Recording bass - DI and mic

  • Thread starter Thread starter pure.fusion
  • Start date Start date
P

pure.fusion

New member
Hi all,

I have a bass amp now to mic up, like the big boys.

If I wanted to record two sources, one DI and the other a mic on the cabinet for a bass track, how would you choose to arrange this in your DAW?

Would you have a mono track with both sources mixed or would you have this as two tracks with one for each source?

Cheers,
FM
 
I would mix the two sources and bounce to mono. As the big boys say, never be afraid to commit early on.
 
If you have the tracks keep them separate and mix later. As far as mic'ing a bass amp goes it is a lot more complicated than mic'ing a gtr amp. If you go too close it's all woof, too far away and there is too much room. It helps to have in mind the sound you want to capture and how it will fit into the whole of the mix.
 
def 2 separate tracks!!!

then you can use the DI track to Realign the very slightly out of phase amp signal that is coming into the DAW later than your DI.

plus you should save mix decisions it when your mixing.

ie who knows which of the two sounds or mix of the two sounds you'll like the best until everything else in the track is present :)
 
I always keep them as two tracks like other people have said. This way you can figure what you like latter on. You could even just delete one of the tracks if you didn't need or want it. If you record them to one track you are stuck with the blend you have.
 
The only reason I could see not to record 2 tracks is if you are running out of tracks.
 
bassbrad said:
If you have the tracks keep them separate and mix later. As far as mic'ing a bass amp goes it is a lot more complicated than mic'ing a gtr amp. If you go too close it's all woof, too far away and there is too much room. It helps to have in mind the sound you want to capture and how it will fit into the whole of the mix.
Click to expand...

themdla said:
you can use the DI track to Realign the very slightly out of phase amp signal that is coming into the DAW later than your DI.

plus you should save mix decisions for when your mixing.

ie who knows which of the two sounds or mix of the two sounds you'll like the best until everything else in the track is present :)
Click to expand...

sockswithshoes said:
I always keep them as two tracks like other people have said. This way you can figure what you like latter on.
If you record them to one track you are stuck with the blend you have.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing because I support as many different ways of recording as people have ideas {I wolf peoples' ideas, that's why I'm the elephant on the run !}. I do think there can be a benefit in committing to a sound early on, however. I mean, if you just recorded a single bass track, you'd be committing to a single sound anyway. And there can be a good aspect to dealing with something at source so decisions don't have to be made later.
Also, miking a bass amp need not be a complex excercise. Well, it might be initially, but once you've done it and got acceptable to good results....
I favour all kinds of methods by the way, including a three way blend of line out, mic'd amp and DI then bounced to mono, having blended to taste, as "they" say.
 
For all those who keep two separate tracks, the down side for me is that most times I end up editing the track in some way and you have to deal with two tracks.

On the other hand, would I trust myself to commit to mixing the sound to one track - nope!

Sounds like most people keep 'em separate. Thanks.

Cheers,
FM
 
there are a few advantages to the method of DI and Mic...

1) the DI will always be more "in time" than the slightly "later" mic take (the difference is minute but audible)
2) if you ever need to "reamp" your takes to get a "better" sound you now have a save your ass track (aka DI)
3) for editing (especially distorted GTRs and other tracks) the DI should have less "noise" where the transients and wave-fronts happen making it easier to edit. one pro engineer i know always time aligns the two tracks (mic aligned to DI) and uses the DI as his "guide" track.
4) at mixdown you have more options

but i also agree with grim that sometimes it's better to commit than to flounder :)
 
grimtraveller said:
I'm not disagreeing because I support as many different ways of recording as people have ideas {I wolf peoples' ideas, that's why I'm the elephant on the run !}. I do think there can be a benefit in committing to a sound early on, however. I mean, if you just recorded a single bass track, you'd be committing to a single sound anyway. And there can be a good aspect to dealing with something at source so decisions don't have to be made later.
Click to expand...
This is a valid POV but a lot depends on the track you're recording. I am a commit and move on sort of guy myself, but many times the things that get recorded later may clash with that initial tone or part and you may have to go back and rehash the bass part to keep the whole working. For us the drums and bass go down live and everything else is scratch and gets replaced later. Sometimes those later sessions birth some tonal bliss or magical part that is too good to dump and the bass part needs a fixin' having the DI track has saved many session hours by just going to a reamp.
 
