K. Margaritis 12/16/24 K. Margaritis 12/16/24

5+1 Music Gear Myths You’ve Probably Fallen For

Since the early days of the internet, forum participants have given birth to certain ideas that have been passed down through generations like mantras. Nobody really knows the origin of these gear myths, but they continue to echo—unchanged or slightly adapted—through today’s social media platforms, studios, and stages.

I won’t deny that I believed some of these myths myself, especially when I was starting out. But even now, I find it both entertaining and baffling that these myths seem unstoppable, self-regenerating like a modern-day Lernaean Hydra.

Disclaimer: This post isn’t meant as a rant against internet enthusiast communities—far from it. I’m genuinely glad they exist, as they’ve made sharing knowledge and experiences easier than ever. The issue, however, is that many people pass on "wisdom" they’ve never personally tested.

So, my advice? Curate where you search for guidance. Focus on the basics, avoid falling for the hype, and don’t beat yourself up if you don’t own the latest or most talked-about gear. Instead, make the most of what you already have—it’s likely more than enough to create something great.

With that in mind, let’s dive into a few persistent myths that often pop up in music recording enthusiast circles.

1. Gear Can Be TOO Perfect

I’ve come across arguments claiming that certain guitars, microphones, preamps, converters, digital recordings, WAV files—essentially anything—can be "too perfect", lacking mojo or character. Honestly, this doesn’t make any sense to me.

Sure, some gear inherently adds color or character that might be appealing for specific applications. But the notion that "perfection" is undesirable in general is nonsense.

In fact, starting with a clean, noiseless source gives you the flexibility to shape the sound however you like. You can always add color and character during production, but it’s nearly impossible to remove unwanted color or distortion from a recording that’s already too characterful.

Of course, maybe some of us do need characterful gear to add some life to our 100th soulless take. If the problem isn’t the gear but the player, a bit of extra mojo might be the only thing keeping the session alive.

2. Vintage Gear is ALWAYS Better

There’s a certain mystique to vintage gear, especially the equipment used in historic recordings that has been elevated to legendary status. And let’s be honest - nothing boosts your studio cred like claiming, ‘This was the mic of choice for Francisco Tárrega!’, right? But since most of us can’t get our hands on these rarities, it’s easy to assume today’s gear just doesn’t measure up.

The truth is, old equipment often came with quirks and flaws. Some of it was discontinued for a reason—whether it was temperamental reliability, noise issues, or just plain bad design. Producers back then weren’t looking for "mojo" as much as they were praying their tape machine didn’t eat the master take.

Sure, vintage Fenders, tape machines, and Hauser guitars have their charm, but the gear you buy today solves many of the headaches they lived with. And let’s not forget, the shiny new gear you’re dismissing now might be someone’s prized "vintage treasure" in 20 years. So treat it well—future collectors might thank you!

3. Your Gear SUCKS

Spend a few minutes on any internet forum, and you’ll quickly be convinced that your gear isn’t just "not enough"—it’s the root of all your problems. Even world-class Neumann microphones or RME converters can be dismissed as cheap and harsh, right alongside questionable knock-offs. The only exceptions? Esoteric gear no one’s heard of yet or some Frankenstein contraption built in a genius's basement. What chance does your gear have when you ask for advice in these spaces?

Here’s the harsh reality: if you can’t make a decent recording with the equipment that’s readily available today, the issue probably isn’t the gear. Unless you’re trying something wildly unsuitable—like recording your classical guitar with a Shure SM58—the problem lies elsewhere. Your gear doesn’t suck, and new gear won’t magically solve all your problems.

4. You Need MORE (Usually Expensive) Outboard Gear

It’s not just new microphones that supposedly hold the key to success. Spend enough time online, and you’ll start believing that your recordings will only have the depth and quality you’re chasing if you invest in tube preamps, compressors, or other outboard gear.

I get it—audio quality has fascinated me for over two decades. Back when I didn’t even own a decent pair of condenser microphones, I was convinced I "needed" tube preamps, rack EQs, and reverb processors to sound professional. Over time, I got them all—and guess what? My recordings still sucked. The worst part? I couldn’t even tell why they sucked or admit that they did. Turns out, shiny toys don’t mix the track for you—who knew?

The one piece of gear that made a drastic difference wasn’t some flashy tube preamp but a pair of (cheap) studio monitors—and lots of listening. After that, it was improving room acoustics and, most importantly, learning to trust my ears—a skill no piece of gear can replace.

Now, I can confidently say: a good guitar, a pair of decent microphones, a modern audio interface, and something reliable to monitor through are more than enough to hone your skills and produce recordings that won’t make you cringe.

5. Cables Don’t Make a Difference / Cables Make a HUGE Difference

Of all the internet wars, the one over the impact of cables in music production might just be the silliest. So, what’s the truth? Do cables make a difference? The answer is yes—but with some important caveats.

Between cheap, poor-quality cables and reasonably priced, good-quality cables, there’s a clear difference—not just in sound but in reliability and durability. However, when comparing good-quality cables to ultra-expensive boutique ones, the answer is far murkier. Are we talking instrument cables, microphone cables, or interconnects? Depending on the use, the difference can range from slightly noticeable to impossible to hear—or no difference at all.

But here’s the real question: does it matter? If you haven’t nailed every other aspect of your setup—recording technique, instrument quality, room acoustics, microphones, listening environment, and only then preamps and converters—it makes zero sense to splurge on expensive cables.

For my part, I use high-quality Vovox and Sommer cables, mostly because I don’t want to think about cables at all.

And let’s not even get started on the audiophile crowd, where power cables cost as much as world-class instruments. At that point, the myth stops being silly and becomes full-on absurd.

At the end of the day, cables are just one piece of the puzzle. Good cables matter, but they’re not the magic ingredient to better sound. Focus on the things that do.

Bonus - A Steel String Acoustic is not different than a Classical Guitar

This one definitely hits a nerve. In fact, it’s one of the main reasons I started my recording journey. I’ve been to multiple sessions where the engineer confidently placed a KM184 at the twelfth fret and assured me it was "standard practice". Sure, it might be for a steel-string acoustic—but for a classical guitar? Not so much.

And it’s not just in studios. A simple search into any thread on recording forums about capturing classical guitar, and you’ll inevitably find people discussing techniques and microphones designed for acoustic guitars, not classical ones. Worse, they’ll often post "examples" of their approach—only to showcase a heavily processed recording of a western steel-string acoustic instead of an actual classical guitar.

Equating the two instruments is like saying a sports car and an off-road truck are the same because they both have four wheels. Sure, they share some common features, but their design, purpose, and handling are entirely different.

Conclusion

Some ideas and concepts circulating in internet communities have taken on a form of "common knowledge" that nobody really questions. While these myths can vary from group to group, the pattern remains the same: untested "wisdom" passed down like gospel.

The reality? Most of the time, it’s not about having the perfect gear but knowing how to use what you already have. Skills, experience, and good judgment will always trump hype.

Think professionals are immune to myths? Not quite. In Part II, I’ll dive into gear myths that even seasoned pros aren’t safe from. Stay tuned!

K. Margaritis 6/8/24 K. Margaritis 6/8/24

5+1 Gear Pitfalls to Avoid as a New Music Producer, Part II

Welcome back to the second part of our series on common pitfalls to avoid as a new music producer. If you missed the first part, you can check it out here. In this installment, we'll dive into more practical tips and essential advice to help you improve your recording and mixing processes, avoid common mistakes, and stay motivated in your music production journey.

Quality monitors are essential for making informed mixing decisions and improving your overall sound.

1. Don't mix with crappy speakers

The most important element of the recording chain is not your audio interface or microphone, but your ears. Using laptop speakers or consumer-grade headphones for mixing can be compared to driving with a dirty windshield or foggy mirrors. Decent monitors will not only allow you to make much better decisions regarding all aspects of the production, but using your studio monitors for regular casual listening will also sculpt your perception of what is considered good sound, exposing you to more nuanced audio. This practice will help you learn your monitors quicker and enhance your overall mixing skills.

When I first got into recording, more than twenty years ago, I bought a pair of 8" Behringer studio monitors which died rather quickly and then I moved to a pair of 6" Tannoys that I used for quite some time, an M-Audio interface and a Shure SM58 (because everyone was using those) and soon after an Oktava MK 012 as I realised that the dynamic mic would not cut it for classical guitar. In retrospect, all those were terrible choices for various reasons. The Behringer monitors, with all their faults, played a vital role in my infant days of recording. The alternatives I had at that time were 4.1 Creative computer speakers and a Pioneer Hi-Fi, both subpar of course.

Professional results come from careful recording, not just fixing things in the mix.

2. Abolish the "fix it in the mix" mindset

Use your resources and time to make all the right decisions to capture the best possible recording before you are ready to record your first take. Don't skimp on the details and hope that everything will work out in the end, or that you will be able to "fix it in the mix." Everything you didn't pay much attention to will show in your recording, and the chances are that you won't be able to fix it. Strive to get the best sound from the start to save time and achieve higher quality results.

3. Don't waste your time on editing; plan on being competent

Editing a mistake out of an otherwise beautiful take, or enhancing your recording by editing in one stunning note from another take, can add to your recording and is perfectly fine. However, creating what I call a Frankenstein-take by combining a bunch of takes might allow you to have a result without mistakes, but it will lack cohesiveness and overall direction. Recording phrase by phrase, similar to pop or rock production, will take all the life out of your recordings, even if you compile the most perfectly played song. This is classical guitar; be deliberate with your choices and execution. Document it to the best of your ability, and if you're still not happy, practice some more and redo the recording. Don't waste your time on excessive editing.

4. Don't neglect your room acoustics

Until you make meaningful changes to your room, your recordings won't get much better regardless of how much money you spend on gear. You don't need a professionally designed studio, but addressing basic issues with reflections using absorbers, diffusers, and bass traps in key places can drastically improve your recordings. Also, declutter the space; if you have too much stuff around, the sound in your room will never be great. A visually aesthetic room will also be more inviting, perhaps aiding in your inspiration.

5 - Take critique with a grain of salt

Listen to those with more experience than you, seek advice, and learn from the mistakes of others. However, if you have a strong feeling towards a particular idea, don't hesitate to see it through. The worst thing that could happen is you make a subpar recording. On the other hand, if your idea pans out, you'll feel like a genius, even if just for a couple of seconds.

Stay grounded in your passion and don't let the lack of immediate recognition deter you.

Bonus - Don't be discouraged if your music doesn't get the attention it deserves.

Even if your recordings are Grammy-worthy, the world won't necessarily notice them. Expecting your music to be received with grace can kill your appetite to get back in the studio the next time if it doesn't happen. Focus on the journey, the love of playing the guitar, and recording your music to save yourself from getting depressed. If you do get a Grammy (don't forget to thank me in your speech for all the invaluable things I share on the blog), that's a bonus, but it's not the primary purpose.

This is still hard for me, and I suspect it always will be to some extent. I try to remind myself that the joy of creating and sharing my music is what truly matters. I try to do my best, and when everything is done, it is out of my hands.

Conclusion

Remember, the journey of music production is about constant learning and growth. Embrace the process, stay motivated, and keep creating. Every recording session is an opportunity to learn and improve. Good luck, and enjoy the ride!

What do you think about the points I'm making? Do you have any experiences or tips you'd like to share? Leave a comment below and let's discuss! And don't forget to check out Part I for more insights into avoiding common gear-related pitfalls.

K. Margaritis 5/24/24 K. Margaritis 5/24/24

5+1 Gear Pitfalls to Avoid as a New Music Producer

Embarking on the journey of music production can be both exhilarating and daunting. With so much equipment, advice, marketing campaigns, and internet forums, it's easy to feel overwhelmed. These sources often make it seem like your recordings are worthless unless you're using the highest-end gear possible. These are mistakes we all make when we start (at least some of them), but it's not difficult to avoid them if you approach things with the right mindset. Here are some key points to help you navigate your early days as a music producer.

Stay tuned for Part II, where I'll cover practical tips on room acoustics, maintaining motivation, and more.

Navigating the complex world of music production starts with a clear path and the right mindset.

1. Don't invest in expensive gear right away

There are many budget options that will get you started with recording and help you gain valuable experience. As you progress, you'll start to realize what works for you and what doesn't, allowing you to solidify your preferences. Jumping into high-end gear too soon can turn into a very costly adventure.

2. Don't sidegrade

Unless you're exploring different possibilities with polar patterns and microphone techniques, or the gear you have is completely wrong for the sound you're after, avoid sidegrading. It's wiser to wait until you can upgrade to higher-end gear that will produce better recordings and serve you for many years.

When I first got started, I bought a budget 2-mic input interface. Later, I "upgraded" to several other interfaces with similar characteristics, each promising a more pristine sound. Maybe on paper they were better, but in real life, I wasn’t getting any better results. My microphone and production technique, as well as my room acoustics, were not up to par. It was a costly lesson that taught me the importance of improving my skills and setup environment rather than constantly sidegrading gear.

When you know what you need, buy the best equipment you can afford and stick with it for a long time.

3. Don't overcomplicate things

A cluttered setup can hinder creativity and productivity. Keep it simple and focus on the essentials.

A simple pair of cardioid microphones into a decent audio interface will allow you to apply the basic microphone techniques. Starting with a straightforward setup helps you focus on mastering the fundamentals of recording and mixing, without getting bogged down by technical complexities. As you gain confidence and experience in your production skills, you can gradually explore more elaborate setups, as adding more equipment and experimenting with advanced techniques will make more sense once you have a solid understanding of the basics and a clear vision of the sound you want to achieve.

4. Don't postpone your recording sessions until you can afford the next gadget

This is a never-ending process. There will always be a new piece of gear or software that seems essential, but waiting for the perfect setup can hinder your progress and creativity. Cover the basics (mics, audio interface, cables/stands, monitors/headphones) and start making music today! The experience you gain from actual recording sessions is invaluable and will teach you more about your needs and preferences than any amount of research or waiting. Plus, working within limitations often fosters creativity, pushing you to find innovative solutions and develop a unique sound.

5. Don't fall for the hype trap

Avoid getting caught up in the hype. The newest gear isn't always necessary for producing great music.

The gear market is constantly evolving, with new products being released all the time. It's easy to get caught up in the hype of the latest equipment, as well as the allure of vintage gear that promises a unique sound. However, the newest gear isn't always necessary for producing great music, and while vintage gear can have its charm, it is not essential.

When I first started, after getting my first decent pair of microphones, I fell into the hype of tube preamps. I bought a budget preamp, but as you might guess, budget and quality in tube preamps don’t go hand in hand. The results were subpar. I sold it and searched for a better-specced one, which was quite expensive. Still, I was not happy with the results. I found the coloration almost unnoticeable at low levels and completely undesirable at high levels for my taste and uses. There was also more apparent noise at any level than even my onboard interface preamps. Eventually, I learned that I could achieve the results I was after with solid-state preamps, but it was a costly lesson.

Focus on learning and maximizing the potential of the gear you already have before considering an upgrade. Remember, great music comes from skill and creativity, not just from high-end or vintage equipment.

Bonus - Don't get a loan to finance an expensive gear purchase

Taking out a loan to finance expensive gear might seem like a way to get ahead, but it's a terrible idea. You risk ending up in debt without any guarantee of earning more from your music. It won't really matter if your first recordings are done with Neumann microphones and Grace preamps. There are budget alternatives that can give excellent results for the price and allow you to put your music out there without the financial strain. Focus on building your skills and portfolio first; the high-end gear can come later when it's truly needed and affordable.

Conclusion

Remember, while good equipment can enhance your recordings, the true essence of music production lies in creativity and skill. Starting out with the right mindset and a focus on essentials will help you build a strong foundation. What you have is probably enough. Focus on developing your abilities and understanding your tools. Build your way up, making each step count.

What do you think about the points I'm making? Do you have any experiences or tips you'd like to share? Leave a comment below and let's discuss! And don't forget to check out Part II for more practical tips on room acoustics, staying motivated, and more.

K. Margaritis 5/26/23 K. Margaritis 5/26/23

A Comprehensive Guide to Gain Staging, Recording, Mixing, and Mastering Levels for Classical Guitarists, Part II

Part II - Mixing & Mastering Levels

Embarking on the musical voyage of recording classical guitar involves numerous steps, each with its own significance. We've previously explored gain staging and setting recording levels - fundamental processes that lay the groundwork for a pristine, high-quality recording. Our focus now turns to two intricate yet essential aspects: setting the mixing and mastering levels correctly.

The mixing phase is where we ensure each microphone used in capturing the performance is balanced and clear, contributing to a rich and harmonious soundstage. Following this, we dive into mastering - the final step that optimizes the recording's levels and tonal balance for various playback systems and streaming platforms.

In Part II of this series, we'll delve deep into the processes of mixing and mastering levels, providing insights to help you polish your classical guitar recordings to their fullest potential.

Mixing Levels

In the mixing stage, we blend and balance the individual elements of our recording. This stage is critical in ensuring the complete richness of the guitar is captured, with no aspect dominating the others. This balancing act becomes especially crucial when recording classical guitar, where we often employ multiple microphones to capture a comprehensive sonic image of the instrument.

Balancing the Multiple Microphones

During my recording sessions, I often employ multiple microphones, each positioned at different locations to capture a broad spectrum of the guitar's tonality. Each microphone contributes a unique facet to the overall sound, and blending these distinctive 'voices' is key to creating a robust and rich recording.

When using the AB Stereo technique, I often process both microphones together, maintaining the natural balance they create. However, it's not uncommon that I might apply additional EQ or other treatments to each microphone separately, if there is a problem that stands out.

M/S Stereo with Neumann TLM 193 & 170, each microphone gets different treatment

For more complex microphone arrays, I apply thorough care to each microphone, treating each channel individually. This might involve applying EQ adjustments or other processing to each track separately, to ensure they blend harmoniously together. For a classical guitar, I aim for a mix level of around -18 dBFS, with peaks no higher than -6 dBFS.

It's crucial to monitor each channel's levels, ensuring that none are too loud or overdriven. This helps prevent potential distortion and maintains the integrity of the recording, leading to a balanced and natural-sounding result.

Using Reference Tracks to Maintain Perspective

Working extensively on my mixes sometimes makes me overly familiar with the material, leading to a potential loss of objectivity. To counter this, I utilize reference tracks. These are, essentially, sonic benchmarks that guide me in crafting the depth, presence, and dynamic contrast of my guitar recordings. My advice is to make a list of your favourite-sounding classical guitar recordings and occasionally compare them to your mix.

While the aim is not to mimic these references, juxtaposing my mix with these standards helps regain perspective and fosters fresh insights. This practice ensures that my recordings can confidently stand alongside commercially produced tracks, adding an invaluable layer of quality control to the mixing process.

Preserving the Dynamics: Taming Peaks Without Sacrificing Expressiveness

Classical guitar draws much of its expressive power from subtle variations in loudness and intensity. To honour this characteristic, I strive to preserve the instrument's natural dynamic range as much as possible in my mixes, generally avoiding the use of compression, which can flatten these dynamics and yield an unnatural sound.

In some cases, however, a track may have rogue peaks that cause distortion. To prevent this, I turn to a limiter, specifically the FabFilter Pro-L2. This limiter tactfully reins in these peaks, maintaining the overall dynamic shape of the performance without introducing the potential adverse effects of compression.

High-quality studio monitors for accurate listening

There are exceptions, of course. If I'm faced with a subpar recording that needs salvaging, or if the classical guitar is part of an ensemble mix, I might cautiously introduce compression to help the guitar find its place among the other instruments. But for solo classical guitar recordings, my preference is always to allow the instrument's natural dynamics breath. The true beauty of the classical guitar, after all, resides in its subtleties and nuances.

Mastering Levels: The Final Adjustments to Your Classical Guitar Recording

Mastering is the last but certainly not the least important stage in music production. It's in this phase that we delicately adjust the overall levels and tonal balance of the mix, making sure it's polished and cohesive for listeners. In classical guitar recordings, mastering's primary goals are to ensure that the recording sounds its best across various playback systems and to prepare it for distribution on streaming platforms. While mastering doesn't drastically transform the recording, it refines it, solidifying its sonic integrity and ensuring it's ready for the world to hear.

Deciphering LUFS for Consistent Perceived Loudness

A significant aspect of mastering is understanding and correctly using LUFS, or Loudness Units relative to Full Scale. Unlike Peak or RMS levels, which measure the absolute values of audio signals, LUFS take into account the human perception of loudness. In other words, they measure loudness as our ears perceive it.

This is based on the fact that human hearing is frequency-dependent. We are more sensitive to some frequencies compared to others, especially in the mid-range. LUFS measurements integrate these psychoacoustic principles, providing a more accurate measure of perceived loudness. This ensures recorded music retains its intended impact, regardless of the playback scenario, providing consistency across different platforms and distribution methods.

***Youlean Loudness Meter is an essential tool***

A reliable loudness meter is a vital tool for effective mastering. My choice is the Youlean Loudness Meter, a free tool that's become an invaluable asset in my mastering toolkit as it provides accurate LUFS measurements, peak levels, and true peak readings, all crucial for mastering.

The Youlean Loudness Meter also gives us the ability to monitor the loudness over time, providing a clear, visual representation of the dynamic range throughout our recording. This information is crucial when making adjustments during mastering.

Aiming for Optimal Loudness

Mastering is not about winning a loudness war. Instead, it's about achieving a comfortable and consistent listening level that provides an enjoyable experience across various listening scenarios. I typically aim for a loudness level of -14 LUFS. In addition, I ensure that my recordings remain below -1dB True Peak. This practice avoids potential clipping and distortion, preserving the natural dynamics and integrity of the recording.

Striking the Right Tone, One Level at a Time

The journey towards a professional-sounding classical guitar recording is a meticulous one. It calls for a keen eye (and ear) at every stage of the process, from capturing a clean signal, through balancing your recording and mixing levels, to the final act of polishing your track through mastering.

But it not just about mastering the technicalities. It's a delicate dance between the science of sound and the artistry of music. We're not simply chasing perfect readings on a meter. Our true pursuit is to transpose the nuances, emotions, and soul of the performance into a recording that touches the heart of the listener.

K. Margaritis 5/19/23 K. Margaritis 5/19/23

A Comprehensive Guide to Gain Staging, Recording, Mixing, and Mastering Levels for Classical Guitarists

Part I - Gain Staging & Recording Recording

As we, classical guitarists, have ventured into the world of recording, we've faced the intriguing challenge of capturing our instrument's perfect sound. After meticulously learning about different microphones, mastering the art of microphone arrays, and optimizing our room for the ideal recording tone, we often feel ready to immortalize our masterpiece. Yet, beneath this readiness lies a vast universe of elements that we need to fine-tune to achieve an optimal recording. Among these, understanding gain staging, recording levels, mixing, and mastering levels is crucial.

While there's a plethora of information available on the internet, it can often feel like trying to find our way through an intricate maze, riddled with confusing technical jargon and conflicting advice. In light of this, I've decided to consolidate my personal insights, specific tips, and favorite tools into this comprehensive guide. My aim is to shed some light on these crucial aspects and assist you in capturing and polishing your classical guitar recordings to perfection.

dB Trivia

But first, we have to familiarize ourselves with decibels or dB. These logarithmic units are used to measure the intensity of audio signals. The world of digital audio can be treacherous if you're not careful - one misstep could lead to clipping or distortion, which occurs when the audio signal exceeds 0 dBFS (decibels relative to full scale). Attention to detail is pivotal.

Recording Levels & Gain Staging: Laying the Foundation for a Great Recording

The journey to a great recording begins with understanding gain staging. Gain staging is a process that ensures a clean, distortion-free recording while leaving enough breathing room for further processing during post-production. This involves setting optimal levels of audio signals at each stage of your recording chain. In the context of home studios, this often involves just your instrument, an audio interface, and perhaps some ITB (In The Box) processing.

However, even in this simplified chain, ensuring good gain staging remains crucial. This starts with the sound of your instrument in the room. You'll need to ensure your guitar's sound is clear, resonant, and free from any unwanted noise or interference. Careful placement of the microphones is also key.

Each microphone and each placement will give a different color and character to your recording. When setting up my microphones, I experiment with different placements and distances. Finding the sweet spot is an art - it should capture the guitar's natural tone while minimizing room noise. Adjusting the distance and angle of your microphones can help control not only the tone but also the levels: too close and the sound might be overly loud or boomy; too far and the signal could be weak, leading to a noise-prone recording when amplified. Have a look at my Stereo Microphone Techniques for the Classical Guitar guide..

The next step in the chain is the audio interface. This is where the acoustic energy, the sound waves your guitar produces and your microphones capture, are converted into digital signals your computer can understand.

Your audio interface typically has preamps which amplify the microphone's signal to a level suitable for the Analog to Digital Converter (ADC). The gain knob on your interface controls this amplification. It's crucial to find the right balance here: a signal that's too weak may introduce noise when you try to increase the volume later, while a signal that's too strong risks clipping, distorting your guitar's natural sound.

Once gain staging is properly set, the next crucial part of the process is managing your recording levels. Recording levels refer to the strength or amplitude of the audio signals being recorded in your DAW. In other words, it’s about how loud the recorded audio will be.

For classical guitar, I aim for an average level (or RMS level) around -18 dBFS to -12 dBFS, with peaks not exceeding -6 dBFS. This ensures a healthy signal level without risking distortion or clipping. These values might not mean much if you're just starting out, but understanding them and using a metering tool to monitor your levels will make a big difference in the quality of your recordings.

For those of you who, like me, prefer to use an external preamp along with a separate ADC, the gain staging process involves an additional step but the principle remains the same. Using an external preamp like the AEA TRP2 or SPL Crescendo duo, allows for even more control over the tonal characteristics and the level of the signal coming from your microphones.

Once the signal is conditioned by the preamp, it then goes into a separate ADC, such as the RME ADI-2 Pro FS in my case, which converts the analog signal into digital. Adjusting the input level on the ADC is equally crucial as on the audio interface's preamp for those who use an integrated solution. The goal is the same - ensuring a healthy signal level without risking distortion or clipping, which for me is around -18 dBFS to -12 dBFS RMS, with peaks not exceeding -6 dBFS.

This might seem like an extra layer of complexity, but in my experience, the flexibility and control provided by separate high-quality preamps and ADCs can lead to even better results, and it's worth considering if you're serious about recording.

To sum up, good gain staging for a classical guitar recording involves capturing a clean signal from your guitar, through the air, into your microphones, then into your audio interface, and finally into your DAW. Each step requires careful attention, but with practice and patience, the results can be immensely rewarding.

Additional Tips for Optimal Gain Staging:

I mainly use Vovox Sonorous and Sommer Epilogue cables for a peace of mind

Starting with a Clean Signal: The quest for the perfect recording begins long before hitting the record button. I ensure that my guitar is properly set up and my strings are in good condition to minimize extraneous noise and to allow for effecient dynamics.
High-Quality Cables: Cables can often be overlooked, but they are a critical part of the signal chain. Investing in high-quality cables can prevent unwanted noise and interference in the signal.
Room Acoustics: The room's acoustics can impact the recording significantly. A quiet and sonically balanced room can help ensure a clean, high-quality recording.
Monitoring the Signal Chain: Vigilance is key throughout the recording process. By continuously monitoring the levels throughout my recording chain, I can prevent unexpected overloads or distortions and ensure the best quality recording.

Using Metering Tools for Precision

For those of us who want to be precise with our levels, I highly recommend using metering tools. One of my favorite tools is the Youlean Loudness Meter. This handy software allows me to monitor not only the loudness of my recording but also the dynamic range. The free version is good enough for most cases, and you can support the developers by purchasing the pro version which provides some additional features.

Maintaining Dynamic Control

Classical guitar's essence lies in its subtleties and nuances. Dynamics - the interplay between the quietest and loudest notes, crescendos, decrescendos - bring the music to life, allowing your listeners to connect more deeply.

When setting my recording levels, I always leave ample headroom for these dynamics, striking a balance so that the louder sections don't cause distortion or clipping and the quieter parts remain clear and noise-free. Remember, amplifying a quiet, clean recording is always preferable to fixing a loud, distorted one.

Additionally, transient details - quick, high-energy moments - require careful attention to avoid distortion or getting lost in the mix. Proper recording levels ensure these moments are accurately captured, adding to the richness of the final recording.

Striking the Right Tone

In conclusion, understanding and managing recording levels, along with proper gain staging, can make a significant difference in capturing a perfect performance. It can be the difference between a recording that sounds amateur and one that stands up to professional scrutiny. With careful attention to detail, patience, and practice, you'll be on your way to making recordings that you can be proud of.

Stay tuned for Part II of this series, where we'll dive deeper into the realm of audio recording as we explore the importance of levels in the post-production stages - mixing and mastering. This is where your carefully recorded tracks are polished into a cohesive, balanced, and compelling final product. Until then, happy recording!

K. Margaritis 3/28/23 K. Margaritis 3/28/23

Crafting Your Sound: Shaping Classical Guitar Recordings with EQ

Part I - High-pass, Low-Pass Filtering and Shelving EQ

Many guitarists - and I plead guilty - spend a lot of money on new equipment to improve the sound of their recordings. I'm not suggesting that decent equipment isn't helpful, but the truth is that it's certainly easier to buy new stuff than to learn how to make the most of what you already have. In this article, I'm going to focus on a cheaper and more effective way to improve the sound of your classical guitar recordings: EQ.

Equalization is a powerful tool that allows you to boost or cut specific frequencies in your recording, which can drastically change its overall tone and character. Mastering EQ can help you create recordings that bring out the unique qualities of your guitar and playing technique. Instead of constantly buying new equipment, invest in experiences that enrich your musical journey, such as attending concerts or workshops.

Disclaimer: No two Classical Guitars are the same

One of the beautiful things about classical guitars is that each instrument has a unique voice. No two classical guitars are the same, therefore it's essential to choose an instrument that complements your playing style and taste. Besides, different genres require distinct guitars to sound authentic. Take the time to experiment with a diverse range of guitars and find the one that feels and sounds right for you, as, without doubt, it will have the most significant impact on the final result of your recordings - after the guitarist. Likewise, every recording space is unique. Your room will impose its character on the recording, so before even pressing the record button, make sure that your guitar sounds the way you want in your room.

Disclaimer: No one-size-fits-all

While it's helpful to learn from other guitarists and recordings, it's unlikely that you'll get the same results by blindly copying EQ settings or microphone techniques. Instead, it's crucial to develop the ability to identify what EQ is doing to the sound and use that knowledge to shape the recording to your liking. This means listening closely, experimenting, and learning to trust your ears. As you become more familiar with how different frequencies interact, you'll be better equipped to make informed EQ decisions that complement your music.

Also, take a look at the Best Studio Monitors for Classical Guitar guide, as they are essential to make reliable decisions regarding EQ.

Everything should work in tandem

Having a clear artistic vision is essential when using EQ. For example, if you're aiming for an intimate sound, you'll want to choose a microphone placement and EQ settings that complement each other to create a warm and cosy tone. In this case, you may want to experiment with mic placement options that bring the microphones closer to the guitar and EQ settings that emphasize the low-mid and mid-range frequencies. Microphone choice is also critical, as overly analytical microphones or ones designed for free-field use would capture too much detail.

On the other hand, if you're going for a concert hall experience, you'll want to experiment with microphone placement and EQ that gives the audience perspective and create a sense of space and depth. In this instance, you may want to use a pair of microphones further away or employ multiple microphones to capture different aspects of the guitar's response. Then, use complimentary EQ to shape the sound as though your guitar was captured in a larger space.

To get some inspiration take a look at the Three-Microphone Setup for Recording the Classical Guitar.

Using High- and Low-Pass Filters

High-pass and low-pass filters should be the first things you apply, even before you make any other decision on how you want to EQ your recording. Ideally, if your preamp or microphone has a high-pass filter, you should engage it. A gentle roll-off of low and high frequencies will remove unwanted sounds and give you a cleaner recording. Additionally, you will be able to make more informed EQ decisions. In some occasions, no further equalisation is necessary to achieve a well-balanced recording.

For classical guitar, I always start with a mild high-pass filter at about 60Hz (-6dB/Oct) and a low-pass filter at about 18KHz (-6dB/Oct), and then I work from that. You may need to apply sharper high-pass filter settings if your room isn't as quiet and noises such as street rumble creep into your recording. You could either adjust your settings to a higher frequency, use a -12dB/Oct slope, or try both). Similarly, to eliminate some of the finger-moving sounds or chair squeaks, you might need to set a lower low-pass frequency and a sharper slope.

Make sure to find a balance between removing unwanted frequencies and preserving the natural character of the recording. Overuse of these filters can lead to an unnatural, thin sound.

Shelving EQ

Shelving EQ allows us to adjust the amplitude of all frequencies above or below a certain point and is another extremely effective tool in our EQ toolkit. It can be useful for creating a more balanced sound or giving a subtle shape to the recording.

For example, if you find that the low end of your recording is overpowering, you can use a low-shelf filter to reduce the amplitude of all frequencies below a certain cutoff point (usually around 200-250Hz) a couple of dB. Thus, effectively reducing low-end boominess. Conversely, if your recording sounds somewhat thin, a low-shelf filter boost of a couple of dB at around 125Hz should rectify that.

Furthermore, if your recording sounds too bright or harsh, you can cut frequencies above about 3.5 kHz by a few dB with a high-shelf filter. Or boost all frequencies above 8-10Khz if the recording lucks brilliance and air. Be especially careful when boosting high frequencies, because they can expose the poor sound of your room or your playing.

Tip - And while most guitarists don't really like boosing the high-end as this might emphasize mechanical sounds, I find that a subtle boost of frequencies above 2,5KHz in combination with a bit more potent cut of frequencies below 250Hz, under the right circumstances, result in a very classy sound. Provided the recording isn't too sharp or harsh and the playing is short of non-musical sounds.

My Secret Weapon: The FabFilter Pro-Q3

One of my favourite plugins for classical guitar recordings is the FabFilter Pro-Q3. Admittedly, not much of a secret if you have been here for a while (read the Three Most Essential Plugins for the Classical Guitar) . The Pro-Q3 offers precise control over the frequency spectrum with a range of filter types and is easy to fine-tune via the graphical interface.

To make my life easier, I have created a set of custom presets that I use as a starting point for different recording scenarios. These presets are designed specifically for classical guitar and can save me a lot of time when mixing. My custom presets pack “EQ Essentials” is available in the CGT store, so if you also have the FabFilter Pro-Q3, you could use my presets in your workflow. But it's important to remember that there is no one-size-fits-all solution and that you'll need to adjust them for your recordings.

Final thoughts

In conclusion, EQ is an essential and powerful tool for creating professional-quality classical guitar recordings. However, it's important to remember that EQ is just one part of the recording production. Don't underestimate the quality of your recording space and microphone placement. Keep in your mind, creating great recordings is a journey. With practice and patience, these guidelines can help you enhance the sound of your recordings and capture the beauty and nuance of the classical guitar.

In part II of this series, we will delve deeper into the use of Parametric EQ to further enhance your recordings. Parametric EQ offers even more precise control over frequency adjustments, allowing you to zero in on problematic frequencies and carve out a more refined sound. We'll discuss how to identify and address problem areas in your recordings and provide tips for using the parametric EQ to shape the sound of your guitar. And finally, in part III, we will explore some of the more advanced settings of FabFilter Pro-Q3. Stay tuned!

K. Margaritis 1/12/23 K. Margaritis 1/12/23

SPL Crescendo duo Microphone Preamplifier Review

Gorgeously clean gain for your microphones

High-quality preamps that can capture all the nuances and subtleties of classical guitar are not as common as one might think, as most designs introduce too much noise and colour. When I came across the SPL Crescendo duo microphone preamp last year, I was intrigued by its specially designed 120-volt technology, which promises a particularly neutral, dynamic and low-distortion sound. I immediately contacted SPL and they sent me a demo unit to test.

Sound Performance Lab

SPL (Sound Performance Lab) is a German company that has been manufacturing professional audio equipment for about 40 years. SPL is known for its innovative designs and audio solutions of the highest quality. Their preamps, converters and headphone amplifiers are used in recording studios for music and film worldwide. Common features of all SPL products are the impressive build quality and enormous size.

The Crescendo

The Crescendo 120-volt rail preamp design was introduced with the original 8-channel unit; the duo, as the name implies, is the stereo version, ideal for recording classical guitar in situations where good enough is not enough.

One of the ftings that sets the SPL Crescendo duo apart is its large knobs and tactile switches. Each channel provides from +18 dB to +70 dB of gain, which can be independently increased or decreased by 10 dB with a switchable output control. In this way, the rest of the chain can be supplied with an optimal level. The total output can reach up to 80 dB, which is more than sufficient for even the weakest ribbon microphones.

The physical VU meters for level adjustment leave a remarkable impression and can lower the displayed level by 10 dB if necessary. A high-pass filter of 6 dB per octave at 120 Hz is quite useful, although I would prefer it to be switchable for greater versatility. Nonetheless, every aspect of the Crescendo duo has been carefully thought out.

SPL Crescendo duo - tactile switches and VU meters

Four times more voltage

The 120 V technology operates at +/- 60 V. To handle such a high voltage, SPL has developed special proprietary operational amplifiers (SUPRA) that can operate at a such high voltages, as this would destroy conventional components and operational amplifiers.

How it sounds

After using the Crescendo duo in my recording setup for a couple of months, I am happy to report that it exceeded my expectations. The SPL has a very clean and transparent sound, which is essential when recording classical guitars. Many preamps introduce colouration and distortion that can detract from the subtleties and nuances of the recording. The result can sometimes be pleasant, but it strays far from the original sound and is usually not what we are looking for when trying to capture luthier-grade guitars and world-class guitarists. It's worth noting that unlike other clean preamps, the Crescendo is not a bit shrill, but has an overall smooth and warm sound.

A high-end setup & ‘The Music of the Impressionists’

I used the SPL Crescendo duo to record my latest album, The Music of the Impressionists, which contains a wealth of tonal colours, sustained tones, great dynamic differences, and silences. I used my beloved Essense guitar, handcrafted by Angela Waltner in Berlin, and in conjunction with a pair of Gefell M 950 microphones (review coming soon), another marvel of German engineering, and the RME ADI-2 Pro FS for the analogue-to-digital conversion, the Crescendo captured every detail brilliantly.

Listen to ‘The Music of the Impressionists’ on Spotify:

Comparisons

The Crescendo duo is similar in many ways to the AEA TRP2, another highly regarded preamp that I have used for several years. Both units are known for their clean and transparent sound, and both have low self-noise and high maximum gain. However, the Crescendo has a bit more refinement, smoothness and realism in its sound. The sonic benefits, additional features, and fantastic build quality of the preamp are worth the price difference. However, I will also keep the AEA TRP2 for some field recordings, as it is easier to transport.

Some thoughts on microphone preamps

Most audio interfaces have adequate preamps for most applications and users. So unless every other aspect of your recording chain is well thought out, searching for microphone preamps is a futile endeavour. The differences between clean mic preamps are only subtle but can become important when combined with other competent equipment and production skills. If you are confident in your setup and all you are missing is a good mic preamp, I'd suggest forgoing cheap deals and saving up until you can afford a high-end preamp like the Crescendo duo.

The Coda

The SPL Crescendo duo microphone preamp is one of the best options for recording classical guitar. It is a well-designed and sophisticated device that is capable of producing excellent recordings and is made to last a lifetime.

SPL Audio - Crescendo duo

K. Margaritis 1/5/23 K. Margaritis 1/5/23

A Beginner's Guide to Home Recording for Classical Guitarists

Home recording technology has come a long way in recent years, and it's now easier than ever for classical guitarists to record high-quality audio from the comfort of their own home. If you are a classical guitarist looking to record your music at home, you may be wondering where to start. In this beginner's guide, I will go over the essential tools and techniques you'll need to get started with home recording for classical guitarists. From choosing the right microphone and recording software to setting up a recording space and editing and producing your tracks, I will cover everything you need to know.

Choosing the Right Equipment

The first step in setting up a home recording studio for classical guitar is choosing the right equipment. There are a few key pieces of equipment that every home recording studio should have:

Microphones: A good pair of microphones is essential for recording the classical guitar. There are many different types of microphones to choose from, each with unique characteristics. I often like to employ large diaphragm condensers for their low self-noise.
Read the buyer's guide on the Best Microphones for Classical Guitar.
Audio interface: An audio interface is a device that connects your microphones to your computer, allowing you to record audio digitally. Besides, an audio interface allows you to connect your headphones and studio monitors.
Read the buyer's guide on the Best Audio Interfaces for Classical Guitar.
Studio Monitors: Studio monitors are specialized speakers that are designed for use in recording studios. They differ from regular home speakers in that they have a relatively flat frequency response without boosting or attenuating any particular frequency. Studio Monitors are ideal for mixing and mastering music, as they allow you to hear the true sound of your recordings.
Read the buyer's guide on the Best Studio Monitors for Classical Guitar.
Headphones: Headphones are an important part of any home recording setup, as they allow you to hear all the nuances in your playing and recordings. I prefer open headphones for mixing, editing and music listening, while closed headphones are necessary if you want to do overdubs.

Setting up a Recording Space

Once you have the necessary equipment, the next step is to set up a recording space that will allow you to produce high-quality audio. Here are a few things to consider:

Acoustics: The acoustics of your recording space will have an immense impact on the sound of your recordings. A room with decent acoustics will produce a balanced and natural sound, while a room with poor acoustics can produce a boomy sound and introduce flutter echo to your recordings. To improve the acoustics of your recording space, you can use acoustic treatment products such as acoustic panels, bass traps and diffusers to absorb or diffuse sound waves.
If you are on a tight budget, you can read my post on Three Ways to Improve your Recording Space Without Spending Any Money.
Organization: Keep your recording space organized and ready to use at any time. This means having all your equipment in position and easy reach, so you don't have to spend time searching for things when you want to record. Furthermore, a cluttered and disorganized space can be distracting and make it difficult to focus on your playing. By setting up your room in a functional and organized way, you'll be able to focus on your playing and create better recordings.
Lighting: Good lighting will set the mood and create a comfortable practising recording environment. Natural light is usually the best choice, but if you don't have access to natural light, you can use artificial lighting to create a similar effect.

Getting Started with Recording Software

Once you have your equipment and recording space set up, the next step is to choose recording software. There are many different options available, ranging from free software with basic features to professional-grade software with advanced capabilities. Some popular DAW (Digital Audio Workstations) for recording classical guitar include:

Audacity is a free, open-source recording software popular with many classical guitarists. It offers a range of basic recording and editing features and is easy to use especially for beginners.
Apple GarageBand is a digital audio workstation that comes pre-installed on many Apple computers. It offers a range of basic recording and editing features and is suitable for beginners.
Apple Logic Pro is a professional-grade recording software widely used by music producers. It offers a wide range of advanced features and includes the most complete library of virtual instruments and a comprehensive set of plugin effects of any DAW.
Steinberg Cubase is another professional-grade recording software and a great alternative to Logic Pro if you are a Windows user. Cubase Elements is powerful enough for most classical guitarist applications and is affordable for those just getting started on recording.

Recording Techniques

Once you have your equipment and software set up, you are out of excuses; it's time to start recording! Here are a few tips for achieving the best sound from your classical guitar recordings:

Experiment with microphone placement: The position of the microphones relative to the guitar will have a huge impact on the sound of your recordings.
For a detailed description of various microphone techniques, read my post on Stereo Microphone Techniques for the Classical Guitar.
Set up the gain on your audio interface: The gain control on your audio interface determines the level at which your guitar is recorded. Set the gain to a level that avoids clipping (distortion) or a weak signal. Set the peaks (loudest parts) to reach around at around -6dB, so that you'll have plenty of headroom.
Have the right mindset for recording: An often overlooked aspect of the recording is the mindset and mood you bring to the recording. Be relaxed and focused when recording, so that you can capture the best performance possible. Take breaks as needed to ensure that you are feeling fresh and energized.
For more suggestions, read my post on 5+1 Things You Should Do Before You Press the RECORD Button, from the perspective of a Classical Guitarist.

