Active basses

[perkjos]

Hi everyone, I've never been able to truly understand why so many bass players play active basses. As someone who has owned both active and passive basses (multiple fenders, multiple Warwick's, an ibanez, and a lakland), I have come to the conclusion that I like passive basses better. I really like using external pre-amps because I feel that I have more flexibility in doing so. So, my question is this: for all of you who prefer active basses over passive basses, do you just prefer having an on-board preamp or is there some reason other than personal preference that you like active basses? Thanks.

 

[monkeyfinger]

I have active and passive basses. Personally, I think you have to judge each bass on its own merit. I used to just play passives. Now I have found I couple of actives I really like. So there you go.

 

[mpdd]

i tend to like basses that can do both, so i'm probably not that much help, the g&l L2000 and the fender mij jaguar are pretty sweet imo

 

[Kmonk]

I played active basses for a few years but now I only use passive.

 

[Ken J]

All of my basses are active except one
My favorite is passive

 

[jd56hawk]

…is there some reason other than personal preference that you like active basses?

Not try to be a wiseguy, but is there any other reason necessary?

 

[samson3382]

I play in multiple cover bands each with a range of sounds. Sometimes I need a bright slap tone, some an almost upright sound, and everything in between. I've used rack mounted preamps, amps with dual preamps and foot switchable eq boosts, and the easiest, fastest, and most effective way to switch for me has been on the bass. And a slight movement of my right hand is nearly invisible to the audience.

 

[xed]

I have active, passive and active/passive. I like how each sounds, active vs passive has nothing to do with why I like them.

 

[Dave W]

I play them all but usually prefer actives. It's as simple as I can get the sound I want from them. I have external preamps that can do similar things, but if I don't need to lug extra crap why should I?

 

[perkjos]

Not try to be a wiseguy, but is there any other reason necessary?

My gut tells me no, but that's precisely what I'm trying to determine.

 

[Moley13]

I play in multiple cover bands each with a range of sounds. Sometimes I need a bright slap tone, some an almost upright sound, and everything in between. I've used rack mounted preamps, amps with dual preamps and foot switchable eq boosts, and the easiest, fastest, and most effective way to switch for me has been on the bass. And a slight movement of my right hand is nearly invisible to the audience.

That's bang-on as to why my gigging basses are active. I have some passives for specific situations, though. It's just the on-the-fly adjustability. I suppose you could buy heaps of outboard preamp pedals, and switch them on and off with your feet, but I still thing on-bass is easier (and cheaper!).

Active/passive is easy to put in, if you want to be able to access the passive tone when you want it.

 

[G On Bass]

I have actives and passives and, as mentioned, they are each what they are. I tend to gig a lot with my active ones as I like to be able to control tone on-the-fly from the bass instead of at the amp or rack.

 

[jd56hawk]

My gut tells me no, but that's precisely what I'm trying to determine.

Honest answer.
Funny, because when I bought my active Thunderbird I really didn't know that much about the difference between passive and active (other than the battery) and I bought it because I liked the passive T-bird I used to own and wanted to see/hear the difference for myself. I never saw an Epiphone Thunderbird Pro IV in any of the stores I visited so I ordered one from Guitar Center because I really liked the way the natural oil model looked.
Turns out I really like the variety of tones I can get out of it, but I do like my black, passive T-bird, too.

 

[Andyman001]

I own several of each, and the active/passive is not why I own any of them. I have them cause I like how they play / sound.

 

[Gougedeye]

I like and play active basses. I believe the reason for this is, I like the more modern hifi tone of an active bass.

 

[Lo-E]

I have active and passive basses. Personally, I think you have to judge each bass on its own merit.

Absolutely!

 

[Winfred]

I play in multiple cover bands each with a range of sounds. Sometimes I need a bright slap tone, some an almost upright sound, and everything in between. I've used rack mounted preamps, amps with dual preamps and foot switchable eq boosts, and the easiest, fastest, and most effective way to switch for me has been on the bass. And a slight movement of my right hand is nearly invisible to the audience.

Same for me. 2 humbuckers (neck and bridge) and switching my plucking hand position, allows me to get "almost" every tone I need for a song. From old Patsy Cline song (Crazy), to James Brown, to Bruno Mars. I can't nail them exactly as they sounded on the orginal, but I can get close enough.

 

[Lowpro]

Prefer active through effects, prefer active through a Sansamp, prefer controls I can touch. Active basses gimme what I want.

 

[spector_boogie]

Passives aren't flexible enough for me. Plus my Lakky goes passive should I ever need it, which I haven't, b/c it doesn't sound nearly as good.
And the Spector USA pre is a huge part of their sound.
With something more generic like a Fender, I can't see needing it.

 

[honeyiscool]

I prefer passive. Every bass that has an active preamp, I eventually end up wiring a passive bypass, and I often end up liking the passive bypassed tone as much as, or more than, the active tone. In any case, for active, I like basses that sound "right" to me with all the controls centered at 12 o'clock. I don't really like to fiddle with knobs and dial it in. I just want one sound that always works, and then the EQ can be used to just tweak based on how I feel I'm sounding at the moment.