Little Labs IBP

MysticMichael · #1 10-23-2010, 10:26 AM

Hey all,

I'm in the market for a high-quality direct box - strictly for recording. Although I play active basses almost exclusively, I'm thinking it couldn't hurt to have the extra headroom and other features of an active box. Currently considering the Avalon U5, the Radial JDV...and a player I hadn't heard about until yesterday - the Little Labs IBP (which I understand is a lot more than just a nice active direct box).

I want a super-pro unit - so I'm prepared to drop a few hundred bucks for the right piece. So can anyone offer me some comparative feedback on these three models - and especially regarding the IBP?

Thanks,

MM

pasta4lnch · #2 10-23-2010, 10:32 AM

If memory serves I believe the IBP is more a tool for phase adjusting than really a "DI" - If phasing is your issue I'd say it's the best way. If you want tone there are better/other options.

I really dig my U5. The tone options are very helpful for recording. . . there are a bunch of other really top end units too i.e reddi, Manley, gas cooker, d.w. fern etc. really gotta just dive in a buy one - they are all good in their own way

MysticMichael · #3 10-23-2010, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pasta4lnch

I believe the IBP is more a tool for phase adjusting than really a "DI" - If phasing is your issue I'd say it's the best way. If you want tone there are better/other options.

Yeah, I get that. But I read a review from an engineer who raved about its tone as well. I gather also that it's ideal for bringing a miked amp signal and a simultaneous direct signal into proper phase - which is significant to me since I intend to record that way from now on, whenever possible.

Other thoughts from anyone?

MM

pasta4lnch · #4 10-23-2010, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticMichael

I gather also that it's ideal for bringing a miked amp signal and a simultaneous direct signal into proper phase - which is significant to me since I intend to record that way from now on, whenever possible.

I always record a DI along w/ my amp signal (albiet some times I'm lazy and use a SABDDI instead of mic'ing an amp) and I very rarely have any significant phase issues . . . just saying.

fwiw I've never personally used one. LL has a great reputation and it is only around $100 i think, so if it works as a good DI then it's a steal. . .

bongomania · #5 10-23-2010, 11:00 AM

I haven't used it yet, so take my comments with appropriate amounts of salt.

But their "PIP" caught my eye when I was looking for DI's that happen to have a huge amount of gain available, for directly driving a power amp. The fact that it is very, very small is quite a bonus; and the phase adjustment would be great for anyone mixing two channels of bass, like a DB'er with mic and pickup channels, or a BG'er running clean and dirty channels.

I ended up not buying it just because I decided to get various units that had some tone color, instead of transparency. But if transparency is wanted, then the PIP is a very strong contender. It gets a lot of love on high-end recording forums. And it stands to reason the IBP would have the same quality.

MysticMichael · #6 10-23-2010, 11:02 AM

How about using active instruments with an active direct box? Any real issues there, i.e. noise, overheated signals, etc.?

MM

Charling · #7 10-24-2010, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticMichael

How about using active instruments with an active direct box? Any real issues there, i.e. noise, overheated signals, etc.?

MM

Active/passive instruments into active/passive DI's is not a problem in most cases. An active di does not add gain or similar unless specifically designed to do so (like the U5, but the gain can be set to unity). Basically either an active or passive bass will be fine going into an active or passive DI box in almost all cases! People do seem to often confuse the terminology, an active DI will deal with a passive bass fine and vice versa. The only consideration is excessively high impedance of old instruments etc.

@ Pasta4Inch the delay on a mic'd signal is definately enough to become a part of the bass you records' sound. In many cases it is fine, but I recommend playing round with delaying the DI source and seeing what happens. we are talking 40 - 150 samples roughly (at 44.1). I rarely make a record where I don't delay the DI these days, its a free dose of low end and avoids the need for eq!

MysticMichael · #8 10-24-2010, 11:20 PM

Thanks, Charling. I suspected this was the case. Now it's confirmed...

MM

bongomania · #9 10-25-2010, 12:04 AM

Here's a bit of advice on the subject from AJ: http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showth...t=#post6296989
I recall reading in a magazine article somewhere where he was complaining about distortion from lesser-quality active DI's, and of course that makes sense: it costs more to design a buffer with very, very high headroom. Same goes for noise. When you're in the deep end of the pool, noise and headroom are not going to be a problem with an active bass into an active DI; but at the shallow kiddie end, yes there can be problems.

Also worth noting is that a passive bass into a passive DI can be a problem if the mixer input it's fed into doesn't have enough clean gain. Passive DI's drop the signal level by about 12 to 20 dB, so if the mixer is not so great, your sound in the PA will either be quiet or noisy. Into a mixer with plenty of clean gain on the mic inputs, passive bass and passive DI are fine together.

MysticMichael · #10 10-25-2010, 07:31 AM

Thanks, Bongo. I'm getting an education here...

BTW, I invested in an Avalon U5 during the weekend. Figured I couldn't go wrong there in any case. But the IBP remains on my radar screen - maybe as my next purchase of recording gear down the road a bit...

MM