Acoustic guitar players, please help...

[Donnie Frank]

IMHO using SAC, I would get everything. Dry DI, DI on the amp, and a mic on the amp. If you get signal from everywhere you have choices. That's the beauty of SAC (especially if SAW is involved.)

I personally think that SAC and acoustic guitars are a match made in heaven because of SAC's flexibility.

You may find that the dry DI mixed with the miced amp give you a lot of control out front without talking away from what the artist is used to hearing in his monitor. Get him happy in the monitors and you are home free as in "No Volume War."

If you take your time and get it all you will have an artist that thinks you are a GOD and talks nicely about you for the next year....

I like this idea. I certainly have plenty of channels to work with. I can always mute and subsequently remove what I don't like or don't use. Excellent idea. Thanx!

[mr_es335]

Hello,

I hope this is not out of place, but I just have to say something about the mics that I am now using.

The answer to all of my acoustic mic'ing problems has been very happily resolved by the use of internal mic's from MiniFlex 2Mic!

See here: MiniFlex 2Mic.

I use two acoustics when I perform - a nylon and a steel. Both are fitted using the MiniFlex 2Mic Model 5 - which uses a TRS to XLR cable - so no DI is required.

For more info see here: MiniFlex 2Mic - Model 5.

Be sure to check out the Model 2 as well. See here: MiniFlex 2Mic - Model 2.

The 2Mic design allows me to position the mics in just the right spot to get the best sound for that type of guitar. The owner of MiniFlex is Ken Donnell - is one of the pioneers in acoustic instrument sound reproduction.

As he states, "The 2Mic design attempts, as much as possible within the confines of a guitar body, to reproduce a three-dimensional sound", Ken states. "The first two dimensions are created by each individual mic (being mechanically out of phase to each other), and the third dimension is created by how the 2Mic design electronically processes these two signals."

Here are a couple of pics:

[Andy Hamm]

The amp that they guy is bringing has a DI out on the back of it, just run a line form there into your acoustic channel on your mixer and you are good to go.

The only other thing I would suggest is to never use a hpf above the lowest root note of an instrument - the low E of a guitar is at 81hz so running your hpf at 100hz means that you are throwing away the root note of anything below the G on the lowest string. If you find your acoustic is boomy, try a low end shelving filter instead, with the hfp set below 80hz.

I've seen lots of people doing crazy things with hpf's lately, like setting them as high as 300Hz on a vocal and 100Hz on a bass guitar. If you have enough eq, set your hpf until you hear it change the sound and then back it off a bit. Use a shelving filter to make more subtle changes to the low end on the rails and you'll end up with a much warmer and richer sounding mix.

A (good) acoustic guitar (or a piano) has always been the instrument that will point out how well a PA is Eq'd and it is about the only case where I will go hunting for a set of headphones to pfl the acoustic from the console if it sounds funky or I am doing drastic eqing on the strip to make it sound good in the house.

[RBIngraham]

I've seen lots of people doing crazy things with hpf's lately, like setting them as high as 300Hz on a vocal and 100Hz on a bass guitar. If you have enough eq, set your hpf until you hear it change the sound and then back it off a bit. Use a shelving filter to make more subtle changes to the low end on the rails and you'll end up with a much warmer and richer sounding mix.

Guess it depends on what you're mixing and what the mics are. On female vocals using a lav, on most systems you can roll off to at least 200Hz, sometimes 250Hz and no hear any change. Obviously handhelds are different and I usually stop at 160Hz or so on females and 120 on males unless I can hear a difference when I A/B the High Pass filter.

But I would add that you also have to think about how something is going to sit in a mix. Yeah sure a mic with a big low cut might sound like **** all by itself. But if you mix it in with the rest of the band what does it sound like. That is what counts.

[RBIngraham]

For what it's worth, I think most acoustics sound like kaka when played through your typical guitar amp. I guess with the right amp and pickup/mic combo it can work, but that so rarely seems to happen at least in my experience.

I always just go for a DI right off the instrument. And I use the mic on the amp only for electrics.


Actually let me revise that... I prefer a real mic in front of the acoustic to pick it up. But often that has too much bleed from other instruments. So I use a DI when I have to or sometimes both if there is not too many other instruments getting into that mic.

Just my $0.02.

[Donnie Frank]

The amp that they guy is bringing has a DI out on the back of it, just run a line form there into your acoustic channel on your mixer and you are good to go.

