• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

dear sound guy, thanks. (di box content)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm saying that's a flawed premise. The true sound of the bass is what you hear when it's unplugged. Everything else is electronics and just because you arbitrarily decide to stop at the 1/4" out does not make it any "truer" than at any other point. A DI will give you a true representation of what the bass sounds like going into a DI, that's all. It's not any more "close" to anything because it's not an acoustic instrument...there is nothing to be close to.
It's an "ELECTRIC" bass, so yes the "electric" part is quit important.
What goes out of the 1/4" is the "reference" in the case of an electric bass.
How do you know how much a bass amp will color your sound ?
With a reference , and what reference should that be ?

Personaly , I take the 1/4" out as being the "flatest" reference possible by wich all else is "referenced".
I don't say here that I have the Holy truth. I just say what I think.

PS: of course , different woods will affect the tone. I made a couple of my basses myself , I know that.
 
Good thread.

It sounds daft, but soundguys here in N.I. are typically so unwilling to meet anybody halfway, I now have a signal prepared for the D.I. because most of what I liked about my sound was not being represented out FOH.

It depends on what sound you're going for, but to the OP: if you're using an ampeg 8x10 I assume that you are going for a big rock tone, which IMO, can not be obtained straight out of a soundguy's D.I. box...so I'm with you on this one.
 
Jimmy - I don't question the way you work....and I never insulted anyone as a bass player....ah hem...
A lot of times, I'm working at a theatre, where I'm an employee of the performers, not the band, which can throw all kinds of wrenches in the mix. When I'm on the road with Glen Campbell, I have to keep the bass down more than I'd like to, because he's sensitive to "too much bass," but he's the boss. And...you obviously don't understand acoustics/signal flow if you think that what's coming out of your amp is gonna magically be the same in FOH
i didn't say magically. i said that it's not that hard to accomplish if you have a soundman who knows what he's doing and a decent pa. i can make my home recordings sound like my amp when i mic it...why can't someone with thousands of dollars of more and better equipment?

glen campbell sounds a lot like bowzer when it comes to not wanting to hear bass. i moved myself all the way over to the far left side of the stage just because of it. still can't hear myself but at least i can tell that the amp is actually on.
 
It's an "ELECTRIC" bass, so yes the "electric" part is quit important.
If by "important" you mean everything and inaudible in a band context without, then OK. It's not important, it IS the sound.

Personaly , I take the 1/4" out as being the "flatest" reference possible by wich all else is "referenced"
Thing is "flatest" doesn't automatically mean "best". There's a lot of that particularly in the bass community that somehow flat/neutral/less colored is just by definition "best". I don't buy it for one second; it's just an opinion and no throwing numbers or talking acoustics can ever change the fact that if you like or don't like the way something sounds...either way you're right.

I don't say here that I have the Holy truth. I just say what I think.
Fair enough...we can agree to disagree about this.

Perhaps however we can agree that the bassist deserves just as much respect and deference in having his vision fulfilled as anyone else in the band?
 
Sure, well that wasn't really my point....and studio doesn't compare to live at all....there's this thing called feedback in live situations, performer's demands, venue acoustics, and not always do you have thousands of dollars worth of equipment....sometimes its fisher-price. I'm more than willing to accomodate the bass player......but, I don't appreciate attitude and disrespect when I'm just trying to do my job within the parameters that I have. Maybe the amp will work on stage at some given venue.....maybe it won't. Being nice and respectful goes a long way...at least with me. I just don't really appreciate the mass stereotypical engineer bashing going on.
 
SI don't appreciate attitude and disrespect when I'm just trying to do my job within the parameters that I have. Maybe the amp will work on stage at some given venue.....maybe it won't.
Right, respect works both ways. If I show up with a rig I've spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours on/with to get my tone, don't dismiss it out of hand because it might make your job tougher. Too bad, you gonna play the hard songs for me to make my job easier?

At the same time if it doesn't work then yes, other options can and should be explored but the default setting should be the same as with a guitarist...it's his tone and rig so try that first and alternatives if and when it doesn't work.
 
The thing I've never heard a satisfactory answer to is why is it almost always the bass player and almost always just the bass player who is expected to sacrifice any and all tone sculpting his gear may give him for the "greater good" of the mix?

Don't think for a minute that "we" are asking the bass player to sacrafice any tone. What we are asking for it the ability to take the signal without the eq that you have used for your particular cabinets and let us make the most out of it within the context of the room and our PA and help it fit better in the mix. I don't see how that is a sacrafice of anything. It's for the greater good of everybody including the player... who can't hear the mix and how he sounds in it anyway.

And to add to this, "we" do the same thing for each and every input (except maybe the accordian and banjo which remain muted as much as possible ;)) to get the best we can out of each part of the mix. The reason why we mic the (electric) guitars is because the natural acoustic filtering of the speaker (due to the response curve which is ANYTHING but "flat") helps make the instrument sound better and fit into the mix better. If there's a ton of low boom from the guitar rig, the first thing I will do (after dogging on the bass player of course) is to sit down with him and work a little bit on his eq & tone. If he is uncooperative, the mix suffers and so does each and every other member of the band. I must then resort to damage control and use my console eq, compression and if all else fails I will lower him in the mix to where he's not detracting as much from everybody else.

