Best mic for recording guitar?
 

I'm looking to get a new mic to use on my XH-A1 to use for guitar recordings. I'm looking for the best mic for a basic point and shoot situation, not necessarily a perfect recording studio situation. I don't know if there is a difference.

A friend let me use his Schoeps the other day and that's when I realized I needed something better than what I have.

I am considering getting a Schoeps, but I've also be looking at the Rodes NTG 3, as well as a Neumann KM 184.
Any other suggestions? I would like to hear suggestions for a mic under $1000.00 as I've made my mind up if I'm going to go all the way I'll get a Schoeps.

Thanks...
Michael

I don't know the environment you're shooting in but if its not a studio then I wouldn't spend $1,000 on a mic. For around $300 you can get a good small condenser mic. Put it on a stand near the guitar and you should get good results. The acoustics of the place you're recording in and your skill as a musician is going to have a bigger impact. People have a tendency to want to solve they're audio problems by buying the most expensive mic. Don't get me wrong Schoeps is top of the line, but I think its over kill. I own Oktava MK12 $265 and its a nice mic and seems to excel at the pickup the highs.

I agree with Pete. A seperate mic on a stand next to the guitar and attach with XLR or use wireless system if you need to float with the camera. Check here and perhaps more audio-centric forums for a good guitar mic. (I'm assuming this is an acoustic guitar. If electric, taking the line out of the amp is always an option.)

One tip: The rosette of hole in the top of a guitar is not the best place to point a mic. Better pointed at the top wood near the bridge, where the strings attach down past the rosette.

This is above my paygrade, but my son the music producer recently did an album with a combination of Neumann U87 (for which, substitute large-diaphragm condenser mike of your choice) aft of the sound hole, over the body of the guitar, and a Shure SM57 aimed at the 12th fret on an angle toward the sound hole, says never aim directly at the sound hole....what do I know, hope this is some help....Battle Vaughan/miamiherald.com video team

I'm trying to figure out the same thing and just posted a thread asking for advice about a couple of specific mics. In the process of scoping it out, I came across this review which might be helpful: Smokin' Condensers - A roundup of seven small-diaphragm cardiod-pattern condenser microphones.

-JP

A DPA 4061 attached to the guitar works well.

Richard brings up a good point. I've heard excellent results from a lav attached peeking into the soundhole or clipped to the fretboard at the rosette. I'm pretty sure that's the typical micing used by the Mexican acoustic guitar duo "Rodrigo y Gabriela." If you watch these clips on YouTube you can see the mic in position. YouTube - Rodrigo Y Gabriela's Video 'For Diablo Rojo' and YouTube - Rodrigo y Gabriela - 'Tamacun'

the whole top of the guitar ie the wood vibrates and makes the sound. the whole in the top allows the air to move but is mostly resonant lower frequencies. the neck gives off high frequencies to. the best sound comes from capturing it all in balance. One mic aimed at the neck body join seems to get a good balance. Listen on cans or monitors and check placement. A couple of omni room mic's are good too if you have a decent space to record in and the guitar style suits it. Say a solo clasical style if the player has volume to the playing. Stick the omnis wide spaced and backe them well off. I digress.

Get a KMI 84 or similar small diaphram mic. Schoeps is truley great for this. Listen listen listen and one day it might be something you can do without a bit if luck. I'm still learning after 30 years of recording and playing.

I really don't believe there is a simple 'buy this one' answer to this. So much depends on the instrument and if we are talking just a sound recording, or a sound recording with picture.

Large diaphragm mics have a nice warmth, small size ones tend to be more clinical (perhaps even accurate). Once you understand the instrument, then you need to take into account the playing style. Lots of fret noise, as part of the style will need different technique to a more clean left hand and nail picked right hand.

Small diaphragm mics look better, and a tiny shoeps on an extension tube are very discrete. A Neumann U87 always sounds good, but looks very ugly.

Acoustic guitars have a terrific range of timbres - picking a single mic that can do them justice is pretty tough.

Picking the right one is a combination of visual vs aural, and the exact location - the elusive 'sweet spot' is best done with mic in hand, and headphones on, while the player plays.

My personal favourite for guitar, at a free budget level would be an AKG 414.

Michael,

I think last time I looked a $choeps would be closer to $2k by the time you get the cartridge and the amp. Depending of course on what cartridge(s) you get.

If you're going direct to the camera, though, I think the $choeps might be overkill as I think the camera's audio capability would be the limiting hardware factor.

By the way, I found that Izotope RX does a great job of toning down the finger squeaks from a classical guitar without damaging the overall sound much, if at all. I like to leave a little bit in as I think it's part of the character of the instrument, but there is often more than the performer wants people to hear. I think people remember the squeaks more when listening to a CD than to a live concert.

Thanks Jimmy, and everyone who commented.
I recall an article once where they put a guitar in the middle of a room with 256 microphones in the ceiling, then played each note and photographed where on the surface of the guitar the note radiated from. As you say the notes come directly off the surfaces. The treble response came off the top near the bridge, and the bass frequencies radiated from the sound hole area.

Michael

Jim, you bring up an interesting point I didn't think of, about the audio capabilities of the XH-A1. Yes, this changes everything, away from the Schoeps.

I did some research today and found perhaps I need two Mic's, one for an all around mic for talking, and one for guitar. I found that they recommend a shotgun mic for outdoor recordings, and a hyper cardioid for indoor stuff. I only record indoors so it looks like I should get a hyper cardioid. This eliminates the Rode NTG 3, I guess.

I like the Rode video mic but don't like the the mini jack. Any recommendations for a fairly inexpensive mic to mount on the camera. I hate the onboard mic.

Thanks to all of you guys for the help as well!

michael

BTW, here is my website with a few videos I did........ don't be too rough on me I'm learning.
Thames Classical Guitars

Michael

I just looked at Michael's work, and I suspect, he's unintentionally hit the nail on the head!

This man spends his time creating musical instruments, of the kind that serious, not casual musicians like, want to buy because of what the sound and play like. The piece of music playing as background has been chosen by an expert to promote his standard - which looking at what he does is craftsman type work.

I'd now state that my best guess is that only a recording that sounded good to him, counts.

We're looking at this from a video perspective. The instrument builder is listening to it. Our choice of microphone should defer to the musician or craftsman. Nobody who dictates "Thou shall only use a super-cardioid" should be listened to. I've provided sound for classical guitarists, and in one case, the musician, Richard Durrant was playing a concert with bass guitar legend Herbie Flowers. Richard opened a bag, and pulled out a battered AKG 451 microphone. Not what I would have selected, but his call. He set it up himself and 'aimed' it at a certain point on the guitar, and adjusted it very carefully. He'd worked out where this particular guitar needed a microphone to be, and the result was excellent. You learn a lot from people like this.

I asked him how he came to this choice. Patience and my ears was the reply.

Positioning is the key really. Both mic and player in the room. I'll mark the players foot positions and chair legs to keep him from moving. But then there are different approaches for different reasons.
You might want a close up dry sound with a little dynamic squeezing from a compressor to fatten it up and then put it through a stereo reverb. One mic but a stereo recording. There are some top end records by people such as Flavio Cucchi who have this sound. One advantage of it is you can record without reverb and then the reverb covers the edits nicely. And the pro's are often heavily edited to avoid the finger fluffs and squeeks that plague guitar players. As Julien Breem said, the mic hears everything in detail. SOmething like that. MAkes all the fluffs sound worse. Listen to the old bream recordings and the sound is quieter and dryer. No compression or artificial reverb used back then.
Personally I thing it's the player that matters the most. Also they need to be well rehearsed and have newish strings on the guitar as well. Old strings sound bad when recording.
It's a joy though recording Nylon stringed instruments though. One of my favourite things.

Michael,

By the way, I don't think I'd want to mount a mic on camera for what you're doing. It would be further from the guitar than I think would be optimal, and it would be extremely unlikely that your best location for sound would be in the same location as the camera.

Plus cameras are inherently kind of noisy up close and camera mounted mics can pick up a lot of unwanted clutter.

Something just occurred to me. I keep thinking that recording into the camera isn't necessarily going to give you the best result. Typically cameras are designed to record video and sound seems sort of like almost an afterthought. Scan these forums and people are always complaining about why even very expensive cameras have less than stellar pre-amps etc

And 16 bit/48k isn't really the best for music. Voice, dialogue, OK, but the demands of squeezing video into limited bandwidth always seems to dictate that sound will be sacrificed to make room for video.

Thinking about all of this, I wonder if you've ever looked at something like the Sony PCM-D50 all in one mic/recorder, or maybe one of the Zoom products.

I have the Sony and am always rather pleasantly surprised at how good the mics are at the price point. I've done a couple of brass band recordings going simultaneously into a Schoeps/Sound Devices setup and the Sony. The result is always that the high priced spread is better - but the little Sony ain't bad! Much better than you might think.

I did a demo disk for a local classical guitarist a few months back and was planning on recording both ways, but for some reason I can't remember at the moment I didn't use the Sony so I don't have a good comparison at hand, unfortunately.

One thing I did do was to have a metal adapter made up so I could mount the Sony in a shock mount on a mic stand and I think this made it much more usable.

Anyhow, just a suggestion that you might want to look into.

Paul, thanks for the kind words. Interesting story. Yes, a couple of weeks ago a guitarist visited to do a couple of concerts in Santa Fe and Taos. He always carries his Sohoeps with him do do live concerts with. While he was here he lent me the Schoeps to try, and that's when I saw the light.

Here is that artist Erich Avenger, playing a gig in Houston using his Sohoeps, the violinists I think if memory serves are using DPA's.
YouTube - indifference

Jim, very interesting. I bought the XH-A1 rather by accident. I had never owned a video camera before, I walked into the store and told the salesman I wanted a video camera that records good audio, he took the A1 out and showed me the XLR inputs, I went home and dreamt about it all night, and after the only argument I've ever had with my wife, she gave in, and I bought it the next day, having no idea what I got. I'm still in awe of this camera and learn something new everyday.

So are you suggesting to record with the Sony then sink it up in post with the video? Interesting. I have a friend who bought a Zoom didn't like the quality and ended up getting the Sony.

I also have an Akai DR4 digital recorder and a Bluetube pre-amp, and a mixing board. Here is a recording I made with that set up. The two mics were really cheap ones like $50.00 for both, and I can't remember the brand.
YouTube - Dresden 13 string guitar tuned in Dminor. Weiss Fantasy, played by Michael Thames

I also have a pair of MXL 993. I actually like these a lot (in my relatively small microphonic universe). However, one mic has developed a horrible loud static hum that is louder than what I recorded. I started to read some reviews of these mics on the web and found other people complaining about the same thing. I'm afraid after having ruined an hour long lecture on solar energy I did for a friend, to risk using them again.

My main use for recording is to use on YouTube. At this point in my life I don't want to fit anymore ram in my brain than I have to, by learning audio production other than the basics of Soundtrack II, in FCP. I need something that complements my guitars well on YouTube without an elaborate set up.

Jim, by all means visit when you are here in Santa Fe for the Opera. Would love to get together with you.

Michael

I guess even though the destination is You Tube, if it were me I'd want the best sound I could get with a reasonable expenditure of time, money, and mental energy. Degrading it for the distribution medium is one thing, but I think one day you'll be glad you have a good recording on the shelf if you want to "repurpose"it.

My own experience (limited as it may be) and comments on this forum make me think that the Sony is a heck of a price performer. If you can get hold of one it's worth a try. If not, I can bring mine when we come to Santa Fe.

I personally don't care for large condenser mics (such as the Neumann U87) on acoustic guitar. When I've had no choice, I've used them and often had to notch out some lower frequencies... typically around 240Hz. A small diaphragm condenser is a much better choice. Experiment with the distance to the sound hole (closer = bassier).

It seems to me when I compared the overall sound quality of the XH A1 next to a DAT machine, the XH A1 digital converters did not fair as well. I would be hesitant to buy a top-of-the-line mic and expect to reap its full potential when plugged into a camcorder. Into a dedicated sound recorder, such as the Korg MR-1000 one bit recorder... sure.

