Les Paul Bass (low impedance PUs) question

[ajkula66]

Hello folks,

Several months ago I acquired a '70 Les Paul Bass, but haven't really had a chance to play with it since I spent several months overseas...

What is everyone using as the impedance converter these days ? The original cable was lost somewhere over the past 50 years...

Thanks in advance for any/all wisdom that you're willing to share.

[doombass]

IIRC what most people here have used is this: https://www.shure.com/en-US/products/accessories/a95u
I suppose this will work as well:https://www.shure.com/en-MEA/products/accessories/a85f

[Basvarken]

I use the Shure A95U.
But there are several brands that work just as fine.

[Grog]

You need to come up with an unbalanced mic cable to use with the adapter. The shortest cable you can find (on the amp end) is more beneficial for the guitar than the bass but I still use one. The original Gibson chord had the transformer in the middle.

[ajkula66]

Many a thanks for all the detailed responses, off to do some shopping now...

[uwe]

I just turn my amp louder. 

[Basvarken]

With a full tube amp that's actually the best thing you can do.

[uwe]

Yeah, it sounded good with the SVT.

[Granny Gremlin]

But guys, a 70s LP has the Z transformer built in - just hit the switch.

If not, then it's a 60s one.

Anyway, I agree - if plugging into an amp direct, then no worries.  But if you're using pedals it's best to get the adapter or you may have an insane volume difference between on and bypass (and not in a useful way).  If true bypass and all your pedals have output level controls then you can compensate for it, but if any single pedal in the chain is buffered (or no level control) you're boned.

[ajkula66]

But guys, a 70s LP has the Z transformer built in - just hit the switch.

If not, then it's a 60s one.

Based on everything that I've read, the first generation LPB - which is what I have - was in production through 1971. This is most likely a '70 piece from what I can tell.

Anyway, I agree - if plugging into an amp direct, then no worries.  But if you're using pedals it's best to get the adapter or you may have an insane volume difference between on and bypass (and not in a useful way).  If true bypass and all your pedals have output level controls then you can compensate for it, but if any single pedal in the chain is buffered (or no level control) you're boned.

Well, I've received the Shure converter and a matching cable earlier today and will be picking up the bass from storage over the weekend so we'll see how it plays with my measly practice amp - and most importantly - how it records. Updates to follow...

[Granny Gremlin]

OK, fair enough, but like, decades are merely a journalistic convenience, maaaaan. 

I just assumed, because no specific year was... um... specified, that 70s  would be a Triumph and 60s would be an LPB (you know, like "60s spec" doesn't mean made in the 60s, because manufacturers never started and stopped things exactly on decade turnovers.... boy would that have been convenient).

Anyway, adapter or no you'll enjoy it.

To be clear about the situation - it is in no way dangerous for instrument or amp (a lower Z input is to a higher Z amp is always better as regards that sort of thing - that's why amp inputs are 1M when pickups are usually only 7-18k, mudbuckers excepted of coarse.... but then again, even a mere 30K makes those tube preamps work much harder than they want to).

[ajkula66]

OK, fair enough, but like, decades are merely a journalistic convenience, maaaaan. 

LOL. I'll remember this one.

I just assumed, because no specific year was... um... specified, that 70s  would be a Triumph and 60s would be an LPB (you know, like "60s spec" doesn't mean made in the 60s, because manufacturers never started and stopped things exactly on decade turnovers.... boy would that have been convenient).

Actually, if you re-read the original post I wrote '70 not '70s....

Anyway, adapter or no you'll enjoy it.

I certainly hope so.

To be clear about the situation - it is in no way dangerous for instrument or amp (a lower Z input is to a higher Z amp is always better as regards that sort of thing - that's why amp inputs are 1M when pickups are usually only 7-18k, mudbuckers excepted of coarse.... but then again, even a mere 30K makes those tube preamps work much harder than they want to).

Yeah, I owned one of these back in the early '80s and it played well with my rigs at the time. Let's see how its sibling behaves with my current setups both here and abroad...

[Basvarken]

how it records.

For recordings i'd recommend to use it without the impedance transformer.
That was the whole idea of the Les Paul Bass (aka Les Paul Recording)

[Granny Gremlin]

It's not that easy though - it's LoZ AND unbalanced.  What input device has that combination these days (or ever - that was never a common thing)?  Then again, a cheap 1:1 transformer to DIY a passive balancing device to allow worry-free input into an XLR mic jack is only a coupla bux.  Just using a 1/4" TS to XLR adapter cable will not always have great results depending on the mic preamp you're going into.  And you do need a mic preamp - can't juist go into a line input.  Many interfaces have XLR/TS combo jacks where the TS jack is hard wired to the HiZ  input (vs older consoles where either the XLR or TRS can be switched between mic and line).

The best most hifi hobbit sound I've ever had is using the LoZ out into the LoZ unbalanced input on my Bogen PA head.  The main difference being smoothness of output as regards resonances....  incidentally that Bogen has a 600Ohm tap on the output transformer so I think I can use it as a mic preamp into a line level recording device.

Actually, if you re-read the original post I wrote '70 not '70s....

Well I'll be a drunken sailor.

[Basvarken]

It's not that easy though - it's LoZ AND unbalanced.  What input device has that combination these days (or ever - that was never a common thing)?  Then again, a cheap 1:1 transformer to DIY a passive balancing device to allow worry-free input into

A DI will take care of that.