The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Guitars for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Folk strumming acoustic tone Condenser Microphones
Old 27th April 2018
  #181
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
When I was a clerk at Richie's Meatland on Moody St. in Waltham, Mass. in around 1975, a lady used to come in right at the end of every month and buy a couple cans of cat food. When I figured out that she didn't have a cat, I tried to slip her a package of beef chunks that were a little old and headed for the grinder anyway. She declined, and said that with noodles and enough salt (cat food has none) and pepper and spices, she could turn it into something more interesting.
Cool story. Imperfect intonation is still not a good enough reason to not record an instrument with a character worth capturing.
Old 27th April 2018
  #182
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Rossell View Post
Cool story. Imperfect intonation is still not a good enough reason to not record an instrument with a character worth capturing.
I guess, if you think you might risk sacrificing the "character" by putting on new strings and/or tweaking intonation. Me, sometimes I dig the character of oldish strings. But I have a limit.
Old 27th April 2018
  #183
Gear Guru
I don't think anyone said the tone of the instrument is irrelevant, just that recording has a lot to do with what you're looking for. Taylor guitars didn't exist back then and if you're looking for that sound, obviously you'd be looking for the same guitar no? A Martin D18, Gibson Hummingbird, etc..... Look if you're going for vintage tone, starting with a Rainsong or Ovation,might be a bad idea....! Extreme example, but I certainly would be trying to find something comparable and unless I'm missing something, the whole points to classic Martin, Guild and Gibsons, is getting a timeless instrument made the way they were for the last 50 years..... Even going outside spruce, mahogany or rosewood, is probably a bad idea.

So no I don't think guitars have changed that much... Back then people weren't trying to find dark guitars, just ones that sounded good.....BTW I don't get your bright guitar thing. Collings, Santa Cruz, and others copying classic designs aren't looking to build "bright" guitars. My Collings Martin D2h is dark as hell!... I think you're conflating listening to old recordings with what people sounded like back then. Bob Dylan, Willie, Kris Kristofferson, John Prine, all still play and sound like themselves. Just a little older.....
Old 27th April 2018
  #184
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieD009 View Post
Sharp did say that, Ardis - trying to hit home the point that it's the recording and the guitar/player/strings/pick etc etc are irrelevant. I'm not ragging on anyone, but I don't know how much clearer I can make it that we're talking about the guitar tone apart from the recordings, and this is something that can be generally discerned when you listen to multiple recordings from multiple sources and hear the same general tone. Those acoustic recordings from early Dylan etc. are pretty honest, it's not like they were throwing a bunch of effects on it, probably just subtle EQ, compression, etc. So, one who is not bent on giving out recording advice could easily look past the recording and focus on the tone of the guitar. The recording is the only way we have to hear what things sounded like back then - and while the mics used, fidelity of equipment, etc. etc. will all have an effect on the sound - it doesn't change the fact that those instruments sound a certain way - that's coming from the instrument!

And your point "I don't really think guitars or playing style, have really changed that much." You couldn't be more wrong. Both guitars (especially acoustics) and playing styles have changed drastically since back then. Not many folks are searching for this kind of sound anymore, and in general acoustics have gotten a lot more bright and jangly sounding to market to the pop audience. That's how Taylor's (which sound like screeching crap to me) came to be (sorry Taylor fans). Anyway, there is a guitar for every kind of sound, and as I mentioned before a good studio technician will reach for the right acoustic before they reach for a particular mic or mic technique. Not to say that they won't do the latter, but we're trying to affect the sound at the source here - the most important part of the signal chain!
I never said the instrument was irrelevant, in fact I mentioned a lighter pic as a possibility - did you think I meant it as for strummming a mic ?

The only point I made was there was no real way to know what it sounded like because all we have are old recordings as reference.

The sound you’re after has TOO many variables between it and you for anything but a rough approximation - what’s ironic and the fuel for continuous arguing is your wish to remove one very important variable - the only one we know for certain: the recorded sound!

