so what do you think is better recording acoustic guitar ?

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:19 pm

direct plug in or with a mic ? Im new to this and trying to figure out wich one works or sounds better to me.. Just wanted some opinions.

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:38 pm

Does the guitarist move a lot when they play? Even in live situations, I prefer large diaphragm condensers over plugging in 99% of the time. Every now and then, you come across a guitar where the guitar and the pickup work well together.

Posted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:44 pm

yeah I kind of like the mic sound a little better. I was just wondering what others thought..

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:37 am

Nothing wrong with adding a track for the pickup, or if it's a dual source system, two tracks for the two pickups. Of course, record the take with a couple of mics too. Later you can throw away the tracks you don't use.

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:13 am

Put a pair of stereo microphones on the acoustic guitar. Then take the direct pickup and plug it into an active, high impedance input, FET or tube DI. You can mix the DI in with the microphones but you may need to delay that by a couple of milliseconds since it will speak sooner than the microphones hear the guitar. The last suggestion will help to eliminate phasing problems. It will sound huge!

The huge
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:17 am

What RemyRAD said. And when your working on a DAW system you can find the correct delay time bye zoooooooming in and comparing audiowaves Wink

easy peasy.

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:53 am

I'm intereseted in this topic, as it turns out I've been doing a good bit of acoustic guitar & bass recording and mixing. Mics are the best way to go, of course, but Remy's suggestion is also a good way to combine the mics and the DI.

DI's, for me, are too sterile and dead on their own. Gotta have that mic going as well. I'm remixing an analog multitrack project from 1991 where the only source on the guitar is a DI, and I've done several things to liven it up, including some DSP to induce a more ambient sound around it. On it's own, it's awful. (Same with DI's on "electric" violins. P-U. I can literally hear the bow scraping on the strings with a raspy, dull, finite top end, instead of the warmth and beauty of the instrument resonating in the air, where it's supposed to be.)

I've got one guitarist-client that will be doing some "live" material soon, and I'm considering getting him fitted with an AMT mic (with a stationary clamp) as well as the DI. That way, he can walk around (as he's want to do onstage) as well as stay still, and the sound will stay consistent.

It's great having both to work with in the final mix - the DI for the punch and the mics for detail and air. I just did an acoustic bass player with a DI going through a John Hardy direct box, and a small AT mic (don't know the mod #) right on the bridge. Having both to work with is fantastic, and it's perhaps the best sounding acoustic/jazz bass I've heard in a long long time.

Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:11 pm

Well thanks you guys! Another suggestion with the DI is to take that DI track and backfeed it to something nice like a Fender twin reverb tube amplifier. That can make it sound quite big, phat and lush. Then Mike the cabinet and rerecord that microphone to mix in with the guitars microphones? Another nice way to go. On occasion I have heard some nice acoustic guitar DI's but you guys are pretty much accurate in your description of dry and sterile. Not necessarily my cup of tea either.

Acoustically yours
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:59 am

wow good suggestions. well since I dont have stereo mics i will just use what i have and give it a shot tonight...

This topic sponsored by: