Going beyond just recording with DI

[Mark_Andertons]

Great article by professional engineer (and music production lecturer) Russ Harvey on recording bass amps and why it's worth the extra effort involved.

[url="http://www.andertons.co.uk/guides/how-to-record-bass-beyond-just-di"]http://www.andertons.co.uk/guides/how-to-record-bass-beyond-just-di[/url]

I have to say personally I'm a sucker for going to DI every time, albeit with a kind of cab sim (tend to favour the MXR Bass DI with the 'better' button). Just bought a Markbass CMD121H though so looking forward to trying out mic'ing that sucker up because it has such a great 'in the room' sound.

What do people think about Russ's thoughts?

[Mornats]

It's something that I'd definitely like to try. I normally record through my Guitar Rig Session interface into Guitar Rig's amps and EQ the amp from there. But I've recently got myself an Ashdown 220 Touring combo which I love the sound of. I can't get the DI out to record properly because for some daft reason the master volume knob is also the DI volume knob which means I can't record in the house and get a strong enough signal without shattering glass. So I've been toying with the idea of micing up my amp and seeing how that goes. I wouldn't mind a vocal mic (ya know, just in case I get brave). Do you guys over at Anderton's recommend a mic that would do vocals and bass? Shure SM57 perhaps?

[Rimskidog]

57 is kinda midrangey for bass unless that's what you are shooting for. If I had to pick something that would just work on both and had no time for shootouts I'd go for a Shure SM7 (or a Fet 47 but that may be a bit pricey for ya!)

As for Russ's thoughts... they kinda presuppose a very clean DI. There are lots of options nowadays on much more coloured options. The A Designs Reddi for example provides an amazing tubey sound. Very like mic-ing a tube amp.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Rimskidog

[51m0n]

He does rather miss out the oppurtunity to blend DI and mic, and the need therefore to get the mic signal in phase with the DI too.

A 57 can be great if mixed with a DI. Lots of mics that dont go super deep are good for this.

If I want to rely on the mic alone then an RE20 is pretty ace, as is a PR40 IME.

If you want a mic to do both vocals and bass the Heil PR40 is pretty darned good as it goes....

As Rimskidog says if you look for it there are some very interesting coloured DIs about these days too. Or you can colour the signal in the mic-pre that you plug the DI into (even more options for coloured pres!)

[BigRedX]

I'm unconvinced by the appropriateness of using a coloured-sounding DI for recording.

Ideally the sound of the rig is the correct one for the recording in which case the right mic appropriately placed will do the job. Otherwise get a clean feed directly off the bass and either re-amp later in the session when the final sound of the track is coming together, or use an amp and speaker sim in the DAW.

[charic]

I think the best sound I ever got out of a (relatively crappy) bass amp (torque) was with 2 x Neumann TLM103's (or one may have been a Rode NTK... I misremember) mixed with the DI mix. Sounded monstrous

Saying that the post EQ di on the RH450 is pretty mad too!

[51m0n]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1344066409' post='1759253']
I'm unconvinced by the appropriateness of using a coloured-sounding DI for recording.

Ideally the sound of the rig is the correct one for the recording in which case the right mic appropriately placed will do the job. Otherwise get a clean feed directly off the bass and either re-amp later in the session when the final sound of the track is coming together, or use an amp and speaker sim in the DAW.
[/quote]

Ah, this is a, possibly 'the' biggest philosophical debate in recording.

Do you record the sounds you want in the mix, or do you record the source from which to make the sound in the mix.

A really really good coloured DI or mic pre sounds different from (and that can mean better or not) than an amp sim, more importantly it may make the player feel the instrumetn differently (in some cases better) than a clean DI.

A real master at tracking is always looking to the mix, a lot of less able recordists, with less of an ear for the mix, or in a situation inappropriate to attempting to capture the mix to tape will be forced to use less colour, less final sounds when tracking.

If I'm mixing a project for someone, and need more tracks from them recorded in a less controlled fashion, I always ask for no eq, no fx. If I'm tracking in an environment I know and trust, I get the final sound at source, which means I use the plyer, instrument, amp, pre, Di, whatever to get the sound right before it hits the AD converter. Because I know what I'm shooting for, and I'm in that place where I'm recording the mix a piece at a time.

The less I have to do in a mix the better!

I very rarely track, more often then not I'm mixing stuff that has been tracked pretty well, but is often flawed ffrom the mix perspective. Then I get out all the tools and fix it as best I can in the box.

The point is that if you are in a position to be able to tell what is right from what is not, the most appropriate solution is always the one that sounds best.

Edited August 4, 2012 by 51m0n

[Mark_Andertons]

Coming at it as someone who was a producer before a bassist (I studied a BA in Music Production at Leeds College of Music) I definitely think I'm guilty of trying to work backwards from how I want to the bass to sound on the record and then reverse engineering the tone (an approach that favours DI) which can be laudable in many situations but to my shame I don't think I ever really pay enough respect to how a band's bassist already sounds (through their amp at live shows) and try to recreate that on the record (an approach that favours micing the amp).

[cheddatom]

I find it pretty easy to replicate most amped sounds using a clean DI, but then I do have a sh*t load of pedaals and plug-ins to choose from. I do it this way around so that I can record the bass in the comfort of my home rather than my horrible cold dirty studio.

I'd like to play more with micing bass amps though!

[LiamPodmore]

My thoughts are that you can add effects on to a signal, but you can't take them off, so i don't mind recording DI, as everything i live can be done with plugins. That being said, if someone wanted to stick an Orange Bass Terror on an Ampeg SVT-810e and mic it up i wouldn't be complaining one bit.

Liam

[charic]

Belt and braces unless you're just recording yourself. Do the sodding lot, nothing to lose at the end of the day

[Mark_Andertons]

[quote name='charic' timestamp='1344263646' post='1761898']
Belt and braces unless you're just recording yourself. Do the sodding lot, nothing to lose at the end of the day
[/quote]

Wow Belt AND Braces? Dignity to lose maybe?

[Mornats]

[quote name='Mark_Andertons' timestamp='1344242851' post='1761509']
but to my shame I don't think I ever really pay enough respect to how a band's bassist already sounds (through their amp at live shows) and try to recreate that on the record (an approach that favours micing the amp).
[/quote]

From I hear about producers favouring Fender basses for recording this seems to be endemic. What would happen if producers said that every guitarist had to use a Fender Strat because they're happy mixing those and don't want to bother with trying to apply their skills to other sounds? Not having a go at yourself of course but it does seem that a lot of producers come out with this sort of thing. It sounds like an attitude of "it's the bass, who cares?". I happen to spend a lot of time, effort and cash trying to get a bass tone that I love and suits the tracks I'm writing and I'd not be happy if a producer told me to pick up a Fender as that's what they're used to mixing. FFS, use your skills!

[Mark_Andertons]

[quote name='Mornats' timestamp='1344280054' post='1762247']
From I hear about producers favouring Fender basses for recording this seems to be endemic. What would happen if producers said that every guitarist had to use a Fender Strat because they're happy mixing those and don't want to bother with trying to apply their skills to other sounds? Not having a go at yourself of course but it does seem that a lot of producers come out with this sort of thing. It sounds like an attitude of "it's the bass, who cares?". I happen to spend a lot of time, effort and cash trying to get a bass tone that I love and suits the tracks I'm writing and I'd not be happy if a producer told me to pick up a Fender as that's what they're used to mixing. FFS, use your skills!
[/quote]

The issue stems from the producer's understanding that basically the lower in the frequency spectrum you get the less room for negotiation and experimentation there is. And there is a degree of truth in it that: today's recordings are more consistent than probably at any other time in the last few decades, and in order to keep up that consistency producers stick to what they know 'works' in the bass in which is critical for building that rock solid foundation than can then be built on with more experimental elements in the less critical high frequencies.

[Mornats]

But then we'd miss out on the variety of bass tones that are very possibly to deliver (exceptionally well). Just compare Geddy Lee's bass tone on Clockwork Angels with Stuart Zender's from any Jamiroquai album. Ok I admit, Geddy plays a Fender Jazz but neither the Rush album nor Jamiroquai's albums would sound as good as they do if they had that solid dependable Fender P tone. I totally appreciate how hard it is to record and mix a bass but it's possible to get a great foundation from other bass tones.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Mark_Andertons' timestamp='1344334359' post='1762834']
The issue stems from the producer's understanding that basically the lower in the frequency spectrum you get the less room for negotiation and experimentation there is. And there is a degree of truth in it that: today's recordings are more consistent than probably at any other time in the last few decades, and in order to keep up that consistency producers stick to what they know 'works' in the bass in which is critical for building that rock solid foundation than can then be built on with more experimental elements in the less critical high frequencies.
[/quote]

I'm sorry but that's complete narrow-minded bollocks.

Just listen to any decent electronic music album. There's probably a different bass sound on every track. Guitarists and keyboard players use different sounds all the time, so why should bassists (and to a certain extent drummers) be stuck with a single sound.

A good producer and engineer will listen to the whole track and tailor the bass sound to compliment the other instruments.

[LiamPodmore]

I wouldn't be too happy without my choice of basses. Okay, i would take the engineer/producers views on board as to whether certain bass would fit a certain song better, but i wouldn't just use what they want because they're used to it. Thankfully the producer where we record is used to a Warwick and other things along those lines, so he's fine with anything.

Not that any of that makes any difference currently because my main bass is a Fender Precision.....

Liam

[Mark_Andertons]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1344350631' post='1763188']
I'm sorry but that's complete narrow-minded bollocks.

