Mic Types/Placements/Recommendations -- kinda new to this, would love some advice

[MRich]

Ok, so this is my first post here. Hopefully I'll not only make more, but be able to help people in some way, eventually.

I already have one release out, but I used Band in a Box for the backing tracks, but that's not really relevant to this discussion.

I'm starting work on an acoustic project (acoustic guitar and vocals). My current equipment is as follows:

Shure SM58
Oktava MK-319
two AKG P-170's

TASCAM "monitor" headphones
Focusrite Scarlett 2i2.

Reaper as my DAW.

I also have two mic stands. A "standard" one with a boom arm, and a smaller "kick drum" type stand.

I also have a 10 inch spacer bar.

I'll be recording this in my garage. I did vocals for my aforementioned EP in there, and they didn't turn out half bad for that being my first time doing everything.

Information I've found on this is all over the place. What do I mean by that?

I've seen people say that you should ONLY use condenser mics for acoustic guitar. Most will even specifically say small-diaphragm condensers. I've seen others say it's also fine to use dynamics such as the Shure SM57.

For example, let's take the XY configuration. I've seen videos, articles, etc. saying that people should ONLY use SDCs for that configuration recording acoustic guitar. I've seen others that say it's fine (and even a few videos illustrating it) to use dynamics, like the SM57.

I've also seen an A/B configuration using a large-diaphragm condenser, and a "pencil" style small diaphragm condenser, placed a few feet apart.

I've also heard that I shouldn't record acoustic guitar with dynamic mics, either. Up until I read that, I was considering buying a pair of Shure SM57's. But I don't know about doing that, because I don't have a "full" setup, and don't really know how often I would use some of the other mics I have in that case. On the other hand, I've heard that 57's are good to have even for hobbyists/amateurs. I've also seen that the 57 is great for recording acoustic guitar. So I have all sorts of information, and I'm having trouble filtering it all out.

I usually use the MK-319 as a vocal mic.

I get that a lot of mic placement/which mic to use comes down to experimentation.

That said, to expand on the possibilities for placements, I'm considering a ribbon mic as well. I kind of found one within my price range (an active ribbon -- ART AR5), but apparently the self-noise for it is considered high at 25dB. I'd considered a passive ribbon, and found one in my price range (MXL R144), but I can't use it with a condenser if I wanted to try a mid-side recording. So I was wondering if 25dB of self noise really is bad for a home recording, and how it shows up. I could, I suppose, just buy the passive ribbon mic and use it and my SM58 to experiment with mid-side, but I'm curious if the 57 would be better in that instance. Or, if the active ribbon is fine self-noise wise, I could just use it and one of my P170's.

Which micing technique is your favorite? I've considered different ones, but for acoustic, which do you like best for a good stereo image that also has a good mono compatibility? I found one that a guy referred to as sort of a "reverse ORTF" where the mics are angled vertically instead of horizontally, with one pointing down toward the body, and one pointing up toward the body. It's supposed to produce a more "even" stereo image. But I want to experiment, as I might use different techniques on different tracks that I'm recording.

I don't think it matters, but the guitar I'd be primarily using is a Takamine EG334 cutaway.

Any kind of point in the right direction would be really appreciated.

Thanks for your patience and understanding. As I said, I'm very new to this.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Ok, so this is my first post here.

Welcome to the SOS forums.

Information I've found on this is all over the place.

There are a multitude of ways to do any recording. There may be guidelines, and popular techniques, but are no rules. You can do whatever you like as long as it sounds good to you and, ultimately, your audience.

i've seen people say that you should ONLY use condenser mics for acoustic guitar.

Yeah.... you'll find a lot of people like that on the Internet. We call them idiots...

If you want a bright, percussive sound then capacitor mics usually work very well... but maybe you want a more mellow and less edgy sound, in which case a different mic choice might give better results.

I've seen others say it's also fine to use dynamics such as the Shure SM57.

It is, if that gives you a sound you like.

For example, let's take the XY configuration. I've seen videos, articles, etc. saying that people should ONLY use SDCs for that configuration recording acoustic guitar. I've seen others that say it's fine (and even a few videos illustrating it) to use dynamics, like the SM57.

Personally, I rarely use an XY cardioid stereo array on an acoustic guitar, just because the stereo acceptance angle is so wide (around 180 degrees) that the guitar will tend to sound very narrow in the stereo image. It might work in some situations, but probably not for a singing guitarist with no other instrumentation.

However, if you want to use SM57s in an XY array you can. The only thing to be aware of is that 57s are designed to be used quite close to the source. If you use them at a distance more likely for a stereo array they may sound a little bass-light compared to flat response capacitor mics.... or flat response dynamic mics like AKGs old D224es.

I've also seen an A/B configuration using a large-diaphragm condenser, and a "pencil" style small diaphragm condenser, placed a few feet apart.

