Why is an Audere worth twice as much as an Aggie?

[IotaNet]

I'm not looking to start a flame war nor am I being a smarta** -- I promise!

I have read all of the positive press on the Audere and it seems like it's a great product. It's just that I have priced the Aguilar 3-band and between new and used, you can get the Aggie for half the price.

I understand the flexibility of the Audere and the idea of the multiple modes appeal to the "sound-tweaker" in me. That said, at the end of the day, I want 3 knobs (B/M/T) that allow me to shape my tone -- I want the range of big, thick booty to glassy highs. Do I have to spend twice as much to get this?

Is there something about an Aggie that should make me want to avoid it for this purpose? (For examply, Bart preamps have their own sound and it's relatively recognizable. If you don't like this sound, that is a reason to avoid the Bart pre.)

Do Aggies have a similar "character" that some like to avoid, thus making it a pre that one should be leery of choosing?

There are some folks here who have far more experience that I in these matters and I am interested in hearing from you!

[Polyamarous]

I'm not sure sound wise, but with an Audere you can customize them to include active/passive, true passive tones, 4 band EQs true P-style treble and the famed Z-mode switch.

Plus it has cut and boost on all EQ knob frequencies, where (corret em if I'm wrong) the Aguilar has only boosts on the bass.

[Chunk-O-Funk]

What models are you compairing?

One thing to consider with the 3ZB Audere set up is it comes complete with all the pots and is pre-wired. You pretty much drop it in and hook up the pickups.

Same goes for the JZ models for the Jazz bass. It comes with pots, knobs and the mounting plate.

With Audere you are paying for the pre-wired assembly and the convenience.

The Aguilars are just the preamp. You will have to wire everything. Great sounding, flexible preamps but not a good choice if you're no good with a soldering iron. If you're not going to do it yourself you will have to pay a little more for the extra components and installation.

They are both wonderful preamps and I have heard some great examples of what can be done with both.

[bassmonkeee]

I would also think that the Aguilar stuff is being produced on a much larger scale. Any active passive switches, etc need to be added after the fact.

The Audere stuff is made to order. That raises the price.

Aguilar has been around a lot longer, too. Stuff should be cheaper the longer it has been available. And, assuming everything is made in house at Aguilar, I would think that more overhead costs are built into the prices of amps than preamps....

The Audere z-mode switch is unique in the preamp market, too, and innovation carries a premium.

[Brad Johnson]

Originally Posted by IotaNet

I'm not looking to start a flame war nor am I being a smarta** -- I promise!

I have read all of the positive press on the Audere and it seems like it's a great product. It's just that I have priced the Aguilar 3-band and between new and used, you can get the Aggie for half the price.

I understand the flexibility of the Audere and the idea of the multiple modes appeal to the "sound-tweaker" in me. That said, at the end of the day, I want 3 knobs (B/M/T) that allow me to shape my tone -- I want the range of big, thick booty to glassy highs. Do I have to spend twice as much to get this?

Is there something about an Aggie that should make me want to avoid it for this purpose? (For examply, Bart preamps have their own sound and it's relatively recognizable. If you don't like this sound, that is a reason to avoid the Bart pre.)

Do Aggies have a similar "character" that some like to avoid, thus making it a pre that one should be leery of choosing?

There are some folks here who have far more experience that I in these matters and I am interested in hearing from you!

The Aggie is more work to install as far as wiring in pots. The Audere also has a lot more tonal flexibility from what I've read.

I don't see a reason to avoid the Aggie, in the right bass it's an excellent preamp. The same is true of most other preamps IME.



I still strongly disagree with this mindset that Bartolini has a sound. If it did, I'd expect these basses that I've owned to sound similar... yet they don't:

Bone Avatar
Roscoe
Elrick
Brubaker
Ambush
Warmoth
Zon
Lakland
Tobias
Surine
Etc.

The only commonality is that they sound great IMO.

[ElBajista]

Keep in mind I haven no experience with either product.

I've heard that Aguilar preamps are very sensitive to small adjustments, especially on the bass knob. I've heard remarks that a slight turn goes a long way with these preamps. Depending on how you look at it, that could be a good or bad thing.

Also, you can boost your output with Aguilar preamps, whereas I've heard that Audere preamps don't boost the output all that much.

As Chunk-o-Funk said, you're also paying for the high quality pots and the convenience of being able to install the Audere in about 10 minutes or so. Plus you get a few more bells and whistles, which is like catnip for a guy like me.

The Audere is pretty much a "stock" preamp, but I'm sure if you wanted something different, you could get a custom order.

Ultimately, they're both professional-level preamps with a reputation for quality. I'm sure you would be happy with either. How's that for being vague?

[pointbass]

The Aguilar is a nice pre-amp, as are many others. Really, I've tried a bunch of different ones but ultimately keep going back to a passive setting for real time gigging. Until I had the Audere Z installed .....

The Audere is whisper quiet and tonally the most diversified pre I've ever had. You can easily make adjustments to the modes to customize the pre to your specific bass and tonal preferences. For someone like me, who's a bit of an electronics idiot, the ease of use with the Audere is invaluable. I love the thing .....

[David Wilson]

As mentioned, Aguilar is more mass produced. Audere is made in smaller bunches, and each is made to order. You get it pretty much pre-wired and ready to go with only minimal soldering required on your side. The Audere is incredibly quiet.

Nothing wrong with the Aguilar, fine preamp in it's own right. I'll personally take the Audere any time if I can though.

[J.Wolf]

Originally Posted by Brad Johnson

I still strongly disagree with this mindset that Bartolini has a sound. If it did, I'd expect these basses that I've owned to sound similar... yet they don't:

Bone Avatar
Roscoe
Elrick
Brubaker
Ambush
Warmoth
Zon
Lakland
Tobias
Surine
Etc.

The only commonality is that they sound great IMO.

Alot of those companies mentioned use OEM bartolini materials (like ZON, Roscoe, MTD); pickups wound to their specs, or custom voiced preamps. This is partly why an MTD sounds so different than a Roscoe. I do think that most of the "off the shelf" bart stuff makes basses sound more homogenous, or give it that "Bart" sound, especially in regards to the high end and low mids.

The misconception that comes up alot I think is that people will say "why should I pay x amount of dollars with a bass that has regular old bartolini electronics in it?" When the reality is, the builder has done lots of R&D and work with Bill and Pat to get the electronics to get the sound the builder wants, which may be pretty different from the stock Bartolini pickup. All Bart is not created equal!!!

As far as stock bartolini, It is a great and classic sound, there's nothing wrong with it. I've got high hopes for my soon to be finished Roscoe fretless with an audere, and I hope it lives up to the rave reviews. And if I get another fretted roscoe, it'll have the aguilar in it.

[Brad Johnson]

Originally Posted by wolfbass1025

Alot of those companies mentioned use OEM bartolini materials (like ZON, Roscoe, MTD); pickups wound to their specs, or custom voiced preamps. This is partly why an MTD sounds so different than a Roscoe. I do think that most of the "off the shelf" bart stuff makes basses sound more homogenous, or give it that "Bart" sound, especially in regards to the high end and low mids.

And probably way more use off the shelf models so that can't explain the difference. Brubaker doesn't use any custom Bartolini pickups or preamps... yet they have a sound that differ from other Bart equipped instruments... which brings up an obvious question...

Let's look at what you just wrote. If MTDs sound so different from Roscoes... what's the "Bartolini sound"? . What basses with stock Bart pickups exhibits the classic Bart sound?


Alot? I'd say only a small fraction of builders have custom Barts.

The misconception that comes up alot I think is that people will say "why should I pay x amount of dollars with a bass that has regular old bartolini electronics in it?" When the reality is, the builder has done lots of R&D and work with Bill and Pat to get the electronics to get the sound the builder wants, which may be pretty different from the stock Bartolini pickup. All Bart is not created equal!!!

People are obviously allowed to ask questions like that, even if to others they make no sense. Those are usually the people who can't see the forest for the trees, that stare so long at the parts list they forget that the result is what's important, not the ingredients.

And I guarantee even more builders have bought stock Bart items right off their list.

There's a reason why so many custom builders use Barts... they work. They work without going the typical hifi pickup route of concentrating too much on highs and lows and not keeping the upper and lower mids in the equation.

I've had a chance to listen to a lot of the "next big thing" pickups and preamps out there. We bass players as a whole have this tendency to jump on whatever bandwagon is rolling by and in way too many cases, once the dust settles, start to clear away the hype. NEW! IMPROVED!!! Right.. .

Bartolini is way too established to even have to bother with that.

As far as stock bartolini, It is a great and classic sound, there's nothing wrong with it. I've got high hopes for my soon to be finished Roscoe fretless with an audere, and I hope it lives up to the rave reviews. And if I get another fretted roscoe, it'll have the aguilar in it.

I still don't get the great classic sound thing excpet in the most general of senses. It's not like the Alembic sound or Ken Smith sound. MMV. Barts in a great bass seem to let that bass sound the way it sounds. I've heard other pickups/electronics that seriously alter the unplugged sound of the basses. Not Barts. I think that's why they remain popular... they don't negate other aspects of the build. They let the work shine through... or not

[azzyrazzy]

Originally Posted by IotaNet

Why is an Audere worth twice as much as an Aggie?

If something sells at a certain price, the product is worth it. A product is worth what the market is willing to pay, right?

Bang for buck, is that what you're looking for? That's not the same discusion

[el_Kabong]

Originally Posted by wolfbass1025

Alot of those companies mentioned use OEM bartolini materials (like ZON, Roscoe, MTD); pickups wound to their specs, or custom voiced preamps. This is partly why an MTD sounds so different than a Roscoe. I do think that most of the "off the shelf" bart stuff makes basses sound more homogenous, or give it that "Bart" sound, especially in regards to the high end and low mids.

WB can you say more about what you hear in the highs and low mids that you feel is the Bart sound? The Bart pre in my 5594 has a very definite high frequency lift compared to passive mode, even when set 'flat'.

[J.Wolf]

Originally Posted by el_Kabong

WB can you say more about what you hear in the highs and low mids that you feel is the Bart sound? The Bart pre in my 5594 has a very definite high frequency lift compared to passive mode, even when set 'flat'.

There's a specific tonal signature that I hear with alot of basses loaded with stock Bartolini electronics. To my ears, there is a almost compression in the low mids that makes it sound pretty wide and fat right there, it usually sits in a mix very well. The highs are just voiced in a certain way that makes it sound like Bartolini to me. They are slightly compressed, and it seems like the frequency center isn't too high to where you get that "airy-ness" but it still sounds clear and focused. Snappy and sharp I guess

Brad, I understand your point, and perhaps we've just had different experiences. I'm not saying you're wrong, you certainly have had enough experience with Bart equipped basses I guess my personal experiences have just led me to believe that Bartolini electronics have a signature sound, maybe not to the extent that EMG does for example but I hear a common thread. Its not a bad thing at all IMO. Bill and Pat hit a great formula and they've stuck with it, and its a mainstay. I didn't meant say that every bass with barts sound indentical, but to my ears they have definite sonic similarities to other bart equipped basses.

If MTDs sound so different from Roscoes... what's the "Bartolini sound"?

AFAIK, the reason MTD's sound so different than Roscoes is because they use completely different pickups. From what I have played, MTD's have a vastly different sound for a Bart equipped bass. Sure all MTD's sound different with different wood combos, but they have an in-the-same-ballpark cohesiveness with one another that I attribute to "the bart sound".


Am I the only one who thinks there is a "signature bart sound"??? I've heard other people mention this in the past, and it has always felt like a pretty common consensus, which is why I guess I didn't go into detail in my first post about what that all entails.

I hope that clarifies what I meant, and I'm sorry if you guys disagree, but thats the way I hear it..

[IotaNet]

As the OP, I can say that this thread has taken a slightly different turn than I anticipated but it's excellent discussion and I am learning quite a bit.

As clarification, my intent for creating the thread was to determine two things:

1) Is there something inherently "wrong" (or perhaps "idiosyncratic" is a better word) with Aguilar preamps that one should be leery of?

2) Does the Audere preamp justify its higher price point by addressing/correcting these idiosyncracies?


The answers I have come up with are:

1) No -- the Aggie is perfectly fine. It's in a lot of basses and a lot of people love them. They've been doing a great job for a while and will continue to do so.

2) Not really. The value in the Audere lies in its unique approach to tone-shaping (through the Z Modes and available capacitance adjustements) as well as the flexibility of configuration. Not to mention the fact that it does what it does very well.

As I undertstand it, the other strong points of the Audere are it's ease of installation, its quality of manufacture, and the support from David Meadows, the owner of the company.

Based on all of this, I pulled the trigger and ordered an Audere 4-band preamp yesterday.

I'll keep everyone posted on the results!

[Brad Johnson]

Originally Posted by wolfbass1025

There's a specific tonal signature that I hear with alot of basses loaded with stock Bartolini electronics. To my ears, there is a almost compression in the low mids that makes it sound pretty wide and fat right there, it usually sits in a mix very well. The highs are just voiced in a certain way that makes it sound like Bartolini to me. They are slightly compressed, and it seems like the frequency center isn't too high to where you get that "airy-ness" but it still sounds clear and focused. Snappy and sharp I guess

Just for the sake of clarity, I'm not saying you're wrong. I've heard and read lots of comments to the effect that there's a Bartolini sound. OTOH having played as many basses as I have with Bart pickups and/or preamps, with multiple mid frequency centers among other things, I just haven't expoerienced this signature sound. To me a signature sound would tend to genericize other aspects of the instrument. EMGs do that IME IMO. Smith electronics have a distinct signature, so do Peavey Cirrus electronics. For example, I've played at least a couple of Peavey Cirrus basses with the electronics gutted and a complete EMG system installed. Sounded nothing like a Cirrus anymore (there was an otherwise identical Cirrus there to confirm it). I've seen the same thing with a couple of Smiths with EMGs installed (why would someone do that to a Smith???). Sounded like the EMG-equipped Cirrus.

I don't find that any of my basses sound at all compressed, they can sound outright raggedy in the right hands

Brad, I understand your point, and perhaps we've just had different experiences. I'm not saying you're wrong, you certainly have had enough experience with Bart equipped basses I guess my personal experiences have just led me to believe that Bartolini electronics have a signature sound, maybe not to the extent that EMG does for example but I hear a common thread. Its not a bad thing at all IMO. Bill and Pat hit a great formula and they've stuck with it, and its a mainstay. I didn't meant say that every bass with barts sound indentical, but to my ears they have definite sonic similarities to other bart equipped basses.

I have a Bone Avatar 6 with OTS Bart soapbars and an Aguilar OBP-1 preamp. The bass sounds so much like a Lane Poor/ HAZ labs Fodera Contrabass I also have it's not funny. I have an Ambush with the identical pickups and pre I've had in a couple of Elricks... the Elricks sound like Elrick, the Ambush has it's own unique sound. If Bart really had a signature sound IMO it would be evident wherever you put them for the most part, like EMGs.

AFAIK, the reason MTD's sound so different than Roscoes is because they use completely different pickups. From what I have played, MTD's have a vastly different sound for a Bart equipped bass. Sure all MTD's sound different with different wood combos, but they have an in-the-same-ballpark cohesiveness with one another that I attribute to "the bart sound".

But they're all Bartolinis. And my MTD 635 doesn't sound like other non Ash/Wenge MTDs. To me that's the sound of the woods coming through more than the pickups.

Am I the only one who thinks there is a "signature bart sound"??? I've heard other people mention this in the past, and it has always felt like a pretty common consensus, which is why I guess I didn't go into detail in my first post about what that all entails.

Trouble is, there's a fine line between common consensus and common misperception... not saying that this is either

Bartolini makes a lot of different pickups. They don't all sound the same so IMO how could they all sound the same. They have different pres with different voicings, again, they sound different. I think in a lot of cases, some folks hear with their eyes. They could see EMGs and automatically think "This is going to be really bright".

I hope that clarifies what I meant, and I'm sorry if you guys disagree, but thats the way I hear it..

Nothing to be sorry about. If you get a chance, check out some other Bartolini installs and see if they support your experience. My experience has been that if you put them on a bass with no character, they'll make that bass louder, no character and all. IOWQ they aren't magic by any means. OTOH on a bass that really sings, they don't typically get in the way of that by masking what it does. That's been my general experience with Barts and why I like them as much as I do.

[J.Wolf]

Cool Brad, you make a good argument. Perhaps it is more misconception than consensus, and if you have had experiences contrary to what I have heard, then there must be some truth to that. I'll try to get a more critical listen to stuff and see if my theory holds up as well as I thought. I guess my original post was geared more towards OTS Bart, not OEM stuff, but perhaps even the OTS stuff has more of a range than I'm aware of.

IOTA, congrats on the Audere purchase. I hope you'll dig it! The one thing I really like about the Audere is how customizable it is, right down to picking what stacked pot does what. Very cool to be able to get exactly the layout you want with a killer circuit at the core of it.

