Tuesday, January 24, 2012


How to Mic Six-Strings Like a Pro
Three stereo miking secrets guaranteed to make your acoustic guitar tracks shine
Ask five engineers how they approach recording acoustic guitar, and you may very well get five different answers, if you get any at all, that is. While many factors influence an engineer's choice of recording techniques -- the character of the instrument, the style of music, the player's personal tonal and dynamic signature, and the recording environment -- some engineers prefer to keep their approaches a trade secret. But despite all the possible permutations of instrument, style, player, room, and ego, for most seasoned engineers the real secret to recording an acoustic guitar is stereo miking -- plain and simple.
Sure, if it's just "spaciousness" you're after, you could record an acoustic guitar in mono and fold in some enthusiastic stereo processing. Or if you're hankering for a dramatically textured sound, you could try combining a microphone with an acoustic guitar pickup. If depth and accuracy are what matter most, however, you'll find that stereo recording with two microphones is an exceptionally reliable way to record full-bodied, realistic-sounding acoustic guitar tracks.
Let's take a look at three of the most popular techniques, and also examine the questions of microphone choice and mono-compatibility. As you'll find, stereo recording can be a complex art, since the interaction between the two mics will determine many aspects of the sound -- including tone, image, and mono-compatibility. But like any art, you'll also find that practice makes perfect. So whip out those mics, pull out that guitar, and give these tips a try: You'll hear the difference.
Three Surefire Techniques
In most cases, you'll want to use a pair of cardioid (unidirectional) mics placed close to the instrument. Close-miking -- approximately six to 12 inches from the guitar -- is used in most pop and other contemporary recordings that feature acoustic guitar.
Cardioid mics are generally best used for close-miking guitar because they exhibit less bass proximity effect (or bass boost) than other directional types when placed close to the sound source. And we all know that acoustic guitars can sound boomy if miked incorrectly.
Let's explore three common approaches to stereo miking and acoustic guitar. Each of these techniques has been used on countless hit records. Be sure to check out the corresponding audio links, and of course, consider these as starting points for your own creativity. After you've mastered each one, feel free to experiment with your own variations on each method.
Spaced Pair, Version A  Acoustic Guitar Recording mic placement
Two mics are placed apart from each other at the same approximate height, one pointing at the 12th fret of the guitar and the other at the bridge.
With this approach -- as with any miking technique that uses two or more mics that are spaced apart from one another -- always be sure to follow the "3-to-1 rule." According to this rule, the distance between two mics should be at least three times the distance between each mic and the sound source. This keeps phase cancellations to a minimum, resulting in a smoother sound that also translates well to mono. So, for instance, if you've got each mic seven inches from the guitar, the 3-to-1 rule mandates that you spread the two mics at least 21 inches apart from each other. (One of a few exceptions to the 3-to-1 rule is with the X-Y technique, as described below.)
Spaced Pair, Version B  Acoustic Guitar Recording Mic Placement 2
Our second technique is a variation on the spaced pair. As in the setup above, one mic points to the 12th fret. The second mic, however, is hung from a mic stand at the performer's ear level, pointing down at either the bridge or at the strings just behind the soundhole. For example, if the performer is right-handed, this second mic would be placed over her right shoulder. (Once again, be sure to follow the 3-to-1 rule.)
You can also move this ear-level mic slightly out in front of the performer and angle it back towards the guitar (versus pointing straight down at the floor), for a brighter sound. This technique usually yields a more open -- but thinner -- sound than the simple spaced pair on a horizontal plane. Check out the links to hear the difference.
If you're not getting the sound you want with a spaced pair placement, try moving one or both microphones slightly to improve the timbre. Because spaced pair placement is subject to phase interference, moving one mic only an inch or two can dramatically change the sound. To learn more about how phase affects the timbre of stereo guitar tracks, go to the mono-compatibility link below.
The X-Y Technique  Acoustic Guitar Recording Mic Placement 3
X-Y, or coincident-pair, is the no-brainer approach to stereo miking. If you follow these steps precisely, and are willing to move the mics around a bit to find the sweet spot, you'll find it's hard to make a bad recording. (That's assuming, of course, that your room, your mics, and the instrument -- and, while we're making a checklist, the guitarist -- are half-way decent.)
