Do you run two DI’s in parallel?

[Zbysek]

two different DI pedals, I'm probably just gonna use whichever one I think sounds best and mute the other channel,

That's always a possibility. And you, as a sound tech, can make that choice because you were provided with two signals, to begin with. You wouldn't have that choice if you were presented with single blended signal.

Btw, our sound tech mentioned two reasons why he loves my two channel (crossed-over) setup:

1. he can use a fader when he wants to push or attenuate either lows or mids/highs without a need to touch EQ
2. he uses different compressor settings for each channel.

Some of it is/may be applicable to the discussed setup (scooped - mids), IMO.

 

[FugaziBomb]

he can use a fader when he wants to push or attenuate either lows or mids/highs without a need to touch EQ

That makes more sense than sending a signal that has no mids and another that's all mids.

 

[Zbysek]

That makes more sense than sending a signal that has no mids and another that's all mids.

Fair enough.

But the second point about different compressor settings might still be valid, IMO. When the player combines heavily ovedriven mid-forward signal (e.g. tube screamer) with a clean signal, it would make sense to apply more compression to the clean signal and less/no compression to the drive signal...since it is already compressed as a byproduct of the overdrive...

 

[JimmyM]

Sorry, but when I was playing with the oldies shows, we got too many sound techs who mixed us like we were playing EDM. So I micromanaged my signal and did everything I could to prevent it. And if I step on an effect pedal, there’s a reason for it, and I don’t want it bypassed. I want it heard.

Mix within those parameters, and I will happily cooperate and listen. Otherwise I will say something, and that something is usually “The bass is too loud and too boomy.”

I admit I’m an anomaly these days. That’s why I’m pretty much retired from live work. That and the long drives/low pay. And being old isn’t helping. But what I do is always for the good of the band, and almost never to position myself as the standout player. That just happens naturally

 

[agedhorse]

Even beyond fully 180-degree polarity and latency, there are frequency-dependent phase issues if you are blending two different examples of the same signal run through signal chains (amps, preamps, etc) with different EQ topologies and different settings- so maybe the bulk of the signal might be roughly phase-coherent when testing using a 180-degree phase-reverse test, but certain EQ topologies and settings might be manipulating the phase at only certain frequency bands that can result in funky cancellations (not necessarily bad subjectively, but also not easy to diagnose or fix) since EQ usually works by shifting phase in affected frequency regions.

Here's a pretty cool demo of this behavior that would be relevant pretty much anytime you are mixing two or more examples of the same source material run through different signal paths:

Personally I've found full-frequency parallel paths to be a pain to reconcile in the studio a number of times (trying to blend a clean signal with an "amp" type signal from a preamp or other chain, or blending two different amp or amp-sim signals for example and getting some strange holes in the midrange or other issues not present in either of the individual signals), to the point that I'd probably never trust it in a live environment without my own sound-person and lots of prior troubleshooting (and honestly I'm not convinced that it adds enough benefit in most cases). Biamping or crossover mixing is a different story though, as the two signals don't share as much of the same material to get cancelled out (still something that I wouldn't necessarily trust a typical soundperson to mix live, and would send a single line mix from my end if I was going to use that kind of signal split).

This is exactly why the two channels on the TT-800 are only switched not mixable. Most attempts at mixing such dissimilar voicings resulted in a worse, so the feature was dropped. On the ShuttleMax series however, the voicings were similar enough that mixing the two channels was included as a feature.

 

[Ryan in PDX]

I don't need a mid channel and a scoop channel. That's dumb. Wet/dry for effects, no prob. Even a dude coming with a biamp set up, sure why not. Other than that, if you're trying to get me to run stereo EQs or two different DI pedals, I'm probably just gonna use whichever one I think sounds best and mute the other channel, if I even bother to run it at all. I'll be honest, you've gotta have a pretty good reason to come at me with some esoteric signal routing for your 45 minute set, otherwise I'm just going to do whatever makes my job easiest.

Edit: seriously, let me just take a tap right from the output of your bass and I'll make it sound great. That's my attitude towards the whole DI thing

"Sound crews HATE this 1 weird trick!!!"

Seriously, 100% truth bombs from @FugaziBomb, folks.

Thankfully, most of the bassists I encountered in my stint running sound were very easy to work with, and had more common sense than ego.

 

[_Some Dude]

In my understanding, the concept is inspired by Geddy Lee and his GED-2112 and DI-2112 signature preamps from Tech 21.

I don't think Geddy is insane.

Edit: Have a look at sample settings in the manual. In "YYZ Jazz bass style" settings the drive channel features significant mid boost. On the other hand, the Deep channel is scooped and only slightly saturated. So Geddy sends to FOH one channel distorted and mids heavy..and another channel scooped and only slightly saturated... That's what Azari is trying to achieve, I think...

https://www.tech21nyc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Geddy_DI_2112_OM2_MixDrive_Update.pdf

With the caveat that I've never tried a 2112, the demos I've heard the deep isn't scooped. Probably massaged a little, but not scooped.

The BDDI is the same thing. The clean is affected by the EQ, but it's relatively subtle compared to curve baked into the drive. So far as I know, Tech21 did this so that the two channels remain more phase coherent when blended.

As for whether any of these ideas are good ideas or not, I think it depends on who's paying the soundman.

If I'm paying him, we'll have an adult conversation try a few things, and he'll give me all the time and channels I'm paying for, and he'll accurately tell me if what I'm doing actually sounds good or not.

If someone else is paying him, I show up prepared to get one channel and use something I know will produce good results.

 

[Zbysek]

the deep isn't scooped. Probably massaged a little, but not scooped..

To my ears, there is some scoop going on on the Deep channel.

According to AI: "Upper-Mid (500 Hz - 2 kHz): This section is generally rolled off or scooped compared to the Drive channel, allowing the aggressive upper-mids of the Drive channel to sit comfortably on top without frequency clashing."

Edit: AI also claims there is a boost at 400Hz...

 

[agedhorse]

As a suggestion, getting in the way of a sound guy trying to do their best is usually counterproductive IME. When an entire band micromanages, the price goes up and unfortunately the quality of the mix usually suffered. Not a great equation for success in any entertainment enterprise.

There have been sound gigs I have turned down because the hassle factor wasn’t worth any price…

 

[Barghest]

My two pence, I prefer two separate signals if you're doing a clean/dirty blend. I can mix your clean to be the typical bass, and push your dirty to step into that rhythm guitar space if you don't already have one. If you're trying to send me two clean signals, why bother?