|
|
Post by spindrift on Nov 12, 2017 14:15:57 GMT -6
My rather despondent post a few days back about recordings making you want to throw in the towel was sparked by my frustration at not getting an acoustic guitar sound I was really happy with. After some reflection and experimentation, I’ve come to a few conclusions: 1) It is important to switch out the acoustic guitar first if you don’t like the sound of what is being recorded. Easiest way to improve the sound is to get a different instrument. Not the more expensive one, for instance, my Old early 80s Yammy smokes my Collings SJ when it comes to recording. 2) Play with your mics and mic technique. Today, I’m getting the best tones I’ve ever gotten on my Yamaha with a Josephson C617SET jammed right up near the sound hole capturing the delicate pick strum paired with an MK67 up towards the 12th fret for stereo balance. Running into a Gordon Model 5 preamp: Sonic heaven! I played with my KM84s and KM83s, and you can get great tones from both of those, but the Omni 83 allows you get up closer for a more intimate sound. I found the 83 to be a touch brighter on the plectrum strum and not have near the resolution that the Josephson does. That 617 is a jawdropper when it comes to resolution and feeling like you are literally there in the room. Anyway, I’m feeling a lot better today!  |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 12, 2017 15:59:50 GMT -6
I have a mid level Mitchell acoustic that I hand picked for the studio because it doesn't have much low end. This allows me to get my mics right up on the guitar and capture all the nuance without the proximity effect ruining it.
I don't understand people who pull the mics back so far they lose all the sparkle and detail.. I prefer to get right up in there.
If you don't like the tone you get up close, you don't really like the tone of your instrument!
It regularly beats out all kinds of guitars costing thousands more.
I don't like omnis for guitar since you pick up way too much reflection, breathing, clothes rustling, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by reddirt on Nov 12, 2017 16:00:24 GMT -6
Omnis can be just the ticket as the proximity effect is minimised ; I'm not as keen as others on my KM 84 particularly because of that reason.
Cheers, Ross
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Nov 12, 2017 16:08:03 GMT -6
Omni is the best!
|
|
|
|
Post by reddirt on Nov 12, 2017 16:10:47 GMT -6
I do agree with Svart about Omnis and extraneous noises however for me it's part of the general shit fight that is recording acoustics almost irrespective of mic pattern. FWIW , the biggest determinant in a great acoustic sound (after the player and the instrument) is a well chosen location.
Being able to move the mic/mics a little further out can cut the worry about clothes rustle/pick noise etc and offer a wider and truer perspective if that's what you are after - it can all be a matter of inches on your way to feast or famine!
Cheers, Ross
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Nov 12, 2017 16:20:49 GMT -6
KM53's (in Omni-doh!) - detail, no proimity, great options for placement, Neumann sound, brilliant "reality" of sound.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,919 
|
Post by ericn on Nov 12, 2017 16:37:33 GMT -6
The thing with omnis is you have uniform predictable off axis response. The thing with Cardiods and other directional patterns is the mess of unpredictable response off axis and the fact that most directional patterns are not really all that directional mics are more just a hot mess off axis.
|
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Nov 12, 2017 16:57:22 GMT -6
My KK83 capsules have a high end bump (by design for diffuse field recording I suspect) so in free/near field, they are a touch bright. I wonder if KK85 capsules (84 capsules with a built in low end rolloff) might be the ticket on a KMi body? But even with a KM85, I’ve got the off-axis to consider as Eric pointed out. The C617 has the perfect balance to my ears and it’s omni too.
|
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Nov 12, 2017 17:15:53 GMT -6
My KK83 capsules have a high end bump (by design for diffuse field recording I suspect) so in free/near field, they are a touch bright. I wonder if KK85 capsules (84 capsules with a built in low end rolloff) might be the ticket on a KMi body? But even with a KM85, I’ve got the off-axis to consider as Eric pointed out. The C617 has the perfect balance to my ears and it’s omni too. I started out with three KM85's (cheaper and easier to find in good condition than KM84's) and then purchased three KK84 capsules. AFIK the KK85 capsules are physically identical to KK84 capsules (same venting etc) except their diaphragms are more highly tensioned raising their LF -3db cutoff to around 200hz. They are -6db down at 100hz and -12db down at 50hz. They do indeed remove proximity boominess in close and yet retain the signature KM84 sound and uncoloured off-axis response. They are just the ticket for close micing several acoustic players in the same room in order to reduce excessive spill while avoiding low end proximity bloat. I initially thought I wouldn't have much use for the KK85 capsules but they are definitely a useful problem solver when close micing is required.  |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Nov 13, 2017 11:32:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 13, 2017 12:48:21 GMT -6
I have a mid level Mitchell acoustic that I hand picked for the studio because it doesn't have much low end. This allows me to get my mics right up on the guitar and capture all the nuance without the proximity effect ruining it. I don't understand people who pull the mics back so far they lose all the sparkle and detail.. I prefer to get right up in there. If you don't like the tone you get up close, you don't really like the tone of your instrument! It regularly beats out all kinds of guitars costing thousands more. I don't like omnis for guitar since you pick up way too much reflection, breathing, clothes rustling, etc. People do not usually listen to acoustic guitars with their ear right up on the instrument. I want the sound of the guitar as is to the listener of the listener in the room you want the mic back a couple or three feet. That also helps with extraneous squeaks, buzzes, thumps, breathing noises, etc, as well as being much less sensitive to the minor changes in position most people make in the course of a song. Also, the guitar radiates different frequency bands from different areas the body - the sound does not really "form up" into the balanced sound of the instrument until you get a little distance. If you have problem with "sparkle" and detail it's probably a sign that you need to change your strings. Using more than one mic up close to try to get balance opens you up to the problem of phase cancellation/comb filtering that occurs whenever you have more than one mic close together on the same source. It all depends on how natural you want the guitar to sound. It seems that these days a lot of people go for a sound that isn't very natural at all.... If you don't like the sound of your guitar at a distance of 2 or 3 feet, you really don't like the sound of your instrument. Note that the player of a guitar never really hears what the guitar sounds like to the listener. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,919
|
Post by ericn on Nov 13, 2017 14:15:34 GMT -6
I have a mid level Mitchell acoustic that I hand picked for the studio because it doesn't have much low end. This allows me to get my mics right up on the guitar and capture all the nuance without the proximity effect ruining it. I don't understand people who pull the mics back so far they lose all the sparkle and detail.. I prefer to get right up in there. If you don't like the tone you get up close, you don't really like the tone of your instrument! It regularly beats out all kinds of guitars costing thousands more. I don't like omnis for guitar since you pick up way too much reflection, breathing, clothes rustling, etc. People do not usually listen to acoustic guitars with their ear right up on the instrument. I want the sound of the guitar as is to the listener of the listener in the room you want the mic back a couple or three feet. That also helps with extraneous squeaks, buzzes, thumps, breathing noises, etc, as well as being much less sensitive to the minor changes in position most people make in the course of a song. Also, the guitar radiates different frequency bands from different areas the body - the sound does not really "form up" into the balanced sound of the instrument until you get a little distance. If you have problem with "sparkle" and detail it's probably a sign that you need to change your strings. Using more than one mic up close to try to get balance opens you up to the problem of phase cancellation/comb filtering that occurs whenever you have more than one mic close together on the same source. It all depends on how natural you want the guitar to sound. It seems that these days a lot of people go for a sound that isn't very natural at all.... If you don't like the sound of your guitar at a distance of 2 or 3 feet, you really don't like the sound of your instrument. Note that the player of a guitar never really hears what the guitar sounds like to the listener. I have always said there are 3 different sounds to every acoustic instrument 1 what the player hears 2 what an audience hears 3 what it sounds like up close Then there is the sound in the musicians head of what he thinks / wants it to sound like. The last is the hardest one to capture! |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 13, 2017 18:08:44 GMT -6
So true, I agree omni is great for acoustic! And backing off some distance is the sound I really like. One thing I didn't learn for a while was that strings make a big, massive difference. Its pretty common for newer high end guitars to have shimmery modern strings. It makes them sound ultra silky and detailed, a full mix sound with bright top end and bassy lows. I don't like the way it sounds in a mix though, just not my style for most things. When I finally tried cheap medium 80/20 bronze I was like 'ohhhhh....'
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,919
|
Post by ericn on Nov 13, 2017 18:14:23 GMT -6
So true, I agree omni is great for acoustic! And backing off some distance is the sound I really like. One thing I didn't learn for a while was that strings make a big, massive difference. Its pretty common for newer high end guitars to have shimmery modern strings. It makes them sound ultra silky and detailed, a full mix sound with bright top end and bassy lows. I don't like the way it sounds in a mix though, just not my style for most things. When I finally tried cheap medium 80/20 bronze I was like 'ohhhhh....' Yes they do, my first big session at Sound Summit I was amazed at how often a guitar tech would change strings, just to have a consistent sound! |
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Nov 13, 2017 19:09:33 GMT -6
Been curious about the recently released Gefell M320 for this purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by longscale on Nov 13, 2017 19:17:50 GMT -6
Note that the player of a guitar never really hears what the guitar sounds like to the listener. Amen. That was the first lesson I had to learn. Wish I could have learned that in under 10 years. Apparently I'm slow. For whatever reason capturing acoustic guitar is something that to this day drives me insane. It is the instrument I most desperately want to get right - and fail in the most spectacular way. On a weekly basis this causes me to re-evaluate nearly everything in my life. Ha |
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Nov 13, 2017 19:33:30 GMT -6
The Josephson is an amazing Omni. I have a pair of Gefell M221 that use the same capsule and they are remarkable sounding on acoustic instruments.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Nov 13, 2017 20:26:50 GMT -6
So true, I agree omni is great for acoustic! And backing off some distance is the sound I really like. One thing I didn't learn for a while was that strings make a big, massive difference. Its pretty common for newer high end guitars to have shimmery modern strings. It makes them sound ultra silky and detailed, a full mix sound with bright top end and bassy lows. I don't like the way it sounds in a mix though, just not my style for most things. When I finally tried cheap medium 80/20 bronze I was like 'ohhhhh....' Funny I make that expierience with a new Adirondack top OM which can sound too bright. A quick research brought up to use 85/15 Vintage Bronze with hexagonal kernal. |
|
|
|
Post by iamasound on Nov 14, 2017 9:04:52 GMT -6
The Gefell m930 is a wonderful mic for acoustic guitars. It is quiet, has a non-hyped sounding high lift to grab the sparkle of a beautiful sounding guitar, has a very tunable proximity effect that one can level out as you distance the mic from the source to balance with the high end to your liking, and the caveat of using this capable tool is that the off axis sound is sweet sweet sweet and any bleed seeping in only adds to the vibe of the live captured sound. An m930 eying the sound hole with my old AT4051B (before they added the pad) or Beyerdynamic mc930 aimed at the 12th fret has been very good to me. Also, any of these three can sound wonderful on their own as mono mics or blended to pick and choose how you wish to represent the sound of the guitar on a single non stereo track.
|
|
|
|
Post by pope on Nov 14, 2017 9:19:22 GMT -6
This! As long as the room allows it... |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Nov 14, 2017 9:50:36 GMT -6
This! As long as the room allows it... To me, the room always allows it as you can get so much closer than a cardioid if needed. I've been in plenty of bad rooms that cardioid didn't help. |
|
|
|
Post by pope on Nov 14, 2017 9:53:27 GMT -6
I don't disagree but it really depends on the source. Can't go too close on OHs for example.
EDIT: Unless we're strictly talking about ac. guitars.
|
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Nov 14, 2017 11:48:46 GMT -6
Note that the player of a guitar never really hears what the guitar sounds like to the listener. Amen. That was the first lesson I had to learn. Wish I could have learned that in under 10 years. Apparently I'm slow. For whatever reason capturing acoustic guitar is something that to this day drives me insane. It is the instrument I most desperately want to get right - and fail in the most spectacular way. On a weekly basis this causes me to re-evaluate nearly everything in my life. Ha ^^^^^ longscale gets it!  Regarding the acoustic guitar's recording perspective: Of course, my customer/artists tastes always trump mine, but by default, I tend to record and mix most instruments from the perspective of the musician. The listener is merely along for the ride that the artist and I are creating. I love the sound and first person perspective of playing an acoustic guitar. If that's an omni jammed up near the sound hole or near my head, so be it. It sounds great and immersive to me! |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 14, 2017 13:55:38 GMT -6
Amen. That was the first lesson I had to learn. Wish I could have learned that in under 10 years. Apparently I'm slow. For whatever reason capturing acoustic guitar is something that to this day drives me insane. It is the instrument I most desperately want to get right - and fail in the most spectacular way. On a weekly basis this causes me to re-evaluate nearly everything in my life. Ha ^^^^^ longscale gets it! Regarding the acoustic guitar's recording perspective: Of course, my customer/artists tastes always trump mine, but by default, I tend to record and mix most instruments from the perspective of the musician. The listener is merely along for the ride that the artist and I are creating. I love the sound and first person perspective of playing an acoustic guitar. If that's an omni jammed up near the sound hole or near my head, so be it. It sounds great and immersive to me! I heartily disagree. What the listener hears is the whole point. And since the player is behind and above the soundboard there are whole portions of the spectrum that he misses or hears badly out of proportion. I didn't spend thousands of dollars on a vintage J-200 just to have the listener hear something other than the glorious sound of the guitar. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Nov 14, 2017 14:00:22 GMT -6
This! As long as the room allows it... To me, the room always allows it as you can get so much closer than a cardioid if needed. I've been in plenty of bad rooms that cardioid didn't help. Well, if you're a close micing kinda guy an omni is often superior, as it eliminates the problem of soundhole woof and allows much more freedom of placement. But I rarely close mic an acoustic. On those occasions when it might be needed I have a nice little Earthworks measurement mic that works great for that sort of thing. I probably would not use an omni for distance micing in most cases. |
|
