the pick noise is always a problem when using a mic i have had some decent results locating the mic about one ft from sound hole and about four or five inches toward the bridge ie:from center of sound hole then angle the mic or mics so it points more toward the finger board than the sound hole.have the player do the picking more toward the bridge so that the pick is actualy in between the sound hole and bridge.the hi attack of the pick noise should be lessened do to the fact the mic is aimed more to the finger board sound hole and the pick is more to the bridge sound hole.dont tell anyone but somtimes i use a kick drum mic to solve some of the hi attack problems of the pick noise.make sure to put each mic on a seperate track so that you can blend the best sounds of each mic to beef up the level of the material instead of the pick noise.as far as string buzz goes.
1.finger pressure when chording must be correct
2.finger placement must be correct
3.check actionsetup of gtr
4.the full body gtr seems to record better than the cuttaway.
Hope you can get to sound great.
at4033@aol.com

Whenever I have too much of a bad thing (string noise, etc), I try using a good dynamic mic...there's nothing like the simplicity of an SM57. But sometimes you can't do anything more than advise the player that there may be a problem with the instrument. Let's remember the old saying, "Garbage in - garbage out."

In an emergency use a de-esser on string chord change 'squeeks'

:)

Great idea Jules! I'll do my damnedest to avoid getting there, but when I do I'll remember that one.

Definitely string squeaks and buzzes are a setup issue and a player issue. I wish you luck on this one- Very few players are willing to radically alter what they are doing to sound best. Maybe you're lucky and yours is one!

Dynamic mic might help a lot. Sometimes condensors just reveal TOO much. :roll:
Ted

And #2 on my list of acoustic guitars that I don't ever want to see in the studio again, Takamine (Ovation is #1).

I'm sure that there is a decent sounding Takamine out there somewhere, but I've never heard it.

Originally posted by Jeff Roberts:
And #2 on my list of acoustic guitars that I don't ever want to see in the studio again, Takamine (Ovation is #1).

I'm sure that there is a decent sounding Takamine out there somewhere, but I've never heard it.

Jeff, I totally agree with you about the Ovation crap. But I recorded a country band and the guitarist had a Takamine which sounded very good, even with a DI it had a very good sound, but I believe it was a very expensive geetar. I remember it had an inlay around the soundhole which was kind of a viper, very good guitar.

About micing an acoustic guitar, I had some very decent results with micing from over the shoulder lately. Put yer mic beside the players head. :)

Have fun! :tu:

I use Elixir strings on my 314CE Taylor and they are smooth as silk. Best sounding acoustic and most definitely the finest strings ever IMO. [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.goremusi…"]GORE[/]="http://www.goremusi…"]GORE[/]

How old are the strings?
I've had guitars whose strings were not totally "dead" yet but were relaxed enough to stay in tune AND buzz. Try some new strings if the existing strings are old.

Those Elixir strings are great if you are a gentle player. I kill them in about 2 hours, but I know guys who use a set for 2 months. Just as soon not have my strings wrapped in plastic.
Could be good for the buzz, though.
Ted

Well, I broke a G shortly after I replace my second set and was forced to replaced it with a brass wound, the tone difference wasn't enough to bother me. I expected the brass wound to be a much brighter and a louder string but this was not the case. The brass replacement most definitely had louder finger noise though. Elixir are really quite and easier to play. If I was doing any recording, that's the set I would choose.

My Taylor came with them on it, and as a test... they lasted 4 months, and I never broke one, finally replaced them! love em!

so far so good.

Thanks for the input! The guitarist like's the sound of dead strings so maybe that's part of the problem. I may look into a flat wound, like Pyramids, and see if that does the trick.

It's really not finger squeek but pick noise and string buzz. I tried some dynamic mics on it too (57/421/RE20) with no luck.

Guitarist is borrowing a Martin and a Guild for next session. I'll keep my fingers crossed!

Han sez he recorded the decent sounding Takamine that I theorized might exist, but it's in Europe.

Could there be a decent souncing one in North America?

Maybe I've just heard too many cheap Takamines to think it's possible.

Life is too short to drink cheap wine or record lousy instruments.

well, I had a fine looking Tak, played nice, had good strings on it, excellent case and all, A real gem... and finally one day I took the little beauty over to a firm chair, pondered for a moment, and broke it into a hundred fucking pieces. I still have the hard shell case which I would love to sell.

:D

Was that an anger management issue or a structural integrity test?

If that was the last great Takamine in North America I'll stop looking for a good (sounding) one.

hehe, surprisingly it held together quite well. The electronics we're interesting and I kept them. Tuning heads too.
Yes, it was a fit of rage, a good rage, and I am now the very proud owner of a Taylor. When I play it with other acoustics in the room, I can bury them if I feel like it. The box is so sweet! I'm so glad I broke the Tak. Things happen for a reason.

