RANT: going ampless -> why digital? why IR?

[TonyP-]

(First let me start with stating that I am not a native english speaker)

With the risk of getting flamed:

This is not intended as a digital vs analog rant!

I get why people „are going ampless”. I have been crafting „my sound” using pedals for more than 2 decades. I have done this to not be at the mercy of a certain amp or cab, being able to play on any stage, thu any amp or even without an amp….. all before ever using IEM.
I have done this by using a few analog pedals: comp, Tech21 VT, Aguilar Tonehammer, Lehle/RMI Basswitch IQ/DI, Empress Para EQ, …… When I needed a second sound (pick or overdrive) I have added an EQ or an overdrive pedal) etc…

What am I trying to say?
a clear DI vs speaker signal: the DI is almost always the „better” signal for a live mix. Meaning very often a clear DI cuts better and a miked speaker is an additional bonus. That is why a sound person prefers a „pre EQ DI” as opposed to a POST EQ DI from an amp, eq’ed for stage acoustics.
Now substitute IR for speaker and you have the same issues in your DI feed.

A „clear” DI signal I understand can have some comp, light saturation and or light eq HPF/LPF, and effects like Chorus, Filter, Octaver, Delay, ….) but no excessive boost or cuts.

There was a time when I heavily relied an the TwoNotes CabM+ (digital power amp and cab simulator). This lead to some heavy eq’ing, BECAUSE I could which meant some heard work for the sound tech to get a decent clear, defined (not necessarily„clean”) sound to work in the mix.

I think going ampless with some digital solution is very hard as there are too many options available, namely ampsims, IR…… that are giving the foh and monitor guy a hard time and by this will not satisfy anyone on stage either.

When only 2 or 3 sounds are needed, a few analog pedals will be easier and cheaper.

Well said @gillento
For the most part I’m in completed agreement.
To my ears I do love a good GK sound, but I also need to have a facsimile in pedal board format.
I found my quirky pedals that work for me from theater, to heavy rock to really anything. (TC tuner, DK Harmonic Booster, EHX Soul Food and always on M87 MXR Bass Compressor).

I also prefer analog DI amp in box as well. I tried the digitial stuff (I’m using that term loosely before I get flammed from mom’s basement) and I found it’s not for me either. There is one amp sim I dig a bit for some recodings and that it. Live is way different from me.

I do have a different opinion on sending post to the FOH. I like giving my version of tone to them to defeat if they have an opinion on what I should sound like. (I have seen it before, do a fly out date 2K miles away and work with a sound man who thinks you want to sound like e SVT, yeah not me and not even close). So as long as it’s not an exaggerated EQ curve and you explain to them what you are giving them and what you want. They should be cool.

I explain to my sound exactly what the frequencies are that Im giving them. Hope all is well

 

[el murdoque]

While I agree with the general direction of the post, I want share the following observations:

Having a digital multifx/modeler does not necessarily entail using cab simulation, be it via the inbuilt cabinet models or IR files.
You can absolutely model a small, modest pedal board with preamp/eq, a little drive, compression and, if needed filtering in the digital domain.
I have successfully done so within a Headrush Flex Prime, and enjoyed the size and weight advantage. A Pedaltrain Nano loaded with 4-5 pedals and power supply is larger and heavier than the Headrush. The former needs a bag of its own while the latter fits into the front pocket of my gig bag.

So why digital? One of the obvious advantages is that you basically bring everything. Even if your setup is just a modest one, you do have those octavers, phasers, flangers, choruses, reverbs, delays (and so forth) with you, just a few clicks away and you're only limited by the speed with which you can operate the device. The next would be the aforementioned size and weight.

As to the IR/Cab Sim argument: This is also not a pure analog/digital thing.
While analog cab sim pedals are somewhat exotic, I can name two off the top of my head: The Broughton Mini Fridge and the DSM Humboldt Omnicab Sim.
On top of that, the Sansamp pedals or the Origin Bassrigs have built in cab simulation, too. In the standard BDDI, the cab sim is baked in and cannot be defeated, on the Origin Super Vintage and '64, the same goes for the XLR out, only the Fifteen can switch it off completely.


However. In the three decades I've been playing live, I've seen about 99.5% of FOH techs expecting to run bass via DI. If you want your bass cab mic'ed, you'll have to include that in the tech rider and specially request it - and even then, I know of enough FOH techs that will suggest a mix between DI and mic in that case, and usually mix the DI and mic signal 100/0. Which is not as bad as it sounds - because a capable FOH tech with proper gear will fashion their own cab sim by limiting low and top end and eq'ing the bass signal to work with the PA system.

...and this is precisely where the bone is buried: When you are quite sure that your cabinet is a major part of your trademark sound profile and you absolutely need that to survive an ampless live gig, then you might want to sit down and carefully rummage in your recollections of gigs past, and how many of these were played with a mic in front of your cab as the only connection between your bass and the FOH system, opposed to the times you sent a DI out from your amp head, pedal board, or the DI box sitting on stage. If you're among the lucky folk that have a lot of influence over FOH, because you or your band have a dedicated tech that will do most/all of your shows, and you came up with a mic solution that works for you, then I suppose you're among the lucky few people who can boast that fact - and then, going ampless should include a proper simulation of your cabinet.

 

[tom once dead]

FWIW from the conversations I've had with sound guys working at the bigger venues in town, most of them prefer to get a bass signal that has some tone and character, only using the clean DI with a HPF for the clear deep low end you get from a clean DI. It's mostly the small time soundy's that grumble about getting a bass signal with a bit of flavour.

When I have asked specifically about IRs and cab sims the consensus seems to be they're great if the person using them knows what they're doing.

I'm not the biggest fan of running cab sims personally, but when I'm running drive and fuzz pedals it's a bit of a necessary evil.

 

[Shenron]

At my still-beginner phase, I play ampless but simply through a passive DI.

I don't yet use any amp sim or effects. I do have a simple multifx (Zoom B1Four) and of course it's digital, because not knowing what I would need, I went with a cheap solution that has a bit of everything, which is a major selling point of digital. I have been thinking about adding a bit of grit and a HPF, but it hasn't been necessary so far. I've used the multifx at home for the pitch shifter (typically to practice over songs recorded in Eb). These already would require 3 analog pedals, for each of which many brands/models exist, so while a multifx choice is complicated, choosing many analog pedals can be also complicated...

I do feel confused by the many sims provided. When I try using them, basically all of them sound different but also good... how am I suppose to decide which one to use? Ideally, I would need to test all songs at rehearsal with each one of the sims options available, but I don't have that possibility... and trying them at home doesn't yield the same result.

 

[KevInDaBassment]

A lot of it boils down to familiarity for the Sound Tech...

Walk in with a Sansamp preamp/DI pedal and you'll likely get a sigh of relief from the Sound Tech. You can also run those off phantom power from XLR, so it's an incredibly lightweight solution. IME, being agreeable or less of a "problem" up front means they are more willing to accommodate you on special requests. I like running a clean channel and then an effected/dirty channel separately that the Tech can mix in too. WAY more likely to do that for me if I walk up with a Bass Driver or VT Bass DI. YMMV

 

[hbabels]

I personally love the sound of a good IR to FOH. Especially if you favor dirtier bass sounds the speaker is a huge part of the sound.
There’s a lot of great bass sounds that are direct as well. So both are completely valid options.

 

[allanhearn]

The digital format for gigs where in ears are necessary and traveling light is prudent is a great option. Considering what the audience expects a bass to sound like vs our tone phycosis. No one paying to see the show will notice the $200 anolog pedals or the digital model.

 

[space]

Everybody is different. To me, a bass sounds best when it’s connected directly to an amp, and I’ve been trying to replicate that experience in a box.


I’ve tried countless IRs, different hardware and software solutions, but nothing quite feels the same as playing through an amp. A big part of it, to my ears, is that an IR feels like a wall. It’s essentially a static snapshot of the speaker/cabinet/mic response. But when you play through a real amp, the tone seems to open up when you dig in. The whole system responds to your playing dynamics. You can get incredibly close tonally with IRs, but it can still feel like you’re putting a static filter at the end of the signal chain rather than actually playing through an amp.


Another thing I’ve noticed with many bass IRs is that there’s relatively little useful information below 80 Hz, either because of filtering or because of the way the cab/mic was captured. The bass can sound great on headphones or smaller systems, but on a full-range PA there’s sometimes a sense that something is missing.

Lately I've been trying full amp captures and they sound much better to me. They somehow feel much more like an amp, presumably because the capture is modelling the behaviour of the whole system rather than trying to reproduce the amp and speaker as separate pieces.