I don’t know why this upsets you so to the point where at least twice now you’ve asked me to leave the thread.
Old 27th April 2018
  #185
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Oh right. That. The thing where nobody knew what was going on with the changes because nobody bothered to transcribe the piano part in the verses on the record, in which there are no triads so there can't possibly be any diminished chords. (This was complicated by the fact that Steely Dan additionally had the guitars playing in the verses on Don Kirshner's Rock Concert, and they may or may not have been playing triads, hard to tell.)

But the main issue I had with you was that you insisted that the song was in A Major. While I thought, and still think, it's in D.

Do I hold onto things? In the sense that I remember them, or course I do. Do I let them eat at me? I hope not.

On the points relating to "Reelin," I'll walk my talk and acknowledge that I may have been mistaken. Better?
Don’t say “everyone didn’t know”; you didn’t know and you still don’t because your ear, for whatever reason, couldn’t pick out the diminished triad and the individual lines that formed it - chords aren’t just block formations played on one instrument - ask any orchestrator, choir member or composer.

And yes, Reelin In The Years is in A major - even if there are poorly transcribed versions on the web and in stores.

The irony here is this was an argument you resurrected in an unrelated thread several months later because you apparently “kept it with you”. ... I’m glad you recognize you may have been wrong because you most certainly were.
Old 27th April 2018
  #186
Gear Guru
Love the fact that to replicate what you think is 60's tone of a lovely high end O body Martin, you need to use dead or flatwound strings......

1956 Martin 000-28, Brazilian Rosewood/Sitka Spruce - Instruments
Old 27th April 2018
  #187
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardis View Post
I don't think anyone said the tone of the instrument is irrelevant, just that recording has a lot to do with what you're looking for. Taylor guitars didn't exist back then and if you're looking for that sound, obviously you'd be looking for the same guitar no? A Martin D18, Gibson Hummingbird, etc..... Look if you're going for vintage tone, starting with a Rainsong or Ovation,might be a bad idea....! Extreme example, but I certainly would be trying to find something comparable and unless I'm missing something, the whole points to classic Martin, Guild and Gibsons, is getting a timeless instrument made the way they were for the last 50 years..... Even going outside spruce, mahogany or rosewood, is probably a bad idea.

So no I don't think guitars have changed that much... Back then people weren't trying to find dark guitars, just ones that sounded good.....BTW I don't get your bright guitar thing. Collings, Santa Cruz, and others copying classic designs aren't looking to build "bright" guitars. My Collings Martin D2h is dark as hell!... I think you're conflating listening to old recordings with what people sounded like back then. Bob Dylan, Willie, Kris Kristofferson, John Prine, all still play and sound like themselves. Just a little older.....
Not sure if you misread my comment about Taylors, but yeah, that's my point - that certain guitars are made for certain sounds, and they have a great deal to do with what you hear on a recording. There are guitars with a "dark" sound, like Martins as you mention, and Taylors are "bright" as all get out. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, because in many ways you are supporting my point. I'm not conflating the old recordings with what people sounded like - they made guitars differently back then, with different materials (some materials that you can't even use/get anymore). Take a 2018 version of any model Martin and audition it against an older one, and you'll see what I mean. Now, age does has something to do with that, but it's more that the manufacturing changes over time, and companies like Martin just aren't producing the kind of quality they used to, nor the same kind of sound, because people aren't playing the same kind of music I just don't see how the recording can be effecting the sustain of the guitar, or the fact that the strings sound "dull." It does has something to do with it, but I still think it's more guitar than recording.

I dunno, I'm tired of trying to explain it. A recording is a recording, I get that - but I started the thread, and I say it's about guitar tone
Old 27th April 2018
  #188
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardis View Post
Love the fact that to replicate what you think is 60's tone of a lovely high end O body Martin, you need to use dead or flatwound strings......

1956 Martin 000-28, Brazilian Rosewood/Sitka Spruce - Instruments
I hear what you're saying, but I'd like to point out that the back and sides on that guitar are rosewood, which is brighter and pithier than mahogany.
Old 27th April 2018
  #189
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
I never said the instrument was irrelevant, in fact I mentioned a lighter pic as a possibility - did you think I meant it as for strummming a mic ?

