DI - pre or post EQ

JazzyLambert · #1 05-31-2009, 10:40 PM

Played a loud pub gig with a GB shuttle 3.0 and 15" extension cab onstage. And direct output to FOH set to pre EQ.

Sounded excellent on stage, but was told that the sound was thin compared to usual by an audience member and I usually have my direct out set at post EQ, but I have read here many times that sound guys hate that.

Any sound engineers out there who agree that I should stick with post EQ ?

Can't Groove @14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN9DTrLaqVU

fokof · #2 05-31-2009, 11:40 PM

That is more a case of either bad soundman, bad PA ,band too loud on stage or bad room acoustics.
Nothing to do with pre , post , mike or DI

On the pre/post subject ; Your reference is a bass amp , wich is very far from anything hi-fi , so you EQ your thing according to the sound that gets out of your amp , not necessarily what the band needs in the overall FOH mix.
If your bass amp is the exact same thing as the PA of the place your playing in , then maybe a post EQ would make sense , and then again you're on stage , behind the PA.........

JimmyM · #3 06-01-2009, 12:07 AM

Oh boy, fokof and I get to recreate this argument again!!!

I used to like post-EQ because I believe the PA's job is supposed to replicate what your amp sounds like. While fokof speaks truth about the PA not being a bass amp, I've always felt that the amp sound should be the PA's goal, so I wanted the PA to reflect what I was putting out.

But now, I'm completely off amp DI's and I don't want to use them ever. Not saying that some aren't good, but most of them leave a bit to be desired compared to a good Radial or Countryman. I used to think they were just as good, but some recent AB tests on gigs have convinced me otherwise. I've been using a mic on my cab instead of a DI for the last year, but I'm seriously considering going back to a DI. I don't like plain vanilla DI sound, so instead of using it normally, it will be a speaker DI from either my SVT or B-15, which will reflect exactly what's coming out of my head post-EQ, post-power tubes, post-everything. I've done it a few times and I love the sound, so that is probably going to be my thing in the near future.

Anyway, one thing I think both fokof and I agree on is that the best way to have a good sound in the PA is to play well, so really, it's a matter of preference IMHO.

JazzyLambert · #4 06-01-2009, 02:18 AM

Thanks guys, the thing is, I played a gig just 2 days before with a different sound guy, and using post EQ Direct Out, and this guy who went to both gigs said the sound was much fatter at the earlier gig (with post EQ). I played pretty much the same at both shows.

He also said the drum kit sounded nowhere near as good at the latter show. Maybe the sound guy was a tool?

JimmyM · #5 06-01-2009, 02:37 AM

Could have been anything...the PA could have been worse, the room acoustics could have been worse...or the sound man could have been a tool

GregShadoan · #6 06-01-2009, 03:52 AM

I personally prefer to get a PRE eq bass DI, preferablly inline to the amp, and a mic. I have both sounds to work with. Getting a clean bass signal has its benefits. The PA channel has an EQ, but mostly I rarely do much, maybe high pass it up a bit, to like 60.
The Clean bass sound blended with the speaker mic sound is the way to go. If you only have one option, I would go with a mic. Some prefer DI only, but it can have its limitations. It also depends on what the bassist/band wants the bass role to be. Some folks just use the amp as an onstage monitor more or less, and want you the sound person) to make it part of the mix cleanly from a DI, or sansamp, or whatever the hell :-) If it's "my" choice, its a clean bass guitar straight into the console preamp, comped, and a mic on the edge surround of the speaker, comped. But thats just me. There really is no correct generic answer. It's something you need to get figured out on your own, perhaps with the help of a few sound people along the way. Even then you might evolve into a different method as time and experience are adjusted.

Two different rooms, same method, two different results. Not that uncommon.
Also, your buddy in the bar, probably aint the best bench mark for your decision making.

varunkapahi · #7 06-01-2009, 07:21 AM

i like post eq DI, most sound engineers we get, since we arent a pro band, are duds

fokof · #8 06-01-2009, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyM

I used to like post-EQ because I believe the PA's job is supposed to replicate what your amp sounds like. While fokof speaks truth about the PA not being a bass amp, I've always felt that the amp sound should be the PA's goal, so I wanted the PA to reflect what I was putting out.

Glad to talk to you about this subject , once more!!!!

If you absolutly want the sound that you hear from your bass amp , then you MUST use a flat mike only.
The pre, power amp , cabinet and room acoustics all differ from the PA and your amp so no way a post EQ DI will do the job , impossible IME.

jaywa · #9 06-01-2009, 06:03 PM

It depends on how much you trust the soundman. My preference is always to run pre-EQ to the board, which then allows me to EQ the stage sound to my heart's content. The sound guy worries about my house sound and I deal with my stage sound and the two are separate (but hopefully both great).

But, if I really don't trust the soundman, I'll run it post-EQ, being careful not to go nuts with the low end.

The bigger thing for me than EQ, is compression. I must have compression... not insane amounts, but I am adamant about having that on my signal. So I will go "post" out of my amp DI if the soundman does not have compression to apply to the bass (or refuses to use it), since that allows my onboard compressor to make up for not having it at the board.

To me the absolute ideal scenario is a blend of:

- one feed coming out of my SansAmp BDDI
- one feed coming from my mic'd cabinet (though in that scenario, I have to "set and forget" my stage EQ since anything that changes at the cabinet also goes to the board

JimmyM · #10 06-02-2009, 12:56 AM

Ya, if you go post-EQ, it's best not to use any extreme EQing. And yes, fokof, I use a flat response mic when possible, but I've found it surprisingly easy to get a great sound out of most any mic commonly found on stages except for kick mics. Post-EQ generally works best with bassists who know what they're doing

Craig_S · #11 06-02-2009, 01:13 AM

I've always run the DI pre EQ, regardless of knowing or not knowing what I'm doing with my EQ.

Whatever I'm doing with my rig isn't going to translate into the same tone by the time it hits the mains, anyway. My rig isn't producing an absolute flat tone, even when it's set flat, and the mains surely don't sound exactly like my rig, so sending an EQed signal to the board doesn't make any sense to me. I just hope the sound man has a brain and an ear. Sometimes I get lucky!

modulusman · #12 06-02-2009, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig_S

I've always run the DI pre EQ, regardless of knowing or not knowing what I'm doing with my EQ.

Whatever I'm doing with my rig isn't going to translate into the same tone by the time it hits the mains, anyway. My rig isn't producing an absolute flat tone, even when it's set flat, and the mains surely don't sound exactly like my rig, so sending an EQed signal to the board doesn't make any sense to me. I just hope the sound man has a brain and an ear. Sometimes I get lucky!

+ One!

agedhorse · #13 06-08-2009, 12:11 AM

Pre eq almost all the time. My PA is nothing like a bass amp and a "flat" signal has plenty of low end without any amp eq (8 x 18's and a line array), plenty of projection, plenty of headroom and I do not have to worry about hearing it on stage. I also have better eq than most bass amps on my console, system processing on the drive rack, insertable comps, so I am generally way better off taking an unmodified (pre) signal and doing what I need for the PA rather than taking a signal that the player has tweaked for himself on stage, which has no relationship to my sound out in the house.

The only exception is where distortion is being used, or interesting processing. Then I will use a post signal and politely ask that the player use some restraint in eq so that the house sound isn't compromised.

MNAirHead · #14 06-08-2009, 01:39 AM

I'm a recently DI converted fan (who still loves to band practice with a stupid big rig).

I've tested tons and tons of combos... ...

Seems as if the easiest to get a good predictable sound is active bass=>passive DI Box =>PA

This will supply a "preamp" with fewer stages...

Overall when rocking a smaller venue it's common to have guitar players relegated to run sound... I'll often work with the sound guy to dial in everything then leave it to them. WHY? Few folks have read the manual and worked with a tenured old timer on how to setup an Equalizer... .. many do it by the way the board looks (vs sounds)... they'll push the bass knob high for basses.. treble high for guitars.. vocals get mids. Unfortunately matching to the room.

Do not over estimate the value of a good DI signal... or the devalue of a bad PA, sound guy or setup.

Tim

jaywa · #15 06-08-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MNAirHead

Few folks have read the manual and worked with a tenured old timer on how to setup an Equalizer... .. many do it by the way the board looks (vs sounds)...

So true. The kid (or older guy) that comes in and sets the 31-band into the "rock and roll smile" without fail even when the room may demand the exact opposite.

Barisaxman · #16 06-10-2009, 10:22 PM

As both as sound guy and bass player, I'll take a pre-eq DI send whenever possible. Most of the time with a post-EQ signal, you end up with a very bass-heavy signal at the board, and have to make some pretty drastic cuts at the board to produce a mix-friendly sound. This is, of course, dependent on the PA, but if there's enough rig for the gig, a pre-EQ signal can be dialed in pretty easily with minor EQ tweaks and a touch of compression. Just my preference....