Bass...tracking approach

CoolCat

Well-known member
I just ran my gear thru a shootout to see what sounds best to my ears and is non-biased as I can be, as I dont really care....but I do expect more from more expensive stuff.

in short I plugged the Fender P-Bass into:

1)Interface DI
2)Interface DI with Realtime Plugins
3)JDI into MicPre/Interface
4)JDI into Cloudlifter into MicPre/Interface
5) JDI>Cloudlifter> MicPre/Interface >Realtime plugins
6) 73Pre into interface(line in)
7) 73Pre into KT2A (line in)
8) JDI>Cloudlifter>Outboard preamp> Interface /Line IN

**my least fav's 1,3,4,6 were the "missing something" group.

being older Ill use a Beatle analogy...
its like #7... the 73/KT2A gets up to the Rubber Soul album...where things were straight forward and cleaner in a compressed way, ...analogish....plugin, hit record an play.

Then theres #5 & #2 ..the PlugInAmpSim approach that can offer Revolver, SgtPepper through MMT. ...flangers,verbs triple comps,eq, wahwahs telephone voice wangyflungshinz noises... (the PluginAmpsim can also do AbbeyRoad cleaner, with rich chamber verbs) and offers more technical stuff like RECALL, SAVE AS and all that.

food for thought...pondering in gear land...
 

Attachments

  • Bass shoot.png
    Bass shoot.png
    79 KB · Views: 23
I just ran my gear thru a shootout to see what sounds best to my ears and is non-biased as I can be, as I dont really care....but I do expect more from more expensive stuff.

in short I plugged the Fender P-Bass into: ...

Have you listened to each within a mix yet? The reason i ask is I just finished my own sort of bass recording test but with an amp. I was trying something different from the usual dynamic in front of the speaker (Oktava MK219 around 2 feat from the cab) and found that in order to get a track that fit with the rest of the instrumentation i had a crazy eq on the amp that literally sounded horrible in the room. A great bass sound by itself can often interfere severely with the sound of the kick in a track.
 
true....all the shoots dont mean much in a mix..lol
crazy but youre right. I remember a mix class article the dude said "dont waste time on solo tracks!!" why waste the time?

in real world we are really looking for crap-gear maybe?...and most pieces arent crap. a cheap DI or a plugin...or a $1000 preamp...

and then in the mix we slather the plugs and eq on.... so the original track is unrecognizable. at least imo....

good point, reminder! like microphones...spend all the time doing comparisons and full ness...and the first thing turn on the HPF...lol
 
That is a huge amount of pre-processing. My bass goes into the front input of the interface. That's it - one cable. Once it's in the machine, I can fiddle and tweak without compromising the pure signal the bass stuck out. I never pre-process unless there is a really significant reason - maybe like some strange playing style that needs gain adjustment, or because the recording signal is being 'sniffed' from the path the bass takes to an amp or other system, and I have no choice.

Is your bass very low output? My jazz is easily able to make LEDs go red at half gain - so why the cloudlifter? This is very odd?
 
...so why the cloudlifter?
I’d imagine an attempt to make up the stepdown loss from the DI in hopes it will be less noisy than just getting extra gain from preamp.

I had trouble figuring out if the OP was about getting a decent final tone or just about satisfaction during tracking. In either case really I’m not super surprised that the clean flat sound of the bass was less enjoyable than when it’s been compressed, saturated, and filtered.
 
I belong to the Rob Aylestone school of tracking bass: one cable straight into interface.

Sort out verything else once it's recorded.
 
Most simplest Bass - If I plug my US P-Bass into the Interface Instrument jack, there is hardly any signal = no wave.
I can hear it if I turn my headphone way up. Can add volume later I suppose. There seems a odd digital compression/limiter too on my unit.

other options-
Another approach is Bass > J-DI > Interface preamp but preamps not super powerful either....so
Bass> J-DI > Cloudlifter +20db gain> Interface Preamp gets a nice volume and decent sized wave requiring less ITB gain/stuff later.

or use the internal Realtime Ampsims plus....some mouse work but recall and save as is a great world, right? Just plug in the Instrument in jack and pull up the AMP and Gear PLugins...

Maybe some interface Instrument inputs are better than others? Mine has some odd things going on , like some compression/limiter fx.
IF I play lightly its better, but I kind of hit the strings hard and the interface instrument in doesnt like it...like it overloads?

there is the attraction to plugging in analog real gear vs plugins for me...ymmv so whether a JDI+Cloudlifter or outboard PRe/DI box...with knobs...is maybe a Tracking choice?
 
Most simplest Bass - If I plug my US P-Bass into the Interface Instrument jack, there is hardly any signal = no wave.
I can hear it if I turn my headphone way up. Can add volume later I suppose. There seems a odd digital compression/limiter too on my unit.

other options-
Another approach is Bass > J-DI > Interface preamp but preamps not super powerful either....so
Bass> J-DI > Cloudlifter +20db gain> Interface Preamp gets a nice volume and decent sized wave requiring less ITB gain/stuff later.

or use the internal Realtime Ampsims plus....some mouse work but recall and save as is a great world, right? Just plug in the Instrument in jack and pull up the AMP and Gear PLugins...

Maybe some interface Instrument inputs are better than others? Mine has some odd things going on , like some compression/limiter fx.
IF I play lightly its better, but I kind of hit the strings hard and the interface instrument in doesnt like it...like it overloads?

there is the attraction to plugging in analog real gear vs plugins for me...ymmv so whether a JDI+Cloudlifter or outboard PRe/DI box...with knobs...is maybe a Tracking choice?

I am curious about which interface you are using? I have both a FR 2i2 and an old M-audio mini pre )as well as the main system which is 32 ch AH which does not have "instrument" inputs)
and neither one has a problem getting a good -18 to -12 db signal into my Pro Tools. I personally often track through a DI and/or a compressor for color when I already know what I want and amp + DI when wanted( I will take the instrument out of the DI into the amp and the mic level into the interface)


Have you checked what the nominal gain is supposed to be for your instrument input? I would think you wouldn't need more than ~40-50 db for a passive bass to get a good level to DAW
 
Most iinterface instrument inputs have about 9db gain over their line input, and that is usually about enough for most instruments, and sometimes too much for really hot instruments, especially when the interface doesn’t have a whole lot of headroom to begin with.

I suspect there’s something strange happening, maybe something in whatever software bullshit your interface manufacturer has put between the hardware and your DAW. If it seems to be topping out, but is not also clipping in the DAW, then it must be attenuated before you get there. Check in whatever mixer panel thing the manufacturer made you install and see if something is turned down or routed weird or otherwise fucked with for no good reason.

All that said, don’t use the input gain to adjust your monitoring level. It’s so weird to me that we have to say this so often. Adjust your input gain to get a decent recording level, and use the track fader or a plugin (or both) to adjust what hits your ears. Not “later”, but now during tracking.
 
There's no hidden attenuator is there? As in it's expecting +4dB levels? Both of my interfaces manage guitars and basses fine - that's really what the socket is for. If yours doesn't, something is odd?
 
I plugged my passive bass straight into the interface and set it for INST. Raising the gain to 9:00 puts Reaper's meter at roughly -18dBFS with -12dBFS peaks. Headphone volume is not great but sufficient as monitored through the interface blended @ 50/50. The waveform was relatively small.

Switching it to Mic/Line and leaving other settings the same reduced the waveform to a virtual straight line and almost no signal on the meter. Almost no sound in the headphones.
 
I belong to the Rob Aylestone school of tracking bass: one cable straight into interface.

Sort out verything else once it's recorded.

I would note that this greatly depends on your interface, because the quality of the direct signal can vary greatly from one to the next. If the sound is not that great with the interface's instrument input, then what's wrong with trying to use something else along the way to get a better sound?

When I plug straight into my Tascam US-1800's instrument input, I can get a good level without a problem on a passive or electric guitar/bass. But the tone compared to when I run through my WA-273EQ into a line in --- even with the EQ set totally flat and not much preamp gain on the WA-273EQ --- is night and day.
 
When I plug straight into my Tascam US-1800's instrument input, I can get a good level without a problem on a passive or electric guitar/bass. But the tone compared to when I run through my WA-273EQ into a line in --- even with the EQ set totally flat and not much preamp gain on the WA-273EQ --- is night and day.
Funny, I haven't noticed a meaninful difference between the Instrument input on either my US1800 or US1641 and that from a pedal into a line or even microphone input. It just works and sounds fine. What difference do you actually hear?
 
