Keep my bass passive and add outboard preamp/DI boxes

[SteveC]

I took a malfunctioning Bartolini preamp out of my bass. I wanted to try it passive anyway so the timing was good. So far I like it. I was debating a passive jazz and as I have jazz style Bartolini pups in it, I think I have that covered. The B string is lacking a bit, but in my cover band - where the passive tone would be desirable to me - I don't use it much anyway.

Now, for some stuff I can see wanting that "active" sound again. I think I want to keep my bass passive for real, not a bypass mode in an onboard preamp. My question is, will running it through a Sadowsky or Aguilar or some other "box" really give me the same - or at least very similar - sound as if the preamp was installed on my bass as the advertising implies?

[sowegafly]

Bump- I'm interested in hearing what you guys have to say about this as well.

[chuck3]

I've got an active Stingray HH 5 and two passive Fenders, an MIA Jazz '62 with rounds and a MIJ P '51 with flats. Started out with the Jazz and no preamp, found it didn't have enough punch or guts or whatever you want to call it. Used the Ray and the P with flats for a number of gigs and they are certainly very good. Then I got an EBS Valvedrive preamp and a LM II amp (into Genz Benz cabs). I figured I'd try the passive Jazz into the Valvedrive and the LM II, and that sound kicks butt IMO. So that's what I'm using now, just the one passive bass with the Valvedrive and LM II.

[uptowndirt]

this is a hard question, one i search for an answer to as well, i just got the aguliar out board and am running dj lakland as a tester......have many basses but the sound of my alembic epic is still very good and hard to beat, it was #6 of 15 and i don't know if i will be able to beat that sound without spending many more thousands......go for what you know........in saying that i know i will always think something is better when i talk , hear, or read a review of a new or old bass that has "that brown sound",,,,oh well to much ain't enough.

[adhus]

I'm running my DJ4 (passive) thru' Aguilar Tone Hammer to MB 250 amp and MB 102 cab, pretty happy w/ 'em. More output, more open and loud. Out of the mud, I may say...IMO
But I still have that irritating noise (hum/buzz or whatever u want to call it) from the bass. I know i need to copper shield the cavities, just waiting for the right time.
Plus i'm planning to swap the stock pup with Nordy, haven't set my mind yet either NJ4SE or SV, still doing some research here on TB. So if anybody have had the similar experience, you're more than welcome to chime in...did't mean to hijack the thread my apology to OP

Peace!

[hasbeen]

my main setup now is a USA Lakland with Barts. I run the bass passive and have an Aggie TH on my board.

I tend to have the TH off when I play with fingers. When I go to slap, I engage the TH. Sounds wonderful and it's a very simple solution for having two tones on-tap at the push of a button.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by hasbeen

my main setup now is a USA Lakland with Barts. I run the bass passive and have an Aggie TH on my board.

I tend to have the TH off when I play with fingers. When I go to slap, I engage the TH. Sounds wonderful and it's a very simple solution for having two tones on-tap at the push of a button.

This is exactly what I'm thinking. Not so much for slap (contemporary tone for me) but that's the idea.

[Chasarms]

The electronics of the Sadowsky inboard and outboard are essentially the same. To my ears, they sound VERY, VERY similar. The only variance would be from any signal loss or noise introduced on the extended run (a cable) between the PUs and the preamp. Plus, the outboard gives you the added benefit of a low-z DI out which sounds killer both as a live DI or for use recording. I did a whole album for a guy using a JO5 through a Sad outboard DI to the board. I loved the sound I got on that recording.

I am curious if you are getting acceptable output from the Barts after having removed the preamp? Many Bartolini PUs, while technically passive, are essentially designed for use with a preamp. They have fewer windings to reduce impedence knowing that the weak output is a non-issue because of the expected preamp gain.

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by Chasarms

The electronics of the Sadowsky inboard and outboard are essentially the same. To my ears, they sound VERY, VERY similar. The only variance would be from any signal loss or noise introduced on the extended run (a cable) between the PUs and the preamp. Plus, the outboard gives you the added benefit of a low-z DI out which sounds killer both as a live DI or for use recording. I did a whole album for a guy using a JO5 through a Sad outboard DI to the board. I loved the sound I got on that recording.

