• 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.

Mic v. DI

Mic or DI?

  • Mic'd cab

    Votes: 57 32.0%

  • DI

    Votes: 94 52.8%

  • Neither, just use an ungodly amount of watts.

    Votes: 12 6.7%

  • Carrots...

    Votes: 15 8.4%
  • Total voters
    178
#41
mbrain said:
I've always been a di guy (mostly out of the back of my Eden), but some of the microphone guys have got me thinking--has anyone used a DI post amp (i.e., in parallel with the cabinet)?

I know the countryman (among others) will do this, and it would give you the sound of your head (but not the color added by the cabinet). I've had an opportunity to do this before, but it never occurred to me. Any real-life experience? Anyone?
Click to expand...
I've done it with a B-15 head and an H&K Red Box Classic. Best DI sound I ever had. Sounded very much like a REDDI. An all-tube design is the best candidate for it. Really doesn't make a difference in solid state or hybrid amps unless they have an output transformer. Maybe an Aggie DB 750 or a Warwick Hellborg would be a good candidate for it. Otherwise, post-preamp is about as good as it gets.
 
#42
The Golden Boy said:
I guess I don't understand why anyone would expend the effort, thought and expense in choosing an amp and cabinet that suits what sound they're looking for- spend the time and effort in setting up the EQ and then completely bypass it.
Click to expand...

Because that EQ this supposed effort has centered around is for that cab that suits that sound - and NOT at all was it massaged for for the PA which almost certainly has a different tonal profile? Which Mr Bassplayer hasn't spent an iota of time EQIng for, or listening in an actual position that its output is intended for in the context of a band mix?

Or are you talking about bypassing one's local EQ, and not particularly about using pre-EQ DI?
 
#43
greenboy said:
Because that EQ this supposed effort has centered around is for that cab that suits that sound - and NOT at all was it massaged for for the PA which almost certainly has a different tonal profile? Which Mr Bassplayer hasn't spent an iota of time EQIng for, or listening in an actual position that its output is intended for in the context of a band mix?
Click to expand...
That's where a concept called "knowing what you're doing" comes into play. I know what I'm doing and I consider it an insult if a soundman thinks I'm not to be trusted with being able to control what he gets from me. I have to work with a ton of different soundmen in the course of a year, and there are very few that I trust to get the sound I want in the house, so I don't allow them access to those freqs if I can help it. And if they insist on running me DI, my VT Bass pedal runs interference.

OTOH, my bass tone no matter what I do is always mix-friendly. I don't go boosting 40 hz all the way up in a 410HLF, nor do I make big changes in the EQ during the gig. So the bass player has to be responsible if he/she insists on a post-EQ DI.
 
#44
how about when sound dude tries to soundcheck me when i just get plugged in and letting my tubes warm up still on standby. soundguy runs to stage with his crap DI and plugs into my bass and exclaims he's getting nothing but noise. i try to tell him my master was down, on standby. he doesnt listen. I LIKE my amp to color my sound. that is why i have a 400+. Really pisses me off when i mute and tune with my rackmount and im running through the PA still.
From now on, im bringing an attenuator for the morons that dont realize the tube monster puts out a 2 volt DI signal, as well as my own mic, never again to be DI'd from my jazz bass. too sterile, and i like compression.
 
#45
JimmyM said:
That's where a concept called "knowing what you're doing" comes into play.{...}
Click to expand...

You mean, like understanding what the other person was saying? ; } ...I wasn't saying anything about mic vs DI whatsoever. I can deal with either and both. I like either and both. I was talking about pre-EQ DI versus post-EQ DI - where again, a lot of bass players think their EQ is some special formula that not only needs to feed their stage mix, but also feed FOH.

So often wrong wrong wrong (not always but way often). But I usually just let them have their way, then do my best with the signal they've got coming to me - though I'm often countering their EQ habits just to not sound too boomy, or too shrill, or to get all registers of the bass sounding good (and even) and not strong in one area and weak in another... really just trying to make it sound like their rig, idealized in a mix.

A lot of the guys who have the most 'tude actually know or understand the least, but hey, it's a competitive world out there - someone else does have it figured out and best of luck to all ; }
 
#46
I hear you Greenie. I think your approach is the best way to do it. For better or worse, the bassist may have reasons for wanting a sound, and it could alter the band's whole feel if you go radically changing it. I'm sure soundmen in the 60's and 70's argued with Chris Squire and Geddy Lee, and I know they argued with Entwistle. But some bassists just plain don't know what they're doing. How do you tell the difference? ;)
 
#48
Mike H said:
DI post EQ.

Mike Harrison
Link Removed
~ 1961/66 fretless Fender Precision ~ 2003 G&L L-2500T
~ 2005 Michael Kelly 5-String Fretless Acoustic Electric
~ Markbass Little Mark II ~ Bergantino AE112
~ BOSS ME-50B Multi FX
Click to expand...

This is usually a BAD idea, unless you really pretty much run your amp flat. The idea that the EQ settings that you use to make your small backline bass cab sound good to you will 'help' the much differently voiced front of house PA is usually wrong.
 
#49
The Golden Boy said:
I guess I don't understand why anyone would expend the effort, thought and expense in choosing an amp and cabinet that suits what sound they're looking for- spend the time and effort in setting up the EQ and then completely bypass it.
Click to expand...

What if you choose an amp and cab and EQ to mimic, as close as you can, a nice, big, clean front of house sound?:smug:
 
#50
sonic assassin said:
ridiculous. bass needs the same treatment a guitar does.

and the amp IS the tone.

this holier than thou/tonal purity/hi-fi movement is really starting to piss me off..
Click to expand...

:confused: If you read my first post, the idea that one approach is 'better than the other' is silly. There are two separate schools of thought here, and both are equally valid. If you are one, like me, who LOVES the sound of his/her bass plugged directly into a nice high end mixing console through studio monitors, then you are MUCH more likely to get that sound by using a high quality, pure DI (like a Radial JDI) right into the front of house.

If, on the other hand, you love the warmth and tone and color that, for example, an old Ampeg rig provides, then of course, the best way to get that sound to the board is by using a mic.

There's no 'right or wrong', but the idea of even asking 'which is best' is a bit silly, since both are totally legit and representative of different approaches to tone and tone goals.

Of course, if you have a soundperson running the front of house who is clueless, neither approach will help you much in any case!

IMO.
 
#51
mbrain said:
I've always been a di guy (mostly out of the back of my Eden), but some of the microphone guys have got me thinking--has anyone used a DI post amp (i.e., in parallel with the cabinet)?

I know the countryman (among others) will do this, and it would give you the sound of your head (but not the color added by the cabinet). I've had an opportunity to do this before, but it never occurred to me. Any real-life experience? Anyone?
Click to expand...

it sounds good, if it is an amp worth doing it for. i don't know why more places don't do it like this in case someone brings a nice head.
 
#52
rutabowa said:
it sounds good, if it is an amp worth doing it for. i don't know why more places don't do it like this in case someone brings a nice head.
Click to expand...

IMO, this really only makes some sense if you have an all tube amp. The power sections on solid state or hybrid amps don't really add that much 'tone or color' (if any). So, taking the output from a solid state amp into that kind of padded input on a DI like the Avalon, JDI, Countryman, etc. would be about the same as taking a post EQ DI right from the head, in most cases (which is usually not a great idea either).
 
#58
Colonel_Claypoo said:
i think, not too long ago, i read something about a combined approach. mics for the vital midrange coloration a cab provides and DI for the bass frequencies.

what's up with that?
Click to expand...

My guess is, this is a description of the issues guys run across who love that classic Ampeg Fridge tone with the rig pushed a bit. It's very difficult to get that tone out of any DI, even a DI with a tube in it that is designed to growl a bit. However, as most know who have played out of that particular classic rig from time to time, it's more about punchy, snarly sealed multi 10 mids than deep bass. So, many go with a dual approach, getting most of the 'tone' from their classic rig, and then mixing the 'dry DI' signal in for some added low end in the front of house.

However, if you like it clean and 'transparent', there would be no reason to do this (edit: IMO, there would be little reason to do this!), since the DI would transmit the entire range of your instrument to the board (bass, mids and treble).

IMO and IME!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back