Phase Cancelation Between Gain Stages - Seeking Advice

[lm183902]

After reading, I realized I was a bit confused. It sounded like you were having phase issues between amp and DI signals, but upon reading again, it seems like you're just taking a DI? If so, phase shouldn't come into play here. It sounds like you just want the mids that a mic'd cab will give you.

And as far as the DI not sounding like the amp, that's completely normal. I would suggest duplicating your DI track and putting some sort of amp simulator plugin on there. Lots of affordable options out there. I typically cut all of the highs out of my DI track and compress the hell out of it for clean, consistent low end. Then I use the "amp" track for mids and character (and cut the lows out of that)

 

[mambo4]

Signal chasing 101

Remove every element from the signal
Add each element back in one at a time
Until the problem occurs again
Then adjust or remove the problematic element

 

[P_Basser]

I did exactly this for a recent live recording my band was having pro shot. Tracked the bass DI as a fail safe/for potential blending, Shure mic on the cabinet (can't remember which, it was a kick drum mic) for FOH use and any overdrive and effects.

After messing around with DI and plugins for "amp" sounds for recording, this was immediately more satisfying than any method I'd used before. The band got a little surgical with the EQ, but honestly just some low passing and cursory blending of the two signals was satisfactory to me.

This is what I do. We take a DI straight out of the bass, direct to the board. Then we'll take the parallel out from the DI and run it through my normal board and amp, into the studio's cab. SM7B on one speaker, RE20 on another.

 

[smo]

If the Mic sounds good - use the Mic. With good Mic choice & proper placement you should be able to get a great tone.

Secondly - simplify the pedalboard for each song. I.E. Only have the pedals you use for each song on the board, swap them in and out as you go.
This approach was a firm demand from one of the engineers I recorded with some years ago, not debating, not negotiating!

FWIW - sometimes a pedal will flip the polarity. I sometimes found that pedal needed to be sold as I couldn't get it to gel with my pedalboard, other times it just needed to be AFTER a certain other effect. Good Luck

 

[sunbeast]

Recording fuzz without a cabinet can be tricky- cabinets tend to roll off the inherently fizzy artifacts and can even add some compression that smoothes out the harsh bits. A cabinet is a highly colored part of the signal chain (maybe the most colored in a typical simple rig), that generally cleaves off much of the top and bottom of whatever you put into it and has a very specific midrange character unique to it with peaks and valleys. Most likely much of the EQ you are doing with all these EQ devices in your live rig is somewhat to align your sound with the inherent voicing of your cabinet, so taking the cabinet out of the equation but keeping all those EQ devices is then giving you strange spikes in places you are used to hearing valleys and vice-versa. Software cabinet simulation can be pretty versatile- you might just need to record a good relatively uncolored DI track then play with the software parameters until it starts to get in the ballpark. Most likely you won't find anything that totally nails the sound you hear in the room with your cabinet, but all that matters is finding something that works right in the recorded mix.

 

[el murdoque]

So I'm in the studio right now, I'll attach a photo of my pedalboard for context.

I'm trying to record a song with my fuzz effect and I'm having issues with it just not sounding right. It seems like there's phase cancelation happening somewhere in my rig. I've found that running from my amps DI sounds nothing like running it through a cabinet and it's caused us a lot of headaches.
Are there any studio tools that we can use to work around this before i go in for a 5th tracking session? How do you deal with phase canceling between your gain stages? Any advice is appreciated, I've never had this issue before, but I've also significantly upgraded my rig since my last studio session.

Full signal chain for live performance () = noise gate loop

Ibanez BTB400QM > Korg pitchblack tuner > Boss NS2 noise gate (Two Notes Le Bass > Soundblox Pro Multiwave Distortion > Justin Chancellor Fuzz Wah > Boss GEB7 EQ) > Digitech Bass Whammy > "Coulson Electronics" Polychorus Clone > Boss BF2 Flanger > Boss DD7 Delay > Gallien Krueger MB500 Bass Amp > Audient iD44 interface > Reaper

Signal chain I'm using for this song

Ibanez BTB400QM > Korg tuner > Boss NS2 (Two Notes Le Bass > Justin Chancellor Fuzz Wah > Boss GEB7) > Digitech Bass Whammy > GK MB500 > Audient iD44 > Reaper

During our last session I ran a DI from the Two Notes Le Bass as well as the MB500 and I found that improved the overall sound, but the fuzz is still not breaking up the way that it does through my cabinet.

