Direct In vs Micing

240v

240v

Super Perfectionist
Hello everyone :)

I'm wondering how you guys record your guitar. Do you guys go direct in and use software like Amplitube and Guitar Rig, or do you mic an amp and get that signal into the computer. I've heard that direct in can be lacking at times but seems much more flexible.

Could anybody be kind enough to share me their opinion? thanks in advance :)
 
It's a production choice.

Many guitarists regard the amp effects as part of their "sound" and, when that's the case, the only option is to mic the cabinet and record that sound.

However, if you're happy with the results of DIing your guitar and using simulated effects plugins, then that's fine.

My personal preference is to get the combined sound as it should be then record it with a microphone but there's no right or wrong--it's just a matter of what gives you the results you want.
 
Bobbsy said:
It's a production choice.

Many guitarists regard the amp effects as part of their "sound" and, when that's the case, the only option is to mic the cabinet and record that sound.

However, if you're happy with the results of DIing your guitar and using simulated effects plugins, then that's fine.

My personal preference is to get the combined sound as it should be then record it with a microphone but there's no right or wrong--it's just a matter of what gives you the results you want.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I was wondering because when I purchased Studio One it came with Komplete Elements, so I have a nice range of amps, stomps etc.
 
I'll go direct once in a great while but I prefere miking an amp by far and away. Just my humble opinion but miking an amp always sounds way better to me.
 
Until relatively recently, I never really thought about it. Most of the time I went DI because it meant that I could record electric guitar in the middle of the night if I so desired. But I realized that the actual guitar sounds that I actively liked were, in the main, the ones that were miked.
So over the last couple of years, I nearly always will mic the amp. It means I have to choose my moments but the sounds have been much more satisfying. Funny thing is that now, I can hear when the guitar has been DI'd and I don't like it. My guitar that is. I built a crude isocab which serves me well.
But there are times when I'll still DI. For example, electric mandolin doesn't sound bad at all DI'd, backwards guitar DI'd sounds great because any kind of electric stringed instrument recorded backwards does, and sometimes, either double tracking with one of the guitars DI or DI-ing the amp can sound fairly good.
 
Cool! Thanks for everyones opinion.

Basically, i love the authentic sound of micing an amp but love the flexibility of DI. Maybe if i mic an amp and then use virtual amp software?
 
Best of both worlds - I use the DI output from my Spider IV 75. I get the sound I want from the amp, no worrying about mic position, extraneous noise, etc.
 
mjbphotos said:
Best of both worlds - I use the DI output from my Spider IV 75. I get the sound I want from the amp, no worrying about mic position, extraneous noise, etc.
Click to expand...

Aha, that's what I've been trying, seems to work pretty well
 
I usually mic. I think it depends entirely on what amps, mics, and cab you have that dictates what you tend to go with. There are cases where a miced amp sounds like ass no matter what you do (cheap amps). Then there are cases where I just can't see matching a high end amp with a mic against an amp sim.

Sometimes it just a different sound all together. Meshuggah for example would be near impossible to re-create with an actual amp (although I imagine the DAR FBM amp will come close).
 
If you have a great guitar player, great guitar, amazing amp, just the right settings, a great sounding room and the right mics positioned well, you'll probably like the mic's sound better than direct. However, take that same situation and then try to make the amp produce a sound it wasn't designed to make, and direct with amp models becomes your best option. Even with amp models, I still run a real amp while recording if for no other reason than to get some interaction between the guitar and amp for sustain, feedback, and personal enjoyment.
Regardless of what else I do tho, if I record the direct sound, I have options later. I'm just happy I live in the 21st century where I've got options like this.
 
You could do what I did.
Try em both.
I set it up so it was as close to an "apples to apples" scenario.
Set up a click, played a track thru a good sounding setting thru my Vox box then played the same thing with the same settings thru a miked cab.

On playback, I'd toggle between the two and (imo) there was no decision anymore. The miked cab had more life, airier (?) quality...? I dunno how to explain it. It just sounded better. Try it and see what YOU think cuz that's what it really comes down to. What YOU think.

