The Acoustic Guitar Forum

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 09-18-2013, 11:06 AM
steve s steve s is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 141
Default Really basic advice needed

Guys,
I am trying to make some reasonably decent recordings of my primitive guitar playing (before my Parkinsons robs me totally) and could use some rank beginner level advice on setting up the mike, and maybe more.

I play a Gibson J-45 rosewood, picking and strumming with bare thumb.

I've got a Yeti mike on an adjustable boom stand going into a Windows 7 laptop running Audacity software.

I'm assuming I want the mike as close to the guitar sound hole as possible. OR, is there some reason to expect more realistic sound capture with the mike a few feet way (like an ear would be) or maybe sort of off to the side of the hole somewhat?

As I adjust mike position, I turn its gain to where I'm just avoiding clipping evident on the meter (> 0 dB) and hearing distortion thru my headset monitors. Of course, with the mike farther away and gain turned up, there's more background hiss.

I'm using the Yeti in stereo mode, thinking that will give more realistic room-like sound. But, I could be talked into cardioid, or other?

What about the angle of the Yeti? I assume that having front side face the sound source is best. Any reason not to position it end on towards the sound?

Any advice is most welcome, including suggestions on issues I may not have considered worrying about. Like, any concerns about Windows 7 or Audacity--I understand that life would be better with a Mac and Garage Band.

Thanks!

Steve
__________________
1941 Kalamazoo KG-11
1962 Espana SL-1 (probably)
2009 Gibson J-45 Rosewood
  #2  
Old 09-18-2013, 11:44 AM
rick-slo's Avatar
rick-slo rick-slo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 17,172
Default

A lot of that is incorrect. Try googling "recording an acoustic guitar" and read a few of the websites you find to get a better idea of how to record.
__________________
Derek Coombs
Youtube -> Website -> Music -> Tabs
Guitars by Mark Blanchard, Albert&Mueller, Paul Woolson, Collings, Composite Acoustics, and Derek Coombs

"Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Woods hands pick by eye and ear
Made to one with pride and love
To be that we hold so dear
A voice from heavens above
  #3  
Old 09-18-2013, 12:54 PM
MikeBmusic MikeBmusic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: On the Mass/NH border
Posts: 6,663
Default

Try the mic in mono mode, about 6" away from the guitar, pointing towards the 12th-14th fret of the neck.

Want to know a ton about acoustic guitar recording? Take an hour and read through the 19 pages of this thread HERE
__________________
Mike

My music: https://mikebirchmusic.bandcamp.com

2020 Taylor 324ceBE
2017 Taylor 114ce-N
2012 Taylor 310ce
2011 Fender CD140SCE
Ibanez 12 string a/e
73(?) Epiphone 6830E 6 string

72 Fender Telecaster
Epiphone Dot Studio
Epiphone LP Jr
Chinese Strat clone

Kala baritone ukulele
Seagull 'Merlin'
Washburn Mandolin
Luna 'tatoo' a/e ukulele
antique banjolin
Squire J bass
  #4  
Old 09-18-2013, 02:46 PM
david_m david_m is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Ramon, CA
Posts: 1,635
Default

The most recent edition of Recording magazine has an entire article devoted to recording the acoustic. If you can get a copy I'd highly recommend it.

Getting a good, clean recorded acoustic sound from a mic is not easy. Your best bet is to keep it simple:

Place the mic about 12" away from the 14th fret with the capsule of the mic pointing at the bridge. That's a good starting place. If you can, have someone sweep the mic back and forth about an 1" in either direction while you play and are monitoring the sound from the mic and see if the sweeping finds a spot that sounds better than others. That's it. Even if you don't move the mic and all and keep it as I described above (12" away fron the 14th fret, capsule pointing at the bridge), you're probably going to get a decent sound.

Avoid the sound hole at all costs. It is absolutely the worst place to record an acoustic guitar.

Keep the mic 12" away from the instrument. 8" if you must get closer, but I'd not get much closer than that. The closer you get the more proximity effect you get and the worse the recorded sound.

Do not gain the mic until just before it clips. You're giving yourself no headroom at all to work with when you process the recording. Get a good signal. -12db? Something in that range should be fine.

