Countryman vs. Sans Amp Bass DI

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bob's Mods
  • Start date Start date
B

Bob's Mods

New member
I was wondering if anyone has had the opportunity to check these two out side by side? I just picked up a BSS Ar-133 which is similar to the Countryman and I am lovin what it did for my bass. Its a much improved direct bass track over just plugin into the preamp.
Any observations on the Countryman vs. the Sans Amp Bass DI would be appreciated.

Bob
 
They're two totally different animals.

The countryman is just a DI box. What goes in is what comes out.

The Sansamp is an amp modeler, designed to emulate the sound of a bass amp. You can get some pretty nice fuzz and mild distortion out of it. Pretty cool stuff.
 
Yep, I have the Countryman and was able to try out a Sansamp a weekend or so back. The Countryman is strictly a direct box--good if you want a clean track to reamp through an amp later and mix to taste. The Sansamp is a combo direct box/amp modeler. It can provide parallel direct (clean) and processed signal outputs. I thought the processed signal was cool; probably best for heavy guitar rock type music.
 
chessrock said:
The countryman is just a DI box.
Click to expand...
Of course the difference between a Countryman and, say, a Whirlwind Director is that the former is active while the latter is passive.
 
MadAudio said:
Of course the difference between a Countryman and, say, a Whirlwind Director is that the former is active while the latter is passive.
Click to expand...

Of course the difference between a Countryman and, say, a slice of apple pie is that the former is a direct box while the latter is a tasty dessert.
 
nkjanssen said:
Of course the difference between a Countryman and, say, a slice of apple pie is that the former is a direct box while the latter is a tasty dessert.
Click to expand...
You berry berry funny. ;)
 
The intent behind the question was to get a sense of how someone who has tried both felt about the comparision.
I'm not a big fan of modelers, they can't stand stand toe to toe with the real deal. I've tried the Sans Amp guitar amp modeler and thought it sounded a few notches up from respectable, but again, it just doesn't really pack the wollup of a worthy tube amp. I've never tried the Sans Amp Bass DI and so was abit curious if I was missing anything. It does add some flexibility to your bass tracks but does it sound as tight as the bass tracks that are possible with the Ar-133 or Countryman?
Solid bass tracks are critical (very critical) to being able to obtain a good mix and the Ar-133 has fixed that problem for me. They sound tight and focused with no eq. The downside of a DI box is no flexibility. For that you've got to rely on plugins. With the SA Bass DI, you've got flexibility. Is the SA Bass DI as tight and focused as the direct DI box? Is having the models a big plus or a minor plus? I still have time to exchange the BSS direct box if I wish too.

thanks,
Bob
 
I have used both the Sansamp and the BSS DI's on many many occasions. In my opinion, they should not be compared. The sansamp does not sound nearly as tight and clear when running a signal through it without activating any of the sansamps processing (straightwire or bypass style). However, the sansamp does sound pretty good when you start to mess with it a bit. It does a great job adding a little growl, and for 'processing" your bass sound a little. However, the BSS (even better than the Countryman in my opinion) does an excellent job at passing a good clean signal through. The BSS will let you hear characteristics, detail, and tonality that most direct boxes won't. Basically the BSS lets you hear what is really there as well as just about any DI I have ever used including Radial, Countryman, Avalon, Demeter etc... just don't count on it to "sweeten" your sound. Personally, I would not get rid of the BSS just to get a Sans Amp. The BSS is also useful for splitting signals, ground lifting, padding, and using on acoustic guitars and other direct instruments. If you really want a great bass sound I would suggest adding a sansamp and recording 2 tracks. The first track direct off the BSS, and the second track off the BSS split through the SansAmp. I have actually become very fond of recording bass direct, and then running the signal through Amplitube (a guitar plug in by IK Multimedia). I don't really like Amplitube on guitars, but it is very convincing on bass signals. I actually like it even better than the SansAmp, plus you get the added flexibility of changing your mind later concerning settings.
 
Hey Bob,

You could just split the signal and run one line in to the Sansamp, and another line in to the DI ... track both and then either blend to taste or pick the one you prefer.

That's the way most do it when they actually mic an amp anyway.

A lot of this depends on the style you're after, too. I mean if you're talking about heavier rock, then what the heck does it even matter if you don't have the purest signal? :D If you're talking jazz or easy listening, on the other hand, then use that high end DI and get the cleanest signal possible.
 
Thanks for great input on this. I AM happy with the BSS. I've never had such a clean and pronounced bass track. I was rather amazed at how much it made my mix easier to zero in. It's settled, the BSS is a keeper.

Bob
 
I agree... I have both and use the Countryman more. The Sansamp is an ok DI and the modeling is ok I guess... but it's not that great. I use the Avalon U5 most.
 
Ever open up a DI and see what's inside? In a lot of cases its just a transformer straight wired from XLR to 1/4 inch jack. An easy way to pump up your cheap DI is to pick up a more powerful transformer and take out the wimpy factory version. Gives a wider fuller sound to your wimpy bass tracks.

Credit where credit is due, I picked this tip up from Bruce Swedien.
 
Bob's Mods said:
The intent behind the question was to get a sense of how someone who has tried both felt about the comparision.
I'm not a big fan of modelers, they can't stand stand toe to toe with the real deal. I've tried the Sans Amp guitar amp modeler and thought it sounded a few notches up from respectable, but again, it just doesn't really pack the wollup of a worthy tube amp. I've never tried the Sans Amp Bass DI and so was abit curious if I was missing anything. It does add some flexibility to your bass tracks but does it sound as tight as the bass tracks that are possible with the Ar-133 or Countryman?
Solid bass tracks are critical (very critical) to being able to obtain a good mix and the Ar-133 has fixed that problem for me. They sound tight and focused with no eq. The downside of a DI box is no flexibility. For that you've got to rely on plugins. With the SA Bass DI, you've got flexibility. Is the SA Bass DI as tight and focused as the direct DI box? Is having the models a big plus or a minor plus? I still have time to exchange the BSS direct box if I wish too.

thanks,
Bob
Click to expand...

Most of which you have stated is true & being a bassist, I too require my bass tracks hard & tight! However, I totally disagree with your statement that "relying on plug-ins" is the only way to obtain flexibility in capturing a solid bass track(s).
Of the utmost importance is the quality of the bass being used.
A bass that's been well constructed & equipped with hi-output/hum cancelling p/u's; warm & sweet rosewood or maple necks w. lil' or no fret "buzz"; vol & tone pots along with a hi-cut capacitor made with hi-quality conductive metals & materials...etc. Indeed there are times when a Yammy GSR200, ESP B-55, Carlo Robelli-Jazz or Squire Affinity-J etc will yield adequate sound tracks dependant upon the gear being used (amp-modeling DI's are excellent choices for these lo-end basses) but "tweaking" headaches can be avoided by using a good, solid bass such as your basic Fender Deluxe, Ibanez SR400, Schecter Stilleto or even a Peavy Millenium AC BXP.
Additinally, one's performance is also an important factor; paying heed to the dynamics, tone & overall sound/levels during tracking.From G. Massenburg to Harv Gerst to Bruce Blue Bear "getting it down right 1st" minimizes the need for dynamic processing (comp'ing/peak-leveling), eq-freq'y adj'mts or gain cut/boost control.
I've used the Sans which did not appeal to me personally as it lent a slightly harsher-tone on my P-Bass which was even more noticeable after I replace the P's p/u's with Bartolini's. Great for hi-energy,wailing metal but lacked the smoothness and even flow for my brand of music
For basic line-level, I use a Pro-Co DB70 (bass-walking perf's in a few of my crappy old-school jazz songs); An Aphex Bass Exciter (great for live perfs &/or
hyping percussive, thumb-slapping techniques which I use on some of my crappy-@ss funk joints),and the creme-de-la-creme Aguilar B-DI/pre which I purchased recently. The Aguilar hands-down is utterly superior IMHO on clarity, db gain & lower frq'y pronouncement. Though ALL my songs are @ss-crappy,at least my bass tracks leave me feelin' satisfied! :p Just my .00002cts.

1 thing for sho'....using plug-ins to compensate for a bass track(s) shortcomings might net you some satisfaction, all you're doing is faking the feel & flow! I've read NUMEROUS threads here & there where folks asked
"what pre/di/comp/dsp/etc will make my tracks(bass in this case) come alive?"
Too many $$$ has been spent by the home-recordist/musician on a budget on rec'ding gear rather than on a hi-quality axe along with learning proper rec'ding techniques via one's performance.Shoot, I'm STILL LEARNING!!

FWIW dude, check out an Aguilar Bass DI.

'Nuff said!
 
I can't wait for the day when people wake up and stop calling the SansAmp stuff amp modelling.......

It's NOT amp modelling.

They don't try to model the sound of such and such an amp. They try to use solid state, analog circuitry to model the characteristics of tubes. The SansAmp DI is not an amp modeller. It is a solid state preamp with characteristics very close to tube preamps.

Yes...there is a difference.
 
sile2001 said:
I can't wait for the day when people wake up and stop calling the SansAmp stuff amp modelling.......

It's NOT amp modelling.

They don't try to model the sound of such and such an amp. They try to use solid state, analog circuitry to model the characteristics of tubes. The SansAmp DI is not an amp modeller. It is a solid state preamp with characteristics very close to tube preamps.

Yes...there is a difference.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree with you. Hearing it called an amp modeler was bugging me the whole time I was reading the thread. It really is just a bass preamp with DI functionality.
 
i have had original sans amp guitar pedal and in the manual it states something about trying to get an amp sound to tape by using a few milliamps or something. so in the end it is a type of modelling if the outcome is the sound of a miced amp to the recorder.
 
gemsbok said:
i have had original sans amp guitar pedal and in the manual it states something about trying to get an amp sound to tape by using a few milliamps or something. so in the end it is a type of modelling if the outcome is the sound of a miced amp to the recorder.
Click to expand...
Once again, no it's not.

At no point does it ever model an amp. It models tube characteristics. It models mic positioning characteristics. BUT it never models an amp.

I've read that manual, and that's not what it says.
 
I think the issue is that the term "modelling" these days means digital amp modelling - microcontrollers running software algorithms to "model" the characteristics of classic amps.

Technically, a SansAmp is still a "modelling" device - it models the characteristics of tubes with transformers. However, it is not a "modeller" in the common, digital sense of the word.

In something like a POD, the analog signal gets sampled by an A/D converter, processing algorithms are applied, and then it gets converted back to analog. In a SansAmp, if I understand them correctly, the audio does not get digitised - it is an analog signal from input to output.
 
Well said! Just to note, I never said they aren't modellers...just that they're not amp modellers.

You are correct about the SansAmps being analog-only. Too many people confuse solid state with digital, assuming them to be one and the same. While the SansAmps are solid state, they are in no way digital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top