Why have a nice rig just to be run direct?

[squeezer]

Thanks jimfist for adding much more detail than I know about on speaker simulators -- you hit the nail on the head with the problem I've kept trying to get over about using a mic with a cabinet, which many people seem to have misunderstood as either saying that cabinets are a bad thing or a clean DI feed of the raw bass signal is what should be used...

Your solution (cab for on-stage, speaker simulator for FOH) and mine (speaker simulator for FOH and flat monitor) should be equivalent, done properly -- and assuming that all the live tone adjustments in your case are done before the DI split, not in any amp after it.

However any difference between the simulator sound and actual cabinet won't be heard (and potentially be corrected) by the player; with a DI split to FOH and monitor you hear exactly what's going out front since both go through the same simulator, so any tweaks you make to get the on-stage sound closest to your "perfect sound" also apply to FOH.

Your solution gives the "perfect sound" on-stage (because it uses the real and much-liked cabinet) with some differences at FOH (simulator vs. cab differences); mine may sound less good on-stage (simulated instead of real cabinet) but out-front may be closer to the "perfect sound" after the player tweaks it.

Either way, it's nice to know there's another way which is commercially supported (if expensive) to get FOH sound closer to the on-stage "golden sound" that people like so much, while fixing many of the problems that can happen with micing up a cabinet.

On the cost side, given the availability of high-quality low-cost ADC/DSP/DAC nowadays there's no real reason that an excellent digital cabinet simulator should be expensive (they ought to be a lot cheaper than a decent amp + cabinet!), except that right now they're made in small volumes by high-end manufacturers because not many people use them...

 

[Downunderwonder]

Get onto that David Packouz whatever his name is, doing the drum machine pedal "beat buddy". He's all set to make a killing on that one, might be interested.

For my money, a little homework on positioning ones own mic makes it unnecessary. There are no problems with mic'ing bass cab that aren't present on another half dozen mics or more. Cab sim still requires some foh EQ to compensate for stage EQ, so it still comes down to eliminating the one mic, which I provide and set up, for no good reason.

 

[JimmyM]

Get onto that David Packouz whatever his name is, doing the drum machine pedal "beat buddy". He's all set to make a killing on that one, might be interested.

For my money, a little homework on positioning ones own mic makes it unnecessary. There are no problems with mic'ing bass cab that aren't present on another half dozen mics or more. Cab sim still requires some foh EQ to compensate for stage EQ, so it still comes down to eliminating the one mic, which I provide and set up, for no good reason.

Word.

 

[mancefine]

Hey Guys, the massive thread OP here. After seeing all the responses and opinions and the scientific sound breakdowns of running direct vs. micing, I'm still of the opinion that this is what matters:

I like the tone of my bass coming out of my amp and cabs.

I don't like the tone of my bass by itself, or with just the amp.

Every nice venue I've played at that has the best sound systems ALWAYS mic the bass (usually with a combination of direct, but they ALWAYS mic it)

Simply put, this issue is obviously a matter of preference and what the individual bassist deems is most important to their sound in their signal chain/ rig. I play rock and roll, so I don't really fancy the idea of not having a booming bass rig behind me on stage, and I use all of my rig to get the tone I want. Using some of the logic found on this thread, I should just ditch my rig for a DI. Hell, every bassist should just plug into the same brand of DI at every show. It's not like we have different tones, or different ways of acheiving tones.

I'm buying a nice mic, and JimmyM is smart and I like his moxy. That's what I learned from this.

 

[JimmyM]

You still like my moxy even though I eventually did give into the DI overlords? Well at least I threw the biggest and baddest DI that sounded like a tube amp at them. I suppose that counts for something.

 

[Mark Reccord]

I concur with everything Squeezer said as it is technically sound (yuk yuk!). That being said, it's not particularly difficult to get a reasonable approximation of a cab's sound (especially a one-way sealed box like an Ampeg 810) with a microphone once you know a bit about mic techniques and how the drivers work. Even if you have to roll off a bit of proximity induced bottom end or tweak the highs a bit, that's not such a big deal in most cases. Any sound engineer who can't get a decent mic on an Ampeg 810 to sound pretty close to what the player hears within a few minutes shouldn't be behind a mixing desk, if you ask me.

At any rate, it's not a big deal to mic a cabinet if that's what works for a particular player and any sound person worth their salt will recognize that. What I'm seeing from the multitude of threads on this topic is that there are (sadly) a lot of people behind mixing desks that have no business there. This isn't limited to the bar scene either. I've seen sound people for major acts who didn't have a clue; who could turn a great band in a nice venue with an immaculately tuned PA into a pile of incomprehensible mush and not even know they were doing that. Then again, I've also seen guys take a terrible PA in a terrible room and make it sound like a million bucks. May all of you run into more of those guys than the other ones.

 

[BurningSkies]

You still like my moxy even though I eventually did give into the DI overlords? Well at least I threw the biggest and baddest DI that sounded like a tube amp at them. I suppose that counts for something.

You didn't give in. You found a compromise that made you happy and made most (knowing) soundmen happy. I feel the same way with my Monique. It keeps soundmen in their comfort zone and still provides a great sounding feed to the board.

Sometimes its worth that to lower the stress level and get the show happening.

 

[jimfist]

My stance has never been that there is no virtue in micing a bass cab in live performance, or that it is in and unto itself a bad thing. If I were touring, had a full road crew and a rider that allowed me to get what I wanted or else no show, then hell ya, I'd be using a couple 8x10 SVT cabinets and a combination of real mic, emulated cabinet DI, and "dry" DI from my bass rig. (Interestingly, many touring acts are now choosing emulation over mic'd cabinets.)

However, most of the world doesn't necessarily have that luxury, and the rooms, PA systems, tech staff and other arrangements may make the whole notion of a mic'd cabinet being your "best bet" to getting "your sound" something of a crap shoot. At the moment, I don't have the luxury of someone doing my bidding for me (crew or FOH mixer), in which case, if I want something that the sound tech won't indulge, I'll either have to spend time massaging the situation (I'm no diplomat), or a battle will ensue which I may or may not win (time that I really, REALLY don't care to spend)....and we all know what happens when a sound mixer gets pissy.

Thus, for practical purposes, I'm a proponent of cabinet emulated DI (not a "dry" DI without cabinet emulation). My feeling is that the cabinet emulation (impulse response) is 100% predictable and that the tone of the cabinet can be captured much more effectively in a studio, using multiple mics of a quality that you'd probably not want to carry on the road (for the average bassist), and with technical care otherwise not afforded in your average venue. I've attached a photo of an impulse response capture done by Fractal Audio Systems for their AxeFxII for use in some of their "stock" bass cabinet selections. The studio engineers specifically crafted these captures to be essentially "mix ready" for certain types of music.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

@ squeezer: almost all of my live performances now are done with a processor that has preamp and cabinet emulation, with my stage rig being a full range speaker system consisting of (up to two) coaxial 12" wedges that I can position any way I choose according to stage layout and stage mix requirements. Full range cabinets are what I use to craft my sound, and I've tried my best to do it in such a way that it shouldn't need much EQ compensation at FOH. I won't go so far as to say that it sounds as good as my SVT rig, but for certain, fewer people complain about my rig on stage and at the FOH mix position. I'm happy to make that compromise for the "broader good" of the performance, and the sound is still very good to my ears, but however, a slightly different listening experience on stage. It usually sounds great out front. And once again, the sound crew doesn't put up a fuss. Though my DI feed is ultimately derived from a mix of mics and preamps, to the sound staff, it is just another DI that they don't have to worry about...even though it sounds like a well-mic'd speaker cabinet.

apologies again...brevity doesn't appear to be my strong suit.

 

[aborgman]

I had to laugh at the comments about Ampeg not being "accurate," BTW. What is accurate, anyway?

What is accurate in an amplifier?

No changes in signal other than pure gain.

No bass amp, unless you bypass the pre-amp, is accurate.