The km184 is very bright on the high end... Schoeps, as you've heard make great mics for any acoustic instrument. Check out the Beyerdynamics MC930. You can buy a stereo pair for under $800. They are very flatteringly compared to the Neumann kM84.

A Few Ideas
 

This is going to be a little long; some of it will repeat things already said, and some will mention things out of your price range. But bear with me, what is important here is more why I suggest certain things than the specifics. You are a luthier trying to show off what looks like some superb work, and it deserves the best you can give it.

The classic (and already given) advice is to point a small condensor microphone down the neck of the guitar, positioned approximately over the neck/body intersection, pointed toward the bridge. The mic is 6 - 12 inches from the guitar. Suggested mics are Neumann KM-84 (184), AKG 451 (460), Shoepps (which I have not used). My own preference is for the KM-84, because I prefer to add any high end needed with eq, rather than from a mics response, which tends to be less smooth, and have a fixed type of boost.

But in my own case, what I actually usually do in serious work is to stereo mic the guitar, much like one would mic a piano: two coincident mics centered over the strings and split very wide, one pointed at the high strings, one at the low, VERY close (literally within an inch in some cases). This produces a very wide, huge, stunning sound. But it requires a great deal of skill in positioning, cooperation and consistency from the player, and some minor tweeks of the low end to compensate for the bass imbalance this can create. A slightly softer pick may be needed as well (if not finger picking). Width can be adjusted to leave a small hole in the middle for a vocal, if that is appropriate.

For most of the situations and guitars encountered in pop, folk, country music, etc. this works beautifully.

But you appear to be making classical guitars, flamenco guitars, etc. It is a different world, I have found. The same micing and techniques that work so nicely on other material often just sound WRONG on this type of guitar.

Every single guitar is different, and has its own sweet spots, and will like different mics and micing setups.

You may know the why of what follows, since you build them, but I just know what I hear. I suspect that because classical guitars were created before any kind of amplification existed, they are more designed to project into a room, and be heard in a room. Whatever the cause, I have often found with classical guitars that it is necessary to get the mics back a ways, and include just a little of the room (but it needs to be a good room). The sound from these guitars just does not seem to develop until you are a ways back. If you try to close mic such a guitar, you will know it right away, because it will sound unbalanced - which may be: too much bass, muddy bass, way too midrangy, harsh highs - any or all of these, it depends upon the specific instrument.

But note - I have found a few that close miced just fine. There is no rule, except to try things until it sounds right for that instrument.

If you need to mic something back a ways - well, that says 'large diaphram condensor mic' - because that's what these mics were designed for (and they will be less noisy). I have been happy with U-87s, TLM-170s, and (though less so because of my preference for flat mics - personal taste) large diaphram AKGs.

In many ways this is like micing an orchestra, and most of the same mics and techniques can be employed, with only the slight difference that you will be closer than you would be with an orchestra (matching the smaller sound source/sound stage presented by a solo instrument). So: single omni or figure eight mic, stereo Blumlein pair, ORTF, M/S - all good, pick as appropriate to the instrument and desired space.

How far away? This is where the individual guitar really matters. I generally would start as close as a foot, then go back a foot at a time until I hit the magic point where that guitar, with that micing, in that room, sounded just right, perhaps fine tuning by inches. Where there is a nice sense of presence on the guitar, lows and highs nicely balanced, and just enough of the room to create a sense of space, that the guitar is in a real room.

What about that room? If you came to me to do this as a project ('make a demo of my guitars'), the first thing I would tell you is 'This needs to be recorded in a small concert hall'. Second choice would be a studio.

If you need to do it at home...I would suggest recording in the largest space you have available, and deadening the end of the room where the guitar will be as much as possible (all the back wall and halfway down the side walls). Steal all your wifes duvets and scatter them around, then pull down the living room curtains and put them in front of the duvets (to hide them), making something that looks to the camera something like a small stage.

If the room is narrow I might try a figure 8 pattern on the mic to null out the side walls. If it is looking good, try omni to pick up a hint of the opposite (not so deadened) space.

For what it is worth, even in fairly 'purist' situations it is common to eq guitars, add a slight amount of compression, and perhaps some reverb. The basics need to be right first though. You cannot really fix poor recording with electronics.

I know this sounds like a lot of work, my intent is just to give you some ideas to think about. If you are making $6000 guitars, I think your efforts will be well repaid.

-Mike

There are infinite ways to record a guitar. As an intern at sugar hill studios, i'd be the guy juggling around mics while the guys in the control room looked pensive. I was amazed that if we had a two different guitarists in a session that they'd want me to start over for each. It makes sense now, but at the time seemed like madness. I mean, we JUST figured out the BEST solution for recording a guitar, right? right?

Everything in the audio chain can color your sound. EVERYTHING. Change the mic, the placement, the cable, the preamp, the recorder, the bit depth... it can all color the sound, and the tough part is that depending on who you are talking to, each person will name a different part of the chain as essential. And the most frustrating is that sometimes one part of the chain can compensate for another. A really bright mic mixed with a preamp that chokes the highs can randomly be a great combination.

So, with that universal disclaimer in mind, and given that this is a video production board and not a studio recording forum, my personal vote is that you either "go long" or "go short". To "go long", i say go for the schoeps cmc641. If you are used to a crappy mic, the schoeps running straight into your camera is going to sound amazing. In the future, if you develop better ears then you can upgrade other parts of the chain without "starting over".(thats a big "if". *most* people cannot become audiophile snobs because we weren't born with those ears. If you have those ears, you likely already know it.)

The big selling point for the schoeps hypercardioid is that you can turn around and use it for dialog and interviews and it will sound fantastic. And as a video guy, I reckon recording people is going to come up much more often than guitars. Another point for the schoeps is that it will hold its value. It won't make you more attractive to most women, but if you find a woman that knows enough about mics to find you sexy because of your schoeps, then dump your wife and rush off with her.

If you aren't going to "go long", then i say "go short". Buy an oktava mk012. If you are used to a crappy mic, then the oktava straight into the xh-a1 is going to sound amazing. Heck, buy a couple with a buffet of capsules and you can do lots of experiments with pickups that few can afford to do with schoeps.

I've got an oktava mk012 and a schoeps cmc641. When properly shocked mounted, they both sound stellar for indoor dialog (and often, for music). And the thing is, *most* people cannot hear the $1700 difference. Lots of audiophiles will wet themselves when they read that, but from my firsthand experience, its true. Its the rare minority that can actually hear the difference between the two in a double blind test, and of those, fewer still that can accurately choose which mic is which and only a tiny few people on earth could hear one mic on one person and the other on a different person and accurately pick the schoeps. (oh, i know there are lots of people who *claim* they can, but i'm just saying that, in my tests... they can't.)

If you do a side by side across multiple subjects you'll see why the schoeps rocks. It sounds good on SO many different sources. At its worst it sounds really good and at its best, incredible. In MY OPINION (again, just another opinion), if you put the schoeps at the front of the chain, then even with an "average" pre/bitrate like on a camcorder, you still end up with very tasty results. Much better than putting a mediocre mic through high end preamps and recording to mortgage-breaking recorders.

The Oktava, TO ME, at its worst, sound "pretty good" and at its best sound "damned awesome". For the price, thats an amazing range. Its not "as good", but is SO good that unless you've got "the good stuff" around, you'll think its awesome.

If you have golden ears, buy the schoeps and save up for big dollar pres and recorders. If you don't, then buy the oktava with a good shock mount and chuckle at the people that claim to have the ears.

There are valid arguments for awesome preamps and when doing lots of processing, 24bit can be awesome. I'm sticking my neck out to get chopped off by those who breathe such things. There are valid arguments for and against everything i say. As a "video guy" that has a passion for audio (and does NOT have golden ears), I can say that either the schoeps or the oktava run through a sound devices mix-pre and into *whatever camera* (including HDV with all its audio horrors), consistently gets oohs and aahs and sounds noteably better than what most people in production circles have heard.