All I know is that I liked my DI just fine til I did a taste test. :)
 
The last recording I actually did both. I DI'ed from the head (Randall I believe) and put 2 SM57s on the speakers. I used Eleven Free for the Amp sim, which is severely lacking in options. I recently got Amplitube Metal (although I can't seem to get it to work), so I am going to experiment blending that with the Mic'ed guitars (once I actually get the damn thing to work). So far, even with Eleven Free, it sounds pretty damn good, but I would say that the Mic'ed tracks probably sound a bit better. The DI sounds sterile, but the overall guitar sound is better when I blend them both. I use more of the Mic'ed tracks than the DI though.
 
My basses sound fairly terrible on their own. So DI is not all that great. It can capture a lot of the low end stuff and captures the bass as it really sounds in general. But it's just they have such bland sounds. When put into my amp and hearing it the basses through the cab, it's like new life is put into them. I think a mix of both could be good. Micing for the sound you are after. DI for clarity and more of the sound of the actual bass, if it happens to be a nice sounding one. Same would go for guitar to me. Though at the moment, I play guitar direct and into software amp sims and cab impulses. Works for me. =]
 
somegeezer said:
My basses sound fairly terrible on their own. So DI is not all that great. It can capture a lot of the low end stuff and captures the bass as it really sounds in general. But it's just they have such bland sounds. When put into my amp and hearing it the basses through the cab, it's like new life is put into them. I think a mix of both could be good. Micing for the sound you are after. DI for clarity and more of the sound of the actual bass, if it happens to be a nice sounding one. Same would go for guitar to me. Though at the moment, I play guitar direct and into software amp sims and cab impulses. Works for me. =]
Click to expand...

Hey man,

Could you tell me what impulses are? I've heard about there here and there but have no clue what they are. Much appreciated :)
 
Hello everyone,

I usually do BOTH, direct and mic-ed. Specially if the guitar player INSISTS on mic-ing his rig. Guitar players ARE NOT mixing engineers. They are married to their "sound".

I track the direct signal split before HIS rig and into my DI preamp and record the clean sound. Much too often the guitar player's "sound" does not sit very well in the mix. If you have a nice "clean" track, you can use it augment or even replace the mic-ed sound. This gives the mixer and the producer more options at mix-down. This is true for rythum, lead or solos.

--------------------
Example :
This band had 1 guitar, 1 bass, 1 keyboard and a drummer.
Mic-ed : 1968 Hollow body Gretch (model# ??) --> splitter --> his pedals --> Fender analog Reverb --> Fender Blues Junior --> SM57 --> M-Audio Tampa --> HD24 --> VS2480
DI : 1968 Hollow body Gretch (model# ??) --> splitter --> Countryman DI box --> HD24 --> VS2480

The guitar player played through once . . . no overdubs.

In the mix : After editing out "switching" sounds from his stomp boxes and general EQ-ing on the mic-ed track was done, the "clean track" was used to augment some guitar FX and fader automation added.

Here is the result : Sleepwalk (cover)

-----------------------------

IMO, you just can't go wrong by recording BOTH, mic-ed and DI

Ed
 
Last edited:
I had a bunch of songs recorded off the record out on the back of my Marshall JCM900. The cleans were not bad but the overdrive stuff was just fizzy and buzzy. I re-recorded the guitar parts with a mic'd amp and there was a significant improvement in tone (clean and overdrive). The only thing is you have to get a decent sound right away as you can't play with it with sims after the fact.
 
240v said:
Hey man,

Could you tell me what impulses are? I've heard about there here and there but have no clue what they are. Much appreciated :)
Click to expand...

They are basically a recording sample of a mic'd cab. Each sample is of the mic in a particular position on a particular cab, so you can end up going through a lot to find the ones you like. You use a plugin "impulse loader" to load the impulse. So it basically simulates a cab. Much like you have amp sims. There are 2 impulse loaders I use particularly. 'KeFIR' and 'LeCab 2'. The impulses I use most are from 'GuitarHacks Impulses'. All of them are free to use, so Google them and check them out. Just remember they work just like a cab, so they have to really go after an amp, or amp sim. On their own, they sound like arse. =P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top