It can't be this easy - recording with a mic

[DigitalMan]

I'm going to be a little vague on purpose because I don't want to influence the replies.

I've been around recording studios and mics for a long time, but I've never been my own engineer when it comes to miking a cab.

I just bought a mic (pretty good one or so I'm told - not less than $100, not more than $1000) with the goal of miking my cab and also perhaps a little singing.

I put the mic on a stand about 8" away from the speaker, pointed more or less just inside the outside of the diameter. I plugged into my audio interface (also decent as I am told) directly and set a level I thought would be fair to start. I adjusted a little from around 11:30 to around 10:30 on the dial and found the dynamic range comfortably between around -12 to -6.

I opened a test project in Reaper and created an empty track. Played two takes for about 20 seconds each. Listened back several times to each take.

I dunno. It sounds really nice to me. I thought I would have to be fiddling with mic position, gain levels, and perhaps all sorts of other settings. But nope, it just seems to be as good as I was hoping from a source material perspective basically right out of the gate.

Is this normal? Am I missing something obvious? Are there quantum phase physics that I need to measure and account for?

I guess what I am asking before I go too much further is: are there any basic mic tips that every home studio person should do whenever they setup a mic? Or does it boil down to "sounds good therefore is good"?

 

[Sean150]

I found exactly the same thing, I noticed a difference moving the mic as an experiment but overall it seemed like “put mic in front of sound source” and play.

I’m interested to see what someone more experienced says.

 

[pfschim]

I have found that angling my ok mic (SM57) at the outside edge of the speaker in my pretty good cab (Berg NV212t) then plugging it into my ok interface (Focusrite Scarlett 18i8) produces perfectly nice tracks into my DAW (Reaper).

enjoy!

 

[Flamingo21]

I’m interested to see what someone more experienced says.

Me too. Subbed.

 

[4stringfarley]

The best sounding recordings of me I've heard were split line with a Direct line handling the low end, high frequencies handled like you stated with a bit of dirt mixed in. All the jokes regarding bass players being simpletons, I've always figured were because we were always the easiest to deal with in the studio as long as we were prepared.

Granted there is a lot more experienced people lurking about that may have other ideas on the subject.

 

[silky smoove]

The great Andrew Scheps on mic’ing cabinets: “I stick the mic in the center of the cone as close to the grill as I can get it. If I don’t like the sound I try a different cone or a different mic.”

It really is that simple. There’s no magic or voodoo. Either your gear and placement works, or it doesn’t. Either situation will be readily apparent. You’ll get different results by changing any piece or placement, but in my experience it’s much harder to get something unusable if you use even the smallest amount of common sense than it is to get something that’s at least serviceable.

 

[Frank Tuesday]

Sometimes you get lucky and put the mic in just the right spot. Sometimes it takes a while.

 

[Omega Monkey]

A lot of it has to do with your source. If you use a good sounding bass, into a good sounding head (with appropriate EQ and gain settings), into a good sounding cab, into a good sounding mic, into a good sounding interface, and use 100% functional cables through the whole chain, a lot of the rest is just subjective. I'm not a big fan of 57s on just about anything but snare and maybe horns, they usually sound pretty boxy on anything else, but besides that, anything goes. You just have to accommodate if the mic you're using is more sensitive and maybe pull back from the cab a bit. I do like using a mix of DI and mic, because then the 2 signals can kind of lean on each other. The DI will tend to be wider frequency spectrum, but the mic will tend to have more excitation and vibe and space (even close miked). Then you balance and EQ and compress to taste once you've got the phase lined up in your DAW (ie match the peaks of each track as closely as possible).

A lot of this stuff is not super mysterious or alchemical, it just requires going through the best practices, and having at least a reasonably ok ear. And of course if you're instincts have you following best practices instinctively, (or at least from the cumulative info you've absorbed over time), then the process should be fairly quick unless you're after something fairly specific.

 

[Tosh]

I have found that when it comes to guitar cabs, off-axis is usually to my liking. With bass, on-axis. I think it has to do with the different wavelengths each instrument produces.

Just my taste, no engineering or wizardry involved.

