# Best way to split guitar signal



## amagras

Hi friends. What is in your opinion the best way to split the guitar signal without losing sound or adding colour? I have a standard rig (guitar, pedals, amp & microphone) going into my interface but I also would like to be able to record the guitar di signal for future reamping into another channel of my Scarlett 6i6.
Note: I have an ART PDB (passive direct box) that seems to suck a little bit of tone. 








Please do share your knowledge with me. Thank you!


----------



## mhammer

A DI box should not suck _any_ tone. But I also see that the unit has a 50k input impedance, which is probably a bit low for feeding a guitar directly. That may account for the los of some tone. This should, ideally, be avoided if you feed the box with something that has a lower output impedance than the "naked" guitar. That could be a simple buffer, or almost any pedal, whether clean or other. Just about any pedal will probably have an output impedance much lower than a guitar (with the rare exception of something like a LP Recording).


----------



## amagras

I don't understand very well how guitar impedance works so I'm going to ask for more general information, facts if you want. 
You say that there is a chance for a PASSIVE direct box not to have loss of tone? Keep in mind that I'll be splitting my single coil signal into 2 different cables, the in/thru and the transformer out.


----------



## dtsaudio

mhammer is probably right. The transformer in the DI is loading your guitar so much that you lose some highs. My guess is that it gets worse when you connect the balanced out and the in/thru at the same time. Are you running the guitar to the DI first and then to your effects pedals, or are you taking the signal off the pedals?


----------



## amagras

My intention is to capture the signal from the guitar as natural as possible to be able to reamp it later but at the same time I want to capture the sound of my pedalboard and amp. This way I have to use both outputs from the box.


----------



## ronmac

Not al DIs are created equal. Radial JDI or PRODI will be a huge jump in build quality to what you are using now, with a noticeable difference in tone. You only need buy one for a lifetime of use, and for the small price difference it is a no brainer, IMO.


----------



## amagras

ronmac said:


> Not al DIs are created equal. Radial JDI or PRODI will be a huge jump in build quality to what you are using now, with a noticeable difference in tone. You only need buy one for a lifetime of use, and for the small price difference it is a no brainer, IMO.


Thank you, I'll take a look at that one. 

I'm still looking to understand the technical part of the improvement, special related to the specs.


----------



## amagras

ronmac said:


> Not al DIs are created equal. Radial JDI or PRODI will be a huge jump in build quality to what you are using now IMO.


Have you/anyone tried or had the opportunity to compare these 2? There's a substantial price difference but I'm not sure about the technical part. 
http://www.radialeng.com/prodi.php
http://www.radialeng.com/jdi.php


----------



## ronmac

amagras, I own several of each, as well as the active version J48 and use them every day. 

The primary difference in the JDI and ProDI is the transformer. The JDI uses a Jensen transformer, considered to be at the very top of the food chain. The ProDi uses a different, albiet high quality alternative. They have slightly different specs, but you will be hard pressed under most conditions to hear a difference. 

If budget is tight, buy the ProDI. If money is not an issue, and you won't be satisfied unless you have the best, buy the JDI. 

I often recommend the ProDI when specking an install, just because they can get twice as many if on a tight budget.

I have never had a travelling pro turn up their nose when passed any Radial product at a gig. They have a well earned reputation for quality build, exceptional performance and "aint gonna break during my lifetime, even if I run over it with my truck".


----------



## amagras

ronmac said:


> amagras, I own several of each, as well as the active version J48 and use them every day.
> 
> The primary difference in the JDI and ProDI is the transformer. The JDI uses a Jensen transformer, considered to be at the very top of the food chain. The ProDi uses a different, albiet high quality alternative. They have slightly different specs, but you will be hard pressed under most conditions to hear a difference.
> 
> If budget is tight, buy the ProDI. If money is not an issue, and you won't be satisfied unless you have the best, buy the JDI.
> 
> I often recommend the ProDI when specking an install, just because they can get twice as many if on a tight budget.
> 
> I have never had a travelling pro turn up their nose when passed any Radial product at a gig. They have a well earned reputation for quality build, exceptional performance and "aint gonna break during my lifetime, even if I run over it with my truck".


Thank you for the explanation and the help ronmac! I'm planning to use this I'm my studio though. Have you had chance to compare them both in recording? In that case I'd like to hear what you think.


----------



## hollowbody

I'm going through buying a DI box for my straight-to-FOH rig at the moment and I'm looking at the Radial Pro48, which has the benefit of being an active DI. The JDI and Pro DI are both passives, which are fine for keys and active instruments, but for an electric guitar, you probably want an active. Radial themselves recommends either the Pro48 or J48 for electric guitar.


----------



## amagras

hollowbody said:


> I'm going through buying a DI box for my straight-to-FOH rig at the moment and I'm looking at the Radial Pro48, which has the benefit of being an active DI. The JDI and Pro DI are both passives, which are fine for keys and active instruments, but for an electric guitar, you probably want an active. Radial themselves recommends either the Pro48 or J48 for electric guitar.