On a related subject, one of the few "golden eared" people that i believe to really have "the ear" is dvinfo's own Ty Ford... who happens to record his classical guitar with his schoeps hypercardioid and uploads it to youtube. So, this is a fairly topical link:

YouTube - "Look Ma, I'm Flyin'"

Probably just more fuel for confusion, but hope that helps!
-a

Yes, this is the first time Neumann seriously annoyed me (other than maybe some of their prices!). The older KM-84s are not that way. I guess everything nowadays has to be hyped. :-(

-MD

Loving the thread. However Andrew everything you say is compromised by referring to Ty as playing a classical guitar. He is playing a "steel string acoustic", "folk guitar", or even an "acoustic guitar" but it's not a "nylon string acoustic", "classical", "spanish" guitar. They are hugely different physically, structurally, sonically and sound very different and can be played with very different techniques. Recording them is a different game too. As is the style of music often played on them.

Sorry to split hairs but it is really important to know that nylon string and steel string acoustics are worlds apart.

Sounds like a little compression and some reverb on these macbook speakers Ty. I love recording both types of acoustic guitar.

Ok OK ok, so i misused "classical". Despite spending 14 years training as a cellist, i still abuse the term "classical" to include romantic composers and at times even modern composers. Lowest common denominator and all that.

However, I wouldn't say that *everything* i said was compromised by the slip in nomenclature. The hyper capsule is arguably a curious choice for the guitar, but the schoeps is so transparent that as a dialog mic it does a phenomenal job recording acoustic instruments (cello sounds amazing too). You can find better mics for your guitar (even a true spanish nylon... or gut stringed), but in the context of video production, you cannot find a better mic to record *any* acoustic guitar... and also indoor boomed dialog. hehe.

But, your point is made. If I'm willing to call that a classical guitar, i'm not the right guy for this discussion so i'll shut up.

'Classical' is a perfectly acceptable description for a guitar, but it's used in the manner of contemporary v classical, with the dividing line blurred away. we can get picky with the desription when we need to, but a steel strung 6 string v classical lets the reader understand the genre of instrument. Few people realise that the commonly seen 'double bass' used for jazz is a three-quarter size instrument - very different in style to the full size version seen in the 'classical' orchestra. There's no problem using generic terms for instruments, unless you are on a forum for specialist musicians, and this isn't one.

Hey Andrew, don't go away! Let's come up with a compromise and call it a"classic" guitar. In fact Ty (and I, as well as others around here) are getting long enough in the teeth that it's probably OK to call us "classics" too.

No offence ment. Being a one time pro guitarist and sound engineer personally I feel it is important to differentiate. Did not mean to beet you up. I'd like to try the cardiod schoeps but don't have a Schoeps one. I've got two mic's I use close on classical guitars but no time now. All the best.

Well, I'm not a pro guitarist and not a sound engineer and not a luthier, but I did record a guitar (classical) with a Schoeps cardiod. Actually two in X-Y config moderately close - maybe about 18 inches to 2 feet and roughly centered between sound hole and bridge. Lots of different things I'd like to have tried, but we were really short on time so we had to do the best we could with the time (and room and guitarist and guitar and recordist) we had.

Anyhow, for what it's worth...

http://www.j-e-andrada.com/Sample.mp3

No post processing except a little de-squeaking in Izotope RX (before and after)

http://www.j-e-andrada.com/Squeak%20...o%20Squeak.mp3

Comments/suggestions more than welcome.

By the way, recording was into a Sound Devices 302/Sound Devices 702.

I have several 993's, noticed that there was some noise. A good cleaning of the theads and contact on the capsule (screws off the end of the mike) with DeOxit (contact cleaner) on a q-tip cleared it up---there appears to be some black gunk on the threads that I guess but do not know interferes with the grounding or something....your mileage may vary, it worked in my case. BTW I am in awe of your work, the great sorrow of my life is I love guitar, always wanted to learn, and have absolutely no musical ability whatever -- but I appreciate a fine instrument. / Battle Vaughan/miamiherald.com video team

By the way, I rmembered this article from B&H re recording guitar.

B&H Photo Video Pro Audio- Recording the Acoustic Guitar at Home

And you did a very nice job of it.

You got them to a place where they are not annoying and sound natural.

Sometimes a diiferent choice of strings for recording helps. Usually this comes down to the player though. ;-)

-MD

Thanks for the kind words.

I thought the guitar was a bit boomy in spots and wondered if a different mic location might have helped this, but maybe not - the guitar really did sound a bit boomy on a few notes when listening without earphones. On the other hand I didn't think it was bad enough to stay up all night worrying about it and applying the "First, do no harm" approach I decided to leave it as it was.

I'm really very impressed with Izotope RX which has a whole raft of neat tools for working in the spectral view. I've succeeded reasonably well with eliminating coughing audience members from concert band recordings and screaming kids from a series of concerts we did at a mall - right next to the kiddie play area! Had one where somebody sitting right next to my mics coughed just as the last note of a Euphonium solo was tailing off. Managed to salvage it.

I didn't really know enough about the package at the time I did the guitar CD, but was lucky enough to find the Izotope guys this year at NAB when there was nobody else at their booth and they gave me an hour-long crash course on the package.

Anyhow, I digress - seem to do it more and more as I creep up on the big Seven Zero.

Thanks for the tip! I actually read on a review of these mic's that one guy did that cleaning and said it solved the problem for a few weeks. I'll give your suggestion a try.

Thanks for the kind words about my work. have little natural musical ability either, at least compared to some musicians I know, but that never stopped me!

Michael

Jim, You did a great job that sounds fantastic! Once you hear the open pearly sparkle of the high end on the Scheops it's hard to go back. I think you did a great job with the mic placement as well!

I still haven't made up my mind yet. I'm holding out for the Scheops I think, because I will probably begin to record the guitar with something else through my computer eventually, and at least I'll have a pair of good mics.

You got me going on the sony, that would be a nice unit to have in difficult recording situations.

Michael

I love everything about the Schoeps - except the price!

The other thing with Schoeps is that they offer a trememendous range of capsules. Choice is good - but it also presents a problem in deciding which capsules will work best for the things you want to record. It would be nice to have a couple of each, but that might be a bit of a financial challenge!

Re what to record into, a decent firewire interface into your PC would probably be fine so you could put the $$$ into the mics at first and record to the PC. As long as you're recording in more or less fixed locations this should work OK.

I guess another question would be whether mono recording would be adequate. I like the sense of spaciousness you get from a stereo recording, but for a small source, an exaggerated stereo image is not necessarily what you really want, and one mic is a lot less expensive than two.

One really good mic and something like a mic-port Pro XLR to USB interface recording into the PC might last you a long time and be quite satisfactory.

Well, I was listening in my living room, which is not perfect acoustics. On the other hand, the speakers were a pair of UREI 809s which I mixed on for over 25 years, so I am pretty familiar with them, and I was pretty close to the near field. Sounded fine to me.

As a rule I will tend to trust a good pair of headphones over a single speaker on such things, because they tend to be more accurate in the very low end than any speaker. Move a speaker in the room a few inches one way or another, and the peaks and dips in the lows change. You don't want to be EQing out the response of your speakers in your tracks.

I'd guess your "First, do no harm" was correct.

Izotope RX sounds interesting, I will have to take a look at that one. I used to do all sorts of crazy things to deal with guitar squeeks - from using de-essers, multiband limiters, to custom modifying the original Aphex 'Dominator' to function as a variable velocity limiter. A mod that Aphex incorporated into the next version of that device, though with less of the extreme range I used. Now...just push a software button... ;-)

-Mike

At least with a guitar it's fairly easy to move around in the room to find a good spot. I'll guarantee that it isn't so easy horsing my wife's grand piano four inches this way and seven inches that way hunting for the sweet spot. Only to have to do it all over again if the dog rolls over (well, it's a BIG dog at 165 pounds - really sucks up those old reverberations - sort of like an animated duvet:)

Seriously, RX is really quite good. The best way to use it is to watch the spectral display scroll by as you listen and when you spot something that sounds bad stop it and look around - you'll often see some crud or other strangeness in the spectral display that looks dissimilar to the pattern before and after the noise. Having found it, they provide tools that let you lasso a region and then apply various types of correction up to and including removing the lasso'd contents and re-creating the region based on what's before and what's after. Quite nice.