Best Way to record bass

[rary1]

So when we demo our songs, before spending thousands of our hard earned money on the studio, I record my bass using a Shure sm58 mic on my 8x10 cab going in to an M-audio recording box.
I have a very good feeling that this is not the best way to get a good quality sounding recording. Some people have told me that they just use a straight up D.I. but it seems as though you would maybe lose some of the low end doing things that way.
I also know that a lot of people layer their guitar tracks, is it necessary to maybe do that with bass tracks, or would that just mumble things?
I don't think an sm58 is the best, if I'm using a mic on my amp, it should maybe be an sm57, but right now we're a bit short on cash.
Anyways, if you know what the best way to get a true sounding recording, tell me because recording is all foreign to me.

 

[CharlieDog]

I used to record my three-piece with a tape recorder on my old stereo in high school.


Hope that helps.

 

[Nick Kay]

A straight-up DI will actually have MORE low-end than an amp miked with an SM57 or SM58, unless you boost the hell out of the low-end on the amp and get the mic RIGHT up in the cone. Take a look at the response curve of your cab and your mics - you'll find they reproduce a lot less bass than you thought they did.

I would highly suggest using a miked amp in conjuction with a straight up DI, both recorded at the same time from the same take. You can use the DI for tight, clean low end and a sparkly top, and use the mic track for the grunty, growly mids. It's almost foolproof, assuming they align phase-wise. You can check that by taking a look at the wave forms in whatever software you're using to record. The peaks and valleys in the waves should line up very, very closely.

As for double-tracking bass, it's extremely uncommon, but not exactly unheard-of. You double-track guitars to thicken them up and get a bigger, wider sound. Generally, a bass track should be plenty thick without double-tracking, and there can be some very serious mud issues from the process, so I'd say avoid it unless you have a specific effect in mind that you think you could get from double-tracking.

 

[nme0014]

direct is great IMO. But if your going direct into some lower quality recording gear, then mic is the best.

 

[Jimtoonz]

If you ask 20 different recording engineers this question, prepare yourself for 20 different answers. I usually rely on an amp simulator taken direct simply for ease and speed, but there are a number of mics that will give you good results. The SM57 is going to be a bit better than the 58 in this application because its frequency response begins at 40 Hz rather than 50 for the 58. Many people have used the 57 with solid results. You should experiment a bit with mic placement and do a Google search on bass recording. There are a lot of good articles out there that will give you ideas.

Some folks like to use kick drum mics with bass, feeling that they better capture the "oomph". One that I like is the Shure Beta 52. You can pick one up for under $200 at most of the stores that sell recording gear. The Beta 52 responds down to 20 Hz, but beware, it has a pretty good dip in response at 200 hz - you might want to tweak your track a with a little EQ or multiband compressor to deal with the dip.

The best way to find out what works for you is to grab your gear and start experimenting.

 

[sonic assassin]

in your situation, track both. use that DI signal for whatever your mic DOESNT get. in your case, thats going to be a good chunk of low end missing. keep in mind that most cabs dont go all the way down to 40 hz (or lower), and in using a DI you're going to have a TON of that stuff, and a lot more HF content on top that the speakers would have gotten rid of (especially an 8x10).

if there is a kick or low tom mic around, try that as well and see what sounds best to you. i always pull for a sennheiser 421, but thats kinda pricey.

when recording with a cardioid mic, there is a phenomenon called "proximity effect", which basically causes the mic to boost low frequencies the closer it gets to the sound source. this is how radio personalities all sound like baritones, why crooners exist, and why studio vocalists are normally a few inches off a nice vocal mic.

this can help or hinder your bass tracking. it MIGHT add a little bit of low that the mic lacks and beef up your track. too much might made a wall of mud. when you find a good position on the speaker, move it closer and farther away with headphones on and see what you like the sound of. chances are right on the grill is going to make a little bit of mud. it varies from mic to mic.

 

[fokof]

THE biggest problem when miking and DI'ing is phase correlation.
I would go for DI only , but if you absolutly need that 8/10 tone , check your phase out.
SpectraFooX has a very good phase correlation tool. Expensive but the best tool for studio. Better than SMAART IMHO-IME

 

[DocBop]

Putting a mic up doesn't mean its going to hear what you hear, mic positioning, DI, pre-amp, and etc all play into the picture. Remember what you hear in the real world is affected by frequencies you can't hear that bounce around and clean up what you do hear. Issue the recording gear can't record those frequencies so recorded sound will never be the same.

Better to get a good DI signal and good performance captured that will give you a lot to work with. You put a mic on mainly to pick up some grit to mix in. Then mix a sound that can be hear can be your recorded sound.

Also if you put too much bottom on the bass its just going to be a mess with the kick drum in the mix. Learning to be a recording bass player is another skill set to learn like learning to clean up your technique because recording hears all the noise you make that you never hear in a amp live.

 

[IdealWay]

I would go direct into whatever source you're recording to. Did that with my Q5 and was very pleased. Link is in my signature if you want to hear it.

