Bass Recording Preference: DI or Mic/Amp?

[Rokket]

Sure, record your track as close as you can to how you would like it sound then.....use EQ to fit it into the mix...whatever level of EQ may be required.
There seems to be a bias to limit the use of EQ. Yes, track at the target sound your looking for, flat going in then use EQ as a corrective tool to make it fit with the rest of the mix. Its a dual process. My take on the use of EQ is that it is similar to a big commercial studio that has a good recording room and an engineer is on the other side of the glass. The band plays the tune so that the engineer can position mics, amp tones and baffles to get the tune to sound proper as a complete mix on his side of the glass. He probably will use some comsole hi pass filters and a touch of console EQ as well to round out the entire mix.

As someone who layers tracks, I see the use of EQ as essential to getting the mix to fit right. Its similar to the engineer in a commercial studio moving mics around and such. When he does that on the front end, it is similar to making EQ changes on the back end. He's just changing the EQ by an alternate preferred method rather than the doing it synthetically on the back end using a gadget that boosts and cuts the freq band. When I layer, I can only record the track as I want that track to sound and thats it. Once its in the mix EQ helps it to fit. The thought that the use of EQ should be minimized to preserve the integretity of the original track just doesn't seem to work in the context of the mix, at least when layering, as many of us home wreckers do. My experiences have born this out. EQ is a required part of the process...not so much as a creative tool but a fix-it tool. Its probably less neccessary when recording a full band in one go because there are other methods available to the recording engineer to fix his mix. Changing his EQ is probably his last option if nothing else works. As a home wrecker with a poor quality room who layers his own tracks, writes his own stuff, plays his own instruments as well as doubles as recording and mastering engineer, I find EQ a fundamental tool for the mixing process. I have never had one person ever say to me "Hey, you're screwing your mixes up with that EQ." The lay people compliment me on how good my mixes sound.

I have been afraid to use EQ in a radical way previously because of the many well intentioned statements similar to the above. But now I've learned from this thread....use it in whatever way is required to get each track fit properly into the mix. Its not used to screw the mix up but to make it sound as if a full band was recorded all at the same time. Record your track how you would like it to sound at the source....flat goin in....then use corrective EQ for each track in whatever way is required to get them all to play together nicely in a complete mix. Sure, if your a big buget studio then do it the right way but hey...as home wreckers we've got to compromise. There just is no choice in the matter. I do not feel its that much of a big deal. Its transparent if you do it right and it works super for us spare bedroom recorders.

If my thinking on this is flawed...please...beat me up and leave me for dead. Does this make sense cyber space denizens of the wrecked world?

Bob

I think a better way of using eq is to mix it so that you can reproduce it live.

 

[Rokket]

I think a better way of using eq is to mix it so that you can reproduce it live.

I do have to agree on one point, this thread has given me a whole new outlook on tracking and mixing my bass.

I realize that I need a better monitoring and playback environment. Something that is going to take money and time for me...

But in the meantime, I can compensate a bit for my lack, and keep on plugging away at it. Eventually, I am going to figure out how to get the sound I am after, and when I do...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I think what it comes down to is not whether EQ should or should not be used, either during tracking or during mixing, or even whether it should be used sparingly or wildly. It's the intent and capability on the part of the engineer that matters.

Regarding the idea that NL5 and Bob are talking about, as to whether to use EQ on the source or in mixing, the answer is: wherever you need to use it. If you need to use it in mixing, by all means use it. *But*, that does not mean that one should count on the mix EQ to do all the work for them. The intent on the part of the engineer should (usually; as always there are exceptions) dial things in as well as he can in the live room at the source, and use the mix EQ to bring it the rest of the way, however much it needs. The intent should never be, a "fix in the mix" mentality where one just skates on the dialing in during tracking and depends upon the mix EQ to do all the lifting.

This is true IMHO all the way down the line. Same thing with the infamous topic of using MBCs in mastering. Everybody here knows how I hate that. Yet folks might be suprised to hear that I have done it myself and been happy to when I did.

Hypocritical? No. The difference is that I used them because I HAD to, not because I planned to. That is a HUGE difference.

