|
Post by creamburmese on Sept 11, 2014 17:27:37 GMT
I have a simple set up for recording my acoustics - a blue spark microphone into a Scarlett Box that then gets manipulated almost not at all by garageband before I upload. I didn't really know what I was doing when I bought the bits... actually I was grateful that when I plugged them all in, that something arrived on my computer..... And on the whole I've been happy (I'm not very picky). However I noticed when recording my recently acquired Taylor that the sustain on the recording doesn't reflect what I'm hearing - of course this could be for a bunch of reasons, for most of which my knowledge could be described as "fuzzy" at best. I did read that having 2 microphones strategically placed may better record the guitar sound. So should I get another microphone? Or delve into one of those "fuzzy" areas?,
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Sept 11, 2014 21:39:28 GMT
Two mics are useful but not necessary. Will send longer post at weekend.
|
|
|
Post by scripsit on Sept 12, 2014 6:22:44 GMT
I think you'll find it depends on what you're trying to achieve with your recordings.
If you're playing solo guitar, with no vocals, you can probably find a suitable sweet spot for a single microphone to pick up a decent and realistic tone. If you don't want to muck around with post-tracking manipulation (except maybe stick some reverb or similar on) then this is probably enough, once you've got an idea of what works for microphone positioning.
On the other hand, if you want to achieve a particular sound, similar to a favourite player you're familiar with from recordings, you'll probably have to experiment with a bit more gear. The majority of fingerstyle guitarists I'm familiar with record in stereo, with at least two microphones used in tracking. This means that you need a preamp that takes at least 2 inputs, a couple of decent microphones, and a lot of experimentation. (You can have matched pairs of identical microphones or deliberately dissimilar ones, they can be in XY formation, spaced pair, mid-side ...)
Some of the percussive players in particular use a bit of undersaddle or internal pickup signal, and a couple of the bigger fingerstyle names I've heard of use 4 or 6 microphones at a time, so that there is more to work with at mixing stage.
I find two microphones manageable, and I've been able to get a better sound than my first experiments with single microphones, but there is a bigger learning curve and you really have to fiddle with positioning a lot find what works in your recording space. Some people will warn against problems with phase and interference if you use more than one microphone, but that has not been my experience with recording a single instrument at a time.
The room probably matters more than the microphones, anyway. It's amazing how much strange stuff is picked up from noisy computer fans and weird reflections from walls and ceiling. You'll have to experiment with equipment, the actual microphones and preamp, and I suspect the combinations take a while to work through. For instance, I've heard recordings here on the forum and elsewhere done with Behringer C2 matched pairs (really cheap) which sounded excellent, but I couldn't get a decent sound from them at all.
Kym
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2014 6:23:11 GMT
I agree with Andy entirely. I have been experimenting with stereo mixing techniques with some 6th formers this week- 3 different set ups, XY, spaced omnis, and ORTF. The results are all subtly different, but having mic'ed up my octave mandolin in stereo and a single AKG 414, I have to be honest and say the single mic sounded pretty awesome.
I watched an interesting video on youtube recently where a chap recorded a classical guitar with all these different set ups, including a single neumann mic. To my ears the single mic sounded the nicest, and reminded me a lot of all the old Segovia recordings (which I guess were recorded in mono anyway).
Robbie
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Sept 12, 2014 7:15:12 GMT
I agree with Andy entirely. I have been experimenting with stereo mixing techniques with some 6th formers this week- 3 different set ups, XY, spaced omnis, and ORTF. The results are all subtly different, but having mic'ed up my octave mandolin in stereo and a single AKG 414, I have to be honest and say the single mic sounded pretty awesome. I watched an interesting video on youtube recently where a chap recorded a classical guitar with all these different set ups, including a single neumann mic. To my ears the single mic sounded the nicest, and reminded me a lot of all the old Segovia recordings (which I guess were recorded in mono anyway). Robbie You can get great sound from a single mic. A lot depends on how you process and mix it. Search out Doug Young's video on how to mix acoustic guitar. He works on a dual signal but the technique can add breadth and depth to a single mic. i have experimented - like Robbie - with multiple mics and to my mind I can't really see the benefit of stereo mics plus some ambient mics - although that might make sense in a great sounding concert hall. Being able to mix in a little pickup can add to the signal as well. While I normally record with 2 mics I have had good results with one mic blended with a pickup through a Headway preamp. Some balance is required here. You just want to create something that sounds nice. The quest for great recorded sonus can be a nightmare. For me, the biggest problem with my recorded sound is my own guitar technique and set up! On other guitar forums I can think about this never seems to enter the debate!
|
|
|
Post by scripsit on Sept 12, 2014 7:41:28 GMT
I obviously disagree with Robbie and Andy: stereo micing is not all that hard. Spaced pair and XY are both easy to set up with two microphones, and in an untreated room you probably want to be close, within less than 400mm anyway. I've been through the methods that Robbie mentions and found that a simple spaced pair works fine, at least for my microphone and preamp setup.