To me the sound that is coming out of the amp is the sound the bass player wants. Where as the di sound of just the bass is just that.
That is why the micing of the bass cab is the way I would go. but then again if you do both you have the best of those worlds and can mix the two to taste.
 
Not that I'm an expert, but I have heard the results for myself with both DI and mic'ing. Definitely better in my opinion.

After doing this I threw the question to some pro bass players and they said both DI and Mic each bring something to the sound that the other doesn't have.

Since my short term memory sucks, the details escape me but I think it was something like DI gives the guts of the sound (the bassy part) and the mic'd cab gives "punch" and "attack" (his words).

Of course this is on a level well beyond me - all I know is that it sounds better when you do both.

If I can find a nice sound easily, I'll try the record as one track. Makes me nervious if I ever have to re record a part of the bass track 'cause that will mean I have to set up the mic and the mix exactly the same again (which we all know won't happen!) but on the up side, it's only a home recording and it's not like I'm satisfying a record contract.

Gotta keep it in perspective :)

Cheers,
FM
 
pure.fusion said:
Not that I'm an expert, but I have heard the results for myself with both DI and mic'ing. Definitely better in my opinion.

After doing this I threw the question to some pro bass players and they said both DI and Mic each bring something to the sound that the other doesn't have.

Since my short term memory sucks, the details escape me but I think it was something like DI gives the guts of the sound (the bassy part) and the mic'd cab gives "punch" and "attack" (his words).

Of course this is on a level well beyond me - all I know is that it sounds better when you do both.

If I can find a nice sound easily, I'll try the record as one track. Makes me nervious if I ever have to re record a part of the bass track 'cause that will mean I have to set up the mic and the mix exactly the same again (which we all know won't happen!) but on the up side, it's only a home recording and it's not like I'm satisfying a record contract.

Gotta keep it in perspective :)

Cheers,
FM
Click to expand...

Short term memory loss huh? LOL wounder how you got that? but yes both will be advisable.
But I think the DI will be the punch and the micing of the amp will be the bassey sound ..... but I'm not sure for my Sheba induced short term memory loss is at a max right now. :o
 
grimtraveller said:
I'm not disagreeing because I support as many different ways of recording as people have ideas {I wolf peoples' ideas, that's why I'm the elephant on the run !}. I do think there can be a benefit in committing to a sound early on, however. I mean, if you just recorded a single bass track, you'd be committing to a single sound anyway. And there can be a good aspect to dealing with something at source so decisions don't have to be made later.
Also, miking a bass amp need not be a complex excercise. Well, it might be initially, but once you've done it and got acceptable to good results....
I favour all kinds of methods by the way, including a three way blend of line out, mic'd amp and DI then bounced to mono, having blended to taste, as "they" say.
Click to expand...

Well I don't commit to a sound for a few reasons. I deal with many clients who can't decide. One day they want one sound and tomorrow they want another. A di track on its own allows me to simulate an amp or re-amp the signal. That is why I do it. Everyone has their own way or a need to do something and that is fine. I support everyone having their own way or else all recordings would sound the same.
 
sockswithshoes said:
Well I don't commit to a sound for a few reasons. I deal with many clients who can't decide. One day they want one sound and tomorrow they want another. A di track on its own allows me to simulate an amp or re-amp the signal. That is why I do it. Everyone has their own way or a need to do something and that is fine. I support everyone having their own way or else all recordings would sound the same.
Click to expand...

SWS where are you located?
 
sockswithshoes said:
nyc

why?
Click to expand...

Don't know Just like your opinion on the fact that you deal with many different clients who can't decide and you have to deal with that ..... same with me. And we need to make everyone sound unique.
 
moresound said:
Don't know Just like your opinion on the fact that you deal with many different clients who can't decide and you have to deal with that ..... same with me. And we need to make everyone sound unique.
Click to expand...

Oh thanks! I wasn't sure if you thought you knew me or anything. I was just confused
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top