mic'd amp or direct

[Eric Beam]

So i'm in the process of mixing my current band.. I would like to get a bass players opinion on what they like better...

 

do you like a direct signal for recording or a mic'd amp? and why do you like one over the other..

your thoughts?

[RHINO_ROB]

do both. if you cannot then mike the cab. direct tends to sound thinner.IMHO.

 

how many tracks do you have available. because as you should know the bass needs at least twice the number of tracks than any of the other instruments or vocals .

[ChrisOfDoom]

If you can spare the extra track, a ix of the two can be good. I tried that for a demo my band did and it sounded pretty good despite junky equipment for every part.

[Eric Beam]

A mix of both is what i'll end up doing..

[Eric Beam]

how many tracks do you have available. because as you should know the bass needs at least twice the number of tracks than any of the other instruments or vocals .[/QB]

yeah i have 1 or 2 tracks of everyone and 96 tracks of bass should have a nice balence to it

[RHINO_ROB]

Originally posted by RhythmInMind:

how many tracks do you have available. because as you should know the bass needs at least twice the number of tracks than any of the other instruments or vocals .

yeah i have 1 or 2 tracks of everyone and 96 tracks of bass should have a nice balence to it[/QB]

exactly. but only 96.

[jeremy c]

If your amp and effects are necessary to get your sound you should be miked and direct both.

 

If you want the cleanest possible sound from your bass, just go direct. If your bass doesn't sound good direct to you, there may be something wrong with your playing.

 

It may sound thin in the headphones, but it won't on the tape.

 

Most studios really don't like to mike the amp....there's too much trouble with the bass bleeding onto the drum mikes.

[tatudbassman]

I have a Sennheiser E602 on my Ampeg rig. Nothing else captures the real thing (to me). Even while recording...the studio had me hooked up to an isolated Marshall 100w tube, and 4x12 guitar cab with a SM57? inside. I was going WHAT? But, the engineer said trust me, and it came out sounding fine...not that Pro Tools had anything to do with it. I'm not a sound pro, but that bass cab mic, and the Ampeg rig are not duplicated by computers!

[tatudbassman]

DO BOTH! (sorry lack of caffiene)

[Eric Beam]

i've been playing around with native instruments guitar rig on the direct bass track also. it's fun. they have a some bass presets but everything is with guitar gear, i wish they had a 4-10 or 8-10 cab option..

[Gruuve]

Hard question. It really depends on how it sounds to you. I'd try to use both a direct and a mic signal and mix them if you can. For the direct, it really depends on what you're sending it through before the recorder. By direct, if you mean bass -> recorder, it's going to sound exactly like the bass itself uncolored. (That may or may not be what you want...we're all used to hearing our basses after they've been "colored" by the amp and cabinets, any effects, EQ's, or preamps, and the room itself.)

 

See the post titled something like "MP3 samples"...that's both of my basses going through a Digitech BP8 (compressor, tube preamp, delay or chorus depending on the song) and straight into a digital recorder. Direct doesn't have to sound "thin"...it can be as thick and chunky as you want to (or can) make it.

 

If you don't have any good bass-oriented signal processors between the bass and the recorder (and you don't like how it sounds dry), that's where the mic'd signal will come in useful. Unless you've got multi-band fully parametric EQ on the recorder, you'll typically find that the EQ section of the recorder is not particularly bass guitar friendly, IMHO. (And if you do have multi-band fully parametric EQ, plan to spend considerably time on any tweaking you do.)

 

With a direct and mic signal, I've found that mixing them so that you get the highs and mids from the direct signal and lows from the mic work well (unless you've got a lot of bleed-in from other instruments on the mic signal). That doesn't necessarily mean to EQ them to make them that way...just keep that in mind as you track and mix. However, with two signals from different sources, check the mixed signal carefully...you will likely get some phase cancellation that can have a drastic impact on bass (like in it periodically disappears in stereo...and you won't hear this with headphones, only with monitors). You'll have to position the mic so that you get the "sweet spot"...that is, you get a mic signal that sounds good AND doesn't have undesirable phase cancellation. Use your ears, and some good studio monitors if at all possible (or check the mix in mono!)

 

HTH,

Dave

[getz out]

With a gun to my head, making the decision of one or the other, I'd always go DI. Like Jeremy said, it sounds fuller on tape.

