say 50 hz to 80 hz

Then to try to isolate the biggest problem frequencies, start with a "search method" so in the other bands Use "Band type" selection and make the bandwidth pretty narrow.

Then start with the nex higher band (still in the low freq range) boost this way up (for now only to exaggerate ) and slowly sweep back and forth from say from 100 hz to 500hz somewhere in that range you likely hear something pretty boxy, tubby and echo'y like being in a big corrugated conduit pipe...... (Note...... while each guitar, mic and pre are different) often you find this boxy sound at somewhere around 250 hz and also an octave up at around 500 hz then simply leave the bandwidth narrow and move the gain down to say a 4-6 db cut for just that narrow problem frequency.

Next do the the same for the high mids say 4kHz to 6kHz and you will likely hear a distinct bell like ringing,,, then cut there.
And remember this is a game of subtlety NOT drastic.......
Do this and compare by ear to the track with the EQ bypassed you should hear it being slightly clearer you may even find the uncut frequencies being more present and more clear.


Here is a Kenny Gioia tutorial on the Reaper ReaEQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh_u3aRr4VE
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...

KevWind at Soundcloud

KevWind at YouYube
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD

System :
Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1

Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Ventura 12.2.1

Last edited by KevWind; 08-08-2020 at 08:39 AM.
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 05:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=