Bi-amping - clean/dirty rig

[gilmour]

I've also often mulled over doing something similar.

TBH I came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth the cost and effort.

For samller gigs with no PA support two amps just seems way to excessive.

For gigs with PA support just take two DI's (or one DI and Mic the Amp) pre and post effects. After all in this situation the rig is only there to provide you with on stage monitoring.

The old Incubus bass player did something similar though:

[quote name='from WIKIPEDIA']For his career with Incubus he used Eden Amplification products. With his somewhat complicated setup, he would divide his sound 6 ways. Firstly, he would carry a clean signal and a 'dirty' signal. Each of these signals would further be separated 3 ways into low frequencies, low mids, and high mid frequencies. Usually Eden WT 100 preamps and WT 1000 power amps were employed. This results in two tri-amped signals, one clean and one with effects. Other gear in his setup included, but not limited to, were a Demeter Tube Compressor, a DBX 120 XP Sub-harmonic synthesizer, a Tech 21 Sansamp PSA-1, a custom switcher/router, a Boss PH-2 Super Phaser pedal, a MXR Phase 90 pedal, and an Electro-Harmonix Big Muff pedal. His use of effects seemed to decrease throughout his time with Incubus. He also used custom designed monitors powered by an Eden WT 80 poweramp. He has been quoted as saying [i]"Everyone makes fun of how huge my rig is until they actually hear it. My tone makes people cry[/i]!"[/quote]

But I guess he had other people to lug it around and set it up for him, and was playing some HUGE venues (with PA support )

Edited August 27, 2008 by gilmour

[alexclaber]

I would split your pedalboard signal chain so one runs to the clean amp and one to the dirty amp. That way you can have pitch shifters and delays and things like that at the front of the chain running both amps and then distortions, wahs and other nastiness just going to the dirty amp.

If you want to have the dirty rig running all the time then I'd be more inclined towards EQing that right and forgetting the clean rig. The reason behind the Timmy C type rig is usually to allow kicking in the dirty rig to fill a certain space left when you're in a one guitar band and said guitarist starts soloing.

Alex

[cheddatom]

It sounds to me like total overkill. If you want to blend a clean tone with a distorted one at the end of your effects chain you could do it with a pedal. Also, you could mix the two pres you like into just one power amp no?

Maybe you should try bass - pitch shifting - split - A Dirty amp with pedal board in loop - B clean amp.

I reckon if you have the money and desire for a dual-amp rig, you would probably do better using your pedal board going straight into a proper bi-amped rig i.e two amps crossed over.

A good test might be to take a line out or something from your existing set up, and feed that to your guitarist's amp (turn down the bass!).

[Finbar]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='271030' date='Aug 27 2008, 02:35 PM']It sounds to me like total overkill.[/quote]
Yes

Messing about with crossovers is something I haven't thought about much as my mind isn't very technically inclined. I am curious though, but don't really know how to go about it.

[cheddatom]

[quote name='Finbar' post='271044' date='Aug 27 2008, 02:53 PM']Yes

Messing about with crossovers is something I haven't thought about much as my mind isn't very technically inclined. I am curious though, but don't really know how to go about it.[/quote]

Try it with your guitarist's amp, just turn all the bass down on that and turn the highs down on your bass amp, play through them both at the same time and feel your c*ck grow.

[The Funk]

With some preamps, you can get a pretty decent effects loop with a wet/dry mix ratio control knob. That means you could in theory blend two preamps that way - and if you have a footswitchable effects loop, switch from clean to dirty to back again without any difficulty.

[Finbar]

I may see if my guitarist will let me do that ^_^ Be a laugh at any rate.

I've just been looking into crossovers though. I still don't fully understand everything about it, but it seems if I were to use an active crossover in my rack, I could send the highs to a distorted channel, and the lows to the clean channel and then each to a different cab, which would make a lot more sense to me. However, having two identical cabs wouldn't really make much sense for that, am I right? Just throwing more ideas out This whole thing really interests me!