Place the two mics close together so that their capsules are almost touching. The rear ends of each mic are spread apart at an angle of a roughly 90 to 120 degrees. The result looks like a wide V shape, with one mic's capsule positioned directly above the other.
(The 3-to-1 rule doesn't apply to the X-Y technique because the two capsules are so close that sound waves arrive at both at essentially the same time, minimizing objectionable phase cancellations.)
To start, try placing the two mics opposite the 12th fret of the guitar. If you have a really nice sounding room to record in, try backing the mics up to a distance of one to two feet from the guitar. This will capture more room tone and yield a more natural sound. While the best-sounding position can depend upon the guitar, the room, or the mics, typically, placing the mics around seven inches in front of the guitar's 12th fret will tend to de-emphasize midrange frequencies. That's because one mic will be pointing in the direction of the bassy soundhole, and the other towards the top of the neck, an area rich in high frequencies.
As you experiment, you'll find that the X-Y miking produces a much narrower stereo image than the spaced-pair techniques. But you'll also hear how X-Y lends a smoother, warmer, and more natural sound to acoustic guitar.
Choosing the Right Mics
By definition, stereo miking requires a pair of microphones. Certain types of recording situations -- such as chamber orchestra, or an acoustic jazz trio -- demand extreme accuracy, and in these cases, it's highly desirable to have a matched pair of microphones. This means more than just two of the same model; it also calls for two mics that have been factory-certified to produce virtually identical frequency response. (Some, though not all, manufacturers sell matched-pair mics.)
Fortunately -- unless you're, say, capturing an audiophile-quality classical guitar recording -- you won't need a matched pair to record acoustic guitar tracks. In fact, you might not even need to use two of the same model of microphone (though if you do you'll get a more consistent timbre in each channel than if you had used two totally different mics). That said, rules are meant to be broken, so feel free to experiment by mixing and matching mic models. And like any musical instrument, every mic has its own sonic character, so try to get your hands on as many different models as possible and experiment.
Generally speaking, condenser mics are the right choice for acoustic guitar. As a group, they offer a far more detailed and realistic sound than dynamic mics. But before you choose a specific condenser, first decide what kind of sound you want. Small-diaphragm condensers (those with a diaphragm smaller than one-inch in diameter) generally offer a better transient response than their large-diaphragm cousins, producing a less colored, more detailed sound. For pop and country productions where guitar tracks will be tucked into dense arrangements with drums and bass guitar, small-diaphragm mics are often the best choice.
Many engineers consider the AKG C480B ($987 with the CK61-ULS capsule), Neumann KM184 ($729) and DPA 4011 ($2,190) to be among the best small-diaphragm condensers on the planet. (All list prices are in US$.) All three sport cardioid (unidirectional) patterns -- meaning they tend to reject any sound that isn't directly in front of them -- and sound awesome on acoustic guitar. (Cardioid response is also required for most stereo miking techniques, in order for the resulting recording to have a "left-to-right" soundstage.) AKG's C480B is a modular mic, meaning that you can interchange various capsules -- each offering a different polar pattern -- with the mic body that holds the internal preamp. This mic features a 70Hz high-pass (low-cut) filter, useful for rolling off unneeded low frequencies when recording acoustic guitar.
The Neumann KM184 exhibits an inherent low frequency roll-off at 200Hz, delivering guitar sounds free of low-end "boominess." DPA's 4011 mic -- known prior to 1998 as the Brüel & Kjær (B&K) 4011 mic -- features a 1dB roll-off in the midrange frequencies along with a 1dB rise between 10 and 15kHz. The result is a crisp, though not overly bright sound. This 4011 has treasured place in many mic lockers (including my own). Check out these links to hear the DPA 4011 on a Guild M20 acoustic guitar, with various mic placements.
There are plenty of other small-diaphragm, cardioid condensers on the market, many of which offer decent performance for a lot less scratch. Some better-known alternatives that other enginneers report good results with include Shure's SM81 ($530), AKG's C1000S ($297), and Audio-Technica's AT3528 ($259).
Large-diaphragm mics -- those featuring diaphragms at least one inch in diameter -- can also provide outstanding results when recording acoustic guitar. All other things being equal, these mics tend to offer a slower transient response than their small-diaphragm counterparts. This causes a slight de-emphasis in high-frequency detail and tends to give them a rounder, warmer sound -- just the ticket for traditional jazz recordings and lean guitar/vocal arrangements. (It's this warmth that makes large-diaphragm mics so popular with vocals.) The Lawson L47MP Tube Condenser ($1,995) sounds great on acoustic guitar for these applications. I've also used the Manley Reference Gold Tube Condenser ($5,500) with excellent results. On a budget but craving that large-diaphragm condenser sound? Some candidates that I didn't have the chance to work with would include AKG's C414B/ULS ($1048), Neumann's TLM103 ($995), the Alesis AM51 ($549), and the AKG C3000B ($478).
And what about a dedicated stereo microphone? These mics -- such as Shure's VP88 ($1194) and Audio-Technica's AT825 ($525) -- typically have a pair of cardioid capsules mounted in one housing. While they may be useful in certain applications, they're actually less flexible than a pair of independent mics -- since their diaphragms are physically fixed relative to one another. In other words, if you want to try some of that mic-above-the-bridge, mic-above-the-fingerboard stuff, or any other interesting variations, you'll want a pair of mono mics.
Mono-Compatibility, EQ & Compression
Stereo-Miked Acoustic Guitar Tracks and Mono-Compatibility
When stereo tracks are collapsed to mono, the result can sound dramatically different from the original tracks. This is not only true of the listener's perception of the width of the stereo image and the discrete placement of different elements in a mix: Conversion to mono can also significantly change the timbre of individual instruments, especially if certain stereo miking techniques were used to record the original. (In rare cases, the instrument could even disappear from a mix, should the left and right signals be far enough out-of-phase to cancel each other out when combined to mono.)
True, in the last couple of decades -- with AM radio's diminishing role as a music medium -- mono-compatibility has become less of an issue. And in fact, some engineers prefer not to compromise their stereo tracks or limit their recording techniques to cater to the lowest common denominator. Still, many engineers choose to play it safe -- ensuring that their miking (or other processing) techniques won't sound terrible if played back in mono. However you feel about this issue, you'll be able to make more informed choices on how to record if you know what the sonic repercussions will be for mono playback. So what exactly happens to stereo acoustic guitar tracks when they are collapsed to mono? The answer depends on what miking technique you use to record.
Spaced pair techniques generally pick up a high degree of uncorrelated signal for each track. That is, many frequency components on the left-panned track are more or less out-of-phase with corresponding frequencies on the right-panned track. (This still applies even if you use the 3-to-1 rule for mic placement.)
This is because each of the sound waves emanating from the guitar will arrive at each mic at a different time. Due to that time difference the mic will pick up the wave at a different phase of its cycle. When the stereo signal is collapsed to mono, the constructive and destructive interference of these out-of-phase components combine to emphasize and de-emphasize their corresponding frequencies. The resulting timbre can be markedly different from your carefully crafted stereo tracks and can play havoc with your mix. You might be able to compensate with EQ, but this might exacerbate the problem.
Tracks recorded with an X-Y technique are far less prone to phase problems. Since the capsules are placed so close together, the sound reaches both mics at roughly the same time. As a result, tracks recorded in X-Y stereo are much more mono-compatible than those recorded with a spaced pair.
A Word on EQ and Compression
Aside from the occasional use of a microphone's passive high-pass (bass roll-off) filter, I prefer not to add equalization to the signal I'm recording. You can never tell in advance exactly how yet-to-be-recorded tracks will interact with the guitar you're recording, so any processing you add during recording is just a guessing game. Since you'll probably need to make subsequent adjustments in timbre (and possibly dynamics) at mixdown, you should avoid processing the signal twice. Your tracks will sound more pristine if you hold off adding processing until you have a complete picture of how the tracks will fit together. Instead, if you're not getting the sound you want during soundcheck, move the mics around until the timbre sounds right.
If you want to experiment with EQ as you're tracking, you can record the music dry and add EQ on the monitor returns. This way, you can hear the results of the EQ without committing to it.
Though many engineers will compress an acoustic guitar during tracking, I usually don't like to do so. As with other broadband, percussive instruments, guitar can easily cause a compressor to pump (cause audible changes in level) if it's not set up exactly right. Once these amplitude modulation artifacts are on tape, they are all but impossible to remove. For this reason, I compress acoustic guitar tracks at mixdown -- when I have multiple opportunities to get it right.


Good ideas are not always God ideas

1 Samuel 7:15-8:21

Samuel was growing old, and the prospect of his sons being judges over Israel didn't look too promising to the people. The elders noticed their improprieties and dishonesty. They started getting a little worried about what would happen to Israel after Samuel's death. So, they came up with what seemed like a great idea. Instead of having Joel and Abijah run the country, they decided to get a king. I'm guessing they figured this was the best solution to what was sure to be a disastrous alternative. They probably thought it through, weighed the pros and cons, perhaps even mulled it over for a week or so to be certain there weren't any better options they could come up with. Yep, other nations were doing pretty well with kings, it was time for Israel to step into "modern" times and catch up with those other countries. A king would be the perfect remedy to a couple of judges that were destined to be Israel's worst nightmare.

The problem with their plan surfaces immediately. God doesn't think it's a good idea. God warns them that the taxes are going to kill them. He gives them a heads up regarding the status of their property, children and future. However, none of the warnings make a difference. These people know what they want. They're positive they've discovered the best possible route, and they are insistent that Israel take that path.

I don't know why they thought God's way of raising up judges in the past few decades wasn't working. It seems the Creator had done a pretty good job with Deborah and Gideon. They'd come on the scene at just the right time to bail the people of Israel out of tough situations. But the elders must have thought the system needed some adjustments, because they had some forward thinking plans they intended to carry out, and at first glance, it looks like a reasonable request.

The whole scene makes me wonder how many "solutions" I've come up with in my past that were good ideas but not GOD ideas. Seriously, I always have the answer to tough problems. I sit and think about all the possibilities, weigh the options and consider every scenario. By the time I have a plan, you can be sure it's the best answer humanly possible. And right THERE is where I run into trouble. I come up with the best answer HUMANLY possible, but my heavenly Father has the plan that is MORE than humanly possible. In fact, His plans are only SUPERNATURALLY possible.

Knowing this, I have to wonder why we humans spend so much time scheming, dreaming and leading instead of praying, listening and following. I call it running ahead of God. It's much like King Saul in 1 Samuel 13. Saul was in such a hurry to please God, He offered a sacrifice without waiting for Samuel as he was instructed.

Here are a few questions to help you discover if you have GOOD ideas or GOD ideas:
- What ideas do we have that we haven't cleared with the Almighty?
- What instructions from God are we willing to ignore to have things our way?
- Who do I respect enough in Christ to get confirmation of God's will before I carry out my "good" idea?

The leaders of Samuel's day got stuck in their "good idea." Even after Samuel shared all the consequences of their request, they wanted to move ahead. As you make decisions this week, consider Samuel and the Israelite elders. Pray about your ideas and get the opinion of an "elder" who isn't afraid to speak the unpopular truth to you. The Almighty King will help us learn the difference between our "Good" ideas and the better "God" ideas

Monday, January 16, 2012

Snare Drum EQ and Compression


A great snare drum sound can really drive a mix. If you start to listen critically to a lot of dance, rock, metal, modern country, pop, funk, and other kinds of popular music you will notice the next loudest thing to the vocals is typically the snare drum. No matter how much is going on in a great mix you will always be able to identify every snare drum hit cutting through the sonic landscape. This article gives you pointers on which frequencies to boost to make that snare drum shine and suggests some common compressor settings to bring your drum to life. There is also some advice for using a dual mic arrangement on the snare drum.

The snare drum big four: pulse, smack, wires, head
These terms should become part of your snare drum vocabulary. This should get us on the same page for talking about the mix recipes.