I was asked to re-master some 20-yr-old old cassette masters to CDA for a client, with no access to any original tracking or stems. Nothing wrong with using whatever tool is right for the job at hand, and there were a couple of tracks on which a little MBC was called for. And I have no problem with anybody else doing that kind of thing.

It's the shift in *intent* that's the problem, IMHO. Since I have come to this board, it has become crystal clear to me that there is a trend/tendency amongst newbs to truly skate on the mixing - often because they just don't know any better - and purposely wait to try and use their MBC on the mixdown to try and do what they should have done much, much better in mixing. This is a recipe for mediocrity. It's not the use of the MBC on the mixdown that's the problem, it's the REASON it's used there that's the problem.

Same thing with this bass issue. Nothing wrong with EQing the bass in mixing (though I have to say that I am with the other poster how says that he doesn't see what the big problem is; the bass track is rarely the one I have major problems with). There's nothing wrong with even majorly EQing the bass in mixing...when it is *necessary* to do so and it cannot be better addressed upstream. But to purposely skate on the bass sound at the source is a recipe for mediocrity as well.

EDIT: I had accidentally used the word "tracking" twice in that last paragraph when I meant to type "mixing". Corrected that here, but the mistake still sits in Rokket's quote of me (not his fault.)

G.

 

[Rokket]

I think what it comes down to is not whether EQ should or should not be used, either during tracking or during mixing, or even whether it should be used sparingly or wildly. It's the intent and capability on the part of the engineer that matters.

Regarding the idea that NL5 and Bob are talking about, as to whether to use EQ on the source or in m, the answer is: wherever you need to use it. If you need to use it in mixing, by all means use it. *But*, that does not mean that one should count on the mix EQ to do all the work for them. The intent on the part of the engineer should (usually; as always there are exceptions) dial things in as well as he can in the live room at the source, and use the mix EQ to bring it the rest of the way, however much it needs. The intent should never be, a "fix in the mix" mentality where one just skates on the dialing in during tracking and depends upon the mix EQ to do all the lifting.

This is true IMHO all the way down the line. Same thing with the infamous topic of using MBCs in mastering. Everybody here knows how I hate that. Yet folks might be suprised to hear that I have done it myself and been happy to when I did.

Hypocritical? No. The difference is that I used them because I HAD to, not because I planned to. That is a HUGE difference.

I was asked to re-master some 20-yr-old old cassette masters to CDA for a client, with no access to any original tracking or stems. Nothing wrong with using whatever tool is right for the job at hand, and there were a couple of tracks on which a little MBC was called for. And I have no problem with anybody else doing that kind of thing.

It's the shift in *intent* that's the problem, IMHO. Since I have come to this board, it has become crystal clear to me that there is a trend/tendency amongst newbs to truly skate on the mixing - often because they just don't know any better - and purposely wait to try and use their MBC on the mixdown to try and do what they should have done much, much better in mixing. This is a recipe for mediocrity. It's not the use of the MBC on the mixdown that's the problem, it's the REASON it's used there that's the problem.

Same thing with this bass issue. Nothing wrong with EQing the bass in tracking (though I have to say that I am with the other poster how says that he doesn't see what the big problem is; the bass track is rarely the one I have major problems with). There's nothing wrong with even majorly EQing the bass in tracking...when it is *necessary* to do so and it cannot be better addressed upstream. But to purposely skate on the bass sound at the source is a recipe for mediocrity as well.

G.

I can see your point. Well put.

I guess with me, personally, it started out as not knowing any better. And it's taken me a lot longer than it should have for me to get a clue. I was under the "we've always done it this way" jinx, and I never thought to try different things.

For me, using eq at all is a new thing. I never tried to eq my tracks in the mix because I was always happy with the tracking results. Except for the bass. I listened to the advice we are always handing out to newbies: listen to your favorite band and try to copy what you hear. Well, for me it was that 0 response bassline that has been the challenge. I am still at a loss on how to get it there. I am trying to be able to burn a CD that is a mix of my stuff and commercial songs, and noticing that beyond the shear volume, there is a definite difference in the overall sound. I know that personal home studio gear will not match the 'pro' stuff, but beyond that, it was my mixing techniques. I have been at it for almost 4 years, and I am still clueless.

I guess the fact that I can't post any of my mixes for critique is stifling me most. I can try to explain it away, but unless I can give a specific example, no one can really help me.

