Iain -

I think this is a perfectly reasonable and fair question and will try my best to help steer you in a good direction.

First, while I do find the KM184 excessively bright and virtually unusable on *most* sources, I do find that for acoustic guitars (especially Martins and Taylors), the 184 works quite well. That being said, I would urge you to NOT consider a preamp which works to counteract this brightness. While I generally love the DAV preamp, I would say that it does have a mild counteractive sound to the 184's inherent brightness and would likely shy away from it for this use.

The RME preamps on the other hand are quite transparent overall and I do find that they work well with a broad variety of mics, I would be hesitant to recommend these pres for someone who already has relatively transparent pres (as in your AH G3s which are pretty clear and open).

On the other hand, I would perhaps suggest that you consider a "big" preamp. That is to say one of those nice transformer balanced designs with a huge sound but not loads of color. Langevins come to mind as do A Designs (specifically the Pacifica). Another one that comes to mind is the ISA or Red line of Focusrite. While some are kind of "down" on this line lately, I think it's more because it's popular to dog Focusrite than it is because of actual quality. Granted, the ISA line isn't as high-end as they used to be, but they are nice boxes nonetheless.

Given the fairly uncolored sound and the ability to load the mics differently with the flick of a switch, it's a pretty versatile system. Add to that the ability to come out in a digital format and patch that straight into your RME, it's a pretty decent combination.

Be careful though, the level that the Focusrite puts out is a little hotter than the RME wants to see. That just means you should always leave 5dB headroom at the preamp.

Cheers-

Jeremy

Jeremy,

Thanks for your input!

I'm interested that you are familiar with the Allen & Heath GS3, it being such an old console! I admit, that I've been very happy with it these past 14 years but I had not read before any particular comment about its preamps. Certainly, I've never had cause for complaint.

With regard to the DAV, you wrote:

I would say that it does have a mild counteractive sound to the 184's inherent brightness and would likely shy away from it for this use.

On the face of it this appears counter-intuitive; I would have thought that this would be an advantage - would you mind explaining a wee bit your thinking?

Thanks for your suggestion: I'll have a look at the Langevins, Pacifica, ISA and Focusrite. I, too, read in passing the comments on Focusrite but will take your qualification into account.

Thanks again for your help - it will help my focus my thinking.

Cheers!

IainDearg wrote:

I would say that it does have a mild counteractive sound to the 184's inherent brightness and would likely shy away from it for this use.

On the face of it this appears counter-intuitive; I would have thought that this would be an advantage - would you mind explaining a wee bit your thinking?

Sure.

In general, I find that when I employ the use of any one electrical device to counter the effects inherent in another electrical device, the results are always less than steller.

Sterile preamp - use a thick sounding compressor? Nah. Now it's thick and brittle...

Most gear doesn't stray that far from nuetral and what we as engineers hear as significant changes are truly minute (for the most part).

However, when one is left of the line (say a little colored or darker) and one is right of the line (say brighter or sterile) I haven't found that mating the two equal but opposite pieces to magically thrust us back to that magic line.

Instead, for a mic that is bright or tilted as the 184, I've found that getting a pre that gets completely out of its way - something that is open and unrestricted in the upper frequencies to allow the mic to do its job is the only way to capture it.

In general, this is why I stick with "open" "big" sounding pres (Millennia, Langevin, Grace) as they seem to mate well with almost anything you want to pair it with regardless of its placement in the chain.

For thickening or darkening, I'll turn more towards the use of a thicker or darker mic or perhaps some darker compression, etc. (Not to say adding thick to sterile or brittle, but adding a dark color to a blank canvas - big difference.)

My point would be - don't reach for a device because it counteracts another device in your chain - reach for a device that allows that piece in your chain to operate at its fullest potential.

Does that make sense without confusing the point further?

J.

Cucco wrote: My point would be - don't reach for a device because it counteracts another device in your chain - reach for a device that allows that piece in your chain to operate at its fullest potential.

Does that make sense without confusing the point further?

Makes perfect sense Jeremy!

