Welcome to TalkBass, the Premier Bass Player Community and Information Source. Register a 100% Free Account to post and unlock tons of features.
Discussion in 'Pickups & Electronics [BG]' started by fourstringbliss, Apr 9, 2014.
What impact does the Mk1 preamp have on the tone of the pickups?
IMO a negative one. I purchased a used 5501 that the seller had removed the MK1 pre and went passive. He gave me the pre with bass. The MK1 pickups actually sound decent passive just a little low output. I installed the MK1 pre to test and it was not to my liking at all. Maybe it was just a bad copy but it really robbed the pickups of their fairly well rounded tone and made them very brittle high end-edgy-ugly. I installed an Audere 4 band pre and I found it to be a very good pairing with the MK1 pickups. Basically I was hearing the pickups again but with a dead quiet and transparent pre in front. I'm was thinking of changing the pups at some point but the 5501 is currently my backup fiver so I'm not sure if I ever will. It's completely serviceable as is. Others have commented on liking the MK1/MK1 setup so as with most things it's in the ear of the beholder.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad and more.
I hear good things about the pickups and bad things about the preamp. One thing to try is swapping the bridge and neck pickups, I hear they were purposely swapped by Ibanez to give it a more aggressive tone, some people have stated better results with the pickups swapped.
I had an SR600 and returned it because I found the tone bad on it. Feel was awesome, but it was too much to pay for a bass that needed that much work done to it.
If you absolutely must keep the MK-1 pickups, I would say that an Aguilar or Bartolini (NTMB or NTB) would complement these pickups really well. Therefore, I agree with 'tkonbass' that the MK-1 preamp probably negatively affects the pickups' tone.
I have never had any issues with the MK1 system in my Lakland -01 basses. There isn't as much room for 'sculpting' the tone with the preamp, but I have never been a heavy-handed preamp user. I like the sound of the bass flat and use small tweaks here and there. I've recorded a LOT with my 44 and 55-01 basses stock and everyone has loved the tone on record and live.
I recently recorded a solo piece of mine just using my 55-01 direct in. I like the 'direct' and stock tone. YMMV.
Bryan White - Transference
That said, I would like a little more control over the mids and perhaps a little less sheen on the top-end. A different preamp will definitely do that. A lot of folks have paired even the stock MK1 pickups with the Lakland LH-3 system and have been happy.
As I said the MK1 pre that I received with the bass may have just been a bad unit with quality or abuse issues that were causing the ugliness. This is the only Lakland I've ever laid my hands on so my opinion is based solely on this one bass, Admittedly not a wide sampling.
Anyway, the Audere 4 band with stacked hi/lo mids certainly gives me all the control I was looking for in that area. It also eliminated the nastiness I was hearing in the highs. I use my tone controls similar to how you describe, no wild eq'ing and it is a very pleasing setup to my ears.
But as always ymmvapw.
IME the preamp colors the tone by giving a somewhat compressed, clear, dare I say 'artificial' character. Also, I found the eq boost and cutting capabilities weren't very useful...yes it cut or boosted frequencies, which was noticable, but it wasn't musical to me and didn't help in achieving a desired tone. Biggest issue was with the treble, very hissy and really gave off that artificial tone I mentioned. BUT when I tossed the preamp, the pickups alone sounded great, fuller, more natural.
I'm honestly on the fence about this bass. I got it used for a steal ($400) and like the way it plays, but am hesitant to put any money into it trying to make it sound better. I could sell it and buy a used G&L M2000 for the same money and maybe like that one better as is, given that I already know the pickups are good and apparently the preamp is a good one as well.
+1, ibanez btb with the mk1 pups and pre. i thought the pre was very sterile, and just "fake" sounding. i ripped that thing out, rewired with nice full size pots to VVT setup and its much much nicer.
So, the pups are fine but the preamp colors them in bad ways, right? Worth putting a different preamp in with the stock pups?
The same question keeps getting asked, and it can only be answered in one way; 'What do your ears tell you?' Decide after you play and listen for yourself. Again, stock MK1 setup can work if you like what you hear. In a mix, I found it to be punchy and present. It's not perfectly 'sculpted' and 'modern'. That tends to work better in a mix... but as we have already said - YMMV.
The pickups are "fine" to you if you yourself like those pickups. If I'm not mistaken, Bartolini MK-1 pickups are P pickups in a soapbar housing.
The pre is the weak link. The pickups are great. I upgraded the pre to a US Bartolini 5.2AP and the bass sounds great. I tried other pickups as well and ended up putting the MK-1's back in.
P's in the sense they are split coil pickups. Not necessarily P pickups. A standard P pickup wouldn't fit in the housing.
Yes. You are right. These MK-1's are set up (internally) just like the Seymour Duncan Basslines ASB split-coils.
Zombie thread, I know lol...but here's something that was helpful to me if anyone else is perusing through this thread.
I bought a used, totally stock, SR500 not too long ago. I had a spare Audere Classic 3-band preamp on hand so I slapped it in there. Actually made quite a bit of difference. I had to lower the pickups some as well, but I had tried that before the preamp swap. Auderes are pretty cheap and did a fantastic job. Bartolinis are fantastic preamps, but man they can really break the bank. If you still want to do the mode, give the Audere a shot, I still love playing through mine now.
Separate names with a comma.