How are you getting your bass sound into your computer?

[Mornats]

I'm curious about your setup as I'm putting mine together again after some hardware failures. My Markbass CMD121P and Focusrite Forte went kaboom so now I'm working on getting the following set up as my go-to:

 

Bass > Behringer compressor > Laney Digbeth preamp pedal > Audient ID14MKii (clean DI and tweaked EQ/drive signal separately) > Bias FX 2 software for more effects/amp sim/can (hosted in my DAW).

 

I haven't found my favourite set up between the Digbeth and Bias FX yet and have been exploring Nembrini Black Ice as an alternative.

 

So I'm curious about how you all have yours set up.

[Dad3353]

Bass directly into Tascam US-4x4HR interface, s'all, with Reaper as DAW. Simple, me..? Yup. 

[Mornats]

Maybe I'm making it complicated! I should try a straight plug into the interface and compare the sound with different preamp and amp sim combinations. 

[lurksalot]

If you have a signal chain you like, put that into the interface , mine is a scarlet2i4 , but I tend to plug instruments straight into it and do the FX in reaper . 

[sammybee]

bass -> yamaha mixer -> audient interface -> logic. Always record dry/flat and add minimal fx/processing after. Bass is a Stingray 3eq 4H with flats.

[paul_5]

Practice/demo stuff is bass ->Alesis core 1, MacBook Cubase and amp sim 

 

Serious recording bass -> pedal board (with compression and HPF-> Ampeg preamp -> MOTU interface -> MacBook and Protools.

[lowdown]

Bass > Avalon U5 DI/Preamp > Steinberg Interface > Computer. 

 

[fretmeister]

Bass > Helix > Computer.

[BigRedX]

Bass > Helix >Computer for me too.

 

However I also make use of the fact that the Helix outputs both effected and direct sounds via USB with effected on 1 (& 2 f you want stereo) and direct on 7 (& 8). I can then either use the sound of Helix itself, recreate it in my DAW using the Helix Native plugin, or use other plugins to add extra effects to the sound like automated gates and filters. This means that the bass sound can be easily changed if necessary as the recording and mixing progresses.

 

Personally I don't bother with stereo on the bass. If I am going to do anything interesting with panning I'll record it as separate parts. I've recently done the bass part for a song where there is a low E all the way through the verse and main instrumental part with additional higher A and Ab. I played the "drone" E as one take and the high notes as a separate one. I then cut that into individual notes and panned the A half left and the Ab half right, keeping the E centre. There also a high 2 note chord riff in the middle 8 which was done in two takes, one strumming the chords and the other picking the individual notes and again panning each part left and right. This results in a much more complex and wider sound than a typical stereo effect.

[WinterMute]

           > Shelford Channel DI > UAD2 Line input > TB2 to computer

Bass

           > Shelford Channel Link > Quad Cortex > UAD2 Line input > TB2 to computer

 

Tracking 2 mono channels, 1 clean DI with EQ and a touch of compression from the Shelford, 1 fully modelled rig w Amps, cabs, FX etc.

 

I've listened to the USB output from the Quad Cortex, and I prefer the analogue output, plus I don't have to worry about phase accuracy with the Shelford channel output.

 

 

[Wolfram]

Usually I record through my Helix Rack - analog outputs into three channels of a Steinberg UR824 interface. I simultaneously record the stereo out and direct 'thru' to one stereo and one mono track. So I can track with a Helix bass amp sim and (rarely) effects but then use the same preset in Helix Native on the un-effected mono track if I want to tweak things.

Alternatively, I will take a DI from my Mesa M3 Carbine combo.... but superb though it sounds, they must have designed that thing purposely to be a pain for recording. It has a DI output, which is affected by the master volume... as is the effect loop... so there is no way to record DI'd and monitor through the studio monitors (or on headphones) with no sound from the combo.

[BigRedX]

Personally I only want to do one A/D conversion for all my sounds. So once it has been digitised it stays that way. Each A/D D/A conversion will add a slight amount of delay to the sound. For one of my bands only the vocals and the Bass VI have to be digitised. Everything else (drums and synths) is generated "in the box".

[Mornats]

1 hour ago, Wolfram said:

Alternatively, I will take a DI from my Mesa M3 Carbine combo.... but superb though it sounds, they must have designed that thing purposely to be a pain for recording. It has a DI output, which is affected by the master volume... as is the effect loop... so there is no way to record DI'd and monitor through the studio monitors (or on headphones) with no sound from the combo.

This is something I miss from my dearly departed Markbass combo. That would let you set a separate line out volume to the main volume so you could silently record your DI out.

[Mornats]

Thanks for the replies so far folks. It's interesting that no one really uses amp/cab Sims when recording so I did a bit of a test last night. Signal chain was:

Squier VM jazz > Laney Digbeth with DI out (pre EQ) into channel 2 of my Audient ID14mkii, line out going into the jfet input of my Audient into channel 1. So same signal going into the PC in slightly different ways.

