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.
Why have a nice rig just to be run direct?
- Thread starter mancefine
- Start date
- Status
I was very fortunate last week. I was playing the Rock N Roll Hotel in DC and the soundman (total professional) put a mic in front of the bass cabinet AND ran a DI out of the back of my GK MB500 head. All I can say is during soundcheck I walked out into the venue and the bass sound was killer! Oh, and the subs were under the stage.
Me either. If a soundman hasn't heard the amp, much less the mic feed, how can there be an opinion?
Right? Sometimes I wonder if they have some irrational fear that a distinguishable bass note will actually be heard within their precious kick drum dominated mix if he gives the bassist any control over the signal being sent to FOH. Speaking of, what's up with this all-too-common cranked up indecipherable sub-bass rumble with brain-splitting, piercing treble and absolutely zero frequencies in between type mix you always hear at concert halls now? It's like they crank up 2k on the kick and give everything else a smiley face EQ so you can FEEL the music, your head HURTS from the music, but you can't actually tell what any of it SOUNDS like. These are the guys we're supposed to surrender control over our instrument's tone to?
The obviously incompetent aren't who I'm asking. There were a couple or three claiming some extensive experience who backed DI 1st preference, one even rated mic a sorry last.
I think it may also just be a convenience factor; the sound guy knows it will work, he has dialed in the sound using his DI many times before, it is quicker to set up, there's no mic stand that will move or fall over during the show, there's no feedback risk.
It's just saving time that will undoubtedly have to be spent on the lead guitarist who can't get his sound right, and the lead singer who doesn't like the monitor sound.
It's just saving time that will undoubtedly have to be spent on the lead guitarist who can't get his sound right, and the lead singer who doesn't like the monitor sound.
I agree 2000% with you even in France, it's the same problem.
The only festival wich sounds great is the Sziget in Budapest!
105dB top, you can ear everything without earplugs and it sounds great!
I Saw The 69 Eyes, Muse, Children of Bodom, Gwar, Fear Factory, Madness, Mika... etc etc. It was great!
The only band wich sounds awful was Iron Maiden, especially Steve Harris. They sounded like a poor children band in a garage.
About the bass sound in live, I use an Avalon U5, my Shuttle6.0 as a poweramp, and a Mesa PH 4*12".
If the soundman is bad, it can crank up the beast and being heard as i want.
If the soundman is good, well... He can use the U5 signal and a mic.
I don't believe in the perfect sound passing thu Crossovers, subs, limiters, denoiser..... all that crap is making the sound sounds rough, unnatural... It's only my opinion.
+1 - I even once had a soundguy tell me that bass "isn't about hearing it, it's about feeling it in your b***s." I said, "No, your job is to make it heard".
I bet you he was DI only !!
As a serious answer: if there were a 105db limitation , that's probably why the sound was awful. I could bet a lot of money that the stage alone was a lot more than 105 making the FOH mix impossible in theses circumstances.
My guess….
Best sound I had back in the day was a soundman who took a line direct from my bass, a mic, and from my bass head's DI and mixed the three. This was in the days of analog mixing, but it sounded THUNDEROUS and I could hear each distinct bit. Loved working with this guy, as he worked very hard for us. Nowadays, I work amp less, and I don't have to worry about mics or DIs. But on the occasion that we do run a gig where an amp is required and they don't mic the bass, I'll typically have the sound guy take a line out of my head, so it catches all my processing. I've come across a few situations where I had old-schoolers tell me to plug my bass into the DI and then run a line to FOH and one to my amp. I correct that situation by telling them, "the DI on the head is clean, run your XLR to that, please" and smile and act polite. The last two parts of that are equally as important as the XLR instruction. Being nice and polite will cut you a lot of slack with sound guys.
I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I prefer the sound engineer to have a flat, pre eq DI from my bass.
I can't hear what I sound like through the mains. He/she can. Even if I think I sound amazing through my bass cabinet, I don't know how that sound translates through the house PA, which will be considerably different.
And the microphone isn't flat, either, so that's another variable I'd have to blindly (Umm 'deafly') compensate for.