Be patient, experiment and have fun.
  #5  
Old 09-18-2013, 03:05 PM
steve s steve s is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 141
Default

Thanks, guys. I knew I needed help, but I didn't think I would be wrong about every single thing! Thanks, again.

Stevev
__________________
1941 Kalamazoo KG-11
1962 Espana SL-1 (probably)
2009 Gibson J-45 Rosewood
  #6  
Old 09-18-2013, 04:16 PM
JanVigne JanVigne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 960
Default

My feelings are you must first determine what you want then do your set up as best you can to capture that sound. At times though we don't know what we want, we just know what we've heard that we don't like. In either case, we don't know what created the sound. Rather than just fool around placing mics willy nilly, there are a few guidelines to follow in this short article; http://www.cakewalk.com/Support/kb/r...n=July+3+-+All and sound samples to audition for each set up.

The link originated in this thread; http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...d.php?t=301659

Keep in mind pretty much all of this is neither right nor wrong. It's a matter of opinion and, ultimately, taste. If you achieve the results which please you by hanging bananas from the ceiling, don't let anyone tell you that you have it all wrong.

I would suggest you experiment with both level setting and the difference between mono and stereo recording techniques. Digital recording equipment tends toward what is termed "hard clipping" when its limits are breached and there's not as much headroom as you might be accustomed to from analog days.


"What about the angle of the Yeti? I assume that having front side face the sound source is best. Any reason not to position it end on towards the sound?"

Check your owner's manual. It should describe the polar pattern of the mic which would answer this question.



I think a quick listen to the examples of mono and stereo in this article will, despite the statement there is no difference in center image, indicate the value of each set up. Certainly, you should ask yourself, how many channels are needed to capture the sound of a single instrument? Your mic's pick up pattern may dictate the answer to that question. A desire for the addition of some room sound along with your performance might also indicate which approach and set up is best.


I would say, however, anyone who feels the stereo recording is the equal of the mono track when it comes to center image is not listening for the same qualities I am;

"But when you record the lead in stereo, you can actually convey the size of the guitar—not to mention the extra tonal information you get from both mics. The lead is still very centered sounding—the two tracks are balanced and panned equally left and right, so it will stay “centered,” but by recording it in stereo it’s just bigger (not just louder) and fits sonically with the stereo rhythms. It sounds like a real guitar in a real room—not a guitar coming out of an AM radio. Here’s that same lead with both mics"; http://homerecording.com/bbs/general...-101-a-290919/


If you listen only on headphones, the stereo recording's center image will remain stable though not at all identically centered to the mono signal. If you listen on even fairly inexpensive speakers, as you move your head slightly to one side or the other the center image will quickly collapse and suddenly shift toward the side. The greater the distance between you and the speakers, the more dramatic this shift will be.




Good luck with the progression of your impairment. It's a frightening illness for many. I had a uncle who was lost to Parkinsons many, many years ago. I understand there are some new therapies which offer some hope for recently diagnosed patients. Best of wishes to you and your loved ones.

Last edited by JanVigne; 09-18-2013 at 07:14 PM.
  #7  
Old 09-18-2013, 08:44 PM
steve s steve s is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 141
Default

Thanks, Jan.
I'm pretty much committed to making do with one mike that I have. It has three condenser capsules.

It has a stereo setting. I wonder if the comments about two-mike stereo setups in any way apply to it?

Similarly, I wonder if the bidirectional setting would simulate two mikes facing in opposite directions, as described in the link you provided.

Steve
__________________
1941 Kalamazoo KG-11
1962 Espana SL-1 (probably)
2009 Gibson J-45 Rosewood
  #8  
Old 09-19-2013, 06:49 AM
JanVigne JanVigne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 960
Default

Which Yeti microphone do you own? Is it the Pro model?
  #9  
Old 09-19-2013, 07:24 AM
Herb Hunter Herb Hunter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 18,560
Default

I disagree with the advice to place the microphone 6 to 12 inches from the guitar under most circumstances. A few years ago, Harvey Gerst (the songwriter, studio musician, recording engineer, producer, musical instrument designer, and manufacturer) posted a lot of recording information and what follows is an excerpt from his posts that explains why I disagree:
Musical instrument radiation patterns

Guitars, violins, stringed instruments, in fact, all instruments radiate notes differently at different frequencies!! Read that again: Guitars, violins, stringed instruments, in fact, all instruments radiate notes differently at different frequencies!!

