recording acoustic guitars on a budget

bermudianbrit

Hi all,

I have a Taylor 714CE, 2014, so it has the Taylor Expression System, though not ES2, I was so bummed when they revamped it the very year after I bought the Taylor! But anyway!
I am putting together a cheap and chearful home recording set up and was thinking about how to record the acoustic. I will have a focusrite interface and a Rode NT1 as of Saturday.
I know it is best to record guitars with two mics...but another rode would be another 150 or so and that's just a bit more than I'd like to go for at the moment...though I don't rule it out for later on.
Anyway, I was wondering if I should use the Taylor expression system, blended with the Rode? Would that make up for some of what I would be missing out on?
I know a bit about mic placement and to place the mic at the join between neck and body, all that good stuff. But is the Taylor ES worth playing with in the mix? If so, any EQ things I should think about with it?
I am knew to home recording, so be gentle .

Thanks

Matt

sweepy

The best vfm setup I have ever used is a stereo matched pair of Rode M5's . You can get very good results with one mic and blending the DI of the guitar . I'd recommend you look at the Neumann videos on YouTube for recording acoustic guitar, these will save you some grief, but imho, it's the making mistakes that lead to interesting results

BigLicks67

I don't see what you have to lose by trying the Taylor with the mic.

In the past i've had a Taylor 414ce and matched it with my Audio technica mic and got decent results on finger style stuff if mixed about 70-30 in the mics favour.

ICBM

Try the Taylor DI'd and with the mic, but record them on separate tracks - you should really do that whatever combination of sources you use - and expect to use only (or almost only) the mic in the final mix. The Taylor ES has quite an electric 'zing' to it when you listen critically.

You don't need two condenser mics. One of the classic methods is to use a standard dynamic like an SM57 close over the end of the fingerboard and a condenser further away - similar to mic'ing a speaker cab, the dynamic gives you the directness and punch, the condenser gives more of the natural sound but can be a bit unfocused on its own.

You can do all three if you can record three channels at once.

Danny1969

Most of the acoustic stuff I've done has been tracked with 2 condensers (SM81'S)  and the guitars own DI, no matter how shit it was. Record each of these sources on it's own track, you don't have to use it but it's there if you want it. 

I found recording acoustics very much like recording drummers. The approach I would take for a delicate finger picker player would be different from the way I would record a hard strumming plectrum player. Try as many different things as you have time for. 

With mic position - I normally monitor the output of the mic via headphones as I move the mic about the guitar, sometimes an inch or 2 of movement can improve the solidness of the sound considerably  - drummer isolating cans are good for this but some buds in your ears might work. 

ICBM

Danny1969 said:

I found recording acoustics very much like recording drummers.

Takes ages and by the time you've got a really good sound, the source has lost interest and isn't playing as well as it was earlier?

BigLicks67

ICBM said:

Danny1969 said:

I found recording acoustics very much like recording drummers.

Takes ages and by the time you've got a really good sound, the source has lost interest and isn't playing as well as it was earlier?

Or takes ages and by the time the drums have been miced up to perfection you find your studio budget has already expired.

thermionic

I've never really bothered with two mics much myself, but what I really like doing is recording a second track of guitar. Sparser playing than the main part (the occasional strummed chord for dramatic effect, picked arpeggios over a strummed bit) and if I can work it into the song, capoed so the chords are differently voiced. Or even a different guitar. Much more effective than two identical recordings of the same thing imho.

bermudianbrit

awesome feedback thanks guys. I'm a chet atkins style finger player mostly. Shall see what I get!

earwighoney

When it comes to recording acoustic guitar, it's very easy to obsess over getting a sound as close to ones heard.  I've been in such a position and it can be very frustrating.  

I'd recommend trying to spend some time recording with the microphone you have for the time being.  After getting a few recordings out of the way and overcoming 'microphone anxiety' as best you can you'll find out what kind of sound you'd be after. 

Before picking up another microphone I myself would recommend a preamp if possible.  I have a cheap Behringer valve preamp which isn't the greatest in the world, but I've found it to be very useful over the years. 

sweepy

The ART rack valve preamp is also another excellent vfm purchase , it really is a slippery slope

crunchman

If you do look at microphones, conventional wisdom is to use a small diaphragm condensor on acoustics.

I've heard really good stuff recorded with a Shure PG81 which can be had for a bit over £100 new.  The AKG C1000 is another budget small diaphragm condensor that is pretty good.

As others have said, I'd just go with what you have at the moment though.

Cirrus

I'm a fan of using one mic on acoustic, unless the acoustic is just an incidental "ear candy" overdub to add a bit of zing to a mix - if that's the aim, a stereo setup or possibly M/S setup is a nice way to get some depth and width in your sound. On the other hand, if the acoustic guitar is playing a critical role in the song I think there's benefit in recording it as one solid mono source, which you can always apply some stereo reverb to later if you want. Mono just sounds more real to me, and with one mic you're far less at the mercy of the guitar player moving a few cm relative to the mics during the take, totally changing the phase relationship between the source and mics which changes the stereo image.

As for mic placement, 30cm in front of the neck joint is a good place to start, but it's rarely where I finish. On my last acoustic recording session I ended up with the mic just above the shoulder of the guitar, pointing down at the strings, because it gave a bit more low end on a guitar that benefited from it;

I've also had good luck with the mic over my right shoulder, again looking down at the instrument.

I'd say if you do decide to use the onboard pickup as well, here's how I'd work it; I'd get the best sound I could with a single mic, with the ideal being that this track will be all you need if push comes to shove. Also record the pickup, and bring a little of that signal up in the mix for some string twang and sparkle. You might try delaying the direct signal a few samples to compensate for the mic signal being a millisecond or two behind the direct signal due to the speed of sound. I would pan them together and I'd only use the direct signal if it was adding something I liked within the context of the mix.

ESBlonde

Whilst the quality of the gear can and does have a bearing on the sound, the position of the mic will have far more.
Try the mic in a variety of positions (never mind how silly it looks). I once ended up putting a condenser over the players right shoulder pointing down at the guitar and using mostly that as the sound in the mix! A dynamic mic behind the guitar body adds warmth but no detail. Default condenser is over the end of the fingerboard pointing deep into the body, but that's not always the best.

BigMonka

If using two sources (2 mics, or mic and piezo) then get some headphones on and have a play whilst listening and moving the mics around to hear the interaction between the two. IME there will be places where the phase of the two signals works well and others where it doesn't. There are ways and means of correcting this afterwards, but they're a pain in the butt compared to moving a mic a couple of inches before you press record.