Edited August 27, 2008 by Finbar

[cheddatom]

[quote name='Finbar' post='271116' date='Aug 27 2008, 03:58 PM']I may see if my guitarist will let me do that ^_^ Be a laugh at any rate.

I've just been looking into crossovers though. I still don't fully understand everything about it, but it seems if I were to use an active crossover in my rack, I could send the highs to a distorted channel, and the lows to the clean channel and then each to a different cab, which would make a lot more sense to me. However, having two identical cabs wouldn't really make much sense for that, am I right? Just throwing more ideas out This whole thing really interests me![/quote]

Yes, you are right. You would want a cab suited to monsterous lows for the lows, and a cab suited to high mids/highs for the top. I don't think there's much point in having an actual crossover if you have two pres with EQ though.

[gilmour]

My Cab, a BFM O15TB ([url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=11971&hl=o15tb&st=0"]Build Diary[/url]) has a passive crossover built into it.

Since gigging it I've noticed a massive differnece when using effects. The mids and highs are much more 'affected' than the lows, so the Sub just carries on rumbling. The effect is much more obvious whilst still retaining the depth and punch of the low notes.

You may well find that just using a crossover gives a similar effect, provided, as Cheddatom has poited out, that you have cabs that are right for the job.

I'm sure it won't be as effective as using an active crossover and only 'effecting' part of the signal, but could be a much simpler solution.

Edited August 27, 2008 by gilmour

[coasterbass]

Without wanting to make this even more complex...

Be careful about using a x-over to separate your dirty and clean channels - the effect is much more pronounced than simply EQ'ing the two channels differently.

With an EQ you can give 'bias' to the tone, probably giving more high frequencies tothe fx channel so that a fuzz/delay can stand out, and keep the clean channel for the low end.

However an x-over will completely remove any frequencies below/above the specified x-over frequencies. Nothing at all will show.
Done without care this will at best leave you with an overall mix with gaps in it. At worst your clean channel will have no response above an open-G string (for eg.), and your dirty channel will suddenly vanish as you move down the neck... try that with an octaver or pitchshifter!

[cheddatom]

Yeh, I think that if you're going to run a crossover, you should have your whole effects chain at the start before the crossover. If you just want to have a clean low end as well as a seperate effects amp, there's not much point in a crossover unless one of your pedals really kicks out a load of lows.

[Dood]

[quote name='Finbar' post='271009' date='Aug 27 2008, 02:07 PM']Crikey, guess I'd better respond.

No, I don't mean bi-amp in the most literal sense. More just a stereo setup to simulate a 'true' bi-amp rig. I just got the idea from the Timmy C/Chris Wolstenholme rigs. Also, I borrowed an Aguilar Agro recently, and it sounded fabby as a preamp, it just needed some more oomph underneath it with a bit more clarity. Train of thought brought me here. May turn out to be a dumb idea

And some of the confusion that has sprung up for the rest of you has also entered my mind too! That's why I'm fielding this topic to everyone I'll try and expand a bit.

I was planning on leaving the whole thing on all the time. Epic tone is epic, after all. However, if its a heavily driven Pre, it probably has a footswitch with it to turn the overdrive off. I can utilise that if I ever need it 100% clean I should think. Because yeah, sometimes the distortion won't be favourable. But I don't want to be fannying around with turning cabs on/off all the time if I can avoid it. Incidentally, its the Ampeg SVP I have at the moment coasterbass, and it doesn't drive enough to be my dirty channel.

The reasoning for splitting after the effects was that I thought it might sound a bit odd when using some effects pedals to have the unprocessed sound coming through as well. For things like distortions and delays, it'd be fine, but for things like pitchshifting, there would always be the root note underneath. That wouldn't sound bad necessarily, but not the sound I'm looking for. I'm also thinking that the dirty channel would be the quieter one, so if I ran effects just through that, my effects might get lost a little bit. This has been the biggest headache for me. Like I said, if there were no effects, it would just be plug in, split signal, big tone. Easy ;p I want an aggressive tone.

So yeah, I'm still just finding my feet with this idea, keep responses coming and I'll give it all a good think! [/quote]


'ang on matey.. i'll see if I can find the post about my combined MXR M80 and BDDI parallel routing. I basically do what you want, left on all the time for a truly epic tone. If I can't find the post I'll knock something new up for you. I reckon it sounds WAY better than the SVP-BSB rig I was running ;o)

[Dood]

ah yeah! Found it!

[url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=24079&hl=mxr"]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=24079&hl=mxr[/url]

Post No.7.


My idea behind my signal path is to be able to get a massive sound that I can dump out via DI to the PA / Studio that sounds the same behind me without having to worry about miking. It really seems to work and has taken a while to get it right.

My whole signal path is fairly complicated. I'll try to make it as simple as possible, but the point is, I run a totally clean signal mixed with an SVT style signal from the BDDI mixed with a 'raging guitar amp' sound. The whole lot gets mixed at my effects unit in puts and I then control what goes out to the left and right DI outputs.

So here goes:-

Bass with active pre> TC Electronic C300 compressor in multiband mode (bass model) set to 50% mix parallel compression - Channel 2 set to bypass >

> MXR M80 (dist channel on, fairly high middle very little top)*
> output to input A on my TC Electronics GForce effects rack
> Parallel output (clean direct) to the BDDI

> BDDI set to around 20% wet 80% dry drive set to 50% EQ to taste but slight extra bottom and top.
> Output to Channel B on TC Electronics GForce
> Direct out is left available as a pick off point for the signal, as are the DI sockets on the pedals.

The whole lot is processed in my TC with the additional stereo effects / dynamics control and all the other funky things I can do.. level boosts / panning etc.

I either run a stereo DI box on the outputs of the GForce OR I run it straight into the front of my MarkBass F1.. which is ultra clean and sounds awesome!

* the reason I take the top off, is to remove a bit of fizziness. However, using this method allows more of the *clean* bass top end to come through instead. Same thing with the bottom end, as *that* is coming from the BDDI boost. Phat, punchy and feels like a kick drum ;o)

What I REALLY love about this method, is that if you dig in with your fingers, the drive really sounds dirty! Pinch harmonics ring out and solos are almost a one handed affair! - But, if you really push the bass signal, the clean signal over takes the distortion for some really smart percussive tones.. What I mean is, you can actually SLAP really effectively even with shed lods of drive.. you hear all the pingy pops and slap lows!

As I say, it takes a bit of balancing with the compression and the levels of drive, but playing through a massive PA the other day, we all agreed it sounded brilliant, even with a full band playing!

- sorry! Kinda went off on one for a bit! - I think I have finally arrived at something I am happy with!

Cheers

Dood.

[coasterbass]

Jeepers!!

[cheddatom]

I think Dood's approach is excellent but would require a fairly loud and flat (response) rig for monitoring no?

I get a similar effect (if words can describe a tone!) from my pedals....

dry, mixed with........

compressor, mixed with overdrive, the combined mix going into a limiter

but it needs some EQ after the whole chain on my amp, and I use the two amp set up to get a flatter response.

[Dood]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='271556' date='Aug 28 2008, 09:39 AM']I think Dood's approach is excellent but would require a fairly loud and flat (response) rig for monitoring no?[/quote]

Well, no not at all really. My cab's are more 'hifi' than flat response.. Thats just personal taste.. There's really no reason why you couldn't use a dirty great SVT head and cab if you wanted. I'd just rather have the sound I hear behind me being close to whats going out of the DI.

[cheddatom]

[quote name='dood' post='271826' date='Aug 28 2008, 03:07 PM']Well, no not at all really. My cab's are more 'hifi' than flat response.. Thats just personal taste.. There's really no reason why you couldn't use a dirty great SVT head and cab if you wanted. I'd just rather have the sound I hear behind me being close to whats going out of the DI.[/quote]

Doesn't hi-fi = flat? Or does it mean mid-scooped?

I was thinking that if your DI sound is eaxactly how you want it, then you would need a flat rig to re-create that for monitoring....

As opposed to my rig which I have to DI post amp Pre and EQ.

[Dood]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='271828' date='Aug 28 2008, 03:09 PM']Doesn't hi-fi = flat? Or does it mean mid-scooped?

I was thinking that if your DI sound is eaxactly how you want it, then you would need a flat rig to re-create that for monitoring....

As opposed to my rig which I have to DI post amp Pre and EQ.[/quote]


Yeah, I see Hifi as 'tailored'.. usually meaning some sort of EQ'd curve to the sound, like a scoop, but not having a 'voice' of it's own.. for example Ampeg cabs always sound like Ampeg cabs to me.

You are absolutely correct. In *my* case I want my backline to sound exactly like my DI output. I guess I misunderstood what you were saying when you said that my rig *would* require a flat response backline. - In order to get things sounding the way *I* want then the answer is more or less yes, however, it isn't a requirement for everyone, hence my comment about having an SVT that could indeed add to, or enhance the tone that the user wanted or preferred.

[cheddatom]

I think if you took a DI before the amp using a complicated effects set up, then having an SVT on stage to monitor would be a bit silly! Maybe not if it's mic'd up though.

I always struggled with this - no-one liked my DI from the Peavey combo 'cos it's noisey, no-one liked the DI from my pedal board because it needed a lot of top rolled off, and some bass boost etc, basically what I was doing witht he EQ on the combo. The only way to get a good sound through the PA was to take a DI from the amp, roll all the high end off to get rid of the noise, and then mic my guitar combo for the top end. It's a shame some engineers are not that obliging!

[fretmeister]

My old rig (the second version of my stupid set up: Rig of Doom GT) did it:




My basses have 2 outputs though - so I can run completely separate signal chains.


I ran it 2 ways:

1 cab totally clean
1 cab FX and dirt

OR

as the preamps could mix clean and dirty internally

1 cab mix of clean and dirt
1 cab mix of a slightly different clean and dirt


It sounded HUGE!!! The second option effectively allowed me to use frequency dependant drive.


I sold it all to upgrade for the "Rig of Doom V3" which is under contruction at the moment.

[coasterbass]

Does that rig have [b][/b]two[b][/b] Pod's in it ??

[Dood]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='272359' date='Aug 29 2008, 10:59 AM']I think if you took a DI before the amp using a complicated effects set up, then having an SVT on stage to monitor would be a bit silly! Maybe not if it's mic'd up though.[/quote]

Oh yeah, for me totally! reverbs and stereo delays sound god awful through Ampeg cabs! - However, I think distortion etc can sound good through Ampeg cabs.. maybe its the top end roll off that gives them that nice character for a bit of drive. As you have said though, if I had to mike the cab.. it would make my idea of my set up pretty redundant, as the idea is to not have to do that.

[quote name='cheddatom' post='272359' date='Aug 29 2008, 10:59 AM']I always struggled with this - no-one liked my DI from the Peavey combo 'cos it's noisey, no-one liked the DI from my pedal board because it needed a lot of top rolled off, and some bass boost etc, basically what I was doing witht he EQ on the combo. The only way to get a good sound through the PA was to take a DI from the amp, roll all the high end off to get rid of the noise, and then mic my guitar combo for the top end. It's a shame some engineers are not that obliging![/quote]

Which has pretty much hit the nail on the head with my decision for my set up... Engineers sometimes don't have the time or inclination to sort out the signal coming from the DI outputs, so to the best of my ability, I am trying to provide them with a signal that is as close to what they need as possible.. (and still maintain control over my sound , ultimately.)

[fretmeister]

[quote name='coasterbass' post='272428' date='Aug 29 2008, 12:10 PM']Does that rig have [b][/b]two[b][/b] Pod's in it ?? [/quote]


Yes... and an Ampeg SVP BSP too!


It was lovely - but as heavy as Jo Brand.