How to split a guitar cable signal into two (inexpensively)?

The only thing “active“ about that ABY thing is the LED. It‘ll work as well as any Y cable, which is to say probably fine after a buffer.

The benefit of balanced connection is questionable and conditional compared to the effect of attenuating an already slightly too quiet signal just to turn it back up after adding cable and input noise.
 
keith.rogers said:
Active DIs are only better if they do what you need, or if they produce a better outcome. They may work well for some kinds of passive pickups that are more sensitive to input impedance e.g., if you're only using the DI function and there's nothing connected on the "thru" jack.
Click to expand...
I suspect the active will actually be the better choice especially if the through connection is used, because it will present an overall higher impedance than a passive would. But it's probably a marginal difference.

My DI rule of thumb is active DI on passive source, passive DI on active source. It's not a hard and fast rule.
 
ashcat_lt said:
The only thing “active“ about that ABY thing is the LED. It‘ll work as well as any Y cable, which is to say probably fine after a buffer.

The benefit of balanced connection is questionable and conditional compared to the effect of attenuating an already slightly too quiet signal just to turn it back up after adding cable and input noise.
Click to expand...
Active DIs don't necessarily have the attenuation of a passive, which could be another thing in their favor. I have a pair of Rapco ADB+8 DIs that have a -16/0/+8 dB switch (in addition to the 40 dB pad), so you can actually get a boost if needed. But that might not meet the OP's "cheap" specification.
 
ecc83 said:
Yes! You and I and many 'old hands' know this but surely this is what forums are for? Passing on knowledge to the newbs?
Click to expand...
Right, and we passed that knowledge on three times (plus the alternative option of the Palmer box, which solves some of the same problems) before he went and bought something else. I'm all for experimenting, but I also remember having to figure things out on my own without the benefits of the internet, like the time I plugged a piezoelectric under-saddle pickup into the 1/4" input of my Fostex 450 at a live event. At the time I had no idea what impedance was so I didn't know why the piezo pickup sounded awful. It was because I was connecting a MΩ source to a 50 kΩ input.
 
"Right, and we passed that knowledge on three times" Right BSG and that is the nature of forums! A suggestion is made and then others pile in with variations (that are often electronically identical)

My contribution was an attempt to the various ways a split can be derived and the pros and cons of the types. Many will not know that some are electrically identical. I does not matter if you put 3 jacks in a tin and wire them all in parallel or use a 3 plug cable. Electrically it is the same thing.

The passive DI box was developed (though the matter is debated!) to enable a guitar to drive the balanced mic input of a mixer in a control room from the studio floor. The feed therefore HAD to be balanced because of the long run and the need to avoid noise and hum. Then someone had the idea of TWO passive DIs back to back. Gitist in the control room feeding a mic tie line in the studio and the second DI turned the signal back to unbalanced and near guitar level into a fekking loud amp stack! From that developed the concept of "re amping".

The active DI was developed (I guess) because peeps wanted a high, 1 meg+ input Z and a bit of extra gain?

Thought I had finished this. Having guests sure effs up one's routine!

Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top