Microphone Positioning for Acoustic Instruments

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

A thread for asking people advice on this topic! I'll start...

When I'm recording a marimba or xylophone, should I put the mic OVER the tines pointing down or UNDER pointing up? Or should I just put the whole thing in the shower and hang the mic from the bathroom door?

― nickalicious, Thursday, 1 March 2007 22:10 (eighteen years ago)

It depends on how the room sounds, how the instrument sounds, and what you're looking for. Usually I'll have the performer play and put my ear in different places and see how it sounds. Unlike with a guitar amp, you can do this without hurting yourself. Last time I recorded vibes I liked the sound best from in front of and slightly below the bars - putting the mic above got too much mallet sound and not enough vibrating goodness.

So mess around a bit at the beginning of the session and see what sounds good to you. Usually I see people putting the mics over the bars pointing down, though.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Thursday, 1 March 2007 22:25 (eighteen years ago)

i always put it under, pointing up. i'd rather have a bit less attack than too much

― electricsound, Friday, 2 March 2007 00:18 (eighteen years ago)

Well, if you record too much attack, you can use a compressor/limiter to tame it. If you don't record enough attack, it's going to be more difficult to add it.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Friday, 2 March 2007 00:41 (eighteen years ago)

U_U

― John Justen, Friday, 2 March 2007 00:42 (eighteen years ago)

I don't like compressors. It's nice to have an option to fix mistakes, but they can become a crutch.

But yeah, use your ears, remember that a cardiod mic will add bass if closer than 3", and set the input gain to the max before clipping. From there it should be OK.

If this was about acoustic guitars, mic the body, not the hole. The hole is a port, the top is the transducer. I've found it generally sounds best to mic near the bridge on the treble side, but that depends on the kind of bracing.
Upright bass(hearsay here) sounds good if one uses a pencil condensor mic wrapped in foam and placed under the strings behind the bridge.
there are many applications for a boundary mic, but that'll depend ALOT on the room.

― Windy G Moisture, Friday, 2 March 2007 04:31 (eighteen years ago)

A compressor doesn't have to be for fixing mistakes. It's an effect. Compressed vibes sound different from uncompressed vibes, and sometimes you want the former.

set the input gain to the max before clipping

If you're recording analog. If it's digital, you'll want to leave yourself more headroom.

And there are lots of ways to mic acoustic guitar. I've gotten nice results miking from the player's perspective, i.e. over the shoulder, by the player's ear.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Friday, 2 March 2007 06:42 (eighteen years ago)

I'm playing my octave mandolin live on saturday for the first time. It hasn't got a pickup (if this goes well I will consider getting one).

Any view on best mic position? I haven't got a mic to experiment with before hand but I've always assumed/been told just in from of the sound hole, 45? to the neck.

― Ed, Friday, 2 March 2007 08:15 (eighteen years ago)

? = degrees symbol

― Ed, Friday, 2 March 2007 08:15 (eighteen years ago)

"Compressed vibes sound different from uncompressed vibes,"
Yeah, they don't sound real once you're done, but that's another thread...

Also, why would you need more headroom if you're not clipping?

Why would you mic when the player's hearing? That's just weird in my opinion. The audience isn't on their shoulder, they're in front of them.

When I mic something I'm trying to get the sound of that thing. IE what an audience would hear.
I'm sure it would sound interesting to mic the headstock of a guitar or the keys of a piano, but that's not an accurate depiction of the sounds they produce.

And Ed, that sounds like a decent position. Particularly in a live situation a contact mic isn't a bad idea, but then you'd need to find a decent one by then.

― Windy G Moisture, Friday, 2 March 2007 08:54 (eighteen years ago)

Buying an underbridge piezo pickup is totally in my plan, I think I know the one I want to get. I just want my playing to be better before I splash the cash. Yes, there are cheap sucker on ones but I'm not that in to them, and I don't want to complicate my life with cables and pre amps and such.

― Ed, Friday, 2 March 2007 09:26 (eighteen years ago)

If anyone is interested, these pickups seem to have a very good reputation but are rather expensive.

― Ed, Friday, 2 March 2007 12:08 (eighteen years ago)

You should leave more headroom because in the digital world, there is no advantage to recording really hot levels as the noise floor is extremely low, especially with 24 bit. That and because you never know when someone's going to play one hit that's a little louder than they did during soundcheck, and digital clipping is nasty, as opposed to analog where the tape can act as a smooth limiter. This is pretty much conventional wisdom. Your tracks shouldn't be peaking much above -12 dBFS when recording digital.

As for the other stuff, this needn't become a philosophical debate, but suffice to say that for many recordists and listeners, it's more important to sound subjectively good than objectively "real." Besides, I don't think compressed vibes, for instance, sounds fake, just different.

And you mic what the player is hearing for the same reason you mic anywhere else: because sometimes it sounds good. I don't see why you'd object to that after recommending putting a mic wrapped in foam behind the bridge of a bass. The idea of a mic placement that's "not an accurate depiction" of an instrument's sound is somewhat nonsensical.

If all of your miking decisions are based on what an audience member would hear in a concert hall, you're really limiting yourself.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Friday, 2 March 2007 16:50 (eighteen years ago)

I'm talking about INPUT gain, not gain to the tape. clipping a board/pre's input can get ugly too.
There IS an advantage to hot levels, as there's still noise from the mic(they do have noise levels of their own) the CABLE... That list goes on and on. Is your studio star grounded? If someone's asking a question here I doubt it.
Also, while 24-bit has an excellent bit depth and number of samples so -12 will still sound good, any mic pre is ultimately analog on the input. That's the input gain control I'm talking about.