I certainly have plenty of channels, so I'm going to get a dirty, clean, and amp DI send. Better to have and not need... I will definitely start with the amp's DI send first.

The only other thing I would suggest is to never use a hpf above the lowest root note of an instrument - the low E of a guitar is at 81hz so running your hpf at 100hz means that you are throwing away the root note of anything below the G on the lowest string. If you find your acoustic is boomy, try a low end shelving filter instead, with the hfp set below 80hz.

This is really awesome advice. The acoustic is naturally high-passed by my P.A. because I run a sub-woofer matrix (subwoofer console actually) which is devoid of acoustic guitar. Armed with this new information I will run the acoustic in the subs, but high-pass the guitar subwoofer channel @ 80Hz using Bob's E.Q. HPF. Do you think this will allow for full range without muddiness?

OR...perhaps I can assign the acoustic it's own software Output, and then assign that software output to my Mains hardware Output (1&2). This will bypass the Linkwitz/Riley plugin and allow the acoustic to reach the mains full range...hmmm... I could then apply a hpf if need be...hmmmm.....

Thoughts???

I've seen lots of people doing crazy things with hpf's lately, like setting them as high as 300Hz on a vocal and 100Hz on a bass guitar.

Ugh....that's funny. As a starting point I high-pass vocals @ 200Hz in the monitor wedges - but only as a starting point - and then "season to taste." Again, because I run a separate subwoofer matrix, the vox are naturally high-passed @100Hz. However I do run a vocal sub group and sometimes high-pass up to 150Hz (depending on the room). So far this seems to work well. And who high-passes a bass guitar??? That's just weird. Do they high-pass the kick drum, too?...hehe....

If you have enough eq, set your hpf until you hear it change the sound and then back it off a bit. Use a shelving filter to make more subtle changes to the low end on the rails and you'll end up with a much warmer and richer sounding mix.

I will definitely give this a try. Thank you! That said... I have never fully understood the difference between a high-pass filter and/or shelving. Seems the only difference is that shelving involves boosting the frequencies that aren't being cut to unify the gain??? Gain structure has never been an issue in any of my rigs so I've never had to raise the uncut frequencies. Perhaps my idea of "shelving" is incorrect....

A (good) acoustic guitar (or a piano) has always been the instrument that will point out how well a PA is Eq'd and it is about the only case where I will go hunting for a set of headphones to pfl the acoustic from the console if it sounds funky or I am doing drastic eqing on the strip to make it sound good in the house.

This is another great idea. I practically live in the cans so I will definitely use them to pfl the acoustic. Because my cans are wireless, I can bring them up to the stage to the guitar player can hear exactly what he is sending me.

Another idea...

Because my speakers are active (K12's), I can run the amp DI straight into the mains and then have the guitar player walk out front and listen. I can tell him, "This is what you're sending me." I can then try with my D.I. and then mic'ing the amp. I can let him pick which one he likes best.

Any thoughts on that idea?

[Donnie Frank]

Guess it depends on what you're mixing and what the mics are. On female vocals using a lav, on most systems you can roll off to at least 200Hz, sometimes 250Hz and no hear any change. Obviously handhelds are different and I usually stop at 160Hz or so on females and 120 on males unless I can hear a difference when I A/B the High Pass filter.

But I would add that you also have to think about how something is going to sit in a mix. Yeah sure a mic with a big low cut might sound like **** all by itself. But if you mix it in with the rest of the band what does it sound like. That is what counts.

Exactly....especially with loud rock-n-roll bands... To make the vocals more crispy I never add EQ to the channel strip or vocal sub-group. I always raise or lower the HPF to make them cut more (but not thin) or make them "richer."

[Donnie Frank]

For what it's worth, I think most acoustics sound like kaka when played through your typical guitar amp. I guess with the right amp and pickup/mic combo it can work, but that so rarely seems to happen at least in my experience.

I always just go for a DI right off the instrument. And I use the mic on the amp only for electrics.


Actually let me revise that... I prefer a real mic in front of the acoustic to pick it up. But often that has too much bleed from other instruments. So I use a DI when I have to or sometimes both if there is not too many other instruments getting into that mic.

Just my $0.02.

A mic in front of the guitar is only practical for a static guitar players. This guy will be standing and moving all over the place.

And I couldn't agree more regarding amp DI's. BUT...this AER amp is supposed to be something special, so I will give it a shot.

