DI: Pre or Post

[Would'e?]

This is so simple.

If:-
a) The amp provides a tone that is integral to your sound
b) You use many or varied fx to get your sound
c) You color your sound with anything AT ALL to make it right for you for a song

Then the FOH needs that to properly reproduce that sound in FOH.

If that sound:-
a) requires the cabs' interaction
b) requires any other part of the signal chain after the DI in the head
Then the FOH needs a mic to properly reproduce that sound in FOH

Else IF:-
a) You rely solely on your hands/bass/strings/ebow to get your sound
b) No part of the signal chain from your bass to your ears on stage in your opinion MAKES your sound what it needs to be

Then the FOH will be able to get your sound solely with a DI after the bass.

100% correct.

 

[fokof]

hey 51m0n , I agree with you ,
When you're on tour with Tony Levin and have a PM1D or the like on the truck , and have a mix for every section of every song already made in pre production a month earlier in the practice room , there is no problem.
But when you're in a festival with 50 band , no sound check ,a Mackie board , you face less "problems" with a Pre & mike than a Post & mike.
I have encoutered so many situations where the musicians play with their sound not because the song ask for it but because they feel they can fix the FOH mix.

I'm with you 100% , but I always have a little smile when I'm on the board and a musician onstage tells me " cut lows on my guitar" and stuff.....

 

[dulouz]

What about bands that run sound from the stage without a sound tech? Anyone???

 

[JimmyM]

What about bands that run sound from the stage without a sound tech? Anyone???

You mean is pre or post better? Good question. I usually try to set it and forget it when I have to run sound from the stage. But I do like to be able to make corrections in my tone independent of the soundman when it's someone else. Sometimes you hop off the stage and you hear something going wrong, and it's nice to be post so you can correct it without bothering someone else trying to play, sing and run sound.

 

[51m0n]

hey 51m0n , I agree with you ,
When you're on tour with Tony Levin and have a PM1D or the like on the truck , and have a mix for every section of every song already made in pre production a month earlier in the practice room , there is no problem.
But when you're in a festival with 50 band , no sound check ,a Mackie board , you face less "problems" with a Pre & mike than a Post & mike.
I have encoutered so many situations where the musicians play with their sound not because the song ask for it but because they feel they can fix the FOH mix.

I'm with you 100% , but I always have a little smile when I'm on the board and a musician onstage tells me " cut lows on my guitar" and stuff.....

Oh I fully understand, I know that I'm referring to a somewhat perfect situation where a band & soundguy gets the time to do the soundcheck properly, but thats what we all need to aim towards.

I dont think you necessarily have to have snapshot mixes on a board for players to use more than one sound in a gig, I constantly change my technique and pickup balance and tone and fx throughout a gig to suit the song. As long as Mr FOH gets my loudest signal to set his levels with, and I explain what I will be doing I havent had an issue yet, and I have been complimented many times on how I make my tone fit (not in those words by punters but thats what they meant). It's really ot unreasonable, - after all it is expected og guitarists and keyboard players, and singers, why wouldn't you expect that of a bassist??

It does make me laugh when you get instruction regarding FOH from the stage though, I agree, especially in a bigger venue, the sound they are hearing has bounced around so much by the time it gets to them that its usually an echo of the last band on

If you are on a festival stage and you walk up to a bassist and he has a good quality mic already on his cab on a fixed position mount (seen these cant remember what its called thoug) and he says, can you use this and blend it, oh and I use xyz effects here's a DI point that captures this. Then IME you can tell the guy has some idea and its worth giving him the time of day.

Clearly if he tries to tell you how to mix his band you may have to politely ignore him due to the time limits, but if you're paid to do sound for this band, or a less demanding schedule (2 or 3 bands in a night and its at the soundcheck) then at least hear him out. I find in this case it helps if the players can give you something less specific, and more of a generalised "we are this genre and like to try and sound a bit like this album" if they are anywhere close to reality you can at least try and get the mix right in terms of balance.

As I said in my previous post there is no perfect solution, and the fifty band festival is one of the harder situations to mix. My worst to date was FOH sound at a hardcore/punk all dayer with 35 bands in under 10 hours, absolutely no way to do it other than have them share some backline and drum kit, turned out great though and everyone was happy - well until the riot broke out

 

[51m0n]

What about bands that run sound from the stage without a sound tech? Anyone???

I've spent most of my playing time in this exact situation.
Currently we run upto about a 5K rig from the stage.


Who is the best educated sound guy in the band? (usually me in my situation)

He needs to be able to get out front and hear what is going on (the joys of wireless).

Set up all the mics and do what you need to to control feedback (feedback destroyers or good old fashioned eqs). We just got a pair of dbx rackdrive units for all of this stuff (FOH & monitors), yet to try them out though but dayem they look cool

Get a vocal level - yup vox first IME since that is what drives the punters in fact.

Get the drums up and eq out any nasty frequencies - always go for removing the cr@p rather than boosting the good, it sounds better. If your mixer is on stage (ours is) then eqing takes a lot of experience. It can be done, but you have to know your stuff (headphones can help alot here especially if they are designed to block out external sounds, our drummer has some really hardocre ones which can really help). In terms of compression etc I sometimes use a little on the kick/snare since I know the drummer and his kit really well I can pretty much set it and forget it.

Get the bass up (mix as required, watch that the on stage signal isn't overwhelming everything else (sometimes you just have to live with a low stage signal - try moving the amp to the edge of the stage as a side fill if you are gettin a lot of issues with spill to FOH. I use a BP8 digitech unit, the coolest thing it has on it that I cant replace easily is a notch filter that can be set and forgot for a gig. You can deal with a lot of stage rumble/standing wave issues with that tool.

Get the guitars up such that they just sit in the mix with the bass & drums. Properly miced they are unlikey to really need much eq, but often guitarists like to have a very bright tone that can get right in the way of vocal clarity, dont be afraid to cut around 2-4KHz if that is the case (esp if using an SM58 for a guitar mic).

Keys last just to fill the sound (unless they are really into big horn stabs). We have a hammond/rhodes player so he does a bit more than fill out the sound, but its tricky not letting him overwhelm everyone - I find giving him a very loud stage monitor keeps him quieter in the FOH

Remember to set your gain structure based upon the very loudest sound an instrument can make - PA's can handle quieter signal fine, louder signal not so much!

If you did your job right then feedback should not have occured throughout the sound check, since you dealt with it at the beginning. Remember to not feedback when it is sung through a mic should not feed back when a hand is put over it - can really do surprising things that!

This takes a long time to master, especially with a board on the stage. It can be done though. I really recommend starting off with smaller vocal PA stuff and working up to this level over a period of time. Get a soundguy for the bigger stuff, but get to know him and hang out with him whilst he does the sound (wireless pack again) just dont get in his way.

Oh and I can soundcheck our band in 15 minutes. Not including the feedback bit, hopefully the dbx driveracks will make that quicker too!

 

[dulouz]

You mean is pre or post better?

Exactly. I run the sound in my band, and unfortunately I don't have wireless so someone else acts as my ear and helps make adjustments. I have been running POST with no problems. One night I went PRE and spent a bunch of time trying to get the EQ on the bass channel to sound like my amp. It just seemed easier to take my POST signal and plug into a channel on the board.

 

[Jerry Ziarko]

For me persanally, I think I get a great sound from my bass and my hands (I don't mean that in an arogent way), just stating that my amp does not create my sound just reproduces it.

My head and cabinet help to reproduce the sound I want to hear on stage in allot of cases it is a stage monitor and in other cases it provides FOH also depends on the gig.

I feel that my main head (Glock Heartrock) has a great DI that helps me get that sound of my hands and bass to the FOH.

After that it is in the hands of the engineer. Just like players an engineers skill many times is more important then the system they use, although a good system is always a nice bonus. I have never and will never go out front and give input on how he should do his job, but that's just me.

One group I play with we have our own PA which we use for corporate events and such, which I run and it's very nice. I leave my channel completely flat. If someone comments that it's to bassy or thin I will make slight adjustments accordingly but I think I have a pretty good handle on getting the right tone out of that equipment.

Well done! I could have written your post verbatim. For those that insist on post DI because it's their sound, what would happen to "your" sound if you let's say changed your cabinet from brand A to B or speaker size from X to Y? That is exactly what happens to "your" sound when playing through the FOH. It's apples and oranges so to speak. I say use a competent engineer, send him a clean signal, and let him do his job. That is what you are paying him for. Sometimes you have no choice, and it's a mess. Do you think sending a post DI signal would change that? I do not, but then again it's just my opinion. Telling the engineer how to do his job is like teaching a pig to sing. It doesn't work, and only annoys the pig.

