29 replies to this topic

[EdwardHimself]

brensabre79, on 08 February 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

I'm a great believer in getting the sound right at the source, and sometimes the only way to do it is with £5,000 worth of microphones, but if you don't have access to that kind of stuff, there are a wide variety of software that can help you get pretty damn close, if you know what you're doing and what you're trying to achieve.

I guess it depends what you use and what you want to get from it... I have an Ampeg plug-in that I DI my bass into, I can choose the Amp & Cabinet and how its miked and with what mic. If I want an Ampeg in a studio sort of sound I have a wide choice of useable rigs right there.

Of course if I'm trying to get the sound of a Trace Elliott in a railway station with a ribbon mic this plug in would be of absolutely no use at all.

My point was that although you can get some perfectly good tones out of modelling software, I could never find something that quite matched up to what I wanted. Then I decided to do an actual recording of my bass amp and I thought it sounded a lot more like how I wanted it to.

Quote

To get back to the OP though, rather than spunking a load of cash on expensive mics, it may be that you can get a lot closer to what you want using some (much cheaper) modelling technology than you can with £150 worth of mic... It may also be the case that a simple SM57 and DI blended will do the trick. If you're on a budget and you don't have a properly acoustically treated room and the correct equipment to capture it then modelling might be the way to go

Having said that, I would tend to agree with this. You have to do quite a bit of tweaking to get it sounding how you want it, but you can get some pretty good tones out of it, without the expense of buying microphones.

[charic]

An sm57 close micd wouldn't rely on acoustics much though. Aslong as its a quiet room you should be fine.

[Monckyman]

I always use a beta52.
It sounds great on bass.
If I can`t get a 52 I`ll use an AKG D112. Again sounds great.
The mid frequencies are NOT all sucked out they are reasonably flat at 0db
There is a low end hump and a high end hump, but they are easily rolled off if you don`t like that.
The point is that it is capable of capturing low frequencies,unlike other mics which are useful for capturing the high end stuff, and using a D.I to catch the low end.
http://www.shure.com...ecsheet.pdf.pdf

http://www.ilikemics...ils.php?pid=216

Both the above charts show flat at 0db with peaks in other areas.
Given that subtractive EQ sounds far more natural than additive, I`m happier rolling lows off than adding mids in.
IMO& IME
Of course.
MM

[51m0n]

How do you go about setting up a mic on a bass cab and kick drum?

Just wondering (seriously)...

[brensabre79]

51m0n, on 14 February 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

How do you go about setting up a mic on a bass cab and kick drum?

Just wondering (seriously)...

Not sure what you mean. It goes on a stand in front of the speaker (close as possbile for live, further back for recording in a controlled environment). Same for kick drum, right up close to the beater (on the inside) for attack, further back for boom.
In terms of EQ etc. you have to use your ears, I like to keep most things flat unless they need adjusting (resonant frequencies can be tuned out etc.)
For recording I would compress both these things a little.
For live I'd compress the bass a lot, maybe put a gate on the Kick if it was picking up other stuff on stage, but not essential.
I hope that helps

[51m0n]

Sorry that was directed straight at Monckyman, I was interested in exactly how he uses the two mics he mentions to mic a rig. Specifics such as distnce from mic to cone, angle of mic to cone, which part of the cone the mic will point at, how far from the center of the cone the mic is.

The real nitty gritty.

It is relevant, promise!

[Alex Spencer]

There are a lot of solid points throughout this thread, it's a really interesting debate. In the end it does come down to two factors: budget and taste.

Personally I find that although the AKG D112 does handle the low end well it is also overused and it's characteristics become very generic. When looking at low end dynamics I like the Audio Technica ATM-250, but that's just me. Shure Beta SM52A is another classic. I stick an SM57 on a lot of things, It's an amazingly versatile microphone. For a musician on a budget i'd say blending a DI with an SM57 is the best way to go. If you can stretch the budget it's always good to get an omni condenser in the room too, but these don't generally start until around £200 with something like the SE Electronics Z3300a. AKG 414 is another amazingly versatile and great sounding mic, but then you're looking at £700+.

Other things to consider are that may recording put out these days don't even both with micing up the cab, and purely use the DI signal, opting for a nice bass preamp. If you consider that a low E on a bass is 41Hz and most cabs don't even go that low (let alone microphone) you're losing all the fundamentals of the signal even before the end users crappy earbud headphones or tiny computer speakers have had a chance to butcher the low end of the mix.

DI will keep the lows and give you the harmonic content you require, while the cab and microphone will give their own sound to the signal - so it's best to have both. Dynamics are good because the sound pressure levels coming out of a bass cab are so high that it can give negative effects if close micing with a condenser. That being said, a nice condenser in the room can boost your high mids a bit and lift the sound.

Wow, I guess three years of BSc Audio Recording Technology has paid off, in a small way...

I'd love to hear peoples views and opinions on my little rant. Please to PM me if you want to have a future discussion!

Edited by Alex Spencer, 03 March 2012 - 11:45 PM.

[sprocket123]

Another one would be Shure Beta 56A also , but their are so many you can use

[jazseven]

i've always been a fan of using 2 mics. a large diaphragm condenser (i use a rode nt1-a) aimed at the middle of the cone and a dynamic (audix i-5) at the edge but at a slight angle facing away from the centre. the blend of the 2 seems to give me the most accurate sound to what i'm hearing from the cab with minimal tweeking from software.

[sprocket123]

jazseven, on 09 March 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

i've always been a fan of using 2 mics. a large diaphragm condenser (i use a rode nt1-a) aimed at the middle of the cone and a dynamic (audix i-5) at the edge but at a slight angle facing away from the centre. the blend of the 2 seems to give me the most accurate sound to what i'm hearing from the cab with minimal tweeking from software.

Yep , might be ineresting , like one for low mid-bass , & the other one for high mid-treble!

Like a Shure Beta 56a for bass & a SM 58 for mid-treble maybe , + DI & mix them as well as you wrote there