Hi all.

I need your opinion on this. How would you record non-live performance classical guitar?

My nephew is a professional guitarist and is recording his fourth or fifth cd. He sent some photos of the session which was recorded in a church some place. I've attached photos to show the set-up.

First a disclaimer: I am NOT a professional audio person, just someone who has enough knowledge to be dangerous. So if the person who is the audio engineer is on this list, I certainly mean no disrespect, I just want to learn.

SO with that, my thoughts:

1) Why are the mics so far away from the instrument? Apparently these are some REALLY nice custom built jobs, not sure of the make. I've always thought that the further the mics, the more you have to increase gain/volume, thus increasing picking up the room noise.

2) Though it seems cool, recording in a large room like this, especially with the marble floors, seems less than ideal. I would think recording dry in a "dead" studio and then add some reverb, echo, whatever after the fact would be preferred. If the only choice was to record here, would I be wrong to almost tent the area with sound blankets?

Again, I just want to learn what is going on and am not judging. There is absolutely a great possibility that I am missing something here. And since I am a guitar player as well (acoustic and electric jazz) I'd like to find out if I've got it all wrong.

Thanks for your help.

Jonathan

For me, natural reverb in a great sounding space is much better than effects processing, though processing has gotten pretty great nowadays and can give you a lot more options...
If you want to cover your bases, use a close mic (or two) to mix with the room mics. You could go crazy and throw up a bunch of room mics at different distances so you can dial in which one(s) sound best, and blend to taste. I think throwing up an isolation tent is not a great idea (why not just record in a closet?), but some gobos to control the sound may help isolate the close mics while still getting the benefit of the wonderful natural reverb. The real key is to listen to each mic through headphones and place them in 'magic' spots. Even moving the mic one inch can make a big difference. Also, watch out for phasing problems. There is some math involved with mic placement, but I am a little daft and just use my ears (or phase switches!).

Thanks Brian.

I think I've been ingrained to think that mic in close proximity to what you record is key, at least from a human voice POV. I guess from all the sources that say to never have a camera mounted mic if at all possible. (I would tend to agree with that.)

Maybe recording musical instruments is different. There was/is an interesting thread on recording piano here too.

It will be interesting to see what others feel too.

Jonathan

Agreeing with Brian, *in a room with acoustics that support it*, natural reverb is best.

But what does "best" mean?

I have some acquaintance with the values that producers/engineers who do this kind of setup are expressing. I agree with quite a few of those values, but constraints of space, time, and money affect much of my work. OK, enough philosophy, but there are several ways to get to a great sounding recording and this is one of them, though not often practiced.

1. work with a solo artist, or a group of acoustic instrumentalists who have good balance of volume, because you won't be (conventionally) mixing.

2. find a space that really, really sounds good. Typically, a church.

3. get some really, really good mics. Custom built or audiophile preamps. Record them to some super format. Maybe analog two-track, maybe some super-digital format with much higher-end analog-to-digital converters than we typically see in our gear.

4. do not process the sound in any way, during recording or post.

5. setup real reference monitors outside of the recording space, in a very good listening environment. LISTEN. Place the mics for the balance of room and direct sound that gives the lifelike recording you've obsessively dedicated a considerable portion of your professional life to. This mic placement is the only "mixing" you'll do.

6. Get one good performance. No editing.

7. do the most transparent conversions possible of your recording into your mastering media, duplicate and distribute.

This recording method, sometimes called "direct to stereo", or "single point stereo micing", is based on pre-1960s methods of micing and recording. In those times, recordists were very limited; no multitrack recording, limited or no efx. Their methods, when practiced with our modern technology, can give STUNNING results. I've heard some amazing recordings.

It goes further back into traditions of chamber music. If you wanted music, you hired musicians. If you could afford to and were interested, you might have a room (a chamber) for this.

As recording technology developed, micing methods were experimented with, and some are still with us, including x/y, ORTF, Decca tree, and this one, A-B. To modern conventions, people will tell ya' that a spaced pair of mics will lead to comb filtering where various frequencies will be attenuated, aka. phasing. But to anyone who's worked with these techniques, that's all in a day's work, because hearing is believing.

If it sounds good, it is good.

1) Why are the mics so far away from the instrument??
> That's not normal.. especially in live performance w/ a PA.. They could be to pick-up the room and the guitar has an internal pick-up.. though I don't see any cables. The mics could also be closer than they appear in the photos and they're looking for a direct/room blend.

2) Though it seems cool, recording in a large room like this, especially with the marble floors, seems less than ideal.
> If one has an additional high quality stereo pair, the room 'may' have a very nice natural acoustics that can be mixed in (post) to the close mics.

Many, many ways to record an acoustic. Condensers are the usual go-to, large and/or small. A contact or internal pick-up can be mixed in with the mics as well for added presence/attack, but I wouldn't use the pick-up on it;s own, except for live performance where feedback is an issue.
In my studio 'daze', my usual MO was a stereo pair of (SDC) Neumann KM84s with a (LDC) AKG C414 (omni or fig-8 setting) a few feet off. I also had four channels of the John Hardy M1 mic preamps that I carried with me. If a Neve 80 series console was available, I'd use the on -board amps.

There is no correct or wrong way to record an accoustic instrument. It is down to the end result that you want to achieve and this is basically whether you want to hear the sound coming out of the instrument or the sound of the instrument in the room. Many people like to hear the sound of an acoustic guitar in a church or room with a fairly long natural reverb. That's because the natural reflections give an ethereal effect to the sound that can be very satisfying to listen to, however that is not the actual sound of the instrument.

One problem of recording an instrument in a natural reverb environment is that you are stuck with it. If you decide afterwards that you would like to reduce the reverb, then you have a problem. During my engineering days, I always preferred to close mic an acoustic instrument to record it's natural sound, rather than being stuck with one particular set of room reflections.

As Seth said though, 'If it sounds right it is right'

Roger

Thanks so much guys! FYI- no internal pick up on/in guitar.

There are a few other shots I didn't post that seems to show a seperate room where the audio dude monitors stuff.

All facinating stuff to me!

Jonathan

Distant micing is great for big percussion and powerful French horns. It can make them sound bigger than life. It's not so great for guitar, IMO. For classical guitar, we want to hear a crisp attack and the subtlety of the performance. It's not about power and size. (For power, get a Les Paul and Marshall Stack.) It's about intimacy.

That's my artistic take on it anyway.

One can also use distant mics for a dreamy feel. It can be a good approach for a flute ensemble. It's perfect for choirs as we can get size, power and dreaminess at the same time. It also smears the details, masking individual imperfections. Unless the piece is abstract and legato, I doubt that one would want a dreamy feel for classical guitar.

That said, one could close mic to get good definition of the attacks and mix it with very distant mics to add the room sound and fill the sustains.

Here's an example with Paco De Lucia, Al Di Meola and John McLaughlin using pickups and close mics (likely mixing distant mics as well.) It's a nice combination of clean attacks and space. (I saw this trio live back in the '80s and I've got to admit that I was so wowed by the performances that I didn't give the mics a second thought at the time.)

Paco De Lucia, Al Di Meola and John McLaughlin - Mediterranian Sun Dance Live - YouTube

That's a stunning performance - but an editing nightmare, quite apart from the audio aesthetics. Whilst continuity has to be maintained in the sound track, the job of cutting the video with perfect synch through six minutes of racing virtuosity from, effectively, three soloists looks to be near impossible.

There might well be some YouTube latitude in the download synchronisation but for anyone watching the guitarists' technique (as I was, in a *very* humble way) there are points where video action is noticeably adrift from the music. Some of the intended audience will be very picky about this! So apart from the sound quality of the recording might it be an idea to have the performer's opinion on the edit, if at all possible, before things get too set?

All this discussion is fascinating, but I for one would really like to hear what the actual recording sounds like. When is the CD coming out, or will there be tracks or album to download from a website?

I haven't done much serious guitar recording, but having heard a few of the best solo classical guitar players playing live without any amplification I have been surprised at how strong the tone produced by a really good player on a first class instrument can be - in a totally different league from the usual competent but run of the mill acoustic guitar sound.

Interesting mic plcement in the photos. It is a bit unsuual compared to the more common idea of having a condensor mic placed within a few inches of the strings/fingers. Its all about the artistic intent (or lack there of) of the production team.

On comb filter cancellation - a real issue if mixing down to mono as with the good old VHS VCRs linear track.

If recorded sound was really that great there would be no demand for live performances. After all, why pay $70 or more for a concert ticket (complete with people sneezing and coughing) that can be heard precisely once when one can buy a studio recording on CD for under $20 and listen to it many times at a venue that allows food and beverage while sitting in your underwear?

At some point the recording team (engineer, mixer, etc.) become more important than the performers - consider the CG and FX seen in many current movies.

And maybe as a culture and society our collective tastes are changing. Consider all the assorted devices invented to add distortion to electric guitars.

Close mic-ing is essential for voice intelligibility, espcially in noisy or reverberant venues. What is not good for a single speaking voice might be desired for instruments or a chorus of voices.

If recorded sound was really that great there would be no demand for live performances. After all, why pay $70 or more for a concert ticket (complete with people sneezing and coughing) that can be heard precisely once when one can buy a studio recording on CD for under $20 and listen to it many times at a venue that allows food and beverage while sitting in your underwear?

I prefer a close miked sound on an acoustic instrument, but some some people want to hear the sound of people eating crisps and sneezing in the background, as it is the capturing of a much more realistic sound of a live performance at a venue.

Another reason that some people would prefer to go to a live performance rather than sit at home with a recording, is for the atmosphere of being with a group of people who have come to see and hear a performer that they admire. Most musicians will also perform differently to a live audience as there is a mutual response and interaction between audience and performer. As a live performer, I always perform with much more involvement and emotion to an enthusiastic audience than I do in the studio.

Lets face it, the rise of 'celebrity' now means that some people will go to see someone they have seen on the tv, just because they are celebrities and they can tell all their friends about it and show pics on social media.

Roger

My nephew is a professional guitarist and is recording his fourth or fifth cd.

You nephew is looking for a particular sound. He's a pro, he's staking his reputation on it. He and his producer probably put in a fair amount of effort finding this space. You seem to think his choice was a mistake. Why?

1) Why are the mics so far away from the instrument? Apparently these are some REALLY nice custom built jobs, not sure of the make. I've always thought that the further the mics, the more you have to increase gain/volume, thus increasing picking up the room noise.

They are so far away to allow the sound to develop. They aren't trying to capture the sound from the guitarist's perspective (that would take close micing). They are instead trying to capture what an audience member might hear if they got to sit in the "sweet spot." What you're looking at is probably a couple of mics in AB (aka a spaced pair), probably omnis, certainly large diaphragm, my guess would be Neumann TLM170s or U89s, but it's impossible to know from that picture. Ask your nephew; he'll almost certainly know what mics were used.

The point of AB is to record a stereo image that captures the acoustic as well as the instrument. The engineer controls this ratio of instrument to acoustic by positioning the mics closer for more instrument sound, and farther away for more of the room's acoustic. Getting the correct position takes a lot of work; they weren't just dropped there at random.

The more interesting question (to me anyway) is why are the mics so low? Many recording engineers would have raised them up higher and pointed them down, to control reflections from the back wall. But probably with the geometry of this situation it doesn't matter as much as it would in a more conventional setting.

2) Though it seems cool, recording in a large room like this, especially with the marble floors, seems less than ideal.

You are almost certainly wrong about that -- it is probably exactly ideal for the sound your nephew was trying to achieve. Ask him.

I would think recording dry in a "dead" studio and then add some reverb, echo, whatever after the fact would be preferred. If the only choice was to record here, would I be wrong to almost tent the area with sound blankets?

You would be completely wrong to do that. This location was not the only choice, it was the top choice on the list. Again, ask your nephew. They didn't want a dead studio close mic sound -- if that's what they had wanted, it's easy enough to rent studio space. Good acoustic spaces are much harder to find, and much harder to book. A lot of nice sounding churches won't let you book a recording session there, even for a single instrument like this.

One last time, talk to your nephew. You might learn something. A good audio recording is more difficult to achieve than a good video. He'll probably explain it to you if you ask.

Bruce,

If you re-read my original post, no where do I imply that the way this is done is a mistake. And that I am not a full time audio engineer. Just someone who is inquiring about set up standards.

From what I've gather here there is some lee way as to what people prefer. What I have learned is for voice recording in mostly an interview type setting, which places mic close and block out as much ambiance as possible, is a different animal than recording an instrument in a live setting.

So with that my question about this particular place. Not that I think ANYTHING is wrong. Just an old dog learning new tricks. Thanks for your input though.

Colin- I know in the past he has chosen to record in large venues, mostly churches. His website is Adam Levin Guitar :: Home (http://www.adamlevinguitar.com) And please buy a few hundred copies of his cd's! ;-}

Jonathan

First I read the thread, then I looked at the pics. To my surprise it doesn't look like the mics are so terribly far away. I think most acoustic instruments need some space to "blend" unless you really want to hear what the performer hears. Which can be really distracting. I doubt many listeners would want to be closer to the guitar than the mics in the photos.

Every instrument is different, but there's one thing is common - what the performer hears is not what the listener hears. The performer is so closely coupled to the instrument that it's pretty common to hear different notes originating in different parts of the instrument.

Unless I wanted to be able to hear which individual string was sounding when, I'd definitely get a few feet away in any acoustically decent space.

Jim, nice to see you again here. Hope you have been doing well! I always remember your kind help getting me going in audio.