It's quite common to use two mics, one near where the neck joins the body and other nearer the tail end of the main body. The mics can be dissimilar, usually with an LDC at the tail and an SDC at the neck.

This arrangement isn't, technically AB stereo. It's a multi-mic technique that can give a nice stereo effect if panned appropriately.

I kind of found one within my price range (an active ribbon -- ART AR5), but apparently the self-noise for it is considered high at 25dB.

It is high compared to an LDC, but it won't be a problem if close miking a guitar.

I'd considered a passive ribbon, and found one in my price range (MXL R144), but I can't use it with a condenser if I wanted to try a mid-side recording.

Why not?

So I was wondering if 25dB of self noise really is bad for a home recording, and how it shows up.

Hiss. But being an active mic it has a higher output level, meaning you'll need less preamp gain which means less noise from the preamp... so ithe overall noise level shouldn't be too bad at all.

Be aware, though, that ribbon mics like the AR5 have asymmetrical polar patterns, meaning that one side usually sounds brighter than the other. This provides some useful versatility for mono miking, but — technically — limits its use for Mid-Side applications since the left and right imaging will be different.

Some people also use XY or MS arrays vertically rather than horizontally in front of the guitar to give some stereo width without the usual bass-on-the-left, highs-on-the-right effect.

However, an acoustic guitar sounds different left/right anyway, so you can use the the mic to enhance or reduce those differences just by turning it around (and inverting its polarity).

But if I were you I'd experiment with the mics you have, getting used to how they sound and compare individually and in combination, to see what you can achieve with them. If you then identify something lacking you can consider adding new mics to address that problem.

Top advice: stop reading dubious web experts and start training your ears and building first-hand experience by using your mics in earnest.

[MRich]

Thank you for the response, Hugh.

Yeah.... you'll find a lot of people like that on the Internet. We call them idiots...

I think the thinking is that since the acoustic guitar isn't a "loud" instrument, that the extra "sensitivity" of the condenser microphone is "better".

If you want a bright, percussive sound then capacitor mics usually work very well... but maybe you want a more mellow and less edgy sound, in which case a different mic choice might give better results.

I don't know quite how to explain what I'm looking for, but a "stereo" vintage/retro sound. For example, I'll be using Martin's "monel" strings, which are supposed to be "retro".

However, if you want to use SM57s in an XY array you can. The only thing to be aware of is that 57s are designed to be used quite close to the source. If you use them at a distance more likely for a stereo array they may sound a little bass-light compared to flat response capacitor mics.... or flat response dynamic mics like AKGs old D224es.

I saw a guy do an XY configuration I hadn't seen before. He had the mics close in (something like 8 inches), but instead of having them at the neck/body joint or the 12th fret, he had them a few inches higher than the sound hole.

It is high compared to an LDC, but it won't be a problem if close miking a guitar.

Yeah, I'm thinking no farther back than a foot or so. Ideally I'd be within 8-10 inches. But with a mic like that, if the figure 8 is "uneven", would mid-side still work? The way I understand mid-side, is you duplicate the "side" track, and then switch the polarity of one of the tracks, then kind of blend the "side" with the "mid" to get the stereo effect.

Why not?

That's a good question. I should have explained earlier. My interface (a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2) has one phantom power button. So it's either on or off. It can't be controlled per input. And I believe I read that with passive ribbon mics, you can damage the ribbon if you apply phantom power to it. At least that applies to the passive one I was looking at.

Some people also use XY or MS arrays vertically rather than horizontally in front of the guitar to give some stereo width without the usual bass-on-the-left, highs-on-the-right effect.

I've seen that, and I've considered it as well.

Top advice: stop reading dubious web experts and start training your ears and building first-hand experience by using your mics in earnest.

Thanks again, Hugh.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I think the thinking is that since the acoustic guitar isn't a "loud" instrument, that the extra "sensitivity" of the condenser microphone is "better".

How quietly can you play it? How far away are you going to put the mics? How noisy is your preamp? How quiet is the room?

I've recorded plenty of acoustic guitars with Coles 4038 ribbons, probably the least sensitive mic you can buy today!

I don't know quite how to explain what I'm looking for, but a "stereo" vintage/retro sound. For example, I'll be using Martin's "monel" strings, which are supposed to be "retro".

Forget stereo for a moment... first, can you get the tonality you want from the guitar itself? Secondly, can you capture that tonality with any of your current mics (experiment with position/angle)?

If you can, great. You'll need two of that mic! If not, what's missing/wrong with the sounds you are getting?

I saw a guy do an XY configuration I hadn't seen before. He had the mics close in (something like 8 inches), but instead of having them at the neck/body joint or the 12th fret, he had them a few inches higher than the sound hole.

People do all kinds of stuff. What matters is did it sound good?

