"fattest" or "warmest" sounding preamp?

[bongomania]

I am once again looking for a new pre for my ADJV with SCN pups. The stock pre was pretty good, but I was looking for a little more balls in the low mids and (ideally) a passive-style tone knob.

I tried an Audere and a Glock, and while they both look ideal on paper, and they both have their fans, I could not get them to work- endless grounding problems, major pain in the butt, and I've been without use of my Jazz for literally months while trying to resolve these problems both at home (with professional electronics testing equipment) and in the shop of a skilled professional guitar tech who specializes in preamps, and yes I have been in extensive email contact with both manufacturers. Screw it, I'm done with both, do not recommend them to me.

In different basses I've also had two Sadowskys (one with VTC) and the stock Bart pre in a Roscoe, and both were pretty awesome; both are at the top of my list for fatness so far. But I have not tried the Aggie or any of the other popular options. The Sadowsky would easily win if its low boost corner frequency was a bit higher, or if it had a mids boost control. The Bart would easily win if it had the VTC, or if I could be sure it would sound "as fat" outside of the Roscoe, with different pups.

So whattaya think? Is there another preamp I should be looking at, or do you have a strong feeling about the Sad VS. Bart options in terms of which one is fatter in the mids/low mids or has a "warmer" tone? FWIW I avoid the modern bright crisp sound, and never ever boost the highs.

Thanks for any input!

[JTE]

Got no idea as my ideal preamp is going to be uncolored unless I start tweaking knobs. Anytime someone starts digging into altering their bass' sound I gotta ask "how does it sound unamplified?" That's what the strings are doing, and if the sound is in the wood you can find electronics to get it to the amp. But if the sound ain't happening at the physcial start, then cut your loses and get a good sounding bass.

jte

[SteveC]

I am a huge Bart fan. Had hem in my Lakland, Modului, and multiple other basses.

[stflbn]

Personally I feel the OBP-3 is big and warm if you let it be. Much more so than the John Easts, Basslines, EMG's, Seymour Duncans, etc that I've been subjected to before replacing them in a fit of hostility. For what that's worth at least.

Tech-21 needs to make a bass preamp with a "VT character" knob on it. :-0


And I'm starting to realize that it's odd that I've never had a bass with a Bart pre in it, or Bart pickups for that matter. Hmmmm... feeling like there's a wide gap in my preamp experience base.

.

[Modern Growl]

Bart. its what it goes for. 60hz bass, and 2.5k treble
a little cut on the treble and a slight boost on the 60hz bass will thicken things up more then the further more hi-fi, more spread out 40hz - 4k.

[Alex van Funk]

The fattest pre is definitely Glockenklang, the warmest Bartolini.

[LowBSix]

I'm having a great experience with the Bartolini 3 band pre with push pull mids...
Fat - Warm - Punchy - Glassy if you want...

[dcr]

Chalk me up as another huge Bart NTMB fan!

Have owned them in everything from Stammie to Lakland to Lull to Benavente. Hell, I've even got a spare uninstalled one right in my truck....just waiting for the right project





dcr

[bongomania]

Originally Posted by JTE

Got no idea as my ideal preamp is going to be uncolored unless I start tweaking knobs. Anytime someone starts digging into altering their bass' sound I gotta ask "how does it sound unamplified?" That's what the strings are doing, and if the sound is in the wood you can find electronics to get it to the amp. But if the sound ain't happening at the physcial start, then cut your loses and get a good sounding bass.

That's like going into a thread about SVT amps and saying "got no idea as I want a pure hi-fi reproduction of my bass's vibrations, I don't want any overdriven tubes or weirdly-designed sealed 8x10 cabinets ruining my tone, if you think you need all that garbage then you should cut your losses and get a good sounding amp".

[cybersnyder]

I'll have to go with the Bart NTMB as well. It's a really good preamp.

But I haven't tried the Glock preamp that I have, still in it's box, yet.

[Jared Lash]

Originally Posted by bongomania

That's like going into a thread about SVT amps and saying "got no idea as I want a pure hi-fi reproduction of my bass's vibrations, I don't want any overdriven tubes or weirdly-designed sealed 8x10 cabinets ruining my tone, if you think you need all that garbage then you should cut your losses and get a good sounding amp".

Pre-amps r dum

FX r dum.



I remember reading about the trouble you had with the Audere. I have nothing but praise for mine, but even if you had got it to work I'm not sure it would have been right for you. It really is the most transparent pre I've ever tried.

I haven't tried it myself, I wonder if you'll do better than the Sadowsky. The only time I've heard a Sadowsky in a live setting I was pretty impressed. Yes, a lot more than the preamp went into the tone, but still.

I can vouch for the Bart NTMB being warm. Then again, one man's warm is another man's "muffled" as I've heard it described. But I liked it. For some reason I expected it to be hi-fi sounding but it wasn't. I think if I had a P style bass I'd want to use it.

I dropped an Aggie in my old Carvin and I really dug it. Very versatile and it could really crank out the low end. Mind you, I was going from the Carvin pre (which is generally slagged around here) but it made the bass much more aggressive sounding to my ears as well.

I normally wouldn't reply to a preamp thread, but the ones mentioned here are pretty much the only ones I have any experience with.

I have no idea about warmth, but my new Stambaugh will have the ACG preamp which if nothing else seems incredibly versatile.