Pulse describes the part of the snare drum that smacks you in the chest and makes you want to dance. Another good word for this part of the sound is body. You can often get some extra pulse out of the drum boosting as low as 100Hz but that can start to affect the kick drum and bass sounds so I like to look a little higher. You can get some clean pulse out of your snare drum by looking in the 200-400Hz area. I like using a regular peaking band of eq to boost the pulse. A Q setting (bandwidth) of about 1.0 should be fine. If you don’t get quite enough pulse out of the snare drum you can try making the band a bit wider (lower Q, higher bandwidth).

Smack should work in conjunction with the pulse to really help identify the snare drum hit within the mix. Some other common descriptions would be bang orcrack. You will find most of your snare drum’s smack around 900Hz-2.0kHz. A peaking band works well here and I will often reduce the bandwidth (Q) to 1.5 or so. A narrower bandwidth here can help pinpoint the smack without taking up too much space in the already crowded and vital midrange frequencies.

Wires are exactly what they describe. The snare wires under the drum help to give it much of its characteristic buzz. The snare wires can be found in the 3-5kHz region. A narrower bandwidth can work well here just as in the smackband (see above). While bringing out the snare wires can help the drum sound very exciting, you will have to be careful not to overdo it. This frequency can get buzzy and fatiguing in a hurry. Be sure to evaluate the sound of the drum the way it sounds in your recording. Many snare drums will naturally accentuate the wires enough that you won’t have to boost them. If you have recorded your snare using a dual mic technique (see below) then you might do all the boosting of wire sounds on the bottom snare mic.

Head is just what it sounds like, the head of the drum. Imagine the sound of a snare played with a brush. That swishing sound of the brush is the timbre I mean when talking about the head sound of the snare drum. Played with brush or stick, your snare drum still makes a head sound in the 6-10kHz range. Boosting this frequency can give a lot of extra texture to your snare drum sound. A peaking band will often do plenty of work for you but you can try high shelving band too.

Snare drum big four quick eq chart
More pulse (body) +4dB at 200Hz
More smack (bang) +3dB at 2kHz
More wires (buzz) +6dB at 5kHz
More head (texture) +6dB at 7kHz
To eliminate kick drum bleed and rumble use a high pass band at 80Hz
Snare drum eq recipes
  • Start here for subtle snare drum shaping with mild cut through
  • Band 1: 150Hz high pass
  • Band 2: +3dB at 200Hz
  • Band 3: +4dB at 4.0kHz
  • Band 4: +4dB at 7.0kHz
  • Start here for a solid, traditional snare drum sound
  • Band 1: +5dB at 250Hz
  • Band 2: +6dB at 2.0kHz
  • Band 3: +4dB at 5.0kHz
  • Band 4: +8dB at 10kHz
  • Start here for a snare drum sound with a thick body and smooth top
  • Band 1: +6dB at 180Hz
  • Band 2: +4dB at 250Hz
  • Band 3: -4dB at 800Hz (adds clarity)
  • Band 4: +6 at 3.0kHz
  • Band 5: +8 at 7.0kHz
  • Start here for a deep and punchy snare drum sound
  • Band 1: 80Hz high pass
  • Band 2: +9dB at 200Hz
  • Band 3: +3dB at 2.5kHz
  • Band 4: +1dB at 3.5kHz
  • Band 5: +8dB at 8.0kHz
Snare drum compression
I don’t like to get too crazy compressing a snare drum. Typically a light compression can be used just to even out the dynamics a bit. A good snare drum player will already play with great dynamics that will really help the song come alive so don’t squash the life out of the performance by using too much compression.

Reduction level is the amount your snare drum is being compressed. All good compressors have some kind of meter or way to gauge your signal reduction. This will sometimes be labeled gain reduction or will just be a meter that seems to work backwards, going down or showing negative values on each drum hit. You should be able to see the reduction increase (more into the negative range) as you lower the threshold of the compressor. I like to get 3-6dB of gain reduction for subtle snare drum compression. Reduction level is not adjusted directly. It is adjusted by lowering the threshold control until you are getting your desired reduction level.
Snare drum compressor recipes
  • Start here for light snare drum compression
  • Ratio: 4:1
  • Attack: 4ms
  • Release: 200ms
  • Threshold: adjust for 3-6dB gain reduction
  • Start here to increase the sustain for a thicker snare drum sound
  • Ratio: 6:1
  • Attack: 1ms
  • Release: 200ms
  • Threshold: adjust for 6-10dB gain reduction
Snare drum mic

No home studio mic cabinet is complete without a few of these classic microphones. They are inexpensive and sound great on everything, including snare drums. Spend some time in pro studios watching bands lay down tracks and you’ll see more than one snare drum with an SM57 on it. You really can’t go wrong with a snare and SM57 combination for your home recordings.

