• 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.

What is your favorite DI for live use?

#101
cosmicevan said:
Somewhat true. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't your poweramp take whatever you give it and drive that through your speakers? Your preamp doesn't drive anything except allowing you to shape your sound.

If what I presume as true is actually ture...then technically you can send a flat DI to your poweramp and send that signal through your speakers? When setting the U5 flat, do you find that it colors your tone at all? If not, seems like a really heavy and expensive thing to lug around when you can acheive the same flat sound with a much smaller and cheaper box (that doesn't require power).

Side note - I've actually been considering using the U5 as both my pre and DI lately and will likely try it out on the next gig. I think that the Avalon really makes anything sound just a little bit better...but then again, I use the preset EQs on it.
Click to expand...

I think what Alex is saying is that the Avalon has a strong enough signal to actually drive a power amp, where a standard DI would not. I also agree with your point a page or so ago (I think it was your point) that if you are not using the tone presets of the U5, it's overkill as a DI, and really not any better at its flat setting than the wonderful, small JDI, etc.

I find the tone presets of the U5 (as with virtually any 'preset' blackbox tone shape 'buttons') mostly too extreme for my applications (i.e., as a stand alone, live performance bass pre-amp driving a PA style power amp). I can see where the tone settings might be very cool for preshaping a bass signal into a high end mixing board that can then be used to sculpt the tone and EQ for the room and mix (i.e., making sure the bass tone 'sits' where it needs to in a mix versus sitting right on the bass drum, etc.). Into a power amp without any other signal processing, not so much IME.
 
#102
KJung said:
I think what Alex is saying is that the Avalon has a strong enough signal to actually drive a power amp, where a standard DI would not. I also agree with your point a page or so ago (I think it was your point) that if you are not using the tone presets of the U5, it's overkill as a DI, and really not any better at its flat setting than the wonderful, small JDI, etc.

I find the tone presets of the U5 (as with virtually any 'preset' blackbox tone shape 'buttons') mostly too extreme for my applications (i.e., as a stand alone, live performance bass pre-amp driving a PA style power amp). I can see where the tone settings might be very cool for preshaping a bass signal into a high end mixing board that can then be used to sculpt the tone and EQ for the room and mix (i.e., making sure the bass tone 'sits' where it needs to in a mix versus sitting right on the bass drum, etc.). Into a power amp without any other signal processing, not so much IME.
Click to expand...

+1

This closely sums up my experience-- the U5 is a great piece of gear, perhaps second to none as a DI. That said, it's very big, very heavy, and the presets are really not my cup of tea either. I find it pretty hard to justify for my purposes (live use).

If gain is not needed, I find the JDI is tough to beat. For a DI that can provide variable gain at line level out, the Summmit TD-100 is awesome.
 
#103
I'm always curious why professional touring users of amps such as the DB750 (which has a fantastic Jensen D.I. built in), nearly always have an Avalon U5 racked with it for the FOH. Having recorded with my DB750 (best bass sound ever for me), the sound I'd really want is from the amp itself as opposed to an alternative sounding D.I.

Does anyone have any idea why you would want the hassle of taking extra rack spaces of gear for a different sound out front on occassions such as this?
 
#104
Andy Will said:
I'm always curious why professional touring users of amps such as the DB750 (which has a fantastic Jensen D.I. built in), nearly always have an Avalon U5 racked with it for the FOH. Having recorded with my DB750 (best bass sound ever for me), the sound I'd really want is from the amp itself as opposed to an alternative sounding D.I.

Does anyone have any idea why you would want the hassle of taking extra rack spaces of gear for a different sound out front on occassions such as this?
Click to expand...

Here are the reasons IMO

You would rarely want to send a post EQ signal from an amp to a board, since the EQ needed to make a stage rig sound good might be totally counterproductive to what the front of house engineer needs to sculpt the bass tone to sit in a mix (i.e., the frequency response of the big, multiway front of house speaker stacks are typically WAY different from a relatively small cabs designed specifically for the bass guitar that are used as backline). So even though the post EQ DI on the DB750 sounds great, and would be fantastic for recording, it would have little use in most live performance situations.

However, while most amps like the DB750 have a 'pre EQ' DI setting, this might actually be too 'clean' and 'direct' for some tone goals (as would an external DI designed to deliver the purest signal from your bass). So, some use a DI that is still independent of stage EQ and tone, but that adds some 'character' to the tone (like the U5 with the tone presets engaged, or the 'brick' which adds some tube warmth, etc.
 
#106
Many thanks for your fast reply and explainations!

The reason for my question is that I'm going to be buying an AG500 to replace my old (be-loved but sold) DB750, plus need to get a decent D.I. now, so am considering the DB900 to run front of house (plus for recording) then into the AG500. This should work nicely in giving a DB750-'ish' tone through the P.A. but still allowing a lighter amp.

Not many people are commenting on the DB900 so much though, as the Reddi and U5 are generally the popular mid-range choices so, any thoughts on the AG500/DB900 idea?
 