What does that mean exactly? It means that different parts of the instrument's body are used to produce different notes! Just pointing a mic at a guitar is no guarantee that you'll get what you want. Unless you understand how guitars generate sound, the best you can hope for is to somehow get lucky. Here are two links that show how the guitar top changes with each note:

Chladni guitar top radiation patterns
Radiation patterns

As you can see, different notes come from different places on a guitar, which brings us to the next section:

Near-field placement vs. far-field placement

Ok, so what the hell does that mean? Well, let's do a thought experiment to illustrate this concept:

Think of a tall column of speakers - about 6 feet tall, with woofers on the bottom, midrange speakers in the middle, and tweeters at the top. Now imagine that you walk right up to it and put your ear about 4" away from the system; what will you hear?

If you answered that it depends on whether your ear is near the tweeters, mids, or woofers, you're absolutely right. So where would you hafta stand to hear the whole system evenly balanced? At least 6 feet away is the correct answer - and that 6' away point is the boundary between the "near-field" and the "far-field" in this example. Any closer than 6 feet and you don't hear the whole sound, because you're in the "near field".

Now let's look at a typical acoustic guitar. The body is about 2 feet across. Put a mic any closer than 2 feet and you're in the "near field" of the guitar, and those two links I posted show you that you will be hearing uneven sound, depending on the note being played.

So, the first rule to remember is: "The near field distance is defined as being equal to the length of the longest part of the vibrating section of the instrument."

The second rule to remember is: "Inside the near field of an instrument, the sound will change drastically with different mic placements".

We'll get into mic choices, polar patterns, and mic placements in our next installment, but this "radiation pattern" and "near-field" vs. "far-field" stuff is really important to remember when you're trying to get a good instrumental sound.


http://yourfriendpaul.com/MicPrime/M...onePrimer.html

  #10  
Old 09-19-2013, 08:09 AM
steve s steve s is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 141
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JanVigne View Post
Which Yeti microphone do you own? Is it the Pro model?
I don't think it's the Pro. It cost about $120 at Guitar Center. In an earlier thread, I asked for mike recommendations for plugging directly into USB port. Someone said he was happy with his Yeti Blue, so that's what I got.
__________________
1941 Kalamazoo KG-11
1962 Espana SL-1 (probably)
2009 Gibson J-45 Rosewood

Last edited by steve s; 09-19-2013 at 08:14 AM.
  #11  
Old 09-19-2013, 08:37 AM
JanVigne JanVigne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 960
Default

While respecting the experience of your quoted "authority" on the subject, I would have to disagree with a few of his examples used as proof of his conclusions.


Yes, each musical instrument radiates or projects pressure waves in various patterns. It shouldn't take a long consideration to conclude a horn does not project pressure waves into the room in the same manner as does a piano. In the case of an acoustic guitar - or a cello, violin or other strung acoustic instrument - the body cavity is a tuned resonant chamber. The guitar "generates" pressure waves by way of vibrating strings. The tuned cavity of the body is there to reinforce the lowest frequencies only, it's effect on output decreases significantly with rising frequency. The top plate of the guitar acts as a diaphragm, much like an acoustic speaker diaphragm, which will have greater or lesser effect depending on several factors. It is reasonable to believe a 1/2" wavelength coming from the strings however would have a difficult time adding a significant contribution to the output of the top plate. All of this leads us to the conclusion microphone placement will affect pick up frequency response, no doubt. Just as Mr. Gerst states. Yet there are very few hard and fast rules which dictate where the top plate will have its greatest contribution to the output of the guitar. Internal volume of the body, the tuned frequency of the soundhole, top plate materials and construction along with alternative bracing techniques will create one instrument which would look to the computer's eye very much unlike another guitar. I therefore agree the home recordist should experiment with mic placement. I also feel any instructions based on Mr. Gerts's example would only get you in the ball park.