The only point I made was there was no real way to know what it sounded like because all we have are old recordings as reference.

The sound you’re after has TOO many variables between it and you for anything but a rough approximation - what’s ironic and the fuel for continuous arguing is your wish to remove one very important variable - the only one we know for certain: the recorded sound!

I don’t know why this upsets you so to the point where at least twice now you’ve asked me to leave the thread.
That's where we disagree, because I think the real way to know what it sounded like IS the recording. It's not hard to listen to a recording and say - "that guitar has more sustain" or "that guitar sounds bright/jangly vs. dark/staccato etc."

Just as you think I'm removing the important variable of the recording, I think you're removing the MOST important variable of the instrument producing sound. The recording is only capturing the sound. But again, you're bent on having the discussion of recording, and I want a particular sound from my guitar, so that's why I asked you to either join the right conversation or leave because it makes no sense to talk recording when I'm talking about a guitar tone - like, in my lap guitar tone. I see why you keep circling back - because if you're in a studio and recording an acoustic and you wanted a certain sound, of course you're going to look at mic choice, placement, etc. etc. But that was never my question - it was never "how do I make recordings that sound like this?"

Anyway, I'm not upset, just tired of explaining something that you can't seem to wrap your head around - consider that there might be more than one way to look at something than your way. I appreciate the advice about the picks, that's more what I'm searching for - although I'm becoming a thick pick guy these days, and I think getting that kind of tone is more using a thick pick and strumming lighter and closer to the bridge. Now, that's the sort of conversation we should be having here
Old 27th April 2018
  #190
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardis View Post
Love the fact that to replicate what you think is 60's tone of a lovely high end O body Martin, you need to use dead or flatwound strings......

1956 Martin 000-28, Brazilian Rosewood/Sitka Spruce - Instruments
I never said it that way, and my original post is asking if that's a possibility - I have read that Dylan used to leave the strings on the guitar for long periods. Whether that's true or not I don't know. The video you posted is a good example, because those strings sound too bright and airy to my ears - you can tell they are fairly new strings, and for me they don't accentuate the sound of that Martin very well, especially for the old bluesy stuff he's playing. For my money, strings will go a lot further in changing the tone of an acoustic than moving a mic around in a room.
Old 27th April 2018
  #191
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieD009 View Post
That's where we disagree, because I think the real way to know what it sounded like IS the recording. It's not hard to listen to a recording and say - "that guitar has more sustain" or "that guitar sounds bright/jangly vs. dark/staccato etc."

Just as you think I'm removing the important variable of the recording, I think you're removing the MOST important variable of the instrument producing sound. The recording is only capturing the sound. But again, you're bent on having the discussion of recording, and I want a particular sound from my guitar, so that's why I asked you to either join the right conversation or leave because it makes no sense to talk recording when I'm talking about a guitar tone - like, in my lap guitar tone. I see why you keep circling back - because if you're in a studio and recording an acoustic and you wanted a certain sound, of course you're going to look at mic choice, placement, etc. etc. But that was never my question - it was never "how do I make recordings that sound like this?"

Anyway, I'm not upset, just tired of explaining something that you can't seem to wrap your head around - consider that there might be more than one way to look at something than your way. I appreciate the advice about the picks, that's more what I'm searching for - although I'm becoming a thick pick guy these days, and I think getting that kind of tone is more using a thick pick and strumming lighter and closer to the bridge. Now, that's the sort of conversation we should be having here
I’ve recorded thousands of hours of guitars over 40 years of my life as a television composer in all kinds of rooms, with all kinds of gear and with many different results - I think I’ve learned a thing or two about how things sound.

If you could travel back in time and put Dylan’s guitar on your lap, you’d have an accurate representation of the sound you’re looking for, but as you said, that’s not the discussion you wish to have, instead you want people to speculate endlessly about a sound no one can actually hear, except on a 40 year old recording that no one is supposed to take into account.

