I thought I would start a thread on this topic as a blank slate...with a few constraints:

1. Assume we are using an analog tape recorder, and no effects like equalization, compression, or reverb. Also no overdubbing of extra vocals or guitar noodling. It's a two track recorder.

2. Assume you can have as many tracks or mics as you like.


Also, as a hint: I have indicated in other forums that I place more weight on getting a good stereo recording, a blend of voice and guitar in each channel as more important than trying to close-mike voice and guitar separately...(otherwise it sounds like crud on a stick or the radio for that matter)-- any issues here?

I must confess that my taste or bias on this issue is heavily influenced by the techniques used for classical music recording.

Here is an example, a former Decca engineer:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.burmajster/index.htm

No doubt about it -- in a good sounding room with a skilled performer (who can balance his voice and guitar levels) a pair of nice mikes (omnis, most likely) back a ways would be my choice. But then, that's how I usually record choirs and such live so it's what I'm comfortable with. The fewer mikes I can get away with, the better!

On the other hand...studios are simply a different animal and sometimes the control of close miking is just necessary. It may not sound as 'real' but that's not alway what we need.

No Problem. I do this all the time.

Figure of eight on vocals. Position the mic horizontally so you can twist it to null the guitar.

Hyper cardioid facing to thhe floor at about where the neck joins the body, so the vocal will be on the back. Tilt slightly as necessary to add or reduce giitat low end.

As long as the perfomer isn't a screamer, you'll get nice separation and direct sound.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Thanks Ty. From what I've been reading, for popular music, there's a kind of industry standard approach to separate the guitar and voice. Yours definitely provides that control of the volume levels, and prevents one source from bleeding in the other.

But for classical music, and I would say some but not necessarily all styles of acoustic music, the recordist might go for more of a blended sound -- as in a stereo pair.

I'm basically sold on blending the sound that arrives at the microphone -- but this puts me at odds with the masses of trackers, or tracking recordists.



I'm with you Spattered -- I think it's and blend of voice and guitar, and the effect of the room, that makes for a great sound. So far, in my mic inventory, I only have one pair of omni-directionals (EV 165a/b) -- but I can see the value of omnis in stereo setups.

Here is propaganda, an article in favor of minimalist microphone technique....

http://www.discmakers.com/music/pse/2005/jarvis.asp

But obviously it's important to have a balanced viewpoint -- I will try to find an article touting lots of mics-- correctly placed.

Thanks Ty. From what I've been reading, for popular music, there's a kind of industry standard approach to separate the guitar and voice. Yours definitely provides that control of the volume levels, and prevents one source from bleeding in the other.

But for classical music, and I would say some but not necessarily all styles of acoustic music, the recordist might go for more of a blended sound -- as in a stereo pair.

-Right. That's what I do for classicla or orchestral.

I'm basically sold on blending the sound that arrives at the microphone -- but this puts me at odds with the masses of trackers, or tracking recordists.

-Yes it does. The presumption that the performer can balance their vocals with the sound of the guitar is not always attained. The sound of the instrument may or may not be particularly pleasing and may benefit from separate EQ. In addition, during mixing I usually add more reverb to the instrument than to the vocal. Not usually enough to hear, but enough to feel.

I'm with you Spattered -- I think it's and blend of voice and guitar, and the effect of the room, that makes for a great sound. So far, in my mic inventory, I only have one pair of omni-directionals (EV 165a/b) -- but I can see the value of omnis in stereo setups.

- Not knowing exactly which room you're referring to. I employ two different reverb plug ins to achieve the reverb.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Ty's technique is a very good one for balancing the feel of a single-pass performance with the "all at once" feel of a stereo recording. The reason of dealing with the guitar is a common one, but also it might be a matter of the particular voice being recorded that might call for a different mic or different processing down the line (eq, de-essing, limiting, compresssion) to sound more conventionally pleasing.

I think that your genre expectations go to your choice of technique. For most rock and pop ensemble settings I place no premium on stereo acoustic guitar as it tends to end up fairly washed-out in the mix where a mono source tends to hold its own. And ever since the Beatles, the expectations of recording pop and rock instruments have not been about naturalistic reproduction but about euphonic manipulation and presentation. Heck, most people wouldn't even track them both in the single pass these days is my feel of it. Rarely are people putting a proper premium on room acoustics, either, so processing on the back end on close mic'ed acoustics is the order of the day.

The sophisticated engineer tries to keep in mind that there are times and places for different techniques--sometimes go naturalist, sometimes use the studio-as-instrument approach, and quite often somewhere at a point between those extremes. That's where the "production" aspect comes in, figuring out the most appropriate choice.

