Direct Out - pre or post eq?

[JerBo]

Yes, but...

I have done a large number of live radio/TV shows on upright for which I could hear the sound guys work from the video recordings afterward. There are worse things than bad EQ.

IMHO, a good pre-amp to ward off piezo-honk from my Gage Realist was always worth it. However, I didn't do anything other than try to get the flat tone. When I asked, the sound guy "forbade" me from using a pre-amp, but often he didn't actually notice.

When he did notice, I sent the Realist piezo straight to my countryman type 85, which worked OK, but I liked the SansAmp ParaDI better for piezo-equipped upright--again based on the taped result. It's not about the EQ, it was about having something other than a hollow honk or muddy thud from that sound guy's ideology.

oooh, yes...

The only time I've done a radio set with an upright they just had a mic in the room.

I've learned as well not to ask...haha
I usually just say, Hey man, got a DI out for you ready to go
It USUALLY works.

 

[JimmyM]

did you ever pause to wonder if he might have had a reason??

A reason for cutting what i consider the most important frequencies for bass out of all of them? at the most i will flatten it out if the soundman thinks i'm overwhelming the mix with too much in that area. but i would never in a million years cut those freqs. i want them emphasized, and a soundman who would tell me to cut them is not a soundman i want to ever work with, because it just shows me he's trying to force his tonal ideals on me, and that is just not happening.

 

[electracoyote]

My sound man prefers I send him a post EQ signal, and he leaves my channel flat. He says it sounds better than him trying to shape my tone with his channel EQ.

However, as some have said, your sound man may prefer a flat signal so HE can control your EQ and have more control over the FOH mix.

Best answer: Experiment and trust your sound man. He's out there, and you're not.

 

[JimmyM]

Well, we can only work on one thing at a time. In no-sound-check situations, the first 5-10 seconds is getting a rough mix. Then making sure the vocals are clear, then the kick/snare/guitar (again, I mostly do metal), then dialing in the bass. After that it's fine-tuning time. Also, a good sound man will have this all done halfway into the first song; it's not like we're talking 3/4 of the set.

well that i can relate to. if there's no soundcheck, you do have to make the first song a soundcheck basically. that can't be helped.

but let's face it...there is a soundman mentality out there that gives real short shrift to the bass. many soundmen will spend all the time in the world getting a good bass drum/snare drum sound or a good guitar sound and spend 3 seconds on bass. of course, i believe it shouldn't take forever to get a good bass sound, either, but it does make me glad i retain some control over what's going in the pa. if i hop offstage and it sucks, at least i can fix it until he makes it suck again

 

[Tim C.]

did you ever pause to wonder if he might have had a reason??

The reason is that he was an idiot.

I play very bright strings on a graphite-necked bass, and have a very informed idea of what EQ is needed to make it sound the best with a band mix through any halfway decent PA*. I have a very high-end and well respected EQ unit in my system, and am more than happy to work with the sound guy to make my bass sound the best. But what is going to work better - my TC 1128, or his three-knob channel mixer?

...Should we vote on that one? I have my settings, and if he wants something more or less, I can program it in without the slightest hassle and am more than happy to do it, with respect to my desired tone. Thus, post-EQ.

*If the PA system sucks, then Pre or Post-EQ, it is not going to sound good regardless. And that's a fact.

 

[KJung]

for newbies, i recommend pre. for more experienced players, i think post is perfectly fine. for guys like me who know exactly what they want and have the clout to get it, do whatever you want and make the soundman deal with it

I'd say just the opposite here. It's usually the newbies who think that the EQ and tone generated by the preamp in order to make the bass sound good through a typical bass guitar speaker cabinet will somehow 'give them their sound' when that signal is fed to a totally, completely differently voiced front of house system

Mic'ing makes total sense IMO if you are one who really uses your backline amp as part of your 'signal coloring'. However, post EQ rarely makes sense. I agree if you run your amp virtually flat, it is a bit of a moot point. However, in that case, I'd go pre just so any little 'during the gig' tweaks you make to your stage sound doesn't mess with FOH.

Of course, a great soundperson can work with virtually any signal. I just try to not complicate their life.

 

[JimmyM]

I'd say just the opposite here. It's usually the newbies who think that the EQ and tone generated by the preamp in order to make the bass sound good through a typical bass guitar speaker cabinet will somehow 'give them their sound' when that signal is fed to a totally, completely differently voiced front of house system

i'm confused here. in that situation, you WOULD recommend they go post-eq? that's the whole reason i recommend they go pre-eq? because they DON'T know enough to not do that.

Mic'ing makes total sense IMO if you are one who really uses your backline amp as part of your 'signal coloring'. However, post EQ rarely makes sense. I agree if you run your amp virtually flat, it is a bit of a moot point. However, in that case, I'd go pre just so any little 'during the gig' tweaks you make to your stage sound doesn't mess with FOH.

there's been times i would agree. like if i get a crappy amp that requires a lot of drastic eq to get what i want, then i'd agree. but not on my stuff. i know my stuff, and i know what it delivers to foh in relation to my amp.

Of course, a great soundperson can work with virtually any signal. I just try to not complicate their life.

i am so over trying to not complicate their life. why should my life be complicated and not theirs when they almost always make a buttload more money than i do? it's not that i go out of my to do it, but if something i'm doing complicates their life a little, i couldn't care less. for example, if i mic my amp and i feel like i need to turn up some, i'll turn up. i think for the money most soundmen get on my gigs, they can put forth the effort to turn my fader down as they sit in a comfy chair while i'm up there busting my balls.

 

[KJung]

i'm confused here. in that situation, you WOULD recommend they go post-eq? that's the whole reason i recommend they go pre-eq? because they DON'T know enough to not do that.

No, my point was that pre EQ or mic'ing seem like reasonable options to me. A post EQ signal would seem to rarely help anything in my book, since the idea that any EQ applied to make a bass backline speaker sound good would more likely than not work against a good front of house sound through a very differently voiced, full range system. This is especially true since (and I agree with you here) most sound persons would not dedicate lots of 'extra' EQ power from their effects racks to the bass guitar channel, and most EQ, even on relatively high end channel strips, is not voiced to muscle a highly EQ'd bass signal back into shape.

IMO and IME. Again, totally agree that if, like you, a player is using old school tube gear with a sealed, one way cab (or something of the sort) that results in the rig putting a lot of voicing into your tone, a mic is the way to go, since much of that tone is the interaction between the head and the cabinet.

However, if you are one like me that likes it totally clean, and uses a relatively full range cabinet with a tweeter, etc., the highest probability of that tone coming out of the front of house system is with a good, clean, pre everything DI.

Again, IMO and IME. I get the mic'ing thing... don't get the 'post EQ DI to send my sound to the board' thing at all.

 

[JimmyM]

Again, IMO and IME. I get the mic'ing thing... don't get the 'post EQ DI to send my sound to the board' thing at all.

two scenarios where i think you would get it:

1. you're using a preamp or head that you really love the sound of that gets defeated if you run pre. this was especially important for me when i was running a speaker di from my ampegs last year. it was also important when i was running an svt 3 pro and a sm-500 before i went back to all-tube amps.

2. you step offstage to rock for the crowd and you hear a bass sound in the foh that you think is causing your sound to suffer. had that going on at yesterday's gig, as a matter of fact. i thought my bass sound was way too boomy when i heard it in the audience. with pre-eq, you're stuck with it. with post, you can at least fix it until the soundman realizes you fixed it and he unfixes it again

 

[KJung]

two scenarios where i think you would get it:

1. you're using a preamp or head that you really love the sound of that gets defeated if you run pre. this was especially important for me when i was running a speaker di from my ampegs last year. it was also important when i was running an svt 3 pro and a sm-500 before i went back to all-tube amps.

2. you step offstage to rock for the crowd and you hear a bass sound in the foh that you think is causing your sound to suffer. had that going on at yesterday's gig, as a matter of fact. i thought my bass sound was way too boomy when i heard it in the audience. with pre-eq, you're stuck with it. with post, you can at least fix it until the soundman realizes you fixed it and he unfixes it again

Your 'speaker DI' example makes total sense, since that will get the full tube thing into the house.... I get that.

For number 2, I would again think (as you allude to) that if you try to 'fix' your sound from stage, that would just aggrevate the front of house person, who would not find that a positive and probably adjust the tone back anyway!

 

[bwoodman]

Maybe I missed something, but what about when you're running a pedal board thru your effects loop - go post eq, no?

 

[gillento]

In 9 of 10 cases, this is exactly right. The EQ applied to a bass cab on stage is typically quite different from what is needed front of house.

So +1. I've never run a post EQ DI in 30 years of playing. However, I do not use effects and like a clean tone. Many mic up a cab when their rig is a large part of their tone (like an SVT pushed to grind, etc.).

+1000

 

[gillento]

Maybe I missed something, but what about when you're running a pedal board thru your effects loop - go post eq, no?

That is why I run my board pre-amp

 

[Lowest End]

well that i can relate to. if there's no soundcheck, you do have to make the first song a soundcheck basically. that can't be helped.

but let's face it...there is a soundman mentality out there that gives real short shrift to the bass. many soundmen will spend all the time in the world getting a good bass drum/snare drum sound or a good guitar sound and spend 3 seconds on bass. of course, i believe it shouldn't take forever to get a good bass sound, either, but it does make me glad i retain some control over what's going in the pa. if i hop offstage and it sucks, at least i can fix it until he makes it suck again

Oh you're absolutely right. When there's a proper sound check, the bass should have attention paid to it like any other instrument. Like I said, I was mainly speaking of "line check and that's it" situations.

 

[georgestrings]

Again, IMO and IME. I get the mic'ing thing... don't get the 'post EQ DI to send my sound to the board' thing at all.

In my particular case, after A/B'ing my 700rb-II's DI sends thru several PA's, I've come to the conclusion that my amp's preamp adds something to my DI send that I prefer - and not surprisingly, the soundmen I tried this experiment with agreed... I also assured them that I wouldn't be turning knobs all nite that affected the mix, and they didn't have a problem giving it a shot... Now, I just go post-EQ without saying anything - and if they ask, I tell them how I plan to go about it - and they're *usually* OK with that approach...

Being able to check into something like this is surely one of the biggest benefits of having a wireless, IMO - I can actually get out in front and hear what I sound like out there...

 

[Edword]

Maybe I missed something, but what about when you're running a pedal board thru your effects loop - go post eq, no?

I should've noted in my first post that I run no effects.

Thanks to all for your opinions!

 

[ThunderousFunk]

Being able to check into something like this is surely one of the biggest benefits of having a wireless, IMO - I can actually get out in front and hear what I sound like out there...

Sounds like a previous post.

 

[Fuzzbass]

Again, IMO and IME. I get the mic'ing thing... don't get the 'post EQ DI to send my sound to the board' thing at all.

Just last weekend, the soundman asked me to give him whichever DI was farthest down my signal chain. I said my power amp had a parallel out, and he said that was perfect. It was a big club system, he and his crew knew what they were doing, and our regular fans raved about the sound. This was my power trio, so it's not like I was buried in the mix.

I never bothered to ask why he prefers not to mic the cab, but there are a number of possible reasons and ultimately it doesn't matter to me. It occurred to me that my DI signal may have been too bright because my Berg NV610 has no tweeter, but whatever, a pro can deal with it, or speak up if necessary.



Anyway: the big negative I see with post EQ is that tweaking EQ and/or gain during the show will affect the FOH mix, and I believe that THIS is the primary reason why soundmen prefer pre EQ. That aside, I think there's too much concern about the purity of the signal sent to FOH: that a tone that sounds great through a bass cab will somehow sound like crap through FOH. The soundman can always adjust, in the same way he will adjust a pre-EQ signal.

 

[gregoire1]

If I'm playing a gig with a soundman, I'd be so grateful to have a soundman, I'd let him play the bass if he asked.

 

[4-string]

Anyway: the big negative I see with post EQ is that tweaking EQ and/or gain during the show will affect the FOH mix, and I believe that THIS is the primary reason why soundmen prefer pre EQ.

Evidently, this doesn't apply to guitarists. Or keyboard players for that matter. Why is it so important that the bass tone stays the same?

It could very well be one reason why so many soundmen prefer a pre-EQ signal, but I suspect some experience with "bedroom tone" players has as much to do with it.

All I'm asking is to give it a try, and give me more than 17 seconds to set my tone (for the night....). If it doesn't work, fine, just don't make up your mind before I plug my bass in.