DI box live set-up question

[Downunderwonder]

While I haven't done many outdoor monster PA gigs I have done exactly zero direct box direct off bass gigs indoors or out since the one where the PA guy told me my Sansamp rack had no signal and the monitors sounded like wet farts.

 

[Wasnex]

You showed a picture of the DI being used to record in the studio. Which makes that work in that scenario. Live shows and studio recording are two different things. For a live show, you still want the DI off the instrument. At a live show you are driving a huge stack of subwoofers. You're not doing that in the studio. Studio mixers often can't pull off a live show and vice versa. They are two different beasts.

Nice cherry picking. One image did imply studio...but again IMHO the image is generic. The second image I provided did not imply studio, and yet you ignored it.

So, how about this one.

I have quoted the language under the graphic for you, from the following web address: JDX 48 - Radial Engineering

Using the Radial JDX 48 on bass
Bass guitar sounds amazing with the JDX! You get a fat low-mid punch and extra clarity that makes the bass stand out. It truly sounds like you are playing through an SVT with all the grind and drive… yet it is coming through the PA.​

The JDX 48 is specifically marketed as a "guitar amp" DI, and yet the company suggests using it for bass in a live sound environment. To clarify, JDX 48 is a speaker level only device

Let's be clear, manuals are only suggestions on how a product may be used. Audio techs can and do use the device any way they want.

You think it's a bad practice to use a speaker level DI on bass. In general I agree, but I think it's extremely distasteful to try and impose my subjective views on others. And let's be clear that's exactly what we are talking about...subjective opinions and not facts.

Also there are circumstances where I think its important to capture the character of a driven amp's output section. My preference would be to use a mic on a cab. This is even more true with guitar than bass to be honest. In my experience a speaker level DI on a cranked guitar amps tends to sound absolutely horrid.

The situation where I would be most inclined to consider a speaker level DI for bass would be a high SPL environment where I want to capture the character of the pushed amp, but gain before feedback or bleed from other instruments makes a mic a bad choice.

So again, it's not that I disagree with everything you say, but you seem to see everything in absolute terms, where I see nuanced shades of gray that suggest occasional reasons to try something a bit different.

Another factor that you seem to be ignoring is the audio tech's allegiances vary from gig to gig. I totally get that sometimes the event organizer calls the shots, and maybe this is the only type of environment you have ever worked in. In my experience, audio techs frequently do a really crappy job for all of the warm up bands, so honestly I don't think they are always concerned about quality and keeping the event organizer happy. In some instances they obviously don't care and simply don't want to bother with putting any effort into customizing a mix for the warm band or opening act.

IMHO this was justifiable in the old days when everyone was running analog mixing consoles. I.E. the headliners settings are to be left alone. But with modern digital boards, you simply save a baseline mix, then you save the headliners mix. Whenever a new act comes on stage, your recall the baseline mix and quickly dial the system in. When the headliner takes the stage, you recall their mix, and you're 99% where you need to be.

In other settings the audio tech works directly for the band, and if the audio tech wants to continue working, he/she is going to be sensitive to the band's artistic vision. Whether you like it or not, there are bass players out there who insist on running a speaker level DI. Some of them even work with headliners.

In the event that a representative from a headliner sent the company you worked for a tech rider with the requirement to run bass through a speaker level DI and asked for a bid, would your company turn down the work, or would they put in a bid indicating they can do the work as requested? If you company got the bid, would they try and deceive the artist, as you have suggested, and risk ruing their reputation in the industry?

Although I am sure your A1 would find it distasteful, I suspect he/she would find a way to make the speaker level DI work...and honestly, it's not that freaking hard if the bassist has a good reason and knows what they are doing.

Then again I suspect most headliners would bring their own A1, and your A1 would really having no say or concern in the matter.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Nice cherry picking. One image did imply studio...but again IMHO the image is generic. The second image I provided did not imply studio, and yet you ignored it.

So, how about this one.

View attachment 4082059
I have quoted the language under the graphic for you, from the following web address: JDX 48 - Radial Engineering

Using the Radial JDX 48 on bass
Bass guitar sounds amazing with the JDX! You get a fat low-mid punch and extra clarity that makes the bass stand out. It truly sounds like you are playing through an SVT with all the grind and drive… yet it is coming through the PA.​

The JDX 48 is specifically marketed as a "guitar amp" DI, and yet the company suggests using it for bass in a live sound environment. To clarify, JDX 48 is a speaker level only device

Let's be clear, manuals are only suggestions on how a product may be used. Audio techs can and do use the device any way they want.

You think it's a bad practice to use a speaker level DI on bass. In general I agree, but I think it's extremely distasteful to try and impose my subjective views on others. And let's be clear that's exactly what we are talking about...subjective opinions and not facts.

Also there are circumstances where I think its important to capture the character of a driven amp's output section. My preference would be to use a mic on a cab. This is even more true with guitar than bass to be honest. In my experience a speaker level DI on a cranked guitar amps tends to sound absolutely horrid.

The situation where I would be most inclined to consider a speaker level DI for bass would be a high SPL environment where I want to capture the character of the pushed amp, but gain before feedback or bleed from other instruments makes a mic a bad choice.

So again, it's not that I disagree with everything you say, but you seem to see everything in absolute terms, where I see nuanced shades of gray that suggest occasional reasons to try something a bit different.

Another factor that you seem to be ignoring is the audio tech's allegiances vary from gig to gig. I totally get that sometimes the event organizer calls the shots, and maybe this is the only type of environment you have ever worked in. In my experience, audio techs frequently do a really crappy job for all of the warm up bands, so honestly I don't think they are always concerned about quality and keeping the event organizer happy. In some instances they obviously don't care and simply don't want to bother with putting any effort into customizing a mix for the warm band or opening act.

IMHO this was justifiable in the old days when everyone was running analog mixing consoles. I.E. the headliners settings are to be left alone. But with modern digital boards, you simply save a baseline mix, then you save the headliners mix. Whenever a new act comes on stage, your recall the baseline mix and quickly dial the system in. When the headliner takes the stage, you recall their mix, and you're 99% where you need to be.

In other settings the audio tech works directly for the band, and if the audio tech wants to continue working, he/she is going to be sensitive to the band's artistic vision. Whether you like it or not, there are bass players out there who insist on running a speaker level DI. Some of them even work with headliners.

In the event that a representative from a headliner sent the company you worked for a tech rider with the requirement to run bass through a speaker level DI and asked for a bid, would your company turn down the work, or would they put in a bid indicating they can do the work as requested? If you company got the bid, would they try and deceive the artist, as you have suggested, and risk ruing their reputation in the industry?

Although I am sure your A1 would find it distasteful, I suspect he/she would find a way to make the speaker level DI work...and honestly, it's not that freaking hard if the bassist has a good reason and knows what they are doing.

Then again I suspect most headliners would bring their own A1, and your A1 would really having no say or concern in the matter.

Back in 'the day' I used to do a bit of sound mixing for rock bands (I still do sound sometimes, just not for anything I'd call rock). Unless the band was particularly obnoxious or its sound was an unholy and ungovernable mess I always tried to get a good sound for everyone. When push comes to shove, headliners get more time. The only real complaint I ever got was FOH being on the quiet side, but then PA quality or venue size meant that got the best sound to my ears. The other was taking too long sound checking and fixing issues like people's gear not working.

 

[Geri O]

Of course the band isn't the enemy. That is why you don't let them sabotage the show with their ignorance. You guys should go to prosoundweb and ask the same question. You won't find any one saying to not put a DI first thing after the bass for a live show.

I was a major participant at ProSoundWeb starting in 1994 when it was Live Audio.com and Dave Stevens and Doug Fowler ran the place. More evidence to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. And posting in this manner would gotten you put out of the place after just a few posts. They didn’t suffer fools for a second back then and mostly these days, too.

 

[Jack]

In the event that a representative from a headliner sent the company you worked for a tech rider with the requirement to run bass through a speaker level DI and asked for a bid, would your company turn down the work, or would they put in a bid indicating they can do the work as requested? If you company got the bid, would they try and deceive the artist, as you have suggested, and risk ruing their reputation in the industry?

Although I am sure your A1 would find it distasteful, I suspect he/she would find a way to make the speaker level DI work...and honestly, it's not that freaking hard if the bassist has a good reason and knows what they are doing.

Then again I suspect most headliners would bring their own A1, and your A1 would really having no say or concern in the matter.

Dude, this guy does not have or work for 'a company' and has never reported to 'an A1'.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Putting a basic DI right after the bass (assuming no effects) has never sounded great to me. I'd rather have a preamp with a balanced out, but if sound engineering I'd prefer something which isn't affected by EQ changes on stage so that the bassist on stage can dial in a sound somewhat independently of FOH, bleed excepted, so they can hear themselves. As a player, I feel the same. But I can also see the logic, where effects are in play, having a dry signal to mix in if required.

I have a speaker level DI which, when I had tube amps, was pretty handy for consistency. To be honest, putting a microphone on an amp is easy enough unless it's a cramped stage or the bass player or other band members leap around as I've seen plenty of mics in front of guitar amps kicked over and dangling an sm57 over an amp isn't really using the cardioid pattern to best advantage even if there's nothing to kick over. Still something to kick, though.

But then I used to go direct to the PA for six string piccolo bass in the mid 90s with a preamp with speaker simulation and was perfectly happy with it.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Wow, thanks for all the insights. I didn't expect this thread to take off....let's everyone click the safeties to the ON position, nkay?

 

[jimfist]

 

[lokikallas]

I’ve had multiple unsolicited comments from sound guys who liked the DI out on my SVT 7 pro. Can I lift the ground? No problem. A bit too hot? No problem, The DI has a pad. Pre EQ, post EQ, yes, take your pick.

 

[Chip Dixon]

Telling FOH what they need and where they need it would be like the A1 walking up and turning your EQ knobs on your amp. Know your place.

 

[Chip Dixon]

Putting a basic DI right after the bass (assuming no effects) has never sounded great to me. I'd rather have a preamp with a balanced out, but if sound engineering I'd prefer something which isn't affected by EQ changes on stage so that the bassist on stage can dial in a sound somewhat independently of FOH, bleed excepted, so they can hear themselves. As a player, I feel the same. But I can also see the logic, where effects are in play, having a dry signal to mix in if required.

I have a speaker level DI which, when I had tube amps, was pretty handy for consistency. To be honest, putting a microphone on an amp is easy enough unless it's a cramped stage or the bass player or other band members leap around as I've seen plenty of mics in front of guitar amps kicked over and dangling an sm57 over an amp isn't really using the cardioid pattern to best advantage even if there's nothing to kick over. Still something to kick, though.

But then I used to go direct to the PA for six string piccolo bass in the mid 90s with a preamp with speaker simulation and was perfectly happy with it.

Of course it doesn't sound good to you if you aren't trying to use it for aux fed subs along with a band and a monitor rig and a mic or another line out for the mains. There are things that need to be done live with a big rig that don't need to be done otherwise. Plugging in a DI isn't a one way works for everything type of thing.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

So I'll bite....what's an A1?

 

[Chip Dixon]

You guys are so missing out on so much sweet low bass in the subs. You should try it. you are missing out. Geri, I was at the subwoofer shootout up in NYC with Paul Bell back then. I remember you. I think you're cool. Try aux fed subs with a di off the bass. That is all I can say. No bad vibes here. I love bassists. Just trying to help you see why so many people rave about aux fed subs.

 

[lokikallas]

So I'll bite....what's an A1?

Audio 1, or head sound guy. Usually Front of House mixer.

 

[JimmyM]

In all my life, I have never heard of a sound tech referred to as "A1."

 

[Wasnex]

In all my life, I have never heard of a sound tech referred to as "A1."

What is a an A1 [Audio Engineer]? | Shoflo.TV Glossary

 

[Jack]

In all my life, I have never heard of a sound tech referred to as "A1."

Not in most of my bands, but a while back I was in a brass group as part of a youth project thing and we played a few theatres. I mean, the kind of places that usually did plays not bands. That's the only situation I've ever heard it. At first I just thought it was a term of endearment, like "you'll have to ask Jimmy, he's A1!" but then I realised. Not once heard it outside of that situation.

 

[jimfist]

When a bassist is using a bunch of front-end effects, it is assumed that the DI is not taken off the bass itself, but post-effects (pedals or otherwise), correct? Further, more and more bassists are using all-in-one modelers like the Line6 Helix, Fractal Audio stuff, Kemper Profiling Amp, etc., where the preamp tone, cab sim and effects are all baked-in one box/pedal. In addition, monitoring is done via IEM and/or direct feed to stage monitors, with less or no reliance on traditional stage amps.

In the case where the modeler/fx is used and there are lots of effects, specifically ones that rely on volume dynamics and dynamic frequency range, it seems as if the simple/obvious strategy is to take the DI feed from the modeler/multi-fx (either XLR off the unit or via discrete DI box). Pulling a line directly off the bass before the modeler might totally bork some of the aforementioned special effects. Again, let's assume there's no stage rig to mic, thus a pure DI feed situation.

Thoughts on this scenario as it applies to the conversation?

 

[Geri O]

When a bassist is using a bunch of front-end effects, it is assumed that the DI is not taken off the bass itself, but post-effects (pedals or otherwise), correct? Further, more and more bassists are using all-in-one modelers like the Line6 Helix, Fractal Audio stuff, Kemper Profiling Amp, etc., where the preamp tone, cab sim and effects are all baked-in one box/pedal. In addition, monitoring is done via IEM and/or direct feed to stage monitors, with less or no reliance on traditional stage amps.

In the case where the modeler/fx is used and there are lots of effects, specifically ones that rely on volume dynamics and dynamic frequency range, it seems as if the simple/obvious strategy is to take the DI feed from the modeler/multi-fx (either XLR off the unit or via discrete DI box). Pulling a line directly off the bass before the modeler might totally bork some of the aforementioned special effects. Again, let's assume there's no stage rig to mic, thus a pure DI feed situation.

Thoughts on this scenario as it applies to the conversation?

Well, the conversation has taken too many illogical twists and turns to even keep up with, but I’ll take a shot at your question on face value.

In a situation where pedals were in the signal chain after the bass and before the amp, then yes, I will/would ask to place a DI just before the amp and after the FX pedals in the case of an FX loop in use, then I would kindly ask to place a DI after all of the FX in the chain, but before the FX return to the amp (remember the DIs worth having have a pass-through 1/4” output). Or, if it’s a recent model amp with a known good line-up (and how could I NOT know that, given my position in the biz?), I’ll take that, hopefully pre-eq, but post-FX loop. And, after this entire exercise is completed, and if the scope of the show allows, I mic the amp.
It works for me and I didn’t get as far as I did with my phone and emails still ringing after 8 years of semi-retirement. @jimfist , that last bit was NOT intended for you...

 

[Wasnex]

When a bassist is using a bunch of front-end effects, it is assumed that the DI is not taken off the bass itself, but post-effects (pedals or otherwise), correct? Further, more and more bassists are using all-in-one modelers like the Line6 Helix, Fractal Audio stuff, Kemper Profiling Amp, etc., where the preamp tone, cab sim and effects are all baked-in one box/pedal. In addition, monitoring is done via IEM and/or direct feed to stage monitors, with less or no reliance on traditional stage amps.

In the case where the modeler/fx is used and there are lots of effects, specifically ones that rely on volume dynamics and dynamic frequency range, it seems as if the simple/obvious strategy is to take the DI feed from the modeler/multi-fx (either XLR off the unit or via discrete DI box). Pulling a line directly off the bass before the modeler might totally bork some of the aforementioned special effects. Again, let's assume there's no stage rig to mic, thus a pure DI feed situation.

Thoughts on this scenario as it applies to the conversation?

IMHO the feed for the main PA speakers needs to come after the effects. I don't have any problem with a second DI being inserted between the bass and the effects, so the audio tech has a dry unprocessed signal for aux fed subs. You don't want to send most effects to the subs if you can avoid it.

However, if you use an octave doubler, you may need discuss and work something out with the audio tech. With a digital board, it should be easy enough to recall a preset/scene that routes the octave doubler to the subs or lowers the knee of the Channel HPF so the sound comes through. The audio tech just needs to know when the patch occurs and be willing to do a little bit of work.

If I am running sound, the subs will not be hyped and the tone will be fairly representative of what the player envisions.

I am actually a fan of aux fed subs, but IMHO many audio techs use this technique improperly. My belief is the subs should be dialed in to the mains, balanced and phase aligned as normal. I prefer setting up the system flat and using the channel EQ if you want a more or less bass heavy tone.

A lot of audio techs who run aux fed subs, tend to use the sub master as sort of a tone control. So if they want heavier bass, they bump up the master for the sub aux instead of adjusting the channel strip. A lot of techs really hype the subs.

By changing the relative balance between the subs and mains, you shift the effective crossover frequency, and usually this is going to cause phase variances between the subs and mains in the crossover region that will degrade the sound quality and potentially shift dispersion patterns if the system is large enough to have low frequency pattern control. There are tuning secrets that can supposedly minimize the phase problem, but I would rather just tune the entire speaker system flat and leave it flat. That does not mean you can't insert a system EQ before the speaker processors and tune the system to taste.

Comments I have seen over the last few years suggest that running aux fed subs is falling out of favor in the pro sound community. The idea is the prevalence of ubiquitous adjustable HPFs throughout the signal path has essentially rendered the technique obsolete. I am not 100% convinced, just reporting what people seem to be saying.