DIs: onboard GK-1001 RB II vs Aguilar Tone Hammer

[Ozzey]

Hello,

I was just wondering if anyone has had much experience with either of these two DIs? I was thinking of getting the Tone Hammer, but does is it much of an improvement over GK's standard onboard DI?

Thanks,
Odum

[testing1two]

If you're sending a pre-eq signal to the PA then neither is better than the other. I love the Tone Hammer as a preamp and recording DI though.

[drewdunkin]

My vote goes to the 1001-rb II...post eq of course

[TimmyP]

Always Pre-EQ. The EQ that works for your highly inaccurate bass cab is unlikely to be at all correct for the moderately accurate PA.

Preferably a Radial DI (active if the instrument is passive).

Given my feelings about Aguilar amps and cabs, I would not buy a TH no matter how good it was.

[walterw]

"pre vs. post DI" is a long-running debate around these parts.

personally, if i look at the bass amp and i see it's a good one, with the EQ not set too crazy, i'll trust that the musician knows what he wants and go post.

the guitar player gets to create his own sound, why shouldn't the bass player? this is especially important with original bands, where the guy may not be going for a generic "correct" tone in the first place; i'm the soundguy, not the producer.

(this is in my world of bars and little clubs, where i'm usually balancing FOH against stage volume anyway; in big venues where you've got channels to spare, you might get pre, post, and miked.)

[testing1two]

My feeling is that DI boxes should be pre-EQ and any situation where I would be tempted to go post-EQ would be better served with a mic on the speaker cabinet. This is especially true for players who use effects as they rarely sound good via DI without substantial corrective EQ.

So to the OP, perhaps a better solution is to continue sending a pre-EQ feed from your GK head and putting a good mic on your cab (EV RE-20, Heil PR30/PR40, Beyer M88). In theory that should make everyone happy.