Recording Acoustic Guitar Youtube Examples

Submitted by audiokid on Sun, 04/09/2017 - 13:50

Completely different everything however in general, which of these examples do you prefer and why?
1

2

I'm not doing much of space pairs on guitars.. Maybe I should, but one time that I did it, the performer moved a bit between takes (he turned on the chair). Before I could realise it the distance from the mics shifted and I got a bit of phases issues on some takes.. Very minor but there none the less.

I like the One mic double takes technique but only if the player is consistent and willing to play the same way twice.
It would also be my approach if I had to record 2 completely different guitar parts and planned to pan them.

For more intimate guitar performances, I often use a M/S setup. It's specially nice if you want to controle how wide you want the guitar when mixing.
And if you want to make changed along the song. Let's say make the guitar wider in the choruses or something like that.

I prefer your number 1 video.

pcrecord, post: 449390, member: 46460 wrote: I prefer your number 1 video.

@pcrecord I feel the same,
number 2 sounds overwhelming brittle to me. Sometimes those SDC are just too edgy and bright for me.
I'm surprised where they put the U87 and it sounded that good. I would expect a body mid honk in that position. I think it sounds very good.

3.
The acoustic section starts at 25.50

audiokid, post: 449391, member: 1 wrote: I'm surprised where they put the U87 and it sounded that good. I would expect a body mid honk in that position. I think it sounds very good.

Maybe this particular U87 didn't have that much low end.. or there is an angle that we don't see from the camera's point of view..
But to me it seems in front of the sound hole but about 45degree angled toward the bridge.. Interesting choice !

pcrecord, post: 449396, member: 46460 wrote: Maybe this particular U87 didn't have that much low end.. or there is an angle that we don't see from the camera's point of view..
But to me it seems in front of the sound hole but about 45degree angled toward the bridge.. Interesting choice !

In the video he said he pointed it at the hole. I imagine he used the hpf on it.
What has me curious, I've used a U87ai on my Taylor 314ce and it didn't sound this good towards the hole. I wonder if those really nice looking gobo's have anything to do with that "better than expected" capture of the hole shot. What do you think?

At 0:31 I hear ''a couple inches off the sound hole'' It makes me think in front but turned away... I maybe mistaken of course.

audiokid, post: 449397, member: 1 wrote: I wonder if those really nice looking gobo's have anything to do with that "better than expected" capture of the hole shot. What do you think?

That's a proof that there is no universal recipe. it all depend on the room, the instrument, the player, the mic etc... ;)

Here is what davedog said in another thread>

Davedog, post: 416944, member: 4495 wrote: This is exactly why I have a gobo or two. No matter how uncontrolled a room is, if you can gobo off a side or even two sides around a source chances are it will sound nice with great gear involved.

The 'over-the-shoulder' mic technique works really well with a banjo. You have to have something thats fairly hyper-cardioid...small d mics work well for this. and a fast preamp. Another thing to consider with banjo is WHAT IT IS.....Its a freekin drum with strings. Approach it that way and it'll pay off.

Gobo one side, hyper-cardioid, mic it like a snare....Also...Banjo's are very loud...thus the gobo.....Your 121 will sound good in front. SDC over the shoulder....

Making some gobo's is on my list. Anyone have any gobo recipes?

audiokid, post: 449411, member: 1 wrote: Making some gobo's is on my list. Anyone have any gobo recipes?

I made 2 a few years ago. An absorbing side and a hard side. I hang them in my control room and I made some feet for them when I put them on the ground.
They are 4'x3' and 4'' Thick, with roxul Inside.

audiokid, post: 449391, member: 1 wrote: I'm surprised where they put the U87 and it sounded that good. I would expect a body mid honk in that position. I think it sounds very good.

Well, it was a U67 rather than a U87, but it surprised me too that the sound was balanced and rounded with that mic positioning.

Like Marco, I think that, in a studio, using a good pair of LDCs in M-S can produce a sound that fits well with a vocal. If it's the same guitarist/vocalist, it should be on a different take for control of bleed.

Neumann U67 vs U86 comments say this:

The differences are so slight that you'd be lucky to see them at all in the average photo. The type of connector on the microphone cable may be your best clue. The output connector on a U 67 is a large RF-proof Tuchel; an early enough U 87 could have that same connector, but if you can see an XLR being used, then it's definitely a U 87.
Other than that, the Neumann badge on a U 67 is black; on a U 87 it's purple. And on the back of the microphone, if it's a U 87 that's not a U 87A and still has its original sleeve, then there is normally a narrow ~1/2' slot so that the battery meter can be read from the outside. On the other hand, if the sleeve has been replaced for cosmetic reasons, then it may not have the slot, even on a 'non-A' U 87. Few people use the battery powering option, and Neumann hasn't made sleeves with slots for some time now.
Of course if you have a very close-up photo, or microscopic vision perhaps, you can simply read the model number on the label that circles around the connector end of the microphone!

That makes me feel a bit better ;)

I found on GS, the two main differences are that the U67 has a tube amplifier with a separate power supply.

@Boswell, are you familiar with the U67?

audiokid, post: 449421, member: 1 wrote: Thanks Marco. I've never used a U67. Have you guys? I'm curious to do some research on it now.

I don't have the budget for those original classics and don't know if I ever will. :unsure:
I'm compensating with my T47 who reminisce of the U47 and I just ordered a mod kit to put my old C1 closer to a U87.
But I know that even with the best gear some will fail. If I can achieve the sound I want/need with what I've got. I'm a winner !!!

audiokid, post: 449421, member: 1 wrote: I've never used a U67. Have you guys? I'm curious to do some research on it now.

Sorry, I missed this bit earlier. I never have owned any of the Uxx microphones, but I've used them often enough, either in other studios or as hired or borrowed items.

Really as a result of this thread, it occured to me that I've only ever used them individually, and that I've never had a U67 and a U87 side-by-side for comparison. Although both mics would tackle almost any solo voice or instrument, the usage I have grown up with is to prefer the 67 for instruments and the 87 for vocals. So it was no surprise to find the 67 on acoustic guitar in the video, but where it was placed and the resulting sound did raise my eyebrows.

Great guitarist, though, to be able to double-track that accurately.

For G.A.S and giggles: Here is a U67 that just sold for around $7000.00. It looks like a u87 but I bet hardly sounds like one.

Whats interesting to me is I find it difficult to believe there aren't other beautiful, rich sounding mid focus mics for far less these days, over something vintage like this gem.
Example: The Mojave 200 and 300 series sound every bit as good, if not even better than new U87ai.

I'd love to hear an A /B between this and that Mesanovic 2 we are just talking about here right now. Two very different mics but never the less, it would be interesting.

DogsoverLava, post: 449520, member: 48175 wrote: Saw this on sweetwater today:
https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/best-mics-and-preamps-for-acoustic-guitar/

It pleases me to see the ISA in the preamps list, but it surprises me to not see the millennia...
In the SDC realm, I suspect the octava mics would do a fair job also.