I haven't read through all the posts either, but I will later. In the meantime I can offer a little of my experience. I consider my self learning the ropes but as they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I'm a classical guitar maker and I specialize in classical guitar videos. Years ago I recorded with a Sony PCM-d50..... but since moved up to a better set up. Although I have heard some amazing recordings with the D-50. Jim Andrada posted a comparison between a pair of Scheops and the Sony D50...... it was enlightening.

I use a Metric Halo ULN-2 and some Modified Oktavia mics from Michael Jolly, as well as his own MJE-K47H capsules.

I recorded guitar in a church as well as at home. My living room is full of carpet, however, it seems most guitarists like the sound of my living room best. I find it really hard to control a lively church environment unless you have vast experience..... a church or lively room can be too much.

I prefer to add a little reverb in post, rather than deal with a crazy room. I use Reaper as my DAW and it's cheap.... $60.00.

Here are a few videos I've done..... not perfect by a long shot, some have too much reverb, but it is what it is.
I'm learning too!

In my living room.
Jason Mullen Plays Regondi Etude #8 version II - YouTube

In a church....
Three movements from Jacques Hetu Op 41 Jason Mullen - YouTube

Rafael Elizondo plays, La Cuartelera by Eduardo Falu - YouTube

Rafa Elizondo, Dionisio Aguado- Andante and Rondo, Op.2, No.2 - YouTube

Also here is a very helpful video from my friend Uros.

Recording classical guitar: Choosing microphones - YouTube

1) Why are the mics so far away from the instrument? Apparently these are some REALLY nice custom built jobs, not sure of the make. I've always thought that the further the mics, the more you have to increase gain/volume, thus increasing picking up the room noise.

The mics are not very far away - the recording engineer has placed them in the room to get the best balance between the guitar and the room in that particular acoustic, bearing in mind the music being played.

A natural room reverb is far more preferable to an artificial reverb added later.

Also, a more distant mic'ing technique will pick up far less of the playing noises you get when you close mic.

If I was recording a guitar recital I would have done similar (though I would probably have used an SDC MS rig or ORTF rig rather than that pictured - though that could be a Faulkner Array of fig-8 mics that will get the room reverb while rejecting side slap).



2) Though it seems cool, recording in a large room like this, especially with the marble floors, seems less than ideal. I would think recording dry in a "dead" studio and then add some reverb, echo, whatever after the fact would be preferred. If the only choice was to record here, would I be wrong to almost tent the area with sound blankets?

Absolutely NOT - recording in a live room is the very best way to record a recital like that.

Recording in a dead room and adding artificial reverb later is a last resort when no decent room can be found and will produce an inferior recording than a natural recording in a live acoustic space.

Plus, you pick up far more fingering noises recording close.

Also - a musical instrument is not designed to be listened to close-up, you need to get further back to be able to hear it at it's best.

Absolutely NOT - recording in a live room is the very best way to record a recital like that.

Recording in a dead room and adding artificial reverb later is a last resort when no decent room can be found and will produce an inferior recording than a natural recording in a live acoustic space.

Plus, you pick up far more fingering noises recording close.

Also - a musical instrument is not designed to be listened to close-up, you need to get further back to be able to hear it at it's best.

I know many professionals who would disagree with your a "absolute" statement on recording in a "live acoustic space" whatever that means. Also, yes the rule of thumb seems to be if it's a bad room put the mics closer to the guitar. However, I know many guys who put the mics 6 inches off the face of the guitar and a couple of other mics further back to capture the room ambiance. There is no "absolute" when it comes to recording a classical guitar. All the beauty on a classical guitar is in the attack detail, a good guitarist will have a very clear attack and the closer you put the mics the better up to a point of course..... so I wouldn't worry about picking up any un wanted noise with a good classical guitarist.

Listening to a classical guitar through a couple of mics placed two feet away is not natural either, in fact listening to a guitar through any mic is not natural.... When I place a mic two feet away and listen it is an entirely different experience than when I put my own ears two feet in front of the sound board.

Since the entire recording process is artificial anyways, I like to record in a space where I can have more control and add reverb, EQ, etc. in post, and come up with an optimal sound, rather than a natural sound as some people refer to it as.

If you have some not so good mics and a not so good pre-amp you are going to pick up some not so good sounding transients..... the more detail in the mics the better the transients translating to better tone.

Of all the guys I know and have talked to about mic placement say to put them closer to the guitar..... also, the angle you place them has a big effect as well. Personally I don't place them further than two feet often closer. In the video of Uros, he places the mics about two feet away and he has a "lively space" however knowing Uros he probably has treated his room for optimal efficiency.

Rooms or live spaces that you refer to as better often times are hard to filter out the unwanted effects, and I would also disagree that just because the reverb is "natural" it's better than post reverb..... I've heard some pretty bad "natural reverb" in live rooms.

Many people are missing the point here. Ambient recordings capture the instrument but also the space it is playing in. Pursuing recordings of this kind of music reveal a particular sound that immerses you in the building as if you were there, and the techniques used for this recording style require space. Without going into the fine details in the majority, it is two microphones and the polar pattern and placement are the key to a successful and realistic recording. In a beautifully sounding space, then a pair of ribbons in what is now considered the old fashioned Blumlein technique can be wonderful. In other spaces, the recordist may prefer a spaced technique as in the pictures, or a coincident pair. Each has it's own way of capturing the sound and technique wars go on all the time between A/B, X/Y, M/S and then the ORTFs, Blumleins and Decca Trees. Google helps a lot here!

Sure, close miking with small microphones is much nicer looking, but needs artificial treatment to make it sound better, and most people consider it inferior to doing it for real!

In real terms an ambient recording that sounds like a commercial CD is very, very hard to achieve. The people who do it lots have their own very short list of venues and techniques that work in them. I've been doing them since the 70s, and still make mistakes. The biggest mistake is headphones. They are great as a check, but you need a pair of speakers in a nearby room to get the placement right. In those images, the mic placement for that venue could be perfect. Nothing jumps out as bad. I personally would not have used a setup like that, but if it works there, then that is fine. Eyes are good for spotting real issues, but ears are the critical thing

As I tried to make clear in my lengthy post above, this is a debate about values and aesthetics, not about best practices.

Since the beginning of multitrack recording the majority of the industries have been going down the path of a "produced" sound. In modern pop music the techniques have been refined to an amazing degree, informed not only by tech capability, but also by an evolving set of aesthetic goals.

Direct-to-stereo technique is not only still valid, but can produce some of the most natural sounding recordings of acoustic instruments and small groups that have their own "mix" and blend down perfectly.

Many have not had experience with these methods. A few of us have, and swear by them in certain circumstances. The environments and situations where these methods really shine are few, but they are out there. Anybody professionally recording orchestras should have experience across these... and perhaps soloist mics (direct micing) too.

I've heard some amazing recordings, and have made a few, too.

Things can fall apart fast in many rooms though. Natural reverbs in bad rooms shoud be avoided. But, there are a lot of terrible reverb & echo digital effects available to us, too.