Good to know. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Chasarms

I am curious if you are getting acceptable output from the Barts after having removed the preamp? Many Bartolini PUs, while technically passive, are essentially designed for use with a preamp. They have fewer windings to reduce impedence knowing that the weak output is a non-issue because of the expected preamp gain.

I think the output is great. Far better than when I bypassed my on-board preamp before I removed it completely.

[Road Hat]

I use the Sadowsky outboard with my MIA '08 Jazz bass, and absolutely love it! I use it in the studio a ton, both direct and fronting an amp. I wanted to keep the bass stock, and this gives me the best of it all. Fun!

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by Road Hat

I use the Sadowsky outboard with my MIA '08 Jazz bass, and absolutely love it! I use it in the studio a ton, both direct and fronting an amp. I wanted to keep the bass stock, and this gives me the best of it all. Fun!

In retrospect, I really liked the Sadowsky M5-24 I had. I like my current (cheap) Yamaha BB605 and I have Bartolini pups in it and recently pulled my Bartolini preamp as it had issues. I don't need to keep it stock, but I do like the "best of all" idea.

Maybe instead of trying to find a used Sadowsky I should go this route. The bass sounds great passive, and I think I want to keep it like that for now. The last few posts are convincing me that I am correct in thinking a Sadowsky box is the way to go.

[Philbiker]

Originally Posted by SteveC

Now, for some stuff I can see wanting that "active" sound again. I think I want to keep my bass passive for real, not a bypass mode in an onboard preamp. My question is, will running it through a Sadowsky or Aguilar or some other "box" really give me the same - or at least very similar - sound as if the preamp was installed on my bass as the advertising implies?

Theoretically there's no difference between an inboard and outboard EQ unless the EQ has specific pickup buffering (which few on-boards have). It's a DC powered tone circuit either way.

[SteveC]

Well, I think a Sadowsky preamp/DI will be ordered soon. Then I can have my cake (passive cake) and eat it (active cake) too.

Now, what to do with my Rob Allen bass that isn't selling. Trade it on a new amp? Some other gear?

[SteveC]

So, after playing tonight - outside with no PA - I am happy with my passive bass and amp. It sounded really nice. I was thinking I needed a preamp of some kind for some of our stuff but it worked just fine like this.

Keeping my bass (for now anyway) as is, keeping my amp (even though something else might be better) and just going to play.

The Rob Allen will just have to be for sale until someone has cash to buy it.

[SteveC]

So one more twist. Preamps are basically active EQ's, right? So how about using a channel strip (Presonus Studio Chanel for example) for my "active" bass needs. It has a nice eq and compressor., both of which are selectable/bypassable, so I could hit the eq when I want a more "active" sound and bypass when I don't. Likewise with the compressor. Right? Or am I way off.

[Chasarms]

Originally Posted by SteveC

So one more twist. Preamps are basically active EQ's, right? So how about using a channel strip (Presonus Studio Chanel for example) for my "active" bass needs. It has a nice eq and compressor., both of which are selectable/bypassable, so I could hit the eq when I want a more "active" sound and bypass when I don't. Likewise with the compressor. Right? Or am I way off.

An EQ is essentially a preamp. The item you are talking about has an instrument input that would handle it. It would work, although I am hard pressed to believe that the "bypass" would be true. You may be bypassing the EQ and compression, you you absolutely altering the signal if only because of the change of the load on amp's preamp. It would be more "flat" than bypassed.

Personally, I prefer the little box over a rack unit. No doubt, they would sound very different. I guess it comes down to what you like.

[electracoyote]

Originally Posted by Chasarms

The electronics of the Sadowsky inboard and outboard are essentially the same. To my ears, they sound VERY, VERY similar. The only variance would be from any signal loss or noise introduced on the extended run (a cable) between the PUs and the preamp. Plus, the outboard gives you the added benefit of a low-z DI out which sounds killer both as a live DI or for use recording. I did a whole album for a guy using a JO5 through a Sad outboard DI to the board. I loved the sound I got on that recording.

+1 to all the above.

I use the Sad outboard, one of the best pedal purchases I ever made. I play both active and passive basses. I don't have an on-board Sad in any of my basses, but I would have to say the sonic change with a cable must be very minimal, because the Sad outboard really sounds outstanding with my passives.

[SteveC]

Interesting. Maybe the Sadowsky outboard is the way to go. I like the DI in my amp, but always nice to have a back up. Is the bypass on the Sadowsky box a "true" bypass?