This has become one of the dumbest threads in at least a day and a half .... lol.
Old 28th April 2018
  #192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
It's a mic preamp. If you want the sound of old folk, this will get you closer. They used these at Woodstock. Thing has very colourful sounding transformers in it. Take some unwelcome gloss off your new Martin.
This is typical GS totally wrong advice. Nobody in any recording studio (except maybe for the era's equivalent of a low quality entry level bedroom studio - yes, they did exist) would even dream of using one of those things. I know them well; NOT what you need.

Incidentally, the Woodstock PA was sub par even for the times - it was essentially what a bunch of stoned hippies with no budget could scrap[e together. Even The Beatles's touring PA was better.

The Shure M67 series was intended for small local radio stations to use for remote broadcasts of local high school sports events. Or DJs doing live personal appearances at supermarket openings. The tech is on a par with a solid state Bogen PA head, not even up to the Shure Vocalmaster. And that's pretty bad. It's early '60s transistor technology. The era that gave SS the rep for bad sound.

There's a common misconception that any old junk from that time period will get you "THAT" sound. It's a fallacy.

If you want the sort of mic preamps that were in use in studios like CBS at the time, look for old RCA or Langevin tube preamps of the sort used in those big 8-12 channel tube consoles with the big round knobs and huge VU meters. But to find ones in good shape will cost you. I happen to know (digitally) a guy who's in the process of restoring one of those old consoles - he's putting together a period-correct studio, complete with the old Ampex decks that did 3 tracks on 1/2" tape.
Old 28th April 2018
  #193
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieD009 View Post
I never said it that way, and my original post is asking if that's a possibility - I have read that Dylan used to leave the strings on the guitar for long periods. Whether that's true or not I don't know. The video you posted is a good example, because those strings sound too bright and airy to my ears - you can tell they are fairly new strings, and for me they don't accentuate the sound of that Martin very well, especially for the old bluesy stuff he's playing.
Lots of people kept the strings on their guitars until they broke back then, but for a recording date at a major studio for a major label? Are you kidding me? Maybe the strings weren't changed once or twice a day as they are now in the big leagues, but they were still pretty fresh - at least fresh enough to play in tune up the neck and not have any dead spots. Taking my '59 J-200 as a guide, it takes maybe 3-4 days for the strings to become unsuitable for recording up to the standards of that time.

Understand, when you back the mic off 2-3 feet the guitar sound isn't nearly so bright. You have to start with the techniques in use at the time. You also don't get the pick and fingering artifacts.

Quote:
For my money, strings will go a lot further in changing the tone of an acoustic than moving a mic around in a room.
And, I don't mean to be rude or condescending, but how much is "your money" worth here? What's your experience? If you actually had enough experience to know much about it, why would you be asking these questions?

Strings are important, yes. But a producer like Tom Wilson would not have allowed his artist to waste time at CBS studios playing an instrument with dead strings, because dead strings don't play in tune. And I'm not hearing dead strings on Dylan's records.
Old 29th April 2018
  #194
[QUOTE=Sharp11;13283084
The only point I made was there was no real way to know what it sounded like because all we have are old recordings as reference.
[/QUOTE]

All YOU have, sure. I had all those records when they were brand new, hot off the press, early pressings. Those sounds are, as they say these days, "part of my DNA". I've been listening to Dylan since the time my mom handed me the famous NY Times review that said he sounded "like a hound dog with his foot caught in a barb wire fence."

I've been involved in both music and audio ever since. Well, actually, slightly before.

I came up with all the "advances" in recording technology.

Quote:
The sound you’re after has TOO many variables between it and you for anything but a rough approximation - what’s ironic and the fuel for continuous arguing is your wish to remove one very important variable - the only one we know for certain: the recorded sound!

I don’t know why this upsets you so to the point where at least twice now you’ve asked me to leave the thread
Well, I dunno - maybe it's because you don't seem to understand what was actually going on with the things that went into that sound?

It's a synergy. The instrument, the technique, both playing and recording, the microphones. You have to understand it all and understand how it works together. You also have to know enough to separate the reality of the technology and recording technique of the time from the immense mounds of stinking BS that have grown up around what people who simply were not around back then have popularized about those times.

I'm 67 years old. Back then is when I started out as a kid. My first visit to a studio was when Ampex 3-track was still state of the art. For the past 15-20 years I*'ve been keenly interested in the techniques of the era when knowledge of how the acoustics of recording worked, before everybody got side tracked with wiz-bang technology. Been there, done that.

What I'n saying is that I've made a point of understanding how things were done back then and WHY, I'm not just guessing.

You have to understand how it all works together, it's not one thing or the other.
Old 29th April 2018
  #195
Lives for gear
 
The dman's Avatar
 

I was at an open jam the other night and a guy had a late fifties or early 60's J50 and it totally had that early Dylan and JT sound. I have a 2013 J45 and it sounds nothing like that.
Old 29th April 2018
  #196
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Understand, when you back the mic off 2-3 feet the guitar sound isn't nearly so bright. You have to start with the techniques in use at the time. You also don't get the pick and fingering artifacts.
You've said this several times recently and I think its one of the truest things that some people take for granted.

For a long time I always close mic'd AC guitar's. Why? I don't know really. Probably because I just didn't know better. In the studio the engineer always set the mic 2-3 feet away, but I was too stupid to emulate that. When I finally broke my habits and put the mic 2-3 feet out, the tracks started sounding "better" for all the reasons you list, John.
Old 29th April 2018
  #197
Lives for gear
 
RedBaaron's Avatar
I've tried a lot of mics over the years--some cheap, some expensive, some great, some horrible. The one that comes immediately to mind in reminding me of and old, low-fi ish , passive sound was one that I had years ago starting out: the Nady RSM-2 Ribbon. It was low-fi-ish but hyper warm when ran into a cheap, Mackie VLZ3 pre and altogether too muddy and unusable when ran through a tube pre. The Nady is modeled after the AEA R84 but as one might guess from the price, nowhere near that in terms of overall quality.

I'm not sure how much the low-fi aspect of older music is important to you, but as cheap as those Nady's are, can probably pick one up and have fun just trying . The Kel Audio HM-2D has a bit of that character also and is pretty cheap too, though just a bit lacking in highs and "passive" sounding compared to other condensers. The Oktava 019's have a bit of that also and are similarly dirt cheap, though I would describe them as "dark" and the Kel as "neutral" and only the ribbon as really "warm."

The more expensive ribbons I have nowadays tend to be more more high-fi sounding. Less boomy, better signal with less noise, cleaner transients, etc. That Nady immediately reminded me of old Dylan or even older music, like some old LeadBelly recording. If I can get there at all now for acoustic it would probably be using a dynamic like the RE20.

Certain pres can probably help with that also. The CAPI DYI kits go for relatively cheap preconstructed on ebay have a slight high-end rolloff thing going on that reminds me of old vintage folk tones.

Of course, your pic (or lack there off), attack, and the strings will also matter the most. Try a light-gauge pick or none at all.

But in the end, I think what your'e hearing mostly just that they were probably recording on old ribbon mics from a distance. If I had to guess, probably old RCA's.

Last edited by RedBaaron; 29th April 2018 at 01:52 AM..
Old 29th April 2018
  #198
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
For a long time I always close mic'd AC guitar's. Why? I don't know really.
Sometimes you do it simply get more of the thing you're pointed at than of everything else. If you look at the session photos of those "Will the Circle" albums, everyone's miked a bit too tight, but that's why.

And sometimes you might be doing something that's super-delicate and controlled and fine-tuned; there's a lot of expression and nuance available when you play real, real quiet. But for most of what folks do with an acoustic guitar, at least a couple feet out is a good idea.
Old 29th April 2018
  #199
Lives for gear
Never mind.

Last edited by onewire; 29th April 2018 at 02:03 AM.. Reason: I'm bad. Shouldn't have opened my mouth.
Old 29th April 2018
  #200
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Trying to chase people back to the original topic almost never works. And in this case, it's really hard to tell what the original topic is.
$hit. Thought I edited it fast enough. I realized as soon as I posted that it could be taken as a response to you and that's the last thing I wanted. It was simply about the U turn the thread took...again. Not on you. It's on me.
Old 29th April 2018
  #201
Lives for gear
 
TurboJets's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Sometimes you do it simply get more of the thing you're pointed at than of everything else. If you look at the session photos of those "Will the Circle" albums, everyone's miked a bit too tight, but that's why.

And sometimes you might be doing something that's super-delicate and controlled and fine-tuned; there's a lot of expression and nuance available when you play real, real quiet. But for most of what folks do with an acoustic guitar, at least a couple feet out is a good idea.
For softer passages, it's true, that's when you need close mic'ing.

But the OP seems to be focusing on strumming along the vein of Dylan and folky material. I also think JE is referring specifically to strumming with a pick when he makes reference to mic'ing 2-3 feet from the source. So...
Old 29th April 2018
  #202
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
[...]

I came up with all the "advances" in recording technology.

[...]
I'm about 99.9% sure that John means there that he grew up with those advances, not invented them.
Old 29th April 2018
  #203
Lives for gear
 
RedBaaron's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieD009 View Post
I've been playing steel string all my life, just trying to get closer to that sound, whether it be through technique, equipment, etc. Seems like we all agree that it is a combination of all these things. I think they used to make acoustics a lot differently back then, and that has a lot to do with it. Check out a young Randy Scruggs playing in this video. Notice how even though the strings are steel and have a bit of brightness to them, they don't ring out with sustain and they don't have a metallic sheen to them - again, maybe it's the guitar, maybe it's the strings, maybe it's the pick he's using, I dunno.

Got done rendering and was able to watch this. Did she just give that baby beer? I know a beer mug when I see one. Man, I miss the 60's...

On the Baez video, probably not so much the guitar, strings or pick. Check out the direction the mic is facing : it's pointed at her, not the guitarist. Off -Axis positioning and distance will give you less neck and more of the resonances from all of the body , not just the sound coming out of the guitar's pie hole.

Same principle with the Dylan 'Tamborine ' video. He's got a buttload of mics pointed at his head but I don't see any pointed at the guitar. Probably because guitars usually project more loudly than peopl. It's a safe bet too that those are either dynamics or ribbons, both of which will get you closer to that old folksy sound than an active condenser (especially if it's a gain-ey and/or bright one ala Mojave, Manley, Rode, Blue,etc). It looks like a condenser was used in the Baez video, which is a bit surprising, although the old ones weren't as bright as most nowadays. Plus we can figure on the tape adding a little warmth .

In any case, grab an RE20, an R84, or something cheaper like the Kel HM-2D or Shiny Box ribbons . Give it a little distance and position the mic off-axis and strum with a light pic. That should get you ballpark. I'm guessing a 312 pre will seal the deal. All else failing, you might switch out your D28 to something mahogany. Fair warning: all mahogany tends to be too dull, so I'd look for something with cedar or spruce for the top.
Old 29th April 2018
  #204
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboJets View Post
You've said this several times recently and I think its one of the truest things that some people take for granted.

For a long time I always close mic'd AC guitar's. Why? I don't know really. Probably because I just didn't know better. In the studio the engineer always set the mic 2-3 feet away, but I was too stupid to emulate that. When I finally broke my habits and put the mic 2-3 feet out, the tracks started sounding "better" for all the reasons you list, John.
Yep, a great thing I heard one time is to imagine the mic being the ear of the listener. You wouldn't put your ear right up to a guitar to listen to it, would you? Of course there are times when proximity effect is desirable, but I keep it pretty far out by modern standards.
Old 29th April 2018
  #205
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBaaron View Post

On the Baez video, probably not so much the guitar, strings or pick. Check out the direction the mic is facing : it's pointed at her, not the guitarist. Off -Axis positioning and distance will give you less neck and more of the resonances from all of the body , not just the sound coming out of the guitar's pie hole.
Could also be in omni mode, in which case proximity effect goes away, and the sound becomes more diffuse, with a lot of room mixed in. I agree though, it's about the overall sound, not just the guitar.
Old 29th April 2018
  #206
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieD009 View Post
Yep, a great thing I heard one time is to imagine the mic being the ear of the listener. You wouldn't put your ear right up to a guitar to listen to it, would you? Of course there are times when proximity effect is desirable, but I keep it pretty far out by modern standards.
And if you mic the guitar "pretty far out buy modern standards", you're miking the room, or space you're in, just as much as the guitar. You may not realize it, but it's true. The guitar (pics, player etc.) AND the room (dry booth, large space, proximity to reflective surfaces, etc.) defines the sound.