Funny, I haven't noticed a meaninful difference between the Instrument input on either my US1800 or US1641 and that from a pedal into a line or even microphone input. It just works and sounds fine. What difference do you actually hear?

The instrument inputs on the interface sound a bit as if they have a blanket over them compared to going through a preamp and into a line input. I recorded a test to check if I was imagining it or not. I played a part into a looper and then recorded that via the Tascam instrument input and then again via the WA-273EQ ---> Tascam line input. I'm not saying the WA-273EQ always sounds better---that's a subjective thing---but the difference is significant, wouldn't you agree?
 

Attachments

  • Direct to Tascam - bridge - dry.mp3
    428.8 KB · Views: 4
  • Direct to Tascam - bridge with amp sim.mp3
    427.2 KB · Views: 4
  • WA to XLR - bridge - dry.mp3
    424.9 KB · Views: 4
  • WA to XLR - bridge with amp sim.mp3
    427.2 KB · Views: 4
And here are some with the neck pickup
 

Attachments

  • Direct to Tascam - neck - dry.mp3
    430 KB · Views: 7
  • Direct to Tascam - neck with amp sim.mp3
    424.3 KB · Views: 4
  • WA to XLR - neck - dry.mp3
    423.2 KB · Views: 6
  • WA to XLR - neck with amp sim.mp3
    439 KB · Views: 5
Ooops ... posted the wrong WA273 tracks. Those went from the WA-273EQ into the XLR pres on the Tascam.

Here are the ones that went from the WA-237EQ into the balanced line inputs on the Tascam. (They sound pretty similar to the XLR version.)
 

Attachments

  • WA to TRS - bridge - dry.mp3
    424.9 KB · Views: 4
  • WA to TRS - bridge with amp sim.mp3
    423.2 KB · Views: 4
  • WA to TRS - neck - dry.mp3
    420.4 KB · Views: 4
  • WA to TRS - neck with amp sim.mp3
    437.3 KB · Views: 4
Wait a minute .... Scratch the looper bit. After listening and checking my project, these were not recorded with a looper. I played the parts live back to back each time. So the performances aren't identical, but I tried my best to play it the same every time. I didn't monitor anything as I was playing. This way, I was only hearing my unplugged electric sound each time and wouldn't be influenced by what I was hearing.

So, it's not as scientific as it could have been (I used the looper on another test I did later), but it's still adequate enough I think to demonstrate the difference in sound between the two methods.
 
Well I’ll check those later, but of course playing through a looper isn’t the same as connecting the passive pickup direct to the unit. I mean, they’d theoretically be about the same if the input impedance was the same, but you’d be kind of testing a different thing - how the looper sounds connected to the different device, not the instrument itself.
 
Well I’ll check those later, but of course playing through a looper isn’t the same as connecting the passive pickup direct to the unit. I mean, they’d theoretically be about the same if the input impedance was the same, but you’d be kind of testing a different thing - how the looper sounds connected to the different device, not the instrument itself.

See my reply above your last message. I was wrong about the looper. I didn't use it on this test; each example was played back to back. (I had used a looper on another test and mistakenly thought it was this one.)
 
See my reply above your last message. I was wrong about the looper. I didn't use it on this test; each example was played back to back. (I had used a looper on another test and mistakenly thought it was this one.)
Yeah, I got that. Sorry. Was just kind of pointing it out for those who might not realize.


Edit - [MENTION=15168]famous beagle[/MENTION] - Yeah OK I listened to yours and did my own, and I'm going to take back some of what I said. There IS a noticeable difference between connecting direct to the Instrument input and going through a pedal first. I found that there was no difference when running through a pedal between input 11 (the first straight line input) and input 9 (the one with the button) when the button was in Line input position OR the instrument position aside from the ~9db of gain that the instrument button gives, but there was that same noticeable difference that you observed between all of them and just straight in. I'm convinced that this is all about input impedance, though. The instrument input of the US1800 is a 700KOhm, which is quite a bit less than the 1M input of most pedals. When one considers that many amplifier inputs are around 500K, though, well which one is "right"?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top