Members Thunderbroom Posted January 19, 2009 Members Share Posted January 19, 2009 In order to get a clean signal to our monitor mixer (and thus to the house), I had to borrow a Radial Pro 48 ($140) DI from our sound guy last night because we could not get the Boss GT-10B signal cleaned up. While the Boss sounds fine when run into an amp, when I'm wearing $400 earbuds, it's pretty freakin' noisy. I'm really disappointed. I haven't sold much gear but do think a liquidation is in order. I'll likely throw the Boss (and some other stuff) up on Craigslist. I would do eBay but don't really want to bother with shipping. What I'm looking for is a GUARANTEED clean signal to the board. It must be MIC level. A pad is desired. Size is important. I prefer something that can be put on a small to medium-sized pedal case. Some tone shaping/EQ is needed as I will not be using an amp. Our sound engineer deals in Radial, so I'm leaning towards the Bassbone; however, I have no experience with them and neither does he. I can get a really good deal from him if I go with a Radial product. Please help me identify a few boxes that will meet my needs. I'm only interested in hearing recommendations from people that have experience with the actual unit they recommend. Having used it in an IEM system is a plus. I'm thinking that using it for recording would be valid as well. I'm tired of buying stuff, and I'm tired of starting threads about stuff like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted January 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 19, 2009 Our sound engineer deals in Radial, so I'm leaning towards the Bassbone; however, I have no experience with them and neither does he. I can get a really good deal from him if I go with a Radial product. The only Radial gear I have experience with is my JDI, which is a perfect passive DI box. It meets every requirement of yours except the tone shaping/EQ. I'd expect the Bassbone to be great, but I have NO experience with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fretless Posted January 19, 2009 Members Share Posted January 19, 2009 so , you'll need a preamp with that very few in pedal form and I'd be willing to take a chance on the bassbone , there is the EBS microbass pre http://www.ebs.bass.se/ that's similar and bet that is also a fine unit . IF you don't need a pedal than any pre should do it for you , like a Alembic , Demeter , Ampeg , Avalon . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 19, 2009 I'm interested in why you need something in the form of a pedal? There's plenty of tone shaping rack stuff that would fit in the rack with your wireless or is it that you are sold on the strobostomp and want foot stuff in front of you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thumper Posted January 19, 2009 Members Share Posted January 19, 2009 Countryman Type 85/Radial JDI - perfect except no tone shaping We recorded our demo using Countryman DIs, and I've used the Radial JDI in the past. Both are excellent choices if you can forgo the tone-shaping features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted January 19, 2009 Author Members Share Posted January 19, 2009 I'm interested in why you need something in the form of a pedal? There's plenty of tone shaping rack stuff that would fit in the rack with your wireless or is it that you are sold on the strobostomp and want foot stuff in front of you? I took my Senn out of the rack a while ago. It's actually on my pedalboard. I'm just trying to simplify my life. I'd like to take a small/medium case with my wireless, tuner, and DI. The more I think about this, I could forgo the tone shaping. I've got a Boss EQ pedal. Ugghhhh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted January 19, 2009 Author Members Share Posted January 19, 2009 Looking for a little clarification also on something... Active or passive DI and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted January 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 19, 2009 Looking for a little clarification also on something...Active or passive DI and why? Your soundman is pushing for an active DI because it buffers your passive bass's pickups from being loaded by the circuit. This is good advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lonerstoenr Posted January 19, 2009 Members Share Posted January 19, 2009 Semi - related. If I'm recording things on my computer would putting a DI (or pre amp) in front of the Audio interface allow for 'better' bass tones (ie fuller, deeper, more present)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thumper Posted January 19, 2009 Members Share Posted January 19, 2009 I've heard of players using active DIs for passive basses to take advantage of the tone shaping options. An active bass doesn't need the tone shaping of an active DI. Having said that, I recorded a passive P/J bass with a passive box and it sounded fine. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted January 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 19, 2009 Semi - related.If I'm recording things on my computer would putting a DI (or pre amp) in front of the Audio interface allow for 'better' bass tones (ie fuller, deeper, more present)? If there is an input impedance issue with your audio interface, yes. If not, from my perspective, the fewer items in the signal chain the better. If your interface is designed for instrument level signals, it should be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lonerstoenr Posted January 19, 2009 Members Share Posted January 19, 2009 It is, there's no impedance issue at all. (goes back to trying to work out recording/mixing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted January 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 19, 2009 I've heard of players using active DIs for passive basses to take advantage of the tone shaping options. Just to point out that an "active DI" has nothing to do with tone shaping. Here is a worthwhile discussion of active/passive DIs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fretless Posted January 19, 2009 Members Share Posted January 19, 2009 If there is an input impedance issue with your audio interface, yes. If not, from my perspective, the fewer items in the signal chain the better. If your interface is designed for instrument level signals, it should be fine. that's it ^^^ , good chance it already is a preamp , my interface does not have a pre and so I must use one to get the levels up , what interface do you use ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lonerstoenr Posted January 19, 2009 Members Share Posted January 19, 2009 E-MU 0202 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fretless Posted January 19, 2009 Members Share Posted January 19, 2009 E-MU 0202 I would try it if for nothing more than experimentations and variety especially if you have a good pre ,but running a pre into another pre can cause clipping so go easy . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SmallEQ Posted January 19, 2009 Members Share Posted January 19, 2009 Who knows when they will actually be shipping, but the Markbass pedal thats coming out with the two shape filters would be really cool for a DI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lonerstoenr Posted January 19, 2009 Members Share Posted January 19, 2009 I would try it if for nothing more than experimentations and variety especially if you have a good pre ,but running a pre into another pre can cause clipping so go easy . Cheers man! Good to know it's my bad and not my gear's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted January 19, 2009 Members Share Posted January 19, 2009 I had a crazy idea the other day - I wonder how well one of the LR Baggs DI/preamp would work in such a situation??? - after all, they're fairly well thought of for acoustic guitars - so they'd have to be somewhat noise-free, and *should* have EQing sufficient for electric bass, too... - georgestrings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted January 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 19, 2009 http://www.lrbaggs.com/html/products/preamps_paradi.shtml That's a good suggestion. I've never seen that box before, but assuming it delivers the goods, it fits the bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted January 19, 2009 Members Share Posted January 19, 2009 http://www.lrbaggs.com/html/products/preamps_paradi.shtmlThat's a good suggestion. I've never seen that box before, but assuming it delivers the goods, it fits the bill. Well, I was thinking that since Sansamp's Paradriver is said to work well for acoustics and electric basses, the LR Baggs dealio might just kick ass that way, too... - georgestrings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted January 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 19, 2009 Well, I was thinking that since Sansamp's Paradriver is said to work well for acoustics and electric basses, the LR Baggs dealio might just kick ass that way, too... - georgestrings The EQ points are great. The "treble" control would be useless, but the other four points are really well matched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members L. Ron Hoover Posted January 19, 2009 Members Share Posted January 19, 2009 http://www.lrbaggs.com/html/products/preamps_paradi.shtmlThat's a good suggestion. I've never seen that box before, but assuming it delivers the goods, it fits the bill. Not a fan. It's adequate for fiddles and stuff, but pales in comparison to, say, the Avalon. I think it's high-passed at 75Hz so it's marginal at best for bass. Part of the reason why phantom-powered boxes are typically simple is that you only have 3 or 4mA of current available from a phantom supply. The more complex your circuitry, the more current you draw, unless you make some compromises in the circuit to make it draw less current. I looked at developing a phantom powered preamp but the current delivery limits of phantom required too many sacrifices to be able to provide decent EQ and stuff, so I gave up on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted January 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 19, 2009 Part of the reason why phantom-powered boxes are typically simple is that you only have 3 or 4mA of current available from a phantom supply. Having never had a reason to inquire, I had no idea the current was so drastically limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted January 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted January 19, 2009 Part of the reason why phantom-powered boxes are typically simple is that you only have 3 or 4mA of current available from a phantom supply. The more complex your circuitry, the more current you draw, unless you make some compromises in the circuit to make it draw less current. I looked at developing a phantom powered preamp but the current delivery limits of phantom required too many sacrifices to be able to provide decent EQ and stuff, so I gave up on it.Great info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.