 

[peterpalmieri]

Well done! I could have written your post verbatim. For those that insist on post DI because it's their sound, what would happen to "your" sound if you let's say changed your cabinet from brand A to B or speaker size from X to Y? That is exactly what happens to "your" sound when playing through the FOH. It's apples and oranges so to speak. I say use a competent engineer, send him a clean signal, and let him do his job. That is what you are paying him for. Sometimes you have no choice, and it's a mess. Do you think sending a post DI signal would change that? I do not, but then again it's just my opinion. Telling the engineer how to do his job is like teaching a pig to sing. It doesn't work, and only annoys the pig.

There is a real reason I have tried and sold equipment over the years. I think I've found a combination of bass, head and cabinet that need very little EQ, actually for the most part I bypass the EQ on my head and only engage it if I want a little bass boost for a modern tone. This is a big reason you'll see allot of experienced guys always searching for a bass, head, cab combo that is killer totally flat.

If we need to significantly EQ our head to get a good tone from the cabinet then what type of tone are we sending to the board if we go post? The answer is almost always one that suits your cabinet not the FOH.

In my case it doesn't matter if I go pre or post because I make few to no alterations to the EQ. I wasn't born that way but I've learned that it is the best way for ME to set and forget. Which allows me to focus on the music. I can't imagine everyone's specific situation but most situations I am in I need to focus on making good music, nailing the changes, utilizing dynamics and providing a solid foundation. There is no time I can wonder into the crowd with a wireless to make sure I approve a mix.

As an example if there is a backline provided (which I hate, I'd rather carry in my gear) typically a GK800RB and Ampeg 810 or SWR 410. I know I need to play with the head to get the sound I want that is not necessarily what I want to send to the house. In those cases I will bring my own DI, actually I carry one all the time just in case along with a mic (57) never know when someone me or someone else will need it.

There was also a time when I loved getting the Jaco tone I would solo the bridge PU and boost the bass on my head significantly. This never lent itself to a good signal going FOH, I would either send a thin DI signal with Bridge PU only or a mushy post EQ signal. I learned while it was cool it didn't work.

I think what everyone NEEDS to do is not complain about incompetence but rather spend the time and find what works for them and the others they are working with be that the engineer or other musicians. And always be flexible.

If you use effects (I don't) add a decent DI to your pedal board setup. If your relying on tube drive from your head buy a pre/DI that can take a poweramp out load or go out and buy a good mic and stand and know how to use it.

I'm not saying everyone should adopt my methods but rather be prepared to make the best of any situation.

 

[the low one]

If pre EQ is best, and I’m not disputing it, doesn’t that make the Sansamp, MXR M80 etc etc redundant as we should be using a straight DI which doesn’t color the signal? I’m starting to think that myself now, though I do like the MXR because I can use the clean channel to boost the level of my fretless to match my fretted bass, and a bit of distortion when needed.

 

[51m0n]

Exactly. I run the sound in my band, and unfortunately I don't have wireless so someone else acts as my ear and helps make adjustments. I have been running POST with no problems. One night I went PRE and spent a bunch of time trying to get the EQ on the bass channel to sound like my amp. It just seemed easier to take my POST signal and plug into a channel on the board.

Whatever works best for you.

Since you are running your own PA, and know how you want to sound.

Can anyone else play a few notes on your bass to give you a chance to hear what is going on FOH (I know this can be worse than not hearing if they have a very differnt attack etc)?

If you find post makes your life easier you ahve answered your question.

There are very few right and wrong rules to mixing other than do not plug a HOT (ie speaker) signal into something other than a speaker unless it is specifically designed to deal with it. Other than that if it works its pretty much right.

 

[Kindness]

I was at a venue last night that I hadn't played in four years. New group (bass, drums, guitar/vocal, violin), met one of the four members (violinist) for the first time last night about an hour before we took the stage. No sound check, just a quick line test - too many bands, too little time. The stage sound was horrible all night, I had to readjust myself several times (volume and EQ) to make sure I could hear myself well enough to maintain my intonation and also hear the violinist enough to adapt to her playing. Lots of pro musicians and reviewers in the crowd, many of which are friends that don't BS me when things sound bad in FOH. By all accounts the FOH mix sounded great from start to finish. This would not have been possible running post as every adjustment I needed to make would have had to have been compensated for in FOH. Do you think my tweaking the Timbre knob on my Tfunk is easily countered by a twist of a knob on the sound board? (Hint: it isn't)

 

[peterpalmieri]

If pre EQ is best, and I’m not disputing it, doesn’t that make the Sansamp, MXR M80 etc etc redundant as we should be using a straight DI which doesn’t color the signal? I’m starting to think that myself now, though I do like the MXR because I can use the clean channel to boost the level of my fretless to match my fretted bass, and a bit of distortion when needed.

I don't think the statement "pre EQ is best" is an accurate
statement. If a Sansamp is part of making your bass sound the way you want it to you want that in the chain. If however if any device like this is being used to correct the reproduction of your sound through an amp that is lacking something then you should not include it.

It's best to experiment on your own time if you have access to a PA or studio montiors and make sure you are sending a usable singal.

There are two issues I think soundmen won't like, first being a varying signal strength, especially spikes. The second being to much low end, when they have to cut your lows in the house it tends to reduce the clarity and punch in your tone.

 

[the low one]

I don't think the statement "pre EQ is best" is an accurate
statement. If a Sansamp is part of making your bass sound the way you want it to you want that in the chain. If however if any device like this is being used to correct the reproduction of your sound through an amp that is lacking something then you should not include it.

It's best to experiment on your own time if you have access to a PA or studio montiors and make sure you are sending a usable singal.

There are two issues I think soundmen won't like, first being a varying signal strength, especially spikes. The second being to much low end, when they have to cut your lows in the house it tends to reduce the clarity and punch in your tone.

The general consensus here seems to be pre EQ but reading Bass player and Bass Guitar Magazine the Sansamp in particular is very popular so it must be doing something right. Maybe it’s because the pro players using the Sansamp et al generally use experienced sound engineers they can trust.

 

[peterpalmieri]

The general consensus here seems to be pre EQ but reading Bass player and Bass Guitar Magazine the Sansamp in particular is very popular so it must be doing something right. Maybe it’s because the pro players using the Sansamp et al generally use experienced sound engineers they can trust.

I am pretty sure when others refer to "PRE EQ" they mean before the EQ on their amp not a specialized pedal that generates a certain tone they are looking for.

It's hard to look at "pros" depending on their level, because many of them have a seperate high end pre and/or rack to have seperate and different sound one for the stage and the other to reproduce their studio sound in the house. Or maybe they only use a high quality DI and use stage monitors.

 

[Vic Winters]

Pre/Post in the long run it doesn't matter. Most places have you so buried in the mix you'd never be able to tell anyway.

 

[SwamiRob]

Well done! I could have written your post verbatim. For those that insist on post DI because it's their sound, what would happen to "your" sound if you let's say changed your cabinet from brand A to B or speaker size from X to Y? That is exactly what happens to "your" sound when playing through the FOH. It's apples and oranges so to speak. I say use a competent engineer, send him a clean signal, and let him do his job. That is what you are paying him for. Sometimes you have no choice, and it's a mess. Do you think sending a post DI signal would change that? I do not, but then again it's just my opinion. Telling the engineer how to do his job is like teaching a pig to sing. It doesn't work, and only annoys the pig.

How much can you really imitate a stage sound (in the sense of taking the stage sound and amplifying it FOH so it has a similar effect) with 2 bands of semi-parametric EQ and maybe a compressor though?

Like I said before, I understand that the EQ section might mess things up in some situations, but I really don't see much reason to skip the pre-amp altogether.

 

[KJung]

The general consensus here seems to be pre EQ but reading Bass player and Bass Guitar Magazine the Sansamp in particular is very popular so it must be doing something right. Maybe it’s because the pro players using the Sansamp et al generally use experienced sound engineers they can trust.

IMO and IME, the guys using the Sansamp Bass DI are not using it as a 'post EQ' type signal, but more using it to emulate a distorted tube tone through a sealed cab in situations where you don't have, for example, the ability to mic up an SVT/Fridge rig.

It makes VERY little sense to send a post EQ'd signal from an amp that is EQ'd to make a bass cab sound good on stage. It makes no sense. However, if you like a distorted tone, that's not going to come through most amps' DI pre or post, and you are stuck with either mic'ing a cab, or using something like the Sansamp to 'emulate' that sort of tube amp/speaker cone break-up.

 

[JimmyM]

"Stuck" micing a cab, Ken?

Just kidding...I know your tonal goals are more suited to a DI.

 

[KJung]

"Stuck" micing a cab, Ken?

Just kidding...I know your tonal goals are more suited to a DI.

That came out wrong I meant that it is sometimes a hassle to get a sound company to mic a bass cab, and it would be a drag to dig that tone and be 'stuck' using a 'transparent' DI. The Sansamp thing is a pretty good safety 'fallback' if that's the tone you like, but you have to rely on provided backline that might or might not be the amp/cab combination you want to get a grindy or aggressive tone.