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

[JRA]

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...

your experience probably doesn't include owning and operating a studio for decades and mixing/mastering national/international recording artists...which is fine...but it's probably the difference between our points of view. FWIW: the "idea" is to get the best results the fastest (in the studio business)! of course, hobbyists have all the time in the world.

i have no problem with the way you do things, and i certainly applaud the OP's apparent success at recording with an affordable mic. i think my original post stated as much. that said: direct-in is a time tested technique for recording the EB in almost all genres where the instrument is used. if you prefer a different method = yay!

 

[DigitalMan]

I will add a little context, although it doesn't change the parameters of the conversation. Lots of interesting comments so far regarding the various options and paths.

Right now my goal has been to capture the sound of an amp/cab combo that I like the sound of. I have already used the amp with its direct out, and even loaded a cab sim for the specific cab model. While it was unquestionably a good sound, it wasn't quite the same sound.

 

[JRA]

my goal has been to capture the sound of an amp/cab combo that I like the sound of.

given that: the fastest, easiest, sure-fire way to get good/best results is to mic your cabinet! my 'direct-in' comments are better understood and utilized by those who don't know a lick, are guessing, or might not be as lucky chasing a sound/tone. i could have congratulated your success and moved on. hearing what you want/expect is the first good sign of a successful recording!

if it was me: i'd be pleasantly surprised (by your mic/cab method) and i'd feel like a winner! congrats for arriving at a method/solution for your recording goals!

 

[Biggbass]

It's not rocket science. Put a mic in front of the cab and hit record.

 

[Reedt2000]

It's not rocket science. Put a mic in front of the cab and hit record.

Yup. Use 2 channels and take a DI too, nothing wrong with options during mix down

 

[Omega Monkey]

your experience probably doesn't include owning and operating a studio for decades and mixing/mastering national/international recording artists

Taylor Swift is the highest paid "musician" in the world several years running. "Credits" don't impress me much. If you were Roger Nichols or something... maybe.

Anyway, sounds like you probably started with DI and never bothered much to try anything else. If that worked for you, great, but to say it's "superior" is not really true.

Personally, the experimentation and "happy accidents" are a big part of the fun of recording music. If you just want something rote, might as well fix brakes or make widgets on an assembly line. Others have different goals and maybe you could do with an ounce of humility and realize that.

 

[JRA]

Taylor Swift is the highest paid "musician" in the world several years running. "Credits" don't impress me much. If you were Roger Nichols or something... maybe.

Anyway, sounds like you probably started with DI and never bothered much to try anything else.

Personally, the experimentation and "happy accidents" are a big part of the fun of recording music. If you just want something rote, might as well fix brakes or make widgets on an assembly line.

Others have different goals and maybe you could do with an ounce of humility and realize that.

i have posted nothing that isn't a valid opinion (forget my expertise in the area), including my support for the OP and his ventures into recording. you're coming on pretty strong for having a lot humility, your own bad self. PM me if you have some great opinions/recordings to share! otherwise, lets drop it. TIA

 

[DigitalMan]

Yup. Use 2 channels and take a DI too, nothing wrong with options during mix down

I may be oversharing - but why use two when you can use four?

(Just to have the tracks. Not to actually use all of them)

 

[JeezyMcNuggles]

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"?

Are there any other instruments on the track? Everything sounds great outthe gate by itself. Its the "mix" that the fiddling begins.

 

[silky smoove]

I may be oversharing - but why use two when you can use four?

(Just to have the tracks. Not to actually use all of them)

View attachment 3991324

While I’m generally a fan of using as few signals for a given sound source as possible to avoid phase issues; if 2, 3, 4+ signals gives you the sound you want then by all means use them. The reason the often used SM57/MD421 mic setup for guitar cabs works so well is because of the phase relationship between the two mics that hollows out problematic frequencies in a pleasing way. Same thing with the Fredman technique and a pair of 57s. From a phase perspective, these are technically “less accurate” approaches, but all that matters is what comes out of the speakers on the printed mix. How you get there is only important to you and the engineer, and not the end user/listener.

 

[DigitalMan]

Are there any other instruments on the track? Everything sounds great outthe gate by itself. Its the "mix" that the fiddling begins.

Good question. I'm not at that point just yet. My basis of comparison so far has been comparing how the amp/cab sounds in the real world, versus how the DI sounds, versus how the amp/cab sounds when miked. All of it good. I was surprised how much closer the miked solution sounded.

I'll elaborate just a bit. This comment is just about testing the setup - not about tracking. I wouldn't track in the same room with live monitors running. (That's what headphones are for)

With DI, when I have both the amp and monitors in the room at the same time, the overall character of the sound is notably different when you're standing closer to one or the other - even with a cab sim of the same cab model. With the mic instead, the sound coming out of the monitors versus the amp is much, much closer.

So the tracks sound good, but the mic also solves for the question of why doesn't the DI signal sound like what I hear in the room.

 

[DigitalMan]

While I’m generally a fan of using as few signals for a given sound source as possible to avoid phase issues; if 2, 3, 4+ signals gives you the sound you want then by all means use them. The reason the often used SM57/MD421 mic setup for guitar cabs works so well is because of the phase relationship between the two mics that hollows out problematic frequencies in a pleasing way. Same thing with the Fredman technique and a pair of 57s. From a phase perspective, these are technically “less accurate” approaches, but all that matters is what comes out of the speakers on the printed mix. How you get there is only important to you and the engineer, and not the end user/listener.

My best guess right now is that I'll only use the mic for what I print. But I'm also open to having the tracks for some "what if" kinds of questions, inclusive of the ability to post a video demoing gear, and being able to compare the exact same take through different paths. I'm sure there are other uses for the DI tracks as well, including blending, compression, EQing, and even repairing in case there's a loud train horn in the background during an otherwise perfect track - which would be weird since there aren't any train tracks nearby.

 

[silky smoove]

I'm sure there are other uses for the DI tracks as well

Sometimes a mic signal of a heavily EQ’d amp needs a dose of clarity. A DI is usually good for that.

You’ll see a lot of people doing the “low pass the DI and high pass the amp” thing for a typical biamp/crossover type signal path. Those can often have weak response at the crossover of the two filter slopes, so don’t be afraid to try and blend signals that are all full range. Just be sure and compare things (individual and blended) in a level-matched way so that you don’t fool yourself into liking the louder one just because it’s louder.

My preference, again, is usually “one sound one source” but whatever gets it done. I find that bass is less forgiving of phase weirdness than guitar, for instance, which is why I usually just pick the one I like best and mute the rest. Heck, if I know what the final product is going to sound like going in, and I trust the player/gear, I won’t even put up the “alternate” signals to begin with. Get what I know will work and move on!

 

[garp]

Personally, the experimentation and "happy accidents" are a big part of the fun of recording music.

+1.

One of the nicest acoustic guitar tones I've ever heard was recorded not with some $2k condenser mic, but with a $10 cheapo '90s-era Apple PlainTalk mic.