Is the amplified acoustic a dead-end?

Here you can discuss details about instruments, equipment and all those other bits that non-musicians won't understand !

Moderator: GORDON

User avatar
Mike Stranks
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Cirencester, UK

Is the amplified acoustic a dead-end?

Postby Mike Stranks » Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:45 pm

Three months ago I posted a topic here: "Have you Seen January's Performing Musician?".

One of the articles I referrred to in that post was what I thought was quite a controversial piece about the severe limitations of pick-ups in acoustic guitars. This article has just come out of its 'you have to pay for it if you want to read it' time and is now available to all at:

http://www.performing-musician.com/pm/j ... nstage.htm

(It's a fairly long article which needs careful reading)

As a sound engineer - both studio and live - I think it paints far too gloomy a picture. Since they became commonplace, the use of decent pick-ups on acoustic guitars has made my life in live-sound immeasurably easier in terms of consistency and quality of what I can deliver to the audience.

But what do the guitar players think? Discuss...! :)
The older I get, the better I used to be

User avatar
AndrewD
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:19 pm
Location: North Somerset
Contact:

Postby AndrewD » Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:37 pm

Hi Mike,

This is a very detailed article indeed, and for much of it ran at a considerably deeper technical level than I have hitherto delved with acoustics. As an expert non-specialist and complete novice :? in this area of sound engineering and production I would like to proffer my humble view. There are many interesting points to pick up on, not least of which is the venue. Over the years I developed an interest in hi-fi gear and wanted a really good sound. When I was getting my hi-fi kit together in the mid/late ‘80s many amplifier manufacturers were dispensing with external tone/EQ controls completely. They considered they knew what the best sound was and so you didn’t need to worry about it. My own view of such things was a bit different. The acoustics of the room you put the sound gear in plays a big part in shaping what you hear. Being able to tweak the EQ means you can modify the sound produced to fit the room’s acoustics. A lack of soft furnishings makes a big difference to the echo within a room (even taking the wallpaper off the wall does this, as I rediscovered last weekend as we started to redecorate). So trying to produce the perfect sound from anything, hi-fi amp to acoustic guitar will result in wildly different sounds depending on where you are. (Some venues rarely give good sound – having lived for years in the midlands I went to loads of gigs at the NEC Arena, rubbish acoustically except for one man: Mike Oldfield, who somehow managed to get a fantastic sound out of it somehow, an achievement no-one has equalled to my ears). Is it really necessary to get the perfect reproduction of an acoustic guitar but amplified? Is it worth getting really manically into tweaking every setting that fraction of a turn just to get it exactly as it sounds without amplification? Or are you just after a sound that you really like? For me it is the latter – if it sounds nice to the ear I don’t really care whether it is absolutely faithful to the unamplified instrument or not. Also, as people see colour slightly differently so people hear sound slightly differently; so what you as the performer hears will be interpreted slightly differently by each member of the audience.

In recent years I have seen Gordon play at The Fleece, Bretforton; CatStrand, New Galloway; and Rosslyn Chapel. The sounds produced worked well in the very different environments. Were they all "perfect" reproductions of the unamplified instruments? I doubt it. Each venue was very different acoustically, but I still enjoyed what I heard.

So, to sum up I don’t see the utopian view of perfectly reproduced acoustic guitar as a Holy Grail as wherever you play it you will get a different sound and individuals will always have their own likes and dislikes and a view for what constitutes “good sound”.

User avatar
Russ Gannicott
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:28 pm

Postby Russ Gannicott » Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:20 am

Whilst I have the utmost regard for Adriad Legg, I have to say I find this a rather pointless and indeed, self indulgent article. About the only thing it serves is to display Adrian's own technical knowledge with little regard to the realities of working with acoustic instruments in a live context.
The entire process is based on compromise and indeed, whilst the result achieved may not be perfect, it is by all means satisfactory to the majority who are listening to it. Rather too much emphasis is being given to the means by which the acoustic instument's 'voice' is being 'heard', rather than how it is broadcast. The best pick-up/microphone in the world will not compensate for a blown horn in the left hand speaker array!
Chhers,
Russ

User avatar
Mike Stranks
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: Cirencester, UK

Postby Mike Stranks » Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:17 pm

Thanks for those responses Andrew and Russ.

I've been holding back from responding to see if anyone else wanted to air an opinion.

I have to say that I agree with what you've both said. There are so many other variables in the equation when you listen to amplified 'anything'! I think that, although the author obviously knows his stuff and makes some good points, he's ended up not seeing the wood for the trees. If you take his argument to the logical conclusion then you wouldn't mic or amplify in any way any acoustic instrument - which is OK in the village hall, Little Bumstead-in-the Wold, but would leave the audience struggling a bit in some larger venues.

Of course, someone like Gordon uses the additional features that electronics brings to enhance the performance and make sounds and tunes possible that simply couldn't be heard without them. For instance, Gordon would have his work cut out to play 'Rainbow Kites' and 'Splinter' as straight acoustic pieces! :D
The older I get, the better I used to be

User avatar
Rick Payman
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:53 pm
Location: St. Albans
Contact:

Postby Rick Payman » Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:46 am

I find one of the more fascinating aspects of this article to be it's author.
Whilst I have admired and indeed been in awe of Adrian's playing for many a decade, I can't in all honesty say that I have in any way associated him with striving for a pure acoustic sound. Rather the opposite in fact; I have always considered Adrian as a master of processed guitar, and I suspect that some of his instruments have little or no acoustic quality whatsoever, having to rely upon on pickups, electronics and effects to be heard at all. On the other hand, even the most amplified, compressed and processed of Adrian's sounds somehow seem to maintain a distinct acoustic quality.

One of the better sound systems I have heard recently was used by John Williams (the guitarist) playing in a church; I had the good fortune to be sitting near the front, and could hear John's guitar quite clearly when he walked on stage and played a little without the sound system. As John approached the microphone, his guitar became louder, but it was as if without amplification (very poor explanation, but it sounded great!).


Return to “Guitar Anoraks Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests