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.
I got one of those. I meant more about moving it around. Even just to pick it up and put it in my case. I've been known to just flat drop things a lot.
I wonder what the freq. plot for these DIs would look like? I.e. fairly flat, or whatever goes in comes out, or what exactly these things are doing to a bass' signal.
After playing with both the REDDI and the P-15 compared to the DI's on some other amps/preamps, It doesn't sound like they are putting out much lows, maybe below about 80Hz? Both have a rich midrange, with the P-15 slightly more gritty and articulate, and the REDDI more round and sweet.
When it comes down to it, I prefer (and will be purchasing) the P-15, but the REDDI is a helluva piece of gear.
After playing with both the REDDI and the P-15 compared to the DI's on some other amps/preamps, It doesn't sound like they are putting out much lows, maybe below about 80Hz? Both have a rich midrange, with the P-15 slightly more gritty and articulate, and the REDDI more round and sweet.
When it comes down to it, I prefer (and will be purchasing) the P-15, but the REDDI is a helluva piece of gear.
So I opened my P15 and it has the sylvania tube!!! I used it yesterday to record a few tracks for my singers acting studio. So nice.
Maybe someday I can try the Reddi as well
Maybe someday I can try the Reddi as well
There are enough lows in the REDDI where I have to high pass it in order to keep some sound techs we work with from giving me the Kanye's car trunk mix. I've not scoped one and am clueless as to how those things are done, but I've compared it to many flat response DI's with my ears and it sounds quite flat to me with the stock tube. Now I have a couple Russian 6N1P's from 1965 that give the midbass a pretty big boost and increase gain by almost 4 db, but with the stock Sovtek it sounds pretty flat to me. Peter did once say he's seen a few scopes by different people and none of them were the same, but I have no idea what that means or under what conditions they were done.
Anyway, I'm opting out of this test because I am fried after three weeks of nearly nonstop gigging with another week to go. I did listen to the first batch of tracks and was impressed by the playing, and only one sounded meh to me and the rest sounded great.
I actually put up my TH500 BECAUSE of this thread and bought the used P15 that was listed here.. It all sounds good, though.
Ok, it has benn fun.
Take home message for me is that dedicated high end DI do serve the purpose pretty well and I think they sound much more amp like than the DI on my micro amp.
But, I have got a feeling that a properly mic'd cab could possibly yeld better results if someone, like me, craves fir the most natural gutsy recorded tone.
I never mic'd a bass cab, always used DIs. But when I hear a good clip that has been recorded with a mic and other gear I always jump off my chair, hit by that third dimension.
I mean, take a listen to some of ed friedland's demos, or, even better, the recently posted clips by Ampeg about their PF all tube amps, where they show the 3 different tones that can be recorded, preamp out, transformer driven DI and mic.
Sorry, a good bit off topic, but for my studio I begun desiring a mic setup.
live....another world
Take home message for me is that dedicated high end DI do serve the purpose pretty well and I think they sound much more amp like than the DI on my micro amp.
But, I have got a feeling that a properly mic'd cab could possibly yeld better results if someone, like me, craves fir the most natural gutsy recorded tone.
I never mic'd a bass cab, always used DIs. But when I hear a good clip that has been recorded with a mic and other gear I always jump off my chair, hit by that third dimension.
I mean, take a listen to some of ed friedland's demos, or, even better, the recently posted clips by Ampeg about their PF all tube amps, where they show the 3 different tones that can be recorded, preamp out, transformer driven DI and mic.
Sorry, a good bit off topic, but for my studio I begun desiring a mic setup.
live....another world
Oh c'mon....
Yes, I definately think it's flat, I was just wondering where/if there is a bottom end roll off.
If you saw my schedule for Feb, you wouldn't be saying that. We have 4 days off in Feb, and two of them occurred in the first week, one occurred while we were on our band's yearly cruises, and one is this Friday. Otherwise it's been balls to the wall.
Lucky. I mean, for real.. that's awesome. If only I were so fortunate.
I can't directly speak to the P-15 but in general, preamps with non-defeatable Baxandall/James tone controls don't have a truly flat setting so even in their "maximally flat" positions there is still some modification of the frequency response away from flat. My guess here is that the REDDI is actually pretty flat across its response and possibly has better low end extension than any of the others. The only thing that limits the frequency response of the REDDI is the output transformer (there are no coupling capacitors and the cathode bypass caps are big enough that the LF break point due to them is ~1.5Hz). A-Designs claims 20Hz and I wouldn't doubt that given the size of the OT vs. the bias current. I would also guess that the others are probably a bit mid scooped in their maximally flat settings effectively resulting in a broad bass boost in the 80-200Hz range and will roll off well above 20Hz, which is what the actual B15 does. This will typically sound like it has more bass than a flat signal with better low end extension on most listening systems.
Of course, raw frequency response doesn't tell the whole story, either. The distortion characteristics of each preamp/DI can also have a significant effect. I'd like to see the frequency response curves, though to see if my hypothesis above is correct or not.
in the end, I would have liked a healthy HPF in a studio biased DI, at least with the goal of avoiding the sub bass infrasonic rumble...It usually works really good and the perception of the audible bass is enhanced, too.
Josh Broughton makes a HPF/LPF pedal.
I have a tube DI prototype on my bench with switchable HP and LP filters. Flat, 30Hz and 60Hz for the HP and flat, 5k and 2k for the LP. Rolloff is first order so it's a pretty gentle slope but the best I could do within the other parameters of the circuit. They're pretty musical to my ears.
Josh Broughton makes a HPF/LPF pedal.
I have a tube DI prototype on my bench with switchable HP and LP filters. Flat, 30Hz and 60Hz for the HP and flat, 5k and 2k for the LP. Rolloff is first order so it's a pretty gentle slope but the best I could do within the other parameters of the circuit. They're pretty musical to my ears.
seems like a great project Mark....very well accomplished. Those cutoff frequencies are perfect...
BurningSkies
CRAZY BALDHEAD
- Feb 20, 2005
- 27,956
- 20,348
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Dingwall Guitars
See, I'd be just the reverse. I'd prefer a studio DI have no roll off or HPFing going on. I'd rather give the engineer a full scope of signal to work with then let him (or her) decide how to handle it for the recording. In a live situation, I do similarly, and prefer to HPF somewhere downstream of the preamp on the way to the amp, and leave the DI signal also similarly un-altered so that a soundman can HPF it where he wants or he has enough rope to get in trouble in the FOH.
And at this point we should all know that exaggerated content in the 50-200 or so range often reads to the casual listener as 'lots of deep lows'...I effectively exploit this on stage by boosting the lows at my bass and preamp, then HPFing steeply around 35hz with DSP in my power amp. I have never ever ever had another player step up to my rig and notice that I'm HPFing the power stage of the amp. Most sound guys don't even notice.
On another note, recently in the studio I was 'playing' with the Monique's sensitivity control. With it set to roughly where I use it live, the producer felt that there was some 'distortion' in the deep lows that he didn't love. For those who don't know, that injects some tube compression and more harmonic distortion or richness into the tone. I brought that sensitivity control down by about 1/4 and it 'cleaned up' the distortion...which made the producer happier. So, depending upon what you need for the situation more or less HD, and EQ may be a bonus.
yeah, I know. But I'm a sound guy and run a little studio for local bands, and obviously mine, and the way I am used to work implies the use of HPF on almost every track, except for some bass kick drums peaking at 40-50 Hz. In real life and productions, I think there is no one engineer that does not apply a HPF on single tracks and then on the output strip etc. Often, the bass is savagely HPF'ed above 40-50 Hz but sometimes even higher and then there are psychoacoustic tricks or other software based moves to give the impression of very deep sub bass without the mud.
For my usual needs, having a DI with an analog variable HPF that can be setted at 40 and 60 Hz (but guitars, strings and voices usually require an higher HPF, not to mention mic'd cymbals) would be very handy, reducing the software cuts or limiting them. For now, I have a SFxsound micro-thumpinator that has a very steep slope and cuts everything below 30 Hz, quite handy for sparing speakers from over excursion when playing live but often there is the need to go higher than that with the HPF.
For my usual needs, having a DI with an analog variable HPF that can be setted at 40 and 60 Hz (but guitars, strings and voices usually require an higher HPF, not to mention mic'd cymbals) would be very handy, reducing the software cuts or limiting them. For now, I have a SFxsound micro-thumpinator that has a very steep slope and cuts everything below 30 Hz, quite handy for sparing speakers from over excursion when playing live but often there is the need to go higher than that with the HPF.
Josh Broughton makes a HPF/LPF pedal.
