Miking versus D.I.

Posted on

Member Since: Apr 29, 2012

I'm confused. Some of my best mixes from live sound have been using D.I. Now, I'm going to audition for this band that mics everything on the stage. Usually, I would use micing for the drummer and that would be mostly shotguns for the cymbals and the high hat, and some small mics for the drums.
The drummer had d.i.s' on his drums that sounded tremendous out in front. We tried micing on stage and the monitor mix was just so cacophonus; I could't get it very loud. Hence, the band got very loud on stage and pretty soon, everybody started getting angry about the loudness.
Am I wrong to like D.I. versus micing?

[ Back to Top ]

Since: Feb 07, 2005

Apr 30, 2012 01:25 pm

There is no right and wrong... just good sound. If it sounds great then it is great.

The Czar of BS
Since: Dec 31, 2007

Apr 30, 2012 09:09 pm

Got to remember that a DI is a direct signal. And has zero chance of feedback. With a mic, it can pick it's own signal backup through it's self. Which will create the chaotic loop that is feedback.

However, there is a catch. With a DI you are only getting the signal straight from the instrument. With a mic, you are getting the tone of the amp. For me, I do a common practice of using both a DI and a mic on the bass. This allows for a nice blend of tones. Now on a guitar, you lose a lot from only taking a DI signal. As most of the tones come from the amp. And obviously, you can't DI a vocalist. So, a mic must be used here.

I would say if things are getting out of control on stage, with feedback, and loudness. I would pulling more from your 31 band EQ on your mix. Or, should you not have one at all, adding one for each mix. This way you can pull the harshness and feedback out.

Related Forum Topics:

If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.