So I split my original guitar signal with my TU-3 BOSS tuner of all things, the output goes to my real amp rig and the bypass goes directly into the instrument input of my inexpensive Scarlett solo. Mean while my real amp cab is mic'd with an sm57 that plugs into the mic input of my Scarlett solo. Unbelievably it works and gives me more option than my skill level could possible use, simple, affordable and sounds exactly the same as if I did each one separately and didn't split with the tuner. Randomly discovered it by plugging the wrong thing in one day, it was not intended but it works just fine for the caliber of women I sleep with... :)
If you are starting with that goal in mind and also need an audio interface, the IK Multimedia Axe I/O is exactly what you need. It has two mic pres and two instrument inputs with variable impedance and coloring options, as well as an amp out with properly matched levels for amplifiers. Plus you get Amplitube and a few TRacks modules as well. All of that for about 350 USD,
From my experience putting my guitar direct vs through DI box. The direct unbalanced signal is duller, more bassy while the DI box balanced signal is much more spappier and tighter in the transients (more highs), you can hear it most when you do tight palm mutes or just anything hard hitting you can feel the dynamics and the strength of your picking translates way more. With unbalanced you try to chop hard to a really tight palm mute but it just doesn't go as snappy and hard as you want no matter what. My guitar sounds totally different with unbalanced vs balanced. Going from A to B the difference is big and it is clear that A is dull unbalanced. But B, C, D are much more similar and sound snappier and with transients. B and D are best.
There is a very important lesson with DI guitar recording that i learned the hard way. If you are recording through an amp/multi-fx and at the same time, through a DI box to capture a backup DI signal, keep this in mind. The output of a DI box is XLR. For Focusrite Scarlett 2i2’s (and likely many more interfaces, especially budget ones), the device is configured to automatically engage the mic preamp for the input you’re using, whenever an XLR is plugged in. Doesn’t matter if the XLR is coming from a DI box, vocal mic, etc., an XLR input WILL engage the mic preamp. And said preamp sounds awful on DI guitar. It compresses the signal, makes it sound dark, and congratulations, what you have is closer to an amped clean guitar and it’s not really a DI signal anymore. If you’re using the DI box as a backup, you will never notice this while tracking and will only find out when you go to reamp it and it suddenly all sounds like shit. Also, it you have a faulty preamp, this will only get worse. TLDR: If you’re in a situation like me and you’re using an interface like mine, do not use a DI box for tracking unless there’s no other alternative. Get a signal splitter if you have to, so the output of it is still a TS cable not XLR
Great insight bro, will have to do some tests to clarify this myself. I guess you can use a XLR to jack cable so you won't be engaging the mic pre of the Audio interface? That's the solution I can think of so far.
actually i have 3rd gen focusrite 2i2 and DI box helped me a lot to improve the quality of my guitar tone, mainly when using high gain cause it eliminated a lot of noise
Wow. B was absolute shit to me 🤷♂️ lol, it’s interesting to see comments on why people liked one or another though...... *edit* actually, I think it’s just this recording, on his recording it’s causing an acidic tone for whatever reason. When looking around at several other videos I don’t hear that and the countryman sounds awesome.
@@u563rick6 Turns out B was the Country Man Type 85, which is widely regarded as one of the best DI boxes. I am surprised you didn't enjoy the sound. I ended up getting one and loving it immediately
Orlando Aponte Actually, I think it’s just this recording, video or whatever... It’s hard to notice in the direct input clip but there’s a few fizzes after a few notes. I don’t know if that’s has any relation to or cause for the acidic tone im hearing in the distortion clip. I just watched several other videos, even downloading the raw files when put in the description & I did NOT hear this extra acidity anywhere else. In fact I’m really impressed with it & do like it a lot! It’s definitely the best in this comparison group.
Hey, ya missed the most important reasons for having a DI box: when long cables go the mixer like a 100 ft. snake, when a ground loop occurs due to a difference in ground between mixer and stage exists, when there's a big impedance mismatch between passive pickups and long cables+input channel, to prevent damage to stage equipment when a balanced stage input has 48V phantom power that will fry the music gear through the outputs that have no phantom power protection. To get the best quality signal over a long cable run, you should be running a twisted pair of copper for the +/- audio signal with the cable shield wired to ground (with a ground lift in case of ground loop). This allows a better quality balanced input to be used on the mixer that will have less noise due to common mode noise rejection. Many mixers use a higher quality preamp for balanced inputs vs. line inputs, with lower noise, higher gain, and less distortion. It's important to look at any mixer or input box schematic to see the audio path of the balanced XLR and 1/4" TRRS inputs vs. the unbalanced 1/4" TRS input. The DI should have the features to safely match unbalanced and balanced outputs to a balanced snake with phantom power and possible ground loop conditions. It's also nice to have a PAD switch to cut the level of hot line outputs going to a mixer balanced input without pad that will overload the channel.
B > A > C > D to my ears. A and B sound very similar to me, but the gap between them and C was significant, as was the gap between C and D. Curious to see which one ends up which!
Yes I could hear a difference! Preference order : D B A C. A is a bit lifeless but OK. B has more definition in the upper mids but misses a bit of low end. C has some weird compression pumping and unnatural low end. D has the best overall balance for my taste.
In most cases I'm working with a Focusrite 18i8 1st gen and there is no such thing as the D.I. being too loud. I always have to crank the pots beyond noon so I can get some nice sustain. Maybe the smaller models have that issue, but the one I'm using is stellar.
This made my Behringer UMC 204 hd / Electric guitar DI setup sound SO much better. The MDA1, that is. Great box. They seem more effective depending on the interface and/or guitar they're connected to.
How interesting, I didn't expect such a difference. I thought they would sound pretty much the same, but there are slight differences on all of them. To my ears, C and D sounded pretty much the same, A was really similar to them too, but to me, it sounded like it had a little less low end. But for that particular amp sim settings, B was the best. It sounded brighter, which I prefer since it is clearer. Good job Glenn!
Just want to share. I tested recording my keyboard with 1. Passive Radial JDI stereo 2. Active Samson stereo D.i 3. Line inputs from my presonus studiolive And the result, the passive D.i sounded warm and no noise floor. The active D.i just sounded clean. The line input have the most noise (not noticeable though). But for me, passive guitar pickup needs active D.i. Active pickup and Keyboards sounds good with passive D.I. Line inputs low Z is a no no for passive guitar pickup.
A: Scarlet Interface B: DI C: RME Interface D: DI Nice comparison indeed. You can hear the heft slight heft the transformers give the sound on both C&D. Telling those two apart is like splitting hairs. Glen you should give look at the BAE Passive DI it uses a Carnhill transformer. However costs about the same as the Radial or Country man (surprising given the average price of most BAE units.) The PDI makes a great front end for direct bass or guitar to my Neve 1073LB preamps.
One exception to a standard DI box is the use of a Piezo pickups in an acoustic instrument. Radial makes the PZ -DI Variable Load Box which handles all types of pickups including Piezo, single coil and humbuckers.
Listening to the samples through my usual speakers (better than cellphone/laptop speakers, but not much) I can't tell any difference. But I'm not a recording engineer, just a music fan. From that point of view, these were all similar enough that I probably wouldn't have noticed, nor cared, which method was used in the song that I bought. In fact, you could probably use all 4 recording methods in the same song, and I doubt most people would even notice.
Agree completely. but the quality we're talking about isn't sound quality people notice, and say "wow this sounds amazing". it's the sound quality were people like the song and don't know why. which i think is the best anyone watching this channel can shoot for. I know it's what i shoot for. I've found that most people don't like genre's of music or even good songwriting/musicianship necessarily to enjoy a song. they don't realize it of course, but what they're liking is the production quality 90% of the time. I think if the average consumers were informed they'd realize that they are fans of producers, not so much artists. Just my best guess from observing what casual listeners enjoy.
If you have a more modern interface, like the Audient iD44, you may not need a DI box, but it's nice to have one in case you want to split the signal from the DI and the actual amp. As Glenn said, if you have a first gen interface, then you will probably need one so you can have headroom. In the end, what matters the most is how it sounds in a mix.
