THIS bass sound
- Thread starter Will25
- Start date
Ethan Winer
Acoustics Expert
A lot of that tone is also how the bass is played. It sounds like fingers pretty far away from the bridge.
--Ethan
--Ethan
That is so key!
What is nice- the tone there is round', but it still has the tones ('throat) in there to not disappear.
Not too clear' / round' > Often that means from the source- picked not too light or too far from the bridge..
I say that from one of my fave hates. Mixing where a bass just basically sorta fades away- but for 'the big speakers.
Last edited:
GuitarLegend
New member
I don't know if anyone else gets this but the bass sounds synthed to me. Way too perfectly timed and tuned and lacking some of the artifacts that go with a manually played instrument. There are other things that lead me to think that but those are at the top. Given the ease with which such things are accomplished nowadays, it would not be unreasonable to propose it. But in answer to the question on how to emulate it with a P-Bass, compression and EQ would be your best bets
rayc
retroreprobate
DI, compression (just to get it tight & even), fingers or flat wound strings, a really good neck on the bass to play those higher notes wel, consistent level & plucking, rehearsal & some careful EQing (but that'll depend on what you bass sounds like.
Playing evenly - in the right spot, the right amount of pressure & not rushed because you aren't well enough rehearsed as extremely important to a good bass sound that they are frequently passed over as they require time & effort.
Playing evenly - in the right spot, the right amount of pressure & not rushed because you aren't well enough rehearsed as extremely important to a good bass sound that they are frequently passed over as they require time & effort.
Pterofractyl
New member
i concur on the playing being a big component. the part is played very very well.
chuckduffy
Well-known member
I agree - fingers, pbass, di, competent player. A decent part, a little too low in volume and light on the low end for my tastes. The snare is so damn loud I can't even pay proper attention 
I'm spoiled though - I know a couple guys who get GREAT tone.
I'm spoiled though - I know a couple guys who get GREAT tone.
RecordingMaster
A Sarcastic Statement
What's the deal with everyone favoring DI bass in home recording? Even with an awesome bass, a super clean signal chain, and a great pre, DI bass to me (and lot of bass players I've worked with) just sounds like junk in comparison to a nicely mic'ed bass cab in a properly treated room. It's just plain lazy to me. We spend so much time getting a perfectly mic'ed drum set, a nicely mic'ed guitar cab, a nicely mic'ed acoustic guitar, nicely mic'ed vocals, so why does bass guitar get the short end of the stick? I'm not a bassist, but I almost find the lack of care that goes into recording bass a little insulting. Maybe it's just a taste thing, but some of the best bass tracks I've ever heard, were the ones recorded before they even had DI's!
9/10 When I mic a bass cab with 1-2 different mics (AKG D112 and SM57) and DI as well, of the three, I usually end up using the AKG D112 cab track. Sounds more real, sits better, needs less eq'ing/compression, bigger low end, not as fake, dead, dry and clicky as a DI, richer, smoother, sounds more like that bassist's authentic tone going in, etc. Then there's this theory of "mic the cab and also take a DI and blend the two". Again, what's the point? So I'm going to blend a beautiful sounding cab track with a boring and lifeless sounding DI? For what? Some people will say for the clarity a DI brings, but if you learn how to treat a room for it, how to mic it properly and how to use EQ and compression properly on a bass for the sound you are going for, there's no need to have a DI to blend (other than a safety net). There's no way that if you put a mic'ed cab track and a dry DI bass track in front of a bassist, that he'd choose the untreated DI with his eyes closed. Why not use the sound that's closer to the final product?
It'd be like always doing straight up DI guitar recording. We all know it sounds like shit in comparison to the real thing. C'mon now.
Just saying...
So to answer the question and end my rant that probably no one is reading, I'd recommend a 12" tube combo bass amp with a retro vibe and your P bass is perfect. It's one of the world's most used passive bass guitars for recording for a long time now. Mic it with your mic of choice, whether it be a dynamic or a condenser, ribbon, etc, however you can't go wrong with a simple AKG D112. It works every time, sort of like an SM57 on a snare. Take a DI just in case. Of course, like others have said, fingers, and play further away from bridge to get a warmer, rounded, less clicky tone, eq and compression to sit in the tune the way you want it, maybe a little saturation plugin to bring out the harmonics, etc.
Good luck!
9/10 When I mic a bass cab with 1-2 different mics (AKG D112 and SM57) and DI as well, of the three, I usually end up using the AKG D112 cab track. Sounds more real, sits better, needs less eq'ing/compression, bigger low end, not as fake, dead, dry and clicky as a DI, richer, smoother, sounds more like that bassist's authentic tone going in, etc. Then there's this theory of "mic the cab and also take a DI and blend the two". Again, what's the point? So I'm going to blend a beautiful sounding cab track with a boring and lifeless sounding DI? For what? Some people will say for the clarity a DI brings, but if you learn how to treat a room for it, how to mic it properly and how to use EQ and compression properly on a bass for the sound you are going for, there's no need to have a DI to blend (other than a safety net). There's no way that if you put a mic'ed cab track and a dry DI bass track in front of a bassist, that he'd choose the untreated DI with his eyes closed. Why not use the sound that's closer to the final product?
It'd be like always doing straight up DI guitar recording. We all know it sounds like shit in comparison to the real thing. C'mon now.
Just saying...
So to answer the question and end my rant that probably no one is reading, I'd recommend a 12" tube combo bass amp with a retro vibe and your P bass is perfect. It's one of the world's most used passive bass guitars for recording for a long time now. Mic it with your mic of choice, whether it be a dynamic or a condenser, ribbon, etc, however you can't go wrong with a simple AKG D112. It works every time, sort of like an SM57 on a snare. Take a DI just in case. Of course, like others have said, fingers, and play further away from bridge to get a warmer, rounded, less clicky tone, eq and compression to sit in the tune the way you want it, maybe a little saturation plugin to bring out the harmonics, etc.
Good luck!
winny pooh
New member
DI can often work well as the tone is cleaner and works well in dense mixes even though it may suck solo'd. Mic'd bass tracks can get muddy and lose a bit of attack. My personal preference is to DI and then use and amp sim or DI through a decent preamp. just use what you like. Many awesome bass tones went DI and were made awesome through studio outboard.
aaronmcoleman
The truth is out there!
I know a number of pretty big bands that have the option to mic and still DI the bass. I really like a DIed bass through a distorting Neve style pre. It sits in the mix perfectly and is clear.
Micing is good too. For me personally, I'm not a bass player and don't have a bass amp. So that pretty much leaves DI and amp sims (amplitube free SVT classic is great too).
Micing is good too. For me personally, I'm not a bass player and don't have a bass amp. So that pretty much leaves DI and amp sims (amplitube free SVT classic is great too).
chuckduffy
Well-known member
I don't really favor it - and my favorite tracks from my friends are recorded cabs combined with DI. Although I will say that a lot of motown history stuff says that both guitars and bass were recorded direct...
RecordingMaster
A Sarcastic Statement
I bet those bands are lazy!
It's like me saying I know a lot of big bands that do drum replacement on all their close mic tracks. Lazy. Fix it later. Just throw up the mic (or in this case the DI) and go. Not into it.I have a GAP Pre 73 which I've tracked bass through, but I still think it's needs to be amplified by a real guitar amplifier to truly take on the sound of "this is real electric bass guitar in a band". Ironically enough, last night I ended up contradicting myself! I was working with a bass track. I used a 57 on the tweeter, AKG D112 on cone and DI. On the other tracks of this EP, I used the AKG D112 track and only that. It was perfect. But for some reason, on this track, there was an odd rumbly thing going on that I could not get rid of with EQ or hi-passing. Almost a distortion from the speaker? NONE of the other tracks have it which is odd. So I was forced to use an amp sim with DI. He played through a GK amp originally, so I used an Amplitube GK amp sim and set the dials to sound as close to his amp sound as possible (without the weird rumble). Once I found it, I did some subtractive eq as needed, ran out to my Outboard VLA tube compressor, and back into PT. It helped "mask" the fakeness of the DI bass track and warm it up a bit, however it's still not the same as the real thing!