"Besides, I don't think compressed vibes, for instance, sounds fake, just different. "
Different from real vibes=fake vibes. Find me some vibes that sound like a set of real ones with a compressor and then you can name what different vibes you're talking about.

"I don't see why you'd object to that after recommending putting a mic wrapped in foam behind the bridge of a bass." Because the bass will sound just like it does in the room, whereas the guitar will sound like what the player hears as best?

"The idea of a mic placement that's "not an accurate depiction" of an instrument's sound is somewhat nonsensical. "
No it isn't. That used to be the goal when people used microphones: getting a sound that's accurate to the instrument. Now it's all about some weird subjective fancy over-processed mess.
The logical extreme of this is pitch-correction. "Now it sounds even 'better' than before!"
"If all of your miking decisions are based on what an audience member would hear in a concert hall, you're really limiting yourself."
Yes.
That's not neccesarally a bad thing.
When I write a story I like to limit myself to correct spelling.

― Windy G Moisture, Friday, 2 March 2007 18:44 (eighteen years ago)

Also, undersaddle transducers are very very innacurate. Thin, tinny, over-comressed on the attack, totally lacking midrange..
The best word I have for them is 'plasticy.'
A body transducer works bar better and is actually somewhat more simple to install. Shadow is a good brand, B-Band makes one, too.

― Windy G Moisture, Friday, 2 March 2007 18:57 (eighteen years ago)

I ended up doing this: I actually put a mic slightly above pointing directly at the tines/whatever-you-call-them (this is a marimba) and another under the resonators, pointing up, I panned hard left and right, then after recording live I mixed both channels for clarity and bounced down to 1 track. It sounded really good, as good as this shitty little marimba is going to sound, anyway. I ended up using more of the top mic than I expected though because the mallet strikes didn't produce hardly any of the 'ping' I anticipated; the attack turned out quite soft and warm.

― nickalicious, Friday, 2 March 2007 19:14 (eighteen years ago)

Mics pointing at the things wich produce the audible sound, good plan.
Grey matter, grey matter, oooooh...

― Windy G Moisture, Friday, 2 March 2007 21:36 (eighteen years ago)

Different from real vibes=fake vibes.

To you, I guess. I don't think most listeners are going to think "fake" unless there are obvious artifacts like pumping. It'll just sound like a vibe with lots of sustain. I think there's a place for both approaches, and a good producer knows when to use which tools.

Because the bass will sound just like it does in the room, whereas the guitar will sound like what the player hears as best?

I don't follow. The bass will sound the way it does if you stuck your ear behind the bridge, and the guitar will sound the way it does if you listened to it from slightly above and behind the body. The listener can't tell where the mic was placed. If you don't have a problem with the idea of close miking in general, I can't make sense of your objection here. There's no rule that the microphone has to go in front of the instrument.

That used to be the goal when people used microphones: getting a sound that's accurate to the instrument. Now it's all about some weird subjective fancy over-processed mess. The logical extreme of this is pitch-correction. "Now it sounds even 'better' than before!"

That's not the logical extreme of what I said at all.

That's not neccesarally a bad thing.
When I write a story I like to limit myself to correct spelling.

Look, you obviously have a particular (and in my view, an old-fashioned and restrictive) recording aesthetic. But you should realize that it's not universally held and it's not the only correct approach.

I think painting makes a good analogy. The best painting is not necessarily the most photorealistic one, even though some people are very good at painting that way. Some paintings are stylized, impressionistic, abstract, etc. Neither one is wrong, although a given approach might be more or less appropriate for communicating a particular message.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Friday, 2 March 2007 22:36 (eighteen years ago)

"the listener can't tell where the mic was placed"
Proper micing preproduces the sound of an instrument as it would be heard BY THE AUDIENCE. Whom is music played for? The audience. Whom will be listening to a recording? The audience.
The micing of the bass in that manner produces a sound very very close to the sound of the bass in the room.
micing a guitar player's face does not and cannot produce the sound an audience would hear.
I know you don't need to place the mic in front of an instrument. Putting it inside the instrument can work very well. lsiten to Kottke's 6&12 strung guitar. One internal mic and one at the neck. That's all.
"Look, you obviously have a particular (and in my view, an old-fashioned and restrictive) recording aesthetic. "
Thank you.
"but you should realize that it's not universally held and it's not the only correct approach."
Well, define 'correct.'

"I think painting makes a good analogy. The best painting is not necessarily the most photorealistic one, even though some people are very good at painting that way. Some paintings are stylized, impressionistic, abstract, etc. Neither one is wrong, although a given approach might be more or less appropriate for communicating a particular message."
Defining recording as a painting is somewhat rude towards the performer.
A recordING as a painting is somewhat true, but I think an engineer as a courtroom artist as opposed to an abstract painter is much better.
A musical performance is something that does, in fact, occur.
A recording is just that. A record of something that is happening.
Mess with the sonics(and dynamics!) of it and you alter that record.

An engineer is a journalist with a photographer. Anything they work on is inevitably colored by their perceptions, but they should get as close to the original performance as possible, because the facts do matter. Sometimes a drummer hits harder than other times, sometimes the vibrophone player plays a couple notes more softly or harder. These are all parts of a performance.
A synthesizer doesn't produce soundwaves, but rather electrical signals. Those can be fucked with before they hit the speakers in a liver performance(that's how they work, really) but acoustic instruments actually produce a sound, and those sounds can reach the ears of the audience.

I believe a recording should be of what the band performed and as close as possible to what you would hear if you were there. Bands perform, and their members die. Those performances will never occur again.
Recordings keep a little of that alive.

The 'stylistic' aesthetic is what destroyed all but two of Kottke's recordings.
If it wasn't for that 'old fashioned and restrictive' methodology his speed fingerpick techique would have been lost forever.

― Windy G Moisture, Saturday, 3 March 2007 00:16 (eighteen years ago)

I suppose that's why nobody likes Seargent Pepper's, or Loveless, or In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, then. They just don't sound realistic enough.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Saturday, 3 March 2007 19:11 (eighteen years ago)

Proper micing preproduces the sound of an instrument as it would be heard BY THE AUDIENCE. Whom is music played for? The audience. Whom will be listening to a recording? The audience.

And that's ridiculous. "Proper" miking produces the sound of the instrument that the artist wants the audience to hear. If that means putting it next to the player's head, or shoved against the strings, or in a fish tank across the room, then that's where it belongs.

It's nice that you feel so confident in your method, but it's simply not the one true approach.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Saturday, 3 March 2007 19:18 (eighteen years ago)

"I suppose that's why nobody likes Seargent Pepper's, or Loveless, or In the Aeroplane Over the Sea, then. They just don't sound realistic enough."
Hitler was voted into office. Almost 50% of people voted for W. Don't use "A million people can't be wrong!" it's a huge logical fallacy. Those albums sold because of the SONGS for the most part.
Also, new weird sounds are a neat gimmick.
I prefer experimentation with MUSIC not just sonics. The only time I do odd micing etc is when i want something to sound like shit. And usually want i do is just use a cheap mic properly.

"And that's ridiculous. "Proper" miking produces the sound of the instrument that the artist wants the audience to hear." Maybe they should use an instrument that produces that sound.
if you want a piano to sound like a harpsichord, maybe you should invest in a harpsichord or get a synthesizer.
If you want a really rounded smooth acoustic guitar tone, don't use a resonator.
This could go on and on.

An acoustic instrument sounds a certain way. If the guitarist faces away from the audience because he likes the guitar to be rather muffled, go ahead, mic his shoulder. I'd mic a lap resonator perpendicular to the top, because that's what faces the audience.

Also, since when does a guitarist have any idea what sounds good in a mix? "Turn me up more! I need more cut! My solo should be louder than everything else but still match the rhythm track. can you make my guitar sound more Badass?" If engineers listend to what a guitarist thinks an acoustic sounds like every guitar track would sound like rubbing a couple rubber combs together.
Oh wait, that's how most of them sound.

I'm glad I started on bass. Alot less pretence there.

― Windy G Moisture, Saturday, 3 March 2007 20:55 (eighteen years ago)

So let me get this straight - the engineer, not the artist, is the one who should decide how a record ought to sound? Do you own a studio, or what? If somebody comes in to your studio and wants to make a recording in anything besides a strictly "realistic" documentary-style, do you turn them away? If an artist wants you to use an unconventional miking, or a compressor or (God forbid!) autotune, do you tell them no?

I'd hope not, because that would be really pretentious. Rockist, one might go so far as to say!

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Saturday, 3 March 2007 21:11 (eighteen years ago)

Also, experimenting with sonics has been a major part of contemporary classical music for at least 100 years.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Saturday, 3 March 2007 21:20 (eighteen years ago)

"So let me get this straight - the engineer, not the artist, is the one who should decide how a record ought to sound? Do you own a studio, or what? If somebody comes in to your studio and wants to make a recording in anything besides a strictly "realistic" documentary-style, do you turn them away? If an artist wants you to use an unconventional miking, or a compressor or (God forbid!) autotune, do you tell them no? "
Not yet, I'm still amassing gear.
And yes, I would. Well, no, I wouldn't. I'd just turn off the mics in weird places and not connect the compressor and lie to them.
If they didn't like the result, I show them the line in the contract that said there are no refunds.
Unless it was a recording of truly experimental music(industrial, noise etc. However bands like lightning bolt are so much performance there wouldn't be much needed). in that case all I'd do would be to make sure stuff didn't get broken and answer questions. Let them go to town.

"Rockist, one might go so far as to say!"
I refuse to know what that word means. Everyone I've seen/heard use it has been a scenester loser. I don't like much 'rock' music anyway. i like experimental music, folk music, odd varieties of metal, goth/death rock and punk music. When I hear 'rock' used as a genre I think Foreigner and Deep Purple. Meh. "These guys can play!" "I guess. i'm gonna take a nap now..." Just not my bag.
Grew up with a mom dusting to Black Dog. it's like white noise.

ANYWAY.
"Also, experimenting with sonics has been a major part of contemporary classical music for at least 100 years."
So THAT'S why they're using aluminium violins and distorted piano! I always thought I just dreamed that part. Oh wait, I did.

