I read somewhere that the with active, the wood of the bass doesnt matter so much, is this true?
No, not necessarily true at all - though passive purists frequently will claim as much.
The active/passive debate tends to be a divisive one, since various players are coming from very different frames of reference, personal expectations, and so on. Many who began playing at a time when there was no such thing as an active bass - or one's choices were pretty much restricted to Alembic only - have a rather negative opinion of active electronics, simply because the first generation of active electronics did produce some pretty hideous results.
But times have changed - and not everybody keeps up.
The high-quality active components being developed & produced right now are more & more indistinguishable from conventional passive electronics - in the best sense. That means that they don't so much contribute their own voice so much as they used to do, but instead simply help you to obtain the best possible tone & frequency response from your instrument - whatever that intrinsic voice might be.
There are other significant advantages: Active electronics allow you to keep the natural upper midrange & treble frequencies that passive electronics frequently don't fully convey. And since active electronics typically are low-impedance, they allow you to use long cables to a rig or mixing board - again, without the loss of signal that is inherent in passive electronics.
That said, active electronics aren't right for every situation. For any kind of traditional and/or roots-oriented music, good ol' passives are usually the way to go. I would never, for example, show up with a Modulus Quantum w/EMGs to play a classic Motown revival gig, reggae/dub gig, or country gig.
Then again, I probably wouldn't show up to a high-tech progressive rock or fusion gig with a vintage sunburst Precision Bass w/flats either...
MM
