A mystery wrapped in an enigma

[eastcoasteddie]

I like passive basses...but I have found that they must have excellent pickups. With preamps, you can get away with mediocre pickups.
Most basses I have used have preamps. Lately, I am gravitating towards boost-only versions, such as the Pensa 2-band I have in one of my Jazz basses. I would also be seriously looking at the OBP-1 as a pretty cool option. Sadowsky also...but they MUST have a passive tone control always in the circuit.

 

[el murdoque]

I've played quite a few gigs that were in a small setting where I would plug my bass straight into the PA.
For a gig like that, I'll always bring an active bass to be able to adjust my tone and volume.
In normal situations, I have a small pedalboard with a preamp on there. Both preamp and comp need to be adjusted to the output level of the bass I'm using and when I adjust the onboard electronics, this will mess up the pedals, so I set the bass once and keep it that way. So in a way, I don't care whether it's an active or passive. I set it to that sound I like and leave it exactly there.

 

[B-Mac]

maybe people just like the popular brands and models vs not liking other kinds of active basses. I mean, those ones you mentioned get mentioned more because more people like them. seems like a silly pointless argument that kind of fuels the flame of lines being drawn in the sand. Like the one about pick vs finger.

It’s not an argument.
It’s an observation that I thought was interesting for discussion. Nothing silly about it.

 

[iiipopes]

Since I’ve joined TB I’ve noticed a strong disdain for active electronics whether or not the pups are active or passive.

Hmmm. I have not noticed any such disdain. That may be because I also have both active and passive basses, which I play in different bands for different genres of music.

 

[beggar98]

I think a lot of it comes from Fender never getting very good at active electronics. Plenty of Fender-style instruments with active electronics are very highly regarded here (Sadowsky, Alleva Coppola, Atelier Z, etc).

IME, they've never made a good 5-string either.

 

[asparaguspee]

I own 1 passive and 4 active basses, one of which cannot be put into passive mode. Honestly there's no reason to like/dislike one or the other but I certainly understand why simplicity is preferred by some.

 

[Fumble Fingers]

Because active pre-amps invariably never have the headroom I want.

 

[Bass]

B-Mac, maybe someone who doesn't like active yet likes EBMM will chime in. I admit I hadn't noticed this was a thing.

For me, I like Fender and I like passive basses. I also own a passive G&L.

And I am very interested in Stingray, however I don't own one because I am a leery of the active electronics. The tone controls and the battery make me nervous. I admit I have never owned an active bass.

And with the Stingray being very expensive I would hate to buy one and then find out I don't like it. Someday I might test-drive a Sterling by MusicMan.

 

[JRA]

This topic is not meant to be divisive nor start a riot.

well, you're off to great start with all of that "bias" stuff!

My question is why are EBMM Basses and G & L, which are active, accepted by the P and J bass crowd when other brand active basses, i.e. Ibanez or similar are not accepted by the same P and J crowd?

It's the whole "Leo is god" thing.

yeah, b-mac, i think there's something to the leo/god "thing." lots of folks on TB worship at that alter. i've gone 'passive' for the sake of simplicity (and weight, believe it or not, i.e., every gram counts and adds up), but active electronics are way more versatile.

A taco in a bag is the same as a taco on a plate.

yeah, but it's the one in the belly that makes the difference for me.

 

[sawzalot]

I've not seen a strong disdain for active electronics. Some people do have a strong preference for passive electronics, but I don't think that's translated into a disdain for active electronics. I think people like basses that sound good, generally.

 

[boombloom]

Since I’ve joined TB I’ve noticed a strong disdain for active electronics whether or not the pups are active or passive. This especially seems true with the traditional P bass and J bass crowd. However, I have noticed that these same two groups are big fans of mm/ebmm and G & L basses which are mostly active.

I've had a G&L L1000 and an SB1. Neither was active.

