• 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.

Recording at Home

#21
I record my own demo, so a clean DI signal is the easiest to work with. I am not a professional so if I had to time align certain notes, the clean DI signal works best.

And then there’s the b7k plugin, so the mixing engineer can duplicate the DI track and feed it through the plugin, set the distortion and speaker sim to fit into the mix.

Darkglass Ultra

neuraldsp.com neuraldsp.com
 
#22
I'm all with the "send clean" crowd, but I'd also chat with the engineer and send a sample of the live tone you prefer - let him do his stuff, but letting him know what you like to sound like can't (or shouldn't) hurt. Just as example / additional input.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EliasA and Wyrdlow
#23
TheArchitect said:
You don't need a major label and you don't need major funding to do. That's just making excuses.

That's a track, not a stem by the way
Click to expand...
No, but you do need to have the knowledge to be able to record it well enough for it not to be a problem for the mixing engineer. It costs money to have that expertise if someone hasn't learned it themselves. This band have decided to save money by tracking guitars at home.

Track/stem, the meaning was clear from context, but congrats on the win!
 
#25
Send a clean DI track and a track that represents what you think your bass should sound like, both recorded at the same time. The second track may be usable or it may end up being a reference track. A clean track can be manipulated to sound like your sound but something that works with the mix. Removing muck, too much distortion and over eq'ing is difficult after the fact. Heck record as many tracks as you think you need to. It's just drive space!
 
  • Like
Reactions: meisi, johnh89 and EliasA
#26
My recommendation depends on how many channels you can use when recording.
  1. One channel - send a clean signal using a good DI (see comments below)
  2. Two channels - send a clean and then send the DI from the GK including the Darkglass
  3. Three channels - send a clean, Darkglass DI, and GK DI
  4. Four channels - send a clean, Darkglass DI, GK DI, and mic the cabinet (see comments below)
Comments on DI: use a good DI for the clean signal. If you don’t have another DI available and are only recording one channel, I would either set the Darkglass or GK to a clean sound and use one of those DIs.

Comments on mics: do not use a kick drum mic for bass - lots of people do this for some reason and the sound usually sucks due to the baked in EQ. Use a full range mic - a Shure SM57 works fine (especially when combined with the DI sound).

I would definitely talk with the recording / mixing person about your tonal goals. Good luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: meisi, srosenthal13 and johnh89
#27
bobbajobb said:
Hello fellow Low End Chiefs

I'm due to record bass for an album with one of my bands in the coming weeks/months, and I've only had experience recording live as a group before. This newer band tracks drums first then guitars etc after.

We're opting to record at guitars home to save some £ and preserve studio time for drums - the group did that for their last EP and saw success with it.

The group & engineer is talking about sending a clean signal so they have the most flexibility when it comes to mixing etc, which I can understand.

However, a big part of my tone is my gear - I have a Darkglass B7K which I love and also a really nice GK Fusion S amp.

The darkglass has a parallel out, so that's sorted. I can record both dirty and clean and provide both for the engineer so he can preserve my low-end and still be able to mix in the bite/dirt from the B7K.

But how do I still preserve my amp tone? Should I be bothering to try and keep it or is it better to just use it for gigs/live?

I can only feed one output from my darkglass into my amp - should I record the dirt or the clean?

Any advice or input really welcome - I don't want to sound like a generic plugin when I've put so much thought and care into my setup - but also don't want to impede the recording process.

Thank you!
Click to expand...
You hired an engineer to do a job. The engineer told you what he needs to do his job. Give him what he needs, which is the clean signal.

If you don't, the money you save by not tracking in the studio you'll spend on the extra time it takes for the engineer trying to fix an already-processed tone. That, or the engineer will just use your processed signal as-is, do a minimal amount of making it work because there's budgetary limits to his time & effort, and the final product could suffer.

This doesn't mean you ONLY have to send the clean signal. Send the other signals you want the engineer to have access to. But make sure one of those is the Clean signal.

Set your DAW up so you're simultaneously recording to 3 separate channels:
- Direct
- Post B7K signal
- Mic'd Amp signal.

Every take you do is now in triplicate, a track for each point in the signal.
Make sure you name the files clearly and logically so the engineer knows which channel it is, and which takes go together. ie: Direct_Take2.wav, B7K_Take2.wav, & MicedAmp_Take2.wav. If each take and track isn't clearly labeled, the engineer will most likely just use the clean track instead of trying to figure out which tracks were recorded together.

If your interface doesn't have 3 inputs, just pick which signal is more important to you: B7K or Mic'd amp, and record that with the clean signal. (Unless you have expertise in mic'ing bass amps, and have a great mic to do it, i'd vote B7K)

And if you absolutely must have the signal from your B7K and your Amp's mic'd tone, and you can't record all three simultaneously, that's what recording studios are for. Might be worth saving a touch more to record at the studio and let the engineer get exactly what he needs.

--

Note: One of the things the engineer can do with the clean signal is re-amp. They can run the clean signal out of the DAW, through your B7K & Amp, and then back into the DAW. So even if you ONLY provide a clean signal version of your tracks, you can still utilize your gear, but in a more controlled way that the engineer can get just right without the extra cost of tracking at the studio.
 
  • Like
Reactions: srosenthal13, EliasA and joebingo
#28
The questions were technical, and the answers are technical, so all that makes sense..

The hairs on the back of my neck stand up when I hear about a record being made by whole band without the humans communicating.

You say that you have never recorded this way before. To me this sounds like an absolute disaster, and a huge waste of money, and a plan to make a bad record.

At the next practice try this. Stand in a way so no one can see each other, and absolutely no talking with band mates is allowed. See how that goes. I imagine that the record would be even more disconnected from that. Even at that crappy practice you would be in the same room together.

To me, a project relying on separating band members (who have not played this way in the past), with each member recording in a tech bubble at home, removes everything interesting about about a band.

I realized just how much of my own playing is boosted when I'm with a drummer once I recorded with the drummer in a booth.
So many cues are visual, seeing the sticks hit, watching the kick drum knee bounce.

If this were conceived as a project to work this way (Postal Service) It makes sense, If you are a band that plays TOGETHER... not so much.
 
Last edited:
#29
Sorry, I should have clarified, that I currently don't have the ability to also mic my cab, I am only talking about the head itself.

My interface has just two inputs, so I feel like darkglass + parallel clean into amp and XLR out of my amp into my interface is my best 2 combinations with my current gear. Amp would be post-EQ but minus any drive etc.

Unless people feel that it would be better to simply do a direct clean parallel output + darkglass and avoid the amp entirely?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FullumMusic and hieronymous
#30
DanAdams said:
The questions were technical, and the answers are technical, so all that makes sense..

The hairs on the back of my neck stand up when I hear about a record being made by whole band without the humans communicating.

You say that you have never recorded this way before. To me this sounds like an absolute disaster, and a huge waste of money, and a plan to make a bad record.

At the next practice try this. Stand in a way so no one can see each other, and absolutely no talking with band mates is allowed. See how that goes. I imagine that the record would be even more disconnected from that. Even at that crappy practice you would be in the same room.

To me, a project relying on separating band members (who have not played this way in the past), with each member recording in a tech bubble at home, removes every single aspect that makes a good band worth listening to.
Click to expand...
A lot of unnecessary assumptions here

I personally have not recorded in this way before. The others have.

We rehearse weekly and have written full demos of these songs in advance, and will be tracking drums > guitars inc. bass > vocals > solos while present with each other most of the time in each of our respective homes. Not sure why you think we wouldn't be communicating - we live in the same city and all have interfaces and gear to record with, and we'll be in the room with each other a lot of the time too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davedamage
#32
DanAdams said:
I did make that assumption when you said that you would record at guitars at home.

I'm glad that hear that you have confidence in this approach. My rhythm section ethos is obviously different. I wish you well.
Click to expand...

Can't knock what I haven't tried.

In my other band we all record live in the room with one another - it results in a very different sound (they are more of a bluesy/punk rock band), while this other band recording track by track is a thrash/heavy metal band.

I feel the need to "groove" less with this group - so I'm happy to give it a shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EliasA
#33
bobbajobb said:
Sorry, I should have clarified, that I currently don't have the ability to also mic my cab, I am only talking about the head itself.

My interface has just two inputs, so I feel like darkglass + parallel clean into amp and XLR out of my amp into my interface is my best 2 combinations with my current gear. Amp would be post-EQ but minus any drive etc.

Unless people feel that it would be better to simply do a direct clean parallel output + darkglass and avoid the amp entirely?
Click to expand...
Yep. If your interface only has 2 inputs, just go Clean + Darkglass.