Know how classical music is recorded(I hope you do, but...)? Two boundary microphones. The End.
Why? The 'sonics' et al have all been worked out in the writing, conducting and performance.

Planning. It's important.
Do enough of it and even a well-place omni mic will sound pretty good. It's just generally more efficient to do things in a little more 'conventional' fashion.
Come to think of it, using one mic is the REAL old-fashioned method. I just think at a certain point there were more than enough tools to record music.

new 'tool's aren't always an improvement. If you're blowing glass and someone comes in and says "Check it out! I got this new tool!" And it's a sledgehammer, you'd tell him to clear out his desk or see a shrink.(well, not that far, but he'd get a dressing down).
Not all tools should be used for every job. Some just don't suit the task at hand.
Some just shouldn't be used EVER(pitch-correction, for example. Just hire session singers. Milli vanilli it! In a couple years the whole song could be computer generated. *barf*).

― Windy G Moisture, Saturday, 3 March 2007 22:36 (eighteen years ago)

I'd just turn off the mics in weird places and not connect the compressor and lie to them.

Awesome.

I refuse to know what that word means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockist

So THAT'S why they're using aluminium violins and distorted piano! I always thought I just dreamed that part. Oh wait, I did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Crumb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Babbitt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgard_Var%C3%A8se
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Stockhausen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gy%C3%B6rgy_Ligeti
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cage
etc.

Know how classical music is recorded(I hope you do, but...)? Two boundary microphones. The End.
Why? The 'sonics' et al have all been worked out in the writing, conducting and performance.

Because the medium for composition in those cases is the concert hall. Not all music is composed for the concert hall. I'm not sure why you seem to have so much trouble with that distinction.

Not all tools should be used for every job. Some just don't suit the task at hand.

Of course. I never said otherwise.

Your view of recording seems to be that the musician executes a performance and the engineer documents that performance as objectively as possible (although I'm still somewhat unclear on why you wouldn't reject close-miking entirely if that's the case).

That's all well and good, and I'm sure it sometimes produces nice results. What I'm trying to point out is that you are incorrect if you think that is the only way to approach making a recording. Some artists aren't trying to document a live performance, they're trying to create a record that exists on its own terms. This idea is not new (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musique_concrete).

This is a stupid argument, and it's why I said I didn't feel like getting into a philosophical discussion. Best of luck with your curmudgeonliness. I suppose somebody's gotta do it.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Saturday, 3 March 2007 22:55 (eighteen years ago)

Gyorgi ligeti rules, but it's still unaffected acoustics, really.

"(although I'm still somewhat unclear on why you wouldn't reject close-miking entirely if that's the case). "
Well, that's because it's ultimately going to come out of speakers. You need to take that into account.

You ignored half of my last post's point.
Musicians/sound artists is a valid argument.
Acosutic instruments are GENERALLY played by musicians, however, sometimes they're played by sound artists. My first solo album is acoustic noise and some tracks are one, some the other.
I still avoid post-processing, but I do use a few old/cheap microphones, an my instruments are often broken(those are generally the ones I take great care to mic well, though).
I feel that music thats...music should be reproduced accurately, and often times a line needs to be drawn. Punk bands shouldn't have 12 guitar tracks. If a drummer hits hard/soft at differnt times...let him. That's how he plays.
Skinny Puppy weren't musicians. Throbbing Gristle weren't musicians. They ended up making songs that were interesting(often times) but they also didn't approach music as a performance. it was and experiment in sound.

We have different approaches. You can continue to think I'm too simplistic in my approach to recording a performance, and I can continue to think weird overproduction sounds bad.

― Windy G Moisture, Saturday, 3 March 2007 23:28 (eighteen years ago)

I didn't say you're too simplistic. I don't think your approach is wrong. I do think it's limited, but so is any approach. That's why I'm glad there's more than one way to do things, although I'm not sure if you acknowledge that.

But you're wrong when you start making prescriptive statements. i.e., "Punk bands shouldn't have 12 guitar tracks," or "You shouldn't put a microphone in X position." Punk bands should have as many or as few guitar tracks as they want to have, and microphones should be placed wherever they need to be in order to satisfy an artist's vision.

In recording, as in composing, nothing is wrong if it is the artist's intent. You can say you don't like it, but it's not wrong. If there's distortion because someone accidentally overloaded something in their signal chain, it's wrong. If there's distortion because an artist wants a sound to be distorted, it's right.

To many musicians, a recording studio and the attendant technology is as much a part of a composition as the guitars or the drums. People making records like that aren't concerned with whether or not a guitar sounds "real" (as though there's some kind of ideal platonic guitar sound out there with which we can compare it to), only with whether or not it sounds pleasing and sounds the way they want it to.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Saturday, 3 March 2007 23:39 (eighteen years ago)

Now you're being a dick.
I agree to disagree, and you start soind what you said I was doing: impose correct/incorrect on others.
Shut up.

― Windy G Moisture, Saturday, 3 March 2007 23:43 (eighteen years ago)

Ha! Are you drunk? I've been as polite as I could muster for this whole ridiculous thread. I have no idea what you're referring to now. I've been trying to meet you halfway, and I specifically said I don't think your approach is incorrect. You've been making prescriptive statements the entire time, talking about what people should and shouldn't do, how music is supposed to sound, and then you call other people pretentious. But hey, if you want to get all pissy, then I'm all for dropping this, because it's obviously not going anywhere constructive.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Saturday, 3 March 2007 23:50 (eighteen years ago)

Did you read more tat the first line of that post before you started writing?
Look up the meaning of the word pretence.
You made several prescriptive statements in your last post after I tried to agree to disagree.