Just listen to any decent electronic music album. There's probably a different bass sound on every track. Guitarists and keyboard players use different sounds all the time, so why should bassists (and to a certain extent drummers) be stuck with a single sound.

A good producer and engineer will listen to the whole track and tailor the bass sound to compliment the other instruments.
[/quote]

Hey I wasn't saying this was my view personally just explaining why (as in the post that I quoted) Those 'standard' P-Bass and Jazz Bass sounds are so common. As a producer I've worked with bassists using anything and everything and to be perfectly honest my favourite tones and the ones that I would choose to use all the time if I HAD to would probably be Warwick. There's definitely no reason NOT to experiment and that experimentation has been rewarded on many great albums as you say.

[Mornats]

I think it's clear that we bassists are passionate about our sound so any hostility towards producers undermining that are rightly justified. However, we should all work WITH producers to take in their talent and apply it to the recording. But if any producer says to us, "hey just use a Fender, I know how to mix that" then we all know where the Fender's going to end up.

[Mornats]

[quote name='Mark_Andertons' timestamp='1344416166' post='1764009']
to be perfectly honest my favourite tones and the ones that I would choose to use all the time if I HAD to would probably be Warwick.
[/quote]

Having just bought a used Rockbass Corvette I'm with you on this one. It's lovely, and has a nice deeper jazz growl than my Bass Collection. Between the Corvette and my Overwater, I've got a stonking range of tones that I love.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Mark_Andertons' timestamp='1344416166' post='1764009']
Hey I wasn't saying this was my view personally just explaining why (as in the post that I quoted) Those 'standard' P-Bass and Jazz Bass sounds are so common. As a producer I've worked with bassists using anything and everything and to be perfectly honest my favourite tones and the ones that I would choose to use all the time if I HAD to would probably be Warwick. There's definitely no reason NOT to experiment and that experimentation has been rewarded on many great albums as you say.
[/quote]

I wouldn't want to use any sound all the time. That's so boring.

Right bass sound for the track. Sometimes it's P through an Ampeg. Sometimes it's not.

A good producer is there to get the best out of the band they are recording. Not to make cookie-cutter albums sticking to their favourite sounds.

[Mornats]

Yeah, what BigRedX said

[Mark_Andertons]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1344421204' post='1764112']
A good producer is there to get the best out of the band they are recording. Not to make cookie-cutter albums sticking to their favourite sounds.
[/quote]

Yes. Pragmatically though I'd say a producer's job is to make a recording that will sell well and actually make the band some money. If you're just recording for 'arts' sake then you don't really need a producer, you can just produce yourself. A producer is effectively a consultant that says this is how we need to mould this product so that it will appeal to the market. You're dead right in saying they need to get the best out of the band and I think you're dead right in your implication that they need to respect the uniqueness and style of the band too. But any engineer can do those things, a producer (a good one) will have extra insight worth listening to about how to mould a record for market.

[bremen]

[quote name='Mark_Andertons' timestamp='1344502548' post='1765414']
Yes. Pragmatically though I'd say a producer's job is to make a recording that will sell well and actually make the band some money. If you're just recording for 'arts' sake then you don't really need a producer, you can just produce yourself.
[/quote]

I don't get that at all. An appropriate producer will bring the best out of the song/band, thus making it better art as well as better product.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Mark_Andertons' timestamp='1344502548' post='1765414']
Yes. Pragmatically though I'd say a producer's job is to make a recording that will sell well and actually make the band some money. If you're just recording for 'arts' sake then you don't really need a producer, you can just produce yourself. A producer is effectively a consultant that says this is how we need to mould this product so that it will appeal to the market. You're dead right in saying they need to get the best out of the band and I think you're dead right in your implication that they need to respect the uniqueness and style of the band too. But any engineer can do those things, a producer (a good one) will have extra insight worth listening to about how to mould a record for market.
[/quote]

Tailoring a band to a market is fine if you want to try and make a quick (and small) buck. But look at all the bands who've had major long-term success. They are the ones who haven't followed market trends - in fact they've generally ended up setting them. Generally if you are following an existing trend then you are already too late to make any impact.

Also I don't think that "art" and commercial viability are mutually exclusive. I've found in the past that the more "commercial" I've tried to be generally the less successful the band/project has been. The bands I've played in that have attracted the most outside interest are the ones where our first aim was to write and play what we wanted rather than try to fit into some currently popular genre.

I've been recording the bands I've been in since the mid 70s and the one thing I have learned above everything else is the importance of an "outside" party when it comes to getting the best out a studio session. They act as a moderator between the various interests (egos?) in a band and are always listening to the bigger picture. They don't have to be technical - that's what the engineer is for, but they are sympathetic to the band and the song.

Edited August 9, 2012 by BigRedX