...if the figure 8 is "uneven", would mid-side still work?

Yes it will still work exactly as normal, insofar as you'll get a stereo effect. However, technically the left and right halves of the image will be different. They'll have different imaging and different tonalities. In crude terms, it would be the equivalent of an XY steteo array using a cardioid capacitor mic on one side and a supercardioid dynamic mic on the other. So, not accurate stereo, but a usable stereo effect in that context.

My interface (a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2) has one phantom power button. So it's either on or off. It can't be controlled per input. And I believe I read that with passive ribbon mics, you can damage the ribbon if you apply phantom power to it. At least that applies to the passive one I was looking at.

It's a common claim, but it's very misleading. Some peculiar vintage ribbons can be damaged by phantom, and a very few rubbish ribbons don't like being hot-plugged with phantom on the line.

But the vast majority of ribbons are perfectly fine with phantom. I've used ribbons with phantom on the cable for 30+ years and none have suffered. If it bothers you, just make sure phantom is off when you plug or unplug the ribbon. But once plugged in, fire up the phantom and all will be well.

[MRich]

How quietly can you play it? How far away are you going to put the mics? How noisy is your preamp? How quiet is the room?

I can play it fairly quietly, but I think for most of the project I'm going to be working on, I won't be. I'll be strumming with a pick.

I'm probably going to be putting the mics probably six to 10 inches away. I'll have to experiment.

I think the focusrite is a fairly quiet interface. I haven't looked up the specs for the 2i2. The room is a garage with a bunch of stuff in it. So it's about as quiet as a room in a house with nobody in it. Although cars passing by every now and then might cause issues, but that's what multiple takes are for.

Forget stereo for a moment... first, can you get the tonality you want from the guitar itself? Secondly, can you capture that tonality with any of your current mics (experiment with position/angle)?

If you can, great. You'll need two of that mic! If not, what's missing/wrong with the sounds you are getting?

I think so. Again, I'm going to have to experiment. I guess the closest I can reference is something like the Hank Williams song "There's No Room In My Heart For The Blues" (but imagine the guitar in stereo instead of mono):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRyfWEBgt6c

Or "I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow" (but again, with the guitar in stereo):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFpEYOPBsDU

Yes it will still work exactly as normal, insofar as you'll get a stereo effect. However, technically the left and right halves of the image will be different. They'll have different imaging and different tonalities. In crude terms, it would be the equivalent of an XY steteo array using a cardioid capacitor mic on one side and a supercardioid dynamic mic on the other. So, not accurate stereo, but a usable stereo effect in that context.

But within that context, the way I understand that mid-side works, is you take the "side", duplicate the track in the DAW, and "flip" the polarity of one track. That would "even out" the side stereo, wouldn't it?

It's a common claim, but it's very misleading. Some peculiar vintage ribbons can be damaged by phantom, and a very few rubbish ribbons don't like being hot-plugged with phantom on the line.

This is the passive one I am considering. It's only $100USD:

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail ... microphone

But if I go with that one, I don't know for sure if I'd need a 57 if I wanted to test out mid-side, because I already have a 58. Although I've heard the 58 is more for voice and the 57 is more for instruments.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I think for most of the project I'm going to be working on, I won't be. I'll be strumming with a pick.... I'm probably going to be putting the mics probably six to 10 inches away.

You're not going to have a problem!

...the way I understand that mid-side works, is you take the "side", duplicate the track in the DAW, and "flip" the polarity of one track. That would "even out" the side stereo, wouldn't it?

No, it wouldn't. And you don't need to worry about duplicating tracks and flipping polarities. That's old school analogue! All you need is an MS decoder plugin. Most DAWs have one, and if not Voxengo MSED is free.

Create a stereo track, route Mid mic to channel 1 (left), Side mic to channel 2 (right). Activate the plugin. Job done!

This is the passive one I am considering. It's only $100USD:

It'll be fine with phantom.

[Sam Spoons]

The SM57 and SM58 share the same capsule, the differences are caused by the differing grill structures so if you remove the grill from a 58 it should sound virtually identical to a 57*. FWIW an SM57 is often used as a close mic on a Bluegrass picker's guitar live.

* The same is not true of the Beta series 57 & 58, they have more similar grills but differently voiced capsules.

[Drew Stephenson]

SM58s and SM57s use the same capsule, screw the ball off the 58 and you'll have to work quite hard to find someone who can tell the recording from a 57.
[EDIT Sam got there first!]

As Hugh says, play around with what you have first. The mic distance and mic position will make at least as much difference as the mic type. So pick a starting point, e.g. SM58 around the 12th fret, or maybe pointing at the upper or lower bout if you want something a bit more 'woody', and then move around from there.
I'm not familiar with your headphones but if they're closed-back ones you might be able to get enough isolation to make an effective judgement of the recorded sound.
But if not, put a delay on the input in Reaper, set it long, like 30 seconds long, then play for thirty seconds and you'll then hear back what you've just played. Set if longer if you need and you can play for a minute then listen back. Move the mic (or yourself) and play again and listen back.

