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.
The Ol’ Audio Interface Dilemma
- Thread starter Brennan
- Start date
I love the 6 piece. Do you do the horn arrangements? I’ve been messing with the Cuban/Peruvian/Colombian dudes. Cool ass stuff.
Right now, the only wind instrument is a flute. 2 guitars, bass, drum, and vox. We might bring in some horns if we have a big gig, but the dynamic is great as is. Best part is the singer's mom is Brazillian, so she speaks perfect Brazilian Portuguese.
I still own a Focusrite Scarlett 2i4 and an Audient id14 with the Audient being the better of the two, but both have been retired since I purchased a IK Multimedia Axe I/O interface. That thing is the best interface that I have ever owned and if you are a guitarist/bassist it is definetely worth checking out.
Last edited:
Plugin Alliance is running their $29 plugin sale. They're doing 3 coupons over a week. The first is good until 26th
BFD1-2999 Unfortunately, the AMEK EQ200 is one of the few plugins that is excluded from the deal.
I have been summoned!
The high end gear is nice, but the 'nice room' and the skill of the recording engineer who mics your upright will be the biggest differences. How is your space for recording, and are you confident in your abilities to mic the upright in a pleasing way?
It sounds like you've got a nice front end to your signal chain. Which Warm mic do you have? Is it their take on a 47?
It could be the weak link, but don't write it off just because it isn't very expensive. Modern consumer grade conversion is still more than sufficient for delivering great sound. The term "great" in this case means that it is accurate. If you're using the Scarlett in conjunction with the Arkham preamp just be sure and set the Scarlett to unity gain so that the cascading signal path of two preamps in series doesn't get overly colored by the second one (i.e. the Scarlett).
Later in your post you say that you're sending stems to a producer. There might be some terminology issues here. Are you sending audio files or stems? Are you sending these to a mix engineer or a producer? I'm going to assume that you're sending audio files to a mix engineer. If that's the case, then I would not send something that has had DSP applied. Let the mix engineer make those decisions. Just get a good clean capture.
That's just more DSP that you should let the mix engineer address. Traditionally DAWs have not had a baked-in sound, which could be easily confirmed through null tests. Luna appears to have a lot of UA "stuff" baked into it in a similar fashion to how Harrison MixBus operates. If you're not the mix engineer I would stay away from things that should be addressed by the mix engineer.
This is all covered in my earlier comments (i.e. differences between stems and audio files, producers and mix engineers, making DSP-based decisions ahead of sending, etc.), so I'll just summarize by saying that as a mix engineer and occasional producer myself; I want to be the one to make those types of decisions unless it's something that is absolutely critical to the recorded tone. If you're just trying to get a nice sounding bass sound then I would send the best recorded version I could with no additional DSP applied in the box. The engineer and likely the producer, if there is one, will be much happier if they receive that than they would if they received something that had already been messed with. I know I would!
Little known fact - when Chuck Berry recorded Johnny B Goode, he went direct to tape so the mix engineer - who knew more about how to get a great guitar sound then Chuck - could later re-amp and make it sound right.
NOT!!
We take it for granted that guitar players need "their sound" in order to play with the right feel, but somehow that doesn't apply to bass players? Even an acoustic bass is almost always played through a mic and/or pickup, and monitored on speakers or headphones. I've spent years developing my sound - of which gear and settings is a component - and I'm supposed to hand off that responsibility because why?
There is a really easy solution for both parties to be happy - if your processing is outside the box, use a DI and record two separate tracks through the interface - one with your processing and one straight up. If you're using Apollo to get your sound, you can record one input onto two separate tracks - again one track with and one without processing.
The few times I've recorded in high end studios they asked me to bring "my amp" by which they meant bring the stuff I need to get my sound - rack, pedals, amp, whatever. Then they would record a second track direct, with no processing. If nothing else, it gives the engineer a reference for how you like your instrument to sound and how you like to blend with the rest of the band. And during the recording process I had my familiar tone, as did my band mates. Nowadays my sound is all inside Apollo, but the same principle applies. Just because it runs on a DSP instead of analog hardware makes no difference.
Who has said otherwise? I certainly didn't in the post that you quoted.
You also carefully chose to omit this statement which I made a few posts down from the one you quoted:
ok.... to quote you, "If you're just trying to get a nice sounding bass sound then I would send the best recorded version I could with no additional DSP applied in the box." Say what you will, that reads to me as: DSP = only the engineer should touch this. My point being that nowadays the entirety of someone's tone might be DSP based so your statement is equivalent to saying "don't use any processing". The way I read your other statement is that you're a fan of committing to a tone as long as you the engineer are the one who is sculpting that tone.
Doesn't matter to me one way or the other how you do things, but I thought the OP should have another perspective on this.
Aside from the assumptions you're making, which are largely but not entirely incorrect, you're also quoting things out of the context of the thread. The context is this: A player who is accustomed to working in what I assume are moderate to high end studios (as is evidenced by the references to Burl and Neve equipment) is attempting to record themselves and wants to get a nice sounding capture of an upright bass. The player has some experience, but likely less than the recording engineer and mix engineer at the aforementioned studios. In this case my advice 100% of the time will be to leave it to the engineers if you're working remotely and simply give them a high quality, full range recording of solid takes. Do this and not only will you get well earned credit, you'll also be remembered as the player that did just what was right for the session and will potentially get more work out of it in the process. If, on the other hand, you're working for a client with a specific thing in mind, a label with an A&R guy that's making very specific requests, a producer that has a specific sonic footprint, or it's your own project/band with a characteristic sound that hinges on this specific tone you've crafted, then by all means do what they ask of you or what your own preference happens to be on the way into the box. Grab safety DI copies if you want, or don't. There's a time and a place for them, as well as a time to prioritize other aspects of the recording, usually due to equipment limitations by home studio users (i.e. a lack of I/O).
To make a few corrections:
To make a few corrections:
Per my comments above, this is advice I would give 100% of the time and it would always be right. Full stop.
That's entirely an extrapolation. Read my comments in the paragraph above for more context. Sometimes using DSP before sending it off to the intended recipient is called for. Most of the time it's not called for, or at least not necessary when the instrument in question is a bass guitar, and even less so if it's an upright bass.
Tone is tone, regardless if it's handled in the analog or digital domain. The first part of your sentence and the second are unrelated. Focusing only on the second half, which is the only part with any relevance to this conversation; You should only use processing of any kind before sending off your captures if you meet the conditions listed in my paragraph above, AND provided that you know what you're doing. The OP may or may not know what they are doing, and may or may not be equipped with the tools to deliver something better than if they had just left it alone. Only they know the answer to that, so anything beyond that is speculation. For my part as an engineer who receives remote session work quite frequently I'll state my opinion that more often than not, people who must have "their tone" often would have been better describing what they wanted to a competent engineer to have them execute it than doing it on their own. Some genres with very esoteric sounds (e.g. shoegaze, lo-fi hiphop, etc.) are always going to be better off printing their processing (again, whether that's analog or digital makes zero difference) before sending their tracks to the engineer when working remotely.
Continued extrapolation on your part. Read everything I said above for context. If something specific besides "just a good clean capture" is needed, the person playing and recording is experienced enough to do a good of that, has the tools to do it and can execute in a way that benefits the mix, then by all means. If they can't, don't want to, or are unsure then the safe bet is leaving it to the engineer along with some notes or reference mixes to better illustrate what their end goal might happen to be.
Perspectives are good, but nothing you've stated has been contrary or different to what I and others in this thread have said. Your opening comment with the intentionally apocryphal Johnny B Goode story and timely Wayne's World'esque "NOT!" were snarky and made your intentions quite clear. You came here to argue. I get it, it's the internet, and that seems to be largely what it's for in many cases. That's fine, but don't try to put words in my mouth by extrapolating my intentions. Instead, ask me to clarify what I meant. I've done that in this post several times over.
It depends on the circumstances. If you're a hired session player, your job is to give the artist/producer/engineer what they want/need to make the track they want. If the engineer wants a DI track with no processing, either analog or digital, then your job as a hired gun is to give them exactly that. If they want you to mic your amp and use all 20 FX pedals you own however you see fit, then that is what you give them. If you're paying them to do your music, you can give them whatever you want and they can work with that. It all depends if you are the client or if you are the hired player.
And in this example you are the client. The engineer's job for you is to give you what you want: a finished recording that sounds great. The easiest way to do that is to have you bring in what you're accustomed to using so that you will be comfortable and efficient in the studio. If the player is uncomfortable, they are more likely to make mistakes, or not be able to achieve the feel they want.
If you're doing session work at home and you need to have "your sound" to be comfortable, then you should absolutely do that. The engineer can get the DI track they actually wanted and delete the faux mic'd amp track that you sent along. It helps you play your best and the engineer has what they need to finish the song so everyone wins.
I found this interesting video regarding the SSL and Audient converters. I don't know how valuable the test is, but it was a fun watch none the less. I'm pretty sure the Audient Line In going into the pre, so the great change in sound may be due to that more than the actual converters.
Last edited:
I watched that last week as well. Very interesting to see the degradation difference. I’m guessing the degradation was a result of the DA rather than the AD, and since most folks using an iD14 are mixing entirely ITB, then the DA doesn’t get printed on the final mix, and the loss of all bottom end and quite a lot of midrange after 500 passes will be a non issue. Still, a very enlightening experiment. It also makes me wonder about my Audient Nero monitor controller which I would guess uses the same DA as the iD14. I’m currently going into the Nero via ADAT from my MOTU 16A, through the Nero’s DA and then to the analog outputs to drive two pairs of monitors and a separate subwoofer. I’ve always liked the sound of it that way for mixing, but maybe it is shaving off a tiny bit of lows and mids in the process.
This model Audient doesn't bypass the pre when using line inputs. So that signal hit the mic pre 500 times. I would expect that was more a factor than the converters.
Oh, good point. Admittedly I skimmed that video and probably just missed that part of the conversation. My Nero has no mic pres being a monitor controller, so no cause for concern on my end (not that there was actually any in the first place
).
I would recommend an RME Babyface Pro. Versatile, great sound, nice mixing software, optical in/out. It was a huge upgrade from my Scarlett 6i18. Headphone out drives 300 ohm Drop 6xx without issue. Can't record the whole band live, but it is prfect for home use. I also use it live as my bass/software synth mixer.