To my mind (and ears) genuine stereo gives you a bit more going on when you listen back, and if you've got a decent guitar you hear more overtones and 'real' things from close micing. This might be what you mean by 'sustain' (audio terms are worse than wine talk in terms of vagueness).
I'd agree that the Doug Young video is excellent for getting an idea of what is possible. He was really helpful on the 'other' forum on an individual level when I was trying to figure out why I was getting a crap sound, too.
By the way, one of the best illustrations I've come across of how classical guitar can be recorded can be found here:
Here, there is a lot of distance from the player, because it is a very good room. And a very good player, too. And expensive microphones.
I think what happens is that as you record more you become more critical of the recorded sound. That's why it's useful to have something you like to listen to as a reference. And then you have to know when to stop with the manipulation. I do agree that playing in a musical way is much more important than the technical side of recording, and you need to keep that in focus.
Kym
|
|
ocarolan
Global Moderator
CURMUDGEONLY OLD GIT (leader - to join, just ask!)
Posts: 33,694
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"c0cfe1"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 182a3f
Mini-Profile Text Color: 733a1c
|
Post by ocarolan on Sept 12, 2014 8:01:23 GMT
................. So should I get another microphone? Or delve into one of those "fuzzy" areas?, At this stage it would be better IMHO to address the existing issues. It should be perfectly possible to get a good sounding recording with one microphone. Some experimenting with positioning and careful attention to recording levels will probably pay dividends and teach you a lot about your particular situation. Start with your mic about a foot away from and level with the guitar and pointing at the neck/body join. Make a short recording. Repeat with the mic tilted slightly towards the soundhole, and then slightly towards the headstock. Do the same three recordings with the mic an inch or two nearer the guitar, and then an inch or two away. Keep the recording levels to a max of around -3db or slightly less. This should give you a fair idea of what your setup can do. Let us know if you like any of the sounds you get, and also let us know if there's still problems, and, if you can, describe these as fully as possible. Two mic recording has the potential to give some great sounds, but you need to be sure of what you're doing, and how to influence the result with one mic first, otherwise you just double (or square...?) the problems you're already having. Hope this helps. Keith
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Sept 12, 2014 13:59:17 GMT
Two mics are useful in the sense that they provide a wide stereo sweep to your sound, if that is what you want! As Keith says it is not necessary though, even to get a good stereo signal. Have a good look through at this video from Doug Young. You can do this with one channel. Duplicate the track and paste it so you have the four base tracks that Doug uses. I sometimes do this with Logic using two different built-in reverbs. It is worth spending a little time looking at the video's like Doug's, which deal in basic recording techniques. Of course, the music you want play is important. Celtic style benefits from space, overtones and shimmers! For me that means avoiding compression most of the time. But for other tasks you might want compression and if playing with a band — and with basier instruments — you will want to role of the bass quite a bit. The one top I would give you is to give yourself time to enjoy the recording and mixing stuff for its own sake. It's a bit like darkrooms or processing photos — I can get as much fun processing as I did in taking the photo. Don't worry too much about great recordings or great performances. And dont' worry about leaving in minor mistakes!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2014 8:41:57 GMT
One thing we haven't mentioned yet which is probably more important than anything else is the room you record in. Stereo techniques tend to sound better in a nice acoustic, especially the ones involving omni directional mice. Either that or a completely dead room. A stereo mixing technique will really expose the ambient acoustic, so if you are recording in a boxy sounding room there isn't anything you can do to get rid of that afterwards.
Robbie
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Sept 13, 2014 13:26:30 GMT
One thing we haven't mentioned yet which is probably more important than anything else is the room you record in. Stereo techniques tend to sound better in a nice acoustic, especially the ones involving omni directional mice. Either that or a completely dead room. A stereo mixing technique will really expose the ambient acoustic, so if you are recording in a boxy sounding room there isn't anything you can do to get rid of that afterwards. Robbie The best investment I ever made was some acoustic panel treatment for my office/music room. Finding a good room is important. I'm reminded that I said I would write something about this.