Any tips are greatly appreciated!

I cannot see where you describe an issue that could be related to phase.

Your direct signal sounds different than the cabinet is all I gather. What is the cabinet in question? What happens when the engineer slaps an IR of a cabinet on the signal?

Most fuzz signals become very unpleasant when you have no low pass filter engaged - and most bass cabinets work as such.


2.

 

[Zbysek]

I use (analog) pedals live, but I don't bring them to a recording studio.

I record clean bass and we do the processing via plug-ins... It's much more flexible this way.

 

[TheArchitect]

I use (analog) pedals live, but I don't bring them to a recording studio.

I record clean bass and we do the processing via plug-ins... It's much more flexible this way.

Whatever works I guess... I can't fathom building a rig to exactly what I want just to kick it to the curb for recording where it matters the most

 

[sloppy_phil]

I use (analog) pedals live, but I don't bring them to a recording studio.

I record clean bass and we do the processing via plug-ins... It's much more flexible this way.

Whatever works I guess... I can't fathom building a rig to exactly what I want just to kick it to the curb for recording where it matters the most

I realize we are in danger of straying away a bit from the OP topic, but this isn't totally unrelated, so I'll chip in.

In these scenarios I like to have my cake and eat it, too. It's usually pretty simple in a studio to set up parallel lines for the bass. I was just in a session yesterday where exactly that happened; went straight into a DI for a clean track, then went thru the DI into my board, and out through my Torpedo CAB with cab sim on a second line. The song we did called for octave and phaser in small moments, otherwise a "clean" bass sound was sufficient. In this instance, my clean sound was a tube preamp > HPF > comp/limiter > Cab sim.

A lot of times, engineers are trying to simplify their workflow, so spending a ton of time dialling in a processed bass sound up front isn't super high on their to-do list. Plus, enough of them tend to be sceptical of rigs they are unfamiliar with! So we get to the end of the session, and the engineer said he was super impressed with the "effected" line I gave him, so much so that he left his "pure" DI line muted for the entire session. Which he said almost never happens (admittedly this is a studio that tends to work with younger/more inexperienced musicians, rather than the older heads/seasoned pros).

Point is, I was easy going enough to offer no resistance to the KISS method of tracking, understanding that ultimately my role is to serve the song rather than my ego, but by being a team player, and offering a simple parallel recording path, still managed to get "my" sound on the track. As Charlie Sheen used to say "Winning!"

 

[Zbysek]

Whatever works I guess... I can't fathom building a rig to exactly what I want just to kick it to the curb for recording where it matters the most

"What I want" is that my bass works well in the particular mix. The problem is that I don't know what sound will work in the particular mix before the song is being mixed. I usually record my bass line at an early stage of the process. At that moment, I have a very general idea what kind of bass I want to play in that song-whether it will be a Musicman with rounds or Pbass with flats (for example). At that stage, I have no idea whatsoever what kind of effect will suit the song.

Only when all the instruments (including vocals) have been recorded and the producer is actually mixing them together, we start to be able to ascertain what kind of processing the bass track needs. Usually, the bass track is duplicated in DAW and then some kind of drive plugin is applied to the duplicate track and then it is mixed back with the clean signal. For an experienced sound tech, it is a matter of seconds to try to apply various dirt plug-ins to my track and (let me) choose the one which works the best. Darkglass plugin might work for one song while Ampeg SVT plugin will work for the other song. If we find later on that the chosen plugin no longer works, it takes just few clicks to undo it.

Sometimes, we even find out that the bass I recorded the track with does not fit the song. In that case, I will re-record the song with different instrument. It has occurred to me several times.

To sum up: I don't force "my sound" on the song. I try to find the best sound for that particular song when working in a studio.

 

[Zbysek]

A lot of times, engineers are trying to simplify their workflow, so spending a ton of time dialling in a processed bass sound up front isn't super high on their to-do list.

This has been my experience as well. And it makes a lot of sense. For some time, I had been bringing my pedalboard to a studio and we had been recording parallel tracks (clean and effected). After some time, I realised that it's a waste of time and energy to bring the pedalboard, because we usually ended up working with the clean track only using plugins in DAW.

Edit: YMMV

 

[TheArchitect]

I realize we are in danger of straying away a bit from the OP topic, but this isn't totally unrelated, so I'll chip in.

In these scenarios I like to have my cake and eat it, too. It's usually pretty simple in a studio to set up parallel lines for the bass. I was just in a session yesterday where exactly that happened; went straight into a DI for a clean track, then went thru the DI into my board, and out through my Torpedo CAB with cab sim on a second line. The song we did called for octave and phaser in small moments, otherwise a "clean" bass sound was sufficient. In this instance, my clean soun12-mild was a tube preamp > HPF > comp/limiter > Cab sim.

A lot of times, engineers are trying to simplify their workflow, so spending a ton of time dialling in a processed bass sound up front isn't super high on their to-do list. Plus, enough of them tend to be sceptical of rigs they are unfamiliar with! So we get to the end of the session, and the engineer said he was super impressed with the "effected" line I gave him, so much so that he left his "pure" DI line muted for the entire session. Which he said almost never happens (admittedly this is a studio that tends to work with younger/more inexperienced musicians, rather than the older heads/seasoned pros).

Point is, I was easy going enough to offer no resistance to the KISS method of tracking, understanding that ultimately my role is to serve the song rather than my ego, but by being a team player, and offering a simple parallel recording path, still managed to get "my" sound on the track. As Charlie Sheen used to say "Winning!"

I say this to just discuss the point, not be pissy and confrontational..

It would be a pretty easy counter argument to make that you were serving the engineers demands/ego as much as the song in making that arrangement. The requirement for it by the engineer was not a creative one but rather of convenience for him.
I get they have kids in that have no clue, but making calls out of convenience and not wanting to do the work compromises the results in my opinion. Granted, that's not exactly what happened here but it does happen. A lot..

This has been my experience as well. And it makes a lot of sense. For some time, I had been bringing my pedalboard to a studio and we had been recording parallel tracks (clean and effected). After some time, I realised that it's a waste of time and energy to bring the pedalboard, because we usually ended up working with the clean track only using plugins in DAW.

Edit: YMMV

If the di is better in the studio, why do you not just use that live too?

For decades they recorded players As they were. There is no John Entwistle, Billy Sheehan etc if the would have neutered those guys the way they do now

 

[sloppy_phil]

I say this to just discuss the point, not be pissy and confrontational..

It would be a pretty easy counter argument to make that you were serving the engineers demands/ego as much as the song in making that arrangement. The requirement for it by the engineer was not a creative one but rather of convenience for him.
I get they have kids in that have no clue, but making calls out of convenience and not wanting to do the work compromises the results in my opinion. Granted, that's not exactly what happened here but it does happen. A lot..

You make an interesting point/argument, that is for sure. It's certainly possible there's an ego component to it, but there's nothing particularly new about running a bass direct to the console (quite the contrary, as I'm sure you are familiar!), and many many records have been cut that way. For me, at least, willingness to speak my piece would depend on who I am recording with. If it was like yesterday, where I was sort of a "hired hand" and playing material for a singer/songwriter that was already composed, then I see my role as a bit more of a chameleon, responding to the vibe of the individual song(s). Whereas if it's a band that I am actively involved in, especially if contributing to the song writing process, I am more inclined to push for my sound (which I would have developed extensively through rehearsals, and have dialled in on my board very well).

 

[Zbysek]

If the di is better in the studio, why do you not just use that live too?

In the studio, the clean signal from the DI serves as a basis for processing which I described (or at least indicated) in my post No. 30 above. Compression is always used on the bass track. Some kind of drive/saturation is usually applied. Sometimes other effects are being chosen. The clean DI signal is preferable because it leaves all possibilities open for the mixing stage of the process.

At live gig, the situation is different. The sound guy doesn't have time to do all this experimentation. Therefore, I send him signal which is ready-made.

 

[Zbysek]

For decades they recorded players As they were. There is no John Entwistle, Billy Sheehan etc if the would have neutered those guys the way they do now

I don't feel neutered at all. IME, leaving the tone sculpting of the bass track to the mixing stage increases the likelihood that my bass will sound good in the mix. That's my ultimate goal.

You are correct (to some extent) that before digital processing became a norm, the possibilities to shape the bass track after it was recorded were limited. But nowadays, when it is so easy to shape the bass track at any stage of the process it just doesn't make much sense (to me) to limit the choices by recording heavily processed sound as a starting point.

 

[Zbysek]

It would be a pretty easy counter argument to make that you were serving the engineers demands/ego as much as the song in making that arrangement. The requirement for it by the engineer was not a creative one but rather of convenience for him.
I get they have kids in that have no clue, but making calls out of convenience and not wanting to do the work compromises the results in my opinion. Granted, that's not exactly what happened here but it does happen. A lot..

I see it from a different perspective.

Regarding the creativity argument:
IMHO, working with a clean signal and shaping it to serve the song the best way possible is more creative than recording a ready-made signal.

Regarding the convenience argument:
Time in studio costs money. Somebody has to pay for every hour spent in the studio. IME, trying to make a ready-made signal work in a particular mix is more time-consuming than working with a clean signal in DAW. If the bass player pays for the studio, than it's ok-it's his money being spent. If somebody else pays for the studio, than the bass player insisting on his ready-made sound is wasting that guy's money.

Regarding the ego argument:
I don't see how sound tech's ego is served if clean signal is being recorded in addition to a processed signal. However, somebody could make an argument that the bass player's ego is being served when he insist that only his processed sound is being recorded.

As always, IME, IMHO, YMMV

 

[paskisti]

I see it from a different perspective.

Regarding the creativity argument:
IMHO, working with a clean signal and shaping it to serve the song the best way possible is more creative than recording a ready-made signal.

Regarding the convenience argument:
Time in studio costs money. Somebody has to pay for every hour spent in the studio. IME, trying to make a ready-made signal work in a particular mix is more time-consuming than working with a clean signal in DAW. If the bass player pays for the studio, than it's ok-it's his money being spent. If somebody else pays for the studio, than the bass player insisting on his ready-made sound is wasting that guy's money.

Regarding the ego argument:
I don't see how sound tech's ego is served if clean signal is being recorded in addition to a processed signal. However, somebody could make an argument that the bass player's ego is being served when he insist that only his processed sound is being recorded.

As always, IME, IMHO, YMMV

Yes, it hurts no one if clean DI is recorded along with any other tracks. It functions as a backup or insurance if processed signal lacks something.

I would avoid today making parallel processing with pedals and amp in studio unless one knows what they are doing. When using plugins, phase issues are usually sorted already inside the software. If there is section where something very special is needed from one's pedal board I would record that part separately and using it independently without mixing DI (unless could sort out the phase etc. issues). It must be anyway something special to be recorded while doing unique things (like wah?). In modern world most pedal boards and amps don't do anything special that cannot be replicated with plugins.

 

[MYLOWFREQ]

Most devices have a phase switch because it is common that some units flip the phase. The engineer should know this and fix it in a second.

 

[Barghest]

Most devices have a phase switch because it is common that some units flip the phase. The engineer should know this and fix it in a second.

There's no phase issue, he's just somehow confused as to why his amps DI doesn't sound the same as his cab, which is pretty obvious, because it's not his cab.

Surprised that anyone who's ever recorded music doesn't know that it's going to sound completely different. Record a clean DI and then stick a mic on the cab, then time align in the DAW afterwards, this isn't rocket science.

 

[Jim C]

Much of what has been written above about phase is incorrect.
It can happen when you multiple mic a single source of music (same take)
It does not get corrected by a few degrees other than moving a mic.
It can be corrected electronically assuming it is 180 degrees out of phase.