 

[aborgman]

If the FOH isn't REPRODUCING the END PRODUCT tone of what the bassist is hearing from the speakers, he isn't providing accurate sound reinforcement.

Absolutely true.

If the bassist depends upon the amp, any effects and/or the cabinet to be an integral part of tone shaping for his end sound, and you're missing any of those components in what you're giving the bassist out front, its not accurate.

Quite possibly false.

I've been in situations where the soundman was able to make a DI signal (pre-EQ even) sound MORE like my stage sound than mic'ing.

If the soundman cops your stage sound accurately, no matter HOW he does it, it's accurate.

 

[Korladis]

[...apologies for a long post...]

Well, this is why many guitarists/bassists are getting really serious about their methodology with respect to cabinet simulations, and capturing impulse responses of their own cabinets, or of those that exist in studios with a really nice selection of vintage speaker cabinets. This gets discussed far less amongst bassists than it does amongst guitarists, but I'm actually pretty encouraged that the discussion about cabinet sound translating to FOH sound seems to be happening with some regularity now.

The fundamental stumbling block for those who are interested in exploring the use of custom cabinet sims (IRs) is that the devices available that allow the use of custom IRs of a higher order of quality tend to be pretty pricey. For best results of real tube amp (preamp and power amp) distortion's contribution to the tone, a load box device seems ideal, but putting that aside for the time being, there are few pieces of equipment to choose from that provide robust cabinet emulation, allowing the use of custom impulse captures. Kemper and Fractal have systems that provide the amp modeling as a key component along with cabinet simulation. Fractal Audio's AxeFxII has built-in technology that allows the user to capture their own Cabinet impulses, as well as a "tone matching" technology that is used in all sorts of creative ways to closely emulate the tone footprint of everything from acoustic guitars to stomp boxes and preamps. 2 Notes has a variety of hardware solutions like the VB101 (which includes a "load box" for speaker-less implementation) and the C.A.B. pedal (no load box).

I think the key to the dilemma of using a mic to capture "your tone" to send to FOH is to first understand what you are hearing out of your amp, and then understand exactly what your amp truly sounds like via a microphone, as squeezer has done his best to emphasize and explain. Cabinet simulation technology is being used quite a bit now, but it is not a trivial topic. Beyond the costs associated with going this route, I see time and time again those who try to implement the technology getting frustrated, generally due to a lack of understanding what the technology is supposed to accomplish.

Ideally, you would take your rig into a pro quality studio, crank up your speaker (amp) in a "dead room" and mic it in such a way (multiple mics of various types and at different distances) that the end result is pleasing when placed in a representative full band mix (of your band, ideally, or at least something of a similar genre). The contributors to the resulting captured cabinet impulse are not only the mics, but the mic preamps used, and we all know how a really sweet mic pre can make all the difference. Again, this is an engineering task that requires great care, ears and experience. Thus it is more commonplace to use the stock cabinet impulses provided that come with "the box", and hope you can tweak something to your liking.

Let's say, then, that you've now got a .wav file captured by a software program that represents the pleasant sound of your studio-captured bass speaker that you'd like to be sent to FOH when you gig live. You'll need to load this IR into a 2 Notes or Fractal Audio product (speaker emulator), fed by a pre-amp out signal into the speaker emulator unit, which then gets sent to FOH, while on stage you continue to monitor your bass guitar with your stage amp as you always have. If you have a load box, you can do the same, but from the power amp output of your amp. This is the state of technology today. It is still very young, but improving every day. It does work, and you don't need to take just my word for it. Major acts are utilizing it every day of the week.

Now, the whole discussion about mic'ing the bass amp or not is moot IMHO, since technology allows bassists to avoid the whole issue completely if they choose to. Whether bassists are willing to explore and dedicate time and $$$ to this solution is another story. All I can say is that my life is a helluva lot less stressful for implementing cabinet impulse technology in my bass rig. No sound tech has ever questioned the direct feed I provide, and I've never been dissatisfied with the sound that is reproduced FOH or in the monitor system. It is far superior and rewarding to any other method I have employed in my previous 25 years of performing. It's simple, elegant, and solves so many problems. But...right now it's expensive.

So yeah, right now that doesn't really help me, if it's as expensive as you say.

I doubt there's an out of the box Sunn 2000S cab sim. So for now, a good mic is the best way to get its sound into the PA. If there is a PA.

 

[jimfist]

So yeah, right now that doesn't really help me, if it's as expensive as you say.

I doubt there's an out of the box Sunn 2000S cab sim. So for now, a good mic is the best way to get its sound into the PA. If there is a PA.

The 2 Notes C.A.B. is probably most reasonably priced at about $500US, so that's the low end of things, and other options go up from there. So yes, it's not cheap. Used Axefx 1st generation units start around $900. Kemper Profiling Amps are about $1800. AxefxII new is upward of $2000. Where many users justify these pricey units is by also using them for amp modeling and effects as well.

Amen to the Sunn200S cabinet. Though there are literally thousands of different guitar cabinets that have been captured for simulating, the bass community once again lags behind. I'm sure that eventually there will be a fairly complete catalog of bass cabs...may take a few years, but not at the moment.

 

[Korladis]

I mean, lots of times when I use the 2000S cab, it's not even for the volume. The old behemoth is just a really good sounding speaker cab. Though mine sounds a bit different than it would stock, anyway, given that it has EV's in it right now, rather than JBLs.

I've thought about eventually upgrading to the Faital 15PR400 drivers, since it's been often said on this board that they sound rather similar to the old JBLs.

I don't even have the money for that, at present, though, so an accurate cab sim will have to wait.

 

[will33]

You can get an AKG P2 microphone for $100, does everything you need done....and it's a real mic on a real speaker....don't fix what ain't broke...

 

[ThisBass]

If the FOH isn't REPRODUCING the END PRODUCT tone of what the bassist is hearing from the speakers, he isn't providing accurate sound reinforcement.

Unless the FOH was on stage at bass guitar sound check he has got no chance to produce the same stage-sound which the bass player is listening to.
That's very well explained in many posts above.

 

[Korladis]

You can get an AKG P2 microphone for $100, does everything you need done....and it's a real mic on a real speaker....don't fix what ain't broke...

I've got an EV RE-20 now, so I've been using that, especially for recording.

Before that, I used just an SM57 pressed up as close to the grill as possible without actually touching it. Not perfect, but pretty good sounding.

 

[Korladis]

RE20 is a fantastic mic. The P2 is also very nice. Not an RE20, but still a great mic and less worrysome to take for typical bar gigs. Did you notice a massive loss of low end running a 57 without also running a DI? I always did.

The 57 wasn't as full sounding as I'd like, but proximity effect mitigated that somewhat.

The RE-20 sounds much closer, at least when recorded, to what I hear coming out of my rig.

 

[monkeyfinger]

57's have a lot of proximity effect, a boost in bass when close to the source. Take advantage of that. I have used 57's on the beater side of kick drums. Very effective when placed very near the beater point. Especially when the kick drum is really loose and woofy. Also, 57's are good in the tail piece of an upright. Wrap it in a thick cloth, bungee it to the tail facing up towards the bridge. Works great. Never used it on a bass cab, per se. I always used other mics for that, Heil PR30 or PR40, but it has been used successfully in bass applications.

 

[JimmyM]

Unless the FOH was on stage at bass guitar sound check he has got no chance to produce the same stage-sound which the bass player is listening to.
That's very well explained in many posts above.

I don't know any soundman, good or not, who doesn't go up onstage at least once during soundcheck. At the very least they have to wire the stage, and it's not like they can do it from their perch at FOH. Your post is what we in America call a "red herring," which is a misleading statement designed to distract from the relevant issues.

 

[lowphatbass]

What is accurate in an amplifier?

No changes in signal other than pure gain.

No bass amp, unless you bypass the pre-amp, is accurate.

My definition of accurate in this case is 'Deviating only slightly or within acceptable limits from a standard'. In my mind the real question is, "what is the standard", and that's probably why there's so many different opinions, goals and solutions posted in this thread.