A speaker system "about 6 feet tall, with woofers on the bottom, midrange speakers in the middle, and tweeters at the top" says what? If this is a line array, then we already know we have a specific distance away from the plane of the drivers which will allow for the lobing of the drivers' output to blend into one cohesive whole. The rules of physics dictate such a distance for a line array though a generic 6' tall enclosure with woofers, mids and tweeters tells us nothing we really need to know. Of course, no matter the speaker's height or lay out, unless you are dealing with a single full range driver, if you place your ear 4" away from any individual driver, you will hear the output of that driver as being predominant. You will, however, still hear the output of the other drivers since their lowest frequencies will travel along the plane of the baffle. Try it, put your ear 4" away from your tweeter and you'll still hear the low frequency output of the woofer. Move your ear to the woofer and you'll still hear the tweeter. Mr. Gerst's logic here is simply wrong.

As is his implication a guitar is identical to a line array speaker system. Most musical instruments act as point source systems, not as line source systems. It is physically impossible to have a three way speaker system act as a point source. As point source systems instruments generate all frequencies equally in all directions, thus the "ideal" microphone or loudspeaker would be infinitely small and constructed as a sphere to best match the operation of an instrument. Since no transducer presently approaches that ideal, we must deal with polar patterns in the microphone of our choice. Just as a loudspeaker will become more and more directional as frequency rises and wavelength becomes smaller, so too will a microphone have its broadest frequency response on axis only. Contrary to Mr. Gerst's implications, this has nothing to do with the point source radiation patterns of most instruments. There is nothing about a 6' tall, multi-element speaker system which is identical to either a microphone or a musical instrument.


"So, the first rule to remember is: 'The near field distance is defined as being equal to the length of the longest part of the vibrating section of the instrument'."


This is a logical fallacy. Output from the string itself will create a correct distance away from the instrument which is full bandwidth. I'm not certain this is the implication Mr. Gerst wishes to make. If so, what does his reference to the vibrational patterns of the top plate have to do with this statement? None of which takes into account the polar pattern of the microphone being used.


"The second rule to remember is: 'Inside the near field of an instrument, the sound will change drastically with different mic placements'."


This is only common sense. Anyone experimenting with microphone placement will quickly come to the same conclusion without reference to a 6' tall speaker system or idealized radiation patterns of a resonant cavity.



No doubt Mr. Gerst believes his advice was well thought out. However, he states the obvious - mic placement affects tonal balance, particularly as you minimize the room's contribution to the signal - while reaching that conclusion by way of very faulty thinking.

Last edited by JanVigne; 09-19-2013 at 08:43 AM.
  #12  
Old 09-19-2013, 11:28 AM
JanVigne JanVigne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 960
Default

"I don't think it's the Pro. It cost about $120 at Guitar Center. In an earlier thread, I asked for mike recommendations for plugging directly into USB port. Someone said he was happy with his Yeti Blue, so that's what I got. "





OK, then begin on this page; http://bluemic.com/yeti/#/desc/ Click on the various tabs which will provide some details of the mic's operation. Since the mic is designed as standmount and the shot of the capsules suggests they are mounted facing the front of the mic's body, not the top, you would prefer to have the mic facing your guitar front on. But try moving the mic to face the guitar from its top and give a listen to the result. There are generic rules about such things as mic and loudspeaker placement but, in the end, you need to make yourself happy with the results - even if you have to buy extra bananas.


Since there are no hard and fast rules about what you should think is "best" (a high subjective term which will vary from listener to listener and even day to day), experimentation is the only rule to follow. If you would like a bit of room sound in your recording, you could, for example, set the mic to an omni-directional or a bi-directional pattern. As you can see on the "settings" page of the link, omni-directional patterns tend to have more side of the room input than will a bi-directional pattern. You can probably only decide which is closest to the sound you have in your head through experimentation.

One of the dangers of a microphone with as many variations as your's includes is you can get very lost, very quickly. As you make your experimental recordings, take detailed notes which will allow you to return to a favored sound without the need for further experimentation. Cardioid patterns do tend to have a bit of a hump in the midbass when they are placed close to a sound source. This can make a bass heavy guitar sound too muddy though you might like the presence of the instrument in the room. So be aware of the tonal balance changes as you experience each setting.