#107
Andy Will said:
Many thanks for your fast reply and explainations!

The reason for my question is that I'm going to be buying an AG500 to replace my old (be-loved but sold) DB750, plus need to get a decent D.I. now, so am considering the DB900 to run front of house (plus for recording) then into the AG500. This should work nicely in giving a DB750-'ish' tone through the P.A. but still allowing a lighter amp.

Not many people are commenting on the DB900 so much though, as the Reddi and U5 are generally the popular mid-range choices so, any thoughts on the AG500/DB900 idea?
Click to expand...


I've always been a 'pure/clean' DI type of guy, so not really familiar with the 900, etc. (i.e., active DI's that are designed to impart their own character to the tone). There's some discussion of the DB900 earlier in the thread, and also some other DI's that are 'tubey' and fat sounding.
 
#108
Andy Will said:
Many thanks for your fast reply and explainations!

The reason for my question is that I'm going to be buying an AG500 to replace my old (be-loved but sold) DB750, plus need to get a decent D.I. now, so am considering the DB900 to run front of house (plus for recording) then into the AG500. This should work nicely in giving a DB750-'ish' tone through the P.A. but still allowing a lighter amp.

Not many people are commenting on the DB900 so much though, as the Reddi and U5 are generally the popular mid-range choices so, any thoughts on the AG500/DB900 idea?
Click to expand...

I think that sounds pretty reasonable, since the through out on the 900 is tube buffered you should get some (if not all) of the tone shaping that is happening on the balanced out at the unbalanced (I've read one review that indicated the two outs sound identical). Plus the 900 has a 10 year warantee. Buying a new one was tempting me greatly until this Ditto popped up.
 
#109
pickles said:
I think that sounds pretty reasonable, since the through out on the 900 is tube buffered you should get some (if not all) of the tone shaping that is happening on the balanced out at the unbalanced (I've read one review that indicated the two outs sound identical). Plus the 900 has a 10 year warantee. Buying a new one was tempting me greatly until this Ditto popped up.
Click to expand...

I might have missed it on an earlier post, but which of the features is the particular thing swaying your decision towards the Ditto over the DB900? Or is it mainly the slightly lower pricing?

Either way, I'm very interested to hear your findings with whichever you go for!:)
 
#110
Andy Will said:
I might have missed it on an earlier post, but which of the features is the particular thing swaying your decision towards the Ditto over the DB900? Or is it mainly the slightly lower pricing?

Either way, I'm very interested to hear your findings with whichever you go for!:)
Click to expand...

Simple: I found a used one :)

Its likely I'll also grab a DB900 or Demeter if they pop up used at good prices, but I'm so gear-fickle and picky that I always get worked buying things new. The 900 and Demeter both have a tube buffered through, which the ditto does not have, but I'm going to try it anyway, hoping it at least does no harm to the through signal (which the DIs I currently have do).
 
#111
Mika said:
No love for the BSS AR-133?

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Click to expand...

One of my faves. It has a buffered link out as well.


I have a couple of DIs that I designed and built on the bench, one active, one passive. Both transformer-coupled, though I'm considering cap-coupled outputs on the active one. They perform just as well as any other DI that I've used that isn't AC powered.
 
#115
I've now got both the Ditto and DB900 here. Both sound great through a power amp and cab, and quite a bit different. The brick is thick yet honest, the Aguilar is adding more of a sound. Very smooth like everyone says with great polish in the highs, big warm lows and very smooth mids.

My testing today focussed on what my stage amp sound will be like with these units in the chain. The Ditto has a pure passive parallel through out, and as expected, a 12' second cable causes a bit of loading, stripping some of the sheen in the highs. It doesn't seem to be doing anything negative to the tone otherwise, so it'd be more than tolerable. For the next round of testing I'll switch out the cable for a 1' George L's, which should clear any cable loading effects right up ... giving me just the pure sound of my bass.

But the aggie ... oh man, that buffered 1/4" through out sounds pretty magical. You do drop the mids a bit, but the curve that it is putting on the signal is reeeeeeeeal nice. I bumped the mids up one notch at the amp and man ... what a huge tone!

More to come as I give these boxes a proper field test. I can't tell yet which one will end up being better overall.
 
#119
vicenzajay said:
I'm really liking my new (to me) Ampeg SVTDI. Remarkable headroom and a very noise-free signal with fairly clear tube overtones....sounds great live and recorded actually.

Of course, I also really like the Simons ADB-1 (sounds remarkably like the U5) and the Presonus TubePRE and ART Tube Channel. They are all different flavors, but the TubePre fared surprisingly well on Basstasters against very high-priced competition. I used it live for over a year with zero complaints and lots of compliments.

Jay
Click to expand...

:cool:
+1
I have one.
Love it.
Great for recording.
 
#120
In the world of "high end" recording, mic pre's often have an instrument input jack on the front panel and then they call it a "DI"- which it is, but they are designed with output intended to go straight into a recording medium, not into the mic inputs at FOH in a live gig context.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back