• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Good microphone for recording bass cab?

#101
grobe said:
When some of you guys say "clean DI" do you mean through a dedicated box rather than through the back of a head/combo? Or do you just mean pre-eq? Why is important to have a "clean" sound through the DI?


Great thread, btw.
Click to expand...

If you're recording both a DI and a miked amp, the presumption is that you want to have contrast between them and also retain the option to have the DI serve as a "safety" in addition to another sonic choice, meaning that you can reamp with it if the miked amp has noise issues that are intermittent or that you otherwise didn't notice during tracking.

If the DI has already gone through some tone shaping in a pre amp, it's probably also had its' impedance changed as well in a way that may not be as easy to account for considering that the channel might be then routed to a preamp (or, later, a reamp box) that expects a mic level signal or an instrument level signal specifically, and it's just not going to be as plain vanilla as you may want for the DI. It's not entirely "direct" anymore.

And a lot of amps that have a direct out just don't sound as good as a pro DI box. There are DI boxes that cost more than amps, and you can see the cost in the parts.
 
#103
grobe said:
Yup, that makes sense. Have you tried a Radial J48? Wondering if it can hold its own vs. an Avalon (or something else above $500).
Click to expand...

No, but I have a Radial passive reamp box, which is more or less a DI in reverse and does what it is supposed to.

I haven't tried active DIs of any kind in my simple rig or in the few occasions I've recorded with a DI in a pro studio. A good passive DI is perfectly fine with me, and there's just a ton of them to choose from.

I suspect that high end active DIs are kind of overstating the case for what is necessary, at least in the way I see the product; I don't need a DI to sound like a fancy (and rather overrated) preamp channel (Avalon) or like an Ampeg B-15 (A-Designs); I've already got fancy preamp channels and a B-15. I just want a high quality transformer in a box with a split output, ground lift, and phase, and that's all readily available for $150 or so.
 
#108
Rockmusician said:
I would use a Shure SM137. It has a frequency response of 20 -20,000 hz.

The SM57 is 40 -15,000 hz..
Click to expand...

That statement without context is misleading. The SM57 has a steep dropoff below 200 hz.

Invalid Link Removed

SM137 has a similar, only slightly less rolled off bottom (you have to click on the spec sheet link from this page), and it has a big 10K boost that the 57 doesn't have, which is not going to help matters.

I haven't heard a 137, but from the specs, it doesn't seem like a particularly good choice for bass.

Shure Americas | SM137 Instrument Microphone | Industry-standard, Touring, Vocal, Instrument
 
#111
teleharmonium said:
...SM137 ...has a big 10K boost that the 57 doesn't have, which is not going to help matters...
Click to expand...
no true . . . the mic DOES have a 2.5 dB peak centered at around 9 kHz . . . but the higher peak (3dB) is centered about 3.8 kHz . . . the low end starts gradually droping off at 400 Hz to -1 at 200 Hz, -3 at 100 Hz, -5 at 50 Hz and -6 at 20 Hz . . .

For comparison, the SM-57 has a 6 dB peak centered about 6.5 kHz . . .

But I wouldn't use the SM137 on a bass cab because it's a condenser mic . . . I prefer a dynamic mic on a bass cab . . . :cool: . . .

And as I've said before, I prefer the Electrovoice RE-20 (PL-20) or a Sennheiser MD-421 on a bass cab . . .
 
#112
lokikallas said:
I would agree and add the shure 52 as a contender as well. None of these are cheap tho.
Click to expand...
the Shure Beta 52A Kick Drum Mic is $189 at MusiciansFriend.com

For comparison the Electro-Voice RE20 Dynamic Cardioid Microphone costs $429 and the Sennheiser MD421 II Microphone costs $379.95
 
#113
deaf pea said:
no true . . . the mic DOES have a 2.5 dB peak centered at around 9 kHz . . . but the higher peak (3dB) is centered about 3.8 kHz . . . the low end starts gradually droping off at 400 Hz to -1 at 200 Hz, -3 at 100 Hz, -5 at 50 Hz and -6 at 20 Hz . . .

For comparison, the SM-57 has a 6 dB peak centered about 6.5 kHz . . .
Click to expand...

You haven't actually contradicted anything I said, other than a claim that it wasn't true which is not supported by the points you are bringing up. As I said, it has a higher - higher in terms of frequency, obviously - peak at 9K. This is unlikely to be a benefit to anyone considering it for bass. This is a separate peak from the one it has at 3.8K which is more or less similar to a peak that the 57 also has.

Most bass roll offs in microphones are gradual. But being -4 DB by 100 hz is a big loss of low end. This doesn't make it impossible to use, especially if it's being combined with another source or on sources that are so bassy that they can afford to lose that much bottom, but it certainly takes it out of contention as a mic to be bought specifically for all kinds of bass recording.
 
#115
This example, just a basic home recording, was recorded by putting an SM57 and a (shamefully cheap) condenser a couple of inches away from the speaker. No DI signals off either the amp or the bass itself. The SM57 provides most of the sound, with the signal from the condenser being used to bring up some of the highs for clarity.

As you can hear, it gets a pleasant tone. You may find it's lacking too much of the low bass for a more hi-fi recording, in which case you'd probably do well to try and get a DI off the amp head. Use that DI signal to provide the low end and then the SM57 should pick up enough of the 'character' of that lovely bass/amp tone you've dialled in. I can't comment on the other mics people have suggested.
 
#116
grobe said:
When some of you guys say "clean DI" do you mean through a dedicated box rather than through the back of a head/combo? Or do you just mean pre-eq? Why is important to have a "clean" sound through the DI?


Great thread, btw.
Click to expand...

depends on the situation. if you're going to re-amp you want to record your direct bass tone with no processing, if you ran through a head, and then re-amped, it'd be like running your signal through two heads in series.

if you're playing live with a sound guy he might not want you to be able to control the volume that you're giving him. (outside of the obvious volume knob) i'm not a live sound expert, so i'm sure there could be more/better reasons
 
#117
AuntieBeeb said:
This example, just a basic home recording, was recorded by putting an SM57 and a (shamefully cheap) condenser a couple of inches away from the speaker. No DI signals off either the amp or the bass itself. The SM57 provides most of the sound, with the signal from the condenser being used to bring up some of the highs for clarity.

As you can hear, it gets a pleasant tone. You may find it's lacking too much of the low bass for a more hi-fi recording, in which case you'd probably do well to try and get a DI off the amp head. Use that DI signal to provide the low end and then the SM57 should pick up enough of the 'character' of that lovely bass/amp tone you've dialled in. I can't comment on the other mics people have suggested.
Click to expand...

That approach may be unnecessarily complex for a simple home recording rig (where one would expect to see cheap condensers). There's no benefit to forcing yourself by your mic selection on using a dual (or more) channel approach in order to get a full range bass sound without requiring a substantial boost from EQ.

On the other hand if you use a mic that can capture a nice full low end, if you decide you would rather use the lows from a DI you can always roll off lows from the mic, which is a more hi fi approach compared to adding in lows with EQ.

Many people that would be concerned with a recording newbie question like this are going to be limited to 2 simultaneous inputs anyway.

There is something to be said for the simplicity and sonic purity of getting the sound from one source, not to mention the simplicity of setting up and mixing a single channel of bass. IME a single SM7, 421, RE20, 4047, or Baby Bottle on the cabinet will kill a DI + 57 or other bass anemic mic, every time, and it's easier. Easy matters, in the zero sum game of a 24 hour day and finite human energy and patience.

The tracks linked in my sig are in a variety of styles, upright and electric, but all were recorded using one mic only to one channel. (4047, Beyer M360, or EV RE38, Apogee Duet or Sytek pres, no outboard fx.)
 
#118
I basically agree with you that the SM137 isn't a good choice for mic'ing a bass cab . . . :cool: . . .
teleharmonium said:
...As I said, it has a higher - higher in terms of frequency, obviously - peak at 9K...
Click to expand...
In your earlier post (#108) you said "it has a big 10K boost" . . . and 2 1/2 dB is a "big...boost"????
teleharmonium said:
...This is a separate peak from the one it has at 3.8K which is more or less similar to a peak that the 57 also has...
Click to expand...
3 dB at 3.8 KHz is NOT "more or less similar" to a 6 dB peak centered about 6.5 kHz . . .

the SM-57 has a peak of double the intensity nearly an octave higher than the SM137 . . .

teleharmonium said:
...Most bass roll offs in microphones are gradual. But being -4 DB by 100 hz is a big loss of low end...
Click to expand...
true . . . but then, as I've said, I'd rather use the EV RE-20 (PL20) or the Sennheiser MD-421 . . .
 
#119
deaf pea said:
In your earlier post (#108) you said "it has a big 10K boost" . . . and 2 1/2 dB is a "big...boost"????
Click to expand...

at 10K, 2.5 db is absolutely a big boost. That is a high frequency to be having any kind of boost; particularly for a bass instrument which isn't going to be giving you anything good above 5 to 6 K.

deaf pea said:
3 dB at 3.8 KHz is NOT "more or less similar" to a 6 dB peak centered about 6.5 kHz . . .
Click to expand...


Sure it is. A presence boost in the usual ballpark of 5K, as in either of these mics, is functionally equivalent, relative to using either mic on an instrument that lives in the lows and mids.

And I would point out that the peak in the 57 is considerably wider, extending down to more or less the same place where the presence peak gets steep in the 137; it's higher in db and extends to a higher range, but they do overlap in much of that area.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back