 

Besides the logistics of isolating a bass cabinet, it is also tricky micing a bass cabinet, especially one that has a crossover and multiple drivers.

 

Both is always a better option. If you're laying down scratch tracks, do the bass direct. If the bass tracks end up being keepers, run the bass track through a head and cabinet and mic the cabinet and layer the track.

 

My favorite bass cabinet mic is the ElectroVoice RE-20. Pricy, but fun.

[SteveC]

I just did a telethon (local organization) with the big band yesturday. I use a my K&K BassMax on my upright. I ran it thru my Avalon U5. Everyone said it sounded great. I didn't get to hear myself, but I did go back to the control room and listen when another band used my rig, and I have to say the Avalon sounded very nice.

[alexclaber]

Can of worms...

 

If you're only going to do one, then go for the DI. And as Jeremy said, if your DI sound is too thin then maybe there's something up with your technique (or EQ). The main reason for not sounding fat when DI'd is playing too hard. Play more lightly and you get just as much punch and attack but with a much fatter sustain and decay. Also playing with fingers rather than a pick makes for getting a much better DI'd sound onto tape (bass also tends to benefit from being recording onto analogue tape at a fairly high level due to the natural compression you get from near-saturated magnetic tape).

 

If you're going to mic the cab, how are you going to do it? Most bass cabs are 2-way cabs with a tweeter, woofer and port and the sound is a combination of all three's output. If you distant mic the cab, from say 3'-5' away, then you'll get the whole sound. If you close mic a woofer you'll lose out on the highs from the tweeter and the lowest lows from the port (remember at the port tuning frequency almost none of the sound is coming off the woofer). If you mic the tweeter, woofer and port separately then you'll need 3 tracks for the bass and that's if you don't take a DI line as well.

 

So the obvious thing to do seems to be to distant mic the cab. Except that'll suffer more bleed from the other instruments (step forward kick drum) and will also pick up the natural room reverb which will push the bass sound further back in the mix, which 95% of the time isn't what you want.

 

However you decide to mic the cab (that decision being best based on plenty of trial and error mic positions and different mics - I'm rather partial to a large diaphragm condenser on my cabs but most go for the ubiquitous SM57 (rather midrangey) or a kick mic like the D112 (careful that doesn't force the bass and kick into sharing the same sonic space)), it's often preferable to take a DI line as well. Two reasons: 1. If the miced sound is too woolly the DI can add some much need punch and quickness; 2. If the miced sound really doesn't work you can just use the DI sound or re-amp it to get a better miced sound.

 

Many recorded bass sounds rely on a combination of DI and miced cab but what's often overlooked is that the engineers did some cunning stuff to avoid phase cancellation issues. This happens because the miced sound is fractionally delayed compared to the DI'd sound, basically by the time it takes the sound to travel from the speaker cone to the mic (plus the natural phase shifts and group delay of the cab). Consequently if you just stick the miced and DI'd sounds together you don't get the combination of warmth and punch that you'd expect because the two sounds cancel each other out at certain frequencies (usually right through the critical midrange area).

 

A good way to understand this phase cancellation is to analogise it to the sound you get from a two pickup bass. Use the bridge pickup and you get a midrangey growl. Use the neck pickup and you get a warm round boom. So logically you'd think if you mix the two together you'd get growl and boom but we all know from experience that you don't. The 50/50 pickup sound has less midrange than either of the soloed pickups.

 

My point is that if you want to get a great miced mixed with DI'd sound, you need to slightly delay the whole DI'd sound so they match and and don't cancel each other out. Most good digital desks have this micro-delay feature - I'm not sure if the big analogue ones do or if you have to separately patch a delay through the DI channel (anyone care to enlighten me?)

 

Once you've done that, you can then balance the two sounds to move the bass to and fro in the mix. Bear in mind that as you layer up guitars, keys, vocals etc the bass will get lost and you'll need to start leaning on the DI'd sound more than the miced sound to bring it further forward in the mix.

 

Complicated huh?

 

Best solution - learn how to make your DI'd sound fantastic and enjoy effortless great sound at gigs and in the studio!

 

Alex

[Gruuve]

Originally posted by C. Alexander Claber:

Many recorded bass sounds rely on a combination of DI and miced cab but what's often overlooked is that the engineers did some cunning stuff to avoid phase cancellation issues. This happens because the miced sound is fractionally delayed compared to the DI'd sound, basically by the time it takes the sound to travel from the speaker cone to the mic (plus the natural phase shifts and group delay of the cab). Consequently if you just stick the miced and DI'd sounds together you don't get the combination of warmth and punch that you'd expect because the two sounds cancel each other out at certain frequencies (usually right through the critical midrange area).

