... that we all tend to make disparaging jokes about active basses here, but whenever I play a 9-volt-battery-entrailed bass at a rehearsal the guitarists inevitably (and not knowing that it is battery-fed) go: "Oh, that one sounds real good!"
It's like they have a certain active sound downloaded in their rodent brains and when they hear it they just can't resist. :mrgreen:
I don't make disparaging remarks about active basses. Like passives, some sound great, others don't.
I had to think about this for a moment. Then my mind when back to years ago when I went into a music store looking for a bass. The salesman evidently was a guitarist. He was genuinely excited about an active bass which he also expected me to like. It was a good bass, but too bright with not enough depth for me. I wanted something deep with a growling sound. Somehow he never could understand that just because he liked the bass he was trying to sell that didn't mean I would like it, too. Instead of moving on to other basses I might actually like, he just kept on and on about that particular bass.
Other than my Hamer 12-string this is the only active bass I have, a Schecter Baron-H. I like it a lot.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/iamthebassman/baronh_zpsa185c616.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/iamthebassman/media/baronh_zpsa185c616.jpg.html)
I love the tone of my Jackson Thunderbird, I only really need one active bass so no more are in my future, for Rock with a pick it really does stand out distinctly in the mix.
I would never have guessed I'd ever play an active bass again after I sold the Ibanez Soundgear some twenty years ago.
But I like my 20/20 a lot. I use it quite often in the band.
I still have and like my ancient Ibanez that I put a set Alembic p/j pickups in. I love the lowpass filter tone control, that's a really special thing.
If I had the space and funds for a real Collection, I'd get a stingray too.
But yeah, I usually play the passive LPB, or the Greco bird, or even the Danelectro. The Ibanez mostly sits at home unplayed
EDIT: alembic, not anemic. Thanks a lot autocorrect!
My RD is not that active any more, in more ways than one... ;)
I have active basses galore, they don't sound crap, just with few exceptions - the WAL comes to mind - not as individual as if these basses were all passive. There is a certain standard active sound that homogenizes anything it is fed with. And guitarists and drummers seem to dig that sound - probably because since the advent of the late 70ies they have heard it so often, it has become the modern P sound. In fact it is the modern P sound - just amplified with more focus on presence, sub-bass frequencies and a certain midrange.
It's not that I don't dig that sound occasionally too, but it strikes me that guitarist go for an essentially pumped up sound by a battery when they themselves eye active guitars with the greatest disdain for whatever reason.
Not knocking anybody's active bass.
I have one active bass, which has active pickups too. It has a great and even tone, but it misses this strange undefinable thing called character or mojo. But it ooes sound good in a mix, engineers liked it. (*)
Of course I reviewed a lot of active basses and I can't really see the purpose of active electronics. I mostly set everything in the middle or I switch a bass to passive and use my amp. In studios that's also mostly the choice of engineers. Gimme a passive bass and a well controllable amp and I'm happy:)
Having said that, maybe the thing I dislike most is a battery. I'm someone who's or to afraid it will run out, so I change it too often or I forget it. My all active bass can't live without one. I also use 1Spots for pedals only. It's not an environmental thing (more global warming please) but just laziness or worrying too much.
(*) The all active bass has mirrored P pickups like Entwistle used. There's something special about that. The front pickup has the split coil closer to the neck so it's a bit warmer. A reverse P. The E and A strings have the two splits close together so it gives something MM-ish or something like that. The split coil close to the bridge on the D and G side.. ..I dont think that ads a lot of sound.
"But it does sound good in a mix, engineers liked it."
That is why I am contemplating to take along an active bass for a festival where we are due to play a 40 minute slot end of the month. I'll probably be the soundman's darling if I do. But something tells me it's all wrong. :-\
My sixer is not active per se, but I always put a Boss stomp-box eq in front of it. Pretty much is the equivalent of active, the pre is just not on-board. I think it sounds pretty good, actually.
I actually "met" all you guys when I stumbled upon the Pit during my transition from active to passive basses. My Rickenbacker had an EMG pickup and preamp at the time. Then I bought a Les Paul. Then pretty much all my basses were converted to (or BACK to) passive. ;D Now, I'm in a new musical project and have been experimenting like crazy with different basses. One being a Spector with EMGs. I was a fanatic about these pickups for a good 15 years. Then I lost my taste for them. But after recently hearing a friend of mine live, and also the vid of Mark with his Jackson, I thought I better re-visit. I've found I really like it for most fingerstyle and whatever little bit of slap that I'm doing. I don't like it so much with a pick. Too bright, not enough lows. I have the EMG BQC system preamp, which has a sweepable mid control. As I've always done with EMGs, I cut the treble a little, and boost the bass a lot. The mid is nice for a boost during solos or whatever (there's a lot of soloing in the new band 8) ). When I bought my Alembic last year, I became intrigued with some of the very usable mid tones I could get out of it. Real nice stuff, sometimes with a little chorus. So, I was looking to get some of that. Not quite the same, you just can't beat those Alembic low pass filters! But cool nonetheless.
Back to the Alembic - this thing sounds incredible with a pick. Fingerstyle doesn't really cut the way I'd like, and slap is a pain due to the positioning of the neck pickup, and the 24 fret fingerboard. It really challenges my beloved Ric, but doesn't have the feel or physical balance. I'd love to put Alembic pickups and pre in the Ric, but you're talking the cost of a whole new bass to do that. As it stands, I've got Ric HB1 humbuckers running through a Sadowsky preamp pedal (volume, bass, treble - boost only). And FWIW, I'm also using the 8 string Ric on a couple of songs.
What it all comes down to is, I want my bass to have a fighting chance of sounding great through the PA, and that's why I use the Sadowsky and am considering an active bass for live use.
I'm probably the biggest passive tone snob here and I have a G&L L5500 w EMG's, a Stingray, an Ibanez Musician, and my Marcus Miller all with onboard preamps. (My G&L L2500's preamp died and it can stay dead.) Of all of these, the old Ibanez sounds the most like passive but louder with zero tonal balance shift between active and passive until the EQ comes into play, and the Marcus Miller ONLY sounds good with the preamp engaged. It works in passive, but it's just a thin-sounding Jazz Bass then. The Stingray has a three band EQ, but it still sounds like a 'Ray should, and the older G&L is amazingly versatile with a mid frequency selector built into the preamp board and a damn great set of sounds.
Cheapie active basses sound good to "pseudo-trained" ears for the same reason most live PA mixes are kickdrum, sibilance heavy vocal, and chainsaw buzz guitar: each element sounds good solo, but that hollow modern P bass tone vanishes in that aural stew and like Uwe said, their ears are used to that tone from a million bad R'n'B pop songs. Active basses actually mitigate much of the difference between most tube and solid state preamps by lowering the bass's output impedance and not letting a tube preamp load the pickups directly.
I just don't understand the generalizations. Except for the original EMGs, pretty much all actives are really passive pickups with active preamps. No different from putting an active stompbox preamp in your signal path, or for that matter, than the active preamp section of your amp.
Nothing active presently in my herd...
I guess I'm deaf but I don't really get the big deal about the active/passive thing. If it wasn't for amps you'd have no bass guitar. If ya wanna get snooty about amps, get an upright and a drummer with brushes. Any electric bass you've heard goes through at least one pre-amp and often several.
I also don't get the big deal about different pre-amps in basses. To me, the best ones are transparent; a volume boost and some useful EQ if you want it. Set 'em flat adjust the volume to equal the pre bypassed and it's the same sound. Turn up the volume and you can overdrive your amp's pre a little. Or a lot. Or not at all.
I had a G&L L2K who's pick ups were hotter is passive mode than any of my active basses.
Quote from: Dave W on August 20, 2015, 03:52:34 PM
I just don't understand the generalizations. Except for the original EMGs, pretty much all actives are really passive pickups with active preamps. No different from putting an active stompbox preamp in your signal path, or for that matter, than the active preamp section of your amp.
Killjoy... ;)
I wonder how many passive bass players run their signal through various pedals which have variations on preamp functions as well. Probably never crosses their minds.
Quote from: uwe on August 19, 2015, 10:29:36 AM
... that we all tend to make disparaging jokes about active basses here, but whenever I play a 9-volt-battery-entrailed bass at a rehearsal the guitarists inevitably (and not knowing that it is battery-fed) go: "Oh, that one sounds real good!"
It's like they have a certain active sound downloaded in their rodent brains and when they hear it they just can't resist. :mrgreen:
I would think guitarists gravitate to the active bass sound over passive because, IMO, an active bass sounds more "guitar like," or at least can. A passive bass is more bass-like.
....and we all know how guitarists love themseleves and their sound. So it seems natural that they would most like other instruments that seem to more emulate them, between their glances in the rehearsal room mirrors :)
Quote from: Pilgrim on August 21, 2015, 04:03:37 PM
I wonder how many passive bass players run their signal through various pedals which have variations on preamp functions as well. Probably never crosses their minds.
Never understood that preamp thing, on or off board, never done it. On any bass amp I generally dial in bass full or a little less, mids about half, treble 3/4. Miraculously, that gives me a sound I'm content with in 9 out of 10 cases. If not, it's the amp's fault, has to be. ;) That said, I have now started switching between SVT, Orange and Markbass sounds/amps from song to song, bass to bass, at random as my whim strikes me. I'm not sure whether my bandmates even notice a difference. I really have to point them to it.
Quote from: uwe on August 21, 2015, 06:02:05 PM
Never understood that preamp thing, on or off board, never done it. On any bass amp I generally dial in bass full or a little less, mids about half, treble 3/4. Miraculously, that gives me a sound I'm content with in 9 out of 10 cases. If not, it's the amp's fault, has to be. ;) That said, I have now started switching between SVT, Orange and Markbass sounds/amps from song to song, bass to bass, at random as my whim strikes me. I'm not sure whether my bandmates even notice a difference. I really have to point them to it.
Your SVT, Orange and Markbass heads all have active preamps.
This discussion reminds me of a thread years ago at the Pit. A member insisted that he would never have an active bass b/c he wanted the "pure" sound of the bass -- as if a solid body bass has a usable sound without the electronics -- yet he ran his basses into a Sadowsky preamp/DI stompbox, which has the exact same preamp circuit as Roger installs in his basses. When I asked him what would be the difference between installing a Sadowsky onboard preamp and duct-taping his pedal to the body of his bass, he got very offended. :)
Quote from: Dave W on August 21, 2015, 06:42:03 PMYour SVT, Orange and Markbass heads all have active preamps.
