No postprocessing, is that a thing?

[Katoosie]

Hi.

I've been playing direct into my amp and listening back in realtime on my headphones. I've ditched my pedals and I've been going in dry with the signal being unprocessed. I am happy with my tone and the only thing I can think of would be some eventual compression, if needed.

Question to the hivemind - how sane is this approach? I'm looking at it through the simple "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" lens.

Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

 

[Aloe]

yeah, it's pretty okay to record the bass directly, it might need some EQ and/or compression, but that's it.

you're not required to use any other processing, especially since you're running not a plain DI, but amp's output. or any at all in some cases.

 

[MonetBass]

That's how I record bass: direct in and dry. I'll add compression & EQ in the DAW as needed, just like @Aloe suggested.

 

[Killing Floor]

You have to use at least one of reverb, delay, or envelope filter to be considered acceptable. Can be pedal or rack format effects. This is specified in code.

 

[RGerhart]

I usually just go straight from my Noble into my interface, with no effects or compression. Sounds great. If it sounds good, then it is good, right?

 

[hbarcat]

Having some experience with mixing and mastering, I can't imagine not using some significant amount of EQ and compression in post processing on your bass track (and other tracks).

There are many benefits to comp/EQ on bass after the raw track is recorded, and most of those benefits can only be realized during the mixing process when you can hear the bass within the entire mix in full context.

Simply leaving the raw bass track alone pretty much guarantees there will be frequency conflicts with other instruments, particularly the kick drum and other drums and guitars, keys, and other low/mid frequency instruments. Your final mix will almost certainly have an "amateurish" sound, with boominess or harshness in some places, or thin and hollow, with generally unpleasant sounds, in other areas.

That said, the number one rule is always, "If it sounds good to you, then it isn't wrong."

There's no reason why you can't do it the way you want to and see if you like the results.

 

[pfschim]

hey, the old adage around here is "if it sounds good, it IS good" ... particularly if they are just for your use. Otherwise I would just adjust the TB adage to "if it sounds good (to the producer) it IS good"

no reason to gum up your bass tracks with extra processing

 

[seamonkey]

I've been playing direct into my amp and listening back in realtime on my headphones. I've ditched my pedals and I've been going in dry with the signal being unprocessed.

Amp heads pre-amps always have some color to them.
It's all good, but keep an open mind when it comes to the mix that you may need to add some additional processing to get the sound in the mix you want.

 

[LBS-bass]

Hi.

I've been playing direct into my amp and listening back in realtime on my headphones. I've ditched my pedals and I've been going in dry with the signal being unprocessed. I am happy with my tone and the only thing I can think of would be some eventual compression, if needed.

Question to the hivemind - how sane is this approach? I'm looking at it through the simple "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" lens.

Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

It's what I do. I just put an old demo up online today and you can hear what that sounded like. No processing on this other than maybe some EQ and compression.

 

[J Posega]

If it works, it works. But most recorded music for mass consumption gets EQ's and compressed, even if the tone coming in is phenomenal.

 

[AGCurry]

I've done a fair amount of recording without any postprocessing, and it's turned out pretty well.

 

[Markmann]

OP, just to be clear... you are using the direct out from your amp to an interface? Just asking because some folks go direct from the bass straight into an interface. I've done it both ways and both worked depending on the sound I was after. Lately I've been going straight in and using an amp sim plugin.

 

[Bob_Ross]

how sane is this approach?

Think of it this way: For the first ~40+ years of recording, there was no such thing as any post-processing (and little if any pre-processing) and a ton of iconic recordings were made that way.

Eventually the concept of post-processing became possible, and then eventually that became a thing...but there have always been purists who like to do as little to the signal as practical. Call them Purists, or Photo-Realists, or Audio Verite Afficianados...I usually just refer to them as Talented Audio Engineers, because if you capture the source cleanly and acurately you don't need to do any processing (unless you're looking for a sound that wasn't part of the original performance. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

 

[micguy]

Recording a track with a simple signal chain is a good idea. If it fits in the mix like that, fine, but you really want to hear it in context before you make choices about processing if you have the ability to do that.

 

[Lovep]

Recording direct works but playing into a premium studio preamp and compressor is really really nice.

 

[hbarcat]

Think of it this way: For the first ~40+ years of recording, there was no such thing as any post-processing (and little if any pre-processing) and a ton of iconic recordings were made that way.

Eventually the concept of post-processing became possible, and then eventually that became a thing...but there have always been purists who like to do as little to the signal as practical. Call them Purists, or Photo-Realists, or Audio Verite Afficianados...I usually just refer to them as Talented Audio Engineers, because if you capture the source cleanly and acurately you don't need to do any processing (unless you're looking for a sound that wasn't part of the original performance. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

Yes and no.

