ABSOLUTELY what it's all about. Near-field and far-field are different animals, for many reasons.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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 free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
DI Always Dissapoints
- Thread starter harleybass
- Start date
Sound engineers tend to de-articulate the bass, meaning if they hear detail in upper mid ranges, they like to put a stop to that nonsense right away. When building a mix, they will slot the bass into a certain space, and holistically it generally works for the overall sound. But it definitely can disrupt the sensation feedback between ears and fingers, and cause the player to dig in harder, wanting to hear the detail they are accustomed to.
In the 80's and 90's I solved the problem by bringing a rig that could overpower any PA short of a stadium setup.
But in all seriousness, one other way to restore the articulate feeling is to bring the overall stage volume down as much as possible.
Also, I haven't played much on an Alembic, but my memory seems to tell me they are often played with a bit of a mid-scoop, ala Mark King and all his funkiness. That can be a real downer if you're not Mark King and the sound engineer rolls off your highs.
In the 80's and 90's I solved the problem by bringing a rig that could overpower any PA short of a stadium setup.
But in all seriousness, one other way to restore the articulate feeling is to bring the overall stage volume down as much as possible.
Also, I haven't played much on an Alembic, but my memory seems to tell me they are often played with a bit of a mid-scoop, ala Mark King and all his funkiness. That can be a real downer if you're not Mark King and the sound engineer rolls off your highs.
Last edited:
I am just on page 2 but the PA industry have used DI for bass for a reason for maybe 1/2 century now, but micing bass speakers is rare. My bud who co-owns one of the biggest backline in town, explained this but I forgot. It's not that they (FOH) hate bass players, The massive power they have is for amplifying bass, kick drum and everything low, Remember Jamerson was plugged directly to the board on all those iconic Motown recordings and that is analogous to the DI FOH.
Guitars are usually mic'ed rather than DI'ed. It is an inconvenience for the audio tech when the guitar makes volume and tone adjustments, but the reality is guitar is typically easier to dial in than bass, so it's not really the same thing. IMHO, Delivering a really great bass sound to the audience ranges from difficult to impossible.
Post EQ DI is at the bottom of my preference list. Post EQ tends to be considerably noisier and unless you are using a full-range, flat-response cab, it's really not representative of the sound coming from your amp.
Most of the time I prefer to work with Pre EQ DI. If the bassist really uses his amp for some sort of signature sound and/or uses effects, probably my choice would be to mic the cab. As others have stated, it's not exactly the same as what you hear on stage, but I do think it's representative.
A speaker SIM or IR loader may seem like a good idea, but IMHO only if it actually sounds like your rig. Often this is not true.
As a bass player I prefer a fairly bright sound, but I don't like a lot of gank and fret rattle. I use tone shaping to create the type of high frequency contour I like and also have relatively clean technique. When possible, I like to discuss tone concept with the audio tech before sound check, with hopes that he/she will listen to and honor my goals.
Each person has a somewhat unique idea of what bass should sound like, so I don't find it surprising that audio techs are not giving you the type of sound you want. The ideal solution is to hire someone who will...however there can be an insurmountable problem that makes this an impossible ask.
Thought Experiment:
Ask every group member to create their idea of the perfect mix for the band. IMHO chances are that each mix is going to sound a bit different. My point is I think it is unlikely that there is consensus in the group on its core sound concept. Since everyone prefers a different mix, it's impossible for the audio tech to satisfy everyone.
The person with the most control, it's typically the person who hires and pays the audio tech.
So, full disclosure, I've spent a decent amount of time behind a mixing desk in live applications, and I get what your saying.
I don't think all post-eq DI's are noisy though. Those on my Mesa d800+ and Aguilar Ag700 are dead quiet, especially compared to some of the junk house units that techs have tried to get me to use.
My followup question then would be to ask you what do you think of my practice of putting a pre amp pedal before their DI? Not much difference than an active pass right? My main goal here isn't to make my bass sound like my amp, its to keep the FOH guy from giving me the kind of sound I hate. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say I'd rather not be heard/play than have the kind of mid-focused sound that everyone loves these days. If I'm paying for sound then this will happen exactly once. What I'm asking for isn't hard, I could probably get the sound I wanted in 30 seconds if they let me work the channel strip.
What is the point of putting any money then into a bass amp then? You should just buy the cheapest thing that lets you hear yourself on stage.
If they want to put it back, the FOH has more EQ than you and will be able to put it back, with a heap of extra noise if they want to badly enough.
See the quote below to understand why the mic won't fix your problem. The 4 fridges would, even with a DI.
For a demonstration listen to your cabs pointed at your ears, then turn them around or walk behind them and listen to how they sound from there. The PA is(probably) FAR Louder than your amp, and you are behind it.
Well if they want that noise then that is on them. I'm still doing like -12db at 800hz with what ever Q is available to me
I get told often that the engineer wants to mic and DI too.At one outdoor concert I followed an act where the bassist was ampless direct into a DI box. I asked the engineer did she want me that way. She said, "You've put too much care and concern into that rig. I'm DIing and Micing it."
I use a Monique. I only get thumbs up or smiles when they solo me at sound check. This is outdoors, gyms, school cafeterias, hotel bars, lofts, etc. Noise free, phat. I've heard my rig out front coming from the Monique. Sounds just like me.
IMHO the solution is to hire an audio tech who better meets your needs. It really does not make sense to fight with the person who is supposed to make you sound good. Trying to control your house sound from the stage is IMHO fighting with the audio tech. Let the poor SOD do his/her job. If you don't like the way they do the job, hire someone else instead of constantly tormenting them on every gig.
In general, the noise level will be higher on Post than Pre...maybe the difference is not enough to worry about in some instances, but it has been noticeable in every instance where I have checked. I have not had the pleasure of trying the two amps you mention specifically, but I personally own 29 amps and I have checked some of them. There is no crap in my collection. I prefer to use a dedicated DI rather than the amp regardless of Pre and Post.
The situation where I advocate for the bassist to use a Preamp DI for tone shaping is with IEMs. It's usually way easier for the bassist to dial in a decent sound to the IEM mix than talk the audio tech through it. This is especially true if the system or skill of the audio tech prevents EQ changes to the monitor mixes, which is common. Often the sends are set up Pre EQ and the channel strip is used to dial in house sound. What you get coming back through the IEMs is flat or at the most high passed. With this setup, a preamp DI is really beneficial.
With some digital consoles it is possible to set up multiple fader levels so the IEM mixes have a separate set of tone controls, but more common to have dedicated FOH and Monitor consoles. If you don't know, this is how to set up split fader levels: Say you board has 64 channels and two fader levels. Dual assign the inputs to fader level A (1-32) and fader level B (33-64). Use the tone controls for fader level A for FOH, and the tone controls for fader level B for the IEM mixes. IMHO this approach is confusing, labor intensive, and AFAIK rarely used.
If you use a preamp DI for tone shaping, my advice is try to get your sound dialed in early and then try to lock it down. I.E try to avoid making changes later in the show, because it degrades every mix that has bass in it. You may need to work out a compromise with the audio tech if you use really heavy EQ. IMHO the priority for a pro musician should be how your instruments sounds out in the audience. This frequently results in some degree of compromise to what you hear on stage.
The sense of it is to have the absolute best possible sound on stage. However, if your happy with a crappy amp on stage, you can definitely save some cash
. I would rather pay extra and get a tone that actually works for me.
devnulljp
Supporting Member
Don't know why anyone would rely on using whatever old DI the sound guy has lying around. Bring your own -- BBDI, VTBassDI, ToneBone, ToneHammer, REDDI ... there are lots of good ones to choose from. I always have a JDI in my bag just in case, but there's a Bassbone on my electric bass board and a Headway EDB-2 on my upright board, but I've gigged with a REDDI and a Broughton P15. No 10-year-old $50 DI for me.
Agreed. I also suggest you work to get your DI sound right. I plug my bass into my pedal board, then to DI, then into studio monitors. I see what I need to get a really good sound from that, with effects, and 'clean'. I think a lot of people assume you don't need to put the time into your DI sound as you would your amped sound. I don't think you can do that and still expect your DI sound to be great.
Audio techs tend to prefer using their own gear for consistency. They know how their DI works and what to do to get a good sound....or at least their vision of a good sound.
When I was touring, I always carried a quality DI with me (typically a Radial or Countryman. I remember arguing with an audio tech who insisted on using his beat-up, low-end DI. The DI looked like it had fallen of the back of a truck and been run over several times before landing in a ditch where it sat for a few years before being found and put back in service. That is to say it was scratched, bent, rusty, dirty, etc...but it worked.
We used his DI and it was the last time I argued over a DI with a guest audio tech. IMHO, set up and sound check is really not the right time for a heated confrontation.
s0c9
Supporting Member
Hmm.. there seems to be much confusion/conflation in this thread of folks interpreting what a DI is.
There's TWO (2) types:
1. the simple DI - input, XLR out and parallel line out (on most)
2. Tone shaping DI, some have PRE and/or POST outputs in both XLR and 1/4" formats
There's a world of difference between the 2. They are NOT the same thing.
The 1st takes a high-z input (bass, keys, etc.) and converts that to a low-Z (XLR) output signal. There is ZERO tone shaping capability! There's nothing to it.. plug in, send XLR to FOH, 1/4" to amp.
The 2nd may do all sort of things with your signal (EQ, Distortion, Compression) and will have the XLR (low-Z) output to send to FOH and the parallel 1/4" out to go to your amp! Consider it just like an amp.. minus the "amp" part!
There's TWO (2) types:
1. the simple DI - input, XLR out and parallel line out (on most)
2. Tone shaping DI, some have PRE and/or POST outputs in both XLR and 1/4" formats
There's a world of difference between the 2. They are NOT the same thing.
The 1st takes a high-z input (bass, keys, etc.) and converts that to a low-Z (XLR) output signal. There is ZERO tone shaping capability! There's nothing to it.. plug in, send XLR to FOH, 1/4" to amp.
The 2nd may do all sort of things with your signal (EQ, Distortion, Compression) and will have the XLR (low-Z) output to send to FOH and the parallel 1/4" out to go to your amp! Consider it just like an amp.. minus the "amp" part!
Last edited:
IMHO the solution is to hire an audio tech who better meets your needs. It really does not make sense to fight with the person who is supposed to make you sound good. Trying to control your house sound from the stage is IMHO fighting with the audio tech. Let the poor SOD do his/her job. If you don't like the way they do the job, hire someone else instead of constantly tormenting them on every gig.
In general, the noise level will be higher on Post than Pre...maybe the difference is not enough to worry about in some instances, but it has been noticeable in every instance where I have checked. I have not had the pleasure of trying the two amps you mention specifically, but I personally own 29 amps and I have checked some of them. There is no crap in my collection. I prefer to use a dedicated DI rather than the amp regardless of Pre and Post.
The situation where I advocate for the bassist to use a Preamp DI for tone shaping is with IEMs. It's usually way easier for the bassist to dial in a decent sound to the IEM mix than talk the audio tech through it. This is especially true if the system or skill of the audio tech prevents EQ changes to the monitor mixes, which is common. Often the sends are set up Pre EQ and the channel strip is used to dial in house sound. What you get coming back through the IEMs is flat or at the most high passed. With this setup, a preamp DI is really beneficial.
With some digital consoles it is possible to set up multiple fader levels so the IEM mixes have a separate set of tone controls, but more common to have dedicated FOH and Monitor consoles. If you don't know, this is how to set up split fader levels: Say you board has 64 channels and two fader levels. Dual assign the inputs to fader level A (1-32) and fader level B (33-64). Use the tone controls for fader level A for FOH, and the tone controls for fader level B for the IEM mixes. IMHO this approach is confusing, labor intensive, and AFAIK rarely used.
If you use a preamp DI for tone shaping, my advice is try to get your sound dialed in early and then try to lock it down. I.E try to avoid making changes later in the show, because it degrades every mix that has bass in it. You may need to work out a compromise with the audio tech if you use really heavy EQ. IMHO the priority for a pro musician should be how your instruments sounds out in the audience. This frequently results in some degree of compromise to what you hear on stage.
The sense of it is to have the absolute best possible sound on stage. However, if your happy with a crappy amp on stage, you can definitely save some cash
Hey I'm not trying to torment anyone or make anyone's job impossibly hard. I just know what I don't want. I get your point about hiring someone who will give me that, but I get "that's how it cuts through the mix" often. Of course we both know hiring this person is easier said than done. What I refuse to do though is tell someone I"m happy with the sound when I'm not. Most techs get upset when you tell them that you don't like what they are doing. What would your reaction be if I shared my dissatisfaction? Most people don't take these kinds of things well.
Again I'm not asking them to replicate my stage sound. I'm asking them just to not do one or two specific things. No honky mids, warm and smooth. That's it pretty much.
I still don't see the big difference between FOH accepting an active bass straight through a DI, or taking a preamp pedal inline via instrument cable if they don't want XLR. I'm not adjusting anything after sound check, ever.
I'm not as hard to work with as it may seem. If you're the house guy I'll ultimately end up doing what I'm told to do. But I will not lie and say I think the mix sounds good if I think otherwise. If I'm paying for production, I'll dictate this or I'll hire someone who will do what I want.
What is the functional difference between Active Bass into house DI vs Post Eq from an AMP ore preamp pedal other than noise?
Well, no, they don't. Some will prefer a passive DI over an active because there is no way that an electrical spike can travel over a passive DI to take out a channel on the board, so technically, there are safer. (And certainly more reliable.)
I do get confused by this pure signal to FOH stuff, cause you are right, many basses have active eq, and all basses have a volume control. My basses have pickups switches and coil-taps, and tons other features that change the EQ and output volume of the instrument. And then there is switching between an active 5-string and a passive fretless 4.
For me, I tend to set up the amp for best stage eq and volume. I will change it as the night goes on to suite my tastes and the ever rising stage volume. (Plus ear fatigue.)
So being able to do that without affecting FOH is good. On the other hand, there is my fuzz pedal!
I do get confused by this pure signal to FOH stuff, cause you are right, many basses have active eq, and all basses have a volume control. My basses have pickups switches and coil-taps, and tons other features that change the EQ and output volume of the instrument. And then there is switching between an active 5-string and a passive fretless 4.
For me, I tend to set up the amp for best stage eq and volume. I will change it as the night goes on to suite my tastes and the ever rising stage volume. (Plus ear fatigue.)
So being able to do that without affecting FOH is good. On the other hand, there is my fuzz pedal!