 

A good way to understand this phase cancellation is to analogise it to the sound you get from a two pickup bass. Use the bridge pickup and you get a midrangey growl. Use the neck pickup and you get a warm round boom. So logically you'd think if you mix the two together you'd get growl and boom but we all know from experience that you don't. The 50/50 pickup sound has less midrange than either of the soloed pickups.

 

My point is that if you want to get a great miced mixed with DI'd sound, you need to slightly delay the whole DI'd sound so they match and and don't cancel each other out. Most good digital desks have this micro-delay feature - I'm not sure if the big analogue ones do or if you have to separately patch a delay through the DI channel (anyone care to enlighten me?)

 

Once you've done that, you can then balance the two sounds to move the bass to and fro in the mix. Bear in mind that as you layer up guitars, keys, vocals etc the bass will get lost and you'll need to start leaning on the DI'd sound more than the miced sound to bring it further forward in the mix.

 

Alex

From my experience, I think you can at least get the phase cancellation to where it's minimized and everything sounds good by adjusting the distance of the mic from the cabs. Tweak it by 1/2" or so until it sounds right to you. The best way to do this is to mix the two to mono...that way any phase cancellation will immediately appear. You pretty much have to do this with a monitor system that can produce lows down to the obligatory 40 Hz or so, in my humble opinion. It's going to take a lot of work...realize that ahead of time.

 

I definitely agree with Alex and the others on this: I'd spend that work on getting a fantastic DI sound, and maybe just forget the mic'd cabs. The work that goes into mic'ing has to be re-done EVERY time you record (or even if someone trips over the mic you just spent 30 minutes positioning...bummer!). If you spend that time on getting a great DI sound, it's done! And, you can use it for gigs as well as recording. Score!

 

Dave

[Tenstrum]

I do both when playing live and recording. I usually have my mic channel as my main sound and the DI as a secondary "cut through boost". Love the way my Ampeg cab sounds. The DI does seem to help cut through the front of the house sound a little more.

[getz out]

Originally posted by Tenstrum:

the DI as a secondary "cut through boost"

I'm not sure I understand; are you switching the DI signal on and off?

[Fred TBP]

Thanks to digital recording, I can and choose to do both. Plus I ask for an extra clean track to mix with effects so that I can control the blend on the mixdown. Last time I was forced to go with a single track (amp miked and the effects in-line) I hated the results because I lost note definition and the highs.

[Tenstrum]

no. I guess a better description would be a "high end boost". Seemd like I get clearer and better highs through the DI box. Of course, it could just be the sound man working his mojo.

[getz out]

That's clearer. Thanks.

 

That would make sense, no? If you're mic'ing the cabinet, I'm guessing that you're mic'ing the woofer, not the tweeter.

[Tenstrum]

Yep. Placing the mic at the top right speaker. BTW - I use an AKG D112 (Ugly Duckling) to mic my cab and my amp has a DI out on the back.

[Nicklab]

I'm actually recording tonight. I'll be miking the amp and running a DI. The amp has the effects loop going into it, and that's going to be the dirty sound.

 

It's really the most flexible way to record bass. The amp gives you more of a live sound, whereas the DI is going to sound cleaner. If for whatever reason the amp sound doesn't translate well to tape, the DI almost certainly will. You can also effect the DI after the fact to sound however you want it to if you're not happy with the amp track. As for me, I'll be blending the DI with the amp during mixdown to get the best possible sound.

 

Thing is, if you're restricted in the number of tracks you can record onto, then you need to make a well considered choice. If you're using a number of effects, or your amp sounds just right to you, then mic the amp. However, if you just need a clean sound for the track you're recording, opt for the DI. You can EQ at the bass before you go to tape to get a tone you like, and you can add more EQ at mixdown.

[Mike Bear]

Tough call. The last recording I did with mic/DI, the sound guy did tell me he had to bump my DI track a bit to match up. I'm wondering by exactly how much or how to tell how much to bump it. I'll be in the studio again next month. I record DI when I'm doing something quick or just for an idea. Recording I like both. Live, it's what the sound guy wants. Usually just DI these days.