Post-EQ line signal + flat board or pre-EQ signal + board EQ?

[Alvaro Martín Gómez A.]

Hi everybody.

I was thinking about this. Since there are no real sound engineers in my town, there are lots of opinions on this subject. When a sound guy works with a bass amp that has pre and post EQ line signal options, two things may happen: Maybe he wants to receive a flat signal from the amp and use his onboard EQ (and not so many soundmen here know how to use it properly), or perhaps he wants to receive an EQed signal and leave everything flat on board, so he doesn't have to deal with that. In my opinion, the first one is the "right" procedure putting aside the soundman's ignorance about proper EQ, but anyway I'd like to hear your opinions, pros/cons of each approach. Thank you in advance for your input!

[JimmyM]

as long as you get a good sound in the pa, it's all good, and methodology is unimportant.

[seanm]

Most soundmen I deal with want pre-eq from the amp and will get the sound right at the mixer.

[georgestrings]

Well, *I* prefer to run post-EQ, and stay somewhat flat with my amp's EQ settings, for 2 reasons: I tried different amps 'til I found one that gave a sound I liked while mostly flat - and by going post-EQ, I get a little of my amp's preamp's warmth in my sound going into the board... kinda like using a tube DI, actually... My main gigging amp is a Mesa M-pulse 600, but I also get similar results with my 700rb-II...



- georgestrings

[georgestrings]

Originally Posted by JimmyM

as long as you get a good sound in the pa, it's all good, and methodology is unimportant.

Agreed...


- georgestrings

[rockstarbassist]

Post-EQ. Otherwise you bypass the goodness that is the sound of your amp.

If you're getting quality sound from it, anyway...

[walker rosewood]

this is been a long standing point of contention between bassists and soundguys. There's been many threads about it here on TB. As an engineer and bassist myself, I understand both sides. The bassist argument boils down to "I paid x amount for my gear to get the sound I want, and haul 400lbs of gear to get the sound I want, please don't bypass it." From the engineer's perspective they know their DI will work. They don't know if you've got a good amp, bass, pedals, etc. Go with what works.

Also when you run post, usually any adjustments you make affect the signal/mix at the board (eq, volume, etc). It takes control away from the engineer, and they don't like that.

For me, it usually depends on the gear. If the bassist clearly has pro equipment, I've got no problem taking the DI from the amp, and running post. If they show up with a terrible practice amp, they're going direct from the bass.

[seanm]

Originally Posted by walker rosewood

Also when you run post, usually any adjustments you make affect the signal/mix at the board (eq, volume, etc). It takes control away from the engineer, and they don't like that.

This is one of the reasons I like to go pre, rather than post. I can mess around with the EQ if needed on stage without having to worry about how it will affect the FOH.

But I play a P bass with flats. I get lots of warmth from the bass, I don't need the amp to warm or fatten things up. It might seem obvious, but it took me a long time to realize this.

[steveksux]

I run relatively flat cabs (EA VL210), so the post eq signal for me is pretty close to what I want to sound like in FOH. I prefer that.

Most bass cabs are anything but flat, so if it sounds good at the cab, there's odd adjustments that need to be made FOH. If you really want "your" sound, better off micing the cab (rather than using post eq DI), they're a significant part of your sound in most cases. Cases like that, better to use pre-eq DI or mic the cab.

Randy

[georgestrings]

Originally Posted by steveksux

If you really want "your" sound, better off micing the cab (rather than using post eq DI), they're a significant part of your sound in most cases. Cases like that, better to use pre-eq DI or mic the cab.

Randy

That would be your opinion - and many of us don't agree with it... I use an X2 wireless for every show, and know from several hundred gigs that my post-EQ send sounds very, very good thru a decent FOH - and it IS the sound I'm looking for...

Although many like to mic their cabs, I only agree that it's a good approach for a bassist using effects, or one that needs to get the interaction between their amp and cab into the mix - like an overdriven sound, for example... For a player that prefers clean and low tone, a mic'd cab typically doesn't get as strong of lows as a good DI send, and is susceptible to stage wash... Also, many don't feel that *most* mic'd sends are really all that accurate to what's actually coming out of your cab...


More power to ya if you dig using a mic - but IMO, your definitive statements about using them vs post-EQ are flat out wrong... Furthermore, *I* feel that a post-EQ DI send is the best way for a bassist to have atleast a little control on "their" sound without the drawbacks of using a mic...

Lastly - your approach also fails to account for bassists that use multiple sized drivers in their cabs - like a mid driver or horn with a X-over... Using a mic doesn't *usually* translate into the sound those players are after out of their cabs...


- georgestrings

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by georgestrings

That would be your opinion - and many of us don't agree with it... I use an X2 wireless for every show, and know from several hundred gigs that my post-EQ send sounds very, very good thru a decent FOH - and it IS the sound I'm looking for...

If you note, I mention that I use post-EQ send where possible, but because my cab has a relatively flat response. I've got a 3 way, with mids and tweeters. They sound pretty good used as stereo speakers.

I was merely saying if your cab does NOT have a flat response, what you get out the post-EQ send is NOT what you're getting out of your cab, what you're hearing, and is definitely NOT "your" sound. If your cab has a lot of non-linearity, and most do (scooped mids accentuated highs for many tweeter cabs, or attenuated highs for cabs without tweeters, or for examples some are voiced for a midrange bump, or have other "distinctive" voices, etc), then I'm suggesting properly micing it is going to give FOH a better shot at getting YOUR sound than taking a post-EQ signal that is only partially responsible for your sound, minus the cab coloration.

Although many like to mic their cabs, I only agree that it's a good approach for a bassist using effects, or one that needs to get the interaction between their amp and cab into the mix - like an overdriven sound, for example... For a player that prefers clean and low tone, a mic'd cab typically doesn't get as strong of lows as a good DI send, and is susceptible to stage wash... Also, many don't feel that *most* mic'd sends are really all that accurate to what's actually coming out of your cab...

So assuming that is true, and a mic'd cab is not accurate, what's the difference between using a mic and using the post-EQ signal that is missing the coloration common to the most common bass cabs? You've got a poor approximation of your desired sound either way.

The sound man doesn't know what "your" sound is supposed to sound like, can't hear your amp well from where he is to tell what it is, and has no idea what sort of coloration your particular cab imparts to the signal. No way he's going to get your sound except by accident, unless you have a very flat cab, which is pretty unusual. He's a lot more likely to know what sort of coloration HIS mics add, and thus has a fighting chance to EQ them out. And he's probably using mics that strive to be flat, minimizing the coloration. Unlike bass cabs, which are not designed to be flat most of the time, and actually have much stranger freq response comparing a ported cabinet to a mic. That's the basis for my opinion that a mic is more likely to present the soundman with your sound while minimizing the fiddling he has to do with EQ. Most mics are going to be a flatter response than most bass cabs. So if you like the sound of your cab, its easier to get that sound by micing it, rather than adjusting the board EQ to match the freq response of your bass cab.

More power to ya if you dig using a mic - but IMO, your definitive statements about using them vs post-EQ are flat out wrong... Furthermore, *I* feel that a post-EQ DI send is the best way for a bassist to have atleast a little control on "their" sound without the drawbacks of using a mic...

As I said, I don't like using a mic. I use post -EQ send BECAUSE my cabs are much flatter response than normal bass cabs. What I'm sending to the post-eq is a very close approximation of what is coming out of my cab because of that.

Not sure who's post you're reading... I do not dig using mics. Also the OP asked for opinions, I gave mine, didn't think it was therefore also necessary to also point out "in my opinion".

Lastly - your approach also fails to account for bassists that use multiple sized drivers in their cabs - like a mid driver or horn with a X-over... Using a mic doesn't *usually* translate into the sound those players are after out of their cabs...


- georgestrings

Well, DUH! I imagine you would not get satisfactory results from placing the mic in front of your preamplifier instead of the speaker cabinet, either, your approach fails to account for that.

I apologize for not spelling out that I was referring to a properly placed mic which some theorize can pick up sounds from more than 1 driver! I should think that is common sense if the topic is getting a FOH sound that mimics your cabinet when your cabinet includes tweeters and you're using a mic.

Randy

[prd004]

As a soundman and a bass player, I want a flat bass feed. It has to be EQ'd to the room mix.

Unfortunately, without a good sound man (and most are terrible) it doesn't really matter!

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by georgestrings

More power to ya if you dig using a mic - but IMO, your definitive statements about using them vs post-EQ are flat out wrong... Furthermore, *I* feel that a post-EQ DI send is the best way for a bassist to have atleast a little control on "their" sound without the drawbacks of using a mic...

what drawbacks? i've been told about these so-called drawbacks ever since i went back to using a mic a couple years ago, and the only drawback i've ever had is whiny soundmen who try to talk me into using a di instead.

Lastly - your approach also fails to account for bassists that use multiple sized drivers in their cabs - like a mid driver or horn with a X-over... Using a mic doesn't *usually* translate into the sound those players are after out of their cabs...

it could with the right placement.

[georgestrings]

Originally Posted by steveksux

If you note, I mention that I use post-EQ send where possible, but because my cab has a relatively flat response. I've got a 3 way, with mids and tweeters. They sound pretty good used as stereo speakers.

I was merely saying if your cab does NOT have a flat response, what you get out the post-EQ send is NOT what you're getting out of your cab, what you're hearing, and is definitely NOT "your" sound. If your cab has a lot of non-linearity, and most do (scooped mids accentuated highs for many tweeter cabs, or attenuated highs for cabs without tweeters, or for examples some are voiced for a midrange bump, or have other "distinctive" voices, etc), then I'm suggesting properly micing it is going to give FOH a better shot at getting YOUR sound than taking a post-EQ signal that is only partially responsible for your sound, minus the cab coloration.