The SVT (even though it's a CL) only "sorta" has an active preamp. In most tube amps, the preamp gain stages are just straight voltage gain and the tone controls are all passive cut only after that stage except for the midrange, which is a band pass filter with its own separate gain stage to allow boosting the mids. Most tube amps work this way sans the active mids, which is why tube amps are so much more sensitive to pickup tonal differences (and generally brighter overall BTW) than s/s preamps. The pickups are directly impedance-coupled to the first half (most preamp tubes are dual triodes) of the first preamp tube and the passive tone controls come AFTER. There are exceptions: the Fender Super Twin/Studio Bass actually has an active EQ for its tone controls and Mesa's bass graphic EQ's split the difference: the knobs are a normal passive filter network, but the graphic EQ is a completely separate split band active gain stage after the fact.
Onboard (or pedal) preamps also provide a more robust current/power drive. Dig into a passive pickup and its electronic resonance starts getting VERY prevalent and low end starts dropping off: pickups magnets are simply too small to provide an equally induced current at extreme voltage swings (transients) and current is where low end comes from. There is a very real difference in the type of signal put out from a passive versus an active bass.
Quote from: uwe on August 21, 2015, 06:02:05 PM
Never understood that preamp thing, on or off board
This I can believe :mrgreen:
Quotenever done it.
This I do not believe. Because...
QuoteOn any bass amp I generally dial in bass full or a little less, mids about half, treble 3/4.
Those are the control knobs of your pre-amp. All amplifier systems have preamps or they woulda make a no sound. Even if they have no EQ at all they need to have a premp
You are using that preamp to alter your tone, Pretty drastically too I might add. I've no experience with SVTs or Oranges but the Mark Bass has an active preamp. That means that all the tone knobs straight up are doing nothing. Turn the bass knob to the left and you reduce the volume of the lower frequencies. Turn the bass knob to the right and you get more volume to the lower frequencies.
Then there are passive preamps. I am most familiar with the Alembic F1X which has a passive Bandaxall tone stack like many a guitar amp (I believe it is basically the pre-amp of a Fender Showman). It has bass, middle and treble controls that are really more like filters. When you boost the bass, you're really filtering off some of the mids & highs so that the bass notes get relatively louder.
Active or passive the end result is more or less the same. It's all about the relative boosting/cutting certain frequencies. On an active pre, you can get a similar result in different ways: for example: Boost the bass & treble, leave the mids flat - or - leave the bass and treble flat and cut the mids. In the second option you have to also boost the volume off course. Both ways are going to give you a basic "scoop"/smiley face EQ setting. That's more or less what you're doing with your "bass full or a little less, mids about half, treble 3/4."
Personally, I prefer the active method. It's more intuitive but it usually has more unnecessarily drastic capabilities. I can't believe that people can play a Stingray live with the bass & treble maxed. I loved the F1X but it was hard to get a decent sound in a crappy sounding room.
Meanwhile, your passive bass with a single tone knob is again a kind of filter. The "pure" sound of the pick-up is with the tone maxed out to the trebley side of things. Turn it down and you're cutting some upper frequencies.
I like active basses for playing live. I can potentially fix an acoustically crappy room a little easier because I can at least hear my EQ changes at the end of my patch cord. I also like saturating the input into the amp,sorta poor man's compression like an old toob amp. But I think I play with a relatively light touch too.
Basses are not guitars. Guitars don't have some of our issues sound wise. Your basic 4 string is of course one octave lower than a guitar and those low frequencies are hard to control and can easily get out of hand in a live setting. I think an active bass gives you some more control of the situation.
A lot of "good bass sound" in a live setting involves not reproducing the lowest frequencies that a bass guitar makes. You don't really want to hear the lowest fundamental too much because it will turn into pure mud in all but the best of rooms. Active pre-amps in the bass or out of it let you more precisely remove some of what you have too much off in a particular situation.
As an interesting aside, the bottom octave of a Hammond organ does not have a fundamental at all. What you hear/perceive as the low part of those notes is the first harmonic and a fifth. An old organ trick is to play a low note with the fifth that is perceived lower than the fundamental. Hammond organs are even more of an abomination against god & nature than electric guitars.
^^^
I would also put singers who sing off key and drummers with timing issues on the list of abominations against God & nature.
Quote from: Father Gino on August 22, 2015, 01:30:46 PM
Hammond organs are even more of an abomination against god & nature than electric guitars.
All I can say is, thank heavens for the abomination of the Hammond B3!! I'll light a candle at that altar any day.
Quote from: Pilgrim on August 22, 2015, 03:26:41 PM
All I can say is, thank heavens for the abomination of the Hammond B3!! I'll light a candle at that altar any day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CL8ASLVWPk
Quote from: Father Gino on August 22, 2015, 01:30:46 PMAs an interesting aside, the bottom octave of a Hammond organ does not have a fundamental at all. What you hear/perceive as the low part of those notes is the first harmonic and a fifth. An old organ trick is to play a low note with the fifth that is perceived lower than the fundamental. Hammond organs are even more of an abomination against god & nature than electric guitars.
That's the Leslie and a combination of the speaker/enclosure's tuning and the undersized power tube amplifier distorting. The Hammond itself is happily putting out all kinds of fundamental
Quote from: westen44 on August 22, 2015, 02:24:30 PM
^^^
I would also put singers who sing off key and drummers with timing issues on the list of abominations against God & nature.
My GF LOVES to sing.....but is so tone deaf and off key that it hurts to listen to her. But she dances around singing and looks so happy that I just try to bear it...usually from a different room. Driving long distance with her in the passenger seat, singing along to the radio is truly unbearable. I use earplugs.
The funniest part is, she has two large parrots that sort of dance to the music as she sings.....and then they sing along miming her TOTALLY OFF KEY!! Nornally the parrots sing or whistle sort of on key when not singing with her....so it is really funny to hear them immitate her :)
------- Regarding the B3..... Man, that Vanilla Fudge track is a prefect argument in defense of the B3!!! i hadn't listened to it in ages. Just steller, especially considering when it was recorded.
One of the best cover songs ever, up there with Hendrix' "All Along the Watchtower."
Quote from: mc2NY on August 22, 2015, 07:26:22 PM
My GF LOVES to sing.....but is so tone deaf and off key that it hurts to listen to her. But she dances around singing and looks so happy that I just try to bear it...usually from a different room. Driving long distance with her in the passenger seat, singing along to the radio is truly unbearable. I use earplugs.
The funniest part is, she has two large parrots that sort of dance to the music as she sings.....and then they sing along miming her TOTALLY OFF KEY!! Nornally the parrots sing or whistle sort of on key when not singing with her....so it is really funny to hear them immitate her :)
------- Regarding the B3..... Man, that Vanilla Fudge track is a prefect argument in defense of the B3!!! i hadn't listened to it in ages. Just steller, especially considering when it was recorded.
One of the best cover songs ever, up there with Hendrix' "All Along the Watchtower."
That's a very amusing story about your girlfriend. I can almost imagine that. LOL.
I totally agree on "You Keep Me Hanging On" being in the same cover song category as "All Along the Watchtower." Greatness in both cases as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: Psycho Bass Guy on August 22, 2015, 07:21:00 PM
That's the Leslie and a combination of the speaker/enclosure's tuning and the undersized power tube amplifier distorting. The Hammond itself is happily putting out all kinds of fundamental
No, not true. The lowest octave one the keyboard does not have a fundamental. The oldest hammonds did but not by the time the B3 came out. There are no tone wheels for those notes. The pedals are a different story but most jazz players play bass with their left hand on the keyboard.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love Hammonds (kinda fond of electric basses & guitars too). But Hammonds are even further from an acoustic instrument. They're really kinda analog synthesizers. Any fretted instrument or modern keyboard suffers the indignities of equal temperament (an affront to god and nature to many when first introduced) but Hammonds have what has been referred to as Hamburger temperament; manufactured, unnatural harmonics that coupled with a usually over driven 20 or 40 watt amp scream dissonant, fuzzed out bliss that is its signature sound. The Hammond was meant to be a budget replacement for a pipe organ. It failed miserably at this and most "real" organists would prefer to set them on fire rather than play them. But Jazz & Gospel (and Leslie) embraced and developed its sound. If you've never peered into a real tonewheel Hammond to see how they work, I'd highly recommend it. They're weird Rube Golbergian throwbacks. Rude, crude, howling beasts. Perfect for the devil's music :) (well I guess God's music too in a suitable church).
So you mean that all the people who laud their off-board preamps here play directly into a slave/power amp? :o That wasn't my understanding. I thought they pre-amped their signal externally, to then deliver it to the amp-preamp and from there it goes into the amp's power amp. (I just refer to the in-built pre-amp as "equalisation" and generally don't use the term pre-amp for it.) And what I do not understand is why you would want to pre-amp your signal twice?
Of course I used Ashdown and Reußenzehn rack pre-amps with various slaves (= not a bass amp with an own pre-amp) in the 80ies and 90ies - that was en vogue back then,
(http://images.samash.com/sa/AJE/AJERPM1XX-P.fpx?cell=540,400&qlt=90&cvt=jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31fYROz8D3L._SX300_.jpg)
(pictures not actual scale! :mrgreen: )
but that is not my understanding of what people mean when they talk about "pre-amps" here in this forum: They then refer to little gadgets like the Sadowsky and MXR pre-amps. People feed those in their regular bass amps (with their own pre-amp), right? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
"Meanwhile, your passive bass with a single tone knob is again a kind of filter. The "pure" sound of the pick-up is with the tone maxed out to the trebley side of things. Turn it down and you're cutting some upper frequencies."
On passive basses I never use the tone control and the vol control only to turn the bass off or for fading effects. Other than that it is always full tilt. Tone or vol down always sounds like a diminished signal to me
Quote from: uwe on August 24, 2015, 09:05:42 AM
So you mean that all the people who laud their off-board preamps here play directly into a slave/power amp? :o That wasn't my understanding. I thought they pre-amped their signal externally, to then deliver it to the amp-preamp and from there it goes into the amp's power amp. (I just refer to the in-built pre-amp as "equalisation" and generally don't use the term pre-amp for it.)
No, of course not, whatever gave you that idea?
Quote from: uwe on August 24, 2015, 09:05:42 AMAnd what I do not understand is why you would want to pre-amp your signal twice?
It's another convenient way to shape your tone. And in some cases, to boost output.
Quote from: uwe on August 24, 2015, 09:05:42 AMbut that is not my understanding of what people mean when they talk about "pre-amps" here in this forum: They then refer to little gadgets like the Sadowsky and MXR pre-amps. People feed those in their regular bass amps (with their own pre-amp), right? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Right, right, you're bloody well right.
That brings me back to my initial question then: Why boost the signal via a pre-amp before the (other) pre-amp? All you hear is more pre-amp then and less bass.
If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad ...
PS: Dave knows Supertramp songs - that is worse than the usually lambasted stadium rock, that is stadium pop!!!
Quote from: uwe on August 24, 2015, 04:14:28 PM
That brings me back to my initial question then: Why boost the signal via a pre-amp before the (other) pre-amp? All you hear is more pre-amp then and less bass.
If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad ...
PS: Dave knows Supertramp songs - that is worse than the usually lambasted stadium rock, that is stadium pop!!!
You do know that your bass amps have more than one preamp gain stage, right? While a separate preamp isn't exactly the same thing, it's just another piece of a signal chain that some of us find useful.
Sorry to upset you by mentioning Supertramp. :mrgreen:
Do SVT, Orange Little Terror and Markbass 500 have multiple pre-amps? I honestly don't know. I thought in my little world one gain control means one pre-amp and the other volume control is the master. They are not Mesa Boogies you know.
But I'm ready to be enlightened!
Supertramp can be incredibly twee, but I liked Crime of the Century (the album). Breakfast in America (the album) was already too much cherry pie for me.
Not multiple preamps. More than one gain stage.
My point is that it's not that simple. It's not as if you have a pure and pristine passive signal going into a pure and simple preamp circuit. A preamp in your bass or in an external pedal isn't some fiendish device that complicates simple things. Don't need the versatility? Fine. Don't like them? Fine. But they're not products of Satan's workshop.
Quote from: uwe on August 25, 2015, 05:35:25 PM
Do SVT, Orange Little Terror and Markbass 500 have multiple pre-amps?
Multiple pre-amps, not really. Multiple stages of amplification yes. I'm no expert on this so maybe someone who is can chime in. Heck, I'm just the bass player; one step above a drummer.
Here are some hints from previous page of this thread:
Quote from: Psycho Bass Guy on August 22, 2015, 10:00:41 AM
The SVT (even though it's a CL) only "sorta" has an active preamp. In most tube amps, the preamp gain stages are just straight voltage gain and the tone controls are all passive cut only after that stage except for the midrange, which is a band pass filter with its own separate gain stage to allow boosting the mids. Most tube amps work this way sans the active mids, which is why tube amps are so much more sensitive to pickup tonal differences (and generally brighter overall BTW) than s/s preamps. The pickups are directly impedance-coupled to the first half (most preamp tubes are dual triodes) of the first preamp tube and the passive tone controls come AFTER. There are exceptions: the Fender Super Twin/Studio Bass actually has an active EQ for its tone controls and Mesa's bass graphic EQ's split the difference: the knobs are a normal passive filter network, but the graphic EQ is a completely separate split band active gain stage after the fact.
Onboard (or pedal) preamps also provide a more robust current/power drive. Dig into a passive pickup and its electronic resonance starts getting VERY prevalent and low end starts dropping off: pickups magnets are simply too small to provide an equally induced current at extreme voltage swings (transients) and current is where low end comes from. There is a very real difference in the type of signal put out from a passive versus an active bass.
Note the talk about stages and where different parts of the EQ come in. I don't doubt the veracity of the last sentence in the above quote. I just don't quite understand the disdain some people have for active basses when any electric bass is wholly dependent upon amplification. Certainly when you're hearing a recording of any electric bass, the signal path goes through much more than an amp, some speakers and a microphone even back in the olden days before 5 strings came to be. Personally I think I strive to get close to the classic bass sounds of my mis-spent youth; P's & J's & Bassmans and SVTs. But the sound in my head came from recordings. Back in those days many basses sounded like crap live, I think it's easier to recreate those classic sounds in a small club on a realistic budget with an active bass.
How about two cascaded preamps *in the bass*, one on the pedalboard (technically two, if you count the EQ pedal), and one in the amp. Some might perceive this as taking the long way home... or even the crime of the century :-X
(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k125/0chromium0/forums/bc-rich/8abcfb84-5f52-41be-9714-3f7afeb19673.jpg)
Seriously, though, I am generally of the "keep it simple" camp... but some pickups+onboard pre combos do have the magic.
Now I gotta know... What's in the bass?
Quote from: slinkp on August 25, 2015, 09:49:01 PM
Now I gotta know... What's in the bass?
Haven't looked at the boards in the Bich, but I suspect it uses the same pre as the Mockingbird - a simple single-transistor affair (2N5088). The Bich just has two of 'em, and they can be switched on/off independently with one overdriving the other for some mild grit... or all out fuzz.
Hardest part is remembering what all the controls do ;D
(http://www.themusiczoo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/8-String-Bich-Bass-Controls.jpg)
I didn't know MIT produced instruments... or the training to use them... :mrgreen:
Quote from: Dave W on August 25, 2015, 07:11:48 PM
Not multiple preamps. More than one gain stage.
Multiple gain stages yet just one gain control? I never knew. So there are cascaded gains operated by just that one gain knob?
Quote from: chromium on August 25, 2015, 08:57:33 PMSome might perceive this as taking the long way home... or even the crime of the century :-X
(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k125/0chromium0/forums/bc-rich/8abcfb84-5f52-41be-9714-3f7afeb19673.jpg)
NICE! ;D
Off topic, but that 8 string bridge/tailpiece sure looks like Hamer hardware.
Quote from: gearHed289 on August 26, 2015, 08:55:42 AM
Off topic, but that 8 string bridge/tailpiece sure looks like Hamer hardware.
Good eye! The previous owner had talked Hamer into selling him a bridge and tailpiece while the bass was in for restoration with Neal Moser, and so he ended up converting it. I assume there was a 4-saddle Badass or Starz bridge on there originally.
I like BC Rich basses too. And IMHO Geezer Butler had his best bass sound live in the early Dio years when he played one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZpx2mxS8M
my son tony saw that tour. sabbath and boc, an odd pairing to me but what do i know about the innards of planning this tour. someone must have thought it was a good idea then someone on the other side had to agree. :o
Quote from: uwe on August 26, 2015, 06:57:20 AMMultiple gain stages yet just one gain control? I never knew. So there are cascaded gains operated by just that one gain knob?
That's where amps differ. There are all kinds of designs with many different gain stages. There is no set number. The goal is to have the voltage from an instrument's pickup be of sufficient power to drive a speaker or ultimately, produce its own volume, sans speaker. As batteries become ever more powerful, it is easy to one day envision an entire amplifier being onboard a bass. Having an active preamp is just adding another stage in front of all the others, and it's very easy to electronically compensate for pickup deficiencies with EQ, but the result is that lots of very differently-constructed instruments end up sounding identical. Passive pickups tend to have more "character" as a result of their own shortcomings, which over time have endeared themselves to our ears.
I just like things that sound good to me and understand how most of them do their thing. I've also played several "Holy Grail" instruments that left me cold: a '73 checkerboard-bound Fireglo Ric 4001, a few poorly set-up EB-2's, any bass with an SG body shape including vintage EB-0's, every aluminum-necked Kramer I ever encountered, Ampeg Dan Armstrong basses and more crappy vintage Fenders than I could ever list.
Quote from: Psycho Bass Guy on August 26, 2015, 01:42:26 PM
Having an active preamp is just adding another stage in front of all the others, and it's very easy to electronically compensate for pickup deficiencies with EQ, but the result is that lots of very differently-constructed instruments end up sounding identical. Passive pickups tend to have more "character" as a result of their own shortcomings, which over time have endeared themselves to our ears.
No one ever summed it up more beautifully. :-* :-* :-*
Agreed!
Quote from: nofi on August 26, 2015, 10:43:44 AM
my son tony saw that tour. sabbath and boc, an odd pairing to me but what do i know about the innards of planning this tour. someone must have thought it was a good idea then someone on the other side had to agree. :o
BÖC had a dark image, more playful than Sabbath's dumb (in a good way) Hammer Films devilishness, but also more unsettling (largely down to Eric Bloom's appearance and image) though much of their music was just (very) well-crafted pop (Lanier wrote pure pop, the Bouchard brothers mostly too, Roeser oscillated between a handfull of riffy tracks and those rather West Coastish strumming songs , Bloom's compositions were regularly too off the wall to be real hard rock or heavy metal, though BÖC were among the first ones to claim they played "heavy metal" in the 70ies, of course they didn't!). Plus their song and album titles and covers always had something sinister. I guess that is what made them seem like a good pair with the Sabs.
Or possibly it was Martin Birch who produced both around that time.
Quote from: uwe on August 27, 2015, 05:41:32 AM
No one ever summed it up more beautifully. :-* :-* :-*
If you're talking about what PBG said about liking things that sound good to him, I certainly agree.
If you're talking about what he said about passive pickups, keep in mind that most active basses actually have passive pickups. It's the preamp that's active. The original EMGs are true active pickups, and IMHO they don't have much character, although they do have plenty of fans. But aside from EMG, few if any others are internally active. A preamp with passive pickups doesn't change whatever character the pickups have.
Passive pickups have their character altered by an onboard preamp. The preamp decouples the pickup from the first gain stage on the bass amplifier and feeds it a signal that has neither the frequency response nor impedance of the pickup's actual output, which is why basses end up "sounding" like preamps moreso than their construction and pickups.
Of course the signal is altered by the preamp, that's what's supposed to happen. It doesn't change the fact that the origin of the signal is passive.
