Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Mic vs DI vs "Blend of Both"
- Thread starter Joblivion
- Start date
Whenever I've recorded, I've used a minimum of three tracks for bass, a dry (bass to di, to recorder), a di post eq, and mic. All full range and phase compensated. Basically the dry is used for reamping or to clean up other tracks that may not have captured properly. Any splitting for "high and low" was done post recording by bouncing the tracks and dubbing.
So what i'm hearing is that the clean track is crucial for insurance in case thr othe tracks don't turn out so great at the very least. So doing it all the time makes thd most sense.
Years of recording experience with a range of producers/engineers in studios ritzy, shabby, and in between has taught me that a good DI signal is the only one you will use 95% of the time.
If you are paying for studio time, do not eat into your budget establishing a mic'ed cab signal because you are overwhelmingly likely to discard it in favor of the direct -- not even mix it in.
And today's excellent post capture processors will get you a far, far better version of 'the perfect amp sound' that you have in your head without the fuss.
If you are paying for studio time, do not eat into your budget establishing a mic'ed cab signal because you are overwhelmingly likely to discard it in favor of the direct -- not even mix it in.
And today's excellent post capture processors will get you a far, far better version of 'the perfect amp sound' that you have in your head without the fuss.
Last edited:
Good Cabinet IR's include Mics/room/position into account. Some of the best IR's are recorded meticulously in studio's and give you a more familiar sound the you trying to use your own mic, on your own cab, in your own studio.
Just a slight movement of the mic can make a large change in the sound. Many IR include multiple mic positions. Try out a few and see if you can find a sound you like without all the effort of trying to use a mic.
Just a slight movement of the mic can make a large change in the sound. Many IR include multiple mic positions. Try out a few and see if you can find a sound you like without all the effort of trying to use a mic.
I always go DI only. But if I don't use an amp to define my tone.
If I were recording a bassist who used a tube amp and a sealed cab, I'd want to stick it in an iso room and mic that bad boy for sure, but also take a DI track just to have that option at mix time.
If I were recording a bassist who used a tube amp and a sealed cab, I'd want to stick it in an iso room and mic that bad boy for sure, but also take a DI track just to have that option at mix time.
Turnaround
Commercial User
Last session I did, I went DI, and had 2 mics - one near field and another picking up room ambience. Three tracks that could be balanced in the final mix.
The studio had a special room just for bass. I don't know what it was about that room, but my bass sounded great in there. Part of the recording was bass solo, which is probably where the ambient track would be more prominent.
The studio had a special room just for bass. I don't know what it was about that room, but my bass sounded great in there. Part of the recording was bass solo, which is probably where the ambient track would be more prominent.
No, just a little, but you can always experiment and see what works.
For me that depends on the style of music I amp creating. Sometimes, distorted or overdriven bass is the key signature of the what I am creating. But then again, I am not a studio pro
just writing and putting my own stuff together for the most part. But having said that, I have recorded some of that, and favored more of the DI signal, but I almost always add a hint of the effected signal.
Sort of my point -- you can apply effects/processing to a DI signal and make it sound however you want it to far more effectively than you can capture a given amp's special nuances with a mic.For me that depends on the style of music I amp creating. Sometimes, distorted or overdriven bass is the key signature of the what I am creating. But then again, I am not a studio pro
Speaking of bass cab mics, the best I ever used is an old US made CAD e100. Ruler flat down to 10hz. The worst was an AKG d12 kick drum mic.
i'd advise to always use a DI even if you have some magic sauce in your amp-to-cab (mic) that you want to record.
a DI will always yield a useable track. both is fine.
good luck with your recording(s)!
Before the music stars, give the strings a sharp, muted impact This will make the transient clear, and easy to time align the mic and DI.
The general preference is to use as little EQ as possible. EQ is assumed to degrade the signal in various ways. It adds noise and also phase distortion.
Ideally you choose a mic and mic technique that gives the desired sound without needing corrective EQ. In some instances, you want a mic that faithfully reproduces the sound source. In other instances, you select a mic that intentionally colors the sound.
Beta 52A frequency response, showing proximity effect at different distances.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
I would expect overly scooped mids with a lot of gank produced by the spike at 4khz (IMHO
). Course if that is the sound you want, 
. Beyerdynamic M88TG frequency response, showing proximity effect at different distances.
This is reportedly a fairly bright mic on a bass cab, but I would expect it to sound way more natural than a Beta 52A. No doubt some EQ would probably be required.
EV RE20 frequency response, showing effect of low cut filter.
This mic uses a technology called variable D, so there is little to no proximity effect. Should give a pretty accurate representation of the sound source.
I would not hesitate to use an M88 or RE20 to mic a bass cab. B52A sounds pretty decent on bass drum, so it's not like I hate the mic. But it would probably not be my top choice to mic a bass cab.
The general preference is to use as little EQ as possible. EQ is assumed to degrade the signal in various ways. It adds noise and also phase distortion.
My experience mirrors others already posted. I’ve tried many of the methods already described and almost without exception ended up using just the DI and then the myriad of options and techniques available in the DAW. The only limitations I’ve encountered are a result of my own lack a knowledge and skill.
Ok one last question lol
If you had to choose between the close mic or the ldc a couple feet back to blend with the di, which is the more preferred??? I only have the capability rn to record two inputs so I can probably only go with one.
If you had to choose between the close mic or the ldc a couple feet back to blend with the di, which is the more preferred??? I only have the capability rn to record two inputs so I can probably only go with one.
It depends on the room and the type of sound you are trying to achieve. Increasing the distance between mic and source will decrease proximity effect and also allow more bleed from the room and other sound sources. Keep in mind the DI must be delayed to the mic to prevent phasing.
IMHO why don't you just set up the mics and try it? You will learn a lot more from the experience than I can tell you.