Ah yes, a Taylor. Just recorded one this weekend. This acoustic with any strings is the shit :D Now, when people want to record an acoustic, I have access to 2 people who will give their's up for a day or 2. I love to record 'em and the clients like the sound as well.
Steve

I had to find an acoustic that could hold it's own with a loud acoustic piano and a vigorous player. Finally I succeeded with the Collings.
A Taylor is great if you like the Les Paul style neck, and want the guitar to be comfortable and easy to play. Those could be important factors especially if someone else is playing the guitar for a recording, especially an electric player or someone used to easy playing acoustics. Also Taylors have a ton of filigree and scrimshaw when you get into the really good ones.
A Collings is designed purely for sound and projection. It is without the question the livest and loudest acoustic probably even possible. Every single note on the neck projects evenly and fully- a very rare characteristic indeed. Most have a few or many sweet spots, the Collings is all one sweet spot. It can be made to sound much like a horn, it's that fat and responsive.
The price for all this sonic glory is that the neck is a bit unforgiving to play. It feels real good once you have made the adjustment to the more rigorous approach that is necessary.
To get the fullest known tone it's best to raise the action up a ways above what most players like while they're playing. They like to listen to it well enough! (this is true of most guitars)
The Collings is very plain and no scrimshaw and that. Every penny goes into the instrument's sonics. They don't have a deluxe color catalog or magazine ads like Taylor- they don't even include any paper at all.
But I'm glad you're so happy with the Taylor! Fine instruments are one of the truly right things out there in the world.
Enjoy!
Ted

I love to record Taylor guitars. I have not yet had the pleasure of recording a Collings guitar.

I absolutely agree with Ted on one thing, inlay work may be nice to look at, but it sure doesn't do a damn thing for the sound.

The all time nastiest sounding guitar I ever had to record was a black custom Ovation that was buried in inlay and sounded like sh*t.

Here's an old Leo Kottke trick to make acoustic guitars sound better, pry off the pick guard.

What's the point of selecting exotic tone woods and then gluing a big piece of plastic on it. (Yeah I know it's to guard against pick scratching and gouging, the Willie Nelson effect.)

Many years ago Leo saw my sister-in-law's Gibson dreadnaught, (her pride and joy), tried it, and said, "I can make this sound a lot better".

Before she could voice her concern or alarm, he ran into the kitchen, grabbed a butter knife, and pried the pick guard off right before her eyes. I thought she would have a heart attack.

The Gibson sounded light years better, and the pick guard has stayed off. It doesn't look as good, but it sounds great.

I assume that really small and thin pick guards don't don't trash the sound as much as big heavy pick guards, and their removal would not cause such a big improvement in sound. YMMV.

JR

the collins sounds very interesting! I look forward to playing one some day. My Taylor is plain and simple, no inlay. I'm with you on the inlay, it looks awesome but I'd rather spend the money on wood etc, than looks.

Very interesting about the guard. One thing that I don't like about my Taylor is the guard. hmm, do I dare :eek:

If your pick guard isn't really small and really thin I can guarantee that it isn't doing anything good for your tone.

Regarding your Tak: Another thing I learned from the esteemed Mr. Kottke is that strength and solidity is not what you want in an acoustic. That's why scalloped braces were invented.

Sure, you don't want anything loose and rattling, but beyond that, fat braces, thick plywood, and oversize glue blocks make for a reeeeeally small sound. If the Tak was that hard to smash, I'd suspect that it was overbuilt. You did the right thing with the Tak, now do the right thing for your Taylor.

You can always glue that useless piece of plastic back on.

Takamines sound good for live stuff using their internal mic. If not played gently they can sound brash to a mic infront of them.

If you have a dead environment , a technique I have found usefull for any acoustic instrument is to stick a finger in one ear and move about untill you find a nice place where the sound is good ( whilst the musician is playing of course ). Stick the mic there. Often it will be a foot or more away from the instrument. Here you will get the sound of the instrument. If it is full of fret buzz and string squeek , the fault surely does not lie with you ( but this is not how it will be seen of course ;) )

I think every guitar has its sound. This needs a certain kind of playing to bring out , and a certain kind of micing to capture.

Many guitarists pick up a guitar and play it as though the formula of chords they know will release the sound of the instrument. I think John McGloughlin explained it best when he described how when he first picked up the guitar and played it he was absorbed in the feeling of it resonating through his chest , and how it felt as he held it. Even a cheap guitar has a way it sounds good .

I suppose you must assume ( for the sake of keeping the session happy ) that the guitarist must like the sound of what he is playing and therefore somewhere the sound must be good. Precluding putting the mic in the middle of his head ( probably an attractive option ) , there must be somewhere else his sound is coming out. Listen to him play and find it ... I guess ?

The player wants stereo image and an intimate, close-mic sound.

There is a technique I used to use on myself , but have never found it to be usefull in sessions as it requires the guitarist to be absolutely motionless with little arm movement.

Using 2 cardioid small diaphram condensers place one a couple of inches away from the soundboard parrallel to the body just behind the bridge at B , pointing towards the join of the G string at the nut. The second mic a few inches from the 12th fret , similary angled.

Panned , this produces a lush stereo image. Body resonance and string noise can be controled by changing the angling of the mic , even to the point of the mic angling away from the guitar. Moving the body mic up and down the bridge can also dramatically alter the sound.

I have rarely found I use this method much as any movement and the mics change sound drastically , and the body mic interferes with the picking hand.

But it can sound really nice.

Thanks everyone for the input.

Robin, you said:

"Using 2 cardioid small diaphram condensers place one a couple of inches away from the soundboard parrallel to the body just behind the bridge at B , pointing towards the join of the G string at the nut. The second mic a few inches from the 12th fret , similary angled."

If the guitar is capo'd at the 2nd fret, would you mic at the 14th fret?

I'll mention Collings and Taylor guitars to the player. The Martin was a "no show" the Guild had the same problems leading me to think this is a "touch" issue on the part of the player.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Curious G

You should try also an ORTF pair of small condensers for a nice stereo image. You'll like it!

Have fun :w:

If the guitar is capo'd at the 2nd fret, would you mic at the 14th fret?

Yep , absolutely. You are trying to catch the harmonic. You could try 7th and 5th fret from the root as well but this technique realy hampers a player in these positions.

Han , I have always had problems trying the ORTF using 2 mic stands. I have heard that there are bars you can get that allow one stand to hold the 2 mics and I think these would facilitate it.

I have read an article ( which I looked for but couldn't find again though I think it might be found at this link http://www.qsound.com/tech/pdfs.asp )

It discussed the replication of a stereo image whilst recording guitar. It explained that depth of image is what brings the stereo to life. Acheivement of this is difficult for a fundamental reason. There are two mics picking up a single sound source. This creates two time/amplitude source points. When played back each speaker ( unless total hard pan is used ) receives each source. This means that there are now a total of 4 distinct sound points trying to create an image of one origional source.

Now this might just be marketing hype but either Qsound or Waves S1 have an article explaining how there technology can recreate a realistic stereo image.

In my own experience I have started to use Waves S1 on my drum overheads. As I was watching my mic stands rock back and forth with the drummers enthusiastic bass drum playing I couldn't help wonder if this would ruin the phase subtleties of my carefully placed stereo array. I put the S1 imager across the stereo track a twidled with it to see if I could create a better connection between the overheads and the panned spot mics. I was amazed to find that I could bring out the placement of certain objects (like the snare) and make others ( cymbols and ride ) smear more and become less directional. This is a new discovery , but I think I will be using it as standard from now on. The stereo image suddenly had more depth to it. I could perceive the snare as sitting behind the cymbols , rather than just on top.

Hi Robin

There are inexpensive bars that hold two mic clamps.
I have a number of them and use ORTF for drums OH and many other recordings like choirs, big orchestras etc.

I like ORTF very much because of the stereo image which is better than XY IMNSHO. :)

About stereo expansion; always listen mono to one speaker when you use this.

A real stereo recording sounds much better than just panning two signals.

Have fun!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeff Roberts:
[QB]And #2 on my list of acoustic guitars that I don't ever want to see in the studio again, Takamine (Ovation is #1).

You got that right!!!! Taks are decent enough for live work with a good DI, but I'd never expect to get any sound worth keeping out of one using a mic in my studio. Ovations are just plain thin-sounding garbage. I never will understand why they're still in business. Best use for an Ovation: cut off the neck and make a flower pot out of the bastard.

Just one thing about Ovations: They are not designed to give a good acoustic sound! The whole concept is for an acceptable DI sound without feedback probs when played onstage.
But it is not an acoustic guitar sound, it´s the Ovation sound. I find it OK for layered tracks in pop-stuff, 12-strings are even great.
String buzz... needs a fix or another guitar if it really bothers you.

Yes Ovations must be good for something. Maybe they do give good gain before feedback in a live situation.

Ovation marketing gives a different impression. Ovation wants you to think that their guitars sound great in all situations which is a total crock. If Ovation ads were more honest and said "for a loud live acoustic sound these one trick ponies work better than most" maybe I could have a little respect for them, but since they continue to hoodwink unsuspecting musicians with their bogus marketing I consider the company morally bankrupt.

I thought ovations were meant not to project, but to kind of provide a little intimate sound from the players perspective. They seem awfully popular with super shy girl singers.
Ted