In the "old days" of mono (or later, stereo) recording consoles, when post recording processing of individual tracks was impossible, sound engineers (who typically had a degree in electrical engineering) would anticipate what a raw, recorded track would sound like when mixed with other tracks, and would choose the particular preamp to use for recording, and also set EQ, compression, and other processing parameters so that the desired tonal characteristics were "baked in" to the sound.

Once it became possible to EQ and process individual tracks independently after recording, there was no more need to have any kind of "baked in" tone, which means that bass tracks in the modern era tend to be recorded "dry".

The "purists" you describe, who want to do as little post recording processing as possible, will typically (I follow some of them and I get what they're doing) try to recreate the "mojo" of those vintage recordings, by using old timey techniques (often with modern technology).

The bottom line is, they're not just laying down raw bass tracks and calling it "golden". They're using extensive amounts of EQ, compression, and other processing, on the track (and on all the tracks) as it's being recorded. But, because they're purists, they consider it a superior method compared to post recording processing.

Something else to consider is that very few people would consider any recording done before multitrack capability (the 1960s) to be of good quality compared to today's standards. I could take a $300 multitrack recorder to my band's next rehearsal and lay down few demo recordings using just eight raw tracks and in only an hour or two of mixing and mastering on my laptop, I would have recordings that blow away any professional recording done before the 1970's.

The reason is simple: raw bass tracks that lack any EQ, compression, or other processing, is almost guaranteed to suffer from some very significant and noticeable tonal problems and will have difficulty sitting well in the mix.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: If it sounds good to you, then it isn't wrong, and there's no reason why you can't try using raw bass tracks without any added EQ or compression to see if you like it.

But, the reality is when it comes time to start mixing, your ears will likely tell you 99 times out of 100 that the raw sound isn't going to cut it.

 

[Bob_Ross]

In the "old days" of mono (or later, stereo) recording consoles, when post recording processing of individual tracks was impossible, sound engineers (who typically had a degree in electrical engineering) would anticipate what a raw, recorded track would sound like when mixed with other tracks, and would choose the particular preamp to use for recording, and also set EQ, compression, and other processing parameters so that the desired tonal characteristics were "baked in" to the sound.

You may be overestimating just how many "processing parameters" were available to audio engineers for the first ~75 years of recording history. Remember, audio recording has been around since the late 19th Century (Edison's cylinder thingie was 1877 iirc?) but the first compressors didn't even appear until WWII...and even then, most were used for radio broadcasting. Even as recently as the mid-1950s a typical recording studio had, at most, some rudimentary Bass and Treble shelving controls -- and not even on every input of the mixing console, except in the most luxurious of facilities -- and maybe one or two compressor/limiters (which were usually dedicated to the disc cutting lathe). I would wager that prior to 1965 there were more records released where the bass was recorded dry than not.

But admittedly most of those recordings featured upright (acoustic) bass, not an electric bass, and the advent of that instrument did elide with the introduction and use of more processing in the studio control room.

 

[AGCurry]

... very few people would consider any recording done before multitrack capability (the 1960s) to be of good quality compared to today's standards.

Have you never heard Miles Davis's "Kind of Blue?" Incredibly good quality IMO.

 

[Anthony Buckeridge]

Quote: “very few people would consider any recording done before multitrack capability (the 1960s) to be of good quality compared to today's standards.”


With respect, whilst I don’t agree with this point, I also don’t want to argue about it.

Because.. I have another point to make which for many will supersede and transcend all other points, regarding aspects of recording, that can be made.

It is simply this: That prior to the introduction of multitrack recording, musicians of necessity were required to perform together as ensembles and interact spontaneously with one another as they did so, in the live room.

This, in contrast to the ability of being able to record individual performances entirely separate from every other element involved in the same recording. Despite the ability to edit and remove unwanted occurrences in order to “perfect” the rendering.

Those with long memories of happy experience of ensembles of musicians, large and small performing live together, will like me, feel on reflection that when such groups of musicians unite together in the same room to perform that an additional musical factor enhances their realisation of the musical composition and arrangement, for which there is no truly adequate words.

It brings to mind something that Archibald T Davison of Harvard maintained. That one could parse, dividing all the various elements into their constitute parts, which are involved and necessary to create a great musical performance for careful examination and consideration. But when every single element is perfectly represented musically, there is a truly compelling, additional aspect which is added, for which he had no adequate words to describe. So, he called it “impressiveness”.


AG Curry’s post intimates at such “impressiveness”.

