Tone-circuit suggestion for a passive P/J ?

Gear_Junky · #1 06-24-2011, 11:59 AM

I am building a parts Squier bass (a P/J) - just received a bullet neck and a VM Jag P/J harness with stacked knobs.

Since the bass is a P/J - it uses the standard P-guard with 3 holes (intended for Vol/Vol/Tone) and the jack is in the side. But if I end up using the stacked-pot harness (which has vol/tone on each pot), I have 1 extra hole left.

I'm thinking some kind of a tone circuit (master), maybe just a Master Volume or maybe greasebucket? I am not that familiar with all of the bass circuits that exist (but I am comfortable soldering, etc.)

The whole harness is already assembled, so I'd prefer something that wouldn't require me to dis-assemble it.

I've got some other technical issues to overcome, but I thought I could contemplate this one (and get some advice) in the mean time. Thanks!

walterw · #2 06-24-2011, 12:37 PM

an extra master volume can lose tone due to signal loading, and "greasebucket" is just a regular tone knob with an extra cap added.

it's not hard to just get three regular pots and wire it V/V/T.

Gear_Junky · #3 06-27-2011, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walterw

it's not hard to just get three regular pots and wire it V/V/T.

yeah, i'm keeping that as an option. in practice is the tone degradation really that noticeable? i mean, there's master volumes on gretsch guitars, etc.

Other less invasive options? Maybe a switch (parallel/series) instead of the 3rd knob? But that would involve some rewiring of the harness... just mulling it over, i guess.

SGD Lutherie · #4 06-27-2011, 09:49 PM

That greasebucket circuit is awful in my opinion. It removes all the good stuff about passive tone knobs. You lose that little resonant boost you get when the knob is on zero.

I've installed a few for people, and I'm not sure what they expected, but they weren't crazy about them.

On the other hand I use a TBX tone control in one of my passive basses, and that's kind of cool, as long as your volume is on 10.

walterw · #5 06-27-2011, 09:52 PM

right, but both ideas would just replace the existing tone pot, still leaving one hole open.

SGD Lutherie · #6 06-27-2011, 10:50 PM

I would skip the stacked knob setup. You don't need two tones, and the stacked knob setup makes the bass a lot darker sounding. This is one reason Fender stopped using it, and why Jaco rewired his bass.

Gear_Junky · #7 06-28-2011, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SGD Lutherie

I would skip the stacked knob setup. You don't need two tones, and the stacked knob setup makes the bass a lot darker sounding. This is one reason Fender stopped using it, and why Jaco rewired his bass.

Thank you, I did not know this. But do you know if fender possibly compensated for this with pot values, since they're using it again with the VM Jag bass? So far nothing but good reviews.

walterw · #8 06-28-2011, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gear_Junky

...do you know if fender possibly compensated for this with pot values, since they're using it again with the VM Jag bass? So far nothing but good reviews.

one, those are active instruments, so all ideas about potentiometer loading are out the window, and two, the VMs are super-cheap, so the reviews are necessarily "good for the money" reviews (which these bases certainly are).

basslinejam · #9 06-28-2011, 09:51 PM

You'd have to rewire, but I would choose the V/T with a three way switch in the third hole. My reason for liking this setup is that the P pickup sound is noticeably different (in a negative way to me) when loaded by that second volume pot for the J. I do miss the ability to blend in the J with the P, but with passive you have to make choices sometimes...YMMV IMHO etc...

Gear_Junky · #10 06-29-2011, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walterw

one, those are active instruments, so all ideas about potentiometer loading are out the window, and two, the VMs are super-cheap, so the reviews are necessarily "good for the money" reviews (which these bases certainly are).

I don't think the Jag in question is active. My harness is from the one with block inlays and Duncan Designed pups. Actually I'm pretty certain it's passive. But yes, it's important for me to know stuff like an extra pot impacts the P negatively. This will still be a P bass primarily

Gear_Junky · #11 06-29-2011, 09:40 PM

I did a little A/B today between the Jag and a 60's P at a music store. I have to say, the CV pickup definitely sounds better to me. Now, they're different pickups, so I have to wonder how much of that is due to wiring?

Also, I'll admit that the Jag sounded good, but I didn't really care for the feel - the anemic maple neck (feels like unfinished, I guess it's "satin") just reminds me of the "start playing" squier kits so bad - I can't objectively trust my ears.

I wonder if anybody else had comments between the two?

Even though the Jag pickups are what I have for now, I think I might opt for a straight V/V/T config. I didn't especially care for the clicky action of the stacked pots either. It made me search for "0" to cut/boost from (even though it's not really there), vs. the customary passive "closed - open" range.