So assuming that is true, and a mic'd cab is not accurate, what's the difference between using a mic and using the post-EQ signal that is missing the coloration common to the most common bass cabs? You've got a poor approximation of your desired sound either way.

The sound man doesn't know what "your" sound is supposed to sound like, can't hear your amp well from where he is to tell what it is, and has no idea what sort of coloration your particular cab imparts to the signal. No way he's going to get your sound except by accident, unless you have a very flat cab, which is pretty unusual. He's a lot more likely to know what sort of coloration HIS mics add, and thus has a fighting chance to EQ them out. And he's probably using mics that strive to be flat, minimizing the coloration. Unlike bass cabs, which are not designed to be flat most of the time, and actually have much stranger freq response comparing a ported cabinet to a mic. That's the basis for my opinion that a mic is more likely to present the soundman with your sound while minimizing the fiddling he has to do with EQ. Most mics are going to be a flatter response than most bass cabs. So if you like the sound of your cab, its easier to get that sound by micing it, rather than adjusting the board EQ to match the freq response of your bass cab.

As I said, I don't like using a mic. I use post -EQ send BECAUSE my cabs are much flatter response than normal bass cabs. What I'm sending to the post-eq is a very close approximation of what is coming out of my cab because of that.

Not sure who's post you're reading... I do not dig using mics. Also the OP asked for opinions, I gave mine, didn't think it was therefore also necessary to also point out "in my opinion".

Well, DUH! I imagine you would not get satisfactory results from placing the mic in front of your preamplifier instead of the speaker cabinet, either, your approach fails to account for that.

I apologize for not spelling out that I was referring to a properly placed mic which some theorize can pick up sounds from more than 1 driver! I should think that is common sense if the topic is getting a FOH sound that mimics your cabinet when your cabinet includes tweeters and you're using a mic.

Randy

Nice rant - but it doesn't change the fact that your previous statement was an inaccurate generalization... Sorry if you don't see it that way, but that's what it was... How you can equate the above with that statement is beyond me:


"If you really want "your" sound, better off micing the cab (rather than using post eq DI), they're a significant part of your sound in most cases. Cases like that, better to use pre-eq DI or mic the cab."

It's not my problem that you didn't say what you meant the first time - the above quote doesn't equal your last post in any way...


- georgestrings

[georgestrings]

Originally Posted by JimmyM

what drawbacks? i've been told about these so-called drawbacks ever since i went back to using a mic a couple years ago, and the only drawback i've ever had is whiny soundmen who try to talk me into using a di instead.


it could with the right placement.

To a guy who plays at such a low volume that the singer can't hear him, and who doesn't like alot of lows, I suppose there are no drawbacks - but that *probably* doesn't apply to the majority of performing bassists...

Also, I'd say it's ALOT easier to get a consistant sound with a DI in most real world situations than it is to expect to get the time to experiment with mic placement with cabs of varying driver sizes...

You're enough of a pro to know that there are real world drawbacks to mic'ing a cab - to pretend otherwise isn't being intellectually honest


- georgestrings

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by georgestrings

Nice rant - but it doesn't change the fact that your previous statement was an inaccurate generalization... Sorry if you don't see it that way, but that's what it was... How you can equate the above with that statement is beyond me:


"If you really want "your" sound, better off micing the cab (rather than using post eq DI), they're a significant part of your sound in most cases. Cases like that, better to use pre-eq DI or mic the cab."

It's not my problem that you didn't say what you meant the first time - the above quote doesn't equal your last post in any way...


- georgestrings

Do you know what "Cases like that" means? Guess not.... Do you understand that "they're a significant part of your sound in most cases" refers to speaker cabs that are not flat response? Did you read the post, or did your cat read it and tell you what it said? lol

Randy

[walker rosewood]

Yeah, most cab's are nowhere near flat, ...but to add to the mess, neither are most mic's. Or for that matter the PA speakers. Everything is a compromise. In the end, only the other bassists in the audience will know/care.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by georgestrings

To a guy who plays at such a low volume that the singer can't hear him, and who doesn't like alot of lows, I suppose there are no drawbacks - but that *probably* doesn't apply to the majority of performing bassists...

actually, since my mic has to be run hotter than someone else who plays louder than me, those drawbacks would become more apparent. and yet, out of all these so-called drawbacks i've heard about, not a single one has happened to me.

Also, I'd say it's ALOT easier to get a consistant sound with a DI in most real world situations than it is to expect to get the time to experiment with mic placement with cabs of varying driver sizes...

right...that's why so many guitarists di their guitar.

You're enough of a pro to know that there are real world drawbacks to mic'ing a cab - to pretend otherwise isn't being intellectually honest

yeah, all those other mics onstage picking up bleed and the bass cab mic is the one live mic onstage that's going to screw the whole mix, huh? my ass. talk about intellectual dishonesty!

when the guitarist, drummer, horn section, and all vocalists get rid of their mics, then i will, too.

[MNAirHead]

As a rule .. pre eq...