I tried to let it lie, yet you refused.
You're a dick.

It's nice to see thatyou CAN, in fact, make one post without following it up with some little snippet.

Oh, and ON TOPIC....http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-TYLER-MOUNTAIN-PICKUP-MANDOLIN-UKULELE-TRANSDUCER_W0QQitemZ140091934240QQihZ004QQcategoryZ22670QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

― Windy G Moisture, Saturday, 3 March 2007 23:57 (eighteen years ago)

Look, I apologize for being impolite. I was just baffled by some of your responses. My position is nothing more than that recording is an art as well a science, and I don't think prescribing hard and fast rules about what is and isn't correct is advisable.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Sunday, 4 March 2007 00:00 (eighteen years ago)

That was an xpost, by the way. But I have nothing else to say to your last comment.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Sunday, 4 March 2007 00:02 (eighteen years ago)

"In recording, as in composing, nothing is wrong if it is the artist's intent. "
Prescriptive statement.
It's more inclusive than other statements of htat kind, but it is prescriptive. "Both people with irish heritage AND people who become irish citizens are Irish" is a similar statement pulled from my ass.
While I think it correct, it's prescriptive AND more inclusive than other statements that could be made on teh subject.

So...Shut up.

― Windy G Moisture, Sunday, 4 March 2007 00:13 (eighteen years ago)

Come on man, now I've apologized and you're the one who won't let it go.

A prescriptive statement is one that dictates what people ought to do. For example, "one shouldn't murder," or "punk bands shouldn't have 12 guitar tracks." I suppose that in some sense "people should do whatever they want" is a prescriptive statement, but I don't think it's comparable to the type you were making. But let's not get hung up on semantics.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Sunday, 4 March 2007 00:26 (eighteen years ago)

Last word.

Backhanded apologies don't count.

"This is correct and this is incorrect." Doing things. CALLING SOMEONE IRISH IS SOMETHING YOU DO.
"Doing X is incorrect." "Doing X is correct." Both fall into the same category, and are different from "people should do whatever they want." You're not allowed to backtrack and say that you've said things you haven't.

I can play 'last word' all day if you want, dude. My car's in the shop.

― Windy G Moisture, Sunday, 4 March 2007 00:30 (eighteen years ago)

Well, I may have spoken imprecisely, and for that I apologize but let me be clear: my intent was not to disagree with you about X or Y being what's correct. My intent was to reject the notion of correctness entirely. I'm saying the notion what's correct or incorrect is meaningless. I'm not telling anyone what they should or should not do, and I'm not prescribing anything.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Sunday, 4 March 2007 00:36 (eighteen years ago)

er, "I'm saying the notion of what's correct or incorrect is meaningless"

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Sunday, 4 March 2007 00:36 (eighteen years ago)

That's not possible.
In saying that you're sayng that to say anything is correct/incorrect is doing something incorrect.
Choosing nto to decide is a choice, dude.

Catch 22.

― Windy G Moisture, Sunday, 4 March 2007 01:08 (eighteen years ago)

I can't parse that.

My stance could be rephrased as "there's no wrong way to make a recorsding." I read you as saying that this or that approach to recording is wrong, which is why I disagree.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Sunday, 4 March 2007 03:04 (eighteen years ago)

"I can't parse that. "
I wish I could say I was surprised.

― Windy G Moisture, Sunday, 4 March 2007 04:07 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, too bad I'm not blessed with your linguistic facility. Anyway, I'm declaring this dead. Have a nice night.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Sunday, 4 March 2007 04:31 (eighteen years ago)

Last.

― Windy G Moisture, Sunday, 4 March 2007 17:55 (eighteen years ago)

U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U U_U

― John Justen, Sunday, 4 March 2007 22:08 (eighteen years ago)

STEVE THIS IS LIKE READING A SERIAL KILLER'S JOURNAL

PUT IT DOWN AND BACK AWAY SLOWLY

YOU ARE ARGUING WITH A TREE

― nabisco, Monday, 5 March 2007 18:15 (eighteen years ago)

Just to note, I stiopped really tryint to make my point halfway in. I was killing time playing 'last word' with him.
It was fun watching him try to come up with something to follow my often correct, intentionally obtuse and always opinionated posts.
He: "But let's not get into a syntaxical argument."
Me: "A syntaxical argument"
He. "I shall respond in kind, and then be passive agressive"
Me: "I show you to be passive agressive"
He: "blast! I call my implication your inferrence!"
Me: "....A SYNTAXICAL ARGUMENT!"
The legend continues.

Sorry to everyone else, but sometimes it's too easy to mess with a dickhead.

― Windy G Moisture, Monday, 5 March 2007 19:02 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, trolling the internet is fun! You really got me good!

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Monday, 5 March 2007 19:06 (eighteen years ago)

JUST DON'T KILL AGAIN, WINDY

WE WANT YOU TO GET HELP

― nabisco, Monday, 5 March 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

Well, I came clean.
It was more trolling...YOU.
Also, it's hard not to do that IN PERSON. Once I come across someone who starts using really obvious circular logic or something I think "Wow. There's no possible way for this person to listen properly or use logic" or something similar(depends on the 'something'). At that point I continue to either argue the point logically or use the ame method as them until I either get tired, they start fuming, or I'm in denger of laughing.