To me, this sounds just like a J in both passive mode and in active mode with bass and treble boosted about halfway. But having the preamp allows you more tonal flexibility if you want it, rather than just a passive tone knob cut.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1SATMtXRWA
Doesn't it kinda depend on the pickup too?
Watt's T-bird II sure never sounded to me like some generic thing with a Bartolini preamp. I hear a whole lot of bird in this... nothing about it makes me go "must be an active bass", much less "sounds like a bartolini preamp".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF-mrT9id9Q
Both examples are cases are well-designed preamps that still allow the character of the original passive pickups to shine through. But also consider the host of low to mid budget import basses with all kinds of variation in construction and pickups that sound virtually identical. Any number of "cheapie" active basses are virtually indistinguishable despite huge variations in build and materials. Truly "active" pickups function like condenser microphones and rely on a power source to charge their magnetic field used to "view" the strings and because of this, they are very different in tonality and output than passive-magnet pickups (99.99999% of everything).
all that is wrong here is found in the comments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk_Gvjlj9Bo
typical over slapping throughout, battery is under pickguard, this guy took a terrible tone and made it worse blah blah blah.
Quote from: Dave W on August 27, 2015, 07:20:49 PM
Of course the signal is altered by the preamp, that's what's supposed to happen. It doesn't change the fact that the origin of the signal is passive.
To me, this sounds just like a J in both passive mode and in active mode with bass and treble boosted about halfway. But having the preamp allows you more tonal flexibility if you want it, rather than just a passive tone knob cut.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1SATMtXRWA
I'm sorry to say, but that particular active sound already sounds anodyne to me. Heard a trillion times on every jazzrock-funk album on earth. We all know what a passive J sounds like over a regular rig, plugged in without further ado.
It doesn't sound like that active mode in the vid unless you use a Glockenklang or something and adjust tone control on the amp hi-fi'ish.
Quote from: nofi on August 27, 2015, 08:18:19 PM
all that is wrong here is found in the comments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk_Gvjlj9Bo
typical over slapping throughout, battery is under pickguard, this guy took a terrible tone and made it worse blah blah blah.
Lol, he ruined the near decent sound of that little innocent Squier with a lot of work. Amazing, how dangerous and debilitating a 9 volt battery can be. Should not be put in the hands of children and sold at responsible gun shops only.
Admittedly, I'm ranting, yes, an active bass can sound organic too, too many people just don't set it up that way. I like the WAL sound (though hardly a "rock" sound) and that is heavily processed, yet still warm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwgeEnv6uDw
Anyone else remember fattychugs from the Pit? He lent me a few of his basses for a couple of months way back in the early days (2001-2002). I couldn't get a decent sound out of his Wal. I thought his best sounding bass by far was his Sadowsky...battery and all. And I'm not a J fan.
Flea's classic RHCP hit tone gave me Wal lust. There is definitely a difference between the tone of the red Stingray he used on Young MC's "Bust A Move" and the Wal that made him famous on "Blood Sugar Sex Magic," but it is VERY subtle, definitely attainable with an old 2 band 'Ray and a good analog console channel strip or high end older preamp, but ironically, the Wal was the less expensive proposition for many years.
The closest I have to a similar trope is my Marcus Miller which uses Fender's copy of MM's Sadowsky preamp, and it is VERY different from Fender's standard "active" sound on the US Deluxe models. That bass NEEDS its active bass boost and bright as it is inherently with a heavy ash body and maple fretboard, goosing the treble a bit also does some very nice things to its tone. My Stingray is a 2001 vintage with a 3 band EQ and sounds very much like the other Stingrays of that era. Sterling Ball wisely resurrected the best vintage features while keeping up innovation with his toilet seat and crooked Explorer basses and mine is from the time before they incorporated the compensated nut and changed their preamps on all their non-vintage reissue 'Rays. It does what it does. If I need the OLD Stingray tone, my G&L L2500 through my Fender M80 preamp into my Aguilar tube power amp NAILS it.
As for the mods to the Squier on YT, I can't stand to read the comments without having Talkbass PTSD, but I will say that Chinese Squier Classic Vibe basses are some of the nicest playing and sounding basses for the money that Fender has ever put out. Mexican-made instruments used much better wood, but the electronics were always their weakness, ruining most of their organic tone by making them overly bright and thin. The stock pickups on the new Squiers are worlds better (though that demo video seems to indicate otherwise- screw YT- I've PLAYED several of those basses). I love Seymour Duncan stuff, but unless you're wanting a Billy Sheehan tone, that mod was a waste of money, and holy shit is that dude proud of that slap lick! Hey kids, have some mids!
The stingray sound can be very natural sounding...I think my favorite bass tone is a stingray as used in Sade's band, or maybe the more aggressive tone used in Chic.
I would love to have a fretless stingray fiver...heard one in a jazz combo in a bar in Atlanta...it sounded great. Pretty much the perfect tone to my ears.
Quote from: Psycho Bass Guy on August 27, 2015, 07:37:54 PM
Both examples are cases are well-designed preamps that still allow the character of the original passive pickups to shine through. But also consider the host of low to mid budget import basses with all kinds of variation in construction and pickups that sound virtually identical.
So let me get this straight. Crummy basses sound... well, kinda crummier... than better basses that sound... more better.
QuoteFlea's classic RHCP hit tone gave me Wal lust. There is definitely a difference between the tone of the red Stingray he used on Young MC's "Bust A Move" and the Wal that made him famous on "Blood Sugar Sex Magic," but it is VERY subtle, definitely attainable with an old 2 band 'Ray and a good analog console channel strip or high end older preamp, but ironically, the Wal was the less expensive proposition for many years.
I mean absolutely no offense when I say that I guess I just don't really care that much about the subtle differences you're talking about. I appreciate you're expertise and relatively objective contributions to this thread, but I think I'm personally not that interested in "tone" per se. I'm more interested in the music being played than the perfect tone. Or at least not nearly as conscious of it as you are.
OTOH I remember reading about the guy who made Berry Oakley's infamous Tractor. Supposedly he told Berry: "You sound great but your bass sounds like shit." Sure enough, his bass does sound like shit on the early studio albums. That I could notice, so I guess I'm glad that there are engineer types around who pay attention to these things.
I mostly play a Lakland 44-02 with the newer Lakland electronics. 99% of the time it's set almost flat with all pickups on. I've never recorded anything with it. Homogeneous is a word that has crossed my mind concerning the tone of this instrument but I can make it sing very differently. from polite to aggressive with just my hands. Homogeneous isn't all bad all the time. More than any other bass I ever had, I can get a good, usable sound in the most acoustically horrible room.
Quote from: Father Gino on August 28, 2015, 07:35:39 PM
So let me get this straight. Crummy basses sound... well, kinda crummier... than better basses that sound... more better.
You're oversimplifying to the point of irrelevance. I've also heard megabuck (and justly so- not just "collector pieces") basses be rendered of generic sonic character by bad pickup/preamp combos. Anyone who ever played a Modulus Quantum with Lane Poor pickups can readily explain why they are so much more valuable than the standard Bartolini-equipped models and those were ALL $3k+ basses new 20 years ago. It's only recently that preamp systems that don't maul the tone of the installed pickups and passive pickups designed to work well with onboard preamps have become commonplace.
QuoteI mean absolutely no offense when I say that I guess I just don't really care that much about the subtle differences you're talking about. . I appreciate you're expertise and relatively objective contributions to this thread, but I think I'm personally not that interested in "tone" per se.
This thread is actually ABOUT active basses and their tonal differences from passive basses. It's not even one of our famous derails. If tone doesn't matter, then why did James Jamerson hardly ever change his strings or Les Claypool change his constantly? If your instrument cannot convey the musical expression the way you wish it to, it WILL negatively affect your playing. Conversely, a good sounding bass can definitely inspire a player to better expression. Your comment is like coming into an art forum discussion about differening brush sizes for varying techniques and saying that you prefer landscapes. OK; good deal, but that's not what the discussion is about.
QuoteI'm more interested in the music being played than the perfect tone. Or at least not nearly as conscious of it as you are.
The music being played is a DIRECT result of the tone of the instrument. If your active bass suddenly lost all of its bass boosting capabilities and the treble froze at full boost and its tone was nothing but fork-on-a-plate treble clank, how well do you think you would be able to play? I'm not concerned with "the perfect tone" like some practice-averse lead guitarist; I just know what I like, how to get it, and why the tools that makes that sound perform the way they do. My playing technique is built around my sound and my sound is built around my playing technique. I tend to favor off-beat rests to build tension, and consistently play behind the beat but at a very slightly faster tempo than the drummer. I like groove and Flea is a very "groovy" player when he keeps his thumb out of it.
QuoteOTOH I remember reading about the guy who made Berry Oakley's infamous Tractor. Supposedly he told Berry: "You sound great but your bass sounds like shit." Sure enough, his bass does sound like shit on the early studio albums. That I could notice, so I guess I'm glad that there are engineer types around who pay attention to these things.
I remember Berry much more for his playing than his tone, which is pretty much just a slightly more aggressive Fender sound and quite common among most of the rock bands of that era.
QuoteI mostly play a Lakland 44-02 with the newer Lakland electronics. 99% of the time it's set almost flat with all pickups on. I've never recorded anything with it. Homogeneous is a word that has crossed my mind concerning the tone of this instrument but I can make it sing very differently. from polite to aggressive with just my hands. Homogeneous isn't all bad all the time. More than any other bass I ever had, I can get a good, usable sound in the most acoustically horrible room.
...and every one of my instruments allows me to do that within the confines of how I wish to play. I played three VERY different basses on my old band's only real studio effort and those choices were simply reflections of which sonic palette I thought best served the song. Live, 99% of my playing was my beloved MIM 63 Jazz reissue that has been refinished and outfitted with very low output Jackson pickups intended for use with a preamp run passive and my note and phrasing choices were set in stone by years of live performance before it was ever committed to disc.
BTW, regarding your Hammond organ comment earlier, I thought that you were referring to the bass pedals, but the reason that the tonewheels don't work on the bottom keyboard is that the notes expressed are indeed "cheater" notes using the first harmonic and the fifth, which actually produces the note electronically and acoustically. It's called the beat effect. The tonewheels can't work because they would have to bend both pitches simultaneously and while technologically possible, it wasn't cost effective. There's no fraud involved, only a little musical science.