I will have to wait until I get home and back into the swing of things to straighten this all out.

Meantime, I am happy that this board is here, and all of you guys and gals who are so much better at this that I am are here to help.

 

[NL5]

Regarding the idea that NL5 and Bob are talking about, as to whether to use EQ on the source or in mixing, the answer is: wherever you need to use it. If you need to use it in mixing, by all means use it. *But*, that does not mean that one should count on the mix EQ to do all the work for them. The intent on the part of the engineer should (usually; as always there are exceptions) dial things in as well as he can in the live room at the source, and use the mix EQ to bring it the rest of the way, however much it needs. The intent should never be, a "fix in the mix" mentality where one just skates on the dialing in during tracking and depends upon the mix EQ to do all the lifting.

This is basically what I was trying to say. I'm not against eq during mixing. Not at all. However, I am a strong proponent of getting it right at tracking. Bass is no exception. I also don't think you HAVE to EQ anything just to get it to fit. Sometimes it is necessary, but rarely a "go to". Especially when you are talking about the fundamental frequencies of an instrument.

Sorry, I kind of suck at explaining what it is I'm trying to say. It would be SO MUCH easier to show what I'm trying to say with a mix up on the console........

 

[Daisy]

When I layer, I can only record the track as I want that track to sound and thats it.

And you see where that's gotten you, right?

I listened to your examples ... and your bass guitar sounds like someone recorded his bass in a vaccum, with no thought as to how it was going to fit in with the rest of the mix.

Then you came on a recording board and asked for advice as to why your bass sounds good in solo mode, but doesn't work in a mix. And now you're resorting to dramatic use of EQ to try to make it fit.

This is a very common thing, and it happens with everyone on this board (and outside in the world) at some point. Bob, I'm not trying to put you or your recordings down. To the "layperson," as you put it, your stuff sounds fine. But if you ever find yourself interested in taking things "to the next level," ... then you're going to have to start listening critically earlier on in the process. Think about tracking in such a way as to make the mixing job easier. Then mix with the idea of making the mastering job easier. Use everything at your disposal to get your tracks 85% of the way there ... so that come mixdown, you only have to use some modest EQ to get you the last 15% of the way there. This means little things like changing your strings, and yes, playing with those dials that God put on your guitar, changing pickups, and even trying pick versus finger. Then listen to how these changes work in the context of the rest of the mix before you even lay down a track.

Once you get to the point where you're listening to your track over the monitors ... and making critical adjustments, while you're tracking, on the fly that you feel will help your track fit better and save yourself extra work / processing further down the line ... then you'll be taking your stuff to the next level. This isn't easy to do, and it requires you to put on your mixing hat a little earlier than you might like. It takes a lot of time and work to get in that mindset. But if you're happy being just "above average" ... then by all means, disregard everything I've said, and keep doing what you're doing.

.

 

[mixsit]

This sould key in pretty well with where Glen was going... And Please tell me if you guys think I'm harping on this or just way off'.
I see over and over examples of where when someone is doing two or three things that combine to make a bass track that won't sit- Playing with a soft attack, a 'round tone (which could come from soft picking but not necessarily), and uneven picking technique.

I have had players say they pick gently 'for more control' (and I'm sure that in it's self is a valid technique). But more often these are the same tracks most likely to have this 'triple whammy- Inconsistent laying down of the note to note dynamic, rounder tone, fewer midrange handles.
The case I'm making here (and who am I to tell a player to change his/her technique in a session?) is that given the same player (and skill level?), picking instead in the upper end of the force range - all of these problems decrease.
Then, less compression needed, less eq, less note level micro clip envelopes.

Ok. Now there is the legitimate 'deep, round, 'stays out of the upper instrument's' tone style (like 'Bob's room filling fat'? -Maybe can't tell from here ). Yes that can be tougher.

But ask this- What's been going on all these years (even before bass got 'modern' and top-endy) where it comes across just fine, little speaker or not, and it still lays in there?

..just to add- There's this term in music/playing/recording- "He really lays it down .." It has multiple meanings and implications -in live, recording, implied skill, ..and track blending/layering.

 

[Bob's Mods]

And you see where that's gotten you, right?

I listened to your examples ... and your bass guitar sounds like someone recorded his bass in a vaccum, with no thought as to how it was going to fit in with the rest of the mix.

Then you came on a recording board and asked for advice as to why your bass sounds good in solo mode, but doesn't work in a mix. And now you're resorting to dramatic use of EQ to try to make it fit.

This is a very common thing, and it happens with everyone on this board (and outside in the world) at some point. Bob, I'm not trying to put you or your recordings down. To the "layperson," as you put it, your stuff sounds fine. But if you ever find yourself interested in taking things "to the next level," ... then you're going to have to start listening critically earlier on in the process. Think about tracking in such a way as to make the mixing job easier. Then mix with the idea of making the mastering job easier. Use everything at your disposal to get your tracks 85% of the way there ... so that come mixdown, you only have to use some modest EQ to get you the last 15% of the way there. This means little things like changing your strings, and yes, playing with those dials that God put on your guitar, changing pickups, and even trying pick versus finger. Then listen to how these changes work in the context of the rest of the mix before you even lay down a track.

Once you get to the point where you're listening to your track over the monitors ... and making critical adjustments, while you're tracking, on the fly that you feel will help your track fit better and save yourself extra work / processing further down the line ... then you'll be taking your stuff to the next level. This isn't easy to do, and it requires you to put on your mixing hat a little earlier than you might like. It takes a lot of time and work to get in that mindset. But if you're happy being just "above average" ... then by all means, disregard everything I've said, and keep doing what you're doing.

.

Some interesting feedback here. Due to the nature and limitation of my setup...I could only work in this mode to a limited degree. I can experiment more using the bridge pickup on my bass. But time is a problem too. How much more time can you put into a project? Wearing all the hats on a single tune is a massive commitment in time as it is when my stuff really has no commercial outlet.

The nature of layering tracks is inherently flawed however. It works but does not have the full band played and recorded in the studio kind of feel. There is nothing like one band in one studio playing their tune to capture that group energy. You are probably hearing the lack of that missing element more than any other.

Bob

 

[aviv]

I really like the AKG D112 as the main source because its really deep, I then mix in the DI for attack and high end clearness.
This is out of the Ashdown Mag 300, 1 15inch.

 

[Bob's Mods]

Follow up post on DI bass recording - New Technique for fixing the problem.

I took a different tac to the problem and have come up with a solution to DI bass tracks thats giving excellant results...beyond what I've experienced earlier.

I've realized that the software compressors I have and use just are not up to the task of working very well in 40 Hz to 300 Hz zones where most of my problems are. I pulled software compression out of the equation completely. Gone. Bye. I now use EQ exclusively...but only in hi pass mode and for notching resonance and notes that stick out.

I discovered by accident that my bass actually resonants at 73 Hz. This is D2 which is below E2 (Open low E on bass). I did know that my bass is very resonant at C3 and D3 but never ever suspected at D2. As a result I never notched D2 down. Now I notch D2, D3 and D4. In addition I listen and notch for any other resonance and notes that stick out in the 40 Hz to 300 Hz. I listen and balance out the levels so the bass track sounds even and smooth. I use multiple instanses of two EQs. Three in total. It a little time consuming to listen and work it out but in the end I have a bass track that actually stands out in the mix more so like a commercial mix. If anyone has been having trouble with getting their bass track to come forward in the mix this is worth a try. I've never had better DI'd bass tracks.

Once I get the texture I like I turn up my monitors and turn down the bass track and slowly raise it to point that it does not over power the mix and sits nice in the pocket. I tweak the hi pass the a level of fatness I want in the mix too. For good measure I pan slightly one way or the other depending on what else is going on. I also turn down the bass tone to remove the string thwacking that sometimes can get through when recording.

For those that have been having a bear of a time with bass DI I highly recommend you spend some time and learn this technique. You can preset your EQs for the most offending notes once you have identified them on your particular instrument....and there may even be a sub ghost note(s) lower than your lowest note as there is in my case...(I never would a thunk it until I tripped over it by accident).

This tecnique is well worth the time to learn it and use it. You WILL notice a big diffence in the smoothness and balance of your home recorded mixes. This has been a nagging problem but now there is a workable solution. Onward to better bedroom mixes!