I've done nothing dishonest here, everything I've said is as correct as possible here.
My opinions have been formed with careful calculation and long contemplation. I'm not simply being a contrarian, but rather attempting to express "This is what I think. This is why. This is why you're not changing what I think."
You were first crass in presenting an opposing opinion, and continued until you were just a dick. At that point I just started messing with you. The fact that it worked proves both: A. you deserved it and B. it was worth it.

― Windy G Moisture, Monday, 5 March 2007 20:28 (eighteen years ago)

are you guys running IE?
'cause firefox + greasemonkey can do a lot for your outlook on things, I hear.

― TOMBOT, Monday, 5 March 2007 21:16 (eighteen years ago)

Just so everyone knows, if I still had mod powers here, I would have nuked this thread somewhere around my first U_U. I know that seems heavy-handed, but please, for my own sanity, can the explodo-philosophical frenzies just migrate to new threads in the future?

― John Justen, Monday, 5 March 2007 21:28 (eighteen years ago)

Admitting trolling is admitting defeat. Do you expect anyone to respect you when you say that your intention was to egg someone on rather than get at the truth? And then you claim not to have been dishonest? Do you expect to be taken seriously?

I wasn't crass or a dick. I was admittedly struggling with how to precisely articulate the absurdity of your position, but considering you admit to arguing in bad faith, that seems understandable.

I'm not sure what makes you think "it worked." You come across as juvenile and ignorant. Congratulations for wasting my time by making me reply to your shit, I guess.

TOMBOT, killfiles you mean? Sounds like a good idea.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Monday, 5 March 2007 21:35 (eighteen years ago)

ctrl-f "KILLFILE" on ILE. It's all there for anybody who can run FF.

― TOMBOT, Monday, 5 March 2007 21:37 (eighteen years ago)

Gracias.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Monday, 5 March 2007 21:41 (eighteen years ago)

Congratulations for wasting my time by making me [s]reply to your shit[/s] CONTINUING TO ARGUE ABOUT ALL THIS BULLSHIT ON THIS THREAD, I guess.

― John Justen, Monday, 5 March 2007 22:23 (eighteen years ago)

self-pwnd.

Just to make sure my point is obvious despite nu-ilx code:

Congratulations for wasting my time by making me ~~reply to your shit~~ CONTINUING TO ARGUE ABOUT ALL THIS BULLSHIT ON THIS THREAD, I guess.

Or to simplify, SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT.

― John Justen, Monday, 5 March 2007 22:25 (eighteen years ago)

So John, would it have been ok if it were taken to another thread? Is the problem that the discussion diverged from the thread's stated topic? Or is the problem that the argument was stupid and so shouldn't have taken place at all? Or something else?

In spite of your clearly communicative U_Us and SHUT THE FUCK UPs, I'm not sure I get what you're saying.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Monday, 5 March 2007 22:40 (eighteen years ago)

Look, I know you've gotten a lot of mileage by pretending to be so obtuse that you can't see why your posting style might aggravate and annoy others, but I'll spell it out for you. Again.

The problem is that the thread was started by someone asking a direct question about how to mic a marimba. Your first answer was helpful and on topic. So was the next answer. Then you mentioned compression, and I made a semi-jokey response of U_U, because the last time you and I got into a disagreement about compression, we derailed a thread completely, and I felt like an ass about it afterwards. Then GZeus responded and started the dreaded compression discussion. Then the two of you got into some crazy-ass fuckstorm of internet strongman chestbeating bullshit for the next 50 odd posts.

So yeah, if you want a direct, clear statement of my problem, the original poster got a sum total of two useful responses to a straightforward question, and the ensuing clusterfuck made it nearly impossible for anyone else with helpful information to contribute. I think that you and GZeus are directly responsible for that, it's not the first time that it's happened, and I think that sucks.

― John Justen, Monday, 5 March 2007 22:59 (eighteen years ago)

Leaving the personal BS aside...

I think this thread actually stayed well on the topic of microphone positioning for acoustic instruments, really. The guy asking the initial question said he went through with the recording and reported his results, so we weren't preventing him from getting the information he needed. Why does it matter where the thread goes after that? Is the format of this board meant to be question -> answer -> end of thread? Do you think people don't post here that much because threads get too derailed, or because hardly anybody is actually discussing anything interesting?

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Monday, 5 March 2007 23:21 (eighteen years ago)

Do you think people don't post here that much because threads get too derailed, or because hardly anybody is actually discussing anything interesting?

Sorry we've been boring you so, Steve. Perhaps you should petition the site mods for a "St3v3 Go1db3rg's invaluable musical musings" sub-board.

― John Justen, Monday, 5 March 2007 23:48 (eighteen years ago)

On that note, please drop this, at least on this thread. We can start a new thread to snipe at each other if you want.

― John Justen, Monday, 5 March 2007 23:56 (eighteen years ago)

Yes, clearly that's what I was getting at. You know John, if I ever have a statement that I need interpreted in the most blithely uncharitable way possible, I'll be sure to consult with you.

I meant that this board gets far less traffic than some of the others, something that I've seen other folks comment on many times. It seems to me like this discussion-stifling approach isn't helping any. But you seem to think that derailing threads is the worse evil. Right? Or maybe it's all my fault? Help me, John! Help me see the truth that only your biting sarcasm can illuminate!