 

[rary1]

Ya, I have a bit of experience in the studio, I've recorded in about 4 pro studios with different bands and such, but when I recorded there I didn't really ask any questions or look in to it. But I've definitely refined my technique in terms of timing and playing cleanly. I use a pick like, as I like the look, but use my fingers in the studio, because I find it sounds warmer, and I am way more precise, as I started out playing with my fingers. Although, I will admit, I still have some tracks that take me a few tries to get right
So when DI'ing then, how do I go about doing that? I'm thinking about DI'ing as well as mic'ing it, so should I plug my bass into a splitter or something and have one going to my head and one going straight to the recording box, or should I use the line out on my amp? I have an Ampeg SVT 6-pro, it seems to have pretty good low end...
Anyways, like I said I'm a bit of a noob when it comes to doing the recording myself, so thanks a ton for all the responses, they're definitely all going to help me out!

 

[rary1]

Oh ya, if you guys want to check out any of the stuff I already have down for comparison purposes, hit up Link Removed as the two first songs we have up are songs we recorded on our own. They're a bit raw, as I mentioned, I'm not a studio engineer, but the tone I got was from just mic'ing my 8x10, so let me know what you think.

 

[wideload]

I've had just the opposite experience to yours, Rary1. A pick gives me a cleaner, better defined note when recording, even if I prefer the width of fingerstyle live. The few engineers I've recorded with like to compress bass, often too much for my taste, and picking at least allows clarity.

 

[Ozonbass]

i've always recorded the bass track with a DI and an isolated mic'ed cab. Best of both worlds.

 

[Charling]

So when DI'ing then, how do I go about doing that? I'm thinking about DI'ing as well as mic'ing it, so should I plug my bass into a splitter or something and have one going to my head and one going straight to the recording box, or should I use the line out on my amp?

Nah, most DI boxes have a 'thru' output which passes an unaltered version of the input to the amp, then they also have a balanced output which is the signal going to the mic pre. So you plug bass to input, thru to amp and balanced output to the pre on your m-audio, sorted, no extra cables or boxes needed!

DI combined with micing is a very classic approach employed by all the top studios, not to say that just the mic or just the di won't be the sound that makes it onto the final track! you have to go with whatever works. the amp gets the character, the di gets a clear and full version of exactly what your bass sounds like.

fokof mentions phase correlation issues, these are caused by the di signal reaching the interface earlier than the mic signal but NORMALLY this is not a problem, it becomes a part of the sound that you like or don't like. If you want to fix this without paying out for a complex metering tool you can just delay the di by a a few milliseconds.

play the track and slowly move the di later in time, you should hear when the bass gets bigger and the sound gets more focus. If you are having trouble hearing this then you can invert the phase of one of them and then move the di (in time) untill it sounds as bad (thin and lifeless) as possible, then put the phase back to normal. If you cant hear much difference on your setup just go with the tracks in there natural 'time relationship' its a not a worry normally and thousands of great sounding albums have been made without worrying about it too much!

 

[Bongolation]

Recording bass acoustically is more trouble than it's worth, especially in a less-than-perfect studio.

DI has been the way to go forever, but now even more so.

Bass amp and speaker impulse modeling technology with plugins is getting more sophisticated by the second, and it allows you infinite range of options in tailoring a sound to fit the overall song from a good, clean instrumental direct track.

It's really quite remarkable.

I'm not sure that Link Removedis still cutting-edge (this stuff is developing incredibly rapidly), but it's still very good.

 

[sonic assassin]

Recording bass acoustically is more trouble than it's worth, especially in a less-than-perfect studio.

weak. ive recorded a bass amp in garages, basements, living rooms.. you name it.

421 3-6 inches off the grill. turn up. perfect. mic placement takes about a minute.

for S's and G's, i often throw up my subkick as well. maybe a room mic if im feeling really froggy.

i guess since most bassists are using a 100% clean tone (read: sterile "hi-fi") these days and see taking the easy way out is good enough, then a DI is fine.

 

[elpezpr]

If a 58 is all that is available I would at least go through a Countryman DI and record both. If I wanted a clean tone I would forego the 8 x 10.

No layering for bass.

 

[rary1]

Thanks a ton for all the info dudes, I'll try and take all this in to consideration when I'm working on stuff on my own. I have little to no money at the moment, so anything that involves buying new things, for now, is veto'd, but all this is good info I can clearly use.
Thanks dudes, it never ceases to amaze me how much you guys on this forum know lol. I feel like a noob daily.

 

[fuNKmaster83]

if you have a good bass then go straight to the desk... good bass as a P bass

 

[kalle74]

The SM57 is going to be a bit better than the 58 in this application because its frequency response begins at 40 Hz rather than 50 for the 58.

actually, if you look at their frequency-response plots, you´ll notice the 57 has considerable bass roll-off (down 6dB @ 100Hz) compared to a 58. purely speaking of bass-frequency pick-up, the 58 excels... still, the 57 is a great mic for capturing the mids and highs from a cab.