How to record an acoustic guitar with only one microphone
Do you need multiple microphones to record an acoustic guitar properly? No.
All you need is one microphone, provided it is the correct type and pointed at the correct part of the guitar.
Anyone who records acoustic guitars knows that using an acoustic-electric is a bad idea (you might want to read that before reading the rest of this so you know what guitar you should use). The proper way to get a good acoustic sound is by using a microphone.
Avoid the beginner's mistake
Most who have never recorded an acoustic guitar before with a microphone will assume that you're supposed to point the mic at the guitar's sound hole.
Wrong.
The sound you will record from pointing a mic there will be awful for three reasons.
First, the plucking or picking noise will be too loud. With finger plucking, the rubbing noise from the fingers on the strings will be heard loudly whether steel or nylon strings are used, and with picking the pick strike noise will be heard loudly.
Second, because the picking hand travels over the sound hole while strumming, what the mic will pick up from that will be an "in-and-out" sound from the guitar.
Third, little of the acoustic body's resonance will be picked up by the mic because it will be overpowered by the sound from the sound hole.
Put the mic on a stand and point it at the 12th fret
Pointing the microphone at the 12th fret is an ideal position for recording an acoustic guitar with a single microphone. Plucking/picking noise is drastically reduced, the in-and-out sound is avoided, and capturing the natural body resonance (as in what your ears hear) of the guitar is dramatically increased.
What microphone should you use?
You can't just use any microphone but rather one that can stay "focused" where you point it so it picks up more of the guitar instead of the room it's in.
There are two generally available microphones that really work well for recording acoustic guitars. I will list the cheaper one first then the more expensive model.
Most people know AKG to have really expensive microphones, but this one is surprisingly lower in price. Don't let the price fool you because it really works nicely. People rave about how good this mic is.
The microphone is cheap enough to where if you wanted to get a really nice stereo recording of your acoustic guitar (one mic pointed at 12th fret and the other pointed at you from the side towards the rear strap button), getting a pair of Perception 170 mics would definitely be the way to go about it.
This is not a cheap microphone but at the same time not ridiculously expensive either.
The big deal about this mic is seen in the photo of it above, a 3-position low frequency response switch.
Some acoustic guitars get "boomy" with their bass response when recording. If that happens, a quick turn of the switch on the SM81 cures that pretty much instantly, as the switch acts just like a bass roll-off. This is very convenient when recording an acoustic guitar, and I can honestly say that it does justify the SM81's price tag.
Which microphone should you choose?
Both mics are great. The deciding factor on which to get depends on how boomy your acoustic guitar is.
Chances are if you have an acoustic guitar with a very big, bold sound, you're very aware of that. If that's the case, get the SM81. Otherwise get the AKG.
An acoustic electric guitar is a bad idea
You may be tempted to buy one of these. You shouldn't...
...unless it's cheap, and I'll explain why.
It used to be that an electrified acoustic was an expensive thing. There was a point when it cost well over a thousand dollars to buy an acoustic electric. But now? Cheap.
An example of this is the Yamaha APX600. To get a thin-bodied (for better comfort) acoustic that looks great, plays great, has a preamp with 3-band EQ, master volume, has AMF (adjustable midrange) slider and built-in tuner used to be something guitarists only dreamed about owning. Today, you can get this and it's ridiculously affordable.
Here is the best selling point of the APX600: It is the ultimate acoustic electric stage guitar. And I'm not saying that lightly.
This is the guitar that players wanted for a very long time. It addresses every single feature request ever made. It's thin yet projects well, has a preamp system that runs on AA batteries (2 of them) instead of that stupid 9-volt, has the midrange slider on top of the 3-band EQ which was already good on its own, is lightweight, and has a slightly shorter 25.0" scale instead of the 25.5" for easier play.
And of course the price is low. It's cheap but good.
Everything has been attended to with this guitar, so what more could you want, right?
Well, this is where reality sets in and why this acoustic-electric along with ALL acoustic-electrics are generally a bad idea.
There is no way to make a piezo pickup sound good at home
How the electric part works in an acoustic-electric is by means of a piezoelectric pickup. The pickup is fed to a preamplifier in the body, that sound is shaped by whatever EQ settings you use on the preamp, then the sound is sent to the output jack.
Never in all the years that acoustic-electric guitars have been made has anyone been able to build one where the electric tone sounds like a proper acoustic guitar. What you get every time is a sound best described as "plastic". The tone has absolutely nothing to it that sounds like an acoustic is supposed to sound like.
In fact, if you stuck a piezoelectric pickup on a solid-body electric, such as "ghost saddles" for Stratocaster or Telecaster that effectively turns one into acousti-phonic guitar; the sound will be nearly identical to an acoustic-electric.
This is why I say that if you're going to buy an acoustic-electric, go cheap and stay there. Throwing more money at one of these will not, repeat, will not make its electric part sound better. Not happening.
The best environment for the acoustic-electric is on stage
Makers of acoustic-electric guitars outright say that the guitar is made for stage use first, and this also true for the Yamaha offering above.
When that piezo is fed to a PA system, then it starts sounding right. On stage is where the acoustic-electric makes perfect sense. Whether it's a small club or a large stage environment, if on the stage and going through the PA, that is what the guitar is made for.
A traditional acoustic guitar recorded with a microphone is always better for home recording
An example of a traditional acoustic guitar that really sings is the Takamine GD20.
This is also an inexpensive acoustic, but it has a trick up its sleeve that is very easy to miss but absolutely necessary.
The bridge is split in two pieces. There is a reason for that. The bridge design splits the resting position of the plain B and high-E strings from the wound E, A, D and G (remember, on an acoustic guitar, the G is a wound string).
That seemingly insignificant bridge setup is actually very significant, because for acoustics with non-adjustable bridges (which most are), that's the only way to have the guitar properly intonated.
In other words, when chording, all chords will be in tune whereas with a traditional single-piece bridge they will not. It is the B string in particular that "goes out" often on single-piece bridges. Not so with the GD20. Where the string rests on the saddle is backed off just enough to where that B rings the correct note anywhere on the fingerboard.
You take a GD20, stick a mic in front of that, and oh yes, that is the recorded acoustic sound you're looking for.
I will have another article soon after this one on how to get a great acoustic recording with just one mic. Watch for it. [Edit] Article is now live. Go read it now.
Heavy guitars are terrible
I'm not talking about tone, I'm talking about weight.
Take the Schecter C-1 FR-S. This is a fine guitar...
...but the damned thing weighs over 8 pounds from what I could find out about the instrument. And this is why I would never buy it.
For what it's built for, the C-1 FR-S probably plays and sounds amazing. But I could never be comfortable playing one standing or seated. It's just not happening.
Anyone who says weight = better tone is an idiot
There are some guitarists - mostly Les Paul Players - who say that it is the weight of the guitar which brings the sinfully sweet "sustain for days" notes.
No. Wrong. It doesn't. Not back in the day, not now, not ever.
I use Les Paul guitar fans as the people who use the weight argument the most because it is they by default who own the heaviest guitars. While certainly true that not all Les Pauls are heavy, the poor souls that buy the Traditional model have to deal with a guitar that typically weighs over 9.5 pounds. And the Standard? The 2019 model is "only" about 8 to 8.5lbs.
All I have to say to the Les Paul guys is this: Go play an ES-335. It's typically under 8 pounds. You will love it. Noodle a little bit on one of those and you will never use that stupid heavy-guitar argument ever again. If you're willing to pay over 3 grand for a Les Paul, then you're willing to pay over 3 grand for an ES-335.
Like carpal tunnel? Use thick strings
It's usually also true that those who "prefer" heavy guitars "prefer" thick strings too. That's a one-way ticket to hand damage. As in permanent hand damage. As in damage that the body cannot heal. Ever.