They still lack in the lows and my solution has been to add a parallel clean signal containing only the sub 80 Hz information and adjust the phase so that it integrates properly with the captured amp signal.

I have presets for both the HX Stomp and Quad Cortex that do this. Happy to share them if anyone is interested. Obviously the hx stomp one is still amp+cab sim, and with the quad cortex I use captures

 

[DJ Bebop]

My thing is, before I started playing bass I was apprenticing with a sound company that also did studio recording. My favorite bass sound was a bass DI’d to the board. Later on as I was learning and finally playing bass, I always wanted that DI sound live on stage. Even though I was able to play through the amps of the day, Acoustic, Ampeg, Fender, Sunn, this was the ‘70s, they sounded big and loud. Even though they were the state of the art at the time and I barely knew what I was doing, I still wanted that sound of the bass being played back through studio monitors sound on stage.

I went on a quest to build a bi-amped system to mimic that sound of studio playback or DI through a good PA, which at the time was not something that was always done. I have finally come full circle in that I don't do the bi-amped thing, at least not as often as it's more of a novelty thing now.

Still I’ll send a pre- DI to FOH as use whatever monitor system is in use, IEM, wedges, or my little amp setup if needed.
As some have said, my sound is not amp or effects-dependent. I do use effects sometimes so those would have to go FOH as well.

Even though I never built a system like his. Greg Lake’s bass system was influential to me

 

[jimfist]

IMHO, this is one of those "horses for courses" topics. In the end, we all want to have the best sound we can get on stage and in the PA system. There are so many ways to get there, but it really starts with the player and their instrument. If you can't get a worthy tone going straight into a DI, then you have work to do. As for effects and tone shaping tools, use what you like if it works for you. There's no right or wrong answer to this, only acceptable compromises and results that are pleasing to you.

There are lots of digital modeler/multi-fx zealots out there (I'm one) who are very happy with the tones that can be created with them. For me, they're a practical solution that first-and-foremost sound great (when used properly), allow for a lightweight, simple, fast setup/teardown, and save me and my back from having to lug a bass amp around (the assumption being that stage monitoring and FOH PA are quality enough to properly amplify the bass).

As for the whole Impulse Response thing....it's a tricky can of worms. IMHO you can't really blame the technology for the shortcomings experienced by users. Rather, it's just that there are so many IRs available and it's difficult to find ones that work well within the desired context. I've used them, and not used them, depending on my frame of mind and what I'm looking for. The struggle is real for many, though. The technology does work, though, but it's not everyone's cup of tea, especially for bass (it would seem).

 

[agedhorse]

This is an interesting topic with quite diverse opinions between the guitar world and the bass world... generally being that IR's are much less popular in the bass world.

IME, most of the conflicts arise from when the voicing, the cab modeling (either IR or analog) become more extreme.

The result is that while it may appear to sound good in theory, in practice it doesn’t translate all that well to FOH where you can’t hear what the engineer has to deal with. This is from over 40 years of pro audio FOH mixing experience at the touring level.

This is also the reason why the cab sims (analog) on all of my products are based on a very neutral cabinet model with extremely mild voicing. I know that it will be something that 99% of FOH engineers will have no problem getting what they need from it. (Pro) FOH engineers tend to be risk-adverse and go with what they know works without a struggle.

For guys mixing without the necessary knowledge, skills and experience, this might be even more important for consistency, but if you really need a highly voiced sound, be prepared to work harder to be sure it translates into the mix (especially if the mix itself is struggling).

 

[PunkRockJesus]

I have tried both going ampless with an HX Stomp with SVT and matching IR or cabsim and ampless with a Sansamp VTDI both to great success when there is a good pa system. As soon as I have to rely on an amp in addition to pa the Sansamp is superior because it just works without any messing around. The HX Stomp requires a totally different preset to sound good. This would probably be true for any modeller.

 

[jimfist]

It's kind of funny, that when I dove headlong into 100% digital modeling it replaced the SansAmp BDDI that I used for my DI to the FOH. Now, I'm using the SansAmp BDDI model in my Fractal FM9 Turbo to send to FOH. Go figure.

