When you guys connect your line out on your amp to the sound system, do you like to send the signal pre or post EQ, and why?
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.
EQ going to the sound system
- Thread starter NevadaNed
- Start date
My understanding is that sound techs prefer a clean signal with no EQ. I know I do when I’m mixing. Your EQ is likely tailored for your stage rig to your liking. That EQ won’t necessarily be what works best for the overall mix.
Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt
Pedulla Club #45 Unique Arrangements of Hymns, P&W Standards, and Original Tunes
Administrator, Official Tobias Club #133
Administrator, Fretless Club #943
Big Cabs Club #23
My Basses
My Rig: Stage and FOH Friendly
Pedulla Club #45
Regards,
Wayne A. Pflughaupt
Pedulla Club #45 Unique Arrangements of Hymns, P&W Standards, and Original Tunes
Administrator, Official Tobias Club #133
Administrator, Fretless Club #943
Big Cabs Club #23
My Basses
My Rig: Stage and FOH Friendly
Pedulla Club #45
I'm the "Sound Tech" (half-ass PA guy) for the band, so when I do put myself in the PA (typically not indoors) I send post-EQ,
but my tone is pretty clean, never boomy, probably nothing a real Sound Tech would have a problem with.
Edit to add: I keep it consistent all night, no changes to speak of.
but my tone is pretty clean, never boomy, probably nothing a real Sound Tech would have a problem with.
Edit to add: I keep it consistent all night, no changes to speak of.
Last edited:
I agree, most audio techs prefer pre. There are exceptions where post would be a better choice. For example if your sound involves pushing your preamp into grind territory.
My philosophy is the sound should be processed separately for different uses and locations. Your monitoring needs on stage are often different than is required for audience's listening need in the house. Also the acoustics on stage may be significantly different than the house.
The other really big factor is you bass cab probably will not have the same frequency response and voicing as the PA cabs. So the EQ curve you use to get a sound on stage will sound drastically different going through the PA.
IMHO let the audio tech do his/her job. If you don't like the way they mix, have a conversation. If they are unwilling or unable to produce a mix that satisfies the band, hire someone else.
Keep in mind that there may be disagreement between band members on how the band should sound. If the band members do not agree, then the audio tech cannot satisfy everyone.
This is why I like a stage speaker cabinet that is as near to flat as possible (with the assumption that the PA speakers are flat.) That way I can EQ to sound how I want to on stage and know that (in theory) the sound I hear on stage and send out will be the same as what comes out of the PA without much tweaking. I know there are a lot of assumptions in this, but I feel it is good in theory.
Using a flat response bass cab definitely reduces the difference. But if you try running sound, I think you will find that frequently it's not as close as you might think.
There's no rules. I'm also a sound person. I'd prefer a nice bass tone with all of your effects, and amp sim if there's any.
That being said, many sound engineers will ask you to send a pre-EQ DI signal. That's because:
A) bass players like to mess with their settings during a gig,
and/or
B) their settings are useless (too boomy, too hallow, too noisy, too quiet, too loud, etc.)
if you do any of the above, then leave it clean for the sound person. If you know what you're doing, send a post-EQ DI.
That being said, many sound engineers will ask you to send a pre-EQ DI signal. That's because:
A) bass players like to mess with their settings during a gig,
and/or
B) their settings are useless (too boomy, too hallow, too noisy, too quiet, too loud, etc.)
if you do any of the above, then leave it clean for the sound person. If you know what you're doing, send a post-EQ DI.
Last edited:
As others have noted, if someone else is running FOH, send them a pre-EQ line and let them what they need to do. If you or a bandmate is running FOH from the stage, then you may find it helpful to send your post-processed sound to FOH. If you do this, try to play through the PA alone and shape your tone through that rather than through your amp/cab so your audience gets the sound you want them to hear.
IMHO Effects should definitely be captured in the FOH feed. As a player when you send effects and post EQ, you shouldn't consider your sound sacred IMHO. You need to be willing and ready to make reasonable compromise. You may have an effect that sounds fabulous on stage, but it's way too wet for the house mix. Or you may have a huge low end that sounds and feels great 3' from you rig, but sounds like an incoherent muddy mess beyond 8'. Sometimes compromise means reducing the amount of degradation, rather than making the bass sound better. Nobody wants the bass to sound bad IMHO.
One way around working compromises with the audio tech is for them to take both pre and post signals. That way if you effects are too wet or if you tone is not contoured well for house use, they have an unprocessed signal they can mix in.
In generally I would typically prefer mic'ing a cab over post EQ. A speaker SIM or IR Loader could be useful for post EQ especially if it authentically represents your stage sound. If it does not represent your sound, it may make the audio tech's job harder.
Last edited:
True. Here's what I do which is the best of both worlds IMHO, and I always get compliments from sound persons:
Bass > FX > DI w/ amp sim > FOH
I take the bypassed out of the DI to the amp. I do not mess with any of the settings on my bass, FX, or the amp sim. If I need any tone changes, I adjust the amp as my monitor. I've fine tuned my effects and amp sim. When they sound good in the headphones, and if they tuned the PA for the venue, then you should get a solid bass sound from the FOH, and the sound persons will thank you.
Last edited:
Ask the sound engineer. For me it really depends and there are lots of variables at play.
The most consistent rule of thumb is the larger the place, the more likely I will send a pre line out.
But of course I always defer to what the sound engr wants if they have an opinion.
The most consistent rule of thumb is the larger the place, the more likely I will send a pre line out.
But of course I always defer to what the sound engr wants if they have an opinion.
Pre effects always. The sound guy's job is to mix the house for the paying customers. Sending a modified signal can make the job more difficult. I always send a flat signal, volume and tone all the way up on Fender basses.
s0c9
Supporting Member
Mine is PRE. And I prefer it when mixing.
The problem I have with a POST setting on the amp DI is that every tweak the bassist makes during their set now goes to FOH. That also includes volume on many amps.
I have more (I won’t say “better”) things to do than re-adjust FOH every time the bassist makes a change.
The problem I have with a POST setting on the amp DI is that every tweak the bassist makes during their set now goes to FOH. That also includes volume on many amps.
I have more (I won’t say “better”) things to do than re-adjust FOH every time the bassist makes a change.
Last edited:
Pre. What sounds good going to the cab may not sound good going to the mains.
All my gigs are ampless. My "amp" is a pedalboard. Sort of - you can also think of it as me playing an active bass, but the preamp is on my pedalboard. What I send has an EQ on it (which is different for each bass), but the amount of EQ that's on there is less than you'd get boing through a tone stack in an amplifier, with one exception - one of my basses is Stingray-esque - one pickup similar location, and there is more eq on that bass, becaause....just like a Stingray, the thing needs a fair amount of eq to sound right (the eq in a Sting Ray, when the tone controls are at center detents, is NOT flat, or even close).
Anyway, it works. I do church gigs, and have played at a dozen locations, with a few dozen sound engineers. I get compliments on how my bass sounds; noone has ever asked for a signal pre-eq.
Anyway, it works. I do church gigs, and have played at a dozen locations, with a few dozen sound engineers. I get compliments on how my bass sounds; noone has ever asked for a signal pre-eq.
IMHO running ampless is a good reason to use a preamp/DI and send a post EQ DI. This gives the player the ability to dial in their own sound, rather than trying to talk the audio tech through it.
Also, IMHO the channel strip on the mixer will only have one EQ section, and IMHO it should be used to dial the bass in for the house mix. Also, the monitor sends on some mixers may be configured pre-EQ. So the audio tech's EQ adjustments don't effect the monitor mixes.
There are ways around this of course. Some digital boards can be setup so you have the channels duplicated across different fader levels. For example, I have mixed on Yamaha LS-9 32s that used fader level A (1-32) for front of house and fader level B (33-64) for monitors. Channels 1-32 were dual assigned to channels 33-64. I.E. channel 1 and channel 33 shared input 1, channel 2 and channel 34 shared input 2, etc. With this configuration you have one set of dynamics and EQ for front of house, and another set of dynamics and EQ for the monitor mixes.
While this configuration is very useful, I found it somewhat confusing and labor intensive. I would only recommend it for bands that always use the same system and audio tech. The groups I worked with used the same mixer for rehearsals and performances. They had a real drum set but use IEMs and not stage amps.
summary-sound guys are generally lazy with bass
The best sound guy I worked with had me send post and actually mic’d the cab. He used a mix of the two signals.
Where I run into problems is that amp di’s in general sound nothing like “your tone” or your amps tone regardless if it’s pre or post. This is unique to bassist because typically everything else on stage is mic’d.
My preference in a small/medium room is to crank the cab up on stage and let the sound guy mix in my stage with foh and just use my cab as a monitor. My other go to is to run a cab sim di so that what goes to the front comes back to my ears the same way and actually sounds like a mic’d cab.
I’ve never had a complaint from a sound guy with either of those two ways.
The best sound guy I worked with had me send post and actually mic’d the cab. He used a mix of the two signals.
Where I run into problems is that amp di’s in general sound nothing like “your tone” or your amps tone regardless if it’s pre or post. This is unique to bassist because typically everything else on stage is mic’d.
My preference in a small/medium room is to crank the cab up on stage and let the sound guy mix in my stage with foh and just use my cab as a monitor. My other go to is to run a cab sim di so that what goes to the front comes back to my ears the same way and actually sounds like a mic’d cab.
I’ve never had a complaint from a sound guy with either of those two ways.
JeezyMcNuggles
Inactive
- Feb 23, 2018
- 14,723
- 20,970
- Disclosures
- I suck, but nobody really notices
The reality is getting a good bass sound live ranges from difficult to impossible. So part of it is prioritizing work to focus on things the audio tech can actually control, and, if possible, avoiding extra work that tends to be unproductive.
Say an audio tech spends a considerable amount of time tweaking the bass and finally get's it to be tolerable. Then the bass player reaches to the amp and makes a change. Now all of that work may be invalidated. Maybe the audio tech can compensate and maybe not. Often there are more important things to worry about that the audio tech can easily fix, rather than wasting a lot of time on something that may be impossible to fix.
A lot of bass players hold up the fact that guitar is usually mic'ed; so when a guitar player tweaks the amp it cause the same type of problems. The difference is guitar is a lot easier to dial in to the mix than bass. So if the guitar player makes a change, the audio tech can usually make a few quick tweaks and massage the signal back into an acceptable range.
You would probably be surprised how often I have to pull the bass completely out of the house mix. This is because frequently there is so much bass coming off the stage that I can't exert any control over it without running the mix super loud. If it comes down to blowing out the house so the bass sounds good, or running the mix at an appropriate volume, sorry but the bass is going to sound bad.
To be fair this problem is not always because the bass amp is too loud. Often the problem is because everyone wants too much bass in their monitor. There have been many times when a group leader came out into the house to check the mix and did not like the bass. After I demonstrate that the monitors are the problem and give them a choice, they almost always choose to keep the bass in monitors and let the bass sound bad in the house.