|
|
|
Post by creamburmese on Sept 15, 2014 18:23:37 GMT
Thanks for all the responses! I have tried different microphone positions, but not with the degree of accuracy suggested, so I can have another go at moving it around in a more structured manner. As for manipulating the room - that comes into my "fuzzy" category. I just sit in my chair up the corner and point the mic at the 12th fret and move it away if it's clipping. Ditto post-recording manipulation -all I actually know how to do is cut off the beginning or the end of the recording... Does garageband have the capacity tp manipulate the recording? Actually I wouldn't mind being able to play around with it afterwards if it was possible, but I certainly don't want to run into problems just related to having 2 microphones so I'm giving up on that idea! ... perhaps some of you experts could comment on if there is something obvious about the recording where I could do better with this? Please ignore the playing - I'm a pretty recently minted player (doesn't that sound better than beginner!) Julie
https%3A//soundcloud.com/creamburmese/brook-taw-yesterday
|
|
Akquarius
Cheerfully Optimistic
Posts: 2,504
My main instrument is: Towet Fingerpicker, Dreizehnter SJ15 "Akquarius"
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"020202"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: f9a507
Mini-Profile Text Color: f9a507
|
Post by Akquarius on Sept 15, 2014 18:39:47 GMT
A "recently minted player" would give her/his right arm to play like this
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Sept 15, 2014 20:36:26 GMT
Thanks for all the responses! I have tried different microphone positions, but not with the degree of accuracy suggested, so I can have another go at moving it around in a more structured manner. As for manipulating the room - that comes into my "fuzzy" category. I just sit in my chair up the corner and point the mic at the 12th fret and move it away if it's clipping. Ditto post-recording manipulation -all I actually know how to do is cut off the beginning or the end of the recording... Does garageband have the capacity tp manipulate the recording? Actually I wouldn't mind being able to play around with it afterwards if it was possible, but I certainly don't want to run into problems just related to having 2 microphones so I'm giving up on that idea! ... perhaps some of you experts could comment on if there is something obvious about the recording where I could do better with this? Please ignore the playing - I'm a pretty recently minted player (doesn't that sound better than beginner!) Julie https%3A//soundcloud.com/creamburmese/brook-taw-yesterdayYou need the best quality you can without manipulation. A duff recording is always a duff recording. Must right something about room treatment.
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on Sept 16, 2014 7:42:16 GMT
Absolutely nothing wrong with the playing there to my ears - very far from sounding recently minted.
I'd agree with Andy that the best route is for the quality to be as good as possible before manipulation - unless you have very high quality recording software it's likely there'll be an artificial flavour to manipulation. As to how to do that I'm totally unclear - despite researching it over the years I just end up still disorganised and having a vague stab at getting a decent sound each time. But being of an age where I used to have to record on cassette tape (ahhh the joys of tape hiss), even a substandard recording on my current equipment sounds amazingly good. I'd rather spend my time working on getting the performance better than the recorded quality - not that I'm happy with either. Unlike Andy I find no joy in the recording process. I suspect if I got myself high quality recording gear I might get more interested because I'd then hear more clearly the benefits to be gained from a good set-up.
I have seen players tie themselves up in knots on some forums when they've asked advice on how to best record and the best settings for one of their recordings. Everyone chips in with different ideas and preferences. The different musical tastes and different ears people have add to the disagreements. Multiple versions of the recording appear and tend to sound just different rather than better to me.
If I do use manipulation for acoustic recordings it tends to be limited to minor changes to the eq, and a bit of added reverb. I don't like to use compression much if it's a solo instrument - but it can help to level things a bit on a multi track, multi instrument recording, or if the guitar is accompanying singing and the strumming is a bit too uneven.
I think garageband has functions for eq reverb, compressor, echo etc - Google searches I've just done show YouTube video links for these. I've never used Garageband so I've no idea how effective these functions are. My better half does have a Mac and I did have an initial look at it but retreated baffled very rapidly. It's called being thick!
Mark
|
|
ocarolan
Global Moderator
CURMUDGEONLY OLD GIT (leader - to join, just ask!)
Posts: 33,694
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"c0cfe1"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 182a3f
Mini-Profile Text Color: 733a1c
|
Post by ocarolan on Sept 16, 2014 8:59:28 GMT
The whole recording thing is obviously subject to diminishing returns - you need to decide what is worth it for you, in terms of expense and time to get the result you want. It is certainly possible to get good results from a simple set up, and it is possible to get rubbish results from a more complicated set up. The complicated set up will be potentially capable of producing better results, and may well be more flexible, but will certainly involve considerably more expense and dedication in use. Having gone from primitive multitrack cassette recordings (easy but rubbish results) to a twin mic/mixer etc setup (good results, but expensive and a lot of faffing about setting up and in use), for the last several years I've been more than happy with my early version of the Zoom H2 and now well-outdated Cakewalk software - couldn't be less fuss, and the results would take a fairly large investment in time and effort to improve upon. The best way to find out what you need, and what you can achieve is to start simple and learn how to get the absolute best performance out of the equipment. Looks and sounds like you've made a good start on that Julie! Keith
|
|