Fender sends most of their electric guitars from the factory with a .009 to .042 string set installed. Gibson sends their electric guitars with .010 to .046 sets. There's a reason for that. It's because those set sizes are appropriate.
The only time I can see heavier strings being appropriate on electrics is in two situations. Either for someone that plays tuned down to D standard or lower, or someone that plays jazz. And the jazz player isn't playing a Strat or a Les Paul, mind you. He's playing a semi-hollow or hollow body, which the Strat and Les Paul aren't.
If it's heavy, it goes back
There have been more than a few times when I've gone to the guitar store, see a guitar I like on the wall, pick it up and then immediately put it right back because it was too heavy. I can tell almost instantly if a guitar is too heavy just from picking it up by its neck before even sitting down with it.
If the guitar fails the weight test, one word enters my mind: NOPE.
On a final note, one of the heaviest electric guitars I've ever picked up is one that will probably surprise you. It was a Squier Classic Vibe '50s Telecaster. As I've come to know, that guitar is typically 9 pounds, which for a Telecaster is nuts. Most Teles are usually a little over 7.5lbs, and that includes both Fender and Squier. But for whatever reason, the pine body used on the CV '50s is Les Paul "boat anchor" heavy. Whatever pine is being used for that specific guitar is some seriously dense stuff. Good guitar? Yes, great guitar, in fact. But it's a boat anchor. If you happen to own one that's not 9 pounds, you're one of the lucky ones that didn't get a back-breaker guitar.
The least expensive workstation synthesizer with pattern sequencer
I now have a pattern sequencer. One I can work with, that is.
New in the barn is a used Casio CTK-7200. It does have a pattern sequencer, and at the time I write this I am learning how to use it. It's very cool that this synth has a pattern sequencer, a song sequencer and an arpeggiator. And it also has a full sound set that includes both modern, classic and vintage sounds.
Learning The Casio Way
No two synth brands do things the same way. There's "The Roland Way", "The Korg Way", "The Yamaha Way", and so on.
For me, I'm learning "The Casio Way".
Getting to know a pattern sequencer doesn't happen overnight. It takes time. There are always tons of menus to go through, tons of things to experiment with, and many hours spent flipping through the manual just to figure out what does what.
Is it worth spending the time to do this? Yes. Once I learn how the Casio does things, backing track and song creation goes forward quickly after that.
Is the Casio CTK-7200 or WK-7600 the cheapest way to get a "true" workstation synth?
To be best of my knowledge it is.
In my research, I found Casio was the only one that offers a true workstation synth with full-size set of keys, full sound set, arpeggiator, pattern sequencer and song sequencer for under $500 at the time I write this. And being I bought mine used, I got it for cheap. And by cheap I mean under $300. That's pretty much as good as it gets.
To put this in perspective, after this specific Casio the price jumps up big time. Arguably, the next step up is the Korg KROSS. After that, you're into big money with the Roland FA-06 and Yamaha MOXF8, which by the way are considered "midgrade". Top end models will cost you over 5 grand. When you see the prices of those workstations, the Casio CTK-7200 and WK-7600 are absolute bargains in comparison.
I mention the WK-7600 because it's functionally identical to the CTK-7200. The difference is that the 7600 has 76 keys and the 7200 has 61 keys.
Oh, and one last thing. The CTK-7200 and WK-7600 do not require a computer whatsoever to use any of its features. Everything can be used standalone, and that is what I wanted. I don't even need to plug in speakers since it already has them. There is no danger of anything becoming suddenly incompatible from software revisions, and that is something I very much appreciate.
Watch perfection for skinny wrists, Casio AQ230
It's hip to be square.
This is not my first time owning a small watch, but is the first time owning one I truly like, the Casio AQ230.
Let's get a few measurements out of the way first.
My wrist at the thickest point is measures about 6.75" around. However, my preference is to wear a watch at my wrist's thinnest point, which measures about 6.5", or 165mm.
The AQ230's measurements are 38.8mm lug-to-lug, 29.8mm case size, 8.1mm thick. Very small...
...but wow, does this thing fit my wrist nicely, and does so without looking like a toy.
How to set the time on the AQ230
Said up front, this watch is not easy to set. There are two buttons on left and one on the right.
The right side button is shrouded on purpose so it does not get pressed accidentally, and its sole purpose is to set the analog clock. It can be used in any mode.
This right button is the only way to set the hands as there is no crown. When pressed momentarily, the minute hand moves 20 seconds clockwise. When the button is held down, the hands advance at a higher speed. However, the annoying part is that if you accidentally go ahead of the time you're trying to set, you have to hold down that button and wait until the hands spin all the way around again. Why? Because the button only moves the hands clockwise and not in the reverse direction.
The way I set the analog part of the watch is like this:
- Set the digital clock first.
- Hold the right side button until it's 1 minute behind the digital clock.
- Wait for the digital clock to reach the next minute.
- Once the :00 arrives, I then have 20 seconds to synchronize the analog part. I match the minute to the digital clock, and the digital and analog clocks are now synchronized.
This sounds complicated, but it's not. Not to me, anyway.
Setting the digital time:
- Press the bottom left until the time is displayed without the "DL" in the lower left corner (which is Dual Time mode and not main timekeeping).
- Press and hold bottom left until the seconds start flashing.
- Press top left to zero the seconds.
- Press bottom left to move to hour.
- Press top left to set the hour.
- Press bottom left to move to minutes.
- Press top left to set minutes.
- Press bottom left to move to 12/24 hour choice.
- Press top left to choose 12 or 24-hour time.
- Press bottom left to exit.
Unique quirks of this AQ230
The AQ230 is the only Casio watch I've ever owned that allows you to have the main timekeeping as 12-hour time and the Dual Time mode as 24-hour or vice versa. It is ordinarily the case where when you choose 12 or 24-hour, that applies to every time display on the watch. Not on the AQ230. You can have both.
Pressing and holding the top left button on any mode tests the alarm tone.
A very old school feature: When setting the alarm and go to set the minutes, it's set by using the first half of the minutes, then the second. This means if you were to set the alarm for 3:27, you set the hour as usual, then set the 2 by choosing 0 through 5, then the 7 by choosing 0 through 9.
The stopwatch does not have a lap time feature, not that I would ever use it.
The stopwatch is also operated entirely using one button. Bottom left button starts or stops the stopwatch. A long press on the bottom left resets it to zero.
Dual Time is labeled as "DL" on the display and not "DT". Why? I have absolutely no idea.
This watch has the ability to show 3 different times. Analog time, main timekeeping digital, and dual time digital. And yes, they can all be separate times from each other.
Display modes
The bottom digital panel can be switched from time to dual time, date, alarm or stopwatch.
Old school styling that is awesome
The AQ230 is very similar to now-vintage Casio models released in the early 1980s, which is part of the reason I wanted it, and it does not disappoint.
Styling of this timepiece totally says "I'm from the late '70s/early '80s", especially when you get one like I did with sticks on the dial and not numbers.
It's really easy to miss that the AQ230 has an octagon shape, even if the corners are very slight.
The lack of a seconds hand actually makes the AQ230 look much more expensive than it is. If you know luxury timepieces at all, many of them don't have a seconds hand at all as part of that "beauty through minimalism" look.
The 12-hour marker is in fact a raised shiny stick that does reflect light.
The octagon corners do shimmer with light when the sun hits them.
The lugs do in fact have drilled holes on the outside that makes it very easy to take off the bracelet. I like the bracelet as-is so I won't be doing that, but it's nice they're there.
I really, really like this watch
A timepiece like this is a godsend for small-wristed folk like myself.
Easy to set? No. But really comfortable, surprisingly easy to read and looks upscale.
I really dig it. Absolutely a keeper.