If your bass is not as you would like or imagine, going straight into the G. it is not really an issue of the G's capability over that of audacity, as a platform.
I am assuming you may go into the G directly from the instrument to the G, and if you are recording in Audacity you go through your pod (input device). It is the pod making the difference, I'd guess. "punchier" pre-amp than the G can provide.
Once you get a bass signal to the G, what sort of compression do you apply? Do you compress the signal during the recording of the performance, or try to "massage" it afterwords? Or, do you use compression at all when creating a bass track?
I would find that drums and bass reduced to one stereo track would not be my first choice. I suppose you could mix a stem from these two, but then you would be stuck with that combo as you build the other tracks. I like to have capacity to both utilize Dyn and EQ separately on these two critical aspects ( percussion and bass ), in order to fine tune them, first to sit well together and then with (under) the rest of the tracks.
Some times to get a bass the way you "hear" it in your "concept" imagination, it pays to capture it through microphone(s) while playing through a real bass head/cabinet. As well as the mic'd signal, I'd also take a direct line in during this performance, either from a line out on your head or from a split signal through a DI box placed in front of both the recorder and the bass amplifier.
I use often expanders (DYN) on kicks and bass to control the release (rate of volume reduction ) thereby creating more striking definition of the next attack.
_________________ Byron
|