Active Electronics for Bass

[homebrewer99]

Hello All,
Glad to see that a bass section has been formed. I have been thinking about getting a bass for the home studio, and am currently undecided on electronics.

My true bass player buddies all vote active electronics, either EMG or Bartolini, for a versatile studio bass. Im worried that the classic tones I like so much are more of a passive pickup style. The sounds I'm after are Geddy Lee from Rush, or Yes "Roundabout" etc. etc.


What is everyone's thoughts on active vs. passive in a P or J bass?

thanks,
homebrewer

[2 Loud 4 You]

I don't know about P and J basses but I LOVE the active Bartolini's in my bass. I will say it is more hifi but with the onboard eq I can dial in all kinds of tones. I guess go out and try some to see how they sound to your ears, you'll be the final judge.

[The Golden Boy]

There's onboard preamp modules like the J-Retro- which allow you to use your stock pickups and run them through an active circuit (and also allows you to bypass the circuit.

http://www.vintagebass.com/thedudepit/forumdisplay.php?f=7

[cheezewiz]

I prefer passive basses myself. If you want a Yes or Rush sound, there is really only one bass.....a Rickenbacker 4001, although Geddy has played a Fender Jazz for years now. I've always thought of EMG's as really hi fi and sterile sounding. Really the opposite of the tone you are looking for. Bartolinis can be nice, but I find them generally the opposite of EMGs, a bit too dark and muted. For me, nothing really beats the tone of two passive J pickups.

[Denyle_Guitars]

I agree with Cheezewiz's assessment of Bartolini. I prefer EMG to Bart which is funny because if we were talking guitars, it'd be the other way around. Something about EMG's and basses work together. Being a fan of the J-bass, I really like the idea of the aftermarket electronics. Aguilar and Demeter both make some.

OTOH, someone once raised the point that all of the active electronics you'll find in a bass are rather lacking when compared to higher end studio gear. Just think about, there's a few cheap jfets or opamps inside. Passive basses will have cable capacitance issues though, so maybe it's time for a boutique discrete onboard preamp.

Geddy Lee & Chris Squire both used Rics, so maybe you could begin there.

[mainsale]

My favorite music is blues so I'm a passive kind of guy. I do have a few active basses like a Stingray 5, a Warwich Thumb neckthrough, a Warwick Ltd. 2004 and a Fender deluxe P-bass, but everything else is passive.

:BluesBros

Here's my active Warwich Limited 2004. It's #13 of only 150 worldwide. It looks nice but is not real good for blues. It's too modern sounding.....that piano sounding thing.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b61/Mainsale/Guitars010.jpg

[Occam]

I like modern active sounding bass for certain types of music but it won't give you that warm classic tone. There are some really great deals for functional basses from Asia. I had a Jay Turser musicman stingray copy that really sounded quite good.

[Bassomatic]

I've had flings with active basses (Steinberger, Kubicki, old PRS, Stingrays, etc etc.) but I always end up returning to the passive thing. Some of my favorite players are active guys, but it doesn't work for me in the long run.

[Brian Scherzer]

I spent almost all of my career playing blues-based music. As a result, I have generally stuck to passive basses. If I preferred a more modern tone, I would have no trouble going out and finding a lot of very nice active basses.

[PB+J]

I can see no point to an active bass for studio work. You have all the eq and gain boost you'd ever need in your mixer/DAW software. Cable length/signal loss is no problem; you can match impedance. But then I prefer passive basses anyway

[bassic83]

There's room for both in my stable. On a real blues gig, I'll play a passive J-style. On most of the rest of the gigs I do- jazz, funk, or even a blending of the two (junk ;)) I go active. On a studio call, I'll bring both. Never can tell what the guy with the checkbook will want to hear! 9 times out of 11.4, it'll end up being passive in the studio, though. Live, I usually get a basic sound out of my amp, then tweak the tone mostly from the bass.

[orangekick]

I like both, that's one of the many reasons that I was drawn to the Lakland Skyline series. The Barts in it sound great and I can turn the preamp off when I wish.

[Mikebass]

I have used both, active as all hell basses and all passive basses.
This is what I have learned:
Besides the fact that it's all in your hands, a passive bass with either a on board or "out board" (ie: Demeter EQ Pedal) is usually the best way to go.

I've worked with engineers who hate active basses like MTD and Ken Smith for example, because they take up too much "space" in the track.
They're too dynamic in their frequency response.

The thing with me is a passive bass with no EQ into your board. Your gonna EQ it at the board going in more than likely a little bit. Then you'll EQ it when mixing and then the mastering get in their too.

Most guys, when they have an on-board EQ (active bass) can't resist tweeking some knobs.

I have an old Jazz with REAL old Bartolini pick-ups in it. But the bass is totally passive. No on-board EQ at all.
And the pick-ups sound great.

Now, my Sadowsky Jazz has an onboard EQ, but the pick-ups are passive. I run the bass with the EQ set "flat" but not bypassed because the pre-amp has a sound of it's own even when set flat.
But not active sounding at all. But thats the Sadowsky sound!

[homebrewer99]

thanks for the replies everyone. I think I will stick with a passive bass, possibly a Ric if I can ever find one.

Does anybody know if the modern Ric bass pickups are the same as the classic ones from the 60s/70s? I seem to remember hearing that some new Ric pickups were crummy ceramic magnet versions of the good stuff.

Maybe I will start a Ric thread in a bit in order to keep this bass forum going!

-homebrewer

[bassic83]

You could always go with the Villex system- passive, but with extended tonal capabilities approaching active...

[Bassomatic]

9 times out of 11.4, it'll end up being passive in the studio, though.

My experience as well.

[John Phillips]

I just don't like active basses - with one possible exception, the older MusicMan Stingray/Saber. All the other ones I've played or heard (I've owned some reasonably good ones too) seem to have a too-clean, cold, artificial sort of sound, more noise, and less character.

FWIW, the new Rick pickups are not 'crummy ceramic magnet versions of the good stuff', they're the same great ceramic-magnet pickups they've been using since about 1971. If you want the 60s-style 'toaster' pickups you can still order them, too.

[smallequestrian]

I can see no point to an active bass for studio work. You have all the eq and gain boost you'd ever need in your mixer/DAW software. Cable length/signal loss is no problem; you can match impedance. But then I prefer passive basses anyway

Having an active bass is not always about tweaking the EQ to hell. For some of us, active basses just have a different inherent sound that we are looking for, even when kept flat. I have owned several active basses, and still own one with a fabulous pre, but i find myself playing with the EQ flat most of the time.

[Bassomatic]

Having an active bass is not always about tweaking the EQ to hell. For some of us, active basses just have a different inherent sound that we are looking for, even when kept flat. I have owned several active basses, and still own one with a fabulous pre, but i find myself playing with the EQ flat most of the time.

Interesting. I've never had much luck getting sounds I like from my active basses without pretty heavy gobs of EQ (esp. bass). Definitely never dug the passive sounds on my (former) Lakland 55-94 or old style PRS bass. Weak!

[smallequestrian]

Interesting. I've never had much luck getting sounds I like from my active basses without pretty heavy gobs of EQ (esp. bass). Definitely never dug the passive sounds on my (former) Lakland 55-94 or old style PRS bass. Weak!

Well, PRS basses have never been known to have the best electronics so no shock there. Laklands, due to their Bartolini electronics have a very distinct sound, so it wouldn't be a surprise if you didn't dig the way it sounds flat. In general I dislike Bartolini electronics so I can sympathize.

[Funky Chicken]

I like the way Bartolinis sound. My Lakland 4-94 deluxe sounds very "present" without screaming "active electronics". I use very little on board eq- on the 3 band the bass and treble go just above the center detent, and the mids go just below. I use the same basic settings on my Sterling.

IMO getting a good Geddy sound is in the hands as well as the instrument. It's about right hand technique. Obviously a 4001/4003 will get you some of the way there, but it's certainly not the only way, and IMO Rick playability is not on a par with many other choices. I see a Rick as a nice 3rd or 4th bass, but pretty limiting as a primary instrument or a single bass to have lying around a studio.

[jokerjkny]

I prefer passive basses myself. If you want a Yes or Rush sound, there is really only one bass.....a Rickenbacker 4001, although Geddy has played a Fender Jazz for years now. I've always thought of EMG's as really hi fi and sterile sounding. Really the opposite of the tone you are looking for. Bartolinis can be nice, but I find them generally the opposite of EMGs, a bit too dark and muted. For me, nothing really beats the tone of two passive J pickups.

+1

i myself am a dyed in the wool sadowsky onboard preamp guy. whether for slap or fingerstyle, no matter the house mix or session, it just "sits" like a 300 lbs. gorilla.

aguilar also makes some killer preamps for a fatter, thicker sound that for my needs does both slap and fingerstyle incredibly well. i really dig the OBP-3 and its mid voicing. and the OBP-1 is another great simple two band boost only pre that sounds terrific.

the j-retro stuff seems better suited for slap styles, cause i could never quite get the fingerstyle tone i wanted despite the variable mid frequency knob.

the bart stuff is fine, but frankly, regardless of the model, they just arent vibey enough for my tastes. the highs are usually rather stiff and sterile for my ears.

as for the EMG's, i never liked how they made every bass they were in made those basses all sound the same. didnt matter if it was a jbass, pbass, or the victor wooten fodera model, all sounded the same. :(

but after all that shpiel, for the styles you call for, i think passive is the way to go. ;)

to the larger issue of active vs. passive, all depends what's needed and called for. for a metal track i did a few days ago, i had the active pre on my sadowsky cranked for that grind into my all tube bass rig. sat like a monster. but for an old school meets new school, ryan shaw kinda track, i went simply passive w/ my bob glaub's lindy fralin. different strokes for different tracks.

[jokerjkny]

I've had flings with active basses (Steinberger, Kubicki, old PRS, ...

if i was playing those, i'd go passive, too. ;)

[Guy from Idaho]

not much to go, but... my passive Warwick Corvette always puts a big smile on my face, while my band's bass player's active Ibanez usually puts a big grimace on my face. Guess I just dig the old school passive sound, ymmv. GFI

[MLT]

I put a set of the old "Hi-A" pickups in a Mexi J-Bass and it sounded fan-freakin-tastic. I sold that bass few years back to "move up" to a MM Stingray (which I never did really bond with).

My current bass is a "pick of the litter" Mexi J-Bass; I put a newer set of passive Barts in it but I'm just not happy. Very sterile sounding and feeling. I just tried a set of Florence VooDoo P90s and I'm so impressed that I might give his J PUs a chance.

I have used both, active as all hell basses and all passive basses.
This is what I have learned:
Besides the fact that it's all in your hands, a passive bass with either a on board or "out board" (ie: Demeter EQ Pedal) is usually the best way to go.

I've worked with engineers who hate active basses like MTD and Ken Smith for example, because they take up too much "space" in the track.
They're too dynamic in their frequency response.

The thing with me is a passive bass with no EQ into your board. Your gonna EQ it at the board going in more than likely a little bit. Then you'll EQ it when mixing and then the mastering get in their too.

Most guys, when they have an on-board EQ (active bass) can't resist tweeking some knobs.

I have an old Jazz with REAL old Bartolini pick-ups in it. But the bass is totally passive. No on-board EQ at all.
And the pick-ups sound great.

Now, my Sadowsky Jazz has an onboard EQ, but the pick-ups are passive. I run the bass with the EQ set "flat" but not bypassed because the pre-amp has a sound of it's own even when set flat.
But not active sounding at all. But thats the Sadowsky sound!

[bassic83]

I put a set of the old "Hi-A" pickups in a Mexi J-Bass and it sounded fan-freakin-tastic. I sold that bass few years back to "move up" to a MM Stingray (which I never did really bond with).

My current bass is a "pick of the litter" Mexi J-Bass; I put a newer set of passive Barts in it but I'm just not happy. Very sterile sounding and feeling. I just tried a set of Florence VooDoo P90s and I'm so impressed that I might give his J PUs a chance.The Hi-A pups were the best that Bill ever produced, as far as I am concerned. Jeff Berlin has some in his original bass, talk about TONE! When he let me play his bass once, the response and tone coming from that bass, even in MY hands, was so far removed from the Barts of today, it's ridicuous. I don't know why that is, except for design changes...I wish I knew exactly what changed. All I know is SOMETHING changed, and not necessarily for the better. The MIK Barts suck compared to the USA models. If I was Bill, I wouldn't even put the Bartolini name on them- I'd give them a different name, with a "designed by Bartolini" in really tiny script on the bottom of the pups...