Using your amp's EQ isn't recommended for a few reasons:

1- You have your EQ set to how you hear your bass coming out of your cab which has its own sound. You're not going through your cab so the EQ settings that makes your bass sound a certain way through your cab won't give you the same tone without the cab.

2- You don't have the reference of the rest of the mix to know how to EQ. You'll EQ your bass in isolation for your bedroom tone. But that might not be what the mix needs. Tone is arbitrary and contextual. The tone you like in isolation at home might not work in the mix. Let the engineer EQ the bass for the mix.

3- Baking in an EQ tone is harder to undo than it is to add later. The engineer will have to spend a lot of time undoing the baked-in EQ just to clean up the tone before they can begin making the bass sound good in isolation and then good in the mix.

And again, from the Note in my post above, even if you only give the engineer a clean signal, they can then re-amp that clean signal through your Darkglass or amp. So you really don't have to stress too much about sending multiple versions of ever take. You can just send the clean and have your gear's tone applied after the fact. Just make sure you ask the engineer about reamping using your Darkglass & amp before you record the tracks and see what he says.
 
  • Like
Reactions: srosenthal13
#35
Personally I love recording - it can be very rewarding. I think you should go with the clean + Darkglass setup and have at it! Experiment with your amp too. Definitely communicate with the band and the engineer - let them know what you are thinking and see what they think. Recording is definitely different than playing live, so don't expect to get it right on the first try. But don't give up either! It might take a few tries.
 
#36
DanAdams said:
The questions were technical, and the answers are technical, so all that makes sense..

The hairs on the back of my neck stand up when I hear about a record being made by whole band without the humans communicating.

You say that you have never recorded this way before. To me this sounds like an absolute disaster, and a huge waste of money, and a plan to make a bad record.

At the next practice try this. Stand in a way so no one can see each other, and absolutely no talking with band mates is allowed. See how that goes. I imagine that the record would be even more disconnected from that. Even at that crappy practice you would be in the same room together.

To me, a project relying on separating band members (who have not played this way in the past), with each member recording in a tech bubble at home, removes everything interesting about about a band.

I realized just how much of my own playing is boosted when I'm with a drummer once I recorded with the drummer in a booth.
So many cues are visual, seeing the sticks hit, watching the kick drum knee bounce.

If this were conceived as a project to work this way (Postal Service) It makes sense, If you are a band that plays TOGETHER... not so much.
Click to expand...
As long as there is a click and a guide guitar or keyboard track its not hard to do.

Everyone recording their stuff in parallel is trickier than doing it sequencially. Let the drummer do his stuff. Then bass etc.. That way the person tracking knows what they working against. If the drummer changes his feel slightly, the guitars and basses will be off just playing to the click based on what they thought the drummer was going to do
 
#37
Ugh, I hate recording that way with a band.

I was lucky to have had well-rehearsed (including to a click) bands that could get basic track keepers in a few takes. So Drums, bass, rhythm guitar. Saves a huge amount of time and avoids lot of timing "fixes" in a DAW.

Now I do a lot of solo stuff so sequential for me, playing with my machines and live instrument tracks.

Ah yes: Commit commit commit sounds at the recording stage, whenever you can.
 
#39
hopefully I did not miss something here, but if you send a clean DI track, and a Darkglass track, there are also GK plugins (amp and cab sims) that should get you much of what your GK amp provides. You can run those or discuss with your engineer and have him use those plugins in his process.

If the engineer has demo's of the tracks that represent the band and your sound, he should be able to get pretty close to that I would think.

it's a process, but lots of stuff gets done this way these days. I do tracks all the time for people, with all kinds of different bass sound expectations. As long as the communication is good/clear (as possible) seems to work out. Solid click to track to, and your band mates playing solidly to that same click should make it happen.

good luck OP!
 
#40
I thought of something - is everything going to be recorded separately? Or are drums and guitar at same time? That would be a way to make it more organic, then you add bass, guitar solos and whoever else on other instruments. I guess I'm thinking Metallica lol

It sounds like a fun challenge to me! Be the architect of your own sound, but be flexible and open minded too. Personally, I am of the "get the sound you want down when you record" mindset with my own music, but I rarely get to record for other people, and when I do, I definitely send a clean track!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back