What is the equivalent of a Royer 121 for acoustic guitars?

[Bryan T]

Perhaps that is an odd question. The first time that I used a Royer 121 on a guitar amp was a revelation - it sounded like how I hear my guitar amp. Most other microphones picked up more fizz than I was used to hearing or screwed with the midrange. I'm looking for a microphone (or pair of microphones) that'll do the same thing for my acoustics. Unfortunately, a 121 didn't seem to have the same magic on acoustics.

Any suggestions?

Thanks!
Bryan

EDIT: I should add that this is for recording solo acoustic guitar music, usually played fingerstyle.

[warhead]

I gotta say I still love my Oktava MK-012 pair (that I've owned since way before we became a dealer) on acoustic guitar. I feel it just fits it like a glove. Aside from that though, the Avenson STO-2 is just sooooooooooo natural it rules on ac gtr and anything you want to hear a realistic sound of. I've used the STO-2 on voice, amps, you name it...!

In case you're asking about ribbons (because of the Royer reference) I'd say the BLUE Woodpecker is likely the nicest ac gtr sound from a ribbon I've ever heard.

War

[espen askelad]

Crowley & Tripp Naked Eye is one of my favorite acoustic mics. Electrics, too. Slightly preferred it to the 121, actually, on everything but Vox amps, where the 121 is just amazing and the C&T "just" really good.

[BLUElightCory]

Did you try using the back side of the R121? If not, flip it around and reverse the polarity on the mic preamp; you will lose gain, but you'll get increased high end presence. It might be just what you need. Or not.

[lwr]

sorry if this is a silly question,

but why would you need to reverse the polatity on the 121 if you were spinning it around and that was the only mic you were using?

[deve]

122v is amazing on acoustic guitar. it's kinda expensive though

[bgrotto]

I had a similar "revelation" moment with the 121 on guitar amps, so I feel where you're coming from.

I got a similar feeling the first time I tried our Micro Tech Geffell M300s on acoustic guitar. They're really pretty amazing.

[Brad McGowan]

I modified a Karma K55 mic with upgraded caps and a NOS GE 5-star 6072A tube. It seems to bring the magic for on acoustics every time, whether they are strummed or finger picked. Something about the midrange is really compelling. I keep trying to use my modded Oktava MC012's on acoustic, but I end up choosing other stuff instead. The Heil PR40 when blended with a condenser can give some really nice articulation to the midrange without getting boomy.

Brad

[Brad McGowan]

Originally Posted by LongWave

sorry if this is a silly question,

but why would you need to reverse the polatity on the 121 if you were spinning it around and that was the only mic you were using?

So that you maintain absolute polarity with the rest of your signal chain.

Brad

[andychamp]

Originally Posted by LongWave

sorry if this is a silly question,

but why would you need to reverse the polatity on the 121 if you were spinning it around and that was the only mic you were using?

Let's say that you record several overdubs, all with the 121, in a great sounding room/booth and get a lot of that gorgeous room ambience on your tracks. Something a fig.-8 mic excells at.
On some tracks you decide you want to use the 121's brighter rear side. If you don't flip the polarity on those tracks, the ambience on them will cancel out some of the ambience of the "normal"-polarity tracks.

Of course, at mixdown you can start experimenting with intentional ambience cancellation.

[Ambroise]

I love my R122 in blumlein for acoustics

[donsimpson]

My favorite mic combination for acoustic guitar is an AKG 414 on the body, and a Groovetubes GT44 on the neck.

[swafford]

Originally Posted by deve

122v is amazing on acoustic guitar. it's kinda expensive though

+1. Love this mic on acoustic guitar. I'm surprised the 121 didn't do it for ya. Second choice would be a Gefell 582 w/UM70 head.

[Al Rogers]

My Peluso P28 gives me the sound of my Martin guitar same as I hear it. The mic is a vacuum tube SDC and is not as expensive as a Royer ribbon. It sounded right to me the first time I tried it. So natural that it startled me. Not other mic has done that for me on an acoustic guitar. Of course YMMV (your mileage may vary).

-Al

[Ameyerson]

I never thought ribbons worked that well on acoustic guitars.
I'm a small cap condenser guy.
Schoeps, Mojave, or this Mercenary 69 all work great

[ribteen]

i just recorded acoustic guitar with an r121 through a cranesong spider with an api 560 and a trakker on the insert... pushed a bit of 8k, 16k, and a hair of 4k while cutting the lows below 125hz. very smooth and lovely. i've tried the 121 without the eq and it is not nearly as effective......

[DanRock101]

Great thread and good tips guys!

[MichaelPatrick]

Royer SF-12 for stereo or SF-1 for mono. The ribbon is smaller and faster than the 121 making it more articulate. It captures subtle details better.

This thread has a picture of an acoustic guitar setup by Michael Bishop and some informative discussion of different ribbon types...

Royer SF 12 vs. Coles 4038's.

[fifthcircle]

FWIW, I usually reach for either a Beyer 160 ribbon or a Mojave MA-100 with the cardiod capsule. Both are great and both have completely different sounds. Just a matter of taste.

Otherwise, depending on the gig and the style (usually more classical), I go for either the Sennheisers or Schoeps. They may be a bit "refined" (for lack of a better term) than some of the previously mentioned mics here for that style of playing.

--Ben

[Chunky But Funky]

I have a pair of U87's, 121's and KM184's, but I am sort of jonesin' for a matched pair of Josephson C42's at the moment. For live I blend 1 or 2 AT Pro 37's with my Baggs M1.

Doug

[lakeshorephatty]

Originally Posted by andychamp

Let's say that you record several overdubs, all with the 121, in a great sounding room/booth and get a lot of that gorgeous room ambience on your tracks. Something a fig.-8 mic excells at.
On some tracks you decide you want to use the 121's brighter rear side. If you don't flip the polarity on those tracks, the ambience on them will cancel out some of the ambience of the "normal"-polarity tracks.

Of course, at mixdown you can start experimenting with intentional ambience cancellation.

Why would this happen? The ambiance from this particular source being recorded should not be correlated to the ambiance recorded from another source at a different time. Is recording a different source in not exactly the same spot in the room at a later time not the same scenario as recording in a completely different room? Those sounds should not be correlated unless the ambiance is being picked up by two mics at different spots in the room, at that point its debatable what polarity will be best as it depends on the distances between the mics and sources and walls etc...

am I wrong?

[andychamp]

Originally Posted by lakeshorephatty

Why would this happen? The ambiance from this particular source being recorded should not be correlated to the ambiance recorded from another source at a different time. Is recording a different source in not exactly the same spot in the room at a later time not the same scenario as recording in a completely different room? Those sounds should not be correlated unless the ambiance is being picked up by two mics at different spots in the room, at that point its debatable what polarity will be best as it depends on the distances between the mics and sources and walls etc...

am I wrong?

Of course, if the source and the mic are in different places for each take, the ambience should be different each time. At least mathematically.
But if the mic stays in the same place, the "room information" picked up would be basically the same. If not in quantity, then at least in character.
Granted, this is probably more the case in a static echo chamber than in a room with moving, living performers.