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 00:02 (eighteen years ago)

whoops, that was an xpost. Yeah, wouldn't want to derail this thread further, I guess? Anyway, I sent you a webmail before, maybe you should check your inbox.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 00:03 (eighteen years ago)

"Admitting trolling is admitting defeat. "
I wasn't trolling. You've ignored the fact that word has an actual definition.
I was fucking with you and remaining truthful.
Sorry, but it's completely possible to be obtuse, confuse you, and still be honest. Apparantly it's easy.
There were times I wasn't even TRYING to go over your head and did. And that's funny.

The moment I called you a dick(for being a DICK. "I didn't say you're wrong, but you're completely wrong." shut up) I stopped actually caring.
However even then I read what you posted and responded to it honestly, if in a manner designed to confuse you on various levels and to various degrees.

Sorry John, but I feel like taking out my frustrations on this personoid.
No doubt his next reply will be "Why should people take you seriously! You admit you're messing with me because you don't like me!"
Even though I'm adding this on, he will still say it.

He cannot resist. Dance, monkey boy.

― Windy G Moisture, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 03:56 (eighteen years ago)

Congratulations for wasting my time by making me ~~reply to your shit~~ CONTINUING TO ARGUE ABOUT ALL THIS BULLSHIT ON THIS THREAD, I guess.

Grammar: 1
John: 0

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 04:03 (eighteen years ago)

This thread has been locked by an administrator

― ADMIN jjusten, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 06:09 (eighteen years ago)

kill.
file.

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 14:17 (eighteen years ago)

Over the player's shoulder is a nice way to mic an acoustic guitar, though. With an SM57 pointed down you can get a nice warm, dark sound. You can blend it with a front-of-strings miked track to create a nice two guitar sound when you only have one.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 15:43 (eighteen years ago)

Windy G, I don't think St3ve was being prescriptive. Are you sure you know what prescriptive means?

― Sock Puppet, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 15:59 (eighteen years ago)

I'm sure this is going to come across as personal, but I would have said this regardless of who posted it. The over the shoulder mic idea sounds like a questionable idea. First of all, why a 57 instead of any number of condenser mics? Secondly, how are you supposed to deal with the phase relationship between a downward mic and a front facing mic for a second track?

I realize that mic positioning is hardly written in stone, but this flies in the face of the vast majority of techniques, and just seems like more trouble than it's worth. At the risk of sounding like "bitter old sounddude", I find that often unorthodox micing techniques aren't used because they simply don't really add anything of real use to ye olde sonic palate. You can get a huge variety of sounds simply by minor repositioning on a standard front body mic (lower right bout, not in front of the soundhole, etc.) Why go through all the trouble? Just because you can do something in a different way doesn't mean you should.

And seriously, why a 57 of all things, unless you don't have access to a better suited mic?

― John Justen, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:18 (eighteen years ago)

The 57 isn't the important part. That happens to be what I used the last time I did it, and I used it because it sounded nice and very different from the small diaphragm Schoepps condenser I already used on the guitar, which is what I was looking for. It's no more trouble than putting the mic anywhere else. And you shouldn't do it unless you think it sounds good with your instrument on your song, which I did, so I did it. It was brought up recently in this thread on the TapeOp board, along with lots of other ideas.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:37 (eighteen years ago)

e.g. Other recording forum in multiple different techniques shocka!

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:43 (eighteen years ago)

er, i.e.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 17:43 (eighteen years ago)

Latin abbreviations: 1
Steve Goldberg: 0

― HI DERE, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 19:41 (eighteen years ago)

I know, time to self-flagellate.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 20:15 (eighteen years ago)

― Windy G Moisture, Tuesday, 6 March 2007 22:49 (eighteen years ago)

Techniques like odd microphone placements are terrifically useful if you're doing home or shoestring recording. If you don't really have a selection of the "right" microphones, or the gear to treat the signal really well, or even the great knowledge / skill to get a pristine take and create the interesting sounds you want with high-quality effects and mixing -- if your main assets turn out to be free time and duct tape -- then trying microphones in odd places can be your best opportunity for an interesting sound. So I get interested in "tricks" like this, just based on not having the chance to do things any kind of "right" or "ideal" way from the start.

― nabisco, Thursday, 8 March 2007 19:35 (eighteen years ago)

At least we all know that micing drums on rooftops or in stairwells are really bad ideas that result in shit records, is all I'm saying.

― TOMBOT, Thursday, 8 March 2007 19:44 (eighteen years ago)

My point is that, at least in the realm of acoustic guitar, you don't have to do anything odd or awkward to get a myriad of different sounds. When you're dealing with a resonating top of almost infinite variety, solid wood being the material equivalent of random compositional structures (Grain width and flow, density, etc.), not to mention the interaction of soundwaves dispersion across the substance, plus internal phase relationships, and so on and so on...well, moving the mic 1/4 inch in any XYZ direction, or changing the angle 10 degrees makes a massive difference.

I mean yeah, you can put the mic in a coffeecan and roll it down the hall and see what sort of acoutic guitar sound you're going to get, but what's the point, really? Once you're over a foot away from the instrument with a dynamic mic, you aren't micing the guitar anymore, you're micing the room. Which is fine, but call it what it is.

