Need your advice on improving my guitar recordings...

rodos1979 · Post by **rodos1979** » Sun May 04, 2003 6:53 pm

Hello to all!

After having ordered a pair of Mackies HR624 studio monitors, I thought I still have to do 1-2 more things to make my recordings sound a bit more professional.

For that matter, I thought to ask you - helpful and knowledgeable people - for your advice. I am mainly a classical/flamenco guitarist but I play other mediterranean string instruments too (oud, bouzouki, baglama, tzoura, saz). I currently record myself using a Shure BG4.1 microphone (now Shure, produces them with a different name and a maybe slightly different tech specs, see http://www.shure.com/pdf/specsheets/spe ... s/pg81.pdf). In order to send the mic signal into my Pulsar 2 classic, I use a small Behringer MX602A mixer, which provides me with phantom power, EQ and, Pre-amplification (see http://www.behringer.com/02_products/pr ... A&lang=eng).
However, I am not very happy with the sound I record. My guitars sound a bit thin, a bit dull, and a bit harsh (the recording of them! not their live sound!)

So, I was thinking what could I do to improve the quality of my recordings. And here is where I need your invaluable help and ideas! What do you think is wrong with my setup? Is it the microphone? Is it the mixer? (that is my personal guess) Or Pulsar's ADA converters? (I dont think so!)
Maybe, what I need is a "good" mic preamp. Do you think, that this would improve a lot my sound? Which one would you suggest for about 300 euros?

Thank you in advance for your help

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Mon May 05, 2003 2:56 am

2 things :

1st- The mic... While this mic is pretty good, it has alot of self noise (20db), that is preventing you from 'pumping' the sound.
The facts that it has a small capsule (compared to large diaphragm) make the sound resonate less.

2nd- Preamp... I don't know behringer preamp, but you should have at least 60db of gain available, if not more...

If you want a warm sound, with lots of harmonics and some bottom, an acoustics guitar for example, i suggest a tube preamp, many exist, i have a Art DPS (dual channel tube preamp with adat out), very cheap (300€), or higher grade, like a Mindprint Envoice (single channel tube preamp with filter section and compressor integrated) for about 550€, etc...

My suggestion for guitar? I've made lots of guitar recording, and my best takes i ever done was with a Rode NT1000 (300€ for 6db self noise, that's lower than alot of Neuwman @ 2000€) + a MindPrint Envoice.

About any other large diaphragm condenser mic with a tube preamp that is not too noizy will do just fine, that'll give your guitar that intimate big sound with bottoms. Obviously, that will also vary according to where you place the mic... But this is a trial&error processus.

rodos1979 · Post by **rodos1979** » Mon May 05, 2003 4:50 am

Hello!

Thank you for replying MarcusPocus!

I wanted to ask you how the AD converters on the ART DPS perform, compared to the AD converters on a Pulsar 2? Which ones are better?
Which scenario do you think would be the best of the following two (which one would give a better sound):
a) I keep the mic I have and I buy a Mindprint Envoice preamp to go with it
b)I buy a Rode NT1000 and an ART Tube DPS preamp

Thank you for your help

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Mon May 05, 2003 5:21 am

Well, i guess they have about the same qualities (since they use same chips), but since the one on the ART live outside, there should be less interference involved. I think. But if you have an A16U, those are top notch in every aspect, prefer you A16U to any other converter, except mayby some really really expensive one... So, the Art DPS convertion , to my ear, is better than using the 'onboard' converter of Pulsar.

I would chose the B options (the one with a Rode NT1000 + Art DPS) for a couple of reasons:

1st- Even without the Art DPS, i would still get the Rode NT1000, the mic is so good, that even in your Behringer, you'll ear a world of difference.

And, well, if you get the DPS in extra, you'll add the tube touch + a spare channel to your setup. This spare channel is perfectly suited for a Bass, electric guitar, or other stuff like this... The Art DPS is also a DI box, in the sense that it can take balanced/un-balanced input +4db or -10db line level and convert it at the good level.

And having 2 channel of tube is also cool for mastering, you see, the Art DPS has 2 insert where you can inject sounds in the tube cuicuits and get it back in its adat out. So the trick here, is to pass your final mix into the tube, to add odds harmonics and remove even harmonics. That is a property of tubes. This make it sound much more real in comparaison to 'all digital' stuff.

It's a trick a very good sound ingeneer showed me, with hearable results and almost obvious instant enhancements.