If your new FW interface is capable of 4 simultaneous inputs, you might experiment by trying a couple approaches on the same performance. Or try two different naturalist approaches. If you can find it, there was a fairly in depth (and apparently out-of-print) book by Bruce Bartlett called "Stereo Microphone Techniques" which will give you more than you knew existed. Bartlett' more general "Practical Recording Techniques" has the more conventional configurations included, and that seems to be in print.

Bear

Thanks again, Ty. When I was referring to a room, or room reverberation, generally what I had in mind was living room, not too spacious but I'm sure there is natural reverberation in any room (that's people sing in the shower). My ideal reverberant room would be the interior of a church, or a small theatre that you might find at a university...we have such a space in Potsdam NY called the 'Black Box Theater' -- a room not big enough that you need microphones.

Bear, I will definitely try some those tracking-style mic techniques -- as in close-mic the singer, and close mic the guitar. Unfortunately, because of ease of use, I'm still mainly using my Lavry stereo recording tin-box, not my supposedly lusher TC Electronic firewire box -- but I have successfully recorded and played back 'testing one two three' so I know the thing works.

I suspect that if I go for close-miking I will make the 'mix' in mono, mainly because of my perception that any stereo has been lost -- since one mic on vocals another on guitar ain't stereo.

Clearly, I've never been weaned of that classical music stereo miking thing.

No Problem. As I said, I use two stereo reverbs. I put more of the guitar in them than vocals. The stereo reverbs sread the guitar into a nice stereo space, adjusted slightly behind the vocal.

Lemme see if I can show you. Record some files and put them up on my server.

Regards,

Ty Ford

One trick to try with Ty's rig is to add a second fig 8 on guitar as part of a mid-side arrangement, with the null lined up with the performer's mouth--not fool-proof on isolation, but it's a way to get some more space in. That's a more naturalistic way to get some space while still having a lot of control. If you're doing a remote in a local space with good acoustics, might be very nice.

Bear

Hi Ty,

I spent a few minutes lurking around your website. It looks impressive. I promise to send a couple of different MP3 files to your email address. I assume these can be easily received. Basically I'll try a few bars where I use the same pair of mics (my EVre20) close-miced, and then the same number of bars where I have them in my usual stereo bar.

My stereo 'technique' is a cross between mono and stereo. I use a XY technique but the microphones form roughly an equilateral triangle with the bar -- I think this good since each mic is addressed at an off-axis angle of 30 degrees. If I did the classic XY the player would be address the mics at 45 degrees. (I hope this makes sense).

OK,

Now for something completely different.

Try this.

I have had fair success with using a really good omni at about eye level, pointing somewhat at the face and guitar. You have to have a good ear because placement is VERY critical. Omnis ARE directional at high frequencies. Mic placement balances the mix of voice and guitar. It also means the performer must be very cognizant of their own levels.

I did this a few years back with a Gefell M296 and got absolutley stunning results. Te recordings were done in my studio, not just out in the living room, so acoustics of the spacce were a contributing factor.

Up on my site in the On Line Archive is an Audio folder with a clip of me using this technique. The file is called....
TFordTaylorGefellM296Omni.wav

Taylor six string, Gefell M296 Omni and me singing slightly off pitch about three years ago, but this is ONE MIC. A very special mic with a nickel membrane. I've never heard any other mic sound quite as transparent as this one. Don't expect these results with any omni you grab.

Regards,

Ty Ford

That Omni Gefell mic recording is perfect -- you can hear both the guitar and voice really well. I suspect that your mono recording is in even tighter phase than a stereo recording would be using a pair of those...but what an expensive pair -- in Canada the price is 2 grand per mic ... but maybe a mono omni setup is a good thing.

But great recording -- I'm sold.

http://jacquestadousac.mypodcast.com/2007/...ique-19167.html


http://jacquestadousac.mypodcast.com/2007/...oned-19168.html


I've put my two test cases. I believe my guitar was too loud on the second recording -- it may have red-lined.


But certainly with better talent, and perhaps some nicer mics, the blended thing us pretty good.


a pair of ev 635 omni

http://jacquestadousac.mypodcast.com/2007/..._635-19304.html

I added the link for a good Bruce Barlett article on the stereo mic techniques and the impact on various issues like mono compatibility.

I found it interesting that the Dutch and Germans have their own variation of the French ORTF mic set-up. Does politics come into play? Or is it easier to eyeball or correctly measure 90 degrees.



http://www.tape.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/B...a2923+995498793

I added the link for a good Bruce Barlett article on the stereo mic techniques and the impact on various issues like mono compatibility.

I found it interesting that the Dutch and Germans have their own variation of the French ORTF mic set-up. Does politics come into play? Or is it easier to eyeball or correctly measure 90 degrees.



http://www.tape.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/B...a2923+995498793

Over the weekend I decided it was high time to get off the teat -- that is easy and intuitive recording with that Lavry toy (that works quite well), the MiniPRS -- I decided to get real with the TC 'Electric' Konnekt.

I haven't sunk money into compressors and voltume limiting circuitry...so the trouble is mainly figuring what volume or gain setting to use that won't overload the circuits.

I cloned a bunch of project files where I had successfully recorded the words: testing one two three. I figured I'm not going to screw around with this CuBase LE every time I need to pick up the guitar -- lo and behold it's not that troublesome once you stop looking at these PDF manuals. Once you've found the mike signal and can turn the tape recorder on and off it ain't so bad.

I think my 'approach' in selecting a pair of dynamic mikes, and upping the signal chain to this five hundred and fifty Canadian buck interface isn't too bad. My collection of four different pairs of dynamic mics means I can try something else if one isn't working. This may sound whacky but I'm almost tempted to get a second SM58 just so that I can compare the sound to my go-to pair of SM57. Even worse, would be a pair of SM7b just in case my pair of re20 were sounding too dampened. Obviously getting a pair of condensers or ribbons could be expensive...unless they are made in Russia or China.

I think the gain provided by the built-in mike preamps in the TC 'Electric' interface is pretty good...I'm having to dial back the gain a bit to accommodate my fierce (rough) and passionate singing. After a few tries it's done.

A very open recording without hiring an engineer -- isn't that what it's all about?

And natural, let me tell you about it -- no phase distortion and aural oddities -- the Dogme95 philosophy applied to audio recording. My real concern is find the right balance: match cost versus quality, try not to get into $20,000 Swedish Mics and gold plated electronics unless someone else is paying for it..

No. It's about the recording. A good engineer/producer can bring a lot to the table. That you choose to engineer yourself doesn't mean there isn't an engineer. It just means you're working for yourself, for better or for worse.

Of course, you can't expect much from an engineer who works for free.

Regards,

Ty Ford

My point was more of a passing thought; I wasn't thinking about the commercial interests (or extra quality that will occur) of professional audio engineers. Folks will (and ought to) hire engineers and producers if they have a project that warrants it.

The same sort of line between professional and non-profession exists in photography, or 'imaging'. I'm sure most keen amateur photographers would avail themselves of a paid photographer on an important occasion -- say a wedding.

In another forum, the studio forum, there is a long thread entitled "Home Studios are Killing Music". That applies here too, which is more important? Making music, getting out the guitar and writing songs versus the web surfing and checking with the various communities about the best mikes, or electronics to place in the signal chain?

I don't think the audio engineering business will drop off because home studios exist, or some Canuck mounts a pair of microphones on a stereo bar and connects it to a laptop. In fact in the local areas, of Ottawa and Montreal, there are plenty of record producers with boatloads of analog and digital gear -- but I think music (and its economic potential) is driving force.

PS...I agree that a good engineer will bring alot to the table. But my impression is that musicians will shop around to find one whose philosophy or sound matches theirs. Assuming that I didn't have preferences (or naive beliefs) or a concept of what sounds good, quite a few engineers, maybe not all, would mike a guitar and voice with one or two mics on the guitar, a large condenser on the voice...But this could be against the grain, but I enjoy or wish to try out for myself the unusual approaches: the engineer who has three Dixie Chicks sing into a single hand-held (vocal) mike for the American national anthem (to promote choral blending), the Swedish engineer who eschews mixers and goes direct with a pair of handmade LDCs and some nice preamps to record small group jazz. And I'm sure all of those lunchboxes packed with 'vintage' Neve clones have a market, or a purpose -- but alot of it is about branding, getting a signature sound.

I would need to 'unlearn', or un-brainwash' the engineer of all his industry standard tricks like close miking, excessive compression to provide a natural sound. Sorry if this sounds prejudiced. I think for me it's best to experiment with home studio gear -- and go for a sound that seems natural and open.

Really, I don't see recording engineers as robots who need to unlearn their craft (their routines) just to satisfy me. I'd rather buy more equipment than pay a fee. But, cmon, there is some degree of group-think, at least a measure of nostalgia to duplicate the Abbey Road sound, or Motown, or some place in the past.