This mic is a great alternative if you are looking for something just a little different in the same price range that still sounds great. The D220 is not as versatile with non-drum instruments but is still a great mic for your home studio if you record drums regularly.

Snare drum bottom mic eq and compressor recipe
A cool trick to try is putting two mics on the snare, one on top and one on the bottom. Be sure to record them on separate tracks. The bottom snare drum mic will capture a lot of the wire sound of the snares and give you independant mix control of that sonic element. Using an SM57 on top and another on bottom works well, or you can mix a D220 on top and keep an SM57 on the bottom. I treat the bottom mic a bit differently in the mix, using extreme compressor and eq settings. You will still want to use the top mic as your main snare drum sound but you can mix in a variable amount of the bottom mic to your personal taste.
  • Start here for eq on a bottom snare drum mic
  • Band 1: 50Hz high pass
  • Band 2: +6dB at 200Hz
  • Band 3: +15dB at 5kHz
  • Start here for compression on the bottom snare drum mic
  • Ratio: 10:1
  • Attack: 1ms
  • Release: 200ms
  • Threshold: adjust for 10-15dB gain reduction

The Power of our Words


The Power of our Words

Do they Hurt or Heal, Build or Destroy

type=text2 Kings 2:23-25
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" [24] He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. [25] And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

This is a really hard piece of scripture. It reminds me of Numbers 16:28-35 and the family of Korah, who got swallowed up because they rebelled against the leadership of Moses, and Acts 5:1-11, when Ananias and Sapphira lied to Peter and the Holy Spirit about gifts they gave to God. For a time as I read this story of Elisha, I prayed, "why?" In fact, because this happened so soon after Elisha took over Elijah's ministry, my first thought was, "He really thinks a lot of himself." Some kids call him a name, so he calls down curses from God. I wasn't too impressed by the fact God actually answered his prayer.

But the more I thought about it, the more I considered perhaps God is trying to show us the seriousness of our words. Our Father often used extremes to give us a glimpse of how he felt about certain situations. Korah, for example, helped us see that it's unacceptable to rebel against God's chosen leader. Ananias and Sapphira set the stage for the rest of Christianity so we would understand that God didn't want our gifts if they were given to make us look good or contributed as a lie.

In his work, "Notes from the Tilt-A-Whirl," N.D. Wilson talks a lot about the power of the spoken word. After all, everything we can see and touch was brought into being by the mere mention of it by our Creator. Likewise, our words hold power . . . more power than we can imagine. The things we say have the power to build up and tear down. They can create or destroy. What if God allowed these young men to die so that we might truly understand the power of our words?

I think God wants Christians to have fun. There's nothing worse than a boring gospel or dry, pious Christians. However, it's often easy to allow our "fun" to turn into bullying. Even Christians enjoy a bit of teasing and sarcasm, and often it's harmless, but unfortunately, more often, our words hurt and tear down. Sometimes we mean well. We're just having a good time. We think that the person we're teasing understands we love them and don't want to hurt them. They laugh, too! Other times, our teasing is really sarcasm. We mean what we say. The tone we use sounds like teasing, and we laugh after we say it. The one who is the focus of our "joke" laughs, too. So, it must be OK. But in these times, we are more like the young men calling out "baldhead" than the image of the living Christ.

Joking can alleviate tension and help get conversation started. Levity can be healthy for relationships. Laughing is good for our health. But does all of our laughing, joking and levity bring glory to God? Could any of our powerful words be construed as "bullying," even if the subject of our jokes laughs too? As Christians it's important that even our light hearted speech is holy.

Ephesians 4:29 says: Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. This week consider every word that comes out of your mouth. Evaluate them according to the power they have and their potential to "build others up." After all, you don't want to be mauled by a lion!