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Mon May 05, 2003 5:41 am

Small note:

This week-end, my friends buyed 2 Rode NT1000 + an ART DPS.

He also have a Rode NT2 + a MindPrint Envoice

So

Being the geeks that we are

, we made bunch of tests...

We had a classic guitar recording to do:

We tried MS recording using the 2 nt1000 + art dps, worked good, but we were not satisfied.

Tried the NT2 + Mindprint : a bit beter, but was probably because the mic was pretty close to the guitar...

THEN!

The 2 rode NT1000, one near the guitar bridge, the other near the top of the neck, all thru the Art DPS, driving lamps just a little, and the output limiting circuit of the art activated:

man, that was the revelation, the biggest guitar sound i ever heard on recording.

We recorded all that in VDAT @ 32bits (to get a feel of all that dynamics) OUCH!

But we actual found the mindprint was performing very very well when taking voices instead of guitars.
For a real singer, i would recommand the mindprint instead of the art dps... Cuz of the included compressor which was factory optimized for vocals recording.

The filter section of the mindprint was a bit disapointing. Whatever setting i tried, they were creating a muffed sound or something. The sound wasn't the same. Whatever people say about cw filter, they ARE better than some hardware counterpart, with proof!

[ This Message was edited by: marcuspocus on 2003-05-05 06:42 ]

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Mon May 05, 2003 6:08 am

Have you tried re-positioning the mic in various locations and listening to how it affects the sound? Mic positioning is going to change the sound more drastically than adding a tube pre-amp. Closer to the sound hole is going to give you more boom. Higher up the fretboard will give you a brighter sound (watch for fret noise though). What about trying to mic over the shoulder. Or if you have two mics, point one at the body and another at about the 12 fret.

A tube pre-amp will certainly help, but it's not going to be an instant fatness fix!

Good luck!

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Mon May 05, 2003 6:49 am

Yeah, you're right, that's why i said

'Even without the Art DPS, i would still get the Rode NT1000, the mic is so good that blah blah blah...'

Maybe wasn't clear, but i was saying that a good mic is far more important than having a tube pre.

Sunshine · Post by **Sunshine** » Mon May 05, 2003 7:40 am

On 2003-05-04 19:53, rodos1979 wrote:
Hello to all!

After having ordered a pair of Mackies HR624 studio monitors, I thought I still have to do 1-2 more things to make my recordings sound a bit more professional.

For that matter, I thought to ask you - helpful and knowledgeable people - for your advice. I am mainly a classical/flamenco guitarist but I play other mediterranean string instruments too (oud, bouzouki, baglama, tzoura, saz). I currently record myself using a Shure BG4.1 microphone (now Shure, produces them with a different name and a maybe slightly different tech specs, see http://www.shure.com/pdf/specsheets/spe ... s/pg81.pdf). In order to send the mic signal into my Pulsar 2 classic, I use a small Behringer MX602A mixer, which provides me with phantom power, EQ and, Pre-amplification (see http://www.behringer.com/02_products/pr ... A&lang=eng).
However, I am not very happy with the sound I record. My guitars sound a bit thin, a bit dull, and a bit harsh (the recording of them! not their live sound!)

So, I was thinking what could I do to improve the quality of my recordings. And here is where I need your invaluable help and ideas! What do you think is wrong with my setup? Is it the microphone? Is it the mixer? (that is my personal guess) Or Pulsar's ADA converters? (I dont think so!)
Maybe, what I need is a "good" mic preamp. Do you think, that this would improve a lot my sound? Which one would you suggest for about 300 euros?

Thank you in advance for your help

Hello, I´m a specialist for recording all kinds of acoustic guitars. I´ve also been a professional player for over a 10 year period...(Jazz/Funk/Calssical/Rock/Heavy/Latin guitar). I´ve no time right now to post something, maybe tonight or tomorrow...

Bernhard/

rodos1979 · Post by **rodos1979** » Mon May 05, 2003 8:45 am

Hello to all!

Thank you for your ideas and opinions!

@ bassdude: I know how drastically the sound changes with mic positioning but still have not found a position that would give me the results I want.
@ marcuspocus: Where did you find the ART Tube DPS for 300 euros? The ART Tube Distributor here in Greece, sells it at 580 euros (18% VAT incl) [The NT1000 is sold 295 euros, excl VAT]
@ sunshine: I would be very interested to listen to your ideas too, so please do post as soon as you can.