One thing I found in Logic/Garage Band that I really like - in the amp/cab simulators, you can move a virtual mic around a virtual cabinet, and (to me) it sounds like the real thing! I'm sure that other simulators offer this as well; I only know about Logic

 

[LowWay]

I’m just getting my project studio set up. My plan is to record direct in and With a mic simultaneously, then use a reamp to futz with mic placement and EQ and effect settings in the event that I got a good take but I can’t get it to sit well in the mix. Seems like the kind of insurance policy that takes the pressure off getting everything perfect up front.

 

[silky smoove]

Seems like the kind of insurance policy that takes the pressure off getting everything perfect up front.

There are pros and cons to this approach. Sure, it gives you an insurance policy or a safety net, but it also keeps you from ever committing to something. You can tweak endlessly and never make a decision until it's time to print your mix. I've never worked on a record that didn't sound better for having committed to something as early as possible. These days, if I have sufficient separation from instruments to allow for mic'ing a bass cabinet rather than using a DI, I won't even hook up a DI. I commit to a setup that I know will work, dial in the amp, and as long as the player nails the take it will always work, it will take less time, there will be less fiddling with things and generally speaking the mix will be better for it.

 

[LowWay]

There are pros and cons to this approach. Sure, it gives you an insurance policy or a safety net, but it also keeps you from ever committing to something. You can tweak endlessly and never make a decision until it's time to print your mix. I've never worked on a record that didn't sound better for having committed to something as early as possible. These days, if I have sufficient separation from instruments to allow for mic'ing a bass cabinet rather than using a DI, I won't even hook up a DI. I commit to a setup that I know will work, dial in the amp, and as long as the player nails the take it will always work, it will take less time, there will be less fiddling with things and generally speaking the mix will be better for it.

You also sound like you know what you’re doing already. I’m a former mastering engineer who has never mixed or mic’ed a thing in my life, collaborating with a band spread across the country. I’m not a crazy perfectionist, but I do have a learning curve in front of me, and this tool is a cheap way through that learning curve during the pandemic.

 

[silky smoove]

You also sound like you know what you’re doing already.

Well, thanks!

You make a good point. I do know what I’m doing, but I’ll still posit that committing is the way to go. Learning a mic technique that works for you won’t take long at all. It’s a much more forgiving science than people tend to assume. With your background as a mastering engineer I’m sure that when you lay something down you’ll know very quickly whether or not it worked. If you like what you hear, print it and move on!

 

[Reedt2000]

A buddy of mine runs a small but professional studio (SRG Studios, check em out, great place for tracking, mixing, and mastering). He turned me on to mic-ing cabs. I get a good result running an AKG D112 kick drum mic, a Shure SM57, and taking a DI. The D112 does most of the heavy lifting with the SM57 letting you dial in some extra sparkle. The DI has clarity in the sub frequencies if you want it. That setup leaves real flexibility when mixing.

 

[LowWay]

Well, thanks!

You make a good point. I do know what I’m doing, but I’ll still posit that committing is the way to go. Learning a mic technique that works for you won’t take long at all. It’s a much more forgiving science than people tend to assume. With your background as a mastering engineer I’m sure that when you lay something down you’ll know very quickly whether or not it worked. If you like what you hear, print it and move on!

I expect to be able to learn to place mics on my bass amp and guitar amps pretty quickly, but I’ve got time to experiment with the pandemic, and the reamp kit wasn’t that expensive. It’ll also let me play with my new source audio toys more easily as I learn to program them. I expect to be able to mic a cabinet on my own and just print it pretty quickly, but this seems like a very fast way to get there. Maybe I’m wrong. We’ll see.

My recording engineering friend And mentor mics his bass cabinet with both a D112 and a large diaphragm condenser. My interface has 2 inputs (Focusrite 2i2). If I’m gonna play with that kind of setup, not having to keep moving mics and Replaying the parts, the reamp is going to be a convenience there as well.

Anyway, it’s all good. This is just hobby time for me and I’m enjoying the tinkering.

 

[JRA]

does it boil down to "sounds good therefore is good"?

maybe. and if you're lucky, probably.

mic-ing a bass cabinet is a technique to be used when direct-in is limiting, in special contexts. otherwise: direct-in is always superior to the best-guess esotericism, ad infinitum. the biggest mistake = not knowing how it's supposed to sound before the recording. if you know where you're headed, it's easy to make decisions about the direction(s) to take to get there. if you're just 'playing around' to see what it sounds like = the world is your oyster!

 

[silky smoove]

Anyway, it’s all good. This is just hobby time for me and I’m enjoying the tinkering.

That’s really what it’s all about. Happy tinkering!

 

[Omega Monkey]

direct-in is always superior to the best-guess esotericism, ad infinitum.

Sorry but this is just flat out false. Generally speaking, air is what makes sound sound good. Miking gives life especially to electric stringed instrument sounds (ie bass and guitar). Yes, a lot of older recordings were done with the bass DI'd and some of them sound great, but they were also generally recorded through high end consoles (or at any rate ones with lots of character), and/or all or most of the other instruments in the mix already had a lot of character and texture, plus if you go back 20+ years, almost everything was recorded to tape too, which imparts its own character as well.

Trust me, if you take a cheap ibanez bass, into a behringer DI, into a behringer interface, into like Reaper or something, if you're not stacking up 3rd party plugins to replace all the character and texture and nuance that should be there, it's unlikely you're going to end up with a very interesting bass sound. Now if you take all that same stuff but you run the bass into a decent amp and put a decent mix in front of it, you're going to get way way better results.

Now, if you have a 62 jazz and run it into an Abbey Road replica channel strip into a Studer tape machine, you will probably get damn good results and may not "better" them by using an amp. On the other hand, if the amp is a B15 and you throw a U87 at a reasonable distance, that's going to be hard to beat too.

So you have to compare apples to apples, but from my perspective as a sound guy and someone who's been recording at least for personal stuff for over 25 years, you'll get more for your money from a miked setup, until you get into that ultra high dollar level (assuming we're talking about either/or situations where you can't just use both, which is my preference, to then blend as desired).

 

[JRA]

Sorry but this is just flat out false. Generally speaking, air is what makes sound sound good. Miking gives life especially to electric stringed instrument sounds (ie bass and guitar). Yes, a lot of older recordings were done with the bass DI'd and some of them sound great, but they were also generally recorded through high end consoles (or at any rate ones with lots of character), and/or all or most of the other instruments in the mix already had a lot of character and texture, plus if you go back 20+ years, almost everything was recorded to tape too, which imparts its own character as well. Trust me, if you take a cheap ibanez bass, into a behringer DI, into a behringer interface, into like Reaper or something, if you're not stacking up 3rd party plugins to replace all the character and texture and nuance that should be there, it's unlikely you're going to end up with a very interesting bass sound. Now if you take all that same stuff but you run the bass into a decent amp and put a decent mix in front of it, you're going to get way way better results. Now, if you have a 62 jazz and run it into an Abbey Road replica channel strip into a Studer tape machine, you will probably get damn good results and may not "better" them by using an amp. On the other hand, if the amp is a B15 and you throw a U87 at a reasonable distance, that's going to be hard to beat too.
So you have to compare apples to apples, but from my perspective as a sound guy and someone who's been recording at least for personal stuff for over 25 years, you'll get more for your money from a miked setup, until you get into that ultra high dollar level (assuming we're talking about either/or situations where you can't just use both, which is my preference, to then blend as desired).

gee, i think you made my point re: "best-guess esotericism, ad infinitum!" and if you read my whole post: it's hardly "flat out false" --- it may be a strong opinion, however...not unlike your own!

the biggest difference between our individual takes on the subject is that you seem to have some experience with the matter and i actually have a lot of experience with it!

bottom line: the OP is getting something good from his technique/efforts = he wins!

 

[Omega Monkey]

The only one talking about "best-guess esotericism" (*** does that even mean?) is you. Again, good bass into good amp through good mic into good interface. Boom, done. 9 times out of 10 that will sound great unless you're going for something more clean and wide frequency range. And once you've miked it, you probably need very little in the way of further processing, whereas if you want a DI bass to sit properly in modern music, again, you are likely to be adding EQ, tape emulation, etc...

Anyway, the "easy" approach (to the degree you seem to mean) is not necessarily the best, and it's not necessarily the easiest, once you factor in the whole chain of events. Personally, I could get by without a DI track in most cases, but I'm not sure I could ever get by without a miked track. And recording is not a race. The idea is to get the best result, not the fastest, otherwise everyone would just use a single SM57 to capture a drum kit, right? Bass deserves the same care and attention in recordings as drums, guitar, horns, vocals, etc...