studio recording

[sloppysubs]

for the folks who've been in the studio: do you usually get mic'd, di or a combo? and if/when youre getting mic, what mic is the engineer using?

 

[JimmyM]

I've done it a million different ways...mic'd, DI'd, combo of the two, and I've settled on DI for clean tones, DI plus mic for distortion tones. For distortion tones, a Shure SM-57 is great. For clean tones, people who mic usually use a large diaphragm condenser mic. Model numbers escape me, but AKG, Neumann, and Electro-Voice make some of the more common mics used. There's also this newish mic called the Blue Ball that's supposed to be great for micing clean bass and isn't real expensive. But I gave up on micing for clean sounds long ago. DI's easier and sounds better.

 

[WalterBush]

The answer to this question varies from studio to studio, engineer to engineer, player to player, song to song, bass to bass, etc, etc. Every situation is different. I usually go DI for convenience, and if that's not enough, I dig around in the mic cab until I find one that sounds good. I've been reamping guitars lately, though, and I'm thinking I might start applying this technique towards bass, as well.

 

[sloppysubs]

The answer to this question varies from studio to studio, engineer to engineer, player to player, song to song, bass to bass, etc, etc. Every situation is different. I usually go DI for convenience, and if that's not enough, I dig around in the mic cab until I find one that sounds good. I've been reamping guitars lately, though, and I'm thinking I might start applying this technique towards bass, as well.

i dont get waht you mean by 'reamping'.

 

[DaveMcLain]

By reamping he means taking a direct recorded signal and then running it back through an amp that's mic'ed up. I've experimented with this technique and it's fun, I've used it on guitar tracks before. I've heard that several very good "live" albums were actually done this way. The guitar and bass sounds were created later in a studio, makes sense.....

I personally like a mic'ed sound better than a DI for most things. I've been using a low wattage inexpensive 2x10 cabinet close mic'ed using a Groove Tubes Model 1B mic. I place the cabinet in isolation and run it with my normal amp setup most of the time. But, I play the cabinet quietly, so that the mic can handle the spl without problems, I think it sounds fantastic. I think similar results could happen with just about any nice microphone and cabinet. I like the small speakers because they produce more excursion at a low volume, for some reason I think that records better, seems to anyway.

 

[ryco]

Usually DI. Sometimes DI and mic. It really does depend on studio and engineer. Sometimes sit in the control room plugged into board and chat with engineer on what he wants or ideas he may have.

My pref is mic and DI and layin' it down live! or at least with the drummer

 

[sloppysubs]

im hearing the EV re-20 is a great bass mic.

as far as spl and mic'ing, couldnt you place the mic a little further away from the cab, if the amp signal is louder?

 

[WalterBush]

Google search Reamping. There's lots of articles written that are able to go into much more detail than I could here.


Here's the basics:

Record the instrument (guitar, bass, whatever) direct using a direct box with a throughput. The direct signal goes to the board, the throughput goes to your favorite amp with a mic in front of it. Both signals are sent to separate tracks, so there is no bleed between the two.

You now have a record of your exact movements, attack, etc. from your bass/guitar with no coloration, no eq, no anything. Just the signal from your instrument.

The advantage of this, is that if you don't like your amp sound, or want to try a different mic, or setup, or anything really, you just send the DI track you recorded through a device that will change it to high impedance (Radial makes a whole series of boxes for this, some DI's work for it even though they weren't designed for it) and run that signal back to an amp. Record that signal.

Voila! You now have a different amp recorded, or the same amp with a different mic, or the same amp with different eq, whatever you want, but you've done it with the same performance you gave before.

The advantage is that you're not burning time up getting different takes, and if all you wanted was the same take with a different setup, less distortion, more bass, less treble, whatever, the original take, assuming you liked it, is preserved. A mixing engineer can even do this if you're not in the studio. For a home recordist it means you don't have to drag your guitarist back in because his lead won't cut through the mix. Just tweak the amp, run his DI signal back through it, and record the new amp. I LOVE this technique, and I'm starting to expiriment with it for bass, not just guitar.

 

[sloppysubs]

Google search Reamping. There's lots of articles written that are able to go into much more detail than I could here.


Here's the basics:

Record the instrument (guitar, bass, whatever) direct using a direct box with a throughput. The direct signal goes to the board, the throughput goes to your favorite amp with a mic in front of it. Both signals are sent to separate tracks, so there is no bleed between the two.

You now have a record of your exact movements, attack, etc. from your bass/guitar with no coloration, no eq, no anything. Just the signal from your instrument.

The advantage of this, is that if you don't like your amp sound, or want to try a different mic, or setup, or anything really, you just send the DI track you recorded through a device that will change it to high impedance (Radial makes a whole series of boxes for this, some DI's work for it even though they weren't designed for it) and run that signal back to an amp. Record that signal.

Voila! You now have a different amp recorded, or the same amp with a different mic, or the same amp with different eq, whatever you want, but you've done it with the same performance you gave before.

The advantage is that you're not burning time up getting different takes, and if all you wanted was the same take with a different setup, less distortion, more bass, less treble, whatever, the original take, assuming you liked it, is preserved. A mixing engineer can even do this if you're not in the studio. For a home recordist it means you don't have to drag your guitarist back in because his lead won't cut through the mix. Just tweak the amp, run his DI signal back through it, and record the new amp. I LOVE this technique, and I'm starting to expiriment with it for bass, not just guitar.

ok we do this all the time, i didnt realize there was an actual term for it though. weve run a lot of bass players this way and guitars from time to time too.

 

[DaveMcLain]

im hearing the EV re-20 is a great bass mic.

as far as spl and mic'ing, couldnt you place the mic a little further away from the cab, if the amp signal is louder?

Placing the mic further away from the cab would lower the SPL but it would also allow more of the room sound to enter the picture and that's not what I want. The sound level for this setup isn't absurdly low or anything, just not really cranking and thus easy to isolate.

I've used an RE-20 on bass guitar and bass drum before, they are a good mic for that sort of stuff but I prefer a large diaphram condenser.

 

[avast_bass]

on my last recording I was DI'd through an Avalon active DI, and mic'd with a CAD E300. It sounded great, and even better when put through an Empirical Labs Distressor!

I've also found a friend in the EV nd408a on my cab, along with an MD421 and the DI from my tech21.