Anyways.... Sorry to hijack!
famous beagle
Well-known member
When exactly are you talking about? DI bass has been around for a long time. Almost all of the Mowtown bass tracks (Jamerson in particular) were recorded that way, for example.
I'm not a big DI proponent or anything, but I just think maybe you have your facts a little skewed.
R
RAMI
Guest
Nothing wrong with DI bass. It's not a "lazy" way to go.Many pro's actually just prefer it. It certainly hasn't sounded like junk for the last 50+ years. I don't think this is like comparing real drums to drum replacement at all. Two completely different things.
RecordingMaster
A Sarcastic Statement
Maybe they are skewed! Who knows (they probably are) haha! Foo Fighters use mic'ed cabs for a lot of bass tracks/albums. Beatles and Sabbath to name a few oldies. There are a lot of Beatles tracks recorded before DI's. I believe Sgt. Peppers was when EMI had first built a DI unit for them. Anyhow. Just my opinion I guess.
RAMI, imo...
And it IS lazy to just go that route each time without at least trying to mic it (unless it's just for you and you know you want DI for a tune), especially if the bassist really loves his certain sound. What if that bassist has a really special, rare mismatched rig that imparts his own really unique signature sonic character. Why say, "Ah f%#k it, let's just plug him in DI and we'll try (for hours, days, weeks) to match his real-life amped bass guitar sound"? Makes no sense at all to me rather than capturing the real deal.
And look at drum replacement like this...What if the drummer has a custom kit he had made and it's really his own sound he prefers and it sounds just awesome! Like an artist who has a signature snare drum and it really does have it's own sound. To me, if the lazy engineer threw up a mic and/or just a trigger and thought nothing about mic placement and trying to capture that really awesome signature drum sound, and just went and used a drum replacement sample because he captured nothing but junk...then he's totally ignoring trying to stay true to the sound of that musician, his/her instrument, as if you were there in person.
Maybe that's why I like a mic'ed bass cab and hate drum replacement (and consider the two pretty close)? I'm not saying DI doesn't work or is wrong, it just bugs me that more people don't try to mic it more often (and actually do it and use it successfully).
R
RAMI
Guest
Mo-town has been around for almost as long as the Beatles. But that's not even relevant anyway. If someone prefers a certain sound, it doesn't matter how they get it or how long anyone else has been doing it.
Nobody's aying that bass SHOULDN'T be mic-ed. We're not talking about convincing a bass player who mics his bass to stop micing it. You're the one that's saying a bass should always be mic-ed. That's just as irresponsible as saying a bass should always be DI'd. Spending hours to try and get a sound through DI that can be easily had by micing it isn't lazy, it's just stupid. But you made a blanket statment saying that DI'd bass always sounds like crap. That doesn't make any sense because it's simply not true.
Actually, you did imply that very strongly, even if you didn't say it exactly like that. That's my only beef with your statements.
I agree with you on drum replacements, but DI'ing a bass isn't the same thing. It's still the sound of the bass. In fact, it's probably closer to the actual sound of the bass than micing it since it's nothingt but the sound of the actual bass. But if one prefers the mic'ed sound, by all means, mic it. Drum replacments completely eliminate the sound of the drum and replace it with another. That $5000 maple kit might as well be a $200 Wal-Mart kit. Not the same as DI'ing the direct sound of the bass.
Last edited:
aaronmcoleman
The truth is out there!
Lots of bands use miced bass, lots use DI. What are you trying to say?
Lots use Marshall, lots use Fenders. I know it may shock some people, but bands and producers have PREFERENCES not LAWS.
Lots use Marshall, lots use Fenders. I know it may shock some people, but bands and producers have PREFERENCES not LAWS.
R
RAMI
Guest
Exactly that.
Let's hear these righteous bass tones you're getting.