 

[Nebadon2000]

Even though I was able to play through the amps of the day, Acoustic, Ampeg, Fender, Sunn, this was the ‘70s, they sounded big and loud. Even though they were the state of the art at the time and I barely knew what I was doing, I still wanted that sound of the bass being played back through studio monitors

I started gigging back in '75 at 21and Big and Loud worked for me emotionally and fed my angst

That lasted 4 years then like you after hearing a Foghat playback at first class Studio on Long Island where a friend of mind worked my mindset changed and wanted that tone/sound on stage and still do

Also thought I might be only one on TB with that goal until your post
maybe why we both have
Mesa WD 800 and Subway 1X15

Oh also got to Jam with Foghat maybe my biggest thrill as Bass Player slightly above my band opening for John Cale at CBGB's

 

[DJ Bebop]

I started gigging back in '75 at 21and Big and Loud worked for me emotionally and fed my angst

That lasted 4 years then like you after hearing a Foghat playback at first class Studio on Long Island where a friend of mind worked my mindset changed and wanted that tone/sound on stage and still do

Also thought I might be only one on TB with that goal until your post
maybe why we both have
Mesa WD 800 and Subway 1X15

Oh also got to Jam with Foghat maybe my biggest thrill as Bass Player slightly above my band opening for John Cale at CBGB's

Yup, big and loud was the theme of the day back then. But we didn't have much real low-end as we do today. That, plus the clarity of studio playback, was my goal. Trouble was, I was trying to do it at the start of my bass playing on a kid's 7th-grade budget

So a lot of borrowing, buying used equipment which was dismal at that time, and wasn't suited for what I was trying to do. But I made it work somewhat. Later as a working adult, I was able to get better questionable equipment to cobble together a better bi-amp system than my little kid efforts. The last iteration I had was a borrowed powered sub with a 112 on top that was up to then, the best-sounding and most portable of the lot. I got tired of packing even those few things around. Realizing maybe fellow band members and I were the only ones who noticed Plus now, PA systems are better than PAs back in the day. Current PAs can carry the low-end load that I tried to provide on my own.

The Subway gear gives me the low end, and clear mids and highs in a compact system that I was striving for

 

[Acoustic356]

I think it depends. I use full range cabinets, so the IR, in my opinion, looses some of the fidelity for me.

 

[MrDinsdale]

I’ve never met a sound guy who hasn’t loved the Sansamp which has baked in cab sim.

I use an IR for the DI on my QC, it’s a pretty subtle one though, gives a bit of character but doesn’t dramatically change the overall response. Really helps when using a gritty sound though. With the QC it’s very easy to reroute if needed. If engineers prefer to mic the cab or just take their own DI though I’m not fussy. It’s good to have options.

 

[MrDinsdale]

Oh and as for digital, the QC is mostly set up using the same signal chain as my physical board. It largely sounds identical as it’s mostly my own captures etc.

Using the QC means I’ve got a very compact board, does everything my analog board does but with the flexibility to add effects if needed and change multiple effects with one press. Despite the QCm being expensive, it’s cheaper and easier to replace than my analog board. It also means I can plug in and go without having to tweak and dial stuff in.

 

[GTHintz]

The way that I view ir and sim tech is that I think it’s great for getting certain vibes from different bass rigs into your sound which in a studio setting can really make some great things happen. For live I think it presents the same challenges as a bass rig, straight to foh, or any other setup has. That’s how do I get my tone to do what I need in the mix with the venue I’m in right now? I see the multi fx units being a great opportunity to cycle through tones to find something that’ll work but also an absolute time suck if you’re a chronic knob twister and can’t find something you like while you’re out there to perform. I think the best way to navigate this is to either go with 1 preamp and eq for your chain or stick with 1 amp sim and let the sound guy work with that. Hopefully he won’t be useless but either way don’t make his job harder.

 

[Nashrakh]

FWIW from the conversations I've had with sound guys working at the bigger venues in town, most of them prefer to get a bass signal that has some tone and character, only using the clean DI with a HPF for the clear deep low end you get from a clean DI. It's mostly the small time soundy's that grumble about getting a bass signal with a bit of flavour.

Also my experience, though the "small time sound guys" just either didn't know what the heck I was talking about or didn't care at all. For anyone else, they usually love a well-developed and IR'd sound because it means less work to do for them.

I've never had any complaints about my sound that I could attribute to my digital-only signal chain. It's usually a) overuse of subwoofers or b) incompetence at the board that make or break it. Luckily, fate seems to favor me (aka the prepared) but my keys player has been hit really hard by it this year! And he's the guy schlepping old Fender Rhodes and Clavinets on stage (older than he is himself), so no digital wizardry there, and the sound is still hit or miss depending on the calibration and use of the PA.