I was concerned that the adding of external power was going to affect my guitar's tone but now I have a new idea:

I'm more concerned with preserving the original tone in the in/thru signal than the di signal because what's really important to me is the sound of my entire rig (because the di signal is only going to be used in less likely case a reamp is necessary). If I have a box that is ACTIVE will the in/thru be affected with tone loss the same way it is in a passive box? If not I can just buy the cheapest box and that's all I need.


----------



## ronmac

Yes, the active versions can also be a good choice, and may be more suited to your situation. I almost always prefer the passive version, as I like the way the transformer reacts to the instrument. Neither is right or wrong, so try before you buy or make sure the dealer has a generous return policy.


----------



## amagras

ronmac said:


> Yes, the active versions can also be a good choice, and may be more suited to your situation. I almost always prefer the passive version, as I like the way the transformer reacts to the instrument. Neither is right or wrong, so try before you buy or make sure the dealer has a generous return policy.


But, is the sound in the in/thru jack affected at all in the active box? If technically it's not I will go and exchange the passive one I have for the cheapest ART box there is at L&M right now. I can care later for my di signal track and buy the radial one but as long as the signal that's going through my pedalboard remains pure I'll be happy


----------



## mhammer

The one you have is actually fine, but is expecting a lower-impedance input source. My understanding is that a good rule of thumb is to have an input impedance at least 10x the output impedance of the signal-source. This is why most effect pedals will have an input impedance of 500k or more. The old Boss CE-1 chorus tends to suck tone a bit, and that is precisely because it also has an input impedance of about 50k, like your DI. Of course, it is worth remembering that the CE-1 was initially intended as something a keyboard player would plug into instead of dragging around a Leslie...and the output impedance of most keyboards is going to be quite low, compared to guitars. And finally (as if I haven't made this too long already), volume pedals tend to fall into two categories: those with 50k (or lower) pots, and those with 100k (or higher) pots. The lower-value pots assume the user will be plugging in a lower-impedance source (like a keyboard or buffered instrument), such that 50k will not load down the signal. The higher-value pots assumeyou will be feeding a higher-impedance source, like a guitar.

It all fits together, right?

So, I say all of this because, although one of the better (and better-suited) DIs that Ronmac recommends are a simpler solution, buffering your guitar will allow you to use the one you have. I'll see if I can put together a simple compact buffer, between now and Sunday. I'm sure if you don't use it, I can.


----------



## amagras

Thank you Mark. I use the volume control on the guitar quite a bit and I've noticed that when there is a buffered pedal in front of my first gain stage (in this case a TS9) the volume control doesn't respond the way I'm used to. I even got a very short cable from Dave for this reason. If my crazy idea about the cheap active box isn't correct I'd prefer to save for a box that doesn't load down the guitar's tone (I'll probably go for the prodi) and save you the time and parts to make a buffer.


----------



## High/Deaf

You may already have a buffer. Any transparent clean boost will work. It will have a high i/p Z and low o/p Z.

Also, thumbs up to Radial. I had a passive loop that something opened up on inside. I couldn't even get the box apart (and it was well past warranty). I drove down the road and dropped it off for repair - they fixed it, no questioned asked and no receipt required. They take pride in what they build and I think they were embarrassed one of their products broke. Nothing but good things to say about them.


----------



## hollowbody

I'm going to be using my ART PDB tonight and tomorrow night, running my wet organ fx board (EHX B9, Volume, Neo Mini Vent) direct to FOH. I'll let you know how it sounds. I got the ART because nothing else was in-stock, and I could always use it for other things, but I may or may not upgrade to a Pro48 depending on how it sounds. Right now I'm going to run it mono, but I'm hoping to run stereo into FOH eventually, which will require 2 DI boxes (dang).


----------



## amagras

@High/deaf 
The thing is I don't like buffer of any kind between guitar and pedals.

@hollowbody 
Are you going to split the signal of the guitar before the pedalboard or just use the ART at the end of the chain? In the second case it might work fine.

Thanks for chiming in


----------



## hollowbody

amagras said:


> @hollowbody
> Are you going to split the signal of the guitar before the pedalboard or just use the ART at the end of the chain? In the second case it might work fine.
> 
> Thanks for chiming in


Yeah, my B9 is going to split the signal. The Dry out will go to the rest of my pedalboard and amp, but the Wet out will go to Volume>Mini Vent>ART DI>FOH.


----------



## amagras

hollowbody said:


> Yeah, my B9 is going to split the signal. The Dry out will go to the rest of my pedalboard and amp, but the Wet out will go to Volume>Mini Vent>ART DI>FOH.


You should be OK then, let us know please! (footage?)


----------



## hollowbody

amagras said:


> (footage?)


Haha, I'll see what I can do


----------