There's not much more to offer as advice at the present time. You have a few information sources and a highly variable mic to play with. Read, listen, create a concept of what you desire and then just go about it with the idea you can always hit "delete" and try again. Make it fun, I assume these recordings are for yourself and your family.
  #13  
Old 09-19-2013, 01:58 PM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 19,884
Default

Lots of good advice so far however some misconceptions also


For example here is an excerpt from an article in Sound on Sound on recording the acoustic guitar

"Sticking with the blindingly obvious for a moment longer, it should be apparent that the acoustic guitar isn’t a ‘point source’. In other words, it has significant physical dimensions, especially if you’re close-miking. Because different parts of any instrument will radiate different frequencies in different directions, it becomes very easy to achieve an unbalanced recorded sound if you close-mic any particular single point on the instrument. However, if you move your microphone back a little way, to try to catch the instrument’s tone more naturally, you may capture too much of your recording space’s own reverberation — and may also sacrifice some of the appealing (though arguably unnatural) immediacy imparted by the sound of the strings."

I suggest for starters and some good practical info, you take a look at the entire article here

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr1...s/acguitar.htm
__________________
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
  #14  
Old 09-19-2013, 04:03 PM
JanVigne JanVigne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 960
Default

""Sticking with the blindingly obvious for a moment longer, it should be apparent that the acoustic guitar isn’t a ‘point source’. In other words, it has significant physical dimensions, especially if you’re close-miking. Because different parts of any instrument will radiate different frequencies in different directions, it becomes very easy to achieve an unbalanced recorded sound if you close-mic any particular single point on the instrument."




I'd agree with the comments regarding microphone placement. However, since a guitar is not a line source and the article claims it is not a point source, what exactly is it?

I would still consider a grand piano to be a point source since the fundamental frequency of the note being played originates at one point along the string being struck by the hammer. Harmonics exist at other locations along the string length. All frequencies, fundamental and harmonics exist at one point on the string, the center lobe which, for an acoustic guitar, would be the twelfth fret. Listening to a piano from any position, the fundamental frequency is the same from any location. What changes is the amount of reinforcement provided by the body of the instrument - the resonant cavity. However, the resonant cavity is not what would make the string other than a point source. Yes, it will make microphone placement more complicated but the guitar is still not a line source. If not a point source and not a line source, what is it?

The reasoning a guitar cannot be a point source since it has dimensions, is again logically faulty. Can you tell me of a musical instrument which has no dimensions? If something has no dimensions, it has no physical properties. I'm trying to think of any musical instrument which fits that bill.

Last edited by JanVigne; 09-19-2013 at 06:37 PM. Reason: spelling correction
  #15  
Old 09-19-2013, 08:17 PM
steve s steve s is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 141
Default

Setting the mike gain, I had been trying to set it so that the instantaneous max marker on the input level meters reach 0. I'm assuming that is setting the clipping level. If that is true, then according to David I should getting those max markers around -12 when I'm strumming as loudly as I ever will. Do I have that all wrong too?

Thanks, and thanks again for all the other contributors. I've been doing a lot of reading. So far, I am liking the sound best when I use the Yeti's stereo setting with the mike about 15 inches out from the 12th fret, computer's mike gain setting at 40% and Yeti's gain about 50%, all with input max level ~ -12. BUT, I am plagued with occasional base string distortion on the stereo channel pointing over toward the sound hole. I hate losing the signal/noise ratio to get rid of it, with resultant audible hiss on playback. The distortion goes away if I switch to cardioid, but the stereo setting gives an otherwise more pleasant (maybe airy) sound. I'm wondering if that lovely Gibson thunk is maybe well known to drive recorders nuts? Got more fiddling to do.

Steve
__________________
1941 Kalamazoo KG-11
1962 Espana SL-1 (probably)
2009 Gibson J-45 Rosewood

Last edited by steve s; 09-19-2013 at 08:29 PM.
Closed Thread

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

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:17 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=