And I will say that these methods are harder to learn. But they'll never be learnt by those who are happy with their close-micing. Fine. I'm glad to have a broad set of tools in the box, to pull out as appropriate, and in some circumstances, that *will* by my ORTF array or M/S mic. They *do not* come out on every job, but when they do the music comes alive in a way that close-micing doesn't produce.

Some will tell you that real music occurs when there's an audience. That there's a link between performer and audience that enhances the music. As a sometimes performer I think that's true, music can come more from the heart and less from the intellect when I'm playing to an audience. Maybe I'm not a very good musician.

But, music is more than technique, and so is sound recording. The recordist's choices limit or open the sound, and sometimes direct micing goes the wrong direction. This is art. And science.

As I tried to make clear in my lengthy post above, this is a debate about values and aesthetics, not about best practices.

Since the beginning of multitrack recording the majority of the industries have been going down the path of a "produced" sound. In modern pop music the techniques have been refined to an amazing degree, informed not only by tech capability, but also by an evolving set of aesthetic goals.

Direct-to-stereo technique is not only still valid, but can produce some of the most natural sounding recordings of acoustic instruments and small groups that have their own "mix" and blend down perfectly.

Many have not had experience with these methods. A few of us have, and swear by them in certain circumstances. The environments and situations where these methods really shine are few, but they are out there. Anybody professionally recording orchestras should have experience across these... and perhaps soloist mics (direct micing) too.

I've heard some amazing recordings, and have made a few, too.

Things can fall apart fast in many rooms though. Natural reverbs in bad rooms shoud be avoided. But, there are a lot of terrible reverb & echo digital effects available to us, too.

And I will say that these methods are harder to learn. But they'll never be learnt by those who are happy with their close-micing. Fine. I'm glad to have a broad set of tools in the box, to pull out as appropriate, and in some circumstances, that *will* by my ORTF array or M/S mic. They *do not* come out on every job, but when they do the music comes alive in a way that close-micing doesn't produce.

Some will tell you that real music occurs when there's an audience. That there's a link between performer and audience that enhances the music. As a sometimes performer I think that's true, music can come more from the heart and less from the intellect when I'm playing to an audience. Maybe I'm not a very good musician.

But, music is more than technique, and so is sound recording. The recordist's choices limit or open the sound, and sometimes direct micing goes the wrong direction. This is art. And science.

I've been on a number of forums discussing this very subject. What I find to be the problem with most audio engineers, is their lack of specialization in recording a classical guitar...... they think they can approach it in the same manner as an orchestra, or piano etc. Often times they don't understand what to listen for. The classical guitar has some challenges other instruments don't have, that's probably the reason that most guitarists I know have decided to learn the trade, and record on their own and by pass the "professional".

I think if I hear one more person say with complete authority a recording in a "live" environment is better than in a controlled situation I going to be ill!

In fact - this extends to PA too. I worked for a classical guitarist, who played a guitar that was unfinished - because he did not like the change to the sound that the lacquer and polish caused - so when the luthier who made it handed it to him and he liked it - that was where the build finished. It wasn't quite loud enough for the bigger venues he was playing - not the usual mainstream places, but studio theatres and carpeted and curtained spaces. He had an AKG 451, and a JBL plastic powered speaker, and that was how it was amplified. I was convinced I could do better - but he liked the sound, and that was it. No good at all for a recording, but in the room, it gave him what he wanted.

Natural acoustic recording I agree is soon much harder than typical studio stuff.

...the problem with most audio engineers, is their lack of specialization in recording a classical guitar...... they think they can approach it in the same manner as an orchestra, or piano etc. Often times they don't understand what to listen for....
That you've developed an approach that satisfies you an conforms to the aesthetic you and others are pursuing is great. It's not wrong at all, in my view.

But remember, this thread started with JL wanting to understand more about how his nephew was recorded. We really don't have enough info from the photo to know the distance from the mics to the performer. Nothing in that picture looks wrong to me. But I've had experience with those techniques as a listener, engineer, and performer. Despite what your fellow luthiers or performers have written, it's not a wrong approach.

I'm not suggesting either approach is better. In my opinion, live-hall recording is much harder to set up and do right. It takes more mobile resources and more time, not to mention booking the right hall and working around ambient noise issues.

...I think if I hear one more person say with complete authority a recording in a "live" environment is better than in a controlled situation I going to be ill!
Not me! Not better. Just different. And sometimes excellent. And when done well with the right material, better for me.

But where did you get the idea that anyone was suggesting recording in uncontrolled environments? Yes, a studio is much more easily controlled, but any engineer should realize that uncontrolled environments often produce unpredictable results, period. The step-by-step process I described in post #4 in this thread details a lot of what you have to do to control the environment, balance direct and indirect sound, and bring predictability to the process. It's hard, it takes time and money.

Many times sound for video must be inexpensive and fast. That too is an aesthetic as well as a sometimes irritating practicality we must accept. Are lavalier mics for dialog always wrong? Always right? Well, it depends, of course. But no one should argue that they give a natural sound, far from it.

Off my soap box. I'm interested to hear a snippet of Jonathan's nephew's recording, and also interested to hear what you'd think of it, Michael.

Wow!

Thanks for all this guys! Really helpful.

It's so interesting the way things are done even within the same instrument family. For instants, one of my favorite finger style guitarists, Leo Kottke, uses a custom Sunrise sound hole pickup along with a mike placed in front of the guitar on occasion.

My other favorite guitarist, Tony Rice, seems to mike his instrument at close range in the studio. Both of the above examples are steel string players which I am guessing change the whole game.

Thanks for your comments.

Jonathan

One thing to keep in mind when we see close micing on a stage is that there might also be distant mics that are out of the frame.

With multiple mics, one can get phasing issues, but I think that this is mainly when the angles are very different and when the distances are not different enough. With close micing (within half a meter), one should be able to add some distant (over 4 meters away) omnis without problems. One might need to advance the timing of the far mics to keep from introducing a "bounce". Like dialog, one can record the close mic as mono. The distant mics should be stereo - or more.

This is similar to techniques used on Hollywood soundstages. Close mics allow for control as well as a clear attack and low noise. Distant mics provide a natural room sound.

Many scores are produce with (or partially with) samples. Some library producers (VSL) use a "silent stage" for a dry sound intended for use with artificial reverb effects. Others (EWQL) make a big deal out of recording in real performance venues. That second group generally offers close, mid, and distant mic versions of the samples with the intent that they be mixed to taste.

Again, this comes down to taste. When recording a dreamy piece by Debussy, mid or far mics are likely winners. If you want a crisp attack and intimate presence, the close mic is a good starting point.

There are various approaches. "Rules" give good starting places, but the key is to listen. If it sounds good, it is good. If it sounds bad, change something.

It's possible that the mic placement in the photo sounded great and met the artistic intent. I'd characterize the placement as "mid". I'd expect a natural sound right out of the box. That said, we often want guitar to have more attack and intimacy. If that had been the case, close and far mics might be my choice. But if that doesn't meet the artist's intent, it would clearly be the wrong way to go.

