Conference napalm::guitar

>I've used a cheapo passive high-to-low adapter in the past, but I get the
>definite impression that a true direct box, whether passive or active, would
>be an improvement. The notes in this file also seem to indicate that active is
>an order of magnitude better than passive.
    
    That may not be true.  The problem is that most of what you get for
    passive direct boxes on the market have a cheezy little transformer in
    'em.  If you get one with a super quality $100 Jensen transformer in
    it, it's naturally gonna sound a lot better.  Apparently the nice folks
    at Jensen transformers will send you instructions for making things
    with their transformers for free.
                                     
    Greg

>    That may not be true.  The problem is that most of what you get for
>    passive direct boxes on the market have a cheezy little transformer in
>    'em.  If you get one with a super quality $100 Jensen transformer in
>    it, it's naturally gonna sound a lot better.  Apparently the nice folks
>    at Jensen transformers will send you instructions for making things
>    with their transformers for free.

Thanks, Greg.

Yeah, I remember an Electronic Musician DIY article which mentioned the Jensen
transformers and availability of schematics; I think that one was discussing
a "quality upgrade" to some commercial product, not positive. At any rate,
though, while I enjoy DIY, my spare time is in the domain of negative numbers
at present, so I'm really focusing on something ready-made. Any idea what
sort of transformer quality is used in specific direct box models?

(I also just noticed a DOD product, the 275, which is an active box selling for
$48.00. Add that to the list of possibles for which I'd welcome any "direct"
(pun intended) experience...)

    I have several different direct boxes in my studio. I have a couple of
    Roland (Boss) active units, which I think went for about $125 that are
    pretty nice... I also have a "Countryman" direct box that I think went
    for about $150, but which is also quite nice.
    
    On the passive side, I have a couple of Whirlwind boxes that are around
    $80 but very nice as well. The best ones I have, unfortunate given your
    requirements, are the DIY ones. The DIY is pretty damn simple though.
    It's drill holes in a plastic box, mount the transformer and 1/4 and
    XLR connectors, and solder it up. I daresay it's no more than an hour
    of work to make a few of them, and both the Jensen and (I think) UTC
    transformers are quite nice. I have two boxes with one of each kind,
    and I usually prefer them to the active boxes since they have a little
    more headroom.
    
    Two things to keep in mind:
    
    For either type of box, a ground lift is a very nice feature,
    especially for live use.
    
    Switchable attenuators are also a nice feature... and particularly
    useful on active boxes which may not have the headroom of the
    passive boxes.
    
    For active boxes, phantom power capability is a nice feature.
    
    -b

Thanks, Brian. I'm not really a lazy sot, just an overcommitted fella with more
tasks than time to fit them in. Still, I'd prolly try the DIY if I were a
confirmed bithead with a half-decent soldering gun and assorted spare parts
lying around...

It's interesting to hear that a passive box can have more headroom than an
active. I'm not sure if I can get enough info on the boxes I'm considering to
use that as a consideration in my choice, but it's worth a shot. If I find
out anything which seems generally useful, I'll post it here for the benefit
of future noters.

Bob

    
    I've never heard of a 'passive' DI box before, but from the DIY
    description in .3, it sounds like the essential purpose is to provide a
    balanced feed to the long cable back to the mixing desk from the
    unbalanced amp output .. yes?  I guess these 'Jensen' transformers
    would have to be pretty good.
    
    (We live sheltered lives here in the UK!)
    
    Mike.
    ----
    

I've not used direct boxes too much, and maybe the items talked
about in previous notes are the same thing... but--
wasn't there an alternative device from a direct box that went
between the speaker and the head, as opposed to a line out from the
amp ???

I could be off the mark here, but in terms of guitar amps,
(Not keys or bass mind you..)

The notion was the line out from the amp, and the line to the
speakers had different attributes to it, where the later,
(In betwix speaker and head) was a more effective device
than a direct box.. (On a guitar amp anyway... the line out
doesn't generally have the ''crunch'' that ya get from micing..)
This at least has held true for much of my experiences... 

Just a thought...

    Well, after a brief flurry of telephone calls (Sam Ash, Manny's,
    Sweetwater Sound), I made a purchase.
    