Advance to 1:05:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hz6_TsHyqw

[Andy Hamm]

This is really awesome advice. The acoustic is naturally high-passed by my P.A. because I run a sub-woofer matrix (subwoofer console actually) which is devoid of acoustic guitar. Armed with this new information I will run the acoustic in the subs, but high-pass the guitar subwoofer channel @ 80Hz using Bob's E.Q. HPF. Do you think this will allow for full range without muddiness?

OR...perhaps I can assign the acoustic it's own software Output, and then assign that software output to my Mains hardware Output (1&2). This will bypass the Linkwitz/Riley plugin and allow the acoustic to reach the mains full range...hmmm... I could then apply a hpf if need be...hmmmm.....

Thoughts???

Ugh....that's funny. As a starting point I high-pass vocals @ 200Hz in the monitor wedges - but only as a starting point - and then "season to taste." Again, because I run a separate subwoofer matrix, the vox are naturally high-passed @100Hz. However I do run a vocal sub group and sometimes high-pass up to 150Hz (depending on the room). So far this seems to work well. And who high-passes a bass guitar??? That's just weird. Do they high-pass the kick drum, too?...hehe....

I will definitely give this a try. Thank you! That said... I have never fully understood the difference between a high-pass filter and/or shelving. Seems the only difference is that shelving involves boosting the frequencies that aren't being cut to unify the gain??? Gain structure has never been an issue in any of my rigs so I've never had to raise the uncut frequencies. Perhaps my idea of "shelving" is incorrect....

Here is a frequency chart you might find helpful, there are lots of them out there:



Monitors are a little different depending on what's going on. On small stages the wash of bottom end I get from the mains is often more than enough to cover the low end for monitoring purposes, so if I eq them full range they will sound fine until I turn FOH on, then there is either just too much bottom end on stage, or it sounds all wishy washy because it's all out of phase. Pulling the bottom end out of the monitors doesn't give me as punchy of a sound on stage as some would like, but it causes less problems with my mix out front in these situations. I work with female singers a fair bit and when they tell me everything was fine until I turned FOH on I will usually high pass their monitors at 125hz or even higher to see if that solves their issue.

100hz is where I high pass all of my backing vox, with my main vox around 80hz as a starting point. Some people don't have all that much going on below 100hz, but I mix allot of pop type stuff with that really breathy vocal (ie compressed), and there are allot of 'human' sounds that benefit from a little low end - it's not 80hz cranked mind you, I have it controlled with my low end shelf.

A hpf is a steep filter (on most consoles) that throws away everything below its set point. A shelving filter is a flat filter (hence the name shelf) which can either be static or adjustable. Sometimes it's fixed and all you have is a gain, other times you have a Q for it. The shevling filter allows you to reel in the low end to a workable level without throwing it all away or introducing peaks and dips in the low end where an octave doesn't cover as wide of a frequency range as it does with higher frequencies. 40-80hz is an octave that only covers 40hz, where 4khz-8khz covers 4000hz, because frequency is on a logarithmic scale.

Your acoustic will be a little different because it's amplified, meaning that your FOH is going to augment what you hear coming off of the stage, what's coming out of the mains might not stand on it's own, but it's how it sounds in the room that really matters. Our job isn't to put everything through the PA and make it sound rite, it's to make the overall experience work for the audience.

I usually record the two track out at my house gigs (where everything is an x32) and I'll listen back to them in my mix studio. In my studio, I have a pair of 8" studio monitors and a 10" sub. My sub is crossed at 80hz and I have separate control over it so I can adjust it to my listening level. If I listen to something I recorded live such as this (Wild Horses) , I can see how much my mixes depend on those lower frequencies - meaning that the mix does not translate well to a set of small speakers as there is quite a bit going on down there. This track has an acoustic guitar and without my sub turned on it sounds incredibly weak and tinny, so it demonstrates my point of going easy on the hpf.

[Donnie Frank]

Here is a frequency chart you might find helpful, there are lots of them out there:

<photo deleted>

Thanx for the chart. Interesting information here!

Monitors are a little different depending on what's going on. On small stages the wash of bottom end I get from the mains is often more than enough to cover the low end for monitoring purposes, so if I eq them full range they will sound fine until I turn FOH on, then there is either just too much bottom end on stage, or it sounds all wishy washy because it's all out of phase.