[MRich]

I'm not familiar with your headphones but if they're closed-back ones you might be able to get enough isolation to make an effective judgement of the recorded sound.

They're closed-back. They're "flat" in that they're not "regular headphones", they're basically monitors that look like headphones, if that makes sense.

[Wonks]

* The same is not true of the Beta series 57 & 58, they have more similar grills but differently voiced capsules.

Hmmm. I got a near-identical response measuring a Beta 57a and Beta 58a, well within the tolerances between capsule samples.

[Wonks]

Shure say only the grilles and labels are different. https://service.shure.com/Service/s/art ... uage=en_US

I was testing at roughly 30cm from a speaker so proximity effect was reduced and the same for both mics. They really are almost identical in sound (but for some reason the B57a is cheaper than the B58a, by about £20, and a Beta 58a grille was around £12).

[Random Guitarist]

Very difficult to put into sound into words.

If it's any use I can describe how I recorded the acoustic guitar for this track

https://soundcloud.com/grant-laurenson- ... al_sharing

But that might not be the tone you are looking for.

[Sam Spoons]

Shure say only the grilles and labels are different. https://service.shure.com/Service/s/art ... uage=en_US

I was testing at roughly 30cm from a speaker so proximity effect was reduced and the same for both mics. They really are almost identical in sound (but for some reason the B57a is cheaper than the B58a, by about £20, and a Beta 58a grille was around £12).

Interesting, I had been led to believe by a supposedly reliable but now long forgotten source that the Beta 57 and 58 had different capsules. Makes complete sense that they are identical. I have 3 57A's which I bought to use as vocal mics, a role they fulfil admirably.

[Sam Inglis]

I think so. Again, I'm going to have to experiment. I guess the closest I can reference is something like the Hank Williams song "There's No Room In My Heart For The Blues" (but imagine the guitar in stereo instead of mono):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRyfWEBgt6c

Or "I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow" (but again, with the guitar in stereo):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFpEYOPBsDU

To my ears these sound like very different recordings, what's similar between them is the playing style and possibly the actual instrument being recorded. The Hank Williams track is almost certainly a ribbon mic, and in fact I'd imagine the whole thing is probably just one mic for vocals and guitar. The other track has a much more modern sound, presumably from capacitor mics though who knows.

[Sam Inglis]

I'd also ask why you are so set on recording the guitar in stereo. In my experience most coincident stereo techniques on acoustic guitar don't yield appreciable stereo width anyway -- they don't sound all that different from your second example. Spaced pairs with one mic at the neck and the other at the body do give a wider sound but I don't think it would resemble your examples any more.

[MRich]

I'd also ask why you are so set on recording the guitar in stereo. In my experience most coincident stereo techniques on acoustic guitar don't yield appreciable stereo width anyway -- they don't sound all that different from your second example. Spaced pairs with one mic at the neck and the other at the body do give a wider sound but I don't think it would resemble your examples any more.

That's a good question, Sam.

I originally thought about "double-tracking" the guitar. But then I figured stereo might be better.

Of course, I could do mono to sound more like the examples, and I have thought about that.

[Kwackman]

I originally thought about "double-tracking" the guitar. But then I figured stereo might be better.

Double tracking is very different from a stereo recording of a guitar. But that's another topic!
Anyhow, here's a SOS video about recording acoustic guitars. If you haven't already seen it, it might be helpful.
Good luck chasing your desired acoustic sound.

[MRich]

I originally thought about "double-tracking" the guitar. But then I figured stereo might be better.

Double tracking is very different from a stereo recording of a guitar. But that's another topic!
Anyhow, here's a SOS video about recording acoustic guitars. If you haven't already seen it, it might be helpful.
Good luck chasing your desired acoustic sound.

Oh, I understand that double-tracking is different from a stereo recording. Also, I don't see a SOS video about recording acoustic guitars in your post. I'd love to take a look, though.

[Kwackman]

Also, I don't see a SOS video about recording acoustic guitars in your post. I'd love to take a look, though.

Good point! I'll post the link this time!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VzZU_8XPPU

[MRich]

Also, I don't see a SOS video about recording acoustic guitars in your post. I'd love to take a look, though.

Good point! I'll post the link this time!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VzZU_8XPPU

Thanks! I checked that out.

In a similar vein, I found this one as well:

https://youtu.be/SKX3unlBLn4

As far as that one goes, I think I enjoyed the "vertical" placement the most (what he calls "reverse ORTF), followed by ORTF, then his X/Y, I think. The "wide" ORTF sounds good, too. Although, he doesn't really demonstrate a "mid-side".