 

First thing I noticed was the clarity and added growl from going in via the jfet line in. Not sure of this was the effect of going through the Laney's circuit or the jfet (which Theo marketing says mimics the input stage of a tube amp). So I pushed the DI signal to one side and focused on the line in. With this, I put it through various amp sims and cab sims (both with and without and amp) and concluded that the best sounding signal was the one without any further processing.

 

In terms of software I tried Bias FX 2, Audio Assault Duality, Audio Assault IR loader thing and Nembrini Black Ice (an emulation of the Darkglass amp with the Alpha Omega in it) and the Nembrini was the better sounding of the bunch. I'll be demoing some Neural DSP stuff soon but will probably not persue amp sims for bass after hearing my initial results.

[WinterMute]

50 minutes ago, Mornats said:

Thanks for the replies so far folks. It's interesting that no one really uses amp/cab Sims when recording so I did a bit of a test last night. Signal chain was:

Squier VM jazz > Laney Digbeth with DI out (pre EQ) into channel 2 of my Audient ID14mkii, line out going into the jfet input of my Audient into channel 1. So same signal going into the PC in slightly different ways.

 

First thing I noticed was the clarity and added growl from going in via the jfet line in. Not sure of this was the effect of going through the Laney's circuit or the jfet (which Theo marketing says mimics the input stage of a tube amp). So I pushed the DI signal to one side and focused on the line in. With this, I put it through various amp sims and cab sims (both with and without and amp) and concluded that the best sounding signal was the one without any further processing.

 

In terms of software I tried Bias FX 2, Audio Assault Duality, Audio Assault IR loader thing and Nembrini Black Ice (an emulation of the Darkglass amp with the Alpha Omega in it) and the Nembrini was the better sounding of the bunch. I'll be demoing some Neural DSP stuff soon but will probably not persue amp sims for bass after hearing my initial results.

 

I absolutely use amp and cab models, have done for years, Line 6 Bass Pod XT Pro, Line 6 Stomp, Helix and now the Quad Cortex, but I always capture a DI track to, a good DI input can save a bass recording in a difficult mix.

 

I tend to run the DI through UA's Eden World traveller model for a bit of cab and room, but I've also been experimenting with "re-amping" back through the QC at mix down too.

 

[BigRedX]

1 hour ago, Mornats said:

Thanks for the replies so far folks. It's interesting that no one really uses amp/cab Sims when recording so I did a bit of a test last night.

 

For me amp and cab sims are a bit of a red herring. IMO they are just EQ presets with limited adjustment. Instead I just use separate EQ and drive modules on the Helix. That allows me to pick the most suitable EQ and drive for each song without having one permanently linked to the other. When I do pick an amp sim it is used primarily for the drive sound and takes the place of the dedicated drive module.

 

For the Bass VI I do use an amp and cab sim on some of my sounds, but it's the Helix version of the Roland Jazz Chorus combo, a device that in "real life" would be totally unsuitable for the bass guitar. For me that is the best thing about modelled effects and amps, in that I can't damage them by sticking the "wrong" kind of signal through them. The worst that can happen is that I won't like the sound, and then I can try something else instead.

[VTypeV4]

My home setup: Bass > Trace Elliot V4 (with an NE-1 and LMB-3 in the FX loop) > Direct out > Yamaha 02R > MOTU interface > Pro Tools

 

At the Studio: Bass > Trace Elliot SMX > Direct out > Yamaha DM2000 > MOTU interface(s) > Logic Pro X

 

Fol clients I use various combinations of their gear (if it sounds good) and the SVT / V-Type / SMX and Bassman rigs that live at the studio > Yamaha DM2000 > MOTU interface(s) > Logic Pro X

 

For my own recordings (including the band) I tend to find my basses work really well into either the V-Type or SMX preamplifiers. I dial the sound I hear in my head using their features so the DI sound generally needs very little of anything more (or less) once recorded - it's great to have it at least 90% of the way there already plus it makes it easier and quicker when mixing. As such, very rarely do I use multiple lines. It's different for clients at the studio - using both DI and mic setups is sometimes ideal plus I'm not against dropping the bass straight into the desk and modelling it from there using plugins either (some clients prefer it that way) but for me, I have the hardware already so I like to make use of it. 😀

 

 

[skidder652003]

That jfet input into the audient is pretty sweet on its own IMO, keep it simple, maybe a little compression vst but thats it.

[Mornats]

On 05/07/2023 at 22:31, skidder652003 said:

That jfet input into the audient is pretty sweet on its own IMO, keep it simple, maybe a little compression vst but thats it.

 

My next quick test will be to compare going direct into the jfet vs going into it via the Digbeth preamp.

[fretmeister]

On 04/07/2023 at 13:24, Wolfram said:

Usually I record through my Helix Rack - analog outputs into three channels of a Steinberg UR824 interface. I simultaneously record the stereo out and direct 'thru' to one stereo and one mono track. So I can track with a Helix bass amp sim and (rarely) effects but then use the same preset in Helix Native on the un-effected mono track if I want to tweak things.

Alternatively, I will take a DI from my Mesa M3 Carbine combo.... but superb though it sounds, they must have designed that thing purposely to be a pain for recording. It has a DI output, which is affected by the master volume... as is the effect loop... so there is no way to record DI'd and monitor through the studio monitors (or on headphones) with no sound from the combo.

 

 

Why use the Steinberg at all? The helix will do all that without another round of A/D conversion.

It's very easy to set up for helix to record and effected signal and a straight through dry track at the same time.

[Wolfram]

1 hour ago, fretmeister said:

 

 

Why use the Steinberg at all? The helix will do all that without another round of A/D conversion.

It's very easy to set up for helix to record and effected signal and a straight through dry track at the same time.

Because you can only use a single USB interface at a time (aside from using aggregate interfaces on Mac which I have found to be problematic with latency). My setup consists of two UR824s (one master connected with USB and one slaved over ADAT) and an old MOTU 2408 MkII connected via ADAT which gives me 24 simultaneous analog inputs, two independent monitor outputs and up to four headphone mixes. It's set and forget, with several hardware synths and external effects permanently plumbed in (I know, but the 2408 was cheaper than a patchbay and it's all immediately to hand). To use the Helix as a USB interface I'd have to switch the monitoring around etc...

For anyone who's interested, my full Helix signal routing is:

Electric Guitar:
Guitar -> Helix input.
Helix FX Send 1 -> Boogie Mk V Combo Input

Boogie FX Send -> Helix FX Return 1
Helix FX Send 2 -> Boogie FX Return
Helix Stereo Out -> Steinberg UR824 (stereo) -> Mac
Helix Buffered Thru -> Steinberg UR824 (mono) -> Mac

Bass Guitar:
Either into the above setup but the patches don't use the Boogie Mk V, or:
Bass -> Mesa M3
Mesa M3 Effect Send -> Helix HX Effects Input
Helix HX FX Output -> Mesa M3 Effect Return
Mesa DI -> Steinberg UR824 (mono)

I never use the Helix HX Effects for recording bass, only for live. For recording I use the DI and the exact same Helix patches in Helix Native.

The guitar setup gives me the freedom to 'wrap' my real Boogie combo's preamp into Helix patches and I can either enable or mute the Boogie's cab under control from the Helix by enabling/disabling FX send 2. The Helix's routing is really flexible, so you could do things like play directly through the combo (for that real amp feel) and simultaneously record a thru DI and totally independent modelled / effected version. You could even mic up the cab too for another feed! 

Finally, I don't totally subscribe to the drive to minimise A/D conversion. Yes, you'll get a 'cleaner' sound, but I'm not convinced that it's always 'better'. I've heard many completely in-the-box tracks - including many of my own - that to me sound overly crystalline and 'plasticky'. Whereas I think some of the subjectively best-sounding stuff I've ever recorded was done on an old Tascam Portastudio four track... But each to their own - and yes I do now record and mix entirely in the box - but I use a lot of analog stuff to get my results (e.g. using a real Wavestation as well as the VST)!
 

[robiredale]

Bass straight in, all processing in Reaper.

 

I generally use Neural DSP's stuff for my tone, I'm a metal/rock player primarily and use Darkglass stuff live, so this works very well for me. I produce music for my main band and much prefer having flexibility to make decisions later about tone. This suits the way we like to write and record.

 

Many of the compressors and EQs I use after this are Reaper's stock plugins, they're excellent. Especially the compressors.

[Bigguy2017]

Bass  -> Sgfx Beta-V -> Fender Rumble 200 combo -> Focusrite Scarlett 8i6 G3 -> Studio One

 

Compression and EQ in the DAW

[funkgod]

On 04/07/2023 at 06:35, lowdown said:

Bass > Avalon U5 DI/Preamp > Steinberg Interface > Computer. 

 

mmmmmmm Avalon U5, now theres an expensive bit of kit, but while were on some hi end stuff, check out if you can lowdown the AMEK 9098 you can use it for all sorts so you can get alot of milage out of it, mainly NEVE mic pre and eq, but i have found that thing will suck every bit of info right out of your pickups, if you have a active pre in your bass set it to passive if you can cus the eq  and pre in the amek is 1 billion x better than any bass pre amp in terms of eq scope and range with no crusshing of band width and frequencys. check it out, its another world. you might even hate it 🙂

2nd one down

 

 

also found the di out of the swr red head to be very very good.

did i say very twice then ?

yea?

thats because its twice as good as just very good 🙂

ahhh im sorry, its getting late...😴

[vStrings]

Instrument ➡️ Passive/Active input (always) ➡️ SWR SM-400S ➡️ DI out (set to “Direct”) ➡️  Blue ICICLE USB interface ➡️ computer ➡️ Logic Pro or Pro Tools or Cubase

Edited September 12, 2023 by vStrings
Added more details