Do you prefer 'direct' or 'distant' recordings?

[Orvillain]

For amp demos, which do you prefer. This kind of thing, where the mic is right on the cab:


Or this kind of thing, where the mic is back in the room:


I'm gonna do a bunch of videos of all of my amps soon, and it'd be good to know what the preference is.

 

[norminal]

Mics on the cab.

However, since you’re obviously set up for both, you could always switch between both?

 

[Stone]

Mic on the Cab , thats some awesome Toanz !!

 

[newholland]

both simultaneously.

i never ever record on purpose with a close mic unless its a figure 8, and even still, its never any closer than 6-8" off the grill. live... okay, people will put a 57 on the cab, but man i hate that sound.

more often than not, its a condenser out a ways AND a ribbon closeISH. but that closed in dynamic on the cab sound just doesnt sound like how id ever hear a guitar.

 

[BahamaDada]

I like Ola's method, where he has both and switches between the different methods.

If I can have only 1 it's direct, as I care most for the direct sound I'd have at a gig.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

“in the room” mics sound dreadful and don’t really help anything, IMO. Direct all the way.

 

[newholland]

“in the room” mics sound dreadful and don’t really help anything, IMO. Direct all the way.

yeah, but at the point where you're listening- you have no idea how much processing has taken place to get you where you are. to a large extent.. all recording is that- but at least you can sum things in your head if theres any time domain information to make it seem 'real'. all loaded terms,of course- and totally depends on what the end goal is for the recipient! i think more people record with a 57 on a cab or use impulses now, and old heads like me that care as much about what a cab sounds like in a room as it does for recording are disappearing.

 

[[Nathan]]

Vast majority of my amp usage is direct so I'd prefer to hear that in demos.

I generally expect to hear direct tones in videos, or crude phone in the room recordings haha. Not many are doing in the room and getting it to sound good. Ultimately whatever sounds better and is logistically achievable on your end. If you love blasting amps but can only do it in a small window throughout the week then I wouldnt hold out for it personally. But if you can blast things at any time and it also sounds better than direct, go for it.

+1 for direct but if you love blasting amps in the room and that's your take on amp demos then +1 for that!

 

[MirrorProfiles]

yeah, but at the point where you're listening- you have no idea how much processing has taken place to get you where you are. to a large extent.. all recording is that- but at least you can sum things in your head if theres any time domain information to make it seem 'real'. all loaded terms,of course- and totally depends on what the end goal is for the recipient! i think more people record with a 57 on a cab or use impulses now, and old heads like me that care as much about what a cab sounds like in a room as it does for recording are disappearing.

I think as long as whoever records the tone does a good enough job to convey the sound and feeling of what it comes across like in the room, they’ve done a good job. They don’t need to do any processing at all, but I’m not even against that if it makes sense for the tone in question.

Conversely, dumping a random mic somewhere in a room with no thought is going to pick up all kinds of weird room interactions and not really sound like what we think it actually sounds like in the room. If someone has a particularly nice sounding room and takes the time to mic it up…. maybe? But I don’t really ever want to just sit and listen to random bad ones when you know how easy it is to mic up properly.

 

[the swede]

mic on cab or through IR

 

[Orvillain]

Vast majority of my amp usage is direct so I'd prefer to hear that in demos.

I generally expect to hear direct tones in videos, or crude phone in the room recordings haha. Not many are doing in the room and getting it to sound good. Ultimately whatever sounds better and is logistically achievable on your end. If you love blasting amps but can only do it in a small window throughout the week then I wouldnt hold out for it personally. But if you can blast things at any time and it also sounds better than direct, go for it.

+1 for direct but if you love blasting amps in the room and that's your take on amp demos then +1 for that!

When I say 'direct' I really mean close mic'd - I don't mean DI via a loadbox or anything like that. I should've been clearer.

 

[newholland]

I think as long as whoever records the tone does a good enough job to convey the sound and feeling of what it comes across like in the room, they’ve done a good job. They don’t need to do any processing at all, but I’m not even against that if it makes sense for the tone in question.

Conversely, dumping a random mic somewhere in a room with no thought is going to pick up all kinds of weird room interactions and not really sound like what we think it actually sounds like in the room. If someone has a particularly nice sounding room and takes the time to mic it up…. maybe? But I don’t really ever want to just sit and listen to random bad ones when you know how easy it is to mic up properly.

oh man, id never propose to 'just put a mic in a room thoughtlessly' but i think theres also enough people willing to do 'preset 125' and be done too. fwiw- im with ya- capture the essence of the thing at all cost and jam the lightning in a bottle! half time youtube compressions gonna do what it does anyhow, so well recorded time information isnt gonna translate super well, and its all time consuming. im just saying what id prefer cause it helps my ear register what im hearing and realize its also idiomatic- so metal guys wouldnt want or need any of that business. i suspect i wouldnt be watching those vids anyhow

 

[[Nathan]]

When I say 'direct' I really mean close mic'd - I don't mean DI via a loadbox or anything like that. I should've been clearer.

Ah, close mic ftw then!

 

[HomespunEffects]

I prefer a close mic. The main reason is with the distant mic you can usually hear the unamplified strings.

 

[DrewJD82]

I like Ola's method, where he has both and switches between the different methods.

This.

I prefer the close-mic’d sound but getting that reference of a couple room mics or even just one helps put things in context a little more. While you’re never going to understand everything going on in the room from watching a video, I believe if you have some experience with specific brands you can get a really good general idea for what’s happening in the room when they cut to room mics. Like when you hear some woofy bass in a room mic for a Mesa demo, it’s like “Ah yeah, there’s that Mesa low end ya gotta chop off in the mix!”

 

[la szum]

I swear the older I get the answer to every this or that, either/or question becomes, "Both!"

 

[HotRats]

A mix of both like Johan Segeborn or Ola England do.

 

[EOengineer]

If we’re just talking YouTube demo clips, both contexts are helpful. For real recording I’m mostly close mic. I do sometimes flirt with micing a resonant spot in the room or sometimes even the back of the cab and blend in.

 

[dbagchee]

Close mic, clothes mic, or clothed mic, take your pick.

 

[Baba]

Such a dichotomy, at least for me.

The best representation of an amp, (IMO) when listening to someone else's recording, when you're not there, is either mic'd well, pretty close if not right up on the speakers, or through a load box and IR's, BUT, I don't record, so I never listen to the amps *I* play, that way, so it's a bit meaningless.

I listen to my amps without mics, probably 6-10' feet away from them off axis, and yes, lol, in the actual room I'm in . That usually doesn't sound good recorded though.