Looking to upgrade DI for direct recording

T

twangbuck

New member
Hi all, I need some help. I'm looking to try out different DI boxes to record my amps direct. I have a Weber Mini Mass so I have my dummy load/attenuator needs taken care of. I'd like to get one with a speaker sim just so I have one if needed, but I'm currently experimenting with using IR's for speaker/cab simulations, so I'd like the DI box to allow me to turn off the speaker sim so I can try using the IR's with it.
My budget is only about $200, so I'm a little limited. Also, I'm currently using a Behringer Ultra G, but I'd like to see what the other units can do soundwise (can they get a bit more realistic/warmer sounding). If they're no better sounding than the Behringer, I'll just stick with that.
For recording gear, I'm using a Zoom R8 for an interface going into Cubase LE on a windows machine. Guitars and amps are Fenders or a tweed like fender clone. Also using a variety of OD boxes when OD or distortion is needed.
Currently I'm thinking about units from Radial, Palmer (PDI-09) and the Red Box, but I'm not sure which of these will allow me to defeat the speaker sim. There are a bunch of units from Radial, but again, not sure which have speaker sims and if I can shut the sims off or not.
Any help is appreciated. Thanks!
 
I've also been using the Behringer Ultra G and it works pretty well. I don't think spending an extra $200 will help much unless you are wanting some specific speaker sim. The trick is to find the right IRs and EQ settings that compliment your amp which can take hours of experimentation.
 
i use the Palmer PDI-09, for several years now, to great affect.


the RADIAL JDX would be another i would highly recommend.

the differences?
Palmer is passive, JDX is active, and requires a wall wart.
 
these devices DO NOT USE SPEAKER SIMS.


they are simple filters.
they are designed to recreate the sound of a 1x12, 2x12, or typical 4x12 cabinet (depending on which mfg you choose) with a 57 on it.

to my ears, they are superlative to 'sims'.
that's why i use them.



the cool thing to do, assuming you have a great room, is to mix a distance mic in with the direct sound.
can sound really big and full this way.


bonus feature:

if you play live, and use the PDI-09, the sound man will love you.
 
GONZO-X said:
these devices DO NOT USE SPEAKER SIMS.


they are simple filters.
they are designed to recreate the sound of a 1x12, 2x12, or typical 4x12 cabinet (depending on which mfg you choose) with a 57 on it.

to my ears, they are superlative to 'sims'.
that's why i use them.



the cool thing to do, assuming you have a great room, is to mix a distance mic in with the direct sound.
can sound really big and full this way.


bonus feature:

if you play live, and use the PDI-09, the sound man will love you.
Click to expand...


Understood about them not being actual speaker sims. Would they still work with IR's? Or will they sound odd when used with an IR, since they're already duplicating the sound of a speaker?
 
twang,
don't know about IR's.... i haven't found a need for them. i like the straightest line from point A to B.

it'd be worth the experiment, tho.....


a DI is not a speaker filter box.
don't confuse the two.
 
GONZO-X said:
these devices DO NOT USE SPEAKER SIMS.

they are simple filters.
they are designed to recreate the sound of a 1x12, 2x12, or typical 4x12 cabinet (depending on which mfg you choose) with a 57 on it.
Click to expand...
How the fuck is that not a speaker simulator? That is exactly all that any speaker sim is, really. Some might be more complex filters. Some might be fancy digital filters. They're all just filters though.
 
ashcat_lt said:
How the fuck is that not a speaker simulator? That is exactly all that any speaker sim is, really. Some might be more complex filters. Some might be fancy digital filters. They're all just filters though.
Click to expand...

WHOA, DUDE, take a large chill pill, and call your doctor in the morning.

LOL


sims, are typically software.

the Palmer PDI-09, is all analog hardware.

there is a difference, you know.
or maybe you don't.
 
I could name a whole bunch of hardware sims, but why? A sim is a filter, and a filter designed to simulate the response of a specific speaker/cabinet is a speaker/cabinet sim.

Somefuckingtimes I fucking forget that some fucking people take fucking swearing as some fucking aggressive fucking behavior. ;)
 
GONZO-X said:
there is a difference, you know.
Click to expand...

Yes, the nomenclature shifted about the time digital processing came in. They used to be called emulators. Besides Parker there were Hughes & Kettner and ADA etc. But the intended use was essentially identical to a digital sim.

I might have to drag out my MicroCAB. Maybe my memory is hazy but as I recall it sounded surprisingly tolerable and had useful options.
 
GONZO-X said:
don't know about IR's.... i haven't found a need for them. i like the straightest line from point A to B.
Click to expand...

Using a DI and IR's is the same straight line from point A to B as using the PDI-09. The only difference is that with IR's you can change the speaker type and mic placement after you've recorded the sound of your amp. Plus you can use multiple IR's at the same time. The PDI-09 is a great unit but you either like the the sound of it or you don't. Once it's recorded it is what it is. With IR's at least you get a Mulligan. {YMMV}
 
got it.
well, i've used all the digital 'sims', and they don't sound at all like an analog device.
they just don't.

the advantage they have over analog devices, is exactly as you described, OCNOR....
it is a lot of choices.


i find those many choices, detract from creativity. at least for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top