Editing and Producing Your Recordings

Once you've recorded your classical guitar tracks, the next step is to edit and produce your recordings to create a professional-sounding final result. Here are a few things to consider:

Be conservative with editing: Editing audio has become pretty simple, but too much editing makes your recordings end up sounding lifeless.
Use plugin effects wisely: While it's necessary to use EQ and Reverb plugins to fine-tune your recorded sound, create the right mood for your music, and enhance the sound of your tracks. Try not to overprocess the recording. Aim for a natural sound for your solo classical guitar music. For further information on plugins, read my post Three Most Essential Plugins for the Classical Guitar.
Set the levels correctly: Make sure that the volume of your music is loud enough but doesn't clip (distort) the outputs. Leaving about 1 dB of headroom is a good practice.
Exporting your music: When you're happy with your produced recordings, it's time to export them as a final audio file. Make sure to save your tracks in a high-quality format, such as WAV or AIFF, to preserve the sound quality of your recordings.

Conclusion

In conclusion, recording your music at home can be a rewarding and fulfilling experience, and it's easier than ever to get started with the right equipment and software. By following the tips and techniques outlined in this guide, you'll be well on your way to creating recordings you can be proud of.

K. Margaritis 12/29/22 K. Margaritis 12/29/22

Best Reverb Plugin for Classical Guitar

Classical guitar performance is meant to be experienced in a natural space; the player, the guitar, the room, and the audience summon an ensemble and create a unique contract. As recordists, we aspire to capture such magical moments, but we don't always have the luxury to operate in fantastic-sounding spaces. As producers, we sometimes record in our homes or bland-sounding studios, in such occasions, the use of artificial reverb is unavoidable.

For a decade or so, I've been a happy user of 2CAudio's reverb plugins, Breeze at first and then Aether, as you can read in my post for the Three Essential Plugins for Classical Guitar. However, I recently got a MacBook Air M2 (review coming soon), and these plugins are not yet compatible with Apple's processors. Thus, although I'm still pretty satisfied with the results I got from both Aether and Breeze, I have to find their replacement.

Note: As I learned after starting this test, Logic can run x86-x64 plugins natively and without having to setup Rosetta. Possibly with a hit on the CPU, but this should only become appartent on more heavy projects that solo classical guitar recordings. This fact make the need to find new plugins a but less imminent.

After an initial market research, I downloaded trial versions of all plugins that caught my eye and are compatible with apple's silicon. Testing software with so many variables can be intensive, therefore I spent enough time with each plugin to understand its interface and try to make it work for my taste and needs.

The reverbs I tested this time:

Neunaber WET Reverberator
Strymon BigSky
Universal Audio Lexicon 224 Digital Reverb (Spark Native)
Universal Audio Pure Plate Reverb (Spark Native)
FLUX IRCAM Verb v3
Apple Chromaverb
RELAB RX480
RELAB RX480 Essentials
FabFilter Pro-R FLUX IRCAM Verb v3
LiquidSonics Seventh Heaven
TC Electronic VSS4 HD Native (Non-compatible with Apple ARM Processors)
2CAudio Aether (Non-compatible with Apple ARM Processors)
2CAudio Breeze2 (Non-compatible with Apple ARM Processors)

My final assessment of the usefulness of these plugins is asserted not only on sound quality, ιntuitiveness and adjustability play a minor but meaningful role.

My least favourite reverb plugins

No matter how much I tried, I couldn't make the Neunaber WET Reverberator Plugin sound decent enough for my uses. I wanted to like the sound, as the WET pedal, that the algorithm originates, is quite popular among electric and flamenco guitarists. In all settings, there is always some chorusing on the reverb tail that I couldn't remove, and the space doesn't sound realistic, natural or with a desirable sound signature.

The price of the WET Reverberator Plugin is reasonable, but considering that there are a few plugins at a similar price (especially during sales), besides the decent sounding free plugins included with most major DAWs, I cannot recomended it even for those on a tight budget.

Another plugin ported recently from a pedal with an almost cult-like following is the Strymon BigSky Plugin. I was looking forward to testing it, however the experience was underwhelming. Not only the sound quality of the Room, Plate and Hall algorithms was not on par with the other reverbs of my test, but the tweakability was also pretty limited. Perhaps the other algorithms included could justify the high praise and price, but for classical guitar, the sounds were not convincing enough. Thus, another hard pass unless you are looking for shimmer reverbs for your classical guitar.

The last of the three not-good-enough reverb plugins is Apple’s ChromaVerb, which is included in Logic's vast plugin collection. The UI is much more intuitive than the "pedal" plugins, and getting a usable sound was not that hard. As expected, the ambience created by the ChromaVerb pales in comparison to the most sophisticated reverbs of the test; it lacks finesse and sounds more like an effect than a realistic space. But given that this is a free option, the results were better than expected.

The good but not-for-me

Another plugin that seems to be loved by many producers is the LiquidSonics Seventh Heaven. LiquidSonics claims to reproduce the algorithms of the acclaimed Bricasti M7. I have never used the M7 in person, so I cannot confirm or deny this. What I can back up is that the Seventh Heaven has a rich and refined sound, and I can see why it is so popular. The interface is pretty modern and intuitive, I was able to get a sound I liked right away. After comparing it to some of the other plugins though, I concluded that it sounds a bit too polished and generic for my taste. It is worth noting that the Seventh Heaven is the only convolution-based reverb of the test.

Moving on, a reverb plugin that will satisfy those who want extreme control over how the space sounds is the FLUX IRCAM Verb v3. The Verb v3 creates the most realistic-sounding room recreation of the bunch, and could be perfect for film production or other uses that realism and accuracy are desired. In addition, the control the UI provides is pretty phenomenal. I needed some time to get to know how every parameter affects the sound, but after a while, the somewhat uncommon layout made total sense, and I was pleased by how much control the Flux plugin offers. Soundwise, the IRCAM reverb lucks a bit of musicality and elegance for solo classical instruments.

A utility reverb plugin

One of my favourite plugin developers is FabFilter. I really like how powerful their various plugins are, love the clean and pristine sound quality, and appreciate the modern and intuitive UI. I own their Mastering bundle and use it almost every day.

I downloaded the trial version of the Pro-R when it was released a few years ago and did enjoy the user interface and sound, but not enough to change the 2CAudio reverbs I have been using almost forever. This time, I got to play more with the Pro-R and even used it in the production of my latest release: 'Will Have Been'. It is a very intuitive and capable reverb plugin, not my favourite sounding of the bunch but very useful and easy to use. So, I'm debating getting it now or waiting for a sale, but FabFilter's Pro-R will definitely find its place in my collection.

Rent or own

A reverb plugin I was happy to see released in native format - without requiring the expensive dongle that is called Apollo - is Universal Audio's Lexicon 224 Digital Reverb. Universal Audio has the resources to create some great plugins, but some of the hype comes from the fact that they were only available through their DSP-powered interfaces. That was perhaps necessary a decade ago, but computers today are so powerful that this business model makes little to no sense. With the release of Spark Native, Universal Audio seems to have realised that.

The Universal Audio Lexicon 224 Digital Reverb sounds musical and manages not to get in a way. Besides, lots of attention has been given on the UI, which looks beautiful but is a bit limited. The Pure Plate reverb sounded perhaps even more musical, albeit less natural for solo classical guitar.

I liked both reverbs from Universal Audio, but if there is one thing I hate more than USB dongles is the subscription model for software - an argument against using Adobe apps as well. Now, $149,99 a year for all the Spark Native plugins is not so bad. But, considering that I don't have any use for any of the other plugins, I decided to cancel my subscription at the end of the trial period and reevaluate later.

Early reflection goodness

When I first got into recording, personal computers were not powerful enough, and native plugin offerings were pretty limited. For that, I used to own a TC Electronic Powercore unit and loved the TC VSS4 algorithm. The Powercore was much of a hustle later on for me to keep using it, and native plugins became capable enough, so I parted ways with it. TC Electronic released the VSS4 HD Native plugin, and although it is not compatible with apple silicon yet, including it in the comparisons can only be constructive.

The VSS4 HD sounds pristine and lush, with some of the most realistic early reflections. It makes any recording sound somewhat more three-dimensional. Oher algorithms may sound more pleasing for longer reverbs, but the VSS4 HD is hard to beat for short realistic reverbs.

Vintage vibes

One of the best-sounding reverbs of the bunch is the RELAB RX480 Dual-Engine V4. It is supposed to be sample-accurate dual engine recreation of the legendary Lexicon 480L. I cannot confirm or deny the claim as I never had the pleasure to listen one in person. The RX480 is truly stunning with its plush, thick sound. A more modern UI could make the RX480 more straightfoward, as the LARC-type graphic control would make more sense to those with experience with the original Lexicon units, but I could live with that. It is much more impreesive than the UAD 224 Reverb and sounds more pleasing to my ears. The Random Hall algorithm especially is impeccable.

Moreover, RELAB has a lighter version, the RX480 Essentials, which packs the same basic 480L sound with a less overwhelming UI and at a burgain price for what you get.

The familiar

I purchased the 2CAudio Breeze several years ago, then moved on to the Aether. I'm using both plugins it tandem sometimes; the Breeze for a more natural space and Aether for a thicker sound. Both plugins are exceptional, with first-rate sound quality and offer plenty of control. I was so pleased with this combination that I stopped looking for other reverbs. I somehow also missed trying the Breeze2 when it got released.

As it is obvious, I'm used to the sound of these plugins. I downloaded a trial version of Breeze2 to conclude this comparison. Both 2CAudio plugins sound admirable, with the Aether being the most versatile, especially for those who are also into sound design. But I was particularly surprised by the Breeze2. The placement of the solo classical guitar in space is very realistic and offers lots of depth. The Breeze2 sounds lush without sounding as much as an effect or too sterile as some of the other plugins.

Although it is not yet compatible with the Apple ARM chips, and perhaps there never will be. Given that I already had the first version, the update to the Breeze2 was inexpensive for me, so I didn't give a second though. Unfortunatelly, due a dispute at 2CAudio, the future of the company is currently uncertain. So, I cannot recommend either one, at least for now.

Some thoughts on convolution reverb

I've tried convolution reverbs in the past and had determined that they don't work for me, but I thought that this time might be different perhaps. In addition to Apple's Space Designer, I downloaded the Inspired Acoustics Inspirata Silver and HOFA IQ Reverb v2. As much as I wanted to like them, I never got them to blend well with the dry tone. Admittingly, impulse respneses sound very natural and realistic, but It always sounds like a cross-fade of room ambience and classical guitar layers than an instrument in a room. Furthermore, the IRs tend to get a bit weird whenever I am pushing them. I understand that the results rely on the specific IRs, but I get satisfying results with algorithmic reverbs to investigate convolution reverbs further at this time.

Conclusions

If who don't have a problem with subscriptions and might have uses for the other UAD plugins, the Spark Native is hard to beat. For a versatile reverb with a clean but superb sound, the FabFilter Pro-R ticks all the boxes. Lastly, for vintagey charachter and thicker reverbs, the RELAB plugins are outstanding.

For me, the Breeze2 will replace the original Breeze for realistic but musical sounding spaces, and the LX480 will replace the Aether for characterful reverbs. And, I’ll keep an open spot for the FabFilter Pro-R.

K. Margaritis 7/23/22 K. Margaritis 7/23/22

5+1 Things You Should Do Before You Press the RECORD Button, from the perspective of a Classical Guitarist

The expeditious progress of technology since the dawn of the millennia has allowed musicians to be more self-sufficient than ever before. We can record, produce, and distribute our music without ever having to leave the house. Concert guitarists have always been masters of the art of independence; we perform solo most of the time, use only our instruments always, and are responsible for keeping them fit (string changes, tuning, cleaning, etc.). It comes with no surprise that guitarists have jumped the wagon of self-recording. Besides not needing much gear-wise, a couple of microphones, an audio interface, some headphones, and the recording setup is complete.

Managing all these duties is hard enough. On top, there is also the infamous red light syndrome that haunts musicians. It sometimes seems that the weight of this endeavour is too high to overcome. Discipline, dedication, and a good routine are prerequisites. In this post, we will not discuss the best microphones or plugins; I want to prepare you rather for the recording date with a few easy-to-follow suggestions to ensure that you will put your best performance on tape.

1. Have a plan

It is always a good practice to write down what you want to record and how your plan to go about it. If you are going to record multiple pieces, will you record several takes of each piece, or will you play the whole program several times? What is the order? What is the purpose of the recording? Documenting and archiving, or an upcoming album?

Make a plan. Then follow it, or don't. It is okay to change it as it is beneficial to remain flexible. Au contraire, without one, to begin with, it can quickly get too chaotic.

2. Setup in advance

Switching between putting on the performer, engineer, and sometimes even the videographer hats is not to be taken lightheartedly. The different tasks not only require respective skills, they also demand enough time to fine-tune all the details. Anticipate for quite a few trials until you have configured everything to taste. Going back and forth between setting up microphones, camera angles, and playing bits of music for the tests, can quickly wear you down. Therefore, if possible, set up everything the day before, thus on the recording day, you can focus only on the performance.

If this is not an option, reevaluate the length and goals of the recording session and add the necessary setup time. And before you jump into the recording, make sure to take a break. You will need a few moments to recenter yourself. Try to relax, get mentally prepared for the mission: to record your masterpiece.

3. Be prepared

Unless you are recording to document your progress, you will need to know your pieces inside out. The choreography of your hands should be practised to perfection and beyond. Allow your body to move with the pace of the music; freely, effortlessly. Study each element of the score meticulously, and memorise it if you can. Know how you articulate every phrase, each voice, how long is the fermata on the 10th measure, and express the difference between P and PP in each section. Be diligent. Again, allow for the unexpected. While playing, the piece might want to lead you to a different place; embrace it. Follow your instincts. But, start with the confidence of control.

4. Establish a routine that gets you in the zone

I could argue that recording should not be too casual, much like preparing and giving a recital. Depending on your goals and time, though, sometimes one has to squeeze a few recording moments into a rather busy schedule. Getting motivated and focused can get tricky under such circumstances. Besides, not every day is the same, so we are not always as inspired.

Observe and explore a few mechanisms to assist in getting in the zone quicker. Weather is meditation, fasting, listening to music, or pouring caffeine into your bloodstream, only you can decide. Find out what works for your lifestyle and establish a routine around it. Preferably, you should find a few alternative options.

5. Do not compare yourself

We do not live in a bubble, and neither does our art. We evaluate our efforts in context. Listen to your favourite recordings, and get inspired. Take notes on the performance subtleties, and try to imitate aspects of it in your practising. But, you must forget everything at some point. On the day of the recording, it is just you and your guitar; no time for self-doubt. So, be yourself, and allow the things that make you unique to manifest themselves. There is no other way to do it anyway.

Bonus - If you are recording on location, make a list, and write down all the essential gear you need to have with you. Do not forget the extra cables and batteries, SD cards, some tape and a Swiss army knife. A faulty cable or missing a 3/4" adapter can be a reason to end the session prematurely. Embarrassingly.

Closing Thoughts

Whether you are recording for professional purposes or yourself, remember to enjoy each and every part. If you follow the above guidelines, chances are that you will go home with a fantastic recording. If not, there is always another day, a second chance to conquer the session. After all, the path to greatness is always in constant dispute.

K. Margaritis 2/25/22 K. Margaritis 2/25/22

Three Ways to Improve your Recording Space Without Spending Any Money

Let’s talk about the room - Part I

When we think about improving our recorded sound, we usually think about upgrades in gear; we lust for new microphones, interfaces, guitars, etc. We don't want to buy new things; we absolutely need them. Sometimes, we even postpone recording altogether until we have the budget for purchasing said gear.

The harsh truth that we sometimes don't want to admit is that spending more money on gear will not fix fundamental issues. Getting a good sound in the room before we hit record is essential, as essentially, this is the sound that our microphones hear and our interfaces capture. Fix it in the mix does not apply with classical guitar recordings wherein room and performer are equally exposed.

Having used all sorts of gear in all possible situations, I rank all the elements of the recording chain in this order: guitarist, guitar, room, microphones, engineer, playback system, post-production skills, preamps, converters, cables. Leaving everything else aside, in this article, I examine a few ways to get the best out of a typical residential room without spending any money.

Disclaimer - room treatment can be approached from a more technical standpoint which I plan to discuss here in the future. Contrarily to what the vendors of acoustic panels will say, household items can be used as a pragmatic alternative, even more so considering the singular commitment of a classical guitar recording space.

First. The sitting position.

Sometimes out of being lazy or just practical, we set up everything as is and keep the room as we would normally use it, especially if we don't have a dedicated music room. Considering the degree that the room affects the recorded sound, searching for a suitable sitting position should not be overlooked.

Before all else, when I enter a new space for a session, I try to figure out the best sounding position in the room. This habit applies both for on-location to home recordings and even concerts to some degree. I'm not getting into detail about on-location recordings and big spaces now, as this goes beyond the purpose of this text.

I have assembled a few guidelines to help you search for the perfect sitting position in your room but keep in mind that every room has unique sound properties.

First of all, you want to avoid sitting close to the walls and most definitely steer clear of the corners; the build-up of low frequencies and the early reflections will cloud the direct sound of the guitar. Also, the centre of the room is far from an ideal sitting position, especially in a room with parallel walls.

In an ordinary rectangular room, if possible, you'd want to sit alongside the long walls about three-fourths to two-thirds of the length of the room. In addition, I find that sitting a bit off-centre and facing the front wall at a slight angle towards the longest distance produces the best results; this modest break of symmetry helps.

Nonetheless, you need to experiment with your space as every room is different. Perhaps asking someone else to play your guitar in a couple of different positions and try to listen is not a bad idea. If this is not possible, pay attention to the sound while you play; singing can also assist you in identifying the room modes. Moreover, you'll need to record yourself in various spots and listen critically; recording the same piece can make comparisons less ambiguous.

What you are looking for is the most balanced sound; play all notes of your guitar in sequence as well as your favourite piece, and if it gets boomy or any frequency stands out a lot, try a few different angles or move a little. If the room is untreated, which probably is, the result will not be outstanding, but in any case, it is worth finding the position where standing waves are not encouraged, then acoustic treatment can be employed.

Second. Other uses for your books.

Speaking of acoustic treatment, this goes without saying, at least to some extent. But, as our rooms usually serve (at least) a dual purpose, a playing/recording space along with a listening/production room, some compromises have to be made. Critical listening requires a controlled environment, while what makes a good room for recording acoustic instruments can be partially subjective.

I have recorded in all sorts of situations, from big halls with a vast reverberation to heavily treated studios with no ambience at all as well as everything in between, thus I have concluded that I genuinely don't enjoy playing in an acoustically dead room. Even if the captured sound in such a controlled room is somewhat easier to handle, the performance and feel of the music always take a big hit. Clever microphone placement and good post-production skills can make almost any room sound acceptable, contrary there is nothing we can do to improve an uninspiring performance.

Thankfully, the classical guitar is not the loudest instrument around, with a lot of its energy residing is in the mids and highs, so it is not impossible to minimize the small room sound signature. Whilst is more convenient to record at home, on-location recording is never out of the question; I could always visit one of the exceptional sounding halls in Berlin or elsewhere when absolute sound is required. It is also refreshing to work on other rooms.

Wherein large rooms we have to deal with diffuse sound fields, which pose their challenges anyway, small rooms suffer from early reflections and resonances associated with standing waves. Dealing with the low frequencies below 300Hz is rather troublesome as wavelengths are large and spread omnidirectionally, while higher frequencies behave more like rays.

The key here is to use a combination of diffusion and absorption strategically. Since broadband diffusers and absorbers can get expensive fast and need to be quite thick to have any effect at the low-mid and low frequencies, there is a free alternative you can use effectively: books.

Books placed on shelves create an uneven surface, forming some sort of diffuser from which sound waves are reflected in different directions. Moreover, paper absorbs some of the sound energy, so a bookshelf works in addition as an absorber.

Gather your books and build a bookshelf on the front-facing wall (in the typical control room, the front wall is considered the one where the monitors are placed, here I use the term to indicate the wall you face when you play your guitar). Use different book sizes and thicknesses, and experiment on the relative depths; this bookshelf will absorb and scatter the sound in the room while maintaining some liveliness.

Admittingly, a bookshelf won't do much to the lower frequencies, and its properties will be somewhat random. However, you probably have plenty of books in your household already, and a bookshelf is more eye-pleasing. Plus, they are nice to read from time to time.

Third. The floor.

Since the guitar hangs in closer proximity to the floor than any other reflective surface around you, bouncing frequencies would cloud the direct sound. Also, the somewhat low ceilings and small dimensions of residential rooms dictate for closer and lower microphone positioning that say a concert hall, thus heightening the problem.

To tame the room ambience to a certain degree, place a rug between your guitar and the microphones. Avoid covering the whole room with a carpet, but rather use a small to medium-sized one.

Experiment with a few different sizes and thicknesses until you find what works in your space. Your goal is to allow the microphones to capture a cleaner sound while maintaining the room ambience. The absorption will only be effective at the high frequencies. I use a woollen rug of medium thickness that extends from just under my seating position to a bit further than the position of the microphone stand.

Closing

With the advancement in technology over the last twenty years, quality recording equipment has become pretty affordable consequently capturing compelling recordings at home is no longer impossible. However, we should not forget that the microphones capture the sound of our guitars in our rooms. So, be intentional and learn trust your ears.

K. Margaritis 1/25/22 K. Margaritis 1/25/22

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.

K. Margaritis 8/7/21 K. Margaritis 8/7/21

Focal Clear MG Professional from the perspective of a Classical musician

Focal is a household name in the audio world, renowned among professionals and amateurs, besides hi-fi and car audio enthusiasts. With over 40 years of history, it is safe to say that they know speakers. Headphones is a relatively recent endeavour for them, but with the introduction of the open-back Utopia some five years ago, Focal shook the industry. Soon after, Elear and Clear follow at more budget-friendly prices.

After four years from the release of the original Clear's, and many developments at their closed-back headphone arsenal, Focal employs all recent innovations and research with a sole objective. The aim is to improve the mid-priced open-back design and assure the purest listening experience at home and the studio.

My usual complaint about headphones is that most are made to either sound too analytical (read bright) or too fun. Either way, the result is an unnatural reproduction; instruments tend to sound false. Whilst I understand the uses of the analytical headphone in the recording environment or the fun element for those who prefer a more produced sound. As a classical guitarist, I'm used to hearing real instruments in the wild, and unfortunately, only a few headphones succeed in replicating them in an honest but exciting way.

In addition, a seamless transition between my monitors and headphones is far more productive in my workflow, along with keeping me sane with tonal decisions. Focal, being first a speaker manufacturer, approached headphones from that perspective. A choice that I appreciate and fully endorse.

The original Clear has been warmly received by producers and audiophiles as it strikes a fine balance of clarity, dynamics and realism. The question is what the new MG version can improve on to be worth the extra money.

Presentation

The box might say "professional" on it, but Focal, having one of its feet in the HiFi world, has learned a few tricks about presentation.

The Clear MG Professional come in a minimalistic black box that feels almost as expensive as some headphones from other manufacturers. Upon opening, a hardshell case covered in some kind of reddish fabric emerges. A (too?) tight zipper allows it to open flat; the headphone is sitting comfortably and safely inside the moulded cavity. There is a bit of extra room for the short and relatively stiff but high-quality cable. I love keeping my equipment secure, especially when travelling, and the provided case is one of the best I've seen. Also, everything smells like expensive french cologne.

Furthermore, a rectangular presentation case holds the extra earpads and the additional coiled cable. I tried to use the coiled cable when I first got the Clear MG about three months ago because I wanted a longer reach for my setup, but it is utterly unusable; heavy, bulky, junky. A second straight but longer or a much less weighty coiled cable would have been much prefered.

At 1.2m the straight cable is quite short for most uses.

With the included cables ranging from inoperable to awkward, I wish that Focal (and other headphone manufacturers) would give us the option to purchase just the headphone and case, without any extras, for a couple hundred less. I know they won't, but I hate to own (and pay for) things that I'll never use.

Are you professional enough?

Similarly to the original, there are two versions of the same headphone; the Clear MG and the Clear MG Professional. According to Focal, there should be no real difference between the two versions other than the aesthetics and included accessories. I bought the MG Professional because I have more use for an additional pair of earpads. I also prefer the subdued red on black aesthetics to the more luxury-looking copper version. Either version is gorgeous, no question.

Elegant honeycomb pattern on the earcups.

Looks and feel

As mentioned the headphone looks stunning. The redesigned grille with the honeycomb pattern, soft genuine leather on the headband and plush matching microfiber cushions for the ears and lower part of the headband make the Clear MG one of the best-looking headphones on the market today.

The headband with perforated microfiber cloth ensures ample wearing comfort.

Apart from the aesthetics, the Clear MG is also extremely well-built. With all metal parts, everything feels solid and premium. The plugs fit snug and with a very satisfying "click". The spring-loaded mechanism on the earcups ensures ample comfort and seal. The perforated earpads also feel very smooth and comfortable, maybe not as luxurious as real leather ones, but they breathe more. There is enough space for medium ears, but people with large ears might find them a bit tight overall.

Although the headphone is quite heavy at around 450g, the weight distribution is such that the Clear MG don't tire me even after hours of listening or mixing.

Listening and comparisons

Build quality, looks and comfort are vital, but what good is a €1500 headphone if it doesn't sound incredible?

While other headphones, like the Sennheiser HD800 or Beyerdynamic T1 series, seduce the listener with a big stage presentation and ample highs, Focal takes the total opposite approach. The Clear MG prioritises realism, tonality, dynamics and intimacy while remaining detailed and transparent. The result is the most realistic listening experience headphones can offer; finely recorded instruments sound as they do in real life.

The high-end sits where it should be for music listening and production. The Clear MG doesn't emphasise recording artefacts or noise like the Beyerdynamic DT1990/880 but doesn't hide anything either. It delivers highs in a more or less unopinionated way. I find the high-end emphasis of the Beyer's to be welcome during some stages of music production, especially early on, and don't plan on selling them. But, I honestly enjoy the balance and purity of the Focal much more.

The headphone sits comfortably inside the carrying case.

There is a lot of misconception about detail retrieval and the typical high-end boost in headphones and speakers. Many people are used to a V- or U-shaped sound, which can be impressive but inaccurate. With acoustic instruments, most things happen in the middle frequencies. If those are not presented honestly, the timbre of instruments suffers. The original Clear's had a slight bit of pointy mids, which forced me to return them eventually. Focal solved that issue with the Clear MG's as mids are phenomenal here; low-mids sound full and defined, and high-mids offer excess detail. Music sounds real.

Lows are also exceptional. Keep in mind that I don't listen to bass-heavy music, but with solo instruments, orchestral music or even jazz ensembles, the low end is much fuller than what you expect from an open-back headphone. It provides essential support but never overwhelms. Not unless the music is poorly mixed.

Although I mainly use monitors (Focal and Geithain) for tonal decisions, this is the first time I can be confident to mix with headphones when travelling or setting up microphones on location. Also, switching between monitors and headphones doesn't make me schizophrenic.

Honeycomb grill inside the earcups as well.

Criticism

There is only one somewhat negative thing I can say about the frequency balance of the Clear MG, and this only applies to music listening. They can be slightly forgiving on the high-end, but if mids or lows are not captured or mixed masterfully, the Focal's will shout out the problems.

The extremely low distortion of the Clear MG reveals compression and muddiness almost to a fault. Incorrectly positioned spot microphones on orchestras were also easy to identify effortlessly. On the other hand, great recordings can sound extraordinary and with such purity that brings tears to the eyes.

Non-fatiguing

With extra-long listening evening sessions during the Covid madness, it became apparent that not only the Clear MG are very comfortable for lengthy sessions but also practically fatigue-free. The even tonality and low distortion don't tire my ears in a way that other more shouty headphones or speakers do.

A clear keeper

The Focal Clear MG is a wonderfully designed headphone with striking resolution and depth; string and wind instruments, guitars, pianos, and singers sound rather spectacular. If I close my eyes, the playback medium disappears, as if I sit next to the performers. That's the greatest compliment I can give to any headphone.

Now, I only need to find a nice aftermarket cable, any suggestions?

K. Margaritis 4/21/21 K. Margaritis 4/21/21

Neumann KH 80 DSP Studio Monitors Review - I'm not thrilled!

Neumann is arguably one of the most influential microphone makers, responsible for numerous classic microphones that have captured some of the most historic performances; Neumann has defined our perception of how great recordings sound and represents the highest class of musical production.

During the last decade or so, things have gradually been changing at the Berlin headquarters. At first with the introduction of more affordable microphones, like the TLM 102 that brought the famous Neumann badge to the home studio, and more recently with microphone preamps, studio headphones and monitors. Neumann aims to cover every need of the recording studio.

Active Studio Monitors

The KH 80 DPS Studio monitor borrows from the design of its bigger sibling, the KH 120, which itself is based on the Klein + Hummel O 110. Apart from the size difference, the KH 80 is made of plastic instead of aluminium to be more portable, but also cheaper to make. Furthermore, DPS is utilised to achieve a flatter frequency response, with finer phase response, and a sophisticated room correction algorithm.

The small Neumann monitor has been warmly received by home and professional engineers alike, many also claim that it is even better than the KH 120 for midrange detail retrieval. Most reviews I could find were very positive, similarly to my experience with the KH 120 and KH 310. Therefore, I was looking forward to trying a pair of KH 80's in my room. Is time for me to buy a new pair of small monitors?

Handling

The KH 80 DSP arrived tightly packed. They are smaller and much lighter than you might expect. Unfortunately, their plasticky build, the thin mains cable with the flimsy plug and the ultra-tight space on the back for the XLR cable don't give the best first impressions. It seems that Neumanneiser cut some corners here, but hopefully, the sound will make me forget these weaknesses.

The space for the connectors is limited; I guess it is a plus for very tight spaces.

As soon as you power on the Monitors, the Neumann badge in the front illuminates in red for a few seconds and then turns to white when they are ready for use. The curvy housing is finished in matt sparkly grey; the black woofer, and the tweeter with its substantial waveguides look pretty cool, I have to admit.

Apart from these nice touches, the KH 80 feel more like an oversized computer speaker than a serious studio monitor. I can see the appeal of compactness and lightness for those who seek a good sounding but portable monitor for location recordings, but for the price, I am a bit underwhelmed.

So, how do the KH 80 Studio Monitors sound?

I had the monitors for almost two months, I used them in different productions, as well as regular listening sessions of a variety of (mainly classical) music. I got familiar enough with the KH 80 to be confident with they sound, but I'm a bit baffled with them.

Don't get me wrong, it is a decent sounding monitor. The greatest feat of Neumann is how tight and defined they managed to get the low end for such a tiny monitor. Bass and low mids provide enough depth, greater than what the size suggests, and good enough accuracy.

The rest of the range is less inspiring though. The midrange has a somewhat boxy quality to it; guitars, in particular, tend to sound harsher than with other systems. It is revealing enough, but If you get the mid frequencies to sound right on the KH 80, they will end up sounding too polite in general.

I was expecting a more revealing presentation on the top end, but higher-mids and highs here sound slightly more laid back than I wished. I like that the KH 80 is a non-fatiguing and relaxed monitor, but it won't display otherwise obvious problematic audio artefacts.

The imaging of the KH 80 is very good for the price and offers plenty of localization from left to right, as well as useful front to back information. Reverbs sound realistic and are it is easy to hear what the different settings affect.

All in all, I could make the KH 80's work for me, but I was not sad when I returned them.

Auto stand-why?

One of the seemingly trivial things that annoyed me with the KH 80's is the auto-standby feature, or rather, the performance of it. The monitors would automatically go on standby after about 90 minutes of inactivity. Then, by running through a relatively loud signal, the monitors would wake up, and after a few seconds, they would be ready for use.

On paper, this is fantastic as it would mean that I have one less thing to worry about when I leave my desk. The issue is that each monitor has a mind of its own. Sometimes, one monitor would go on standby first, or one monitor would need a louder signal to wake up. The result is that I had to tolerate several times loud music for a few seconds until both monitors were awake.

Besides turning this "feature" off, it is possible to change the time before standby mode but as with the other DSP capabilities of the monitors, their implementation is rather quirky and off-putting that I didn't bother. I cannot understand why in this day of age, Neumann couldn't implement a more intuitive solution. I live in Berlin and every second person here is either an artist or a software developer, it wouldn't have been too hard to find the right people for this. Neumann is a hardware company, and software is an afterthought, but they need to take it more seriously.

Conclusion

Overall, the KH 80 is a decent monitor with some desirable attributes, but I think that Neumann hit slightly off-target with a monitor that is neither analytic nor the most fun. It is rather, dare I say, a bit boring sounding. It is an ultra-compact and light monitor, that sounds as big as it looks. Perhaps that is its strongest achievement, or maybe I was expecting a bit too much from Neumann. For a little more money, the KH 120 is a better and bigger sounding monitor; for considerably less, the Focal Shape 40 is hard to beat for the price.

K. Margaritis 1/16/21 K. Margaritis 1/16/21

Ollo Audio S4X Reference Headphone Review

Ollo Audio is a relatively new headphone company, based in beautiful Slovenia. They are not famous, at least not yet; but, they already managed to create some buzz around their two headphones, a closed and an open back. Both designs promise a natural response, while the open headphone, the S4X, is marketed as reference headphone.

My main complaints about most headphones are that they are either too bass-heavy, too harsh in the highs, or too expensive. Therefore, as soon as I heard about Ollo's ambitions to produce a high-quality, reasonably priced open-back headphone with flat frequency response, I knew I had to try it.

From the edge of the Alps

The S4X comes in a rather minimal box, both in size and appearance. Upon opening, one is treated with a canny slogan: "Save the planet, you can't listen to music in space". Along with the headphone, here is a small black paper pouch that protects the removable cable, and a pleather carrying bag. The presentation is simple and imparts a handcrafted feeling.

There is also a black envelope that encompasses various documents. Besides a manual, there is a printed frequency response measurement and a hand-signed certificate of authenticity. Neat touches. Lastly, a caution notice alerts us not to press hard the headphones on flat surfaces, to avoid distorting the membrane of the speakers.

Manufacturing and comfort

Ollo Audio S4X - Velvet and Pleather Earpad.JPG

The headphone itself looks quite handsome and feels very well made. Quality materials have been used throughout; wooden earcups, stainless steel grills and headband, along with memory foam earcups. The weight of the S4X is substantial, but the self-adjusting strap in combination with the plush feeling of the earpads, made of a hybrid of velvet and pleather, make them very comfortable to wear for hours.

Although these are over-ear headphones, the earpads are what I consider as medium-sized. They fit my ears snuggly and are deep enough, but there is not much space around. If you have larger ears than average, you will feel them getting squeezed.

Another nice touch is the removable cable that terminates on a dual 2.5mm TRS for the cups, and 3.5mm TRS that connects to the source. A 3,5mm to 6.3mm adapter is included to accommodate any setup. The cable is 2 meters in length, of good quality and light, so it doesn't weight down the headphone. It has cloth braiding until the Y split for extra protection; then divides into two red rubberized cables that connect into each cup to minimize microphonics.

The cups don't have L/R markings; they become left or right speakers depending on which cable-end you connect to them. This interchangeability makes servicing very easy, but since the lettering on the cable is tiny, it gets a bit annoying to look for it every time. A coloured connector would have been preferable, but that's only a small annoyance and is easy to fix.

Reference(s)

When I received the Ollo's about two months ago, I let them burn-in for about 100 hours and have been using them since almost daily. I've been directly comparing them with the Focal Clear Pro, various Beyerdyanamics, and AKG's, along with PSI and Focal studio monitors.

A fantastic headphone for me doesn't have a sound of its own; it gives me an honest presentation and ensures a seamless transition between it and my monitors, regardless if I use headphones for mixing, mastering, or pure enjoyment.

Reality check

I'm happy to report that Ollo's claim for a flat headphone is not just marketing talk.

The S4X has a full response and shows remarkable depth in its presentation; the instruments feel real. The sound is natural with fast transient response. Also, there seems to be an absence of earcup resonances.

Other than the slightly elevated low-end, no frequency stands out. Bass is solid-sounding and has an excellent extension. Mids are delicate and detailed, and highs are smooth and non-fatiguing. The sound is true to the source. Ollo's have a similar to my monitors' response; much more than my other headphones - other than the Focal Clear Pro.

The soundstage is average with an intimate presentation; the Ollo's put the listener on the stage with the musicians. I also get the impression that the S4X are a bit like a semi-open headphone instead of a fully open design. Detail retrieval is above average, but not in the realm of the Focal Clear or Beyer T1.2.

Listening to properly captured classical guitar recordings, the sound is immersive with every detail presented accurately. If there are problems in the recording or performance, the headphone will show it without shouting at you. This makes it both an excellent tool in the studio and an enjoyable listening experience at home.

In use

With an impedance of 32 Ohm, the headphone is easily driven even by mobile devices. It does sound considerably better with my RME ADI-2 Pro FS or the RME Babyface Pro FS.

Their small size makes them also, great for location work; although Germany is on lockdown since November and I didn't have the chance to test them in that application.

A modular approach

Aside from the sound, what's cool about Ollo is the philosophy behind the designs. They allow their customers to service the headphones themselves, if the necessity arises, as every part is easily replaceable at home. To sweeten the deal, even more, they offer a five-year warranty, and the ability to upgrade the headphones with new drivers and other parts.

In other words, Ollo promises a customer experience opposite to that of almost every other headphone (and not only) company.

Complaints

My only gripe with the S4X is the excessive rining of the stainless steel headband. It only occurs when you put them on or touch it for some reason, so in actual use, it is not a problem, It does give a negative impression on an overall very well thought out headphone.

Honestly, I got used to it and it doesn't bother me anymore, but I wish that Ollo would find a replacement or a way to decouple the headband from the driver.

I would also like to see a hardshell case option, as it would offer better protection when travelling.

Conclusions

Ollo's marketing is quite aggressive and bold, but it is probably necessary at this stage as they need to get noticed. Unlike some of the most popular brands which have flooded the market with numerous models, Ollo seems to listen to their customers and refine their designs.

I don't know if the S4X is a brutally honest headphone, like Ollo claims; but it is an accurate and detailed headphone, without being overly analytic.

The refined and natural sound, coupled with excellent craftsmanship, and the fact that there is no middle man to inflate the prices, make it one of the best headphones in their price range and well above.

Visit the Ollo Audio Website

K. Margaritis 10/25/20 K. Margaritis 10/25/20

Stereo Microphone Techniques for the Classical Guitar

Stereo recording is the technique that involves two microphones that due to the captures the time differences of sound waves coming from a source, which gives depth and space to the recording. Similar to how our ears and brains record and process sound.

The Classical Guitar, albeit small, is an instrument with a complex sound and subtle peculiarities; and as such, it sounds better when is captured in stereo. Various stereo recording techniques have been developed since the early 1940s; each with distinct advantages and disadvantages.

If you ask, which is the best microphone technique for capturing the classical guitar in stereo, I'm afraid that the answer is not so simple. Room size, acoustics, the instrument, and the purpose of the recording, play a significant role; as well as our individual preferences.

In this article, I describe the most common stereo techniques from the point of you of a classical guitar recordist. I discuss their strengths and weaknesses, as well as prefered uses for each setup.

Note: This article is a work in progress; X/Y, M/S, and NOS setups will be added in the following weeks.

Spaced Pair Setups

AB Stereo

The AB Stereo recording technique is based on a pair of spaced Directional or Omnidirectional microphones and provides in a pleasing and accurate capture with useful spatial information.

For home recordings, AB Stereo is one of the best options as it is easy to implement and get a consistent sound. A pair of Cardioids is usually preferred as they can successfully attenuate the room ambience.

Omnidirectional microphones capture the true low-end of the instrument though and have no proximity effect. You can position them closer to the source in a small room, or further away if the acoustics allow.

Application

Use a (minimum) distance of 20cm between the microphones for the most natural result. You can use a greater width, as the distance from the instrument increases, for a wider capture. I prefer a width between 30 and 40cm, for small/medium rooms, and up to 60cm for large halls.

If you position the AB Setup close to the guitar, you should avoid placing any microphone opposite to the soundhole, to prevent boominess. A microphone on each side of the soundhole will give the most balanced sound, off-axis towards the fretboard for more articulation or opposite of the bridge for a fuller sound.

The microphones are most commonly parallel to each other; but, since most microphones show a degree high-end directivity, we can fine-tune their response by angling them on the horizontal plane. If you aim them slightly outwards, you can attenuate some of the unpleasing mechanical noises of the guitar (fretting noises, squeaking, nails, etc.) You can also angle them slightly inwards to reject some of the room reflections.

The directional information as captured by an AB Stereo is not as accurate as of the coincident and near-coincident setups. This attribute can be an advantage if the performer moves a lot and assists in avoiding off-balanced results. I hardly ever pan the channels hard left and right, to preserve the integrity of the central image of the classical guitar.

The biggest drawback of the AB Stereo is its leaser compatibility with MONO playback (for example, a youtube video played on a smartphone); as a result, comb-filtering may be introduced.

Suitable Polar Patterns: Omni, Cardioid

Advantages

Easy implementation
Pleasing sound
Useful spatial information
Control of room ambience

Disadvantages

Playback in MONO may introduce comb filtering
Not the most accurate directional information

And here is a real-world example of the use of AB Stereo on Classical Guitar in a professional setting. I used a pair of Austrian Audio OC818 microphones set in a Custom Polar Pattern that combines the best of Cardioid and Omni qualities. The spacing of the microphones is 26cm. The goal was to capture the pure tone of my Angela Walter guitar together with the incredible sounding main hall of the Musikbrauerei in Berlin.

Near Coincident Setups

ORTF Stereo Technique

Developed in the 1960s by the Office de Radiodiffusion Télévision Française, the ORTF is a stereo microphone configuration that with the use of two near coincident Cardioid microphones mimics the human ears.

The spacing of 17cm and 110° angle emulate respectively the distance between our ears and the shadow effect of the human head. The result is a realistic depiction of the sound field, both in directional and spatial areas, as well as a reasonable Mono compatibility.

Application

A pair of first-order Cardioid condensers is required for a proper ORTS, 17cm between the capsules and 110° angle. Other directional patterns can be used with respective changes in the width; for example, Schoeps suggests a distance of 21cm for the MK22 Open Cardioid capsules. You can also adjust slightly both the spacing and angle for the best sound.

The most critical aspect of ORTF is to balance the direct and diffuse sounds, as there is not much you can do in post-production afterwards. As always a minimum distance of 50cm is advised to avoid boominess, but I have had better results with a distance of 80cm to 110cm. At greater distances, a low-end boost might be required to compensate for the loss of low-end of directional microphones.

The ORTF main application is for large-scale sources, like orchestras and choirs. If positioned in a close distance, you might experience loss of focus with a perceived hole in the centre.

Consequently, depending on the room acoustics, the ORTF stereo array may be proved problematic in a home recording setting. As you might either have to place the microphones further away from the instrument, capturing the unattractive ambience of a small room, or suffer a smeary sound if you position the array closer.

Suitable Polar Patterns: Cardioid

Advantages

Realistic stereo field
Reasonable Mono compatibility

Disadvantages

Perceived Hole in the middle and loss of focus if positioned close to the source

Coda

Distance

The distance of the microphones to the source depends purely on the room size, the instrument, and the setup. As a rule of thumb, keep it smaller than that of the microphones to the front and side-walls. But never closer than 50cm.

Directional microphones have a sweet spot where the proximity effect eliminates, and the low-end frequency response becomes linear. If the microphones are not in the ideal position, you might need to apply a Low-Shelf EQ (boost or cut). Omnidirectional microphones have a better low-end response regardless of the distance but capture sound from all directions. So, be careful not to end up with an overly roomy recording.

Height

Most classical guitarists angle their guitars somewhat upwards to push the sound further back (and fill a concert hall). Correspondingly, the height of the microphones depends mainly on the distance to the guitar. The closer they are to the instrument the lower they need to be. If you place the microphones further away from the guitar, they need to be higher to retain definition and accuracy.

The sound travels as an impulse rather than a beam though, so there is some room for experimentation. If you prefer a fuller sound, you can position the microphones slightly lower. Contrarily, you can increase the clarity if you put the microphones higher. Use your ears and taste.

Vertical Angle

You can also exploit microphone angles in the vertical plane; you can increase clarity if they are on-axis with the top of the guitar, or aim them at a higher point to attenuate some of the high-end and undesired mechanical noises from the strings and nails.

About the Samples

I recorded all the examples with a pair of Austrian Audio OC818. I choose the OC818 for their clear sound, low self-noise, and multi-pattern options. The height of the microphones was 103cm (centre of the capsule), and the distance from the guitar was 90cm.

The signal chain was an AEA TRP2 Microphone Preamp into an RME ADI-2 Pro FS ADDA Converter.

I didn't provide samples in other distances as they would only give cues about my room and instrument, without adding value to you.

Closing thoughts

Recording the classical guitar is a meticulous exercise. Regardless, if you want to record your next album, a video for youtube, or your performances to share with your friends, it is an utterly satisfying process. It is also a reason to practice harder and become a better guitarist.

Before your press "rec" for the first take, allow some time to find the best position, height, and angle. It can be a matter of having an excellent recording or rendering the whole session useless. Small changes in this context may have dramatic results; they act as a physical equalizer.

There have been quite a few times that I had to re-record a performance because of a poor decision, or having to rely on heavy equalization to make it acceptable when it was (almost) impossible (or expensive) to record again at the same location.

I hope that this guide will be helpful in your recording adventures in the quest of capturing the best qualities of your instrument and room.

K. Margaritis 10/1/20 K. Margaritis 10/1/20

6 Common Mistakes When Recording the Classical Guitar at Home, Part II

Part II - Post Processing

Professional sounding classical guitar at home is not a fantasy anymore or at least achieving a recording quality that is not embarrassing to share. Affordable audio interfaces, preamps and microphones have flooded the market these last decades, with increasing performance and processing power. Rooms, recording techniques and mixing are holding us back.

In the first part on the 6 Common Mistakes When Recording the Classical Guitar at Home, I tried to encourage you to try out different microphone positions and to study your room acoustics.

The second part focuses on some of the common mistakes of beginner classical guitar recordists on utilizing a proper signal chain and achieving satisfactory results in post-processing.

Mistake no.1 - Improper gain staging

The fear of clipping the converters leads some amateur recordists to use too little gain, resulting in recordings that are low in level. Without adequate signal-to-noise rations, these recordings will become noisy when any attempt is made to bring them at a normal level during mixing or playback. Contrarily, recording too “hot” will possibly clip the converters and can introduce nasty sonic artifacts to the audio. In either case, the recording will suffer from a limited dynamic range and high noise; attributes that we don't usually associate high-quality classical guitar recordings.

My advice is to aim between -6dB to -12dB as a maximum peak level (not average), per channel. Therefore, when you are happy with the placing and distance of your microphones, do a couple of test recordings, play as loud as you would normally do and set the gain levels accordingly. If you set the levels correctly, you will have a healthy and strong signal, but even if you (or another guitarist you are recording) eventually get carried away during the performance, you still have enough headroom to avoid digital clipping.

Mistake no.2 - Unrealistic panning

Classical guitar is a small instrument, radiating sound from a definite point in space. One of the worst choices you can make if you record in stereo (which you should) is to use a too wide panning. Regardless of if the listener is an audiophile type, sitting on his couch perfectly balanced in front of a pair of top-tier speakers, or a regular person listening to music with earbuds. A hard-panned left and right guitar will sound unnaturally wide and cloudy.

A realistic classical guitar recording is one that creates a phantom image of the instrument right in the middle of the speakers, but with some space around it. Such recordings can remove the playback medium and transport the listener in the room with the player.

In typical AB Stereo scenarios, I pan one channel at 3 o'clock and the other at 9 o'clock. I fine-tune the panning according to the polar pattern of the microphones, how apart they are set, and the distance from the guitar.

Mistake no.3 - Limiting dynamics

Classical guitar is not the most dynamic instrument, and if anything, we should strive to capture as much dynamic range as possible (it starts from the player, so we should also prioritise dynamics in performance). Compressors, on the other hand, are designed to do just the opposite; minimize the dynamic information of an audio track by limiting the loudest notes and boosting the softest signal.

The classic Universal Audio limiting amplifier

Compressors do make the initial playback sound more exciting and powerful… for a few seconds, but in my opinion, it never pays back. Some of the problems that are introduced with the use of compressors in solo classical guitar recordings are squeezed dynamics, increased noise level and altered instrument tone.

Cross-genre guitarists employ compressors more often, as they learn that they can be invaluable in a dense mix. But I haven't found any use for dynamic limiting in a properly captured classical guitar recording.

Therefore, unless you have to deal with issues of the room or improper microphone positioning, don't use compressors on classical guitar recordings.

Mistake no. 4 - Being afraid of using filters

High-pass filter’s switch on an Austrian Audio OC18

Many microphones feature high-pass filters, the most common are 40Hz, 80Hz and 120Hz; the same is true for some dedicated outboard preamps. But many beginner recordists are afraid to take advantage of them. The truth is that in the context of the classical guitar, not much musical information is presented at the low-end frequencies. Most of what is below around 80Hz is unwanted room rumble and weird resonances; therefore by attenuating them, we end up with a cleaner recording. Capturing what is essential and leaving out the rest.

As low frequencies can have a lot of energy, it is preferable to cut undesirable low-end before the signal hits the converters, if possible. This tactic allows us to set the gain and levels appropriately and leads to better signal-to-noise ratios. But even if your microphones or preamps don't have any filters, you can still apply a high-pass filter in your DAW to remove non-essential information.

I also like to use a low-pass filter to remove high-end information that is inaudible, so that my audio consists of only the frequencies I can hear. A gentle roll-off of the low (below 50Hz) and high frequencies (above 18000Hz) is a good starting point. An EQ plugin with these basic filters is the first plugin I load on every track. You can read more on the article Three Most Essential Plugins for the Classical Guitar.

Mistake no.5 - Not learning how to use an equalizer

Other than the low- and high-end unwanted information that we can simply remove with the appropriate filters, undesirable resonances can occur in the audible range as well. These can be caused by the imperfect rooms that we are recording in, our instruments or our technique. Obnoxious resonances can and will distract the listener.

Learning how to use an equalizer to detect and attenuate or eliminate such issues will make the listening experience much more pleasurable.

The best way to identify an offending frequency is by using your ears. I know that this doesn't sound like great advice, but keep reading. When you detect something that you don't like, add a bell-shaped point on your EQ with an extreme boost and search through the suspected range, like dialling in an analogue radio.

Once you find the irritating frequency, the sound should be quite disturbing at that point, apply a notch or a generous cut with a narrow Q. Toy around with the Q value to find the sweet spot; a setting that makes the problematic sound disappear but lets the rest of the audio unaffected.

FabFilter Pro-Q 3 with HP & LP Filters, a narrow Q Cut and a High Shelf Boost

Another use for an EQ is to change the overall balance of the recording. Sometimes you'd prefer a slightly fuller recording, or there is just a bit too much low-end. Perhaps the treble is a bit piercing, or you'd like to add some more clarity and articulation. Making gentle adjustments like these are generally uncomplicated with the use of Low or High Shelf adjustments. Just a couple of dB's can make a drastic difference to the evenness and impact of our music.

Just be careful not to overdo it, and always compare your mixes to your favourite recordings.

Finally, you can also use an equalizer to completely change the sound of an instrument and shape it to your liking. But if you've been diligent with the microphone positioning, and you like your guitar sound, you won't have to.

Mistake no.6 - Too much reverb

Placing the music into an artificial hall is a necessary lie

As I write on the Three Most Essential Plugins for the Classical Guitar article, nothing will affect the listener more than the physical space that the music takes place.

When we record at home, most rooms are not interesting enough, and so we need to enhance their sound with artificial reverb. But it is easy to overuse reverb, as it makes everything sound "better". Or so we think when we first enter the home recording world.

Most beginner recordists tend to choose a random church preset without any consideration to requirements of the music, tempo and other aesthetic choices. The result is a flood of unnatural and unattractive recordings which instead of sounding realistic or enchanted, they feel cheap.

Learn how the Time, Size and EQ settings found on your reverb plugin of choice to fine-tune the sound the ambience. Then turn down the Mix a little bit more than what you think it should be. Lastly, compare your efforts to commercial recordings (not that those are not guilty of overusing fake church algorithms).

Closing thoughts

Proper mixing can turn a decent recording into a great one

I hope that this article will make you more conscious of your post-processing choices. I need to write dedicated articles for the use of equalizers and reverb as there is a ton of things to discuss.

I know that many guitarists don't want to fuzz around with plugins, but proper audio processing can transform a recording. Mixing is an art in itself; a necessary evil that can turn a decent recording to a great one. Quality classical guitar recordings are important for your audience and benefit the classical guitar community as a whole. Thus, it's definitely worth the time and effort to learn how to mix your audio. Alternatively, you may search for someone else to do that for you.

Tip: You don't have to mix every track from scratch; after all, you probably record the same instrument with the same microphone technique and in the same room all the time. Create a template in your DAW with your basic panning, filter and reverb settings. You'll still have to tweak around a bit, as not every piece favours the same settings, nor every day is the same. Templates are great time savers.

K. Margaritis 9/22/20 K. Margaritis 9/22/20

Beyerdynamic DT 880 Premium Edition 250 Ohm Review

Natural-sounding headphone for professional mixing, mastering, and home listening. Or is it?

I love listening to music on headphones, I think it is the second-best way to immerse oneself into the music, to get isolated from the "world" around. For engineers, producers and home recordists, headphones can also be invaluable tools for analytical listening and be used as a reference for mixing.

This is my first headphone review on the site. Headphone reviews are usually audiophile-centric (whatever that means), but I don't care much about magic dust.

For casual listening and mixing purposes, I would love my headphones to sound as close as possible to my Focal monitors, for a seamless transition. For analytical listening, I want to hear the air around the fingers as they reach for the strings. If you think this a hyperbole, the answer is yes, but you know what I mean.

The question is if the Beyerdynamic DT 880 250 Ohm can fulfil any or both of these roles. Is it analytical, relaxed or neutral?

Incarnations

Beyerdynamic needs no introduction, they are around since the early 1930s and there is some type of DT headphones in every studio around the world. Noteworthy is that all their professional products are still made in Germany.

Introduced in 1980, the DT 880 is a semi-open design, ideal for mixing and mastering according to Beyerdynamic. There are two distinct versions, the Pro for professional use and Premium Edition for home listening. Both sound the same though, with only some minor visual differences. I bought the Premium Edition because I prefer the straight cable (they are also slightly cheaper), but I would like the headband to be removable like on the Pro version.

The Premium Edition comes with a pleather foamed case for transporting, which is extremely bulky so it gets seldom used. The DT 880 rarely leaves my desk anyway. A slightly smaller and more convenient hard-shell nylon case is also available by Beyerdynamic at a reasonable cost.

Manufacturing and comfort

Industrial design with a mix of metal and plastic

The headphone follows the industrial design aesthetic of most Beyerdynamic products. I find the understated blend of black and grey shades very pleasing, and the mix of metal and top-quality plastic makes it very robust. The manufacturing of the DT 880 is impeccable; I have them since the beginning of 2018 and although it has slid from my desk quite a few times, it looks and functions just like the first day.

The DT 880 sits on my head very comfortable; the large velour ear pads and that thick padding on the headband allow for extended listening sessions without ever getting tired. The cable on the other hand is an aberration; it is thick, permanently fitted on one side, and way too long. The quality is decent, but I wish I could swap it with a smaller one as the RME ADI-2 Pro FS is at hands reach from my sitting position.

Listening

Although I believe that the DT 880 are some of the best headphones in their price range and even well above, I have mixed feelings about their performance. I know, that's not what you wanted to read, but let me explain.

The sound is generally neutral, especially the low-end and mids. They reach deep, but the bass is never exaggerated; if anything it can be quite lean for some tastes. The mids are pure and open, every detail is utmostly portrayed. There is a slight emphasis on the low-mids, but it is negligible.

My difficulty in loving the DT 880 is the high-end, which tends to be unnaturally piercing and sharp. Even some luscious and generally dark David Russel recordings can sound dazzling. The enlarged trebles are useful only when I search for undesired sound in my recordings; for any other listening purpose, it only takes out from the beautiful balance of the rest of the range.

The presentation is transparent and wide, the drivers are fast and the delivery dynamic. The biggest strength of the DT 880 comes from its ability to represent the individual frequencies in a disunited manner, detached from each other. This aspect is invaluable for analytical listening, but as a result, the headphones don't let me forget that I'm listening to a recording; the medium never disappears entirely.

Correction required

Beyerdynamic DT 880 and RME ADI-2 Pro FS

The DT 880 can improve dramatically if you are willing to bother with an equalizer. I had to create a custom EQ preset on the RME ADI-2 Pro FS to be able to appreciate them more. Taming the high-end makes the Beyerdynamics more comparable to my monitors. Still, the headphone remains utterly detailed but much more enjoyable than without any equalization applied.

I wonder if Beyerdynamic could fix the treble response on the production model. Maybe they don't want to tweak such a classic design, or possibly they want you to buy the new T1.3, which seems to be the ideal headphone for people without hearing loss.

Ohmage

My version of the DT 880 is the 250 Ohm. Even if there is a reasonable level for my ears (I usually listen to music at relatively low levels) when I use it even though my MacBook's output, the sound improves significantly when I drive it with the ADI-2 Pro FS. A more power-hungry 600 Ohm version is also available, as well as a 32 Ohm version for mobile use. In any case, you won't hear what this headphone is possible to deliver if you don't pair it with a high-quality amplifier and DAC.

Beyerdynamic’s DT 880 vs DT 770 and DT 990

Mini jack and 6.3 mm screw adapter — Mini jack and 6.3 mm screw **adapter**

Beyerdynamic offers three main alternatives at a similar price range, all with unique strengths. From the three, the DT 880 is the most balanced and natural-sounding, admittingly apart from the treble spike. The DT 990 is a fully open design and exceedingly analytic. To be honest, every time I listen to anything with it, I get dizzy with its excessive high-end. Finally, the DT 770 is closed-back and its main use is in the studio during tracking. It blocks external sounds to creep in and vice versa, but it doesn't sound nearly as nice as the DT880.

Conclusion

The Beyerdynamic DT 880 is clean and balanced for the most part, adequate for any professional use. It responds well to EQ, which can make it much more useful; the analytic Beyerdynamic nature is always present though, so it is impossible to get absorbed in the music. Considering its engineering and performance, the DT 880 is pretty affordable and is probably the best headphone at that price range, especially if you are willing to use some form of correction.

By the way, if you are still wondering; the best way for someone to fully appreciate the music is, of course, attending a concert.

K. Margaritis 9/18/20 K. Margaritis 9/18/20

Three Most Essential Plugins for the Classical Guitar

With the seemingly unlimited processing power of modern computers and affordability of recording equipment, it is not hard to make amazing recordings on location or even at our living rooms; and there is no need to wear a white coat to be able to use a microphone anymore.

Abbey Road recording engineers in white coats

This democratisation of music production brought an abundance of plugins; plugins that we can use to shape our music in any shape or form we can imagine. We don't need to buy expensive and bulky hardware equalizers and reverb units anymore.

Albeit the plethora of plugins, I adopt a minimal approach. There are just a few of them that I use every day and consider to be crucial for my workflow. Here are the three most essential plugins for the classical guitar:

Phase Metering with the 2CAudio Vector

The classical guitar is a rich and complex-sounding instrument, and as one, it can only be fully appreciated when recorded in stereo. Most of the stereo microphone techniques require the microphones to be placed at some distance with each other, and the more microphones you use, the easier it gets to face phasing problems.

Phasing occurs when the wave shapes of two or more microphones are not perfectly aligned in the time domain. This attribute is not entirely undesirable; as the sound begins its journey from the plucked strings and the vibrations of the top of the guitar, our notes travel as sound waves towards the microphones and reach them at slightly different times. Combined with additional waves that reflect on the walls and other objects around us, all with small but not insignificant delays, these slight differences help to create the stereo effect that we experience. Not dissimilar to how our ears and brains perceive and interpret the world around us.

When these differences are augmented to a greater degree, phasing occurs and has a noticeable influence on the sound quality of our recordings. Cancellations and comb filtering can potentially strip fundamental frequencies from our recording, leaving the recorded guitar sound thin and weak. Phase problems can be fixed during mixing by aligning the offending tracks, but it's always preferable to take the extra time and correct this when setting up the microphones.

Here is my process. After finding the desired positions of the guitar(ist) and microphones, I make the first test recordings, then I immediately load the 2CAudio Vector plugin to check for any phase issues. If needed, I move one of the microphones a centimetre or two, closer or further away. Possibly, I need to adjust the angle of the microphone(s). I make small changes and repeat as many times as necessary.

Any result higher with than +70 is acceptable, I strive though for an average of +80 or higher.

Additionally to the phase-meter, the 2CAudio Vector displays a visual spatial meter, a long-term average level, and panning meters. It is a very important tool, and, it is free.

Alternatives - for those who are on a Mac and use Logic Pro X, Apple provides a bare essential but usable alternative; the Correlation Meter, found under the Metering group. If free options are not for you, iZotope offers the Insight 2 metering plugin at a substantial price, which offers a lot of additional metering tools that can be handy.

Filtering, Tone Shaping and Surgical Corrections with the FabFilter Pro-Q 3

Learning how to use an equalizer correctly can transform a good recording to a world-class one. Not to say that it can save your wallet from the need of better guitars, microphones and other gear.

A gentle roll-off of the low (below 50Hz) and high frequencies (above 18000Hz) is my starting point. There is not much if any classical guitar information at these ranges and most speakers (for home, or even pro-audio) will attenuate these frequencies. I don't want my recordings to have much information that I cannot hear, anyway.

Tip: I've created a preset with these filters so that I don't have to set them up every time. Better yet, I have created a logic template with my plugins and panning presets that I load any time I start a new session. Small things can make our lives easier and save a lot of time.

Next, I'll try to see if there is any unwanted frequency or resonance that needs to be tamed or even eliminated. I use a wide Q band when boosting frequencies for the smoothest response, and a narrow Q band when cutting to eliminate the offending frequency without affecting nearby elements.

And finally, I might apply a mild high shelf, boost or cut of a couple of dBs, if I find the need to get a crisper or darker sound. If there is too much body or not enough fullness, I apply a mild low shelf cut or boost. A little goes a long way.

To be honest, most of my solo recordings nowadays have a very limited amount of EQ (needless to point out that all the microphone comparisons on this site have no EQ or other processing). I try to get it right before the signal converts to digital, taking a great deal of consideration on the room and microphone technique, and my fingers on the guitar. Yet sometimes this is not possible for various reasons, and learning how to sculpt your sound with an equalizer can be invaluable.

For example, last year I decided to record my classical guitar at a historic monument in Greece, Zalongo. I took my trusty Sony PCM D100 portable recorder with me... on top of the mountain. The high altitude proved to be very challenging, the wind didn't allow for any normal position of the recorder, so it ended up being too low and on the side. When I returned home, I thought that the recording was ruined, but careful equalization saved the day.

My recent series of articles exclusively focuses on how I utilize EQ. If you are interested in gaining more knowledge about it, these articles are a great resource to refer to: Crafting Your Sound: How to shape your classical guitar recordings with EQ

The FabFilter Pro-Q 3 is one of the finest equalizers on the market. The sound is clean and precise, yet with some extra dimensionality and sweetness. The GUI is as intuitive as is breathing, the possibilities offered are virtually endless. Besides, a convenient real-time spectrum analyser to better judge what your EQ choices are affecting is available, as well as other useful tools. It is not cheap, but it is the best!

Alternatives - any modern DAW would have a decent equalizer built-in, basic filtering will be effortless, but more complicated sculpturing will be somewhat limited. Waves Q10 is an affordable equalizer with somewhat similar functionality and interface.

Telling sweet lies with the 2CAudio Aether

Considering that the performance is excellent, the general tone and attributes of the guitar well captured; anything we add at this point is a lie. Adding reverb to a recording is a necessary lie, as nothing will affect the listener more than the physical space that the music takes place.

Contrarily, nothing is more repulsive than a terrible recording trying to hide behind a wash of cheap "church" ambience.

Tip: As reverb tends to smear the sound to a considerable degree, I make most judgments regarding EQ, microphone positioning, etc. without the plugin engaged. I want to have the best possible result, before applying any enhancing effects. I fine-tune my levels, panning and equalizer choices with the reverb later.

Applying reverb needs to be a mindful process. To some extend it is a stylistic choice; what is appropriate for the music, what expressive and dramatic elements we want to convey. According to these questions, I choose an algorithm or preset, a starting point, but the settings need tweaking to fit the overall character of the music.

Room reverb has the power to make a recording feel real and accessible, friendly, like having a guitarist play for you in the same room. A medium or larger hall sound will present the audience with a feeling that they have attended a professional recital; a formal setting. Lastly, larger halls and churches can distance the musician from the audience, maybe even from the instrument itself, granting an elusive and ethereal mystique.

Some audiences might prefer the intimate warmth of the Segovia's recordings, while others find pleasure in the spaciousness of Julian Bream's recordings, yet others might seek a middle ground; not too dry, not too wet. For me, it primarily depends on the actual music.

When fine-tuning the settings, the tempo and rhythms of the piece must be considered; how much space exists between notes, how quick do they change, how dense is the harmony, etc. Faster pieces need shorter reverb tails or they will sound blurry, slower pieces might benefit by longer ambience tails. I fine-tune these parameters on a song to song basis, a few times I might even add automation to the adjustments.

All rooms have a sound, they accentuate and attenuate different frequencies, like employing a catholic EQ. Any decent reverb plugin will offer some adjustability for regulating the response of its algorithms. Most of the time, I tend to tune my reverbs a little darker so that they are not as obvious. Taming the low end can also be desirable to help the recording be a little clearer. At rare cases, I will use two instances of the plugin with different settings on high and low responses.

Tip: The place of the reverb on the signal chain matters, I sometimes like to put the Reverb before the EQ. Hence the general equalization applies to the recorded sound as a whole, almost like shaping a classical guitar tone recorded in a larger room. I avoid any drastic boosts or cuts in that case though.

2CAudio Aether’s intensive list of presets

The 2CAudio Aether is the most expressive and expensive-sounding reverb plugin I have ever witnessed. It is an algorithmic reverb and can sound quite realistic but always musical and impressive. It has excellent room and hall emulations, suitable for classical and acoustic music, still, it can create any ambience sound you can imagine. 2CAudio provides an enormous preset library for the Aether to get you started, and the adjustability is intense. Right now it is on sale.

Alternatives - I started with the 2CAudio Breeze, before migrating to its bigger brother. Breeze offers a similarly excellent sound, at a bare essential and affordable package. It offers less tweakability, but that might be a good thing as the Aether can sometimes overwhelm the inexperienced. Breeze 2 should be even better than the first version I was using. I have also heard good things about the Exponential Audio PhoenixVerb, but have yet to try it.

I’ve recently tested about a dozen different reverb plugins, to find the Best Reverb Plugin for Classical Guitar.

Closing thoughts

I have and sometimes use other plugins as well, but I try to keep an as-small-as-possible armoury. By limiting my plugin choices, I can concentrate on the music. I want to have to take as few unimportant decisions as I need.

If you are on the market for a new EQ or reverb plugin, this article can give you some fine options. But I also hope that this text might inspire you to learn and use what you already have, use your ears to make mindful adjustments, and finally present your music as you intend.

K. Margaritis 9/18/20 K. Margaritis 9/18/20

A Three-Microphone Setup for Recording Classical Guitar

An M/S Stereo alternative.

Classical Guitar is a complex and rich sounding instrument; as such, it sounds better when is recorded with at least two microphones. A statement that you must have read several times already if you hang out at this site. Some engineers argue though that guitar is a relatively small instrument which tends to sound too "wide" when recorded with the most conventional stereo techniques; thus sounding unrealistic in playback.

Neumann TLM 193 and TLM 170 in M/S Stereo Configuration

Mid/Side stereo, which I discuss in my Three M/S Stereo Setups for the Classical Guitar article, is usually praised for its truthful representation of the classical guitar. The elimination of phasing problems and the flexibility it offers during mixing are additional important advantages, however, it is not immune to potential issues. Namely, the collapse of the room information in mono reproduction, and the inability to hear the resulted-combined sound without some processing to the channels (or the use of an M/S matrix). Lastly, symmetrical Figure-8 microphones, required for the "Side" channels, with a balanced response are generally expensive.

Alternatively, the combination of a "Mono" microphone placed at close-proximity and a "Stereo Pair" at some distance, shares some similar advantages without the drawbacks of M/S Stereo. Hence the Three-Microphone Setup is an appropriate option for capturing the subtleties of the classical guitar.

Purpose in position

Austrian Audio OC18 - A Large Diaphragm Cardioid Condenser

The "Mono" microphone is positioned close to the instrument (at about 50cm, although some could go as close as 30cm) to capture a full-bodied sound. I recommend a large-diaphragm condenser with a smooth treble response for this position; as not only it will capture the fullest sound, but the slower transient response of the large capsule will also give a less analytic, more relaxed response.

The "Stereo Pair" is placed a little further away to capture the sound of the room. A pair of small-diaphragm condensers is ideal here due to the better off-axis response and can be either Omni or Cardioid patterns depending on the acoustics. The actual distance depends mainly on the room; accordingly, as the distance increases, the height of the microphones should be increased as well. The distant pair brings to the mix crucial depth, space and some high-end articulation.

Decisions; Player vs Audience

Another way to see the three-microphone setup is as a fine compromise between the intimacy of what the player hears and the somewhat distant experience of an audience member.

During mixing, the three channels can be balanced to the desired sound; from close to distant and everything in between. Either the "mono" or the "stereo pair" can be used as the base sound. Think about a mono capture with some extra space or a distant pair with added fulness.

Examples

For the first recording, I used a Neumann TLM 193 relatively close to the guitar, and a wide pair of DPA 4011As as room microphones.

In isolation, neither the Mono signal nor the AB pair sounds particularly great. The first is somewhat plain and too direct, while body and weight are missing from the AB pair. When mixing all three microphones, the combined sound gets defined and three-dimensional; thus more real.

I made another example of the same setup and the exact same distances, this time with an Austrian Audio OC818 in Cardioid for the Mono duties. The AB pair is still the DPA 4011A. If you have read my Austrian Audio OC818 review, you already know that I love their sound, and I wanted to hear how well they can mix with the DPA microphones.

Combining M/S and Room Microphones

A few months ago, I also experimented with combining an M/S pair of Neumann TLM 193 and AEA N8 up close and a stereo pair of Austrian Audio OC818s at some distance, you can hear the result in this recording of Bach's Cello Prelude no.2.

Some things to take care of

If you want to try the Three-microphone setup, it is important to listen to the recording as a whole before committing to any microphone position. The Mono microphone may be judged alone if you plan to use for the main sound, but don't make bold decisions without listening to the combined audio.

Potential phasing nightmares is one of the biggest drawbacks of this setup, so take extra care to eliminate any issue and check with a proper phase meter plugin regularly (read my article on the Three Most Essential Plugins for Classical Guitar).

Lastly, although the recording should be evaluated as a whole, the close and distant setups might need to be EQed separately. Nevertheless, you may apply a catholic EQ with basic filters and sculpturing.

Cheaper Alternatives

Line Audio CM3 - A budget SDC with an surprisingly good sound

Apart from the aforementioned combinations, any microphone could do a decent job. If you just starting and your budget is limited, buy the best large-diaphragm condenser you can afford and a pair of cheaper small-diaphragm condensers, like the Line Audio CM3/CM4 (read my comparison of the Line Audio CM3 and DPA 4011A).

Final thoughts

I've seen mostly AB, XY, ORTF and sometimes M/S setups explored by engineers and home recordists for the classical guitar. All of which can produce excellent recordings given the right circumstances. Yet, I find that with more elaborate techniques I can capture the instrument, at home or on location, with exceptional precision, without any disadvantages. Except maybe for needing more input channels, cables, stands, and more time for the setup.

A Three-Microphone setup can shine in a very wet hall, as it allows us to capture the body and definition of the instrument while including as much ambience as desired. In a home recording of the classical guitar, it offers great flexibility, if not to provide ambience, it combines the intimacy and fullness of a close pick-up with some extra depth provided by the spaced pair.

So, what do you think? Have you tried a three-microphone setup? Which microphones have you used?

Neumann Berlin

DPA Microphones