BASS DI OR NOT

[lyes4string]

lately i have been enjoying hearing opinions and people bumping heads on them, so i'll try another. i personally hate it when a sound guy trys to make me use a di box instead of running it straight from my head. i feel my ampeg is most of my sound and by using the di its just lost. who agrees disagrees or likes something different perhaps both or just a mic.

[sqadan]

I guess I don't understand why guitarists are almost always allowed to use their rig - but not bass players... As I see it - your amp is at least 50% of your tone / sound and it's fairly aggravating to invest in gear for live use that you can't use.

Any good guitarist will tell you that your amp is almost more important than your guitar in terms of defining your sound.

I guess the DI box is a necessary evil now - but it's certainly not an ideal way to go.

[mccartneyman]

A good sound man should be able to get "your" sound, but the sound you hear onstage is not what works best for FOH in all cases. In the case of an Ampeg, most of your sound may be coming from your speaker setup, not from the head. I can usually talk the sound person into taking a line from my head AND putting a mic in front of a cabinet, or using a DI box and the mic. I think what happens in many cases -- if you're on a bill with several bands -- is that the FOH person feels that DI sound is more predictable and controllable, especially if they use the same DI for all acts. Paul McCartney's sound man uses a single SM 7 on one of Paul's Mesa cabinets -- no DI -- and his live bass sound is excellent.

[JimmyM]

i agree with mccartneyman, except i believe in my own sound working for foh a lot more than most. but the head's di by itself doesn't get me there...only a mic does.

[prd004]

Bass player and a sound guy here. I do not like most built in DI's on amps, (even my own), there are too many variables, mine has pre/post EQ and even a level knob. To me the whole point of the DI is an un-effected direct feed! Plus, I've never heard a "built in" DI that sounds any where near as good as the high quality boxes I own.

So I will ONLY use a DI box or a mic. When I'm running the board, I will use a mic for players like you, who strongly feel their amp is key to their sound, but I much prefer the DI box even though I know tons of you guys on here on gonna chime in about the needing the mic!!!!!!! You have to run sound alot to understand this, the bass is among the hardest sounds to get correct in a live environment, and no matter how much your amp is used for your sound, the bass HAS to be EQ'd to the room and stage mix, your sound may be killer coming out of your amp, but it can be very easily lost in the mix, especially in rooms with poor acoustics and most bars/small clubs/average music venues have bad acoustics. The DI is more reliable than a mic because the mic gets bleed and is a more difficult feed to work with. However, I don't mind using a mic to make the bass player happy. I also never-ever want two bass feeds (mic+DI) in a live setting, it's already the hardest track to get right, the last thing I want is to have to deal with two feeds.

On a lighter note, but oh so true, it's ALWAYS the Ampeg guys who are concerned about using a DI!!!!! Don't hate me, I've played nothing but Ampeg myself for seventeen years!

[mcapote]

i use the DI on my GK MB210 never had a problem with it, then again i play in a bar cover band so I dont need anything else really i guess. but it dont sound bad to me either.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by prd004

Bass player and a sound guy here. I do not like most built in DI's on amps, (even my own), there are too many variables, mine has pre/post EQ and even a level knob. To me the whole point of the DI is an un-effected direct feed! Plus, I've never heard a "built in" DI that sounds any where near as good as the high quality boxes I own.

So I will ONLY use a DI box or a mic. When I'm running the board, I will use a mic for players like you, who strongly feel their amp is key to their sound, but I much prefer the DI box even though I know tons of you guys on here on gonna chime in about the needing the mic!!!!!!! You have to run sound alot to understand this, the bass is among the hardest sounds to get correct in a live environment, and no matter how much your amp is used for your sound, the bass HAS to be EQ'd to the room and stage mix, your sound may be killer coming out of your amp, but it can be very easily lost in the mix, especially in rooms with poor acoustics and most bars/small clubs/average music venues have bad acoustics. The DI is more reliable than a mic because the mic gets bleed and is a more difficult feed to work with. However, I don't mind using a mic to make the bass player happy. I also never-ever want two bass feeds (mic+DI) in a live setting, it's already the hardest track to get right, the last thing I want is to have to deal with two feeds.

On a lighter note, but oh so true, it's ALWAYS the Ampeg guys who are concerned about using a DI!!!!! Don't hate me, I've played nothing but Ampeg myself for seventeen years!

all i can say is "blecch" to a di, and yes, i use ampeg if i have to run a di with my ampegs, it's either going to route through a vt deluxe first, or it'll go in through the speaker. the difference between foh and the stage is exactly why boards come with eq knobs for each channel.

[CapnSev]

I was never a big DI box fan, unless it was something super nice, but after using my DI-modded VT, I'm hooked on its sound.