Thank you all my friends

Ricardo · Post by **Ricardo** » Mon May 05, 2003 9:34 am

Hey Rodos,
I also play and record a lot of acoustic and spanish guitar. I use a Tube PAC preamp from a Rodes NT1000 ( I'm with you Marcus) through an analog mixer to audio inputs on the Pulsar card.BTW the NT 3000 is beautiful but the 1000 is simply a steal at the price. This mic I position about 15 cm from the sound hole( you'll need to fine tune the exact position). The trick is with the compression set on the preamp, to keep it warm and not boomy. I also put a shure 57 at the bridge for string sound through the mixer. Record these to separate channels of your sequencer and EQ them separately then bounce them to a stereo group output. Try not to add any further digital compression as it just makes the 'nails on string' sound awful. Also add a touch of very subtle verb. In fact I tend to use just the E-Reflector only.
The reason I'm writing all this is that I uploaded a song a while ago and afterwards thought 'this sounds real bad' which led me to think it all through a bit more!
Hope you get your perfect ( nylon string)guitar sound.

_________________
Ricardo

[ This Message was edited by: Ricardo on 2003-05-05 10:36 ]

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am

hi Rodos,

the Rode NT 1 is currently 169 € all over Germany.
Some reviewers judge it even 'warmer' than the NT 1000, maybe someone with more experience can comment on it.
Seems they can't position it against the super cheap 69-99 competition anymore.

cheers, Tom

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Mon May 05, 2003 12:48 pm

Yeah, warmer maybe, but also noisier...

6db of self noise for the NT1000 is 'almost' unbeatable, at any price.

Personnaly, i didn't like the NT1, you can compare it with Samson C1 @ 69€ sound wise, but it is true that the rode has a better construction, more rugged

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Mon May 05, 2003 1:42 pm

tnx Marcuspocus, hands-on experience is always better than reviews, I'll take that into account

cheers, Tom

Sunshine · Post by **Sunshine** » Mon May 05, 2003 1:53 pm

General approaches:

There are generally 5 positions to place a mic when recording acoustic guitar. There´s nothing more important than finding the right position for each instrument!

1) 12th Fret, which has a very intimate flavor, you should be aware of. So don´t put the mic too close! The dynamik-range there is very large which doesn´t suit all genres. The tone is relatively bright. This mic could be pointing a little towards the soundhole to lower fret.noise

2) In the second position the mic is pointing directly underneath to the soundhole, where you get a very full but bassy signal. So you have to apply lots of basscut to achieve a natural tone. This position can be very washy when positioning the mic too close to the soundhole! It´s important to point the mic away from the sh.! about 15 cm under the sh. Is ok

3) Bridge position is next, where you have almost no dynamics! That´s the position where the guitar sounds too middy, but you are able to add some wooden sound if you want.

4) The 4th position is over your right shoulder, which has the most balanced and natural tone, no need to EQ much,... . The shoulder mic should be pointing to your bridge, but doesn´t have to. The mic could also be pointing to either the soundhole or 12th fret again, but that differs from intrument to instrument.. The distance of the mic also determins how much of your room will be captured, so beware! Nr 4 is called "micing at ear level", it can be applied on other instruments as well....

5) At the 8th fret, a samall condenser can be placed to capture string noise more accurately.

I´m practicing guitar since 25 years and am recording it since 20 years! The dangerous thing about being a player and recording it simultaniously is that one always wants to get too much sound, fullness and dynamic. Try the shoulder position, which reminds you of how natural and non-intimate the sound of a guitar can be and then think again! Because you have to find the right balance between those positions! You are looking for a strummed sound aren´t you? The last thing you want to achieve is that you have to apply too much compression which would lead to a lifeless sound, unless you have a $3ooo compressor by Millenia or Crane which are the only ones that never seemed to cause significant pumping in this world and where the sound never looses its transparency. What I´m trying to tell you is that by finding the right position, you will only have to apply a minimum compression!

Additional Approches:

Other positions
Ok, the string which is attached to both sides (bridge and saddle) transfers the vibration over the bridge/saddle to the sound board like a relay. The consequence is that the soundboard itself can also be used to capture different tones varying from the instrument of course. Sometimes a SM57/58 pointing 10 cm above the bridge at a very short distance can capture a bright tone, suitable for pop. You´ll never know in advance where you´ll finally end. There are also specialized mics that sit right underneath the soundboard....

The guitar, spruce and cedar top
A lot depends on the player and the guitar itself. A "cedar" top guitar can give you a very warm sound but it will probably lack some shimmer on the highs. Then brighter sounding mics are the right ones. A spruce top guitar can sound very bright, distictive and tight. In that case the KM84, Rode NT5 might be preferable. Of course other gentle sounding mics will also do the job. Also bright positions can be miced whith darker sounding mics and dark positions whith brighter ones....depends on you.

Playing Technique and genre
The guitar can be strummed, plucked or stroked gently. There are a lot of different things that can be played on that instrument. And depending on what should be captured....the mic should be selected and the position should be determined. When picking you´ll more likelier end up whith a position which captures transients better. But depending on the arrangement/genre you could just as well want a more evenly sounding picking part whith more balance. Whith flamenceo guitars you´ll very lickely end up whith a huge dynamic range. So to not overcompress everything the strumming shoulder position could be useful. For flamenco guitarists I´ll prefer a mic that has a early bass roll-off and an open high-end (Gefell Um70) in order to get the sound a little jangly. For classical pickers there´s the need to capture the instrument plus the room as naturally as possible. Therefore two omnis are being used or an omni and a cardiod mic, preferably small condensers (Km83/84, MBHO 440).

Near & Far
When recording stringed instruments in general, the sound always varies when positioning the mic near the bridge end or in the middle of the string. The string vibrates a lot more in the middle from where you can capture a fuller tone. But wherever you place the mic or whatever position you choose, you´re only capturing one part of the instrument. Pointing towards the soundhole means you´re only recording the soundhole..... The farther you position the mic the more likelier you are able to catch the whole intrument. What I´m talking about is called "near & far" configuration. One mic is positioned according to the above positions, while a second mic sits somewhere according to you taste or whatever at a certain distance. Of course the better the room the the better the results, but this technique can also be applied when you don´t want to have that intimate and too dynamic pop sound. The downside is, the farther you position that mic the more high-end you´ll loose. So for doing this you´ll need a mic that has a bright/open top-end and a early bass roll-off. (Geffel Um70, MBHO 440). Phase-problems might occur when the mics aren´t distanced correctly! You´ll have to align the tracks in your daw afterwards to get the minimum of phasing and miximum of dynamics.

Stereo micing
Oftentimes a X-Y configuration is used when recording a single classical guitar. Sometimes an ORTF config. X-Y is the standard crossed pair stereo miking configuration. This gives you more of an overall sound of a guitar when positioned 15 to 30 cm away from the soundhole. The sound is rather natural and not a tight presence sound. By this technique you capture more of the whole guitar because it presents a combination of most possible mic positions. ...The bridge and body sound whith the 12th fret sound.

Mixing
My philosophy is to simply find the right position to get my acoustic sound consistant sounding and decent without too much processing. The room, bizarre mics and mic placements got me on track. But when mixing, you´ll generally also try to adjust the balance according to what the source offers to you.

-When mixing a plastic pick guitarist, the nylon strings sound a little mollower or dull. You could cut some low-end or boost some high-end to overcome those deficits. Try to find the worst sounding frequencies by boosting and sweeping your midrange, then cut it.

-Acoustic guitars, like drums are one of the few things that really DO sound better off analog tape. It just
knocks the spikey stuff off. To get a similar effect in your daw, when you mix try a de-esser across the channel set to around 3k. (This works well on hi-hats as well which hurt my ears a lot from digital but not analog tape).

-Compressor settings mostly look like this: attack 6-15ms, release 2-3 sec, threshhold -10 to -18 db.

-This is a pseudo Mid/Side approach: double the track (one mic approach) twice and pan both of the doubled tracks hard right and hard left. The original track stays dead center. Then one of both hard panned tracks are being phase inverted. It´s important that both panned tracks are not too loud. Anyway when summed to mono you´ll only hear the center track because the other two tracks cancel each other out ->mono compatibility.

Well, some of those notes above have already been written down in some of my private summeries from which I copied a few passages into this thread. Anyway most users here are trying to find a right positions, compressor setting and so on. Hm, I wished we had something like a real tape simulator on our platform...

Bernhard/

[ This Message was edited by: Sunshine on 2003-05-05 14:59 ]

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Mon May 05, 2003 1:54 pm

On 2003-05-05 09:45, rodos1979 wrote:
@ marcuspocus: Where did you find the ART Tube DPS for 300 euros?

http://www.homestudio.fr

My friend buyed one this last weekend (with 2 nt1000) for 220€ (not including the nt1000!), but it was the demo... Lucky him

[ This Message was edited by: marcuspocus on 2003-05-05 14:56 ]

Thalamus · Post by **Thalamus** » Mon May 05, 2003 2:27 pm

Hi,

For acustic guitar (both steel and nylon) I really like the sound of Røde Classic through SPL Goldmike with spartial enhancer setting on. I really take time to find the right position. I comb that with a SM-58 ca. 10 cm from the bridge. Sounds larger than life, and warmer than mama's boobies.

I also had luck with with Røde NT1000, Røde NTK, Nuemann U-87, Joemeek JM47 (Great underrated mic BTW. Perfect for female vocals), and in many occations Earthworks TC30K matched stereopair with almost "rulerflat" frequency response, is unbelievable "what-you-hear" in the room sound. But then again, you need a very nice room to use those. Awesome on snares too (SPL 130 db, which is incredible for an omni mic)

On 2003-05-05 14:53, Sunshine wrote:
General approaches:

-Acoustic guitars, like drums are one of the few things that really DO sound better off analog tape. It just
knocks the spikey stuff off.

Well, I not with you all the way with this one. Though I love the sound and natural compression of analogue tape, many times I prefer my sounds to be more punchy and "in-your-face", were digital is perfect with its fast transisiens. I tend to limit sounds very subtile in the analogue world, especially drums, before I hit the A/D convertors.

But for rock'n'roll, jazz, bossa and any musical genre that needs smooth and warm sound, nothing beats drums on a good 2".

Thalamus · Post by **Thalamus** » Mon May 05, 2003 2:34 pm

Hi,

For acustic guitar (both steel and nylon) I really like the sound of Røde Classic through SPL Goldmike with spartial enhancer setting on. I really take time to find the right position. I comb that with a SM-58 ca. 10 cm from the bridge. Sounds larger than life, and warmer than mama's boobies.

I also had luck with with Røde NT1000, Røde NTK, Nuemann U-87, Joemeek JM47 (Great underrated mic BTW. Perfect for female vocals), and in many occations Earthworks TC30K matched stereopair with almost "rulerflat" frequency response, is unbelievable "what-you-hear" in the room sound. But then again, you need a very nice room to use those. Awesome on snares too (SPL 130 db, which is incredible for an omni mic)

On 2003-05-05 14:53, Sunshine wrote:
General approaches:

-Acoustic guitars, like drums are one of the few things that really DO sound better off analog tape. It just
knocks the spikey stuff off.

Well, I not with you all the way with this one. Though I love the sound and natural compression of analogue tape, many times I prefer my sounds to be more punchy and "in-your-face", were digital is perfect with its fast transisiens. I tend to limit sounds very subtile in the analogue world, especially drums, before I hit the A/D convertors.

But for rock'n'roll, jazz, bossa and any musical genre that needs smooth and warm sound, nothing beats drums on a good 2".

marcuspocus · Post by **marcuspocus** » Mon May 05, 2003 4:17 pm

[quote]
On 2003-05-05 15:34, Thalamus wrote:
I really like the sound of Røde Classic through SPL Goldmike with spartial enhancer setting on.
[quote]

Yeah, i'm sure would like it too

Damn, for the price of those two thing, i could fill my home studio with DSP!

Note: i like exageration a little...

rodos1979 · Post by **rodos1979** » Mon May 05, 2003 7:39 pm

Hello to all!

Thank you very much for sharing with me and the rest of the PlanetZ people your experiences and ideas!

@ Ricardo & Marcuspocus: Do you think that a Rode NT1000 with an Art Tube MP Studio V3 would give good results? Both of them would cost about 550 euros, which is more or less the maximum I can afford at the moment.
@ Marcus: I could not find any ART Tube products at the site you mention. And 300 euros anyway, doesnot sound a very logical price for the DPS. The MP Studio V3 costs 200 euros and is just one channel of pre, with no digital outs.
@ Sunshine: Thank you very much for all this invaluable information!

Well, it seems that many of you have had a good experience with the Rode NT1000, so 80% I will go for it! Still, have to decide about the mic preamp (if I need one).

Thank you all very much for your ideas! It would be nice to hear other people's experiences as well.

[ This Message was edited by: rodos1979 on 2003-05-05 20:41 ]

rodos1979 · Post by **rodos1979** » Mon May 05, 2003 8:08 pm

Hello again!

What do you think about the TFPro P3 (ProMeek, or JoeMeek, many names!)? Is it good?

[ This Message was edited by: rodos1979 on 2003-05-05 21:42 ]