-
I need to buy an acoustic guitar to do some recording. How much should I spend? I found a cheap used Ibanez ($75, probably was $150 new). If I put new strings on that, will that be good enough? More generally, is there anything to keep in mind when buying an acoustic for the studio?
-
04-12-2014 01:34 PM
-
You must recording at home!...No way would you take $75 guitar into a studio. Would you?......
-
I've got to say, from personal experience ... if a 70 year old gentleman with semi-famous Blues credentials walks into a studio with an old beat-up pawnshop acoustic, worn out finish, old stickers on it, Sharpy scribbles and a rope for a strap, everyone there says. "Ooh, how authentic. He must have had that guitar when he was homeless and ridden the rails with it. What history it must have!"
Originally Posted by larry graves
If a middle-class Hipster/ suburban/ young-to-middle-aged aspiring musician shows up with the same guitar, the engineer is likely to say, "Here, use this Pre-war Martin/ high-end Taylor/ Collings ... we just put new strings on it."
-
I've only owned a few acoustic guitars. I play mostly nylon. I had a nice Guild a zillion years ago, but it was on the dark deep side. I loved how it sounded compared to other acoustics, but I have no idea whether it would be suitable for recording. I had a Martin also. But I didn't think it sounded that great. With the exception of that Guild, most acoustics sound similar to me. Playability is a whole different matter. I'm only interested in sound. Any $ saved I can spend on other goodies, like a bass!
So what is the cheapest acoustic you would take in the studio for simple parts? Mostly strumming.Last edited by jster; 04-12-2014 at 02:29 PM.
-
If its a flattop sound needed, a seagull.
-
Most decent studios have a "house" acoustic, usually a very high quality guitar, that they are used to mic'ing with two or three good instrument mics. When I've recorded acoustic parts, even bringing a very nice guitar with me, most engineers have pushed me to use their pet instrument, and they were usually right ... always well set-up and sounded great recorded. You might call the studio and ask if they have a house instrument. Then, you can still pick up a used one and practice/ gig on it. Generally, engineers don't want to mic cheap guitars unless they just utterly don't care about your recording (or unless your an ancient Blues master). Originally Posted by jster
-
Does it reallllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly matter? I'm more into gear at this moment than ever before. And I've been reading lots of shit by engineers. Blind microphone comparison tests. Etc. Etc. And you know what? They often can't tell different gear apart. They say they prefer the older 414s. But then somebody moves the mic a bit and they can no longer tell which is the old one and which is the new one.
Yes, that studio acoustic will sound "better". How much better is really the question? 100% better? I seriously doubt it. 50%? 10%? Probably more like 5%. So one instrument in a mix of 10 is going to sound 5% better. Woopdy doodie.
I'm not talking about playing the thing night and day. I'm not talking about making a landmark recording. Of course you want a great axe. I just find it hard to believe that if Bill Frisell used a cheap acoustic on a Nashville Vol. 2 everybody would know immediately. Remember, you are going to EQ and reverb and mix the damned thing too.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.Last edited by jster; 04-12-2014 at 03:09 PM.
-
Also, don't get me wrong. I have no problem spending money for GREAT SHIT. I got a RME Fireface UCX here that is so amazing it's sick. Can you say 1ms latency? I'm going to pull the trigger on an AKG 414 any moment now. But I can't buy everything top shelf.
-
I prefer cheap flattops for recording. I usually don't want a deep mid-scooped sound for the acoustic parts, but something with a lot more midrange. I also prefer smaller, 12-fret guitars. Look into Recording Kings. I have a Larrivee Parlor guitar which is what I use for a flattop sound. I also have a Tacoma Papoose which really does great things when mixed right.
Gypsy guitars, OTOH, tend to be a whole different beast. You pretty much get what you pay for with those buggers. Kinda like acoustic archtops
-
I'll just let you know that if the engineer thinks it sounds better, then he/ she will put more effort into producing a quality recording for you. If you get all up in an experienced engineer's face with your attitude, he'll just go through the motions (presuming he needs the work) and you'll end up with a lackluster recording. It's human nature. Good luck with your project. Originally Posted by jster
Last edited by SuperFour00; 04-12-2014 at 03:22 PM.
-
Perhaps I should clarify. I am the engineer. At least for the acoustic guitar recording. And somedays I do just go through the motions. Hehe. Originally Posted by SuperFour00
-
There are tons of very nice, very cheap acoustics out there. I can't speak to the Ibanez cited by the OP, but I've played a friend's sub-$200 Ibanez that stacks up embarrassingly well against my vintage Gibbie. Also, truth be told, acoustic guitars with big, rich tones can be very difficult to record, and/or don't sit well in mixes with other instruments unless radically eq'd. Cheap guitars often work better and/or have a character that fits a recording better than something like a really nice D-28 or J-200.
Last edited by John A.; 04-13-2014 at 10:24 AM.
-
So you buy a $1500 audio interface and a $900 mic to record a $75 guitar? No offence, but it sounds like you're not experienced about priorities with recording and gear. Maybe you've been getting some bad advice somewhere. It might be time to regroup. Please don't take this as an attack, you may know exactly what you're doing. Originally Posted by jster
-
Hehe. The mic is mostly to record vocals. And most guitars are electric direct into the super super low latency interface and then onto Logic's amp modelers. I thought I wouldn't like digital amp modelers. I figured I would either hate the digital tone or there would be too much latency to use them in real time. But since the UCX arrived a couple of days ago, I've become a convert. Cheap Tele + RME + Logic gets me great jazz tone, great Santana tone, etc. The acoustic guitar parts are a small part of the puzzle. Believe me, I'll spend more than $75 on the singers. Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
-
Any gear is good enough if does not break when you need it working. Your artistic sensibility will adjust and it will be You in the end. However, if you have clear and strong idea about the outcome, you have to be carefull abot your choices. So, you can buy any guitar and find the way for it to be usefull, or you can decide about the sound you're after and buy THE guitar. BTW, I believe in cheap stuff.
-
The single most important factor in re. to the sound quality of an acoustic guitar, all things being equal, is the solid top btw. You get way more instrument per dollar up to that solid-top price point. Beyond that it's more nuanced if you spend more.
Btw, Flat top Acoustic guitars are a beast to eq if you're not a pro, but even pros like to just stick a more balanced instrument in front of the mic. When I got my Larrivee, suddenly all my vocals and everything eq'd better. Any cheap, flat top, acoustic is going to be a dreadnought and they're impossible to Eq if you don't really know what you're doing.
Anything slightly smaller than a dreadnought would be better for recording. Can you not just borrow a Taylor or larivee? Ownership doesn't sound like a real priority.
Honestly, the best way to know if something's going to work is to just do a simple side by side comparison. Take two or three guitars you think might work and play the same thing on them exactly. Really doesn't matter if it's Freebird or whatever.
Any non musician will be able to hear quality difference in different quality or body style instruments.
That's the way I was taught to sell nicer guitars to people who don't know anything about music but just want something cheap.
It's amazing what even non musicians can hear really well in a side by side AB. Of course, in your situation, its not going to just be your ear but your ear hearing the recorded sound of a couple of instruments. Go ahead and rough mix some demo vocals as well. You'll be surprised at the difference in different instruments. You may not really be able to decide between two but, then, one makes the vocals just pop and immediately sound better.
Again, if I wasn't serious about playing acoustic in the future, I would borrow something nice for a day if it saved me hours of headache in mixing and recording.
If you have to buy something, consider buying used. a $150 guitar that was $300 new may be 3 or 4 times better an instrument when compared to a brand new $150 crap guitar. Its a sliding scale. Every dollar spent at the cheaper end of the spectrum can make a big difference.
Use your ears.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 04-13-2014 at 07:38 AM.
-
Definitely seems like you're forgetting a $150 guitar might also play, intonate, and stay in tune like a $150 guitar.
-
I'm not following you guys when you talk about smaller guitars. What is that about? How many options are there? UPDATE: OK, maybe I follow. Another option is just to buy something that holds its resale value and sell it after the recording is done. Can I get something small with a solid top for less than $1000? Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
Last edited by jster; 07-26-2014 at 10:04 PM.
-
I half believe in cheap stuff. My philosophy is either cheap or expensive. The stuff in the middle is usually to be avoided. I apply that to almost everything: gear, wine, vacations, cars, clothing... Originally Posted by Vladan
-
Is this Taylor any good? Maybe too big?
Taylor 110-E (recent) Sapele & Spruce & Expression system, case, Ec | eBay
Last edited by jster; 04-13-2014 at 09:08 AM.
-
I see lots of solid top guitars for about $150! How is that possible? Sorry, I really don't know woods and woodworking.
-
IGo to a store and put 3 beside each other. Let you're ears tell you. Don't rule out used.
The difference between $500 and $700 for an acoustic may be subtle if your not an acoustic player.
But my dog can here the difference between $100 and $300.
Your ears won't lead you astray.
A B several in a store, and play exactly the same thing on all.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 04-13-2014 at 01:00 PM.
-
Everything's really changed in the last 20 years or so with computer technology in manufacturing. The lower end stuff nowadays is just a ton better than it was. These $100 guitars are probably equivalent to ones that were about $300 when I was coming up. Back then, playing a dissonant jazz chord, or even just playing up the neck on an acoustic guitar costing less than about $800 was musical torture. Originally Posted by jster
Right now, I've got a pawnshop-purchased Walmart guitar that I paid about 30 bucks for in a closet at a lesson site (for emergencies) that has pretty good intonation up the neck. Nowadays the problems are more about the tone, glue work, finish details, and the way the thing looks than just horrible intonation. Once you get above a certain price point things haven't changed as much because they're still made by hand like before, but it seems like the cheaper stuff is getting better all the time.
That being said, you still can have problems finding an inexpensive acoustic instrument that's acceptable for recording. Almost everything under about $300 is the Dreadnought body size: not really balanced and pretty difficult to mix. They're basically really good for a boom Chicka sound for bluegrass if that's what you're going for. If you want to just strum rock or folk style or play jazz you're going to have problems getting a balanced sound that doesn't completely trash your vocal mix. .
The Pro recording guys like Taylor and other non dreadnought body styles because they're more balanced. And that's with them really knowing how to EQ things just right. From my limited, novice experience with my own home recording, dreadnoughts seem to have an uncanny way of killing the overall mix, especially vocals. When I got my Larivee, I was immediately "better at mixing". :-)
As for smaller bodied instruments that are less expensive, I liked Fender's Tim Armstrong Hellcat that we used to carry in the store where I was teaching at the time. It's pretty cheap but it's an acoustic electric, and you pay a little extra for that. But at that price point and body style, there aren't many options that don't have the acoustic-electric setup. The lower end market is almost 100% dreadnoughts.
That's as of about 2 years ago when I was constantly looking for smaller bodied instruments to recommend for students. The hell cat is the one that I just know of off the top of my head. I kept thinking that if I could find something comparable without the electronics and extra inlays, that surely it would be cheaper. But there wasn't anything out there that wasn't more expensive. However, I was only looking in the brands that we carried. Seems like they were all acoustic electric and around $300 if you found a smaller body size.
Just ask at the store what they have in the way of folk size or smaller bodied guitars, and let your ears decide. Also, buying used will get you almost twice as much guitar for your dollar at these lower price point.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 04-13-2014 at 09:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos