Best Type of Microphone for Recording the Classical Guitar
One of the most usual questions I get asked is which microphone is the best for capturing the classical guitar, but as with all deep questions in life, I'm afraid there is no simple answer. Our guitars, nails as well as playing techniques differ vastly. Besides, our rooms have unique properties, and of course, our tastes vary. Another decisive factor is our listening environments, but that's a subject for another day.
I've written on Classical Guitar Tones extensively about the different microphones, brands and models. If you have been here for a while, you've seen me test all sorts of microphones, entry-level to high-end. In this article, I take a step back and present my thoughts on the different types of microphones, their strengths and weaknesses. Plus some words on the different polar patterns.
On being passive
Ribbon microphones have a relatively simple design with no active circuitry and use a thin metal ribbon suspended in a magnetic field. Most ribbon designs hear sound bi-directionally and produce natural and complex recordings. They have the reputation of being fragile and need careful handling and storage.
Dynamic microphones are similar to ribbons as both capture sound by magnetic induction. In contrast, they are very robust, resistant to moisture, and have low sensitivity. In practice, they offer no real asset in classical guitar recordings as their advantages benefit mainly on-stage use and capturing of loud sources.
For the most part, I don't get along well with ribbon or dynamic microphones, mainly because of their sensitivity or lack of. I often play soft passages or employ silence in my music, and with passive microphones, one has to crank the gain on the preamps to get sufficient levels, resulting in unwanted noise. After all, the classical guitar is a soft and delicate instrument, and no matter which preamps you use, it is impossible to get noiseless classical guitar recordings with passive microphones.
Ribbon microphones are also quite forgiving to the various mechanical "non-musical" noises, such as nail and fretting sounds. And this is why some people love them, especially on harsher and louder instruments and a less subtle repertoire. But, I find the response of most but the finest ribbon microphones, principally with the thinnest ribbons (some Royer, AEA, and Samar makes come to mind), quite sluggish.
Phantom power required
Nowadays, there are a plethora of active ribbon microphones, purposed for capturing softer sources and being less dependent on the preamp choice. These tend to work better with classical guitar. Yet, even high-end active ribbon microphones are far from being noiseless. I understand that for some people noise is a nonissue, but for me, it is a distracting element. I like deep blacks and hate when the softer parts or rests are being washed away by preamp hiss.
Also, the figure-eight polar pattern found in most ribbons makes them less than ideal for many recording situations. They do work nicely as a side microphone in an M/S stereo array.
Capacitors move the (recording) world
Condenser microphones require a power source to function and generally produce a high-quality audio signal mainly due to the small mass of the capsule. They can capture on tape utmost detail, sometimes even too much of it, and are the most used transducers in recording sessions and concert halls.
Most of the classic designs have been either tube or transformer equipped condensers, but with the dominance of digital recording, transformerless solid-state condensers have increasingly gained popularity in classical recordings for their additional clarity and lower self-noise.
Size matters
Condenser microphones are categorized by the size of their diaphragm and come in two main types: small-diaphragm, like most Schoeps' and the Neumann KM184, and large-diaphragm, like the Neumann U87 and AKG C414.
So, which one is better for the classical guitar, you may ask? Not so fast. Again, the answer is not straightforward.
Let's talk first about their differences.
Small diaphragm condensers are usually more accurate, with a faster transient response and superior off-axis response. They are also smaller and lighter, so they are easier to carry, besides being visually unobtrusive. The latter is a decisive factor in why SDCs dominate the concert world.
Paying audiences generally don't enjoy seeing a stage the musicians surrounded by several dozens of microphones and bulky heavy-duty stands to support them. Neumann, Schoeps and DPA provide small-diaphragm condenser systems with every possible polar response and mounting option a classical sound engineer might on location.
Polar patterns say more than you think
The downsides of using SDC's on a classical guitar, especially at home, are only a few but nontrivial. Small-diaphragm condensers are tuned for specific roles. Directional microphones are either purposed for close spots on soloists, used in combination with a stereo array at some distance, or for the main pickup and thus are tuned to compensate for the high-end frequency loss that occurs. The result, when used inappropriately, is either a poor low-end response or hyperrealistic recordings with exaggerated high-end. In other words, they can easily sound thin and harsh.
On the other hand, SDCs with an omnidirectional response (the real microphones), especially those that have been tuned for the free field, offer an optimal response at both ends of the spectrum. Additionally, they provide greater flexibility in positioning owing to the absence of proximity side-effects but become a challenge to use in non-treated rooms that universally suffer from early reflections and standing waves.
Microphones with wide- or sub-cardioid polar characteristics come to close the gap, with a better low-end response than their cardioid cousins, some room rejection, and sometimes less pronounced high-end. Unfortunately, small-diaphragm cardioids with such polar patterns are rare, and except for the bargain Line Audio CM3 / CM4, they are always on the expensive side.
So, where does the good old large-diaphragm condenser fit?
Generally speaking, LDC's suffer from a pronounced proximity effect, transient smoothing and suboptimal off-axis colouration. In addition, they require sturdier stands, are more difficult to position due to their size and weight, and can be quite visually intrusive in videos.
All these intricacies cannot be good, right? Moreover, excellent sounding large-diaphragm condensers suitable for the classical guitar are quite rare and expensive, as most LDC's are targeted for vocal pickup.
Any advantages?
As I wrote above, noise on a recording can be distracting. The smaller the size of the capsule, the greater the self-noise of condensers. Tube and transformer-based microphones are also subject to higher noise levels. Therefore, transformerless large-diaphragm condensers have lower noise to signal ratios, with several Gefell, Austrian Audio, and Neumann models reaching nonexistent self-noise figures.
Likewise, many universal studio LDC's grant additional flexibility, as they bring multiple polar patterns, removing the need to own or carry multiple microphones or capsules on a session. With a modern microphone, like the excellent and most versatile Austrian Audio OC818, you can not only choose on the fly between any possible polar pattern, but you can also do it long after the recording has been completed.
Here is my recording of Debussy’s Prelude VIII. Recorded on location with a pair of Austrian Audio OC818s.
Let's proceed to checkout.
One can make a good recording with any decent microphone, some experimentation and post-production skills to boot. There are no excuses for bad recordings in 2022.
On a budget, neither ribbon nor large-diaphragm condenser microphones of decent quality can be found as cheaper offerings are made either for a vintage vibe or vocalists in mind. Line Audio's small-diaphragm condensers are the undenied kings of the entry-level recording setup.
When searching for a high-end classical guitar recording setup to capture a world-class guitarist with a magnificent guitar in an excellent sounding room, a pair of exceptional and well-positioned omnidirectional or somewhat directional condenser microphones is hard to beat. DPA, Gefell, Austrian Audio and several high-end Neumann condensers come to mind. In such a scenario, the size of the diaphragm is incidental. With less ideal conditions, even high-end SDC's on a solo classical guitar, be it directional or not, can expose flaws and produce unattractive recordings.
To conclude, in most situations I favour large-diaphragm condenser microphones for their inherent sound qualities and noiseless behaviour. First-class LDCs can produce a luxurious recording and provide a pleasant listening experience. I also like how they look on videos; unapologetic, proud and predominant, almost commanding. With that said, the realism that some of the best SDCs treat the listener when every element is exemplary can be breathtaking.
Perhaps it is more advantageous to bring together small- and large-diaphragm condensers in an elaborate three- or four-microphone array.
Soyuz 013 Series FET Review
An original handmade small-diaphragm condenser microphone in a see of clones
Soyuz 013 FET Stereo Pair
Soyuz is a relatively new company or alliance as the name (союз) suggests. Founded in 2013, they aspire to create "modern classics" by combining Western design with Russian manufacturing. In this time, they have released three distinct microphones, with an emphasis on bringing together Russian and German traditions into a unique amalgam.
They sent me a pair of their Series 013 small-diaphragm condensers with cardioid capsules to test them with my classical guitar.
From Russia with Love
The handcrafted hardwood box
When opening the cardboard box, I found a small envelope containing among warranty notices and stickers printed frequency plots for each capsule. But to my surprise, there is an even smaller envelope with three signed cards of the people (with pictures) who are responsible for the machining, assembly and quality control or my set. This extent of the attention to detail and that of the customer experience indicates how much love and thought they put into their products. I have to admit, it's been a long time since the last time I've been treated so nicely while opening a new product.
The 013 FET microphones themselves come in a high-quality and elegant wooden box, to keep the mics and accessories safe for storage and travelling for location recordings. It took me a minute to figure out how to open it, as the lid is held by a pair of powerful magnets on the inside. As a result, it takes some effort to open, but the benefit is that it is impossible to open accidentally.
The glossy cream finish matches nicely with the polished brass capsule
Evidence of their unique take on aesthetics is that not only the microphone preamps but also the mount clips and pads are all painted in a matching glossy cream finish, while the capsules feature a lacquered polished brass. The combination may be somewhat flashy, especially in the context a modern video production that requires making the microphones invisible, but I think that they look quite beautiful. There is an option for a black-matte finish for those who prefer something more indistinct.
Interchangeable capsules add to the value and versatility, and Soyuz provides Cardioid, Omni and Hyper-cardioid capsules for the Series 013 body. The three capsules have more or less similar frequency response, but I only had the chance to test the Cardioid capsules.
A Flattering Accuracy
Soyuz 013 Fet Cardioid Frequency Response
Although the 013 FET are handsome, the real test is how well they can capture my classical guitar. Looking at the frequency graphs, I expect relatively linear response, with subtly lean low-end and some colouration due to the transformers.
The 013 FET pair in AB Stereo
After positioning the microphones in a narrow AB setup and engaging +48v phantom power on my AEA TRP2, the first thing I noticed was how much output the microphones offer, making the choice of microphone preamps less trivial. The self-noise of the microphones at 16 dB (a-weighted) is relatively high for dynamic playing styles, but to their advantage, the high output will let them pair with any decent preamps nicely.
Listening to the recordings, the sound signature of the 013 FET is quite natural but with a thick and creamy tone. In comparison to linear microphones like Schoeps or DPA offerings that have a clean and detailed presentation, the Soyuz microphones add depth and weight to the recording but without losing definition or emphasising any specific frequency. The result is a flattering sound with a dose of healthy vintage nostalgia.
The diamond-shape logo might be a slight hint
Compared to the Neumann KM184s, which tend to be sharpish on-axis especially when positioned close to the source, the 013 FET present a gentle flavour with their non-strident character, thus a better choice for classical guitarists. Additionally, the tight cardioid polar pattern makes them ideal for use in the small-room reality of the home studio.
The top-end remains smooth and doesn't show any harshness at all, the mid-range is warm and detailed with a wonderful, almost 3D, quality. There is a good amount of proximity boost happening once the microphones get closer to the source, balancing the slight slope of the 013 in the low end, therefore the microphones need some care in positioning to achieve a perfect balance.
Against the Grain
In a market full of clones and vintage reproductions, Soyuz comes with an original design that perfectly blends the classic sound of the past with the needs of the modern producer. The 013 Series microphones offer a familiar tone, with the much-desired colour and character, and plenty of clarity. Lastly, the reasonable price for a quality handcrafted pair of microphones makes it easy to recommend for those who seek a pair of excellent small-cardioid microphones.
DPA 4011A vs Schoeps CMC6 MK22
Other than various Neumann microphones, the most used small-diaphragm condensers in classical concert halls and recordings are made by DPA and Schoeps. The philosophies behind their designs are quite distinctive, as are the usual descriptions of the family sound of each brand. Arguably though, they are more similar than different, as they both belong in the relatively uncoloured realm. But the big question remains; which microphone is better for recording the classical guitar.
To try and answer that question, for my needs and tastes, I had to get demo units of their cardioid microphones.
A Cardioid and an Open-Cardioid
The 4011A is a staple performer for many acoustic/classical instruments when a directional pick-up is required, Schoeps also offers a few different cardioid capsules with their Colette system suitable for a variety of uses. The MK22, which I chose for this shootout, is an open-cardioid. Schoeps describes its characteristics as a combination of the natural low-end of an Omni pattern with the benefit of cardioid directionality. In essence, it is a little wider than their standard cardioid capsule, MK4, and offers a marginally finer bass response.
Comparing the Polar Pattern plots of these microphones, I realised that the MK22 is closer to the characteristics of the 4011A than the MK4, making the decision easier, and this comparison quite logical.
DPA 4011A Frequency Response
DPA 4011A Polar Pattern
Schoeps CMC6 MK22 Frequency Response
Schoeps CMC6 MK22 Polar Pattern
It has nothing to do with sound
The DPA 3511A Stereo Kit
This might be a little unfair to Schoeps, but it's not my fault. DPA arranged for me to have for reviewing the 3511A Stereo Kit; a high-quality aluminium case which except for a matched pair of microphones, includes a lot of premium accessories, like their high-quality microphone mounting clips, shock mounts and a long stereo boom. All made with the highest standards and can be convenient in the field.
Schoeps CMC6 MK22 Set
From Schoeps, all I got was a pair of CMC6 bodies with the MK22 capsules. I know that ultimately the sound is what matters most, and I that can be evaluated without any extra accessories. But getting familiar with the DPA system, elevated my experience.
Another observation that doesn’t have to do with sound is that the NEXTEL finish of the CMC6 preamps and capsules is quite fragile, I thought I could scratch them, just by looking at them. In comparison, the 4011A have a more solid feel and seem more durable.
Setting up
As per my usual recording techniques for the microphone duels, I placed each pair at an AB configuration, with 36cm distance between them, 96cm from the ground and around 70cm from the top of my spruce guitar.
By listening to the samples, it is evident that both microphone pairs provide a solid performance. I would be totally satisfied with either, but there are some differences.
Unambiguous precision
The 4011As have a unique way to draw an utterly accurate and almost holographic image of the classical guitar, without any sign of harshness or hardness that is not a product of the performance. The sustaining notes, ring longer and the complex harmonies are captured clearer, like if they are taken apart.
Without sacrificing detail, the MK22 capsules portray an euphonic result. They are fast and analytic, but yet with a smooth and musical character; as if the performance is treated with a touch of kindness.
Au contraire, the DPA microphones will represent with unambiguous precision all the nuances and subtleties of a world-class instrumentalist and a high-grade luthier guitar; exposing likewise any flaws on a player's technique or the instrument. Their honesty can be brutal and overwhelming in some cases. If the source is good, they are going to reveal it; if not, forget about using them.
The Schoeps's offer a gentle depiction of the performance by applying a veil of wizardry and charming sweetness. However with the DPAs, it is like looking at the recording through a magnifying glass.
Noise concerns
My only gripe with the 4011A is the high self-noise. At 18dB-A the noise is not excessive and in most cases not even noticeable, but it can be bothersome for distant miking with softer instruments, or very dynamic musical styles.
The MK22 with 13dB-A of self-noise is almost as silent as my Neumann TLM 193 which have a remarkable 10dB-A of self-noise performance. In reality, most rooms are noisier than any of these mics.
Back to the original question
Honestly, I cannot say which microphone is better; probably neither is. The Schoeps have a sound, as the DPAs and ideally, I would love to own sets of both. In isolation, both pairs should sound stunning, if not, the problem is certainly not on the chosen pair of microphones.
When I'm not directly comparing and analysing them so closely, I believe that their differences are not as pronounced. Saying that, after hearing to my playing and guitar(s) with the 4011As (and 4006As which DPA also sent me), it is difficult to accept anything less realistic.
DPA 4011A vs Line Audio CM3
Line Audio is a relatively unknown Sweedish company, or rather a one-man shop, dedicated to manufacturing high-quality, unhyped microphones and linear pre-amplifiers. They have been in this business for more than 30 years, and by cutting the middle man, no advertising and minimizing cost on all the not essential elements, they offer their products at the most affordable prices.
DPA’s premium case.
DPA, on the other hand, is one of the leading names in the classical recording world. Many recording engineers, producers and musicians sing praises for their clarity and honest presentation. The microphones, as well as the accessories that accompany them, are as premium as it gets. But, performance comes at a cost.
In this duel, I wanted to see if the CM3 cardioid condenser stands any chance against the 4011A at a less than a tenth of its price. In other words, could someone with a limited budget still manage to get a decent recording?
Setting Up
I positioned the microphones at a small AB setup with 36cm between each microphone, at 96cm high and 55cm distance from the top of the guitar. At this distance, the microphones can capture the true sound of the guitar, and with their cardioid pattern, reject most of the room acoustics.
DPA 4011A Frequency Response and Polar Pattern
Line Audio CM3 Frequency Response and Polar Pattern
The details matter
Listening to the recordings, the DPA microphones have breathtaking clarity and detail at every frequency. They demonstrate a better resolution and capture a holographic image of the classical guitar, with more realism and depth. The 4011A are brutally honest microphones, but if you are recording a luthier grade guitar and a great guitar player in a beautiful sounding room, you want it all on tape.
The CM3s surprisingly (or not, if like me you have used them for a while) sound very close to the DPA. They are a little more plain sounding, with less resolution and depth, in comparison it feels feel like something is missing from the image. They are also less sensitive and can benefit a lot from a good preamp, but peculiarly they were only slightly noisier than the 4011A in these recordings.
Line Audio’s basic but very portable case.
A distinct approach
The Line Audio CM3s come at a very minimal package, shipped in a simple plastic box, with a basic plastic microphone holder and a decent windscreen. They are so inexpensive, so there is nothing to complain there really. They are also light and small enough, almost as small as an XLR adaptor, that I'm not hesitant to carry a pair even my jacket's pockets.
DPA sent me for test their premium stereo set, that comes with a luxury case and all the accessories you might ever need. The craftsmanship is impressive, everything feels finely processed with all the pieces machined out of solid aluminium. The full assembly looks stunning. Their stereo bar, while relatively expensive, is the best I've ever used.
DPA 4011A Stereo Set, all the accessories you’ll ever need.
Single 4011A or a more basic stereo set up is available, they come with only the essential accessories in a hardshell nylon case. This case is also of premium quality and judging by my experience with the d:vote 4099g (you can read my review here), I prefer this kind of case to wooden cases that come with most higher-priced microphones. As you cannot carry them easily for location recording because of weight and size. This is true especially for small-diaphragm condensers, which might see more commute than larger studio microphones.
For different use cases
In conclusion, the 4011A is the better microphone of the two in every aspect. Taking us a step closer to capturing the classical guitar in all it's nuance. Also, if you charge for your recording services, showing up with the DPA set will reassure your clients for the extent of quality you are committed to.
If you are on a limited budget, or just want to record yourself for non-commercial uses, the Line Audio microphones are the best-kept secret of the recording world. The CM3s can capture classical guitar with realism and honesty and are so inexpensive, you can buy a few.
In conclusion, the 4011A is the better microphone of the two in every aspect. The engineering and the accessories are unparalleled in quality, not to mention the sheer detail and sound quality that they capture. Taking us a step closer to capturing the classical guitar in all it's nuance. Also, if you charge for your recording services, showing up with the DPA set will reassure your clients for the extent of quality you are committed to.
But, if you are on a limited budget, or just want to record yourself for non-commercial uses, don't shy away from the Line Audio microphones, as in my experience it is hard to find any other small-diaphragm condenser microphone with such natural characteristics at this price range or even many times more expensive. The CM3s can capture classical guitar with realism and honesty and are so inexpensive, you can buy a few.
Austrian Audio OC 818 vs DPA 4011A Stereo Pairs
Austrian Audio OC818
DPA is a high-end microphone company and needs no introduction, they have been around for around 30 years (their capsule design begins somewhere around 1950 with their first measuring microphones) and their microphones have been used on countless recording sessions in the finest concert halls in the world. The 4011A is a small-diaphragm cardioid condenser, praised by engineers and musicians for its sheer accuracy and extremely low distortion.
DPA 4011A
Austrian Audio might be a new name, but the people behind it have a combined experience of over 350 years in audio engineering, or that's what their marketing team suggests. The OC818 is their first creation, a multipattern large-diaphragm condenser microphone built around a hand made ceramic capsule, made to the same critical dimensions as the classic CK12.
Apples and Oranges
Although this test might seem to compare apples and oranges, as one is a small-diaphragm condenser with a fixed cardioid polar pattern and the other is a multipattern large-diaphragm condenser, the objectives are quite clear.
Julian Bream and AKG C24
Slower transient details, colouration and the ability for a lower self-noise floor are well-documented attributes of a larger capsule, while greater linearity and accuracy are closely associated with a smaller one.
When recording a top grade, luthier classical guitar, we wish to immortalise every detail. And thus, for the last decades, the use of small-diaphragm condenser microphones have prevailed. Most of the iconic recordings that defined the sound of the classical guitar have been made with the large-diaphragm condenser and ribbon microphones though. Many of the Julian Bream recordings, for example, have been made with AKG's stereo C24.
Neutrality might not always be desirable.
DPA 4011A Frequency Response and Polar Pattern
Austrian Audio OC818 Cardioid Frequency Resposne and Polar Pattern
The act and art of recording allow for the development of personal aesthetic, as every choice would have an impact on how the recording will be interpreted and appreciated.
Following this path I want to investigate further if the colouration that is usually a characteristic of large-diaphragm condenser microphones, can sometimes be desirable when recording classical guitar.
And furthermore, try to answer the question if a single multi-pattern microphone, with all the versatility that it bears, could replace or subtitute for a collection of dedicated microphones in classical guitar recording.
Details
Stereo Sets
The recordings were done in AB stereo with a 32cm distance between each microphone, I placed each 4011A and OC818 microphones side by side, as I figured that this will bring the capsules closer together. The microphones were on axis with my guitar, at 88cm high and around 50-55cm from the spruce top. The recordings are dry with no EQ, reverb or other processing anywhere.
High-quality 320kbps mp3 streams:
If you’d like to listen to uncompressed wav files, just send me an email.
Click here for more comparisons and a full review of both the OC18 and a stereo pair of OC818.
Disclaimer: Austrian Audio and DPA sent me the microphones for reviewing without any precondition or obligation to write positively about them. This is an honest presentation, driven by a genuine interest and desire to create a classical guitar microphone database.