Damn, I can't believe people don't understand such a simple thing... I basically just started with my home studio, have pretty much just an audio interface and a D.I. box, and as soon as these stuff arrives I did a simple experiment: connect my guitar direct into the D.I. box, sent the balance output via XLR cable to channel one and the jack output on channel two of my interface, record a simple guitar riff/lick, and listen to the results.... totally different sound, even without any amp simulation... believe me, Glenn is 100% right with this.... invest those fucking few dollars/euro/puonds in a good D.I. box will change your life
Dear Glenn I am a more interested in writing music and using recording as demos . This technic allows you play a riff and change sound later to tweak tone and effects during the writing process. Am looking forward to trying this when I get box of my own. Bite from GA. .
The one thing most people don't know or realise is that one of the main if not the main spec to look for on a DI for recording guitars direct (especially if you are looking to reamp later) is the input impedance. Something around 1M ohm is ideal for guitars. The 2i2 is infact 1M ohm, while the radial J48 is only 220k ohm. The countryman on the other hand goes above what's needed with 10M ohm. Some passive DI boxes will be even lower at maybe 50k ohm or 100k ohm. Basically a higher impedance will result in a clearer and more lively sound, while a lower impedance while still ok, might be described as sounding a bit dead or muffled, especially when reamping with this compared to something recorded on a box with a higher input impedance.
There are some tiny, but well equipped studios, that are crowded spaces with a ton of gear, with absolutely no room for unneeded junk equipment. So when I am trying to decide if a piece of gear is actually needed I look up the gear list of studios that are in smaller spaces and if they have it I assume I should get it as well. Not to mention everyone is always looking for that key to that "pro-sound" in their mixes, but yet they assume they don't need the same equipment as pro studios. You don't have to have a $800 UAD interface by any means, but $80-150 DI can literally take you from sounding good for a home studio to people asking who you paid to do it. That is the biggest differences between a home studio sound and pro studio sound is the pros don't skip that small stuff. Yeah they have a ton of gear, but if you look and see exactly what gear they've used for bands that have a sound you like you'll realize its normally only a small percentage of everything they have, and you can start there with getting a list of how to sound how you want. Again, you don't have to buy $3000 comps or DIs or EQs, but you should get affordable versions of these pieces of equipment.
A & C were straight to the interface. B & D were through the direct box to interface? B & D had more signal presence and in a mix it will become more apparent which I like because i have always had presence issues with guitars and bass.
Active DI: A Behringer Ultra-G is a much cheaper alternative for a DI box that sounds fine IMHO, they're like $25 used. It's active and can either send a dry guitar signal or can hook onto the speaker line between the amp and cab much like the Countryman. It has a built-in cab IR that's switchable, but it's shit. Send your amp's signal and load an IR from your DAW instead. Passive DI: Hosa makes a real dirt cheap dedicated passive DI box called the Sidekick that's around $15 used. Mine was in a 4 inches of water overnight when my basement flooded and still works fine to this day. They all have a switch for an instrument or line signal. Depending on the generation you get, some actually say instrument or speaker instead. DO NOT HOOK THIS UP TO ON YOUR SPEAKER LINE, IT'S MISLABELED. It cannot take that extra hot signal. You'll do a combination of blowing up your tubes / transformer in your amp, melting the DI box, and / or burning down your house. Passive Re-amp: Unfortunately, there's no super cheapo way to send the signal in the other direction to re-amp. Spend your money on a Radial.
Yeah, realistically, they sound almost exactly the same. It goes to show again that the best bet is to find quality equipment, use it and consider the problem solved. Focus on things that really matter like technique, playing ability etc. Find what works sure, then move on and continue refining your sound and procedures and keep learning. Gear generally is the least of most people's problem's with music. You rock Glenn!
My passive direct box cuts down the highs and signal level, but it gets closer to old analog recordings without the hifi fizzyness. Also the direct inputs sound different on a fucusrite and a steinberg. Use what sounds the best for you.
C and D are in my opinion better sounding. The differences are subtle though D had a lot more body, presence and it had a crispy crunch to it; almost like it had a little compression. Great video Glenn!
I have an alternative setup that so far has served me well. I use a Boss GT-001 guitar effects processor. It acts as a multi-effects unit, amp sim, audio interface, direct box, and reamp box in one unit. With proper setup, any function can be used independently of the others. Very versatile piece of gear. I used to own a direct box until someone decided they needed it more than I did, but so far I have no plans to replace it.
One other "silent" recording trick I've come across is running the amp fx send into an interface and running cab impulses (with or without poweramp emulation). Dont have a ton of experience using this, may make a cool video. The silent was in quotes because if an amp has separate channel and master volumes you may be able to crank the channel volume and dip the master to still get the fx send at a decent volume while turning the cab down
no idea which is which...but I do prefer the punchy dynamic sound of Clip B. That would be my choice for lead guitar. Then Clip D would be second best - a decent rhythm guitar option. I can imagine those two combined, panned hard left 'n right. Stay awesome!!
Again thanks for another superb video! This is what I heard, my opinion and am no expert. Distorted: D C B A - I preferred D's tone overall. C & B were very close but C appeared to have just a hair more mids. A did not cut it for my ears and muffled. Direct: D C B A - D was cleaner across the spectrum. C dropped a bit compared to D, and B moving slightly further down past C. A's input signal seemed lower in volume than the others and again muffled.
Clip B sounds good to me. Not sure if that was the one through the D.I box or not. I have a 6i6 v2, I do sometimes still plug directly into it. The biggest problem with this method for me is how unpredictable the waves are, especially with bass guitars. Even with the gain so far from the yellow zone I'm still seeing horrible clipping on certain parts. Also the gain level for rhythm parts and solos are usually so different that it sounds so anemic when you don't adjust the gains when doing solos. I don't have a DI box but whenever I use my captor (which is technically a DI box) the waves are always solid. I usually only plug in directly when I wanna want to to record an idea really fast.
Nope. The captor is not "technically a DI box". A DI box takes an instrument level input and matches level and impedance to a mic input. The Captor takes the output of a power amp, presents it with a load and transforms the signal into a line and a mic signal. The input is not instrument level. What you describe is dynamic range reduction, which isn't what the captor does, but the amp you put in front of it. This has to be in the running for dumb musician texts, because it's on par with claiming that you have a cable that gives you a nice chorus effect. Because what you do is you plug your normal instrument cable into a Chorus FX pedal and that special cable tinto the output, you always get that nice chorus. Must be the cable, right?
Simon Gunkel Captor’s product description: Play your tube amplifier at neighbor-friendly volume levels, or play without a speaker cabinet at all, with the Two Notes Torpedo Captor reactive load box, direct box, attenuator and speaker simulator.
@@donicsm7684 That product description is incorrect. The Two Notes Website correctly describes it as a loadbox with a DI out. That's not the same as a DI box, because a DI box specifically takes line or instrument level - high impedance usually in the 100k-1M range - and matches it to mic input, which expects a lower impedance. The output of an amp has a particlarly low impedance, generally around 100m, that's a million times lower than for an instrument signal! I think it's important to undestand the difference. If you try to use the captor like you would a DI box, it's not going to work. If you try to use a DI box in they way you use the captor, you are likely to destroy the amp, the DI box and whatever signal chain you are going into with it.
I know it's not a D.I. box but it can split the signal into line and an XLR output. You know what else works like that? A D.I. box. The difference is where one's placed before and one's after the amp head. Remember I never said it was, I said it TECHNICALLY was, which if you check out a lot of websites, is how they're described as well. Also, of course you can't use a D.I. box like the Captor because it is not also a load box. I wish I could draw a Venn diagram right now but I digress.
@@donicsm7684 So what you're saying is that because you're putting an amp in the middle, you cannot get a D.I. signal from this box that you call "technically the same as D.I. box"
I am leaning toward clip B or C. The crunch on the palm mutes seemed a little feeble in clip A, and too hot on clip D. Without hearing it in a mix with drums and bass, I think B would mix the best, in my own opinion. Thanks for the vid!
Clip A sounded the best to me - the others all had varying degrees of increased fizz (except C, which seemed oddly fuzzy in the low-end). Of course, there was no real detectable difference in the DI signals to my ears - it's only once you've got the inherent compression of distorted signals that such things become apparent in my experience.
The differences were pretty damn subtle. I could hear the differences more in the direct tracks, but they were completely washed away after passing through the amp sim.
That's weird. i noticed the opposite in this video and in my own tests. differences are very subtle on the clean signal, but get massively exaggerated when you put a high gain amp sim on them. i tested 3 boxes against straight into my interface/preamp, and it was all that way. barest differences clean. notable highs and mid changes on amp sims.
I'm just trying to figure out what you need with the set-up. Obviously a amp, guitar, a DI box, and a laptop, what else do you need? A microphone? Several cables?
My teacher told us that active source (like electric piano) = passive Di box. Passive source (like passive acustic guitarr) = active Di box. But this advice was for a live situation thou, and I've learned from first hand experience that it saves you a lot of problems live if you use Di boxes
Behringer makes a line of amp modeler/drive pedals that have DI boxes built In for 35 dollars for all of us who like affordable gear that’s not terrible.
Clip B seemed like the most crisp and defined out of all 4, buuuuuut... the difference was so small that I had to put some effort into actively looking for those differences. Kind of makes me wonder if a good DI box should actually be a priority over other stuff for people on a tight budget.
I have one. It's definitely useful to give you reampnig options. Sometimes it's hard nailing tones with the 5150 if the pickups aren't the best in the world, so gotta butter it up a bit. Also, they get rid of some of that annoying loop noise, I found.
I made an in-depth comparison test on using my Behringer DI100 di box or just using a jack cable, weeks ago, and I really could hear and see differences in tone, especially in the middle/high frequencies
@@bearonguitar I checked out Allessandro's video because i've been genuinely curious about the quality of the Behringer DI compared to more expensive boxes. I both agree and disagree with you. certainly the differences on the behringer seemed way less pronounced, and in some cases it seemed to actually add more low mids and take away some highs. but there were a few cases (Bridge pickups) where it seemed to have more highs and mids than the bypassed (which was the link it seemed). but that's what i wanted to know. how does a cheap powered Di stack up to an expensive passive or powered Di. I use the Type 10, The Di on my peterson strobo stomp tuner, and a Little labs IBP. all of which seem to have a more pronounced affect than the behringer. but it's tough to tell without doing the test myself. the behringer did do a little something. that something just didn't seem to always be good and was very slight.
I'm just an olde bastard in his man cave but I'm learning more everyday (especially since C9). I'm sure there's nothing I have to say that you don't know, but just to share... What a friend o' mine (who has a serious commercial studio) told me is that the signal received by your DAW from a good direct box contains much more digital information, so if you need to edit wee tiny things, artifacts etc, you can dig right in there. Otherwise, the wave is limited. On another note, it used to be that for an active guitar you'd use a passive DI and an active DI for a non-active guitar. These days, it seems that a GOOD quality active will do it all. Just pad down the signal before recording to avoid redlining. Also, as you mentioned, ALWAYS record a clean track at the same pass for re-amping later if nesc. For what it's worth, my old beat-down rock'n'roll ears couldn't hear any difference in your A-B-C-D test, but supposedly your DAW can. Great channel, Glenn! Cheers, everyone! Stay safe!
There is another way of playing through your amp and recording a direct signal at the same time: You can do that with a reamp box. It's basically the opposite of a DI box. What you do is, you connect your guitar to your interface via the HiZ/Inst input, than connect your reamp box to an output of your interface and to the input of your amp. Now you route the input directly to this output. This way you can record the DI signal and use your amp as the "monitor". Also you can use your VST amp sim, disable the speaker simulation, and connect the reamp box to the FX return of your amp and play the VST like a real amp through your real cab.
The through output of a DI Box is literally just a Y-Cable (ground and signal from the input are soldered right to the output, you could switch them out with no difference and hook your input to the through output and your amp to the input) . That's definitely not a killer application.
I'm not completely convinced, but I am thinking B and D were using direct boxes, and A and C were straight into the interface. If I am hearing correctly, I think I should be looking into a direct box for my own recordings, haha
Both those DI boxes are active which you didn't mention, most people that need to learn about DI boxes probably wouldn't understand the difference if they buy a passive but need an active for what they are doing
ON the first run though, clip B had a *slight* crunchier sound. the second run though they were all different, A was bright B and C were in line with each other with B having a bit more low chunk and D was louder but more like A in tone.
i dont fuck around with direct in because I like recording on my tascam and just exporting but thinking about getting a behringer so I can eventually fuck around with VSTs and make tracking easier in my life
B and D have higher volume and slightly more pronounced high frequencies, so predictably, people seem to be latching onto those the most and assuming they're the DI signals. They're probably correct. Do they sound better, though? ...I don't know. They do sound a bit harsher to me, while A and C sound a bit more balanced. Then again, that could just be that I heard A first, so my ears adjusted. It's hard to say.
preach it! yeah, i agree. thought it's tough to judge a stand alone guitar part. i've often found that harsher metal tones actually sound better in the mix depending on the style of music and exact song. I do use the Countryman type 10 though, and of my 3 di boxes it boosts the highs and mids the most for that modern aggressive metal tone, so i also think the boosted highs were the DI box in this test.
I can hear that A and B are different. B has a little more top end and maybe mids. However, I can't hear a different between B, C, or D at all. Might be able to if they were played back to back like B to C, B to D, etc. Couldn't even guess which was which though.
"less than $300 investment?" Dude, my Millenium (Thomann) DI was €10 and works just fine. Solid (metal) build quality too. Granted, that's a passive box, but a good active one from, say, Behringer still shouldn't set you back more than €30-40. We use those active Behringers at the venue I work at, and for that price they even come with up to 40dB of padding and extra fall protection.
Glenn, if you use it mainly for sending a signal to both amp and a PC, why not use a Switchblade Plus instead? It's a ~50 euro signal splitter pedal. I use it just for the same job, seems to work great and i don't see any losses in signal's quality.
Direct box? Yes, you need one!! The line input is only good for keyboards in my opinion.. I prefer the Steward ADB-1 for my direct box. My 4 have been in hard service on tour, doing my own live event stuff as a live production sound company and in the studio. But, the Countryman and Radial are more "accepted" units and well worth the money since they are built like tanks, sound great and damn near indestructible!
Commenting before I know what's what; all are great, totally usable, but there's something about Clip B, a little more low end, a little more low mids, just that much more body and attitude.
I'm listening on a phone speaker but I'm digging D the most, to me it has the most clarity. B is second. Then C. A definitely sounds the worst. I'd say D and B are dedicated DIs and C and A are direct into the audio interface. My guesses in order of preference: D -- Countryman B -- Radial C -- Audient A -- Focusrite This could be very embarrassing. Though if I'm right it's obvious enough to be heard through TH-cam quality and an iPhone speaker
My favorite was B I think. A was a little dull, C seemed a little muted, D was close but I still go with C as my favorite. As to what that was? hmmm I guess we'll find out.
Interesting I think A y D are direct box while B and C are direct inputs. To my ears, A and D had more bottom end however D had a little bit to much of crisp in the top
Good time for this video for me, kind of. I bought a Radial stereo direct box two weeks ago to record guitar solos for a friend's upcoming release. But I didn't have an interface, I'm still recording old-school, no computer, so I needed a direct box. Now I'll be able to reamp for the first time! Whoopee! More option peralasys. From this video it seems the interface did a good job though. The reamped tracks sounded close enough to me.
In the past I plugged into a Roland QuadCapture, which had the option to set the impedance for guitar, but was basically a mic preamp. A few months ago I switched to the Audient iD4, which has a dedicated JFET DI for designed for bass/guitar. The difference is night and day. I could never get a decent sound with the QuadCapture, mostly because it introduced so much noise. It seems like the iD4 colours the sound a little, but in a way that works for me. I would be hesitant to buy another interface that shares its 'DI' with a mic preamp. At the moment I don't have a physical amp (everything is in the box), so it doesn't seem like a dedicated DI would be worth it.
Does an instrument input on a soundcard (like the one on focusrite) make the direct box useless for signal recording ? insn't it the purpouse of this input ?
I'm a little late here, but it kinda depends. On my focusrite 18i20, i've got 2 guitars with fishman moderns, both will "clip" the input of the interface unless i have a DI or turn the gain unnecessairly low. Note, the signal meter doesn't actually indicate a clip, but there is some distortion on a clean signal that sounds like clipping. Either way, I find a DI box completely gets rid of that and i can run my guitar at proper gain
the third gen 18i20 actually has a button on the first two main channels to alter the impedance based on whether or not you have a guitar or a mic plugged in. its pretty sick
Hey Glen, speaking of penny pinching....Since most people won't necessarily listen to music on high end speakers, why not skip the expensive studio monitors and mix on some typical computer speakers, test the mix in a car, and then call it a day?
All a matter of how much time you have on your hands and how much you value that time. Good monitoring gives you a more accurate picture from the start, which limits the fucking around factor. Something something "get it right the first time" and whatnot.
I listen to most music on good quality monitors. I don't penny pinch when it comes to that. So I appreciate the efforts that producers, engineers, and artists take when recording a track. A lot of people do listen to music on high end playback, and chances are the music being listened to wasn't penny pinched along the way. Just sayin.
@@Asmogrim Take a look through the videos here as Glenn should have some regarding the differences. If you do not want to look, here is a link from Neumann Berlin: www.neumann.com/homestudio/en/difference-between-home-stereo-speakers-and-studio-monitors
I think the best way is to test all quality groups, if you have the time and money for it. Going from best to worst: Studio monitors - good headphones - normal good quality speakers - car stereo - Bluetooth speaker - earphones, and make sure it sounds decent on all of them. Might be overkill, but reducing it to testing 3 levels of gear seems reasonable.
There was something that sounded "tighter" about Clip C on the overdriven tones. But the difference was VERY subtle to my ears. They all sounded fine IMHO.
Yes you do....so many times this is a fix, even for something like having a live output for your amp modeler to make sure the PA systems phantom power doesn’t fry your outputs
Hard for me to tell too. I thought clips B and D both sounded brighter but as to which sounded better, I don't know. Myself, I don't use a direct box. I first plug my guitar into my Presonus Studiolive 16-4-2 mixer which in my interface to my computer. If I want, I can easily send a signal to my guitar amp as well and mic that.
OMG finally!!! Thank you so much for doing this comparison. I like the sound of clips B and D the best and between those two I would choose clip B. Definitely can't wait to find out what we're hearing on this one.
For a truly identical A/B take, you should run your guitar into a looper pedal first, that way when you switch DIs, you have the same exact signal running through each setup.
B C and D sound very VERY close to my ears, A is a slight bit darker. But the the difference is slight, and would disappear in a full mix. I liked B C and D more than A, but only by a little bit (Listening on headphones - yes not the greatest thing to listen through, at least I know this particular pair pretty well.)
The difference is absolutely minuscule guys.. I mean, I cannot be the only one right, I honestly use a DI because everyone swears by it not because I was at some point " jeez... hear at this tone... I really need a DI box man..." using either input of a Motu 828 mk3the differences are nothing to kill yourselves over.
I have some cheap ones that I got for under $30 USD. I got an active mini-stomp sized one for $30, and a passive one I grabbed for $15, both off Amazon. Even at those cheap price points, still sounds better than the DI input on my interfaces.
It’s also a feel thing. The dynamic range is wider with a di box. All my amp sims sound more lively with one rather going straight in to a low/ midrange interface
Because its real value is used in a wet dry set up ,,, then your little pure tone combo is then propulsed into usually a stereo set up ,effects , stereo power amp and cabs .... you keep your entire original combo tone plus you get that umph from the stereo side . But thats just me
Ive tried out using my boss eq pedal into the preamps of my field recored to get a decent DI signal, then through that into the neural amp modeler. Sounds better than my cab miced up 😮
I hear the difference in the headphones and that's where a recording musician often monitors themselves as they record. It's really not a huge difference. It's a small difference but real. I guess that it comes down to what you're doing musically and what sounds you prefer. I tend to not plug my guitar into anything that is not an amp or an amp-bound effect. I have always looked at DI boxes as a tool for recording bass. That's the only way that I have ever seen them used in studios and the only way that I have ever used them, either on a lone bass track or usually as part of a DI/ amp mic blend using 2 tracks. However, with the new technology available today, I know that a lot of guys favor DI for guitars when using software amps. Some DI boxes are brighter and some are a little warmer. The difference may not be huge and EQ can often address minor differences, but a lot of musicians including myself can be happy or disappointed with our sound based on minor character changes in the sound and we pursue gear that gets our preferred sounds from the start because happy vs disappointed makes a big difference to the performance. Unfortunately, going to a store to try out a DI box is like going to a store to try out guitar pickups. Not exactly a widespread option and you don't really know what you're going to hear until you're using it with your gear. The best thing most of us can do it watch videos like this with DI 1 vs DI 2 vs DI 3 etc to at least have some sort of information to use before buying anything. There are more than a few DI options, especially when you start looking into the more advanced ones like the sansamp stuff or Radial Bassbone where it is part bass preamp and part DI, but as mentioned here, if you're buying a DI the Radial J48 is a great recording tool.Some DI boxes are passive, requiring no power and some, like the J48 are Active and you need to turn on your recording preamp's phantom power to use it. Active VS Passive DI; That is another topic to research and that opinions vary on, but active DIs can be useful on instruments with low output pickups just as Passive DIs are good for instruments with active pickups, but again, a lot of videos here show people who are happy with the results using all kinds of combinations so .... good luck in your search.
*A had a lower volume but sounded the tightest to me the B&C sounded almost identical but louder than A....D was the loudest signal but otherwise same as B&C.... only on the driven sound they all sounded even on clean....
I watched on my phone and I'm half asleep. I was trying to get my RG550 to blend in. It has a fullshred at the bridge. I use an Edirol FA-101. It has the option to use one of the mic channels as a direct box. It works fine for the guitar that I chose for lead. I believe it is because it has cheep picups. I hooked up my Horizon Straightline and everything through the thing has been beat shitless it works for blending in Audio Assault amps with Ugritone drums. I traided off my actually amplifies. One had line out. I didn't need a direct box but I didn't see the point in my apartment to keep something that was ment to blast and not be able to crank it up without getting complaints.
I just picked up a Country Man DI for my bass tracks. It's got a super warm and fat sound for bass. I A/B'ed with going direct into my interface and also going through my Sansamp RBI rackmount DI out. I love the Sansamp but not good when you just need a warm fat bass sound. Anyway, the Country Man beats everything. I just slapped a CL-76 plugin on it and it's awesome in the mix. Thinking about selling my Sansamp RBI now. If you need a Di for bass tracks you gotta get one.
Hey Glen, would you take a look at the Thomann Millenium DI-33 DI Box? Cost much less than the ones you mention at 25 EUR and is active to boot. I have it and I love it. The main thing I like about it is that I get less noise when I record DI from passive pickups compared to going direct my interface.
My studio monitors have a hum and let’s assume we all know the source is 100% coming from the sound card. Would direct boxes in between the sound card and studio monitors help with the hum?
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
So I split my original guitar signal with my TU-3 BOSS tuner of all things, the output goes to my real amp rig and the bypass goes directly into the instrument input of my inexpensive Scarlett solo. Mean while my real amp cab is mic'd with an sm57 that plugs into the mic input of my Scarlett solo. Unbelievably it works and gives me more option than my skill level could possible use, simple, affordable and sounds exactly the same as if I did each one separately and didn't split with the tuner. Randomly discovered it by plugging the wrong thing in one day, it was not intended but it works just fine for the caliber of women I sleep with... :)
Meh... my high quality phone speaker tells me they're all the same.
danar dalin There’s obvious difference even on my phone tho
I thought they all sounded a bit watery. But it might be my phone.
Im on Jbl monitors right now and gotta say the differences are still very minimal.
Then your mom would buy one 😂
hey
I'll have to check what they say on the Line 6 forums before I make any final decisions...
If you are starting with that goal in mind and also need an audio interface, the IK Multimedia Axe I/O is exactly what you need. It has two mic pres and two instrument inputs with variable impedance and coloring options, as well as an amp out with properly matched levels for amplifiers. Plus you get Amplitube and a few TRacks modules as well. All of that for about 350 USD,
From my experience putting my guitar direct vs through DI box. The direct unbalanced signal is duller, more bassy while the DI box balanced signal is much more spappier and tighter in the transients (more highs), you can hear it most when you do tight palm mutes or just anything hard hitting you can feel the dynamics and the strength of your picking translates way more. With unbalanced you try to chop hard to a really tight palm mute but it just doesn't go as snappy and hard as you want no matter what. My guitar sounds totally different with unbalanced vs balanced.
Going from A to B the difference is big and it is clear that A is dull unbalanced. But B, C, D are much more similar and sound snappier and with transients. B and D are best.
Clip B sounds the best to my hears, more definition and fuller sound. Thanks Glenn very useful video as always!
I didn't like the spikey high's on B. I liked C or D best as they sounded warmer to me.
The audio interface direct imputs are A and C and the direct boxes are B and D.
Same
Yep, I agree. More output, more high end.
Same. Not a big difference but it's definitely there.
Exactly what I thought as well
Agreed
Glenn, my 2 year old daughter loves the 'Eagle has landed' intro, she headbangs each time she hears it!
Hey Glenn paint it hot pink and call it the Three Way and everyone will want one till it gets BANNED !!!
Yeah or they sell out like the pussy melter
Jesus Christ dude! It's 9am, I just and woke up and I wasn't ready for this! Hahahaha!
@@absolutebob8212 No expects the Spanish Inquisition ! !!!!
cool name ,, i will make a sticker for my di , ,, the three-way box,, 2 in the front one in the back,,
That one was good hahahaha
This is why I rarely read anything on Facebook forums and just get on and make music. After watching Glenn's videos, that is. Great job again!
There is a very important lesson with DI guitar recording that i learned the hard way. If you are recording through an amp/multi-fx and at the same time, through a DI box to capture a backup DI signal, keep this in mind. The output of a DI box is XLR. For Focusrite Scarlett 2i2’s (and likely many more interfaces, especially budget ones), the device is configured to automatically engage the mic preamp for the input you’re using, whenever an XLR is plugged in. Doesn’t matter if the XLR is coming from a DI box, vocal mic, etc., an XLR input WILL engage the mic preamp. And said preamp sounds awful on DI guitar. It compresses the signal, makes it sound dark, and congratulations, what you have is closer to an amped clean guitar and it’s not really a DI signal anymore. If you’re using the DI box as a backup, you will never notice this while tracking and will only find out when you go to reamp it and it suddenly all sounds like shit. Also, it you have a faulty preamp, this will only get worse.
TLDR: If you’re in a situation like me and you’re using an interface like mine, do not use a DI box for tracking unless there’s no other alternative. Get a signal splitter if you have to, so the output of it is still a TS cable not XLR
Great insight bro, will have to do some tests to clarify this myself. I guess you can use a XLR to jack cable so you won't be engaging the mic pre of the Audio interface? That's the solution I can think of so far.
@@riothood i do the same.. xlr from Di output to trs jack into mixer
@@siputai4321 and from mixer to interface??
actually i have 3rd gen focusrite 2i2 and DI box helped me a lot to improve the quality of my guitar tone, mainly when using high gain cause it eliminated a lot of noise
Clip B destroys them all. Clips B and D had the best sound, A and C the worst.
Wow. B was absolute shit to me 🤷♂️ lol, it’s interesting to see comments on why people liked one or another though...... *edit* actually, I think it’s just this recording, on his recording it’s causing an acidic tone for whatever reason. When looking around at several other videos I don’t hear that and the countryman sounds awesome.
@@u563rick6 Turns out B was the Country Man Type 85, which is widely regarded as one of the best DI boxes. I am surprised you didn't enjoy the sound. I ended up getting one and loving it immediately
Orlando Aponte Actually, I think it’s just this recording, video or whatever... It’s hard to notice in the direct input clip but there’s a few fizzes after a few notes. I don’t know if that’s has any relation to or cause for the acidic tone im hearing in the distortion clip. I just watched several other videos, even downloading the raw files when put in the description & I did NOT hear this extra acidity anywhere else. In fact I’m really impressed with it & do like it a lot! It’s definitely the best in this comparison group.
Hey, ya missed the most important reasons for having a DI box: when long cables go the mixer like a 100 ft. snake, when a ground loop occurs due to a difference in ground between mixer and stage exists, when there's a big impedance mismatch between passive pickups and long cables+input channel, to prevent damage to stage equipment when a balanced stage input has 48V phantom power that will fry the music gear through the outputs that have no phantom power protection. To get the best quality signal over a long cable run, you should be running a twisted pair of copper for the +/- audio signal with the cable shield wired to ground (with a ground lift in case of ground loop). This allows a better quality balanced input to be used on the mixer that will have less noise due to common mode noise rejection.
Many mixers use a higher quality preamp for balanced inputs vs. line inputs, with lower noise, higher gain, and less distortion. It's important to look at any mixer or input box schematic to see the audio path of the balanced XLR and 1/4" TRRS inputs vs. the unbalanced 1/4" TRS input. The DI should have the features to safely match unbalanced and balanced outputs to a balanced snake with phantom power and possible ground loop conditions. It's also nice to have a PAD switch to cut the level of hot line outputs going to a mixer balanced input without pad that will overload the channel.
B > A > C > D to my ears. A and B sound very similar to me, but the gap between them and C was significant, as was the gap between C and D. Curious to see which one ends up which!
Yes I could hear a difference!
Preference order : D B A C.
A is a bit lifeless but OK.
B has more definition in the upper mids but misses a bit of low end.
C has some weird compression pumping and unnatural low end.
D has the best overall balance for my taste.
In most cases I'm working with a Focusrite 18i8 1st gen and there is no such thing as the D.I. being too loud. I always have to crank the pots beyond noon so I can get some nice sustain. Maybe the smaller models have that issue, but the one I'm using is stellar.
I like C the best overall. It sounds like A&C are similar and B&D are similar, but I won't try to guess which ones are the direct boxes.
This made my Behringer UMC 204 hd / Electric guitar DI setup sound SO much better. The MDA1, that is. Great box. They seem more effective depending on the interface and/or guitar they're connected to.
How interesting, I didn't expect such a difference. I thought they would sound pretty much the same, but there are slight differences on all of them. To my ears, C and D sounded pretty much the same, A was really similar to them too, but to me, it sounded like it had a little less low end. But for that particular amp sim settings, B was the best. It sounded brighter, which I prefer since it is clearer. Good job Glenn!
"I'll follow up in a few days with the results"
Three weeks later and no update.
Meanwhile, 10 videos complaining about the pussy melter "controversy" 🙄
Just want to share. I tested recording my keyboard with
1. Passive Radial JDI stereo
2. Active Samson stereo D.i
3. Line inputs from my presonus studiolive
And the result, the passive D.i sounded warm and no noise floor. The active D.i just sounded clean. The line input have the most noise (not noticeable though).
But for me, passive guitar pickup needs active D.i. Active pickup and Keyboards sounds good with passive D.I. Line inputs low Z is a no no for passive guitar pickup.
A: Scarlet Interface B: DI C: RME Interface D: DI
Nice comparison indeed. You can hear the heft slight heft the transformers give the sound on both C&D. Telling those two apart is like splitting hairs.
Glen you should give look at the BAE Passive DI it uses a Carnhill transformer. However costs about the same as the Radial or Country man (surprising given the average price of most BAE units.) The PDI makes a great front end for direct bass or guitar to my Neve 1073LB preamps.
One exception to a standard DI box is the use of a Piezo pickups in an acoustic instrument. Radial makes the PZ -DI Variable Load Box which handles all types of pickups including Piezo, single coil and humbuckers.
Listening to the samples through my usual speakers (better than cellphone/laptop speakers, but not much) I can't tell any difference. But I'm not a recording engineer, just a music fan. From that point of view, these were all similar enough that I probably wouldn't have noticed, nor cared, which method was used in the song that I bought. In fact, you could probably use all 4 recording methods in the same song, and I doubt most people would even notice.
Agree completely. but the quality we're talking about isn't sound quality people notice, and say "wow this sounds amazing". it's the sound quality were people like the song and don't know why. which i think is the best anyone watching this channel can shoot for. I know it's what i shoot for.
I've found that most people don't like genre's of music or even good songwriting/musicianship necessarily to enjoy a song. they don't realize it of course, but what they're liking is the production quality 90% of the time. I think if the average consumers were informed they'd realize that they are fans of producers, not so much artists. Just my best guess from observing what casual listeners enjoy.
If you have a more modern interface, like the Audient iD44, you may not need a DI box, but it's nice to have one in case you want to split the signal from the DI and the actual amp. As Glenn said, if you have a first gen interface, then you will probably need one so you can have headroom. In the end, what matters the most is how it sounds in a mix.
Damn, I can't believe people don't understand such a simple thing... I basically just started with my home studio, have pretty much just an audio interface and a D.I. box, and as soon as these stuff arrives I did a simple experiment: connect my guitar direct into the D.I. box, sent the balance output via XLR cable to channel one and the jack output on channel two of my interface, record a simple guitar riff/lick, and listen to the results.... totally different sound, even without any amp simulation... believe me, Glenn is 100% right with this.... invest those fucking few dollars/euro/puonds in a good D.I. box will change your life
how about record with pre amp pedal such like Mooer micro Preamp or anything else, does it good too?
@@donyignazio1544 try it, I think as soon as you'll be able to balance the levels it'll be totally doable
Dear Glenn I am a more interested in writing music and using recording as demos . This technic allows you play a riff and change sound later to tweak tone and effects during the writing process. Am looking forward to trying this when I get box of my own. Bite from GA.
.
The one thing most people don't know or realise is that one of the main if not the main spec to look for on a DI for recording guitars direct (especially if you are looking to reamp later) is the input impedance. Something around 1M ohm is ideal for guitars. The 2i2 is infact 1M ohm, while the radial J48 is only 220k ohm. The countryman on the other hand goes above what's needed with 10M ohm. Some passive DI boxes will be even lower at maybe 50k ohm or 100k ohm. Basically a higher impedance will result in a clearer and more lively sound, while a lower impedance while still ok, might be described as sounding a bit dead or muffled, especially when reamping with this compared to something recorded on a box with a higher input impedance.
There are some tiny, but well equipped studios, that are crowded spaces with a ton of gear, with absolutely no room for unneeded junk equipment. So when I am trying to decide if a piece of gear is actually needed I look up the gear list of studios that are in smaller spaces and if they have it I assume I should get it as well. Not to mention everyone is always looking for that key to that "pro-sound" in their mixes, but yet they assume they don't need the same equipment as pro studios. You don't have to have a $800 UAD interface by any means, but $80-150 DI can literally take you from sounding good for a home studio to people asking who you paid to do it. That is the biggest differences between a home studio sound and pro studio sound is the pros don't skip that small stuff. Yeah they have a ton of gear, but if you look and see exactly what gear they've used for bands that have a sound you like you'll realize its normally only a small percentage of everything they have, and you can start there with getting a list of how to sound how you want. Again, you don't have to buy $3000 comps or DIs or EQs, but you should get affordable versions of these pieces of equipment.
A & C were straight to the interface. B & D were through the direct box to interface?
B & D had more signal presence and in a mix it will become more apparent which I like because i have always had presence issues with guitars and bass.
Do you go from the guitar, into a direct box and then into the recording interface?
Active DI:
A Behringer Ultra-G is a much cheaper alternative for a DI box that sounds fine IMHO, they're like $25 used. It's active and can either send a dry guitar signal or can hook onto the speaker line between the amp and cab much like the Countryman. It has a built-in cab IR that's switchable, but it's shit. Send your amp's signal and load an IR from your DAW instead.
Passive DI:
Hosa makes a real dirt cheap dedicated passive DI box called the Sidekick that's around $15 used. Mine was in a 4 inches of water overnight when my basement flooded and still works fine to this day. They all have a switch for an instrument or line signal. Depending on the generation you get, some actually say instrument or speaker instead. DO NOT HOOK THIS UP TO ON YOUR SPEAKER LINE, IT'S MISLABELED. It cannot take that extra hot signal. You'll do a combination of blowing up your tubes / transformer in your amp, melting the DI box, and / or burning down your house.
Passive Re-amp:
Unfortunately, there's no super cheapo way to send the signal in the other direction to re-amp. Spend your money on a Radial.
Yeah, realistically, they sound almost exactly the same. It goes to show again that the best bet is to find quality equipment, use it and consider the problem solved. Focus on things that really matter like technique, playing ability etc. Find what works sure, then move on and continue refining your sound and procedures and keep learning. Gear generally is the least of most people's problem's with music. You rock Glenn!
My passive direct box cuts down the highs and signal level, but it gets closer to old analog recordings without the hifi fizzyness. Also the direct inputs sound different on a fucusrite and a steinberg. Use what sounds the best for you.
C and D are in my opinion better sounding. The differences are subtle though D had a lot more body, presence and it had a crispy crunch to it; almost like it had a little compression. Great video Glenn!
I have an alternative setup that so far has served me well. I use a Boss GT-001 guitar effects processor. It acts as a multi-effects unit, amp sim, audio interface, direct box, and reamp box in one unit. With proper setup, any function can be used independently of the others. Very versatile piece of gear. I used to own a direct box until someone decided they needed it more than I did, but so far I have no plans to replace it.
One other "silent" recording trick I've come across is running the amp fx send into an interface and running cab impulses (with or without poweramp emulation). Dont have a ton of experience using this, may make a cool video.
The silent was in quotes because if an amp has separate channel and master volumes you may be able to crank the channel volume and dip the master to still get the fx send at a decent volume while turning the cab down
I use the Little Labs Red Eye for a combo direct/reamp. Good gear as well
no idea which is which...but I do prefer the punchy dynamic sound of Clip B. That would be my choice for lead guitar. Then Clip D would be second best - a decent rhythm guitar option. I can imagine those two combined, panned hard left 'n right. Stay awesome!!
Again thanks for another superb video!
This is what I heard, my opinion and am no expert.
Distorted: D C B A - I preferred D's tone overall. C & B were very close but C appeared to have just a hair more mids. A did not cut it for my ears and muffled.
Direct: D C B A - D was cleaner across the spectrum. C dropped a bit compared to D, and B moving slightly further down past C. A's input signal seemed lower in volume than the others and again muffled.
Clip B sounds good to me. Not sure if that was the one through the D.I box or not. I have a 6i6 v2, I do sometimes still plug directly into it. The biggest problem with this method for me is how unpredictable the waves are, especially with bass guitars. Even with the gain so far from the yellow zone I'm still seeing horrible clipping on certain parts. Also the gain level for rhythm parts and solos are usually so different that it sounds so anemic when you don't adjust the gains when doing solos. I don't have a DI box but whenever I use my captor (which is technically a DI box) the waves are always solid. I usually only plug in directly when I wanna want to to record an idea really fast.
Nope. The captor is not "technically a DI box". A DI box takes an instrument level input and matches level and impedance to a mic input. The Captor takes the output of a power amp, presents it with a load and transforms the signal into a line and a mic signal. The input is not instrument level. What you describe is dynamic range reduction, which isn't what the captor does, but the amp you put in front of it. This has to be in the running for dumb musician texts, because it's on par with claiming that you have a cable that gives you a nice chorus effect. Because what you do is you plug your normal instrument cable into a Chorus FX pedal and that special cable tinto the output, you always get that nice chorus. Must be the cable, right?
Simon Gunkel Captor’s product description:
Play your tube amplifier at neighbor-friendly volume levels, or play without a speaker cabinet at all, with the Two Notes Torpedo Captor reactive load box, direct box, attenuator and speaker simulator.
@@donicsm7684 That product description is incorrect. The Two Notes Website correctly describes it as a loadbox with a DI out. That's not the same as a DI box, because a DI box specifically takes line or instrument level - high impedance usually in the 100k-1M range - and matches it to mic input, which expects a lower impedance. The output of an amp has a particlarly low impedance, generally around 100m, that's a million times lower than for an instrument signal! I think it's important to undestand the difference. If you try to use the captor like you would a DI box, it's not going to work. If you try to use a DI box in they way you use the captor, you are likely to destroy the amp, the DI box and whatever signal chain you are going into with it.
I know it's not a D.I. box but it can split the signal into line and an XLR output. You know what else works like that? A D.I. box. The difference is where one's placed before and one's after the amp head.
Remember I never said it was, I said it TECHNICALLY was, which if you check out a lot of websites, is how they're described as well. Also, of course you can't use a D.I. box like the Captor because it is not also a load box. I wish I could draw a Venn diagram right now but I digress.
@@donicsm7684 So what you're saying is that because you're putting an amp in the middle, you cannot get a D.I. signal from this box that you call "technically the same as D.I. box"
I am leaning toward clip B or C. The crunch on the palm mutes seemed a little feeble in clip A, and too hot on clip D. Without hearing it in a mix with drums and bass, I think B would mix the best, in my own opinion. Thanks for the vid!
Clip A sounded the best to me - the others all had varying degrees of increased fizz (except C, which seemed oddly fuzzy in the low-end). Of course, there was no real detectable difference in the DI signals to my ears - it's only once you've got the inherent compression of distorted signals that such things become apparent in my experience.
The differences were pretty damn subtle. I could hear the differences more in the direct tracks, but they were completely washed away after passing through the amp sim.
That's weird. i noticed the opposite in this video and in my own tests. differences are very subtle on the clean signal, but get massively exaggerated when you put a high gain amp sim on them. i tested 3 boxes against straight into my interface/preamp, and it was all that way. barest differences clean. notable highs and mid changes on amp sims.
Could still hear a difference at my end...
I'm just trying to figure out what you need with the set-up. Obviously a amp, guitar, a DI box, and a laptop, what else do you need? A microphone? Several cables?
My teacher told us that active source (like electric piano) = passive Di box. Passive source (like passive acustic guitarr) = active Di box.
But this advice was for a live situation thou, and I've learned from first hand experience that it saves you a lot of problems live if you use Di boxes
Behringer makes a line of amp modeler/drive pedals that have DI boxes built In for 35 dollars for all of us who like affordable gear that’s not terrible.
Clip B seemed like the most crisp and defined out of all 4, buuuuuut... the difference was so small that I had to put some effort into actively looking for those differences. Kind of makes me wonder if a good DI box should actually be a priority over other stuff for people on a tight budget.
I have one. It's definitely useful to give you reampnig options. Sometimes it's hard nailing tones with the 5150 if the pickups aren't the best in the world, so gotta butter it up a bit. Also, they get rid of some of that annoying loop noise, I found.
I made an in-depth comparison test on using my Behringer DI100 di box or just using a jack cable, weeks ago, and I really could hear and see differences in tone, especially in the middle/high frequencies
@@bearonguitar I checked out Allessandro's video because i've been genuinely curious about the quality of the Behringer DI compared to more expensive boxes. I both agree and disagree with you. certainly the differences on the behringer seemed way less pronounced, and in some cases it seemed to actually add more low mids and take away some highs. but there were a few cases (Bridge pickups) where it seemed to have more highs and mids than the bypassed (which was the link it seemed). but that's what i wanted to know. how does a cheap powered Di stack up to an expensive passive or powered Di. I use the Type 10, The Di on my peterson strobo stomp tuner, and a Little labs IBP. all of which seem to have a more pronounced affect than the behringer. but it's tough to tell without doing the test myself. the behringer did do a little something. that something just didn't seem to always be good and was very slight.
I'm just an olde bastard in his man cave but I'm learning more everyday (especially since C9). I'm sure there's nothing I have to say that you don't know, but just to share... What a friend o' mine (who has a serious commercial studio) told me is that the signal received by your DAW from a good direct box contains much more digital information, so if you need to edit wee tiny things, artifacts etc, you can dig right in there. Otherwise, the wave is limited. On another note, it used to be that for an active guitar you'd use a passive DI and an active DI for a non-active guitar. These days, it seems that a GOOD quality active will do it all. Just pad down the signal before recording to avoid redlining. Also, as you mentioned, ALWAYS record a clean track at the same pass for re-amping later if nesc. For what it's worth, my old beat-down rock'n'roll ears couldn't hear any difference in your A-B-C-D test, but supposedly your DAW can. Great channel, Glenn! Cheers, everyone! Stay safe!
There is another way of playing through your amp and recording a direct signal at the same time: You can do that with a reamp box. It's basically the opposite of a DI box. What you do is, you connect your guitar to your interface via the HiZ/Inst input, than connect your reamp box to an output of your interface and to the input of your amp. Now you route the input directly to this output. This way you can record the DI signal and use your amp as the "monitor". Also you can use your VST amp sim, disable the speaker simulation, and connect the reamp box to the FX return of your amp and play the VST like a real amp through your real cab.
The through output of a DI Box is literally just a Y-Cable (ground and signal from the input are soldered right to the output, you could switch them out with no difference and hook your input to the through output and your amp to the input) . That's definitely not a killer application.
I'm not completely convinced, but I am thinking B and D were using direct boxes, and A and C were straight into the interface. If I am hearing correctly, I think I should be looking into a direct box for my own recordings, haha
Both those DI boxes are active which you didn't mention, most people that need to learn about DI boxes probably wouldn't understand the difference if they buy a passive but need an active for what they are doing
ON the first run though, clip B had a *slight* crunchier sound. the second run though they were all different, A was bright B and C were in line with each other with B having a bit more low chunk and D was louder but more like A in tone.
i dont fuck around with direct in because I like recording on my tascam and just exporting but thinking about getting a behringer so I can eventually fuck around with VSTs and make tracking easier in my life
B and D have higher volume and slightly more pronounced high frequencies, so predictably, people seem to be latching onto those the most and assuming they're the DI signals. They're probably correct. Do they sound better, though? ...I don't know. They do sound a bit harsher to me, while A and C sound a bit more balanced. Then again, that could just be that I heard A first, so my ears adjusted. It's hard to say.
I also found the "harsher" sound of B&D to be unappealing.
preach it!
yeah, i agree. thought it's tough to judge a stand alone guitar part. i've often found that harsher metal tones actually sound better in the mix depending on the style of music and exact song.
I do use the Countryman type 10 though, and of my 3 di boxes it boosts the highs and mids the most for that modern aggressive metal tone, so i also think the boosted highs were the DI box in this test.
I can hear that A and B are different. B has a little more top end and maybe mids. However, I can't hear a different between B, C, or D at all. Might be able to if they were played back to back like B to C, B to D, etc.
Couldn't even guess which was which though.
"less than $300 investment?" Dude, my Millenium (Thomann) DI was €10 and works just fine. Solid (metal) build quality too. Granted, that's a passive box, but a good active one from, say, Behringer still shouldn't set you back more than €30-40. We use those active Behringers at the venue I work at, and for that price they even come with up to 40dB of padding and extra fall protection.
Hello, Friend! Could You help me to choose cheap and best active di for bass...less 100$...
Glenn, if you use it mainly for sending a signal to both amp and a PC, why not use a Switchblade Plus instead?
It's a ~50 euro signal splitter pedal.
I use it just for the same job, seems to work great and i don't see any losses in signal's quality.
Direct box? Yes, you need one!! The line input is only good for keyboards in my opinion.. I prefer the Steward ADB-1 for my direct box. My 4 have been in hard service on tour, doing my own live event stuff as a live production sound company and in the studio. But, the Countryman and Radial are more "accepted" units and well worth the money since they are built like tanks, sound great and damn near indestructible!
Commenting before I know what's what; all are great, totally usable, but there's something about Clip B, a little more low end, a little more low mids, just that much more body and attitude.
I'm listening on mixing monitors and there's a slight difference in fullness but it is, in my opinion, almost completely insignificant.
thats my opinion also.
I'm listening on a phone speaker but I'm digging D the most, to me it has the most clarity. B is second. Then C. A definitely sounds the worst.
I'd say D and B are dedicated DIs and C and A are direct into the audio interface.
My guesses in order of preference:
D -- Countryman
B -- Radial
C -- Audient
A -- Focusrite
This could be very embarrassing. Though if I'm right it's obvious enough to be heard through TH-cam quality and an iPhone speaker
My favorite was B I think. A was a little dull, C seemed a little muted, D was close but I still go with C as my favorite. As to what that was? hmmm I guess we'll find out.
It's crazy that you post this when you do, I was just looking into what those actually do since I've seen them in every studio tour on youtube lol.
Interesting I think A y D are direct box while B and C are direct inputs. To my ears, A and D had more bottom end however D had a little bit to much of crisp in the top
odd, in my experience Di's let the highs shine through. and not using one reduces them.
Good time for this video for me, kind of. I bought a Radial stereo direct box two weeks ago to record guitar solos for a friend's upcoming release. But I didn't have an interface, I'm still recording old-school, no computer, so I needed a direct box. Now I'll be able to reamp for the first time! Whoopee! More option peralasys. From this video it seems the interface did a good job though. The reamped tracks sounded close enough to me.
Yes it helps to eliminate noisy signal for tracks on guitar is often overlooked. But every stage ive set keys and bass ALWAYS A DIRECT BOX.
I recomend active
In the past I plugged into a Roland QuadCapture, which had the option to set the impedance for guitar, but was basically a mic preamp. A few months ago I switched to the Audient iD4, which has a dedicated JFET DI for designed for bass/guitar.
The difference is night and day. I could never get a decent sound with the QuadCapture, mostly because it introduced so much noise. It seems like the iD4 colours the sound a little, but in a way that works for me.
I would be hesitant to buy another interface that shares its 'DI' with a mic preamp. At the moment I don't have a physical amp (everything is in the box), so it doesn't seem like a dedicated DI would be worth it.
Does an instrument input on a soundcard (like the one on focusrite) make the direct box useless for signal recording ? insn't it the purpouse of this input ?
I'm a little late here, but it kinda depends. On my focusrite 18i20, i've got 2 guitars with fishman moderns, both will "clip" the input of the interface unless i have a DI or turn the gain unnecessairly low. Note, the signal meter doesn't actually indicate a clip, but there is some distortion on a clean signal that sounds like clipping. Either way, I find a DI box completely gets rid of that and i can run my guitar at proper gain
the third gen 18i20 actually has a button on the first two main channels to alter the impedance based on whether or not you have a guitar or a mic plugged in. its pretty sick
B is the best one, feels like a lot more detail is coming through
D had a little more articulation between the notes and seemed a little less muddy but that could have just been slightly more bight while picking.
Hey Glen, speaking of penny pinching....Since most people won't necessarily listen to music on high end speakers, why not skip the expensive studio monitors and mix on some typical computer speakers, test the mix in a car, and then call it a day?
All a matter of how much time you have on your hands and how much you value that time. Good monitoring gives you a more accurate picture from the start, which limits the fucking around factor. Something something "get it right the first time" and whatnot.
I listen to most music on good quality monitors. I don't penny pinch when it comes to that. So I appreciate the efforts that producers, engineers, and artists take when recording a track. A lot of people do listen to music on high end playback, and chances are the music being listened to wasn't penny pinched along the way. Just sayin.
Okay I hear that. So how about running my pc into a high end A/V receiver and mixing on those high end speakers?
@@Asmogrim Take a look through the videos here as Glenn should have some regarding the differences.
If you do not want to look, here is a link from Neumann Berlin: www.neumann.com/homestudio/en/difference-between-home-stereo-speakers-and-studio-monitors
I think the best way is to test all quality groups, if you have the time and money for it. Going from best to worst: Studio monitors - good headphones - normal good quality speakers - car stereo - Bluetooth speaker - earphones, and make sure it sounds decent on all of them. Might be overkill, but reducing it to testing 3 levels of gear seems reasonable.
There was something that sounded "tighter" about Clip C on the overdriven tones. But the difference was VERY subtle to my ears. They all sounded fine IMHO.
Plus don't forget applications for live situations!
Yes you do....so many times this is a fix, even for something like having a live output for your amp modeler to make sure the PA systems phantom power doesn’t fry your outputs
Hard for me to tell too. I thought clips B and D both sounded brighter but as to which sounded better, I don't know. Myself, I don't use a direct box. I first plug my guitar into my Presonus Studiolive 16-4-2 mixer which in my interface to my computer. If I want, I can easily send a signal to my guitar amp as well and mic that.
OMG finally!!! Thank you so much for doing this comparison. I like the sound of clips B and D the best and between those two I would choose clip B. Definitely can't wait to find out what we're hearing on this one.
For a truly identical A/B take, you should run your guitar into a looper pedal first, that way when you switch DIs, you have the same exact signal running through each setup.
B C and D sound very VERY close to my ears, A is a slight bit darker. But the the difference is slight, and would disappear in a full mix. I liked B C and D more than A, but only by a little bit (Listening on headphones - yes not the greatest thing to listen through, at least I know this particular pair pretty well.)
You should do an Andertons style blind taste test. I can't hear any difference between these at all, and I defy most people to.
The difference is absolutely minuscule guys.. I mean, I cannot be the only one right, I honestly use a DI because everyone swears by it not because I was at some point " jeez... hear at this tone... I really need a DI box man..." using either input of a Motu 828 mk3the differences are nothing to kill yourselves over.
I have some cheap ones that I got for under $30 USD. I got an active mini-stomp sized one for $30, and a passive one I grabbed for $15, both off Amazon. Even at those cheap price points, still sounds better than the DI input on my interfaces.
It’s also a feel thing. The dynamic range is wider with a di box. All my amp sims sound more lively with one rather going straight in to a low/ midrange interface
Also you can now crank your preamp without the pad and cook your signal more if needed. Gives you more tonal options
Because its real value is used in a wet dry set up ,,, then your little pure tone combo is then propulsed into usually a stereo set up ,effects , stereo power amp and cabs .... you keep your entire original combo tone plus you get that umph from the stereo side . But thats just me
Ive tried out using my boss eq pedal into the preamps of my field recored to get a decent DI signal, then through that into the neural amp modeler. Sounds better than my cab miced up 😮
I hear the difference in the headphones and that's where a recording musician often monitors themselves as they record. It's really not a huge difference. It's a small difference but real. I guess that it comes down to what you're doing musically and what sounds you prefer. I tend to not plug my guitar into anything that is not an amp or an amp-bound effect. I have always looked at DI boxes as a tool for recording bass. That's the only way that I have ever seen them used in studios and the only way that I have ever used them, either on a lone bass track or usually as part of a DI/ amp mic blend using 2 tracks.
However, with the new technology available today, I know that a lot of guys favor DI for guitars when using software amps. Some DI boxes are brighter and some are a little warmer. The difference may not be huge and EQ can often address minor differences, but a lot of musicians including myself can be happy or disappointed with our sound based on minor character changes in the sound and we pursue gear that gets our preferred sounds from the start because happy vs disappointed makes a big difference to the performance.
Unfortunately, going to a store to try out a DI box is like going to a store to try out guitar pickups. Not exactly a widespread option and you don't really know what you're going to hear until you're using it with your gear. The best thing most of us can do it watch videos like this with DI 1 vs DI 2 vs DI 3 etc to at least have some sort of information to use before buying anything.
There are more than a few DI options, especially when you start looking into the more advanced ones like the sansamp stuff or Radial Bassbone where it is part bass preamp and part DI, but as mentioned here, if you're buying a DI the Radial J48 is a great recording tool.Some DI boxes are passive, requiring no power and some, like the J48 are Active and you need to turn on your recording preamp's phantom power to use it. Active VS Passive DI; That is another topic to research and that opinions vary on, but active DIs can be useful on instruments with low output pickups just as Passive DIs are good for instruments with active pickups, but again, a lot of videos here show people who are happy with the results using all kinds of combinations so .... good luck in your search.
*A had a lower volume but sounded the tightest to me the B&C sounded almost identical but louder than A....D was the loudest signal but otherwise same as B&C.... only on the driven sound they all sounded even on clean....
I'm pretty sure I liked B and D best. Will listen again later and find out if I still think the same. Cool blind test!
I watched on my phone and I'm half asleep. I was trying to get my RG550 to blend in. It has a fullshred at the bridge. I use an Edirol FA-101. It has the option to use one of the mic channels as a direct box. It works fine for the guitar that I chose for lead. I believe it is because it has cheep picups. I hooked up my Horizon Straightline and everything through the thing has been beat shitless it works for blending in Audio Assault amps with Ugritone drums. I traided off my actually amplifies. One had line out. I didn't need a direct box but I didn't see the point in my apartment to keep something that was ment to blast and not be able to crank it up without getting complaints.
I just picked up a Country Man DI for my bass tracks. It's got a super warm and fat sound for bass. I A/B'ed with going direct into my interface and also going through my Sansamp RBI rackmount DI out. I love the Sansamp but not good when you just need a warm fat bass sound. Anyway, the Country Man beats everything. I just slapped a CL-76 plugin on it and it's awesome in the mix. Thinking about selling my Sansamp RBI now. If you need a Di for bass tracks you gotta get one.
Hey Glen, would you take a look at the Thomann Millenium DI-33 DI Box? Cost much less than the ones you mention at 25 EUR and is active to boot. I have it and I love it. The main thing I like about it is that I get less noise when I record DI from passive pickups compared to going direct my interface.
There were some differents but i think they can be mixed to sound even better!
My studio monitors have a hum and let’s assume we all know the source is 100% coming from the sound card. Would direct boxes in between the sound card and studio monitors help with the hum?
Oh Yes i needed this. Thank you so much Glenn. You Rock!!!!! All the way from Singapore!!!!
I liked B and D the most. However, from my monitoring is seemed that the A and C had less treble but greater low-end punch.
That’s great. I’m still no.closer to knowing what it is though.
Glenn introduced me to DI boxes a few years back. Looked on KIjiji, got two DIsas a bundle (active and passive) for under $50.