It's really a genre choice. What does the recording need to sound like? If you see a CD of a choir, and the photo on the CD is a load of people dressed in dinner jackets, in a cathedral, with the organ proudly shining in the background, then you will be disappointed to hear a studio multitrack with up front vocals and that clarity thing having a mic in close has.

The BBC had a Sunday programme for years - Songs of Praise, and while some segments were recorded live , others were recorded in the studio and the artistes mimed. These studio recordings never sounded 'right'. In fairness, some buildings simply presented too many sound problems - getting the mics to the right place was vetoed by vision - for the obvious reasons, and getting it right was just too expensive for an OB, but whenever they could do it, they would take advantage of the acoustics.

Close miking with multiple mics, as we can so easily do now has any advantages, but doing it properly, to my ears at least - sounds better!

I find it interesting that there is so much critique of the recording of this guitarist without the most important thing, the actual recording. I honestly couldn't tell you if the recording is good or bad. And I've seen just about all of the mic'ing techniques mentioned here and many others to record an acoustic and produce stellar results. The only thing to remember when capturing audio is that there is no one absolute best. It is the engineers job to capture what the musician feels needs to be captured. Sometimes it is hearing the subtle nuances of their fingers plucking the strings. Sometimes the venue itself is very important to capture.

It's really a genre choice. What does the recording need to sound like? If you see a CD of a choir, and the photo on the CD is a load of people dressed in dinner jackets, in a cathedral, with the organ proudly shining in the background, then you will be disappointed to hear a studio multitrack with up front vocals and that clarity thing having a mic in close has.

The BBC had a Sunday programme for years - Songs of Praise, and while some segments were recorded live , others were recorded in the studio and the artistes mimed. These studio recordings never sounded 'right'. In fairness, some buildings simply presented too many sound problems - getting the mics to the right place was vetoed by vision - for the obvious reasons, and getting it right was just too expensive for an OB, but whenever they could do it, they would take advantage of the acoustics.

Close miking with multiple mics, as we can so easily do now has any advantages, but doing it properly, to my ears at least - sounds better!

Well a DVD or televised concerts are much different than a CD of music only. Yes, your eyes will get involved in interpreting sound as well, and if you happen to be a guitarist the sensory perception of touch is also a factor.

A guitarist Rafael Elizondo is coming for 10 days, and I'm recording a CD of his as well as a video of his concert. Raphael seems more interested in videos these days than a CD. It's a funny thing I think people watch videos of their favorite artist on YouTube with their iPhones with a pair of ear buds or on their laptops rather than buying a CD anymore.

To prove this hypothesis I give you the example of Beyonce. This year was the first year no artist went Platinum, but if you look at her videos the views number in the 10's of millions.

For me when I do a video of a guitarist, I want it to sound the best it can. I'm not interested in capturing reality because reality sucks when it comes to live performances. Yes, I could well imagine close miking a choir singing in a cathedral would be the wrong thing to do. On the other hand, the same approach to a classical guitar in a cathedral would be crazy. Personally, I don't like the sound of a classical guitar in a cathedral. I'm used to hearing it in my room at home, so when I hear a CD of a guitarist in a huge church it sounds foreign to my ears.

Julian Bream recorded an album of Granado's and Albeniz in his favorite church down the road from his house..... the recording is soooo bright and full of confusing reverb bouncing off every wall that I literally can't listen to it, a stark contrast to the recordings he did in the studio.

In this thread I've read where guys think a big church or such is superior to a studio recording because of the natural reverb and the lack of post mixing. Really? Do you guys who record this way never add EQ, compression, tweak the reverb or, gain, you guys just hope and pray you put the mics in the right place for that church or space and don't do any post editing of the sound, and somehow come to the conclusion this is a better thing than a studio recording...... ha ha!

...
In this thread I've read where guys think a big church or such is superior to a studio recording because of the natural reverb and the lack of post mixing. Really? Do you guys who record this way never add EQ, compression, tweak the reverb or, gain, you guys just hope and pray you put the mics in the right place for that church or space and don't do any post editing of the sound, and somehow come to the conclusion this is a better thing than a studio recording...... ha ha!
...
2. find a space that really, really sounds good. Typically, a church.
...
5. setup real reference monitors outside of the recording space, in a very good listening environment. LISTEN. Place the mics for the balance of room and direct sound that gives the lifelike recording you've obsessively dedicated a considerable portion of your professional life to. This mic placement is the only "mixing" you'll do.
...
If it sounds good, it is good.
It seems you find it appropriate to ridicule those who share contrarian ideas about sound engineering. Not cool. I'm not going to respond to your points directly, other than to say that many of the posters on this thread are pro engineers who would *never* "hope and pray" they were getting what they were paid for.

That's a big part of what professionalism is. I suspect you know this from your own work.

I realize that it's accepted among some musicians that audio engineers are tin-eared know-nothings who need to be watched carefully and micro-managed; that engineers don't care if they mess up an artist's life's work. I stay away from those musicians. Life's too short.

Hi Michael. It's been a while since we played with the mics at your place. I hope all is well with you. I'm not doing too much recording anymore, just a few orchestral recordings a year now. We haven't been getting to Santa Fe as much as we used to, but just today we got a letter from a friend who moved there from Tucson telling us we need to visit.

This thread has been really interesting. I'm learning a lot from it - but what I'm learning has less to do with recording the guitar than with the way people can form opinions based on a lack of data. As someone sagely commented, without the recording itself being in evidence, all we can do is speculate about why the placement was chosen and whether it was successful - however one would define "successful".

The engineer is always right? Nope! He is paid at worst, to do the job under instruction - at best he is paid to contribute ideas and suggestions, but the client is always right. When the client is a musician, of any calibre, they have a preset idea of what they wish to sound like, and even if you personally hate it, if they like it - it is their opinion that counts.


For me when I do a video of a guitarist, I want it to sound the best it can. I'm not interested in capturing reality because reality sucks when it comes to live performances. Yes, I could well imagine close miking a choir singing in a cathedral would be the wrong thing to do. On the other hand, the same approach to a classical guitar in a cathedral would be crazy. Personally, I don't like the sound of a classical guitar in a cathedral. I'm used to hearing it in my room at home, so when I hear a CD of a guitarist in a huge church it sounds foreign to my ears.

Julian Bream recorded an album of Granado's and Albeniz in his favorite church down the road from his house..... the recording is soooo bright and full of confusing reverb bouncing off every wall that I literally can't listen to it, a stark contrast to the recordings he did in the studio.

With the greatest of respect - Julian Bream's opinion and yours differ, so who's opinion is the critical one? Easy answer - his! If you can't listen to it, then don't. If he likes it, then his 'vision' has been achieved. Take the money, job done, and move on.

