Active or Passive DI following preamp or EQ pedals?

TDR1138

TDR1138

Apr 11, 2007
2,855
7,373
5,231
SoCal
#1
Ok, I’m thinking of picking up a DI mainly for live use, to carry in my bag. I know the general rule of passive bass = active DI, and vice versa, but would I be more suited to a passive DI in this situation?

I have some active basses (G&L M-2500) some active/passive basses (G&L L-2000) and some passive basses (Precisions). I’m looking to set up a simple pedal board that I can use for playing without an amp where I’d be feeding everything through a preamp or EQ pedal. Right now, I’m using a Boss PQ-3B, but I’m thinking about picking up a Beta or SFT that would possibly remain always on in a low gain setting. Since everything would be getting fed through an EQ, effect or preamp prior to the DI box, would that pretty much mean a passive DI would be best?

FYI, my main gig is with a church where we play direct, no amps, and I share the channel on the board with the other bassist, so the board is set flat, and we don’t have a sound guy, but are on our own. So the EQ/preamp pedals are kind of a necessity.

Thanks!
 
#2
TDR1138 said:
Since everything would be getting fed through an EQ, effect or preamp prior to the DI box, would that pretty much mean a passive DI would be best?
Click to expand...

A passive DI should work just fine.
But you could also use an active one so you'd have your preamp/EQ and DI all in one box.
 
#3
Usually all the DI boxes i find lying around on stages over here are active ones.
AFAIK an active DI works with a passive bass just as well as with a line signal from an active bass or pedalboard.

So option a) get a passive DI and cut the possibility of playing with a passive bass straight into it
or option b) get an active DI and have all these possibilities
or option c) get a decent preamp pedal with DI out like the Tonehammer or Sansamp BDDI and have it all in one box.
 
#4
I play a passive bass into a passive DI and it sounds great. I certainly don't claim to be an expert, but I remember when I was doing research it sounded like a passive DI can deal with anything. I also have both active and passive basses. If you want to add eq, etc, you would need something else. But passive doesn't require power!
 
#5
Thanks for the replies.

@lz4005 @el murdoque It's crossed my mind of going that route - kind of thinking of the Tone Hammer if I do - but I kind of like the modular aspect of piecing things together to really tailor the sound I want.

So as I thought, there is no real right answer,
 
#8
IME, a passive DI is better at solving problems in difficult rooms as it offers total galvanic isolation of input from output. An active DI has other advantages such as higher input impedance & lower output impedance. What does this mean? A passive bass into a passive DI can cause roll off of top end. As @jefkritz mentioned, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

In case it's not obvious, i'm a passive DI fan!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TDR1138
#9
I thought I'd revive the thread because I have the same exact question right now, and from the responses, I'm not sure we reached a conclusion (if there is one to be reached?). I'm running direct with just a pedalboard. Passive basses. I used to end my chain with either an Aguilar Tone Hammer or now a Tech 21 VTDI, but I recently acquired a speaker sim pedal which I want to use at the end now, and it doesn't have a DI out. So I need to end my chain with a DI.

Do I want an active or passive one? Does it matter? I'm still using the VTDI in the chain as my preamp, as well as other drive/compressor/octave pedals, but I can't use the DI out on it.

Any feedback you can offer would be helpful. Also, as with everything, I'm on a budget. I know there may be a "great" option, but I'd like to keep it around $100, used or new.

Thanks
 
#10
Ba55Man1ac said:
IME, a passive DI is better at solving problems in difficult rooms as it offers total galvanic isolation of input from output. An active DI has other advantages such as higher input impedance & lower output impedance.
Click to expand...

This was partly my thought. If I have any ground issues or noise in my pedalboard, an active DI would wind up sharing it by nature of its being powered by the same juice box my pedalboard is, unless I used phantom power - or a passive DI. But I've been at some churches where the sound guy didn't even know how to turn on the phantom power on the board, let alone what it was.
 
Last edited:
#12
I did end up with a passive DI - a Radial Pro. It’s working great for me. I have yet to use it without some sort of pedal in front, though - at the very least a Boss TU-2 with a buffered bypass, if not something more like an EQ or my Beta. So, given what it sounds like you’re setting up, I think passive is just fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jacoby75
#13
TDR1138 said:
I did end up with a passive DI - a Radial Pro. It’s working great for me. I have yet to use it without some sort of pedal in front, though - at the very least a Boss TU-2 with a buffered bypass, if not something more like an EQ or my Beta. So, given what it sounds like you’re setting up, I think passive is just fine.
Click to expand...

Good answer. The ProDI is cheaper than some of the others I was looking at, so bonus! Lol. Thanks for the feedback.
 
#14
I wonder if there would be any benefit to using a Radial DI at the end rather than just throwing my old MXR M80 up there to use as a direct box and occasional volume boost if I kick it on. I figured I wouldn't want too many preamps in the same line, though. Thought it might get noisy.
 
#15
For what it’s worth, I went passive for a couple of reasons. One being simple reliably. Just plug and play with no worries about power source issues. The second being that my main church gig had a passive DI that I was using to begin with, and it was working fine. It was a Whirlwind Director, which I’ve used at other churches, too. The problem I’ve run across with the Whirlwind is that every single one needs to be regularly tightened up - all the screws, jacks - as they come loose over time. The Radial is WAY more solid feeling. Sound wise it (Whirlwind) was fine, though I do think the Radial is a little bit clearer. Maybe I’m hearing what I want to hear, but I do feel like I get a little more top end with the Radial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jacoby75
#16
FYI I emailed Radial and they just wrote back (really quickly, actually) and stated that since I have pedals in line that are buffering my signal, I should go with a passive direct box because it won't distort as easily wen hit hard by the pedals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ba55Man1ac and TDR1138
#19
I suppose it depends on how many true bypass pedals you have in the chain, and how long of a cable you're using. I essentially have a compressor first which is always on, so basically a buffer, and then a couple of more that aren't true bypass in the chain, so I think I'm okay. I put the TU-3 towards the very end so that it is getting a strong(er) signal at the DI. Might be unnecessary or overkill. Perhaps I'm overthinking it. Or overbuffering it, as the case may be.
 
#20
Many times an effect like a compressor will have a volume control after the circuitry which will affect the output impedance. Unless the effect is buffered, it probably won't work well as a buffer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back