Best way to mike an acoustic guitar?

[john]

Hi

What is the best way to record an acoustic guitar? I want to preserve the character of the guitar as best as possible. So what type of mikes and positions should I use? Should I compensate for any particular ranges in terms of EQ and am I likely to need some compression?

[Didier]

Hi John,

Well, the basis is never point the mikes toward the soundhole. Typically, one mike should be pointed toward the neck (somewhere around the octave), and the other toward the bridge.

Otherwise, I found a full page of advices for your convenience:

http://www.sweetwater.com/insync/summits/d...e=guitar-miking

[Nightwolf]

I never heard that point of view, I always point it right at the hole, but I don't know much about it. What is the reasoning for placing it at the octave?

[Didier]

First, no golden rule, use what's working for you

The main reasoning of not miking directly the soundhole is that there you pick all the strumming (and a boomy sound), which is not what someone is hearing say, 2 or 5 meters from the guitar. But you can't mike an acoustic guitar that far, it sounds dead.

Well, I should have wrote: between the octave and the end of the neck. If you use only one mike, I don't mean pointing directly toward there, but rather: point to the soundhole, then shift the mike toward the neck.

Miking there gives you more presence, and it's the spot where you're supposed to have the more defined sound.

If you prefer a sound more soft and "fuzzy", the other spot is near the bridge, under the right hand, or slightly right of it. That's why I usually use two mikes, to try and find a balance between these two sounds.

I've found an article on stereo miking:

http://www.humbuckermusic.com/acguitrectec.html. You'll see there they are miking nearly exactly on the octave.

I've another interesting article backing exactly my point. Excerpt:

"Recording acoustic guitar is a challenge, to be sure. The sound hole can really put out some lows that can be uneven when compared to a live in-person experience.

Having the mic back is fine, although at 3 feet you're getting room sound as well, and a less immediate version of the guitar. If the room acoustics are good, that's ok. Try a foot instead, aimed between the soundhole and the end of the guitar where the neck is joined. If you want more lows, just twist the mic more toward the sound hole (or don't twist it and just add some eq)."

The full article is at http://www.johnvestman.com/ac_guit.htm

As for the distance (between the mikes and the guitar), the best advice I've seen is "two hands".

[TheOne]

Hi Didier

Good stuff. What kind of Mike would you recommend?

[Nightwolf]

Hi,

it makes sense to me, I've always assumed the hole is where the sound comes from, so get as close as possible. This conversation has me thinking of new ways. Unfortunately, I only have one mike right now.

Thanks,

John Nightwolf

[Didier]

>Good stuff. What kind of Mike would you recommend?

Any condenser mike, or at least an electret (which is a kind of condenser anyway).

>Unfortunately, I only have one mike right now.

I think you can achieve a very reasonable (read: good) sound with only one mike, using the "center" (i.e., facing the soundhole) position, and aiming at the neck.

[Nightwolf]

Kewl, I'll do some comparing, thanks.

[Nightwolf]

Over the shoulder is a popular answer on my Dad's Pro audio forum.

An engineer friend of mine began recording my acoustic like that several years ago.....A large diaphram mic over the right shoulder looking down on the body of the guitar and a small diaphram neck mic angled away from the sound hole looking at the fret board where the neck joins the body. We make sure the diaphrams of both mics are on a parallel plane with the guitar. It is a wonderful stereo image....we love it for solo guitar and it works well in tracks where the acoustic guitar is the main instrument.

[Marc]

The rosace (hole) of the guitar is where the sound is let out. Placing the microphone there is common sense. Argumentation against that is relative.

Then you have the possibility of placing a second microphone to capture the whole frequency range and modulations. Obviously, when someone hears you playing, he/she does not place his/her ear directly toward the rosace. Therefore a second mic is intended to capture that natural setting.

A second mic isn't a requisite. But EQing is, especially when using one mic only.

[mad]

Use an electric!

[Didier]

Over the shoulder is a popular answer on my Dad's Pro audio forum.

Yes, this is a good alternative from the methods exposed above. The idea is to record the guitar not as listener would hear it, but as the player would hear it.

I tend to prefer to try and capture the listener point of view.

Didier

[Didier]

The rosace (hole) of the guitar is where the sound is let out. Placing the microphone there is common sense. Argumentation against that is relative.

Hi Marc,

Everything is relative

The sound does not really "comes" from the hole.

There were some guitars (Ovations at least) without any rosace (but only tiny holes), and they did sound as well.

In fact, a guitar is omnidirectional.

And common sense does not always match the laws of physics

Didier

[Didier]

Use an electric!

Hi mad,

Miking an electric (semi-hollow) unplugged is not that easy

I know, I did use it at least on one song.

Didier

[Nightwolf]

common sense does not always match the laws of physics

and Life does not always follow the rules!!

[Nightwolf]

Some good points Joe

[Guest]

You didn't specify was it a nylon, or steel string guitar....

Well the same basic rules apply to both... as read above from other comments.

The main mic for the "body-sound"could be a condencer, like a large diaphgram Neumann, or similar, but for fretboard noises allmost anything goes.... and of course , as all acoustic instruments are basically individuals.... some experimenting is called for to find best positioning. Recording straight from a piezo-electric mike installed in the bridge is an easy, but not a very recommendable  solution, allthough with some guitars like Ovation you can get pretty close to the acoustic sound in a LIVE situation.... recording will over-emphasize the handling and fret-noizes, not to mention the loss of body-tones... well.... home recording is an art of it's own (How the hell do I know WHERE You are recording, anyway!) and sometimes solutions that work nowhere else work in a home-recording-situation.... Maybe! Anyway.... IF You want to record it all in STEREO.... obviously You have to double the mic arsenal OR use a stereo-mic, at least for the "body" part....

"Body Parts..... " .... where the hell am I going here, anyway.....

Anyway... as far as "home recording" goes.... or ANY recording for that matter.... experimenting is the way to find new sounds and if I may quote the words of late, great Mr. Frank Zappa: "Need Is The Mother Of Invention"

Bye!

H.H.   8) 8) :

[Rudi]

Get some seasoned spruce for the front & some rosewood for the back and sides. A jigsaw, a fret saw and some `Junior Hank Marvin Fretwire'. Wood glue or  a Pritt Stick is good too.

[Guest]

Marc, Ye old cotton sock!

I have to DIS-agree with You about that "common sense" about placing the mike in front of the "sound hole"..... in my experience that results in a "booming" sound , that over-emphasizes lower frequencies and the guitars own "body-tones"...

The lower strings tend to overcome the higher ones.... depending of course on what gauge of strings You prefer using, plus how heavily You strum the git, but especially a heavy set like 0.10-0.12 seems to drown the upper strings if the mike is positioned low, and close to the "sound hole".... so once again , experimenting with the mike in an upperhand - position may give best results and a more balanced sound for recording purposes.

Anyway.... all this is academic at best... as there is NO patented formula for doing this, and  as miking a guitar LIVE and miking it in the studio are two completely different things, taking some time for experimenting WILL eventually give the best result anyway You look at it! BUT....

Don't take the mike too far away from the source! IF you want to use the recording as a part of a piece of modern rhytm-music.... 50 cm to 1 meter is about as far as You can go!

Don't take MY word for it.... experiment, listen, and IF You're not deaf and dumb, you'll hear the difference!

So.... cheerio, boyze!

H.H.