Exactly. Because I have my subwoofers on a completely different console, I generally mute the Mains but leave the subs up for this very purpose. This is mostly for the drummer so he doesn't bitch that the kick sounds too thin in the monitor and so the ampless bass player can also hear the "meat" of the room in concert with the monitors, which provide the clarity.

Pulling the bottom end out of the monitors doesn't give me as punchy of a sound on stage as some would like, but it causes less problems with my mix out front in these situations.

Yep. Just leave the subwoofers up during monitor check.

I work with female singers a fair bit and when they tell me everything was fine until I turned FOH on I will usually high pass their monitors at 125hz or even higher to see if that solves their issue.

I used to start at around 100Hz HPF until I saw a 30+ year veteran engineer start at 250Hz. Now I start at 200Hz and I have to say that as a singer myself, 200Hz HPF really makes the monitor crystal clear. Naturally if a singer feels it is "thin," I just move the HPF down to their liking. But this is a fairly rare occurrence.

100hz is where I high pass all of my backing vox, with my main vox around 80hz as a starting point. Some people don't have all that much going on below 100hz, but I mix allot of pop type stuff with that really breathy vocal (ie compressed), and there are allot of 'human' sounds that benefit from a little low end - it's not 80hz cranked mind you, I have it controlled with my low end shelf.

Interesting.... I may have to give this a shot.

A hpf is a steep filter (on most consoles) that throws away everything below its set point. A shelving filter is a flat filter (hence the name shelf) which can either be static or adjustable. Sometimes it's fixed and all you have is a gain, other times you have a Q for it. The shevling filter allows you to reel in the low end to a workable level without throwing it all away or introducing peaks and dips in the low end where an octave doesn't cover as wide of a frequency range as it does with higher frequencies. 40-80hz is an octave that only covers 40hz, where 4khz-8khz covers 4000hz, because frequency is on a logarithmic scale.

Ahhh...thanx for the clarification. That makes total sense.

Your acoustic will be a little different because it's amplified, meaning that your FOH is going to augment what you hear coming off of the stage, what's coming out of the mains might not stand on it's own, but it's how it sounds in the room that really matters. Our job isn't to put everything through the PA and make it sound rite, it's to make the overall experience work for the audience.

Absolutely. I always reference this caveat when handing off a board mix. I always tell them, "Remember...this is NOT a good representation of the room mix. This is merely what had to be added to keep up with the guitar and cymbals."....<;^)

The analogy I use is "making a cake." I'm mixing a cake back there and the instruments are the individual ingredients like butter, sugar, flour, etc. Too much of any one ingredient makes for a lousy cake. So if I have a ton of flour coming off the stage, I add butter and sugar at the console so the audience gets a nice, tasty cake.

To date that has been about my best-understood analogy.

I usually record the two track out at my house gigs (where everything is an x32) and I'll listen back to them in my mix studio. In my studio, I have a pair of 8" studio monitors and a 10" sub. My sub is crossed at 80hz and I have separate control over it so I can adjust it to my listening level. If I listen to something I recorded live such as this (Wild Horses) , I can see how much my mixes depend on those lower frequencies - meaning that the mix does not translate well to a set of small speakers as there is quite a bit going on down there.

Exactly. It's simple: If the mix sucks without subs, well then the mix just sucks. Subs are supposed to augment and improve the overall quality of the sound, not make a particular instrument audible. I find this especially true for bass guitar. If I can't hear bass guitar notes without the use of the subs, then I feel I have slighted the bass player. That said, I HAVE mixed some Country bands with bottom-heavy bass guitar, but it is understood before hand that this is how they want it mixed. That style of playing is a lot of half notes and quarter notes, which is conducive to having a bottom heavy mix. Too many notes and that type of mix becomes pointless.

This track has an acoustic guitar and without my sub turned on it sounds incredibly weak and tinny, so it demonstrates my point of going easy on the hpf.

Nice mix. The acoustic almost sounds like it is slightly overdriving. Is this on purpose? Your acoustic guitar sound is typical of what I deal with. And I couldn't agree more that it sounds kind of tinny. I find playing style has a LOT to do with it. For example here is a solo artist I recorded. I just ran the acoustic full range and he was very happy with what I captured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7eZMMkdIJw

Because this is only 2 channels, I actually used my DR-40 to record this performance. The only post-production is the slight reverb and roughly 4:1 compression on the vocal.