Tracking Levels- hmmm?

Funny you should bring up the bass. :)

For years I've been tracking DI, and often I would toss a hardware ELOP limiter into the chain coming from the DI, just to smooth out the signal.

Just recently I picked up a bass preamp/amp because I thought I might try other approaches...and it comes with a comprehensive EQ and comp section.
I can just use the preamp section...or also turn on the amp, if I want to add a cab and mic it too.
The unit is pricey for sure (though I got a good deal on it)...but it's like the bass players dream tool, and it's all right there in one box, all in real time, with real knobs...so you can just plug into it and play...and if you want to make adjustments, you just reach and turn some knobs....which is a much more pleasant way of working than having to go sit at the computer, grab the mouse, find some plugins...etc...etc.

Just looked and you can buy compressor pedals of many styles. Most seem aimed at guitar but I dare say they would be fine for bass? They lump in price around the $50 point but get as cheap as $30 for a Behringer to over $200.

Maybe a $50 comp' pedal fronted by a Boss EQ would get you a versatile recording setup for around £100?

Dave.
 
Not sure what point you are making...no one said that you don't need technique if you have high-end gear...??? :rolleyes:

Of course...it's also a fact that no amount of technique is going to make a crappy piece of gear sound/work better...it will work up to its limitations, and that's it.

My point, very tongue in cheek, was that there's a bit of an obsession especially in audio circles, that the way to glory is paved with "unobtanium". It exists in the guitar world (you MUST have NOS Mullards in the vintage Marshall amp), the recording world (my vintage U47 must have a REAL V14 tube), HiFi world (my speaker cable must be directionally placed and on Mpingo blocks). It great for gear sellers, but can be black hole for the end user, as the results rarely warrant the outlay. Technique is more important that most people admit.

I would even submit that if one were to give Alan Parsons or George Martin an moderately priced I5 or I7 computer, Reaper with a modest assortment of plugins, a Scarlett 18i20 and a bunch of sub $500 microphones, they would be able to create extraordinary recordings.
 
My point, very tongue in cheek, was that there's a bit of an obsession especially in audio circles, that the way to glory is paved with "unobtanium". It exists in the guitar world (you MUST have NOS Mullards in the vintage Marshall amp), the recording world (my vintage U47 must have a REAL V14 tube), HiFi world (my speaker cable must be directionally placed and on Mpingo blocks). It great for gear sellers, but can be black hole for the end user, as the results rarely warrant the outlay. Technique is more important that most people admit.

I would even submit that if one were to give Alan Parsons or George Martin an moderately priced I5 or I7 computer, Reaper with a modest assortment of plugins, a Scarlett 18i20 and a bunch of sub $500 microphones, they would be able to create extraordinary recordings.

Yes...at the extremes, there is some snake oil being sold...but honestly, do you think that all the pros who regularly use what you call "unobtainium" are doing so just because of some misunderstanding on their part, or they need "shiny toys" so they can overcome any technique deficiencies with them...?

Let me put to you a different scenario...and I'll leave George Martin out of it since he's dead. ;)
If you gave Parsons or any of the audio pros a *choice* between your setup above ^^^ and a pro studio with an API console and loaded with racks of high-end gear...which do you think they would prefer? :)

These guys want to work with the "state of the art"...because there don't want their technique to be in any way hindered by the gear if they can help it.
I'm sure many of them these days also have a DAW rig...and it's very possible they have a few of the same plugins that you or I use...and just like the hardware, their skill will make those plugins sing...but it's really about working UP toward the state of the art whenever possible...not the other way around.

We can all do that to some degree, it's really not "unobtainium", because many people have obtained that gear level or they are working up toward it, based on their desire, interest and budget...but of course, we all have different budgets, and you're not going to start off with buying a $5k preamp, and then thinking, "now what?". It's a slow progression over time, and the goal, IMO, is to always reach for the state of the art....rather than taking the "it's good enough" position, and just assuming that in time, technique will help overcome whatever shortcomings there are with the gear.

If you feel that you can replace all the top-shelf audio hardware with plugins...that's great, go with that.
I'm just not seeing the need to somewhat mock high-end audio gear use, almost from a point of envy...when in fact it's used daily in real studios around the world...and not the Scarletts or Reaper. (Now I'm sure someone will point out some name-engineer who uses Reaper with a Scarlett. :D)

Just to be clear...I'm not arguing in favor of using only high-end hardware instead of any plugins. I've got tons of plugins and use them regularly...but there are times (during tracking or mixing, and certainly during mastering) when the higher quality hardware does something that the plugs never can.
If you only ever used plugins...it's hard to know/beleive that, and if you only ever used mediocre hardware, you're probably going to prefer the plugins.
 
I won't disagree that its nice to have all the tools in the toolbox. But, for most of us, having full Neve consoles, a bank of LA2A compressors and Pultec EQs, a $30,000 mic locker, is unobtainable. Its not envy, its reality. When you have $5 in your pocket, you don't order a filet from Jeff Ruby's.

As for snake oil, there's a lot of it out there. The problem is that its really hard to distinguish the shiny toys from the real tools without actually using them. Reading a bunch of reviews and listening to Youtube clips can only be of limited value. One tends to develop a somewhat jaded view from years of hyperbole and flavor of the week products.

In any case, we're way off topic. I still like to add compression going in on bass. I prefer going direct in if possible.
 
I won't disagree that its nice to have all the tools in the toolbox. But, for most of us, having full Neve consoles, a bank of LA2A compressors and Pultec EQs, a $30,000 mic locker, is unobtainable. Its not envy, its reality.

I've heard that counter-argument many times here..."let's not talk about high-end hardware because this is a home rec forum and most people can't afford it"...
......but that's a completely different topic, and has nothing to do with calling that hardware "shiny toys"...which I know wasn't your comment, but you kinda supported it, even if it was tongue-in-cheek.
I can't afford a Neve or API console...but I can still admire that equipment and respect its level of quality. I don't brush it off as hyped toys just because I can't afford it...which would be the byproduct of underlying envy, rather than realistic admiration for something that is state of the art.

You're right though that there has been a flood of cheaper "shiny toys" in recent years. Heck...I can't keep track of the new microphone name brands...and most of them are probably being built by the same Chinese company, same parts...and they just put your name on it.
I think it's probably pretty easy to get a production deal like that from China...order 100 mics, put up a web page, and sell them as some new brand...but it's nothing special.
The sad/bad thing is that there is a lot of that happening and it targets the typical home rec person who is looking for low budget solutions...and they end up buying what are in fact just "shiny toys"...but not all hardware equipment is like that. With a little reading and research, it's pretty easy to learn what is top level pro gear VS some cheaper knockoffs that just look like the high-end gear, but don't even come close.

And yes...we've kind of gotten way off topic...but even though this is a home rec site, I do hate it when things are misrepresented.

And I too like to add compression going in on bass....and DI most times. I find that FET-based DI circuits work well for bass...and AFA compression/limiting, I like to use an optical type if I want to keep the leveling smooth sounding.
 
From what Im reading the most mentioned common use of compression going in to smooth-out the Bass playing, as in helping ones skill.
(Which could definitely pertain to myself too.)

As for tones and sounds and vibe of turning knobs instead of a software knob.....Id toss that in the "Vibe-Tone fx" bucket. I get it though...

It seems no one is really using compression-going in to preventing clipping specifically.. if the tracking level is kept at -12 ~ -24 db and using a DAW.

off topic...
Ash Cat's comment about owning a truck load sized console and 1000ft of cables for the tall n' wide racks of gear....dang! that would be a lot of cables. Thats a big plus for ITB. I like a nice -60db noise floor,...A Symphony/Classical quiet noise floor.. ITB... much less copper lines!

I might go ahead and buy a RNC, for the 4th time..lol just to smooth out the bass playing and whatever..a soft near invisible touch to help my skill level and besides that.... my current dual preamp has the TRS/1/4" Insert Jack empty n' waiting and a perfect match for RNC. :D
Ive had a couple $1500 ish comps and they never blew my mind anymore than others, the Opto types can be "pillow to muffled", the VCA can be invisible to the ear but seen on the waveform.... the RNC works well and is cheap...the walwarts seem to be a noise generators here, which makes me think ITB is maybe better in some ways?
 

Attachments

  • Smooth Bass.png
    Smooth Bass.png
    899.5 KB · Views: 5
Yeah I’ve got bins full of cables that I’ll probably never use again, but the flip side of that is I probably have whatever weird ass cable I happen to need, if I can be bothered to go dig for it. I use a couple of the patchbays still, and I pull the individual modules out of spares to use as TRS splitter/extenders. Like I seriously never leave home without a few of those suckers in my bag...

Anyway no, you shouldn’t have to “protect” the interface from your bass. If it clips, turn down the gain. If it still clips...well then you still just need to turn it down, which might require at some other gear (buffered bypass pedal, powered, but not necessarily on), but you don’t seem to be having that problem, so...

I personally reject the notion that an electric bass guitar is by nature just wildly unpredictably uncontrollably and inappropriately dynamic. I don’t really mean to say “well you just suck”, but you did kind of say yourself that you could use some work. With a decent bass and a decent bassist, compression is a want rather than a need. They won’t need help in controlling note-to-note consistency and won’t have sudden unexpected unwanted peaks. You don’t need the compressor for protection and you don’t need it for smoothing. Then if you want it to help shape the envelope of individual notes, or for color or whatever else, you are welcome to go ahead and add it. And in fact, there’s nothing wrong with adding that while you’re recording whether it’s hardware or software, if you know it’s what you want, there’s no reason not to print it.

If you want it just for “confidence” or to smooth things out while you’re playing...I mean, fine. Do that. Record some shit! If it works well enough for whatever you’re trying to accomplish, great! I’d be a little more wary of printing that, but heck it’ll probably be fine. But to the extent that it makes you sound better than you are, it’s not doing you any favors as far as developing as a bassist. Don’t let it stop you from recording, but keep it in mind when practicing. Dynamics is more important than notes on a bass guitar. I’m not anywhere near what you might call good, but I can’t play through a compressor on either bass or guitar because it makes the strings feel funny.

But ok fine so we do have a bass track that is otherwise good but not great consistency from note to note. Honestly, the best, most transparent ways to do that - to make it sound like you just played it that much better - are probably easier if not only possible in digital. Like, you can ride a manual fader, and I’d imagine that actually is easier for some people than trying to draw it in with a mouse. (You can use a hardware controller and have the best of both, btw). But there really isn’t any hardware that does even the long RMS lookahead compression that ReaComp can do, let alone the more complex algorithms used by some of the dedicated leveling plugins. But of course none of that is gonna happen in real time. You don’t want to monitor with 250ms latency. I promise.

But then that’s a very narrow definition of transparent. It can be and is done using conventional/analog compression without completely destroying the signal. Used appropriately, the actual practical difference in the final mix is tough to notice and even tougher to describe. And some people just might prefer that sound. Plus, that whole thing about committing.

There’s really nothing stopping you from committing at any point in software or hardware. Like I said, Reaper has InputFX for non-latent plugins, and if you want to go the leveler route, you can’t hear it while you’re recording but you can just dial it in and render it right after. Never look at it again. But you can also kick all the same cans down the road. You could mult your bass and monitor through the compressor, but also record the dry DI and then patch the compressor in as a hardware insert later in the process to perfect the settings.

My whole point was that you don’t need to buy anything. If you want to, great. You don’t need my permission anyway. Record some shit.
 
I love when these types of discussions come to some generic conclusion...do or get whatever you think works for you, and if you like it, then it must be good! :D

Well...I guess that's one approach, and it does reduce what people "need"...because they can live within their limitations, and assume they don't need anything else. ;)

I think it's often a good idea to take a somewhat Eno approach...and do the opposite of what you think you should do, and to challenge your preconceived notions...
...to raise the bar as much as you can, rather than look for ways to lower it.
I think when you work all ITB, as flexible as the DAW appears to be on the surface, it often does feel like you are working inside a box.

At any rate...I feel that the real answers as to what gear to have or what technique to use is not limited to software vs. hardware or ITB vs. OTB or some hybrid combination (which is my own preference)...but more so, the decisions should be based around the type/style of music you are recording, and how best to serve it with the process of recording. I feel that when you just shove it in, and try to solve it all in the box...you don't always serve the music the best way.

My own disclaimer is that I admit I'm a gear slut...:cool:...and I've always felt that creating the best studio environment is as much fun and of importance as the work done in that studio...but that comes not from just some aimless GAS...rather it's about having more/better options during the process, and the belief that the best stuff happens during tracking, when it's all live, in the room, in the "air" so to speak.
I know that's not the current popular view, which seems to be that the best stuff happens somewhere down the road, because it's ITB and everything can be manipulated endlessly into submission, so everything is left for later, and recording becomes a more difficult, non-committal process than it needs to be, IMO.

YMMV...
 
The electric guitar, being an 'invented' instrument has no natural, original sound so anyway you record it is surely as valid as any other?

I suppose the 'classic' technique is to stick a 57 affront a 4X12, 100W all valve rig but not everybody has that and most cannot use it at home if they did.

There are at least two variations on what is wanted 'in the can'? Does the player just want a good 'grind'/Grr!/Mbike sound or, are they looking to emulate a specific performance/song? The latter is seems to me would be best served by a modeller unless you happen to have the exact rig you want to copy!

The mention of "Bright" or "dull" as a result of various connection regimes possibly come down to the guitar's sensitivity to cable capacitance and, to a lesser degree the load resistance. Also, some AIs and the like use a bifet op amp for the high Z input, others use a discrete FET. The latter is rather 'dirtier'.

Horses for courses. Neve pre amps are (I guess) rightly revered but not THE quietest pre amp on the market and so not so good for ribbons on a spinet at five paces? As a tekky hi fi buff I cannot bring myself to want an output stage designed around a low beta 2N3055 in single ended mode!

(BTW. Neve now have an 8 ch RC pre amp out and have slung out the old transistors in favour of proper op amps!)

Dave.
 
Back
Top