    Manny's and Sam Ash wanted nothing but to sell me a Countryman Type 85,
    at $145.00. I'm sure it's way cool, and pretty sure that its name
    accounts for a chunk of its price. After speaking with a rep at
    Sweetwater who's used the Stewart box in his own studio successfully, I
    decided to go with that. As usual, Sweetwater will take it back if it
    doesn't meet my needs, as long as it's in new condition upon return.
    We're doing a coffeehouse on November 18 and 19, for which this box
    will be feeding a 100' snake; that should be a decent test!
    
    (I'm offsite at the moment, and don't recall the exact price- seems to
    me it was $78 plus shipping.)
    
    Thanks for all the info-
    
    	Bob

re: .6

>I've not used direct boxes too much, and maybe the items talked
>about in previous notes are the same thing... but--
>wasn't there an alternative device from a direct box that went
>between the speaker and the head, as opposed to a line out from the
>amp ???

Sounds like you're thinking of the H&K Red Box.  It can either connect
to a line out or between the head and speaker(s).  It works very well
between the amp and speakers of a Fender tube amp.  I wouldn't think it
would work very well for Bob's application, though, since presumably he
doesn't want to color the sound from the keyboards.

-Hal

>    I've never heard of a 'passive' DI box before, but from the DIY
>    description in .3, it sounds like the essential purpose is to provide a
>    balanced feed to the long cable back to the mixing desk from the
>    unbalanced amp output .. yes?  I guess these 'Jensen' transformers
>    would have to be pretty good.
 
    In addition to giving you a balanced output, it also changes the
    impedence of something like a passive guitar or bass pickup (high
    impedence) to match the microphone input of a mixing console (low
    impedence).  This keeps the pickup from getting loaded, which affects
    it's sound.
    
    Most direct boxes also offer a ground lift switch to cut down the
    potential for ground loop noise problems.
    
    Greg

    
    I know a lot of bass players that opt for the output from their
    preamp. I used to do this as well (an XLR direct out from my GK).
    However, our soundman was always trying to persuade me to use
    a DI box instead of the preamp output. When I finally caved, I found
    that the bass sounded much better in the mix. An Active DI with phantom
    power is preferrable.
    
    /Billy_K
    

    
    
    (Looked around a little, sorry if this may be repeated elsewhere) 
    
    I've been doing a little recording on a Tascam 4-track using
    the "recording" output from a Boogie Studio Caliber amp with
    my Tele.  I'm adding my lines to a play along cd.  
    The biggest problem is my playing of course, but the 
    sound also seems thin, and I've got the amp reverb on 10, front
    pickup, bass control up to 6.  
    
    I'm not gonna sink alotta cash into recording stuff, and I'm not 
    gonna completely change gear (at this point =B-)) but does anyone
    have suggestions to get a better (more resonant) sound?  Aside from 
    playing an archtop and miking the amp! 
    
    Would an H&K Red Box be interesting in this situation?  Is 
    a multi-effects/signal processor (Digitech, Rochtron?) used 
    alot for direct recording?  For example compression or delay?   
    
    just curious, 
    
    Dave
     
                                      

    Miking the amp is still the best way to get the sound you hear onto
    tape.   The speaker plays such an important part in creating the sound.
    I've tried a few of the cabinet simulator circuits, but in the end, I 
    resort to a microphone.
    
    Mike
    

   As Mike said, the speaker plays a large role in the sound you hear from
your amp.  More specifically, it heavily attentuates most (all?) frequencies
above 5 kHz-6 kHz.  Try cutting everything above this level with the EQ on
your amp or mixer.

        Andr�

    Plus, there is a great deal of ambient sound that you can record with a
    microphone by pulling it away from the speaker - or having one up close
    and a second one a few feet away in the room.    This type of technique
    is lost no matter how good the direct connect/ cabinet simulator is.
    
    [disclaimer] IMHO
    
    Mike - who likes one mic close, and the other one up where my ear is.
    (after all, that's where I'm hearing it)
    z

    Thanks for the advice on rolling back the highs.  I 
    put the 
    
    treble = 0, 
    Mid = 7, 
    Bass = 5, 
    presence = 0,
    reverb = 4, 
    gain = 3 
    master = 2
    
    on the rhythm channel of my studio caliber and
    obtained an acceptable clean sound on the tape.  
    Also I may previously have been putting too much
    signal onto the tape.  So even without a graphic 
    I was able to improve the situation quite abit. 
    
    
    Dave