― John Justen, Thursday, 8 March 2007 19:48 (eighteen years ago)

xpost

― John Justen, Thursday, 8 March 2007 19:51 (eighteen years ago)

Not just mic placement, obviously, but all those "what if I put the amp in the bathtub and the mic inside a coffee can" kinds of ideas -- i.e., if you can't get loads of interest and complexity out of your gear, you start looking for some outside-the-box physical set-up that might provide a cool sound.

(The vast majority of them aren't going to work for shit, but it's easy to keep inspired about it when you remind yourself how just about every staple effect started off with someone doing some "let's try this" physical modeling of it -- like the 50s "run a loudspeaker in the bathroom and mic that, too" vocal reverb, or any of a million things like that.)

― nabisco, Thursday, 8 March 2007 19:51 (eighteen years ago)

I see what you're saying, but my point is that people forget that you can get shit tons of variation out of one mediocre mic, and it doesn't require odd technique. Gearwhore frenzies seem to have convinced people that they are somehow creatively crippled if they just have an SM57 and a four track, and so they resort to crazy wtuff without ever digging in and realizing how much versatility is at their disposal.

If you want unorthodox sounds, I'm all for it. (A quick scan of my musical taste will confirm this) The problem is that people seem to think that they need 4 condenser mics and a rack full of gear to get a good acoustic guitar track, which is madness.

― John Justen, Thursday, 8 March 2007 19:59 (eighteen years ago)

xpost

Yeah, John, although intead of calling it "micing the room" I'd just call it "trying to get a cool sound," more or less! All it really means is using the room and the recording setup as an effect (as opposed to getting an accurate recording of the guitar and putting effects on it later).

Which is why I say it's nice for shoestring recording, cause sometimes you know from the start that you don't have the tools for a decent accurate picture of the sound anyway, so you might as well try something different instead.

― nabisco, Thursday, 8 March 2007 20:00 (eighteen years ago)

(Ha, that was another xpost. Yeah, I totally see what you're saying -- when I say "shoestring" I'm picturing myself recording with a $30 Radioshack omni mic and a cassette 4-track, which was when I wound find myself, like, standing on the sink and playing guitar into the shower and stuff to get a decent sound.)

― nabisco, Thursday, 8 March 2007 20:02 (eighteen years ago)

Well, that and the fact that I think that people leap too quickly to the idea that their limitations require them to reinvent the wheel. To me, often it's the recording equivalent of the grunge era pointless alternate tuning phenomena, or the neo-punk anti-theory stance. Both of which turned out a few brilliant moments, but otherwise a gushing torrent of wasted time and awful, awful stuff.

Probably an xpost.

― John Justen, Thursday, 8 March 2007 20:04 (eighteen years ago)

xpost frenzy! haha! (wow, I really hope they fix that soon.)

― John Justen, Thursday, 8 March 2007 20:05 (eighteen years ago)

Ha, yeah, there is an indie-type ethos where of course it just feels cooler to say "yeah I put the snare drum inside a trash can full of pig hearts cause I just liked the way it sounded" than to say "oh, I spent a lot of time calibrating normal mic placements to get the best sonic image I could with the equipment available to me."

(Still, though, I'm always happy with a cool room-recording effect that actually works, cause it'll usually be richer and more fascinating than the digital effects people are already used to hearing. You get that subliminal effect -- "that guitar sounds like it was recorded on the moon" -- instead of someone going "yeah, yeah, I know what a flanger does, move on.")

― nabisco, Thursday, 8 March 2007 20:51 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, I should clarify that I vastly prefer natural room sound to fakey digital crap, but I'm also the youngest person I know that still knows how to splice 1/4" tape, so that shouldn't come as any surprise.

― John Justen, Thursday, 8 March 2007 23:54 (eighteen years ago)

one month passes...

Ran across this today and it reminded me of this thread:

http://www.eqmag.com/story.asp?sectioncode=36&storycode=17826

“While there are various methods of filling the stereo spectrum with a single take of acoustic guitar, namely with different delays and reverbs, I’ve found a great miking technique from working with Duncan Sheik that makes a single acoustic guitar sound huge.
“With only two mics, the setup is simple (simple = best). Mic #1 (a small diaphragm condenser if it’s a delicate player, large diaphragm — classically, a U87 — if the playing is of a higher dynamic) is placed in a standard position anywhere from 12–16 inches from the guitar, pointing at the 12th fret. Mic #2, preferably a large diaphragm condenser, is placed to the strumming side of the artist, about six inches above the edge of the shoulder, angled down towards the body of the guitar. This mic is meant to capture the instrument as the player hears it. [Note: As both mics are placed at near right angles from one another, phase issues would be a natural worry. However, I’ve yet to really encounter any great phase problems with this placement.]
“I let the natural sound pressure dictate the gain, in terms of recording levels. Mic #1 (front) will generally have maybe 10–15dB more than Mic #2 (above and side.) Panning Mic #1 at either 3 o’clock or 50–60% to one side and Mic #2 either all the way or nearly all the way (90%) to the other side will spread the guitar sound so wide you could swear that you could drive a truck through it.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Saturday, 5 May 2007 18:59 (eighteen years ago)

Ran across this today and it reminded me of this thread:

http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=40&threadid=52879

― John Justen, Saturday, 5 May 2007 19:17 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.