/ptr

Jeremy,

That's great. I'm sure that many folks (including me hitherto!) would have tried to compensate for a piece of equipment's weaknesses by attempting to mask it my some other piece down the chain. In fact, I suspect that lot of money is parted with in this way.

Great stuff!
Thanks!

the rme quadmic is my main preamp...

couple of things about it you should know...

i compared it to a mackie vlz preamp and an fmr rnp... the differences are very subtle, with the rnp sounding marginally smoother, to my ears, at the time... if it were my money, i'd probably buy a mackie onyx mixer with 4 pres... i suspect the pres would be on par with the rme, while offering you a great deal more at the same price point.

two other things that bother me are:

* there is no on/off switch
* metering is very minimal (only two leds)

on the subject of "big" transformer based preamps, the chameleon labs [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.chameleo…"]7622[/]="http://www.chameleo…"]7622[/] is reasonably priced and gets good reviews.

good luck.

Thanks!

The DAV Electronics Broadhurst Gardens No. 1 is the best mic amp in the world. (sm)

Plush wrote: The DAV Electronics Broadhurst Gardens No. 1 is the best mic amp in the world. (sm)

Unhelpful statement.

No pre-amp is the "best" at everything. I have lots of pre-amps, including DAVs and APIs. Being a professional design engineer, I also have several of my own design, both past and present.

Every pre-amp has its own character. I use whichever I feel is the "best" for the job I have in hand.

Can't agree enough -
Sure the DAV is a great pre, but it has its limitations for sure. As, for that matter, does any other pre on the market. It's just a matter of which limitations you're willing to accept and live with.

I have both the RME Quad and the DAV and I to record guitars (in my case Brook Guitars OM and OOO) finger style

I agree with the others - the 184's are too bright for my taste (I mainly use Gefell M300's or occasionally Rode NT 5 with OMNI capsule)

I adore the Gefell/DAV combination

The RME's are very useable though

If you can stand the thought what about looking at different mics?
(Sorry if thats not very helpful) but I used to have a GS3 and I don't think the RME pre amps are appreciably different to what you already have

Hi Matt,

Thanks for chipping in. I will be changing out the mics in due course, so I guess my original question might be a bit moot - but I just don't know when that will be. (I've discovered I've got to provide my son with some subsistance assistance in Italy while he learns the language - long story). So I'm keen to find a preamp that will "work" with the 184s in the short/medium term. The real driver is my desire to lose the Allen&Heath console.

IainDearg wrote: I will be changing out the mics in due course, so I guess my original question might be a bit moot - but I just don't know when that will be. (I've discovered I've got to provide my son with some subsistance assistance in Italy while he learns the language - long story).

...and probably a far more important story than chasing your tail on-line discussing the nuances of recording acoustic guitar. Mamma mia!!!

Sorry to come across as being 'preachy', but hear me out...

If I were you I'd be keeping the GS3 for now, it seems to have served you well for quite a while. Put your mind at rest by getting your son's situation sorted first, and then reward yourself for such excellently selfless parental behaviour (ha ha) by getting a whole new and improved recording rig further down the line! New mics, new preamp, all carefully chosen to complement each other, with no uncertainty. Take your time choosing them, perhaps even plan a trip to a place where you can audition them first - maybe a nearby studio or the closest large city or similar? It might cost you a couple of hundred bucks/pounds/euros/lira/pigs & chickens (useful currency in Papua New Guinea)/seashells/whatever, but that's a small price in the overall scheme of things - especially if it means you get exactly what you want in one go.

If you buy a preamp for your KM184s now and new mics later, who knows... perhaps you'll be posting here again a few months later looking for a new preamp to get the best from your new mics, and the whole process loops (that's good for the sales industry, by the way).

Also, it seems you are specifically or predominantly recording acoustic guitar, so your needs are a bit more specialised than those of someone who records a wide range of sounds and therefore requires versatility. At the end of the day, all you're really getting here are other people's opinions and there's no guarantee that their idea of a good acoustic guitar sound is the same as yours.

My recollection of the GS3 is that it sounds slightly 'soft' and 'subdued', which I'd imagine would go nicely with the harder and brighter sound of the KM184s (Jeremy's earlier comments about matching gear notwithstanding).

So...

Are you making the most of the GS3?

Are you doing everything you can to minimise the signal path for recording?

A quick look at the GS3's signal path (http://) shows that the best place to take your recording signal is from the channel's 'insert send' point. According to the published signal path, the insert point is immediately after the mic preamp - you can't get much cleaner than that.

If you are not already doing that, why not give it a go? You might just wring a bit more life out of that old console, and keep your son's education going strong at the same time.

- BelliSimmo Sonic

I would agree with Simmo - keep with the KM184s and use the GS3's insert points for now. You'll get some good guitar recordings that way.

If you don't need to continue the signal to the GS3's busing stages, then use standard insert cables to connect the insert send to your RME Multiface. The unbalanced out will be OK feeding the balanced line ins of the RME, but you may have to experiment with the +13dBu and +19dBu settings for sensitivity.

If you do need to have signal continuity to the rest of the mixer, you will need specially wired insert cables (TRS jacks with T and R connected), or else use something like the Hosa DOC-106 adaptors.

Thanks guys for your suggestions!

Yes, the GS3 and the 184s have served me well and enabled me to get a cd out and the next one is nearly done. And I love discussing the nuances of recording acoustic guitar. There were times, though, when I found myself in a dark pit of despair until I learned to quell the hell of phase cancellation and to appreciate the Zen-like calm of DIY acoustic treatment.

Yes, these days, I'm strictly acoustic guitar and vox which is a reason why I feel the GS3 is a tad under utilised! Most of the pots on it have never been touched and the mutes have never been automated. And, frankly, ergonomically its a bit a of a lump on its dedicated table with incorporated 19" rack bay to the side with nothin' in it any more. It was fun when I had local folkies coming round and doing demos and the odd cd. These days, it's beginning to irritate me. It's clean as a whistle, though, being covered when not in use. So, sonics is not the only thing on my mind. I'm also conscious that whatever I can obtain for it via ebay may contribute to any preamp under consideration.

Now, I'm also minded to think about the future (and not go round the gear buying loop you rightly cautioned me against) and buy a preamp now with future mics in mind. I that regard, I'm would like to get a figure-8 and do some mid-side. So I guess it's all up for grabs.

Re. the GS3 routing - I'll try your suggestions - I've simply been using the normal outs at the top of the desk into the back of the Multiface. I never thought about the insert sends.

Italy is a fantastic country and my son's so pleased to get away from the north-east of Scotland where we're expecting snow and storms (on different days!) next week. He's sloping around in a t-shirt and doing all sorts al fresco. Great stuff!

Thanks again for your ideas - and time taken.

IainDearg wrote: ...I love discussing the nuances of recording acoustic guitar.

It is no secret around here that the sound captured and produced by the microphone itself is a far more significant contributor to the recorded result than the effect of the preamp or AD converter (assuming everything is reasonably well-designed and working correctly). That sound is determined by two things: the choice of microphone, and its position relative to the instrument and space around it.

Personally, I think the KM184 is quite a good choice for recording acoustic guitar - especially if you're after a very clean and detailed sound captured from a reasonable distance. There are better mics out there, but there are a whole lot more worse mics as well.

With that in mind, maybe we can push the microphone part of the process along a bit further? What mic techniques are you using to record your guitars? Close or distant? Overdubbed/multitracked mono? Direct-to-stereo? A combination of both?

IainDearg wrote: In that regard, I would like to get a figure-8 and do some mid-side. So I guess it's all up for grabs.

That sounds like a good idea. I'd suggest trying a KM120 along with one of your KM184s for MS because the tonalities will be similar, resulting in a smoother tonal balance across the stereo image. Some might disagree with that, however. I don't think I'd like that combo for close-miking (e.g. 30cm or less), but okay for larger distances.

If I recall correctly, Mr Spearritt has a pair of KM120s and likes them very much [please correct me if I'm wrong, Mr S, I don't want to put words in your mouse], as does another acquaintance. The latter actually bought a pair to use in Blumlein for recording singing 'in the round' in circular mud huts somewhere on the plains of Africa, but he got married instead and is about to become someone's dad. So he's out of Africa, for now.

Which reminds me... Pioneering field recordist and musical tourist, David Lewiston, uses an MS rig consisting of a Neumann KM84 (the earlier model, arguably sweeter and not as bright as the KM184) coupled with a Sennheiser MKH30. Maybe worth a go?

IainDearg wrote: And, frankly, ergonomically its a bit a of a lump on its dedicated table with incorporated 19" rack bay to the side with nothin' in it any more. It was fun when I had local folkies coming round and doing demos and the odd cd. These days, it's beginning to irritate me.

I must admit to similar feelings. My inner Zen Monk shakes his head at such inappropriateness. Knowing how much I despise seeing muppets masquerading as aliens in sci-fi movies, he pokes me in the ribs, adopts a Yoda voice and quips "Killing fly with hammer, we are?".

Smug bastard...

+1 KM's on acoustic guitfiddles.
8-)

There is only one guitar on my recordings. Vox is overdubbed. I use X/Y setup exclusively for the guitar. The mics are horizontal (neither pointing up or down) 18" from the guitar with the centre axis pointing at the neck/body joint.

(Several consecutive takes allows me to cure the occasional (:)) fluff in the part editor in Cubase Studio 4 )

Any spaced technique made my guitar sound as if it was 25' wide when listened to through monitors. My guitar's about 3' wide, as it happens. Also phase issues made it sound wishy-washy. All-in-all, a nausea inducing experience.

In short, X/Y makes my guitar sound like a real guitar under normal listening conditions. However the image sounds a bit tight if auditioned with 'phones. An iTunes customer, for example, might find it uninvolving in her iPod. So I cheat a little bit by adding some width with my favourite plugin (Voxengo's Soniformer) which uses a mid-side algorithm. This all gives me something that translates well to hi-fis, boom boxes, car stereos and mp3 players. It's also a strategy that passed muster with the mastering engineer last time around.

These figure-8 mics you mentioned are very tempting indeed! I've got some thinking to do. If it were probable that I'd get a better return from a new mic than a preamp, then I think that would be the logical path to take, particularly since the GS3 desk remains eminently servicable for my application, albeit as a "hammer" to my "fly".

Great input - thanks!

Not to change the thread too much but, what would be regarded as a step up from KM184 for a SDC for nylon and steel acoustic guitar? This forum does not rate the 184 highly.

Does the AKG C451B cut it? Or do I have to go to Schoeps, Earthworks or DPA?

I will be posting a clip of the Mojave MA-100 on acoustic guitar (Taylor) in a few minutes.

I think you'll agree, this is one serious sounding pair of mics on acoustic guitar. I would strongly urge anyone to consider these. They are quickly becoming one of my favorite pairs of mics.

As promised -
(Dead Link Removed)

[quote=Cucco]As promised -
(Dead Link Removed)
Placement and tracking details? What did you use on vocals?

I'll have pictures too -
Placement -
AB spaced carioids
1 - spaced about 4 inches from the deck towards the tail aimed up to the sound hole
2 - spaced about 4 inches from the neck aimed down towards the 12th fret.

Vocal mic - Combination of Royer SF12 (only top part though) and Bluebird. Both at exact same distance from singer. Royer used to bring a little more bottom to the sound of the singer - not brought up fully in the mix.

Okay...so my "4 inches" is off a little. (Insert dirty joke here...)

Here's a few pics.

I used the Royer on the guitar as well, but not in the recording you hear here. In fact, while I normally love the Royer, on the Taylor it was just too dark.

(Dead Link Removed)
(Dead Link Removed)
(Dead Link Removed)
(Dead Link Removed)

Note-
The distance perspective in the photos is way off.

I was using a macro lens and was up close. The microphone and shadow in the final pic should give an indicator as to real distances.

The Royer was a good 18" back.

Why isnt this recording QUANTIZED???? Dont you know ANYTHING?????

pm me the price on a pair of those.....I need a new pair od SDC's and I own a Taylor....Plus I record two different Gibson Songwriters and a Martin D28. Then theres the Greg Deering Banjo....and the mandolin.....

I assume(err.....ass-u-me) that this is the Millennia Pres????No?

Haha :lol:

Cool pics monkey.. Er, I mean Jeremy!

Davedog wrote: pm me the price on a pair of those.....I need a new pair od SDC's and I own a Taylor....Plus I record two different Gibson Songwriters and a Martin D28. Then theres the Greg Deering Banjo....and the mandolin.....

I assume(err.....ass-u-me) that this is the Millennia Pres????No?

Done dude!

Yes, those were the Millennias.

However, I've done some other projects using the Aphex 107, Grace 201 and built in pres on both TC and RME boxes and not been disappointed in the slightest.

I'm doing a WW quintet tomorrow with the MA100s and the Korg MR-1000 (using the internal pres.)

This one's not likely to get posted since I'm also the player and the acoustics in the room (the clarinetist's basement) suck.

Very nice track!

Kudos!

IainDearg wrote: Vox is overdubbed.

What mic do you use for that? One of the KM184s? Or something else? Does it have a bidirectional response, by any chance?!?!

IainDearg wrote: I use X/Y setup exclusively for the guitar. SNIP! Any spaced technique made my guitar sound as if it was 25' wide when listened to through monitors. SNIP!! So I cheat a little bit by adding some width with my favourite plugin (Voxengo's Soniformer) which uses a mid-side algorithm.

All very interesting information, Iain.

MS may be worth a try for you because you can vary the width, and it seems that width is what you're lacking. That's not surprising with XY cardioids at 90° - they actually require a 180° soundstage to create an image that extends from hard left speaker to hard right speaker (assuming the speakers are set up in theoretically optimum equilateral triangle with the listener). With a 3' wide guitar miked at 18 inches (as you have said), you're capturing a 90° soundfield with a technique that has an angular compression of about 3:1 (e.g. 180° soundfield is reproduced as a 60° soundstage, so 180:60 = 3:1). So, your recorded guitar is probably sitting in the middle 90°/3 = 30° of the 60° wide stereo soundstage - in other words, from mid-left to mid-right. Probably a tad narrower than you'd like and right in the way of the voice (without the widening you apply).

Does that description sound close to what you're getting?

Getting back to MS... Unlike the XY you're currently using, MS will give a very solid centre image, which might conflict with your voice. With XY, the centre image can be ever-so-slightly vague, which makes a nice 'hole' for a solid voice to sit.

Here's a little known technique that the late great Michael Gerzon wrote about, and which you can probably do well with your KM184s. Try crossing the microphones one over the other, with a spacing of 5cm between the diaphragms and an angle between 115° to 120°. According to Gerzon, "Such 5cm-spaced crossed-over cardioids, angled about 115° to 120° apart, seem to be an optimal cardioid technique for stereo imaging accuracy."

This technique was mentioned in the sorely-missed Studio Sound magazine in July 1986, referring to the use of stereo shuffling (a bit like doing MS widening but only on the low frequencies, and something you can easily do with Waves' S1 imager). He wrote: "The use of bass-widening up to 600Hz with this technique seems to give a much better sense of space than the use of ORTF technique, and without the latter's 'phasiness' anomalies."

I tried this technique recently with a pair of Audio-Technica AT4051 cardioids. It was very rushed - recording a handful of hungry musicians on the porch of hut in a village in the Himalaya, moments before dinner was served - and I didn't have enough time to fine-tune the position or angle, but I could tell that it had a lot of potential. I intend to do more with it in the future.

Maybe you could give it a try...

taxman wrote: This forum does not rate the 184 highly.

That usually occurs when people are discussing the KM184 with a view to purchasing one (or a pair) as a general purpose small diaphragm condenser. But I think it is good for many things.

The sound is a bit bright, but it's still a Neumann with all (or most) of the tonal qualities we expect from Neumann. It does not sound cheap, to my ears. It's clean and quiet, and nicely priced IMHO. There are much worse mics out there.

Also, I think much of the 'disdain' one sees for the KM184 comes from people who were expecting it to sound like the wonderful and sweet KM84. Neumann don't make the KM84 any more; the replacement they offer is the KM184, which is not the same thing - brighter and not as sweet.

taxman wrote: Does the AKG C451B cut it? Or do I have to go to Schoeps, Earthworks or DPA?

I have always found the 451s to sound 'chalky', as if someone drew the sound's envelope on a blackboard with chalk. I used to own a pair, but rarely ever used them for anything more than overheads on drums, or hi-hats. On acoustic guitar, I felt that they brought out all the scratchiness I was trying to avoid, without giving anything worth keeping. In comparison, the KM184 may be bright, but it's not chalky! (Sorry AKG...)

You can't go wrong with a cardioid from Schoeps or DPA, depending on the sound you're chasing. Also, those Mojave's that Jeremy posted a sample of are definitely worthy of consideration. I'd like to hear just one of them, without the contribution of the other mics in the shots, to know for sure.

Simmosonic wrote: Also, those Mojave's that Jeremy posted a sample of are definitely worthy of consideration. I'd like to hear just one of them, without the contribution of the other mics in the shots, to know for sure.

Just fyi Simmo -
The guitar sound is all Mojave. The Royer isn't on this clip. Also, the vocals were tracked later, so there's no impact from that - just the Mojaves on guitar.

If you'd like, I can get you the same sample sans vox so you can hear just the Mojaves.

The pipe organ sample will be nice too except that the Schoeps CMC 6 MK 2s's are up front and the Mojaves are mid-hall. It's still a VERY nice and complimentary sound.

Anything that you want clips of where it's JUST the Mojave's, let me know.

J.

Cucco wrote: If you'd like, I can get you the same sample sans vox so you can hear just the Mojaves.

Oi! Why not!?!? Bring 'em on...

Simmosonic,

For vocal, I use an oldish AT-4033. No bi-directinality there.

You know, I've never crunched the numbers in this way - very enlightening! And yes, the subjective results is what you describe - tight and uninvolving (and a wee bit muddy althought not as troublesome since I installed acoustic treatment in the room.)

I'm a bit confused: you wrote viz XY that the guitar was sitting mid-left to mid-right (I can see this intuitively by thinking about the mics' response patterns) but "right in the way of the voice". Later you wrote that XY "makes a nice hole" for the voice. This seems contradictory - am I misunderstanding?

I can also see that MS with the cardioid pointing straight at the guitar might get in the way of the centrally positioned voice (which mine invariably is).

The Michael Gerzon technique sound fascinating - I note the lack of "phase anomolies", the bane of my recording attempts for so long. I'm going to try it out next time I get in front of the mics.

(I wonder whether XY angled wider than 90 degrees might give similar results?)

What I've been trying to achieve is something that sounds like a performance - an illusion of a player sitting on a chair on a stage at a realistic distance from the listener - at least when heard through a hi-fi. That and capturing the snap and growlines in my Martin OMs. I'm not wanting "larger than life" recordings.

With respect to the scathing comments on the KM184 that one reads: they've always puzzled me since they represented a quantum leap in the quality of my recordings for me. I take on board their inherent brightness and that they don't match up to the old KM84s and others, but what I have never seen satisfactorily explained (to me) is why judicious application of eq is not a reasonable approach to take to this brightness. Is there a technical reason why this is "wrong"?

Cheers.

IainDearg wrote: For vocal, I use an oldish AT-4033. No bi-directinality there.

Okay...

IainDearg wrote: I'm a bit confused: you wrote viz XY that the guitar was sitting mid-left to mid-right (I can see this intuitively by thinking about the mics' response patterns) but "right in the way of the voice". Later you wrote that XY "makes a nice hole" for the voice. This seems contradictory - am I misunderstanding?

No, but you are reading what I've written very carefully and found an ambiguity, damn it! I'd better explain myself...

Let's start with "right in the way of the voice". Here I was referring to a stereo mix with vocals and acoustic guitar, each miked and recorded separately, so we are essentially in multitrack mixing world with faders and pan controls. The philosophies of direct-to-stereo work don't have to apply here.

We have a relatively wide soundstage available (+/-30 degrees either side of centre, if the speakers are set up according to the theoretical ideal), throughout which we can spread the acoustic energy of the recording. It would probably sound odd if you spread all the direct energy of your guitar/voice recording throughout that width; keeping it within, say, +/-22 degrees (so that it creates a 45 degree image) is probably as far as you'd want to go. The remaining outside edges are best left for reverberation...

As I calculated earlier, your XY guitar recording begins life with a 30 degree window (+/- 15 degrees either side of centre). Left as it is, that puts the bulk of the guitar's energy within the central 30 degrees of the 60 degree soundstage that is available to use. If we then place a centrally-panned voice over the top of it, we're placing all the recording's energy around the middle of the soundstage. Apart from wasting some of the available soundstage (for what that's worth) this also makes it harder for the ear/brain system to distinguish and separate the two sounds; hence, the guitar sound is getting "in the way" of the voice.

As I'm sure you know, one of the easiest ways to create separation between two sounds is to pan them apart. So the idea is to try and 'pan' that guitar energy away from the voice, in both L and R directions at once, by spreading its energy a bit wider and thereby making it a bit 'thinner' behind the voice so there is less conflict. This is what you are doing when you use MS widening on the guitar - whether it's your intention or not, it's happening and making your mix sound better.

Now let's tackle my notion that XY "makes a nice hole". Imagine that you are a sound source in the centre of the soundfield that your 90 degree XY pair is recording. What do you see? You are not coming directly on-axis to either microphone; in fact, you are arriving at 45 degrees off-axis to two microphones, and relying on a pair of speakers to recreate you as a 'phantom' image, miraculously floating in the air between two speakers.

In effect, you are what I call a 'double phantom' image - you were captured off-axis to two different microphones, and you are being recreated in the space between two different speakers. Your 'solidity' is dependent on how well those two microphones were matched in their off-axis responses, how well the speakers are matched, and what the acoustics of the listening room are doing. In the best of all possible worlds, you're recreated as a nice and solid sound. But in less-than-ideal real-world situations (affordable mics, typical speakers, non-symmetrical room acoustics in the playback environment, etc.) you're not a solid sound at all - certainly not compared to a) sounds captured directly on-axis to one of the two microphones, and b) sounds reproduced entirely from one speaker only. You're actually a bit weak in comparison to those sounds, and they find it easy to push you around and dominate you.

Now imagine that you are the vocal recording. You have been captured on-axis with a single microphone, and panned to the centre. Unlike the guitar, you are what I call a 'single phantom' image, and are likely to be a bit more 'solid' sounding. When you are panned to the centre, the only thing you have to compete with is a weaker 'double phantom' image of the centre of the guitar. No problem. You can sit solid in the centre, with a more solid guitar sound to your left and right. Nice...

This is what I meant by a "hole". Not a hole in terms of nothing in the centre, the guitar sound is still there where it ought to be. But the energy in the middle is easier for the vocal to compete with. Think of it more as a soft spot, rather than a hole.

Let's upset the apple cart and use MS to make that guitar recording. Now we have a single microphone facing the centre of the guitar (the M capsule), making it less of a double phantom. The guitar and voice are both now 'single phantoms', and either is less likely to make way for the other.

At this point, you need to ask yourself which is preferable? Trying to fit a great solid mono vocal recording over the top of a great solid stereo guitar recording, or tailoring the stereo guitar recording from the outset so that it naturally leaves a 'soft spot' in the middle for the vocal to sit?

It was the latter approach that reminded me of the technique Gerzon suggested. I think it would offer the best of both worlds, and it is something you can do with your existing mics. Remember, I'm looking at ways to optimise the gear you've got so you can keep your son in Italy for now, and buy a whole kit of better stuff when you can truly afford to buy it!

I hope I've clarified those things, but I fear I've written way too much. If I was to answer this at a different time, I'd probably nail it in one paragraph. Never mind. I also suspect one or two others here may disagree with my 'single phantom' and 'double phantom' concepts, but I hope you get the idea.