What works for me is the image of a folklorist working Stateside or around here -- a single mic, a cable, and a bulky tape recorder (or some other medium)...and perhaps headphones. Now thats a recording.

I'm assuming this vocal/guitar recording is with a single performer.

I used an EV RE27 on voice, and EV RE200 on the acoustic guitar (using mic nulls), and a Shure KSM44 in omni about 4 feet away. I used a touch of 3 different reverbs on all 3 mics (one for each mic). The omni was the dominant mic, and "helped" by the other 2 as needed.

Exactly, a self-accompanied singer...but perhaps one might use the same approach for a singer and guitarist -- if the singer had classical training and was able to fill a room with sound.

My experience with close-miking is 'diddly' but I assume that when you are mixing the final product, you would place the KSM44 straight down the middle, and pan each of the close-uo mikes to the right or left.

From what I've read, the KSM44 is a really good multi-pattern mike. Did you go through an extensive shootout with the other popular LDCs like the AKG414 etc?

Tifftunes, I read with interest your comments on the EVRE27. It sounds like a super microphone. My research process (internet surfing and forum lurking and review reading) guided me to the RE20, but I'm sure the RE27 probably has a bit more definition or high-end clarity. But really I bought mine on speculation, with some qualitative claims thrown in -- for example, the RE20 have good off axis response which matters if you've got two of them in an XY pattern. But the reviews claim the RE27 has a nice long reach which should mean you don't need to sing in it with your lips touching the grill.

I gather that a high quality dynamic such as a SM7b or RE20 or RE27 or a Heil something may lack LDC definition, but it allows the singer a bit more freedom to sing as they are used to singing; hence they might give a better performance, perhaps there's less work removing the imperfections.

A local music store dude/recording engineer says his go-to condenser is the Gefell M 930. For a pair of them plus a Gefell-worthy mic preamp...that's a lot of Pesos...but a very big (dynamic) sound.

I only compared the RE27 to an RE20 and one of the Chinese condensers (I think it was an ADK or MXL something). Since I wasn't interested in Chinese mics at the time, and was interested in the differences between the two EVs, that was what I was listening to.

My experience with these two mics, both live through a near-field monitor sys (Mackie 824) in a small room, and through Sennheiser HD280 headphones, revealed a slight advantage in higher frequencies added by the neodymium magnet in the RE27. The extended hi freqs is the only major difference. That MAY translate to better clarity in a mix, but otherwise the differences were nearly negligible.

The RE27 is basically a new and slightly improved RE20. The N/D magnet is supposed to be the only difference.

I'm a bassist, and build my own cabinets... And the N/D speaker magnets lighten up the speakers (and therefore the cabinetsas well). But the sound is still very good, if not better than the older tech magnets. The same can be said of the RE27 versus the RE20. I doubt there is enough difference to warrant the price difference. However, I will say that when compared to my MXL V6 condenser mic, I prefer the EV RE27!!

I also have a pair of Neumann TLM 193 mics, which are great on vocals, drum overheads, and guitar cabs. However, I still prefer the sound of the RE27 when mixed with a full band with back-ground vocals, etc.

I am less satisfied with the RE27 on acoustic guitar when compared to the same Neumann, or an Oktava ML52 Ribbon mic. The smoothness of a ribbon mic can seldom be beaten! However, the RE27 COULD be a go-to mic for a myriad of instruments, and be VERY satisfying. So far so good!

I admittedly have G.A.S. when it comes to mics. But I still don't have any high dollar mics yet. When there are so many big name bands making great recordings with mics "no better" than the Shure SM57, what's the point?

BTW, the Shure KSM44 was a "non-shootout" impulse buy. I have liked the "ears" at Shure Bros for quite a while, and just believed that their top-o-the-line mic would be good. It is good enough that I would stick my neck out and recommend it if your budget could only afford one mic, or as the only condenser. It is smooth, and does an admirable job on just about everything. It is to condenser mics what the SM57 is to dynamic mics. That is to say, more of a jack-of-all, master of none. I have since compared it to the venerable 414, and I hear a smoothness in the Shure that the 414 lacks. Again, this is my humble opinion, and I'm no expert. YMMV.

After hearing all of these approaches, the one that I will endeavor to try when there's loads of dough, or rented equipment, is a single mono preamp -- perhaps some big iron like a Great River or that John Hardy boy rig, the Personal Mike Pre, and then one good LDC such as the Gefell M 930 and sticking with my TC Electronic Konnekt 24D.