 

[SunByrne]

I'm a fan of finding the right tool for the job. I find having an on-board preamp that I can turn off gives me a more flexible tool appropriate for a wider range of jobs. Plus this appeals to my natural urge to fiddle with stuff.

But I also love my always-active Ray. Go figure.

 

[scuzzy]

I love em all.

My theory.... Passionate fender fans play traditional jazz or precision. When they branch to active, they stick to familiar fender basses, and fender active basses are traditionally far inferior to other active basses. Their passive models are great, standards, expected. Then they swear off all actives based on ones brands inability to make consistent great active instruments.

Play a spector with haz pre..... Active can be glorious when done right.

I find a large majority just prefer simple as opposed to complex.

 

[B-Mac]

@boombloom
I could’ve sworn these were active

L-2000

 

[DaveDeVille]

I could’ve sworn these were active
View attachment 4189661
L-2000

mine has an active/passive switch , and i usually run it passive ..

 

[Koog]

I have no idea why "some active basses are OK and some are not".

I have played a variety of active and passive basses through nearly six decades. I've had success with both. These days, for me, it has come down to simpler is better. It seems I can easily find the tones I want/need in passive mode in both studio and live settings. And, I don't get any complaints or suggestions for changes.

The "perfect tone" is very subjective. My advice is to dial those two or three knobs in small increments, find the tone that serves the song or your particular genre, and let your fingers do the heavy lifting.

Koog

 

[Nev375]

Since I’ve joined TB I’ve noticed a strong disdain for active electronics whether or not the pups are active or passive. This especially seems true with the traditional P bass and J bass crowd. However, I have noticed that these same two groups are big fans of mm/ebmm and G & L basses which are mostly active.

Obviously these two makes have the Leo Fender connection, so I get that. So my query is why are these active basses ‘okay’ while others are not? Is it simply the connection to Leo Fender or is there something more to it? Is it because of a ‘too modern’ sound rather than a more traditional sound?

I like passive and active and both have their place/use.

This topic is not meant to be divisive nor start a riot. Let’s keep this friendly. I simply want to understand the dichotomy of this subject matter.

Don't confuse the passive guys with the fender guys. There might be a little bit of overlap, but we are not so simple a community. There's also the tonewood guys, the tube guys, the tone-is-in-the-fingers guys and the mixed cab police, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.


I myself am one of the passive guys primarily because of my hatred of batteries and inability to unplug and turn things off 99% of the time due to attention deficit disorder. I simply can't afford to be an active guy.

I'm also a fender guy because I have mad respect for everything he designed and how "correct" he got everything on the 1st try. Also I'm a modder and him embracing an interchangeable part system and it becoming so industry standard gives me the ability to build and design my own instruments without ages of experience and a shop full of woodworking equipment. And though I love the EBMM models and G&L, those active basses belong in someone else's hands. I'd go broke feeding them a new battery every day or two.

I don't really see the disdain you see. I think most folks simply prefer gear that works for them and other people are way less picky than us.

 

[stretch80]

A lot of active preamps (especially early ones) would boost and cut bass and treble, or bass treble and mid,
but they didn't do what the simple passive treble roll-off control does, and so you couldn't get "that" rich chocolate tone. More recently people like Sadowsky and others have added that control to their active preamps. The G&L preamp is a special/odd case, which gets plenty of discussion elsewhere.

 

[lermgalieu]

I happen to own a Stingray and a couple of passive Ps, among other things. I do like Fenders, but I didn't get the Stingray because of the connection. Over the years I have come to favor more of a passive tone, but used to favor an active tone. It's not a dichotomy, it is my subjective preference now, plus I got sick of worrying about batteries. Still love my 'Ray tho. I have not seen any strong "disdain" etc on TB, just people expressing their preferences. Different tools for different jobs, IMO.

 

[Frank77]

Whaaaaaaaat?

I spend entirely too much time here and I've never noticed a "strong disdain for active basses". As for G&L, aside from the "L-2x00 and "M" basses, aren't they all passive? Confusing post is confusing...