Now I will almost always use a DI for acoustic guitar (unlsee it's a really acoustic gig), maybe for mandolin, maybe for violin or fiddle but maybe a miniature condenser DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION like stage volume and required monitor level. Almost always for keys, except for a Leslie where I will always use 2 mics in order to capture the doppler phasing. I will always use mics on drums (except E-drums of course) and I have never been successful with vocals without a mic. I will choose a mic that gives me the best set of compromises, ones that I can live with for the situation I am working with. The mic choice might change if the situation changes too. I will use eq, compression and whatever other tools I need to use to make the band sound as good as I possibly can given the room and the maximum volume I am allowed. I might also ask for some compromises in the monitor mixes if that's interfering with the sound the audience hears, especially in smaller rooms. If the monitors are so loud that I can't use a particular input in the main mix (and it won't sound particularly good at FOH through monitors) I will try to get everybody to back off on volumes a bit so that I can put some in the mix.

So, you can see that I am not picking on the bass player but I am asking that everybody in the band think about how the BAND sounds... the band is not a bass player, it's not a guitarist, it's not even the vocalist. It's the entire package and how the package is delivered, much as gormet food is not a bunch of ingrediants thrown together, because too much of ANY ingrediant, or an ingrediant that doesn't quite fit in detracts from the final product.

I would sure like to see the lower middle end of the music industry grow up a little bit and consider playing together as a band rather than a bunch of musicians that happen to be playing the same song at the same time. It would do a lot for the live music scene and maybe put more butts in the seats by improving the quality of the "package"... and I've said absolutely nothing about the music itself or the talent of the players.

Also, if the band makes it really hard (or impossible) for the sound guy to do a good job,and expecially if they get rude and nasty, I can guarantee you that even most of the good guys will shift to damage control mode and every member in the band will suffer... life is just too short to deal with that kind of crap at a one-off gig. Most will just "get through the night" and move on, the mix will probably be uninspired and just hanging in there along with the sound guy's attutude. Remember this when you deal with them, they can help you or hurt you. As far as crappy sound guys, not much I can say except that you will be the ones in damage control mode and it's no more fun for the band as it is when the shoe's on the other foot.
 
What we are asking for it the ability to take the signal without the eq that you have used for your particular cabinets and let us make the most out of it within the context of the room and help it fit better in the mix. I don't see how that is a sacrafice of anything. It's for the greater good of everybody...If there's a ton of low boom from the guitar rig, the first thing I will do (after dogging on the bass player of course) is to sit down with him and work a little bit on his eq & tone. If he is uncooperative, the mix suffers and so does each and every other member of the band. I must then resort to damage control and use my console eq, compression and if all else fails I will lower him in the mix to where he's not detracting as much from everybody else
In general I like your posts and for the most part agree.

Having said that, I can't help but notice you prove my point. No matter how difficult it may prove, the guitarist keeps his cabinet tone. You just make whatever adjustments necessary to make his tone work. His cab is an integral inseparable part of his tone. It is for me too...why do I have to (yes) sacrifice it? What's the point of a bass head or cabinet anyway? All they do is fool you into thinking you're sounding the way you aren't.

Yes, I would very much call that a sacrifice.
 
What we are asking for it the ability to take the signal without the eq that you have used for your particular cabinets and let us make the most out of it within the context of the room and our PA and help it fit better in the mix.
No disrespect but that is not accurate. You are not taking a finished tone and doing what needs to do to make it work in the mix (like you are with a guitarist). I have NO problem with that and all and encourage it, but it is not what you are saying.

You are creating a tone from scratch by taking it before it is done and making a new tone. Why is it so difficult to accept that the rig is part of my tone and if you take that away, you are bastardizing my tone and superimposing yours instead?

I'm sorry but I completely reject your premise: taking a DI send before part of my tone chain (of which the rig is an integral part) and EQing the guitarists' mic send are NOT the same thing, not remotely.
 
In general I like your posts and for the most part agree.

Having said that, I can't help but notice you prove my point. No matter how difficult it may prove, the guitarist keeps his cabinet tone. You just make whatever adjustments necessary to make his tone work. His cab is an integral inseparable part of his tone. It is for me too...why do I have to (yes) sacrifice it? What's the point of a bass head or cabinet anyway? All they do is fool you into thinking you're sounding the way you aren't.

Yes, I would very much call that a sacrifice.

Have you listened to a guitar signal direct? It's generally unuseable as is. In fact, it will typically rip your head off and does not represent what it sounds like coming off the stage in any practical way.

Another option, and I have built this into several of the guitar amps I have designed, is a direct output that includes speaker simulation filtering. A few other manufacturers have also, and then there's the various simulator DI's and power soak DI combinations that make a direct signal possible. If that's an option and the stage is small, I will most certainly consider this first if it works for the entire band's sound. It certainly gets me MUCH closer than taking a straight direct. I might also have to tailor the guitarist's sound in my mix very differently than he has on stage with the speaker blowing past his knees and hurting the poor souls in the front. It all depends on each situation.

The point of a bass head and cabinet is so that you can get your stage sound (that you can hear) where you want it and the sound guy will listen to this and generally try to achieve something similar that will fit into the FOH mix that you can't hear. Since he is using different cabinets and covering a much larger area, he will need to do things differently to achieve the same (or similar) sound. I do not typically need any bass boost to get the bottom out of a bunch of 18" subs. In fact, if I get stuck with a signal that is swimming in bottom for example, I am somewhat screwed out the gate since I may have 20dB more available bottom and response maybe 1 octave below what your bass rig is capable of. You might like that sound on stage too, but it's probably a deal killer to carry a rig like that just for bass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts