Single Condenser Mic Vs Stereo Acoustic Guitar Techniques.

[TheOminouseRecreation]

Stereo Microphone techniques i find to be sonicly better than single Microphone Techniques because they give more coverage on the instrument as the acoustic guitar is a resonating instrument (sound vibrates through the entirety of the guitar to produce sound). How ever there are some factors that give these techniques a down fall for instance, its more hassle to set up if your using a spaced pare; you need more space, you have to look out for phase issues which can be a major problem causeing a weak sound, with XY configuration you might not get the sweet spots or as much sound of the room that you want.

All in all i find that you can get a great sound with a singular high quality microphone, as if your like me and only have one mic / channel or do not have a matched pair of condenser mics you can get a brilliant sound.

My Favourite techniques when im in my home studio is placing the mic in the standard 12 fret a few inches away but to get a fuller sound and a bit of air movment from the sound hole id point the diaphram of the microphone a few degrees to right! not completly because i dont want to pick up to much percusive element of the pick on the strings (or maybe a bit more if its finger picking!) this gives a brilliant starting point and you can always layer another guitar other the top with the same peice but with the mic in a diffrent position later and pan them left and right to get a good stereo image.

Another More creative single mic technique is using a figure of 8 pattern the same mic on two channels but with one phase inverted then pan the channels hard left and hard right this seperates the two diaphrams and creates a stereo image. then i would put the mic around the 9th fret with the diaphrams looking up the neck and down the sound hole. this not only gets alot of airmovment from the sound hole with gives it a more natural sound but gets all them sweet highs and mids all the way up the body how ever this requires a multi polar patterened mic.

Anyways i just want to know what you guys prefer!

Edited June 4, 2012 by TheOminouseRecreation

[Rudi]

Hi TOR,

Another More creative single mic technique is using a figure of 8 pattern the same mic on two channels but with one phase inverted then pan the channels hard left and hard right this seperates the two diaphrams and creates a stereo image.

Im not sure I am able to phase invert with my set up. I understand the principle (just). Is there a cheap (free?) bit of software that can do this. I have Power Sound Editor, but have never tried using it for music.

then i would put the mic around the 9th fret with the diaphrams looking up the neck and down the sound hole

This puzzled me. Are you blending two separate recordings? I could never double a performance this way.

[Gangleri]

A nice post. I've not done a lot of stereo recordings of me playing guitar but I'm really interested in trying that more. Only problem is I now only have a dynamic (SM57) and a condenser (Rode NT-55). Surely the big difference in tones that you'd get from the recordings of each microphone wouldn't lend itself to trying to making a balanced stereo image. I'm guessing there are creative ways around it though, like throwing the brighter and more defined condenser recording to the back with a bit of reverb and maybe short delay so that it sparkles a bit more in the back while the dynamic recording stays more in front.. Or something.

Does any one else have any thoughts or experiences with recording with such different microphones?

[TapperMike]

The standard fair for acoustic recording is a piezo under the saddle and a mic around the 9th fret.

I've got a stereo output on my parker which can send the piezo out in stereo or send the magnetics to one channel and the piezo to the other. I've experimented for all of about 20 minutes doing this and it's amusing but I wouldn't record in that fashion because I'd never perform in that fashion. Lugging out two amps one with an acoustic channel and the other with a pure acoustic design just isn't practical for me. No one beyond the stage will be able to enjoy the stereo wide experience.

Generally I simply blend the piezo with the neck pickup and send it out to the amp. The neck pickup adds depth and mid/bass response while the piezo preserves the presence. Balance to the neck pick up slightly and you have more of an archtop sound with presence. Balance to the piezo and you have more of an acoustic sound.

The reason why you would need a rhode would be for air. It's not mixed in stereo because the idea is front to back not side to side. Generally there is some type of delay compensation happening between the mic's. The more air you need the more you back the second mic back. That's the NPR sound. If you listen to almost any announcement or talk show they have a close mic and a distant one for air. They compensate for the time differential and they don't add reverb because the room does that for them.

I've got an effect called "Air" on my Korg Pandora mini and it really is great for airy presence so I don't have to play with mic's all day to get it right.

[Prometheus]

Harking back to old fashioned principles again, but if it comes from a mono source, why not record and mix it in mono and if it comes from a stereo source why not record and mix in stereo?  There will never be any phasing problems recording mono sources in mono and even in modern 64 bit systems with plenty of processing power, space in a stereo field still comes at a premium if you use multiple tracks for each mix element.