Liking something is nice when it happens, but it's not essential. I quite like Paul Winter's recording of saxophone, Cathedral organ and pipes - done, I think somewhere in New York. It's swampy, huge and really weird. The sax has no definition, the time delays on some ranks of pipes way out and it's a bit of a mess sonically, but it really works.

Musicians don't always get it right. Produce a first CD for a trumpet player and they will hate the sound because they've never heard themselves from the front. You can try to convince them, but if you can't, then it's their choice.

We provide a service. Our contracts set out our collaboration level. Do we get a producer's credit or just an engineering one? We do our best. It is not our job to do some things.

I recorded a series of piano CDs for a specialist area - they will be replayed in dance studios, that are very lively, so the CD is totally dry - a mix of ambient techniques but in a dead room. In context it works really well. On my monitors it sounds simply awful. Context is everything!

It seems you find it appropriate to ridicule those who share contrarian ideas about sound engineering. Not cool. I'm not going to respond to your points directly, other than to say that many of the posters on this thread are pro engineers who would *never* "hope and pray" they were getting what they were paid for.

That's a big part of what professionalism is. I suspect you know this from your own work.

I realize that it's accepted among some musicians that audio engineers are tin-eared know-nothings who need to be watched carefully and micro-managed; that engineers don't care if they mess up an artist's life's work. I stay away from those musicians. Life's too short.

Seth I'm sorry you feel ridiculed. It's just that every classical guitar player I know prefers recording in a controlled environment..... and I know a lot of them...... and this is my point, most professionals (not all) know or care enough to get the right sound a guitarist hears in his head. The result being a lot of guitarist become recording engineers.

Perhaps I was ridiculing those who unequivocally state that recording in a hall or church, is absolutely superior to a studio, and say this is a more "natural" sound. Also, you seem to equate getting paid with knowledge..... I wonder how many classical guitarists most "pro engineers" have experience recording compared to the piano etc. Specialization can be a good thing and from what I'm reading on this thread is seem few are specialized when it comes to recording classical guitar, which from my limited experience is one of the hardest instruments to record well given just how intimate of a sound it is compared to other solo and orchestral settings.

I do question anyone ability to definativly walk into a hall and choose the absolute best mic placement..... it's so subjective, with so many subtle variations of sound with different moods and effects. A "paid pro engineer" might eliminate a lot of guess work but personally I've seen a lot of pros stick mics where I wouldn't, and pull the..... step aside I know what I'm doing and you don't kinda thing.

A lot of ego is involved in hearing the color of grey...... to one person I may sound like I'm "ridiculing" but on the other hand I feel and am sensitive to the heavy handed "paid pro engineers" absolute statements...... I'm sorry there are no absolutes here.

I realize that it's accepted among some musicians that audio engineers are tin-eared know-nothings who need to be watched carefully and micro-managed; that engineers don't care if they mess up an artist's life's work. I stay away from those musicians. Life's too short.

This is exactly the kind statement and ego I'm talking about...... an amazing statement, in the context of your profession. As a musician myself I would stay far away from you too!

The engineer is always right? Nope! He is paid at worst, to do the job under instruction - at best he is paid to contribute ideas and suggestions, but the client is always right. When the client is a musician, of any calibre, they have a preset idea of what they wish to sound like, and even if you personally hate it, if they like it - it is their opinion that counts.


With the greatest of respect - Julian Bream's opinion and yours differ, so who's opinion is the critical one? Easy answer - his! If you can't listen to it, then don't. If he likes it, then his 'vision' has been achieved. Take the money, job done, and move on.

Liking something is nice when it happens, but it's not essential. I quite like Paul Winter's recording of saxophone, Cathedral organ and pipes - done, I think somewhere in New York. It's swampy, huge and really weird. The sax has no definition, the time delays on some ranks of pipes way out and it's a bit of a mess sonically, but it really works.

Musicians don't always get it right. Produce a first CD for a trumpet player and they will hate the sound because they've never heard themselves from the front. You can try to convince them, but if you can't, then it's their choice.

We provide a service. Our contracts set out our collaboration level. Do we get a producer's credit or just an engineering one? We do our best. It is not our job to do some things.

I recorded a series of piano CDs for a specialist area - they will be replayed in dance studios, that are very lively, so the CD is totally dry - a mix of ambient techniques but in a dead room. In context it works really well. On my monitors it sounds simply awful. Context is everything!

There are so many recordings done in the past, and movies for that matter that from our persecutive today are quite odd. I can well Imagine Julian Bream listening to that recording 20 years later and saying to himself "what in the hell was I thinking". Although it did capture a particular moment in time in the mind of a great artist, so it is what it is.

Art is very subjective and falls in and out of fashion...... even styles and interpretation of classical performances change, on a daily basis. What was cool then is not cool now and verse vicsa. Bream's playing was amazing on that CD, and I could well imagine him thinking to himself...... this church sounds fantastic to me...... I want to capture this sound and share it with the world...... only it never sounds on the recording like it sounds in your head unfortunately.

Perhaps you may or may not know this CD but, it was recorded on a very bright guitar in a very live lively church I believe the church was round.

These days the internet has made everyone into a professional, be it Protools, FCPX, etc. We can make a recording today in our living rooms that surpasses anything Segovia did in the 50's, and the bar is raised constantly.

The way I see it there is a fine line between the pro engineer, and a recording enthusiast who spends as much time on learning, and acquiring the best tools. A pro engineer is perhaps far more efficient with everyones time..... but it doesn't mean they can produce a better recording.

Hi Michael. It's been a while since we played with the mics at your place. I hope all is well with you. I'm not doing too much recording anymore, just a few orchestral recordings a year now. We haven't been getting to Santa Fe as much as we used to, but just today we got a letter from a friend who moved there from Tucson telling us we need to visit.

This thread has been really interesting. I'm learning a lot from it - but what I'm learning has less to do with recording the guitar than with the way people can form opinions based on a lack of data. As someone sagely commented, without the recording itself being in evidence, all we can do is speculate about why the placement was chosen and whether it was successful - however one would define "successful".

Ah.... sounds like a strange coincidence! Yes, if you find yourself in Santa Fe please drop by or we can do dinner.

The Sony you recommended severed me well for years, but I finally succumbed to my gear lust and moved up a little. In the last couple of days the old Schoeps bug has bitten me again.... I hate when that happens!

I have a guitarist from Mexico coming on the 27th to record a series of videos and a CD, and I have been thinking of ways to acquire a pair of Schoeps within the next couple of weeks for this recording. The problem is I've bought a 5D3, and a C100 this past year, and my wife will end up wanting an equal amount of money in the form of a shopping spree..... so I end up paying double in the end.

However, once I get a new pair of Schoeps in my mind it eventually becomes a reality I'm afraid.

...These days the internet has made everyone into a professional, be it Protools, FCPX, etc. ...

The internet must be different where you are.

Hi Michael. It's been a while since we played with the mics at your place. I hope all is well with you. I'm not doing too much recording anymore, just a few orchestral recordings a year now. We haven't been getting to Santa Fe as much as we used to, but just today we got a letter from a friend who moved there from Tucson telling us we need to visit.

This thread has been really interesting. I'm learning a lot from it - but what I'm learning has less to do with recording the guitar than with the way people can form opinions based on a lack of data. As someone sagely commented, without the recording itself being in evidence, all we can do is speculate about why the placement was chosen and whether it was successful - however one would define "successful".

The internet must be different where you are.

It is..... you should check it out sometime.

I liked the comment about listening back to old recordings. I re-discovered an old live jazz recording made in the 70s, that actually sold rather well and as I was on a percentage sales deal, it was quite lucrative. It's simply horrible when judged by today's standards.

I've had the experience of running an examination here in the UK where candidates needed a close miked recording and an ambient, direct to stereo one. The studio stuff was, on average, quite good (apart from drums - that seemed to defeat all bar the best students), while the bulk of the ambient recordings were truly dire. At the time, we had recruited some extra examiners from studios as the exam was quite new, and the studio guys had a great deal of trouble awarding any marks at all. One of the marking areas was stereo field - and in the after exam discussions it seemed that this was either mono, or mega-wide. Realism was a rare thing. Further investigation revealed the main problem was simply very unsuitable spaces - just not good sounding rooms, then poor mic placement. Very often they had tried to use 'clever' techniques and done them really badly, setting things by look rather than by sound. Decca Trees were often mentioned in the written logs, and it was very common to see them set up vertically rather than the middle mic closer to the players but at the same height. I think they figured it was 'tree' like in Christmas tree! You can see photos on the net that could be viewed this way, from the angle the pics are taken.

I suspect we've all 'cheated' at some time. I have a nice double condenser - where you can rotate the top capsule 90 degrees, and with cardioid -fig-8 - omni patterns available, it's a neat mic for all sorts of techniques, but sometimes I've also used close mics and carefully tweaked to make them sound distant and in a nice room. I still have a Yamaha DSP-1 which was a first attempt at room modelling, before their range of popular reverbs came out. It's permanently stuck on Munich Cathedral, but does that very well with 4 channel output from a stereo input - it's remarkably convincing.

Maybe we should just agree that achieving the right result is the only important factor - how we actually do it isn't really that important if it sounds good.

IMaybe we should just agree that achieving the right result is the only important factor - how we actually do it isn't really that important if it sounds good.

True words of wisdom.

A couple of years ago, my wife and I went to Thailand for a couple of months. We needed a house sitter while we were gone. My best friend helped us out. He is the only guitarist to have won both the "National fingerpicking competition" as a well as the most sought after honor in the classical guitar world the "GFA", in addition to that, he was hand picked by Segovia as one of the top 12 guitarists in the world.

He produces his own CD's. While we were gone he recorded a number of videos in my living room. Later he told me...... he really liked recording there in my living room.

Last year I recorded some videos for another guitarist in a nice church he secured for our project, after that he told me he preferred the sound of my living room over the church..... in fact a few other guitarist have told me the same thing.

I guess I lucked out on having a good sounding space. In video we have scopes to tell us when we have correct exposure RGB balance etc. In Audio it's far more subjective and abstract..... what sounds good to one guy won't sound good to another. There will always be the masses who like anything. and then there are those with a more critical ear.


Here is a video of one we did in a church "close miked" with a couple other mics further back in the hall.
Prelude - BWV 998 - from Prelude, Fugue and Allegro - Bach - Guitar - Chapdelaine - YouTube

Here he is in my living room recorded on a Sony D50.
Mallorca by Albeniz - Michael Chapdelaine - Nylon Solo Guitar - Classical - Video - YouTube

For me - the Bach only works because of the environment. If that was ultra close miked or recorded outside it would just not work as a musical piece at all, where as the other doesn't need the acoustic so badly.

For me - the Bach only works because of the environment. If that was ultra close miked or recorded outside it would just not work as a musical piece at all, where as the other doesn't need the acoustic so badly.

I agree! So you see why I prefer a studio or my living room for recording classical guitar. Just my 2cents for what it's worth.

I'll stick my head above the parapet. :-)

It think it boils down to it being a matter of preference. For me, there's too much mechanical noise in both recordings, particularly the second one. I suppose it is really about how much one considers the sound of fingers moving about to be part of the tone of the guitar. I wouldn't thank anyone for a recording of a bassoon or bass clarinet where the keywork could be heard moving, but those close enough to a performer (beside, behind, in front of) in an ensemble can hear all sorts of sounds from instruments – and their players – that are not normally audible to the audience or considered desirable to record. Breathing sounds from singers in opera/oratorio/lieder are generally not a feature of recordings any more than wind and brass players breathing or brass players putting mutes in or out or emptying water keys.

Having said all that, thanks for posting all the guitar pieces – I really enjoyed watching and listening to them, and some other recordings you have posted elsewhere. Your guitars are clearly superb instruments.

I liked the comment about listening back to old recordings. I re-discovered an old live jazz recording made in the 70s, that actually sold rather well and as I was on a percentage sales deal, it was quite lucrative. It's simply horrible when judged by today's standards.

There certainly are plenty of old recordings that, in their time were considered very good, that when listened to today are just horrible. But, there are still some very old recordings that were made in the 70's and 80's that in many ways are far superior to today's recordings.

In this thread I've read where guys think a big church or such is superior to a studio recording because of the natural reverb and the lack of post mixing. Really? Do you guys who record this way never add EQ, compression, tweak the reverb or, gain, you guys just hope and pray you put the mics in the right place for that church or space and don't do any post editing of the sound, and somehow come to the conclusion this is a better thing than a studio recording...... ha ha!

To bluntly answer this, yes. There are many recordings that were made that have absolutely no post production that are considered far superior to most recordings done in a studio. Sheffield Labs started to do Direct-to-Disc recordings back in 1976. Reference Recordings did a Direct-to-CD, A Gershwin Fantasia, which among recording engineers is considered one of the best musical reproductions ever created. (The direct to cd process takes the signal directly out of the mixers and creates the CD master, no post is involved.)

As for the recordings of Mr. Chapdelaine, first, truly critiquing the quality of audio recording over a YouTube video is like asking someone to critique the video quality from a YouTube sample. The level of compression is somewhat horrific and makes it nearly impossible to hear what was really captured. Also, most people would be listening over their computer speakers which would not give a good representation of the true recording. But, for me, it ultimately comes down to more than just how much detail is captured. My preference is that I hear what the artist is wanting to present, which includes very subtle subtext that can only be experience when the performance is taken into the context of their surroundings. A studio recording, no matter how much post is introduce, will always sound like a studio recording. Likewise, a recording done on location will always sound like one done on location, even if you close mic. Whether you will hear this is a matter of the listener and the level of equipment that it is being played back on. I do agree with Paul R Johnson that the Back requires the sound of the hall. The Albeniz I generally prefer it to be a little more open than what was captured but not as much as the Back. The sound for the Albeniz, however, is partly because of using the D50 to record it. I have that recorder and have used it for thousands of hours recordings but would never use it to do a serious capture of a musical performance where the music was the main focus.

Again, those are my opinions and what I prefer. To me, when capturing music the goal is to capture an experience that the musician wishes for their audience to have. If they feel that the best representation of their performance is to have it close mic'd in a studio and add tons of post processing then that is the right way to do it. If they feel that recording it from the 4th row of a huge hall and have massive amounts of reverb and echo will best represent what they want to present, well, then that is right for them. As the engineer you can elect to work with them or not. If you feel that it would be a detriment if you captured something the way that you didn't like, then don't work with them. You do have a responsibility, if you do choose to work with them, to help them understand that the end results may not be capturing what they want, but ultimately you are working for them.

But, consider this, very few engineers get hired because they will only mic one way, the way they think is best. Artists don't want to work with people like that. However, I know many artist who will only work with a handful of engineers because they are easy to work with and capture what the artist wants. That goes for if you are paid or not (hopefully though, you are being paid).

I'll stick my head above the parapet. :-)

It think it boils down to it being a matter of preference. For me, there's too much mechanical noise in both recordings, particularly the second one. I suppose it is really about how much one considers the sound of fingers moving about to be part of the tone of the guitar. I wouldn't thank anyone for a recording of a bassoon or bass clarinet where the keywork could be heard moving, but those close enough to a performer (beside, behind, in front of) in an ensemble can hear all sorts of sounds from instruments – and their players – that are not normally audible to the audience or considered desirable to record. Breathing sounds from singers in opera/oratorio/lieder are generally not a feature of recordings any more than wind and brass players breathing or brass players putting mutes in or out or emptying water keys.

Having said all that, thanks for posting all the guitar pieces – I really enjoyed watching and listening to them, and some other recordings you have posted elsewhere. Your guitars are clearly superb instruments.

Again I agree Colin, the first according is too hot, and Michael chooses to put the mics way too close for my taste. The second recording keep in mind was done on a Sony hand held PCM-D50..... and it really doesn't pick up any detail, it picks up the aftermath of the attack not the beauty. Both of these recordings were not done by me I just did the video..... although I did provide the Sony D-50 and gave the file to Michael to edit at home.

When I record I place the mics further away thus picking up less nail noise.

The Church was challenging because it was an old Spanish mission located in Cerrilios, New Mexico..... with ancient floorboards that creaked with every step...... I literally couldn't move!

Thanks Garrett, a lot to cover, but let me start by saying for me personally I don't care what recordings sound like on a pair of $20,000 monitors I only care what it sounds like on an iPhone with ear buds, or computer speakers, I know that sounds nuts but most people use these devices to listen to music these days. After recording one guitarist I sent him the video and he only listened to it on his iPhone.

It's actually weird to walk into someone home and see a good stereo system any more. I have built in Bose speakers in the ceiling and I can't remember the last time I turn them on maybe 5 years ago? Everything is on my computer speakers. I also watch all my videos on the computer as well so for my videos..... all I care about is what it looks like on YouTube.

Regarding un edited direct to disc recordings...... sounds like fun! However, I think this is the exception to the rule.

No I don't get paid anything for making these videos, unless you consider the money I make selling guitars, I'm basically promoting my products and the pay off has been incredible so I'm good with it.

It's actually weird to walk into someone home and see a good stereo system any more. I have built in Bose speakers in the ceiling and I can't remember the last time I turn them on maybe 5 years ago? Everything is on my computer speakers. I also watch all my videos on the computer as well so for my videos..... all I care about is what it looks like on YouTube.

Regarding un edited direct to disc recordings...... sounds like fun! However, I think this is the exception to the rule.

We all run in different circle. Yes, it is not the norm to walk into someone's house and find that they have completely arranged their living space around their audio equipment, but there are more than you would think. I used to be one of those people, until the boss (translation wife) refused to live with it. It was a tough decision but ultimately I think living with my wife was the right decision over my room filling speakers.

But, I still do know people who have their $100K+ systems and are willing to spend $30K on a turntable. Many of the ultra-high end audio-files I know are classical musicians. It is always interesting talking to them about what, in their mind makes a superb recording. They often talk about the interaction of the instruments with the environment and each other. I was talking to one violinist and I thought that she would like to have a mic close in on her so that we could hear the subtle details of her fingers and vibrations of the bow on the strings (I've always been a sucker for recordings with a lot of detail). After listening to it she said that it was all wrong. She said what we really needed was "to be able to hear the instrument sing". After some discussion and discovery it was the nuances of things like the texture the wood gave to the sound and the way the waves transformed slightly with interactions in the hall that she wanted. That is what she heard when sitting in the audience listening to a violin and that is what she wanted to capture. So it turns out that the best sound for her was about 1/4 way up in the concert hall with a stereo pair. Granted, this was a world class concert hall that was designed to make music sound great. But, in the end I have to admit it was a superior recording to close mic'ing. That would have been apparent on any device. So, again, there is no one best or even one better way of recording. All situations need to be evaluated on an individual basis.

As for direct to disc recording I've never done one but after speaking to some who have it is a maddening exercise in achieving the right balance. It takes a long time to get everything set up correctly and then its a nerve racking experience until you get to hear the results. Imagine you had one take to shoot a 25 minute scene. Then you had to wait a week or so to be able to watch it. Probably wouldn't get too much sleep for a week if you were the DP or Director. It also takes a lot of trust between the artist and the engineer. Fun, maybe.

Hello Jonathan. Kudos to you for asking questions! There is a lot of speculation here. To anyone accustomed to pop recording, the arrangement may look odd. For those in the classical world, it is much less shocking, even mundane (but the art is in the details...). I record big orchestras and solo artists, and I've had the privilege of working with performers and music directors in many spaces. There is no one-size-fits-all, but you must be sensitive to the artist, the instrument, the repertoire.

The church in your pictures is in St John Chrysostom Church in Newmarket, near Toronto, and is a favorite spot of the producer/recordist Norbert Kraft. Many guitarists work with him and the recordings are distributed by Naxos. Here is a recording in the same space:

Anabel Montesinos plays Dance of the Corregidor - YouTube

The mics in the video look like Neumann u87s or u89s, the same seen in almost all of his videos. The ones in your picture look different, but the balance won't be dramatically different when recording in the same space. It may be cleaner though, as u87s are colored off-axis.

Recording in a studio isn't morally wrong of course, but a super close, dry recording is unlikely to be what is expected. Instead, classical musicians and engineers often milk the room. Indeed, the musician will play differently depending on the room. That said, you will find many guitarists who are very happy with a sound closer to their instrument. After all, they are always a foot from their instrument, and that is the sound they are used to.

The Guitar of Rafael Aguirre (2012) on Vimeo