My Roscoe is so close to being done I can taste it, and when I played Gards with an audere (basically identical to mine) it was very impressive!!! Let us know how it goes.

Jake

[4Mal]

On the topic of Bartolini. To my ear they come across as quite refined and a bit compressed. I've used that to my benefit. 9J's installed in a very aggresively build Jazz. (1c Swamp Ash with a BA II) and they worked great. The Bart Pre I tried in that bass did not imporove things. It seems like he voicing was just not right. I tried and Aggie 3 as well. It was OK. I tried the pre from a Fender MIA Deluxe. That one did it in that particular bass. Not what I expected but then - go with what works...

I recently had the oportunity to listen to Addere's installed in a nice but generic Fender MIA J with maple neck. Very nice. Very organic. It sounded like J, but with more options. The Z mode switch pulled the high's down a bit while offering an apparent increase in volume. Very nice for the emphasized bridge pickup tone.

I then was able to listen to a unique install. That would be Dave's L2K. Not tone controls. It's wired Master Vol, Vol1, Vol2, Z-mode switch, Series/Parallele 1 & Series/Parallele 2. I'm no fan of the L2K pre but I've always liked the sound of he MFD in it's passive mode. Dave's L2K sounds like that. With the addition of the Z-mode's tone shaping.

To my ear, the Audere pre sounds like your bass, amplified and less like your bass running through a pre-amp. As always, your mileage may vary and what I like may not please you a bit.

To my way of thinking the difference in cost is negligable. If I had a suitable host for the Audere, there would be one in my hands now...

[Arthur U. Poon]

I haven't tried an Audere preamp, but it does sound intersting.

I currently have the following preamps/eq systems in my active basses:
EMG BTS - Spector
EMG BQS - Modulus
Bartolini - Roscoe
Aguilar OBP-3 - Mike Lull

The Aguilar OBP-3 is my current favorite. IMO it has a very natural sound. As previously stated, the OBP-3 has quite a bit of boost/cut capabilities; I think it's something like +/- 18db. With a bit of tweaking it can sound pretty aggressive.

I play mostly fingerstyle and I like a bit of midrangey "honk" to my sound. I generally boost my mids a bit, and set it's bass and treble controls flat. I'll make slight boost/cut adjustments depending on what I think the song requires.


For some reason the Bartolini preamp in my Roscoe has noise issues, but I like it's sound otherwise. I plan on swapping out it's preamp in the future. Right now the OBP-3 is my #1 choice, but I'm also considering the Audere and Roscoe's Demeter preamp.

[Brad Johnson]

Originally Posted by wolfbass1025

Cool Brad, you make a good argument. Perhaps it is more misconception than consensus, and if you have had experiences contrary to what I have heard, then there must be some truth to that. I'll try to get a more critical listen to stuff and see if my theory holds up as well as I thought. I guess my original post was geared more towards OTS Bart, not OEM stuff, but perhaps even the OTS stuff has more of a range than I'm aware of.

IOTA, congrats on the Audere purchase. I hope you'll dig it! The one thing I really like about the Audere is how customizable it is, right down to picking what stacked pot does what. Very cool to be able to get exactly the layout you want with a killer circuit at the core of it.

My Roscoe is so close to being done I can taste it, and when I played Gards with an audere (basically identical to mine) it was very impressive!!! Let us know how it goes.

Jake

I haven't had a chance to use an Audere in a personal bass, heard a couple of installs and they sounded nice. Seems like they're very configurable.

I've had the opportunity to hear different Barts installed in the same bass. They're all OTS pickups and they all do something different. Nothing as drastic as going from an Aero to a mudbucker bit noticeable nonetheless

[JOME77]

I really love the Aggie OBP-3 pre. I've had 3 different basses with the Aggie OBP-3 pre and all 3 sounded great.
I think the cost difference between the Aggie and Audere pre's probably has more to do with manufacturing processes than anything. The Aggie is enclosed in epoxy and is a fairly evolved process that at this point is fairly efficient and cost effective. I'm not sure about the the manufacturing process of the Audere pre (I believe someone stated it is prewired) but the Demeter (which is approx. 50% more expensive than the Aggie) is hand built using a PCB/heat shrink and the controls are pre wired.

Labor = $$$'s