Tiff, it sounds like you have the perfect arrangement for a mono rig, with close focus on the singer or guitar if you need it, but most of the love (or juice) coming from the Shure KSM44 mic -- I may be repeating myself here (from an earlier post), but I'm just stretching so I can firmly plant a new foot in mouth...

Tying into this fact about the difficulty in parking one's self in the sweet spot for listening, and you obviously wouldn't have proper stereo in an early eighties punk rock concert. Eureka, just record everything in mono, except classical music and choirs and quite a few exceptions -- It's just one post, I'm opening up my mind to monaural possibilities.

Well just to prove that I'm not an old fogy, I made a test recording with a single RE20 mic and played it back into both channels of my headphones. My Lord, it's a tad clinical...I might be forced to track down some cables and hook it it up to a proper stereo so that you get the effect of the room; or God forbid, use the electronic reverb that comes with the Konnekt interface.

In my opinion, recording in stereo add an extra dimension, naturally, so you don't need electronic reverb.

Well just to prove that I'm not an old fogy, I made a test recording with a single RE20 mic and played it back into both channels of my headphones. My Lord, it's a tad clinical...I might be forced to track down some cables and hook it it up to a proper stereo so that you get the effect of the room; or God forbid, use the electronic reverb that comes with the Konnekt interface.

In my opinion, recording in stereo add an extra dimension, naturally, so you don't need electronic reverb.

That's a lovely, idylic thought. Not very practical, but sweet nonethelss.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Paragraph 1.

Peace on you, Ty. I have no beef against recording engineers and record producers...but I do start to wonder about people who are compelled to copy messages, and dissect them line by line, to correct any falsehoods or screwed up beliefs and values -- but I thought the customer was right, when it comes to matters of taste (ie. even if you liked Madonna we shouldn't dismiss you as a complete human being). Your line by line dissecting is really a form of internet harassment...this is forum for recording musicians -- but I suppose this is your duty when your Y-fronts are in a twist -- Oh Ty will I awake to see another line by line post-dissecting pissing contest? Remember: I joined this forum to because it seemed interesting; less focused of gear acquisition than some of the others...now as for the learning: it's on hold but maybe tomorrow.

Paragraph 2.

I suppose one approach is put an ad in the paper touting the value of getting a record produced by a top engineer, or going to a home recording boot camp...fair enough, perhaps I'll go but the thing that will really drive me to put a record producer or engineer on a pedestal is make a good record -- one that provides an outstanding listening experience. The last one I heard that 'blew my mind' was a recording of the rock band 'The Cowboy Junkies: The Trinity Sessions, recorded in Trinity Anglican Church using a Calrec ambiasonic microphone. It left me feeling that most tracked music is rubbish -- compared to that sound-scape...It's been over 17 years since that album came out -- surprise I stopped CD buying about four years ago...and I don't own an iPod.

Commentary:
You senseless unappreciative Canadian; dismissing the wonderful tracked music created and emitted south of the border. How dare you mock the recording techniques used by Celine Dion...I'll leave the rest for another forum member to fill in.

One of the owners of a certain pro audio stockist in Montreal pointed out that a lot of customers go overboard with this multi-tracking business and in trying to correct the mistakes -- say there's between 10 to 50 cuts and reinsertions for a vocal track -- that's going to suck a lot of gas -- or ambiance out of the music. But maybe some folks think it's worth it to suck gas if you achieve perfection. It's all about balance, the live sound is traded off to cut out all the mistakes.java script:emoticon(':dance:', 'smid_9')


If ya'll remember the War of 1812, it ended in a stand-off -- no land was gained or lost, but it did provide some motivation to get our act (The British North America Act of 1867) together. On this issue, stereo versus multiple mics, I started with the assumption that stereo recording is best for my application. This is merely a forum, a public place, and never have I zoned in on any members or 'professional'groups, be they accountants or any of the new ones. We have fought in battles on our border and all over the world to uphold free speech. I don't think I have crossed the line, I'm just one voice, I suppose you can complain to the home room teacher.

There are many motivations for a 'recording musician' to learn more about recording...even Bruce Springsteen has done a Tascam 4 track album that didn't sound as good as the others -- but cost pressures, creative control, not having to argue/or compromise with people -- or have to stop in the middle things to wait while the engineer removes a perfectly good go-to mic and replaces it with another...

Check out some of the radio station performance videos on Amy Winehouse's MySpace site. She's really working the RE20 and it sounds pretty good -- yes I'll admit that she is close-miked and the engineer is following the traditional way of doing things.

Also they didn't film the acoustic guitar player so you don't know if he (or she) was playing into another RE20.


http://www.myspace.com/amywinehouse