Be in no doubt, that despite the inability to edit, correct and post process performances via multi tract capability.

Many of the most “impressive” recordings of musical performers were created by merely capturing what was happening in the live room between the musicians, in an amazingly simple manner.


Like this..

Ray Brown is on Bass.

Take a look at the simple mic’s!

How can you replicate the sheer Joy on Rays face, as Oscar starts to play really fast and complicated, by playing isolated from one another, separated by utilising a multi-track?

Oscar Peterson Trio | C Jam Blues | - YouTube


I’m not writing that multi-tracks don’t have benefits and uses of their own.

Simply that you cannot summarily dismiss simple recordings made with basic equipment prior to the introduction of multi-track machines.

 

[hbarcat]

Quote: “very few people would consider any recording done before multitrack capability (the 1960s) to be of good quality compared to today's standards.”


With respect, whilst I don’t agree with this point, I also don’t want to argue about it.

Because.. I have another point to make which for many will supersede and transcend all other points, regarding aspects of recording, that can be made.

It is simply this: That prior to the introduction of multitrack recording, musicians of necessity were required to perform together as ensembles and interact spontaneously with one another as they did so, in the live room.

This, in contrast to the ability of being able to record individual performances entirely separate from every other element involved in the same recording. Despite the ability to edit and remove unwanted occurrences in order to “perfect” the rendering.

Those with long memories of happy experience of ensembles of musicians, large and small performing live together, will like me, feel on reflection that when such groups of musicians unite together in the same room to perform that an additional musical factor enhances their realisation of the musical composition and arrangement, for which there is no truly adequate words.

It brings to mind something that Archibald T Davison of Harvard maintained. That one could parse, dividing all the various elements into their constitute parts, which are involved and necessary to create a great musical performance for careful examination and consideration. But when every single element is perfectly represented musically, there is a truly compelling, additional aspect which is added, for which he had no adequate words to describe. So, he called it “impressiveness”.


AG Curry’s post intimates at such “impressiveness”.

Be in no doubt, that despite the inability to edit, correct and post process performances via multi tract capability.

Many of the most “impressive” recordings of musical performers were created by merely capturing what was happening in the live room between the musicians, in an amazingly simple manner.


Like this..

Ray Brown is on Bass.

Take a look at the simple mic’s!

How can you replicate the sheer Joy on Rays face, as Oscar starts to play really fast and complicated, by playing isolated from one another, separated by utilising a multi-track?

Oscar Peterson Trio | C Jam Blues | - YouTube


I’m not writing that multi-tracks don’t have benefits and uses of their own.

Simply that you cannot summarily dismiss simple recordings made with basic equipment prior to the introduction of multi-track machines.

Sure, I absolutely agree with this.

By far, the most significant difference between vintage recordings where every instrument and voice is recorded simultaneously and no additions or alterations are possible, and later, multitrack recordings that are intended to be mixed and processed post recording, with unlimited changes and additions possible (and even expected), is the loss of a unified or "group" feel to the recording with the latter.

In fact, I've been chasing the ideal balance between the technical, sonic excellence of multitrack recording and the live, organic feel of single stage recording for the past 35 years in my home studio with my own projects.

I've found that (for me, at least) the best compromise is to multitrack record every instrument (including solos and backup vocals) all at once, and then make absolutely no additions, substitutions, or any significant processing to individal tracks (like temporal or pitch shifting effects) after getting that one, good take.

This allows me to benefit from being able to use EQ and compression on individual tracks (which makes an enormous improvement in sonic quality compared to single stage recording) while still preserving the organic feel of a "live" performance.

Additionally, I keep the microphone setup as simple as possible and I don't use noise gates or even worry much at all about mic bleed. For instance, I'll typically use only three or four mics on drums - kick, snare, and overheads (mono or stereo).

I should point out that this only works when everybody involved in the recording is aware that their performance will be recorded "as - is" and whatever they play (or sing) will make up the entirety of the final product.

Everybody needs to understand there will be no additions, overdubs, or redos, and it will be impossible to "fix it in the mix".

Hopefully, having this "committed" mindset will inspire everybody to play with a feeling of immediacy and with more inspiration.

Getting good results necessarily requires a certain amount of experience with the entire process, from beginning to end, of how to use microphones and DI boxes, preamps, and mixers, plus the various methods and techniques involved with sculpting a unified sound from individual tracks, and being able to predict what each track will sound like at various stages of recording, processing, mixing, and then into the eventual mastering stage.

If the guitarist or bassist wants to use a particular effect (like overdrive or chorus, for example), I'll want to record that effect "wet", which means that I'm stuck with it once it's recorded, so it had better be exactly right, "as - is".