IainDearg wrote: The Michael Gerzon technique sound fascinating - I note the lack of "phase anomolies", the bane of my recording attempts for so long. I'm going to try it out next time I get in front of the mics.

We must be careful with terminology here. I am not sure whether it was Gerzon's technique. I believe it was mentioned/recommended to him by Tony Faulkner. Nonetheless, Gerzon was a true expert in his field, and knew all about microphone phase issues and so on. As I understand it, he invented the Soundfiled microphone, which essentially emulates four(!) coincident microphone capsules (three bidirectionals and one omni) in exactly the same point in XYZ space. He did it by careful combinations of four subcardioid microphones in a tetrahedral array, if I remember correctly. But I digress...

IainDearg wrote: I wonder whether XY angled wider than 90 degrees might give similar results?

XY techniques typically work from about 80 degrees to 115 degrees or so.

Increasing the angle between your microphones will make a wider image that might sit around the vocal nicely, but it will also put central guitar sounds more off-axis to the microphones. Worth trying, especially if your guitar recording has no important articulation sounds in the actual centre. (A bit of finger picking sounds towards the left channel, and a bit of fret noise towards the right channel perhaps, sitting nicely eiher side of the voice?) It's those articulation sounds that are more likely to conflict with the voice, unless, of course, your guitar is very boomy - that's an entirely different problem.

IainDearg wrote: With respect to the scathing comments on the KM184 that one reads: they've always puzzled me since they represented a quantum leap in the quality of my recordings for me. I take on board their inherent brightness and that they don't match up to the old KM84s and others, but what I have never seen satisfactorily explained (to me) is why judicious application of eq is not a reasonable approach to take to this brightness. Is there a technical reason why this is "wrong"?

Here are two possible reasons. Firstly, there is the old purist maxim that EQ is bad for the solidity of the sound, because traditional EQ really messes with the signal's phase response. But I think that maxim has past its 'use by' date now that we have linear phase EQ. I still try to live by it, of course, by choosing the best microphone for the job, but sometimes a bit of EQ is preferable to a bad sounding recording.

Secondly, sometimes this brightness is not simply due to a consistent boost of high frequency energy. It may be that the microphone is brigher on-axis than off-axis (DPA, for example, deliberately make microphones with an on-axis HF boost to give them more 'reach'), so any EQ applied to tame the on-axis brightness will usually make the off-axis sounds unacceptably duller.

Or the brightness may due to some kind of resonance, in which case it only gets noticeably brighter above a certain SPL and/or at a certain range of frequencies. Again, a blanket EQ is not going to be the solution.

Finally, the brightness may be due to harmonic distortion of one kind or another. Again, EQ isn't going to help much there, either.

Well, now I have *definitely* written too much, and perhaps veered off into debatable territories at the same time. We'lll see...

Thank you so much for the clarification - and the rest. I understand your concepts and I find them really illuminating.

In summary, you said:

At this point, you need to ask yourself which is preferable? Trying to fit a great solid mono vocal recording over the top of a great solid stereo guitar recording, or tailoring the stereo guitar recording from the outset so that it naturally leaves a 'soft spot' in the middle for the vocal to sit?

I have to think on this. There are a lot of guitar instrumental passages / breaks in my songs which are of equal importance, according to my aesthetic, as the sung parts. A less than solid central guitar image is something, then, I would like to avoid. I understand, then, that I'm bound to have to compromise. Hey, but it's all an illusion.

I will think on - and experiment - and report back on my conclusions.

Thank you again!

IainDearg wrote: There are a lot of guitar instrumental passages / breaks in my songs which are of equal importance, according to my aesthetic, as the sung parts. A less than solid central guitar image is something, then, I would like to avoid. I understand, then, that I'm bound to have to compromise.

MS might be ideal for you, then. You can widen the guitar image out a little during the vocals so it is not so 'focused' in the centre and therefore lets the vocal sit there nicely, and then narrow it in a bit for the instrumental parts, giving it a good solid sound and bringing it to the fore without making it sound louder. That kind of subtle stuff can work wonders...