1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Active/Passive Recording

Discussion in 'Recording Gear and Equipment [BG]' started by KingOfAmps, Feb 12, 2002.

  1. Just started doin' some basic recording on my own (yikes!) with a Tascam 414. I came here first several weeks ago for tips. Most helpful were the referrals to some of the other "recording only" sites. Thanks to all who've shared them in recent time. Anyway, I found it interesting that more than a few of those sites mention that "passive" basses are better/easier/more desirable/etc. to record vs. "active" basses. Not much detail followed to shed light as to why. Can some of you chime in? Especially those of you with "actives" and "passives" AND recording experience.
  2. ihixulu

    ihixulu Supporting Member

    Mar 31, 2000
    South Shore MA
    They sound different, that's about it.

    If an engineer can't handle the (relatively) slight difference in signal strength between an active's and a passive's output, s/he could prbably better serve the world as a busboy at a Denny's.

    You may prefer the tone of a bass over another. One is not, however, easier to record than the other.
  3. In my own personal experience, it is easier or less hastle to record a passive bass than an active bass. Of course it's done ALL the time, but a lot of engineers are not bass player. And they're used to hearing a passive bass through the years. Somehow, due to many years of listening to a passive bass on records, listening to an active bass maybe a bit hard to adjust for some engineers. Since most active basses have a hotter output than passive, this also require the engineer to adjust the signal to tape alot differently than a passive.

    Even during mix down can be a bit tricky for some engineer. They are simply not used to hearing bass that bright, or that fat.

Share This Page