I have a tube DI prototype on my bench with switchable HP and LP filters. Flat, 30Hz and 60Hz for the HP and flat, 5k and 2k for the LP. Rolloff is first order so it's a pretty gentle slope but the best I could do within the other parameters of the circuit. They're pretty musical to my ears.
After spending some (like, way too much) time with the REDDI, P-15, and Arkham Zephyr (also B-15 based, with a Cinemag OT), I can say that the P-15 and the Zephyr can get very close to the REDDI starting with a bass cut; you can hear the lows for the two in the tracks (P-15, DI-3 and Zephyr NDI-4). They're gone in the subsequent P-15 track (DI-4). With the Zephyr, I use an FDeck set at 60-80 hz(!)...Voila. The REDDI does not have the high extension the others have either. To my ears it has a more narrow sound with, as someone else put it, rich harmonics...and that is what makes the REDDI. It a great, balanced, tone right in a sweet spot.
But, that's also what makes it seem somewhat limited for what I would want. I'm sure in pro settings with all the $$ equipment it's a great starting (and maybe finishing) point, but I want/need something a little more versatile, and I mean only a little. After awhile of messing with this stuff, the REDDI started to sound a little flat compared to the other two. Obviously, due in large part to the tone control capabilities (especailly on the Zephyr - great unit). As far as what to send to the board, I'm a firm believer in "You can dial it out, but you cant dial it in".
The "sub-lows" and lows - it's funny how so much attention is given to a cab's response "down to 30Hz", and then everyone is buying Fdecks to cut off everything below 35Hz. I've come to learn that the stuff below 30-60Hz should be used...umm.....tastefully. I think the good FOH and studio guys have been doing this to us fairly regularly. IMO, these freq's out of control can trash the sound, particularly live. I use my FDeck for every show, with the Zephyr, 2k watts, and an F212. It's amazing how much better the tone is with it. It's not too hard to imagine that the REDDI (which if I understand right was created very specifically for the studio) was engineered with this in mind.
But, that's also what makes it seem somewhat limited for what I would want. I'm sure in pro settings with all the $$ equipment it's a great starting (and maybe finishing) point, but I want/need something a little more versatile, and I mean only a little. After awhile of messing with this stuff, the REDDI started to sound a little flat compared to the other two. Obviously, due in large part to the tone control capabilities (especailly on the Zephyr - great unit). As far as what to send to the board, I'm a firm believer in "You can dial it out, but you cant dial it in".
The "sub-lows" and lows - it's funny how so much attention is given to a cab's response "down to 30Hz", and then everyone is buying Fdecks to cut off everything below 35Hz. I've come to learn that the stuff below 30-60Hz should be used...umm.....tastefully. I think the good FOH and studio guys have been doing this to us fairly regularly. IMO, these freq's out of control can trash the sound, particularly live. I use my FDeck for every show, with the Zephyr, 2k watts, and an F212. It's amazing how much better the tone is with it. It's not too hard to imagine that the REDDI (which if I understand right was created very specifically for the studio) was engineered with this in mind.
I can't directly speak to the P-15 but in general, preamps with non-defeatable Baxandall/James tone controls don't have a truly flat setting so even in their "maximally flat" positions there is still some modification of the frequency response away from flat. My guess here is that the REDDI is actually pretty flat across its response and possibly has better low end extension than any of the others. The only thing that limits the frequency response of the REDDI is the output transformer (there are no coupling capacitors and the cathode bypass caps are big enough that the LF break point due to them is ~1.5Hz). A-Designs claims 20Hz and I wouldn't doubt that given the size of the OT vs. the bias current. I would also guess that the others are probably a bit mid scooped in their maximally flat settings effectively resulting in a broad bass boost in the 80-200Hz range and will roll off well above 20Hz, which is what the actual B15 does. This will typically sound like it has more bass than a flat signal with better low end extension on most listening systems.
Of course, raw frequency response doesn't tell the whole story, either. The distortion characteristics of each preamp/DI can also have a significant effect. I'd like to see the frequency response curves, though to see if my hypothesis above is correct or not.
I believe all three of the units I was speaking of have the Baxandall/James circuit, which i thought was pretty flat.(?) I think they all use a Cinemag OT, although probably not identical (I do realize there is much more to it).
So you believe that either the REDDI boosts mids, or the others cut them (intentionally or not)?
The Duncan Tonestack Calculator download is pretty interesting to see how some of these classic circuits look.