Here's a great video from the Neumann guys - FF to 2:38 where three guys bring a sink, a mirror and a piece of a tiled wall within a few feet of the guitarist - and listen to how the sound is totally changed:

How to Record an Acoustic Guitar With Only One Microphone - Part 1
Old 29th April 2018
  #207
Lives for gear
 
RedBaaron's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
Could also be in omni mode, in which case proximity effect goes away, and the sound becomes more diffuse, with a lot of room mixed in. I agree though, it's about the overall sound, not just the guitar.
Yup. That can be a contributing factor too.
Old 29th April 2018
  #208
Lives for gear
 
RedBaaron's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
Could also be in omni mode, in which case proximity effect goes away, and the sound becomes more diffuse, with a lot of room mixed in. I agree though, it's about the overall sound, not just the guitar.
I also wonder what sort of hardware they were running through with a lot of that. Analog saturation and low end eq boost plus right-hand technique seems to have gotten me that chicken-clucking aspect of what he's talking about, if memory serves. It wasn't something I particularly liked or wanted but I've gotten it on accident before when experimenting. If I get done with my project early today or tomorrow I might go back into the studio and tool around to see if I can't dial in what he's talking about, and post a few test files. Got a collection of 5 Takamine's from late sixties/early seventies to test. There is one all-Mahogany one that I think should nail it . If not, the cedar topped, mahogany sided Alvarez, or a Fartin (fake Martin) smuggled in from China both have a particularly mellow/dull sound because I've not changed the strings in aeons.
Old 29th April 2018
  #209
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
And if you mic the guitar "pretty far out buy modern standards", you're miking the room, or space you're in, just as much as the guitar. You may not realize it, but it's true. The guitar (pics, player etc.) AND the room (dry booth, large space, proximity to reflective surfaces, etc.) defines the sound.

Here's a great video from the Neumann guys - FF to 2:38 where three guys bring a sink, a mirror and a piece of a tiled wall within a few feet of the guitarist - and listen to how the sound is totally changed:

How to Record an Acoustic Guitar With Only One Microphone - Part 1
Yeah, that's where it gets tricky, and why I was trying to stay on the sound of the guitar itself - because I'm limited in my recording abilities given the room that I have to work in, which is my living room haha. I have treated it with some DIY rockwool panels I made, but still it's not exactly ideal, so the further out I go the more room sound I introduce - it's not bad, but there's always a give and take with it. But for what I'm going for, it's a much more honest sound further out. I like those videos Neumann posts, very practical.
Old 29th April 2018
  #210
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedBaaron View Post
I also wonder what sort of hardware they were running through with a lot of that. Analog saturation and low end eq boost plus right-hand technique seems to have gotten me that chicken-clucking aspect of what he's talking about, if memory serves. It wasn't something I particularly liked or wanted but I've gotten it on accident before when experimenting. If I get done with my project early today or tomorrow I might go back into the studio and tool around to see if I can't dial in what he's talking about, and post a few test files. Got a collection of 5 Takamine's from late sixties/early seventies to test. There is one all-Mahogany one that I think should nail it . If not, the cedar topped, mahogany sided Alvarez, or a Fartin (fake Martin) smuggled in from China both have a particularly mellow/dull sound because I've not changed the strings in aeons.
That would be awesome, thanks man! I've eyed a few of those Takamines on Reverb.com - never played one but heard they are pretty nice for the price - how does the neck on those feel?

Yes, chicken-clucking! You've finally put it into words for me

Thanks again!
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump