Curing a boom on an amplified acoustic guitar

Bob-Dubery · 2010-12-30T05:46:45+00:00

Last time I played at TJs I could hear an occasional boomy noise through the PA. The sound guy (Fingerpicker actually) dialled this out eventually but it was...

Curing a boom on an amplified acoustic guitar

Bob-Dubery

Reinhard wrote: At the risk of running off topic. I don't know jack when it comes to acoustic guitars, the finger pickers here will have to help me if I run into any problems, but I did read an interesting post last night. The guy was complaining of his high E string being softer than the other strings when amplified.

My guess is that the real problem there is a slightly loud B string. If you're fingerpicking then this can be quite intrusive and annoying as the 1st and 2nd strings often carry much of the melody. You don't notice the discrepancy as much with the lower strings as they tend to be playing the steady bass part.

There are various ways of addressing this. Talk to a guitar tech that you trust and see what they recommend.

Then someone mentioned using clay (mexican variety) to improve the contact the saddle? Makes with the body. Apparently this has been shown to improve tone in many guitars. It seems that when the clay dries it hardens and improves the contact between the saddle and guitar. Apparently the red clay can interfere with electronics due to the increased ferrous content. The grey clay seems to be the one to use. I'll see if I can find a link with better info. Then again the acoustic aficionados may already know this, but I thought I would share.
Oh yes, and thanks for the advice on keeping the 12's on my hummingbird guys ?

Well the contact between the saddle and the bridge is very important. Especially if you're playing via an undersaddle pickup of some type. So I'd say that instead of mucking around with clay the thing to do is to get the saddle to fit properly or even get a new saddle. The clay won't last in any case - disturb the saddle when you're doing something like changing strings and oops! It will also mean an incosistency as regards the material through which the vibrations must travel from saddle to bridge, which means you're adding a wild card into the sound of the guitar.

AlanRatcliffe

Clay is an end user "fix" for imperfectly fitted USTs - usually the piezoceramic pickups like the Fishman AGs, which have individual elements and are very sensitive to saddle and saddle slot problems. The biggest problem is it makes the pickup very microphonic and doesn't address the real problem. Oh yes... with clay there is also a very real chance that the pickup will be damaged when you try and remove it (or sometimes just the saddle) for other work.

Balance problems can usually be cured by sanding the bottom of the saddle flat. If that doesn't work, you rout the slot flat. Occasionally it's all down to a top bowing when under string pressure and then the fun starts...

Keira-WitherKay

great post Bob

and great ears fdingerpicker ....for isolating it so fast at TJ's it's 10 min sets so not lots of time to get sound right......

i must admit i do keep wondering why people don't use the LR baggs ibeams more ( i do) is it that the stores don't punt them as much as they do the dual systems really that system eliminates any possible ust problems totally no quack no contact issues ...... and no need for a mic cos the top is active so the natural acoustic tone is what comes out ........ and in practise i have had ibeams systems in most of my gutars...as i bought 2x LR baggs i beam actives....and as i change guitars i move them between the guitars...... also it only requires 1 end pin hole for jack.and nothing drilled into bridge....... and i get great very natural sounding tone..... just check out my video's on you tube...... and also the natural tone comes from not one guitar but so far i installed that system into at least 5 different guitars and use it professionally fulltime never anything else.......and each retains it's natural sound ....... also no balance issues between strings .....the guitars string balance sounds like it does acoustically..so if acoustically it's a bass heavy guitar the i beam reproduces it and if it's a clearer bright tone thats what comes out ........... and so far it seems i'm the only one that is using this system around here except for maestro and music lecturer at wits Johnathan crossley i was told had one installed.

sure i only use this on nylon strings so maybe steel string guitars respond differently but also maybe people don't know there is an option out there over dual system UST's

Bob-Dubery

Keira WitherKay wrote: i must admit i do keep wondering why people don't use the LR baggs ibeams more ( i do) is it that the stores don't punt them as much as they do the dual systems really that system eliminates any possible ust problems totally no quack no contact issues ...... and no need for a mic cos the top is active so the natural acoustic tone is what comes out ........

OK... firstly my post wasn't about LR Baggs gear specifically. To me this seems to be a potential problem with lots of under-saddle types of pickups - any of the ones where the pickup is a continuous length of the active material.

As for the iBeam.... well I don't want to get into a "my kit is better than yours" thing.

I think it's horses for courses. I personally don't like the Baggs M1 (magnetic, in-soundhole) but it seems to get used a lot by guys who play in loud situations with a band. I watched a Wilco DVD recently. Jeff Tweedy's acoustic had an M1 fitted. Now it didn't give actually that realistic an acoustic sound, but it was sort of in the acoustic ball park soundwise, and it means he can play loud with little worry of feedback and the guitar cut through the band's sound quite well and so he could play rhythm parts on something that sounded more or less like an acoustic guitar.

I think if he were playing solo then the M1 might not have done so good a job, I think then another type of system might have done better.

I quite like the sound you get out of the iBeam. Hugh Cummings has an iBeam and he gets a good sound. I tried it and hated it (I'm one of THOSE).

I think, actually, that the UST sound is becoming accepted as the way acoustic guitars sound. I'm not in favour of that myself, but then I'm old and crochety and opinionated. I hear that sound a lot these days - on CDs as well as live - and I think it's what people are starting to expect. If I'm right then stores will steer buyers more towards the UST type of system and buyers will ask for them. Most budget acoustics that you get with electronics have a UST fitted, so again the ear starts getting accustomed to that sound.

I found my recent experience with the Baggs Anthem quite interesting. A lot less quack - they seem to have dialed it out on the electronics. I think the key to a UST system is to dial out the quack with EQ, preferably parametric. It can be done, and then the sound gets a lot better. For the amount of time that I spend playing in front of audiences I can't really justify a nice EQ or the extra complexity it brings. Even that Gig Pro that I used to have got most of the quack out of the sound. These days with the Dual Source I find that the mic tends to hide the quack by introducting a more natural tone into the mid range.

IMO the trick is to know your equipment well - even if it's simple. I have noticed that a lot of good acoustic players I have seen the last couple of years either have their own pre-amp - thus passing a signal to the sound desk that the sound guy can pretty much keep flat - or will tell the sound guy something like "I want a cut at about 1.4 Khz". That's the trick really, know your gear so that you can help the sound guy do his job and that way you both sound good.

Coming back to the "boom". I could have maybe got rid of that with EQ or with a feedback buster, but I believe in fixing things at their root. Now I can just plug in and not have to tell the soundguy how to deal with the boom or hope that he detects it and dials it out.

Reinhard

X-rated Bob wrote:
Reinhard wrote: At the risk of running off topic. I don't know jack when it comes to acoustic guitars, the finger pickers here will have to help me if I run into any problems, but I did read an interesting post last night. The guy was complaining of his high E string being softer than the other strings when amplified.
My guess is that the real problem there is a slightly loud B string. If you're fingerpicking then this can be quite intrusive and annoying as the 1st and 2nd strings often carry much of the melody. You don't notice the discrepancy as much with the lower strings as they tend to be playing the steady bass part.

There are various ways of addressing this. Talk to a guitar tech that you trust and see what they recommend.

Then someone mentioned using clay (mexican variety) to improve the contact the saddle? Makes with the body. Apparently this has been shown to improve tone in many guitars. It seems that when the clay dries it hardens and improves the contact between the saddle and guitar. Apparently the red clay can interfere with electronics due to the increased ferrous content. The grey clay seems to be the one to use. I'll see if I can find a link with better info. Then again the acoustic aficionados may already know this, but I thought I would share.
Oh yes, and thanks for the advice on keeping the 12's on my hummingbird guys ?
Well the contact between the saddle and the bridge is very important. Especially if you're playing via an undersaddle pickup of some type. So I'd say that instead of mucking around with clay the thing to do is to get the saddle to fit properly or even get a new saddle. The clay won't last in any case - disturb the saddle when you're doing something like changing strings and oops! It will also mean an incosistency as regards the material through which the vibrations must travel from saddle to bridge, which means you're adding a wild card into the sound of the guitar.

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: Clay is an end user "fix" for imperfectly fitted USTs - usually the piezoceramic pickups like the Fishman AGs, which have individual elements and are very sensitive to saddle and saddle slot problems. The biggest problem is it makes the pickup very microphonic and doesn't address the real problem. Oh yes... with clay there is also a very real chance that the pickup will be damaged when you try and remove it (or sometimes just the saddle) for other work.

Balance problems can usually be cured by sanding the bottom of the saddle flat. If that doesn't work, you rout the slot flat. Occasionally it's all down to a top bowing when under string pressure and then the fun starts...

Good info, thanks guys!

Bob-Dubery

Keira WitherKay wrote: i must admit i do keep wondering why people don't use the LR baggs ibeams more ( i do) is it that the stores don't punt them as much as they do the dual systems really that system eliminates any possible ust problems totally no quack no contact issues ...... and no need for a mic cos the top is active so the natural acoustic tone is what comes out ........ and in practise i have had ibeams systems in most of my gutars...as i bought 2x LR baggs i beam actives....and as i change guitars i move them between the guitars...... also it only requires 1 end pin hole for jack.and nothing drilled into bridge....... and i get great very natural sounding tone..... just check out my video's on you tube...... and also the natural tone comes from not one guitar but so far i installed that system into at least 5 different guitars and use it professionally fulltime never anything else.......and each retains it's natural sound ....... also no balance issues between strings .....the guitars string balance sounds like it does acoustically..so if acoustically it's a bass heavy guitar the i beam reproduces it and if it's a clearer bright tone thats what comes out ........... and so far it seems i'm the only one that is using this system around here except for maestro and music lecturer at wits Johnathan crossley i was told had one installed.

One reason for not using the i-Beam is that it doesn't physically fit. I'd think that it wouldn't fit the higher-end Breedlove models that have the Bridge Truss construction.

Here's an inside peek at a Larrivee (don't know which model, but the bracing is pretty much the same from model to model)

This is taken looking towards the end block. You can see the bridge plate and it's fairly accessible.

OK... now here's what the inside of a Breedlove C22 looks like...

The iBeam mounts on the bridge plate, and that's a much trickier proposition here because of Breedlove's bridge truss system. In such a case you may have to choose to use another guitar or use another pickup.

You might also have difficulty with some Ovation models

or with a Gibson Mark

Similarly, if I ever get my grubby mitts on a Lowden I wouldn't be able to use my preferred Baggs Dual Source with it. Look at that two piece saddle...

The UST part of the Dual Source won't work there. Lowden are not the only company to use a split saddle (quite a few Takamines have this kind of saddle)

So not every pickup fits every guitar, and it is worth seeking advice before you buy to make sure that pickup and guitar will fit each other.

Keira will be pleased to know that Hugh Cumming has an iBeam fitted to his main stage guitar. However Hugh likes to bypass the pickup completely and play through a microphone... McGibbons have fitted the iMix system to several guitars, and that combines with iBeam with a UST. Several Larrivee models come with the iMix prefitted. So, Keira, there are iBeams out there and you are not alone.

AlanRatcliffe

Similarly, if I ever get my grubby mitts on a Lowden I wouldn't be able to use my preferred Baggs Dual Source with it. Look at that two piece saddle...

Fishman have a two piece UST specifically for the Taks and the Lowdens (special order, but available). Highlander too. Maybe Baggs also have a split version of their UST that they do not list on their site?

I hear that sound a lot these days - on CDs as well as live - and I think it's what people are starting to expect.

Absolutely. Plus most punters hear with their eyes. If you have an acoustic (even fitted with a magnetic pickup) they hear it as an acoustic sound. The reverse is also true - I find that punters (or for that matter, most musicians) don't notice when I'm using piezos in an electric, even when the two sounds are in stark contrast (as when I'm distorting the hell out of the electric sound and overlaying a simple clean piezo).

I think the key to a UST system is to dial out the quack with EQ, preferably parametric.

A lot of it is in the attack though. Very fast transients (faster than a compressor can respond) and often a significantly higher amplitude than the sustained note (which often leads to distortion on top of the quack - the main reason some systems have such a harsh attack). I had some success with routing saddle slots deeper, almost to the top and then using a strip of rosewood between the UST and the saddle. Less quack, more top tone but obviously also a bit more prone to feedback.

Keira-WitherKay

X-rated Bob wrote: [
However Hugh likes to bypass the pickup completely and play through a microphone...

yep him and every other acoustic player ( including me ?) wanting a natural "true" representation of their unamplified tone........ cos lets face it and there's no debate ..and to quote the pickup maker and preamp deigner mr Fishman himself has said that no pickup system currently on the market including high end models can naturally reproduce an acoustic guitar fully .. thats why he has gone into modelling like fishman aura.to try digitally create that missing sound( natural tone) from the pickup.......

but proof of the "pudding " ( debate ) is that the great acoustic soloists ( we not talking rock /pop bands here) the likes of paco de lucia and sergovia and ana vidavik to name just a few all mic up whenever they play live....... and they have the budget and engineers to set up and install any system however expensive or complex.but they don't cos at this time in musical development the acoustic guitar pickups are very good and usable but still not perfect .........but technology will achieve it someday ?

so yeah for most of us acoustic music pro's, me included ... pick up systems in our acoustics are a neccessary evil cos mic'ing up is not practical for the working musician unless the gig is low volume ..

anyway glad to hear there's more i beams out there.......... cos as fussy as i am re tone. i consider ( and as bob mentioned this is not a my gear is better contest and just what suits our needs ) the ibeam to be revolutionary in design ....( no quack /no string level probs/no mixing in a mic and a ust ) ....and it works for me tonally ... but yes we all have our needs so fit the system that works for you ................ but just don't forget we have choices now .....not just a UST solution like many years ago

Bob-Dubery

Alan Ratcliffe wrote:
Similarly, if I ever get my grubby mitts on a Lowden I wouldn't be able to use my preferred Baggs Dual Source with it. Look at that two piece saddle...
Fishman have a two piece UST specifically for the Taks and the Lowdens (special order, but available). Highlander too. Maybe Baggs also have a split version of their UST that they do not list on their site?

I know of the Fishman, but I haven't heard of a similar piece of kit from Baggs. Baggs seem to have a custom department, providing various combinations of their existing kit that seem not to be generally available (EG the M1/iBeam combination that Tom Petty uses) but I haven't heard of a split Element, or even TWO elements being used on one guitar.

A lot of it is in the attack though. Very fast transients (faster than a compressor can respond) and often a significantly higher amplitude than the sustained note (which often leads to distortion on top of the quack - the main reason some systems have such a harsh attack). I had some success with routing saddle slots deeper, almost to the top and then using a strip of rosewood between the UST and the saddle. Less quack, more top tone but obviously also a bit more prone to feedback.

Aha! Before the DS there was an Element in my Morgan. When we started tuning the DS after the installation we started off running just the Element, and my first thought was "Wow! It sounds better just running on the Element." I thought this might be because the electronics that come with the DS are more sophisticated and so Baggs can tune out some of the quack, but I remember Andy saying that they had filled the original slot and then re-routed. Not quite the same as what you describe though, it was still the original saddle and the Element can be seen if you take the saddle out, but he said that they know more about the Element now than when they first started fitting them and that routing does make a difference.

Bob-Dubery

Keira WitherKay wrote: but proof of the "pudding " ( debate ) is that the great acoustic soloists ( we not talking rock /pop bands here) the likes of paco de lucia and sergovia and ana vidavik to name just a few all mic up whenever they play live.......

Hmmm.... I've seen Martin Carthy live. He plugs in. Martin Simpson the same (and he has really, really good live sound). Loudon Wainwright... not a great guitar player but he still needs to amplify an acoustic guitar (in fact he miced up until quite recently judging by photos I've seen, but when I saw him in London he had embraced the dark side). Richard Thompson also plugs in (though he uses effects sometime, so a mic ain't going to work). Bruce Cockburn plugs in. So I guess that as usual there's no rule. In London this year I saw Ollabelle playing and their singer/guitar player Fiona McBain plugged in and had very good sound.

There is some other kit involved in all of this I confess. Carthy has some little box he clips to his mic stand. Plain metal box, no paint job, no logo, no nothing so I assume that's custom made. Simpson has some kind of pre-amp on stage. Thompson has a valve pre-amp on his pedal board (two channels - internal mic goes straight out again to the desk, the channel goes to the FX) and also takes his own sound man every where he plays.

I think the guys who sit down to play may go for the mic because they don't move around very much (but then there was the guy I saw with the JPO). Wainwright has this weird little one legged dance that he does. Carthy likes to step back when he's not singing. Thompson is not exactly Jimmy Page, but he stands the whole time. Also note that nearly everybody I've mentioned here plays steel string.

and they have the budget and engineers to set up and install any system however expensive or complex.but they don't cos at this time in musical development the acoustic guitar pickups are very good and usable but still not perfect .........but technology will achieve it someday ?

I think it's not just that. The guys who play in the football bowls probably play at a volume that makes feedback more likely and also they want to move around a lot more.

I've seen Carthy twice. Once in the basement of a pub (it's true!) and once at the Royal Festival Hall. I saw Simpson in a place a lot smaller than TJs. Thompson plays a lot of sub-1000 seat venues but gets out on the open air festival stage from time to time. I guess a part of it is that they want to have something reliable that they can lug around with them so that they can just pass the sound guy a lead and ask him to not foul things up too badly. Horses for courses. (Thompson's sound guy also knows where the loud button is, so that might steer them away from mics as well). Not exactly polite classical audiences either - they will often play in front of boozy audiences who want to sing along.

anyway glad to hear there's more i beams out there.......... cos as fussy as i am re tone. i consider ( and as bob mentioned this is not a my gear is better contest and just what suits our needs ) the ibeam to be revolutionary in design

I'm not so sure, and I'm not sure that things have gone entirely forwards. Back in the early 80s I had a Yamaha FG something or other (small number, so probably all plywood) that I need to amplify. I went down to TOMs and their technician at the time (Dennis I think... lovely guy) installed this little black box maybe the size of the last bone of my index finger. It said "Ibanez" on the side. He superglued it to one of the X braces. He called it a "bug". It sounded fabulous. Passive, no batteries and low output, but great sound and it never gave me a moment's trouble. Sounded really natural - like an acoustic guitar in fact. I wish you could still get them. I wonder why they went out of production. Anyway... that seemed like a passive iBeam to me, certainly in concept. It was a contact transducer that picked up the vibrations of the top (or brace in this case) rather than having to be fitted under the saddle.

Keira-WitherKay

X-rated Bob wrote:
Keira WitherKay wrote: but proof of the "pudding " ( debate ) is that the great acoustic soloists ( we not talking rock /pop bands here) the likes of paco de lucia and sergovia and ana vidavik to name just a few all mic up whenever they play live.......
Hmmm.... I've seen Martin Carthy live. He plugs in. Martin Simpson the same (and he has really, really good live sound). Loudon Wainwright... not a great guitar player but he still needs to amplify an acoustic guitar (in fact he miced up until quite recently judging by photos I've seen, but when I saw him in London he had embraced the dark side). Richard Thompson also plugs in (though he uses effects sometime, so a mic ain't going to work). Bruce Cockburn plugs in. So I guess that as usual there's no rule. In London this year I saw Ollabelle playing and their singer/guitar player Fiona McBain plugged in and had very good sound.

There is some other kit involved in all of this I confess. Carthy has some little box he clips to his mic stand. Plain metal box, no paint job, no logo, no nothing so I assume that's custom made. Simpson has some kind of pre-amp on stage. Thompson has a valve pre-amp on his pedal board (two channels - internal mic goes straight out again to the desk, the channel goes to the FX) and also takes his own sound man every where he plays.

I think the guys who sit down to play may go for the mic because they don't move around very much (but then there was the guy I saw with the JPO). Wainwright has this weird little one legged dance that he does. Carthy likes to step back when he's not singing. Thompson is not exactly Jimmy Page, but he stands the whole time. Also note that nearly everybody I've mentioned here plays steel string.

yeah bob i think it's the sacrifice they make to be mobile.......and don't get me wrong modern pickups on top end guitars sound awesome live.... but i would bet my grandmother that in the studio they will mic it up rather ........ and sure some acts can't use mic's but thats not cos the pickups are so great but because their show will suffer ( again by not so great i don';t mean bad sound.wow bob your morgan sounds awesome plugged in but mic it and you'll not believe the other nuances that creeps into the sound...... and maybe it's what you and alan said that people get so used to UST type sounds on acoustic tha when they hear it live it sounds perfect ......

but maybe you right that the mic'ing thing is more for nylon string classical/flamenco players who seem to prefer the natural sound as they hear from their unamplified guitars ..maybe cos thats how they perform and rehearse... and expect that sound live .where as a steel string acoustic act that is more like a jack johnson ect.... would even rehearse plugged in so again that sound is what they used to and want to get so they would be happier with a plugged in sound.........

i dare anyone to record a track using their UST or ibeam and then record the same piece on the same guitar with a good condenser mic (positioned correctly of course) and say that they the same ......

heheheh it would be interesting to post it and ask people to vote for the better one...... the result may be shockingly just like with that poll on compressed vs uncompressed mp3's and most chose the lower quality higher compressed one as better .just cos thats what they hear on their ipods daily

Bob-Dubery

Keira WitherKay wrote: yeah bob i think it's the sacrifice they make to be mobile.......and don't get me wrong modern pickups on top end guitars sound awesome live.... but i would bet my grandmother that in the studio they will mic it up rather ........

Well once again I say "hmmmm....." because I hear some transducer in some recordings. I have a DVD of Carthy that is actually filmed in a recording studio (no audience) so that they can get a good sound, and he's plugging in and micing. But some of his CDs I have have a very natural guitar sound. Thompson is a bit of an odd man out (as usual) because he uses the FX (mostly univibe) and also sometimes he plugs into an amp in the studio deliberately to get a sound that's not quite acoustic but also not quite electric. Depends on what they want. I suspect they nearly always record plugged in and then decide to use or not use the pickup sound.

It also depends, I think, on recording practices and expertise. For me the early to mid 70s was the golden age of recorded guitar sounds. I don't hear much of that natural sounding sound on record any more. I think partly because the engineers are striving for a more obviously hi-fidelic sound - clean and bright at the expense of depth - and because methods have changed. Then there's my earlier remark about the way that people EXPECT an acoustic guitar to sound, and a suspicion that maybe the art of recording acoustic guitars in that very natural sounding way is disappearing (which may be unfounded paranoia on my part).

but maybe you right that the mic'ing thing is more for nylon string classical/flamenco players who seem to prefer the natural sound as they hear from their unamplified guitars ..maybe cos thats how they perform and rehearse... and expect that sound live .where as a steel string acoustic act that is more like a jack johnson ect.... would even rehearse plugged in so again that sound is what they used to and want to get so they would be happier with a plugged in sound.........

I think I hit the truth in another point - which is that in the classical world they tend to play to very restrained audiences who will sit quietly and LISTEN and not yak on cell phones or even let their chairs creak (and I'm not saying this is a bad thing) and don't have to deal with high volumes. It's a sort of formal, orchestral setting. I used to make a point of attending JPO performances and believe me that whilst an orchestra can be powerful it's not actually that loud. Two people having a conversation can bring an orchestral performance to a halt (I have witnessed this, and I was on the conductor's side when he gave the culprits a public dressing down). Audiences respect the likes of Martin Carthy and Martin Simpson, but they show it in a rather different way - and guys on that circuit, many of them seriously good acoustic guitarists, play a lot of gigs in pubs and the dynamic is quite different and the audience pleasant but much noisier.

PeteM

I think it depends entirely upon what you as the guitarist wants to achieve. Sometimes you want the natural sound of the guitar - so mic it up. Other times you want the electric sound with an acoustic including a nylon string guitar (which I play both live and in recordings).

In my opinion music and instrumentation is ever evolving and most musos and their audiences have an open attitude to different sounds. So whatever works best for the situation and the style of music - use it.

For example, electric pianos are used a lot on stage and in the studio. If you want an absolutely natural sound use a grand piano. Why use an electric bass when you can use double bass. Each have their own uses and applications.