Nah, I'd rather give the engineer a straight forward bass signal he/she can mold for the greater good. Make it sound right for the mix and the room.
Dictating from the stage what should be done for FOH is like a model telling the photographer how to aim and dial the camera settings when she can't see the viewfinder.
I can't hear what I sound like through the mains. He/she can. Even if I think I sound amazing through my bass cabinet, I don't know how that sound translates through the house PA, which will be considerably different.
And the microphone isn't flat, either, so that's another variable I'd have to blindly (Umm 'deafly') compensate for.
Nah, I'd rather give the engineer a straight forward bass signal he/she can mold for the greater good. Make it sound right for the mix and the room.
Dictating from the stage what should be done for FOH is like a model telling the photographer how to aim and dial the camera settings when she can't see the viewfinder.
So, a pre-dialed in sound that the sound droid is comfortable with works in all situations? The P Bass with flats? The 4001 with Rotos? How about an electric upright bass?
As to the mic stand that could move or fall over, well, everyone else has at least one or more, except for the keyboards. The sound droid doesn't seem to have a problem worrying about all of those falling over. So, once again, the bassist gets singled out in this power play.
But if the model is the director for the photo shoot, and has a specific idea about how the photo should be filtered and exposed, and has picked her own clothes and lighting for the shoot-- then maybe the photographer should listen to her?
We email the venue before we play and tell them what we need. If we can't have it, we don't accept the gig. We'd rather play less but nicer gigs than being on stage at all costs...
Which is why you want to be wireless and go stand next to the sound guy during sound check ...
Most sensible option I've read so far.
- Feb 8, 2005
- 3,636
- 1,053
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Bag End - Dean Markley - Thunderfunk
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...THIS is the primary reason you see the near-ubiquitous use of DI for bass. It's easier. Plain and simple. It's not better (tho it may very well be, depending on conditions), but it's easier. That's why it's what they default to automatically, even with zero knowledge of what bass is being used, what pickups or strings or technique, or what sound a player is going for.I think it may also just be a convenience factor; the sound guy knows it will work, he has dialed in the sound using his DI many times before, it is quicker to set up....It's just saving time that will undoubtedly have to be spent on the lead guitarist who can't get his sound right, and the lead singer who doesn't like the monitor sound.
Exactly. The other part of this equation is the notion that a lot (not all, and not the good ones) of soundmen have that there is a certain standard way bass is supposed to sound. Hence this issue of making it sound "right" in the room. How can he know what the "right" sound is without careful listening to the band, and getting the context?
Which leads to another point. To soundmen (and in their defense, most people), bass just isn't that important. Oh sure, it's important in the sense that it needs to be there, it can't overpower the mix, shouldn't be boomy, sit well in the mix, etc. But the actual tone doesn't really matter that much. Yes, I'm being completely serious.
Issues like hand placement, string type, picking technique, passive tone and (God forbid) active EQ can have just as much, if not more impact on the tone than an amp. Yet these are not part of the equation.
I have done thousands of gigs. And I almost always encounter a soundman that is adamant that he must have a DI send straight from the bass (or MAYBE a pre-EQ send from the amp). Of course, he (and others here) will rattle off a list of reasons why this is the best way to go, and many of those are completely legitimate. But I have never, ever heard a soundman ask about any of those other factors, any one of which could have a huge impact on the sound and level. Never, not once. Of course, he can adjust to the sound and make it work with EQ and whatnot. Of course he could do that with a mic as well.
But again, it's not really important to most. Is the level hot enough? Is there any noise that needs to be dealt with? Is it too boomy? That's pretty much it.
It's amazing how the difference between reproducing and producing a sound gets lost. Hi fidelity and cleanliness is essential to reproduce a sound. But producing it in the first place is a different issue, and may involve many links in a chain. It is up to the person producing it to decide how many and what links a needed. In theory it is up to the soundman to reproduce that sound (as much as he is able) in the house.
Sure, it should be a cooperative effort. The bassist shouldn't be an inflexible diva who insists on getting his way no matter what. But then, neither should the soundman.
- Status
