Direct Boxes for Bass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jokerone
  • Start date Start date
J

jokerone

Guest
If someone tells you "Direct Boxes for Bass" for recording do they mean don't mic the amp and just run the bass directly into the mixer, or run it to the amp head then to the mixer bi-passing the amplified out?
or something else?

thanks.
 
A DI box from bass to interface.
The best value one?
Behringer BDI21 - don't look so shocked - it is great value.
 
It means plug the bass into a direct box and plug the direct box into the interface.

That doesn't mean you couldn't use the amp head to get a direct feed, but if someone said that you are going direct, you are not miking a cabinet.
 
Depending on your interface, it may have an instrument-balanced input, so you won't even need a DI box. You need a DI if the only inputs in the system are XLR balanced inputs.
 
The Radial JDI and the Countryman are commonly used in studios (for good reason; sturdy construction and good sound).
Another popular one is the MXR M80+.

Various techniques for bass recording:
Blending the DI with miked amp.
DI to track, recording clean, processing with plugins or hardware later.

It's up to you, the engineer and producer to determine what works/sounds best.
 
mjbphotos said:
Depending on your interface, it may have an instrument-balanced input, so you won't even need a DI box. You need a DI if the only inputs in the system are XLR balanced inputs.
Click to expand...

Line inputs are not suitable for passive bases either. Just because it is a 1/4 input doesn't mean you can plug an instrument into it and get good results.

If your bass has passive pickups, your best bet is an active di. If you have active pickups, it doesn't matter.
 
When you say "Interface" I assume you mean whatever device I have to get the audio into the DAW? I have an Ampeg BA-110 combo. This has an unbalanced line out. I have a presonus studio one pre amp with balanced line out and un balanced line in, and an Alesis Multimix mixer which is how I get my audio into the DAW (DAW interface is an EMU-1212m pcie).

The DI allows me to split the signal, one path going to the amp and the other can be directly recorded pre amp correct?
 
Farview said:
It means plug the bass into a direct box and plug the direct box into the interface.

That doesn't mean you couldn't use the amp head to get a direct feed, but if someone said that you are going direct, you are not miking a cabinet.
Click to expand...

Ok, I think I got it. thanks.
 
Farview said:
Line inputs are not suitable for passive bases either. Just because it is a 1/4 input doesn't mean you can plug an instrument into it and get good results.

If your bass has passive pickups, your best bet is an active di. If you have active pickups, it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
This is "technically" true, but it often actually works just fine to plug the bass directly into the line input. You lose some treble from the low impedance of the input, but in some situations that's exactly what you need anyway. You can roll down the T knob on the bass, or play with the EQ in the mix, or you can just let physics do its work. It's obviously not great if you're looking for that super zingy, snappy kind of tone, but for a lot of stuff it will be fine. In my country/goth thing we did a whole lot of running the bass through like 50' of cable to the line input on the house mixer and it worked great for the dark, thumpy sound he was shooting for. Cable capacitance and loading from the the low-Z input adds up to a kind of free cabinet simulator. Or something...

I agree wholeheartedly that an active DI is the way to go. Passive DIs attenuate the already not quite loud enough signal causing you to have to amplify somewhere between a little and a lot more noise than you otherwise might. But, really all you need is a good high-Z buffer between the bass (or guitar, for that matter) and the line input. Any guitar pedal that doesn't specifically say "True Bypass" - powered but not necessarily on - will work just fine.
 
Passive bass here. When I switched from the mic/instrument input on the Presonus Firestudio Mobile to a DI box (Avalon U5), the improvement was immediate and delicious. What I'm wondering at this point is what effect an active bass would have using the Avalon? Bigger low end?
 
GONZO-X said:
countryman type 85s.
Click to expand...

+1.

The Countryman Type 85 is the industry standard. I haven't used the S (stereo) version but I assume it sounds the same. If a pro recording engineer talks about recording bass direct there's a really good chance he used a Type 85. They've been the standard on pro stages for many years, though the better Radials and some others are gaining popularity.

Other good options: BSS AR-133 (for a warmer/fatter tone) or Rapco ADB+8.

I've had nothing but bad luck with Behringer DIs, but I mostly encounter them in crappy bar PA systems.

Active direct boxes generally sound better, but simple trasformer DIs can solve certain grounding problems better. Active pickups are less sensitive to what they're connected to, but passive pickups can really benefit from active DIs. A good active DI is just about impossible to clip if used correctly while a hot signal with a lot of LF can saturate a passive DI's transformer. All in all I would prefer a good active DI over a passive one.
 
I once used a REDDI DI... it's just ridiculously good to the point where it will sicken you hearing anything else
 
ashcat_lt said:
This is "technically" true, but it often actually works just fine to plug the bass directly into the line input. You lose some treble from the low impedance of the input, but in some situations that's exactly what you need anyway. You can roll down the T knob on the bass, or play with the EQ in the mix, or you can just let physics do its work. It's obviously not great if you're looking for that super zingy, snappy kind of tone, but for a lot of stuff it will be fine. In my country/goth thing we did a whole lot of running the bass through like 50' of cable to the line input on the house mixer and it worked great for the dark, thumpy sound he was shooting for. Cable capacitance and loading from the the low-Z input adds up to a kind of free cabinet simulator. Or something...

I agree wholeheartedly that an active DI is the way to go. Passive DIs attenuate the already not quite loud enough signal causing you to have to amplify somewhere between a little and a lot more noise than you otherwise might. But, really all you need is a good high-Z buffer between the bass (or guitar, for that matter) and the line input. Any guitar pedal that doesn't specifically say "True Bypass" - powered but not necessarily on - will work just fine.
Click to expand...

+1 Ash'. The point about an "always active" pedal is especially moot. This trick can be used for all manner of instruments to give a low 'ish Z feed in fact feed the pedal into a cheap passive DI and you largely get over the level problem and get a balanced out.

The 50ft cable. This is not doing the "damage" that might be thought when feeding the very low (compared to 1meg gitamps) input Z of a desk. Yes, a low Z robs HF from an INDUCTIVE source like a pickup but it compensated to some extent for cable capacitance*. But yes! You probably formed a quite complex LCR network there that serendipitously resulted in a good sound.

*Those old farts that understood the DIN signal transfer system will know this. VERY arcane technology!

Dave.
 
A decent DI will allow you to split the signal & therefore have a line to the interface & one to the amp for mic'ing. Generally that split them combine/blend option garners good results.
 
jokerone said:
When you say "Interface" I assume you mean whatever device I have to get the audio into the DAW? I have an Ampeg BA-110 combo. This has an unbalanced line out. I have a presonus studio one pre amp with balanced line out and un balanced line in, and an Alesis Multimix mixer which is how I get my audio into the DAW (DAW interface is an EMU-1212m pcie).
Click to expand...
The emu is the interface. However, if you are using the mixer to feed the interface for monitoring purposes, then plug the DI into the mixer.

jokerone said:
The DI allows me to split the signal, one path going to the amp and the other can be directly recorded pre amp correct?
Click to expand...
Yes, it can split the signal, but its main purpose is to turn the instruments signal into the type of signal a mic preamp expects to see. The splitting the signal thing is just a feature on most DI boxes, not the point of a DI box.
 
Last edited:
I beg to differ. The first DI boxes were designed for exactly this purpose. To break the feed from guitar to amp to allow another piece of kit to 'sniff' a bit of it to use for recording or more often PA. It was only later that a few designs appeared that did not have the link sockets. It also explains the need for the ground lift switches, which otherwise serve no purpose, as there is no duplicate ground path to break.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top