[pbass2]

I personally don't like amp DI's either, for the reasons prd stated above. And I like to know no matter what I have a high-quality DI with me at all times so I can send a good signal to FOH. Most of the time I'm going with a clean bass sound, but if it's a rock thing I just make sure that worse-case scenario (i.e. can't mic the cab, amp sounds crap, etc.) I can send the right tone independently of the amp to FOH--for me it's a BB Bass preamp (I would look at the VT if I didn't have that). I played a House of Blues recently and the mic'd up backline SVT when down mid-set--I was able to stomp on my BB and keep a suitable vibe going for the rest of the set with only the DI (my JDI too--their DI had a buzz we couldn't get rid of!).

[rockstarbassist]

I've never had anyone not take the DI from my amp, but if they tried to step and do that, we'd have some words. Although, when you see my rig you know it's got a 99.9999% chance of not failing halfway through the set. Other amps (if it's competent soundguy, anyway) maybe he'd be more suspect of.
For most non-entry level SS/hybrid heads, especially if it has Post or Pre options, it shouldn't be an issue. That's a little too nitpicky for me.

[electracoyote]

Originally Posted by lyes4string

lately i have been enjoying hearing opinions and people bumping heads on them, so i'll try another. i personally hate it when a sound guy trys to make me use a di box instead of running it straight from my head. i feel my ampeg is most of my sound and by using the di its just lost. who agrees disagrees or likes something different perhaps both or just a mic.

In my experience, it pays to have all three at your disposal. My DI on my LMIII is kickass, but I still carry a Sadowsky outboard pre/DI. I know my cab well enough to get it mic'd properly if needed, and I carry an SM57 to every gig.

Due to the unpredictable nature of various rooms and sound people, you have to come prepared.

[drdunwoody]

I was mid way through a song when my amp over heated and shut down. Because I went through a DI before the amp I kept playing. At the end of the song I asked to have more bass in the monitors and I finished the show that way. Maybe it is the only time that will ever happen but once was enough to convince me that running through the DI first is a REALLY NICE way to ensure that I don't disappear mid song

[kedo]

Also a sound engineer/bassist here. There is nothing at all wrong with using a high quality DI. I greatly prefer it to XLR outs on bass heads (due to the fact that not all amplifier XLR outputs can be ground lifted, padded, or phase reversed, as is the case with most DI's). Also, in situations with high stage volume, it is much easier to achieve usable bass level in the bands monitor mixes with a DI rather than a mic'ed cabinet.

The ideal situation is to mic the cabinet, for the FOH mix, and run a DI for the monitor mix. Incorporating DI's on a pedal board is a good option for players who find a suitable DI and want to ensure that it and only it is used for live performances. Some players actually use two DI boxes. One pre-FX and one post-FX (or two post FX if running in stereo). This gives the most flexibility for stage and house mix.

[georgestrings]

Originally Posted by rockstarbassist

I've never had anyone not take the DI from my amp, but if they tried to step and do that, we'd have some words. Although, when you see my rig you know it's got a 99.9999% chance of not failing halfway through the set. Other amps (if it's competent soundguy, anyway) maybe he'd be more suspect of.
For most non-entry level SS/hybrid heads, especially if it has Post or Pre options, it shouldn't be an issue. That's a little too nitpicky for me.

+1...


- georgestrings

[Jonyak]

I just bought a Radial JDX for my 74 SVT.

I will be using it live and for recording in my studio. have a jam tommorow, and am goign to record it. I will let you know how it sounds.

[derridiandrift]

HUGE fan of a mic in front of a speaker. Next best is a line out of the back of my SVT or B15R. Lease favourite is a DI ahead of my amp in the signal chain.

However, if I'm using a rented backline and its not an SVT, I'm OK with the DI after my VT pedal and ahead of the amp.

[Jazzdogg]

Originally Posted by kedo

Also a sound engineer/bassist here. There is nothing at all wrong with using a high quality DI. I greatly prefer it to XLR outs on bass heads (due to the fact that not all amplifier XLR outputs can be ground lifted, padded, or phase reversed, as is the case with most DI's). Also, in situations with high stage volume, it is much easier to achieve usable bass level in the bands monitor mixes with a DI rather than a mic'ed cabinet.

Why? What are the specific conditions that make this possible?

Originally Posted by kedo

The ideal situation is to mic the cabinet, for the FOH mix, and run a DI for the monitor mix. Incorporating DI's on a pedal board is a good option for players who find a suitable DI and want to ensure that it and only it is used for live performances. Some players actually use two DI boxes. One pre-FX and one post-FX (or two post FX if running in stereo). This gives the most flexibility for stage and house mix.

Why is the DI ideal for sound reproduction on stage, and the mic ideal for sound reproduction in FOH? Seems counterintuitive.

[Tim C.]

To each their own. Personally, I love direct-to-board DI from my bass and may not even own a speaker cabinet if I could afford a good enough PA system (and the folks necessary to carry it around )

For those of you who dislike amp head DI's, what are you thoughts on items such as, say, the rackmountable Sansamps?

[Muzoid]

Years ago, a soundman said to me:

"I wonder why lots of bassists don't use the Line Out of their head to go to the FOH...after all, that's what it's there for"

I've never used a DI since.

[TimmyP]

It always gets me that guys want to mic the cab to get "the tone", and will then use a 57, the output of which sounds nothing like what went in.