Active tone vs. passive tone

[Zanderwestcoast]

Over a long cable, yes, passive pickups will get loaded by the capacity of the cable and the tone will mud up. Buffer prevents that. In a studio, with a 1m cable, I do indeed prefer my old passive jazz to anything else.


AJ Presentation. First of all, I don't care for the sound of those basses. I tried two. Now, Vinnie says it's the best sounding? Of course he does, it's the most expensive one, what else should he say? Did he say it sounds best because it doesn't have a preamp? You don't see him however dropping preamps off all other models, do you? Supposedly it would improve the tone of all of them... having said that, doesn't AJ have a balanced DI driver (therefore buffer) despite not having an EQ?

This is not about live performances and which instruments sound better played through long cables vs short cable runs. This is about achieving the best tone possible. My point earlier, was that assuming you have an amazing sounding acoustic instrument that resonates unplugged and has high quality pickups, having an onboard circuit will only detract from the instruments tone. You mentioning that in the studio with a 3 foot cable you "indeed prefer my old passive jazz to anything else", illustrates my point exactly. In a studio setting, its ALL about TONE. No compromises. I know for a fact my 65 Jazz would lose part of its magic and subtle nuances it now has with the addition of a EQ circuit, not too mention re-sale value!

 

[honeyiscool]

On the contrary, I've heard countless reports saying the exact opposite, that live, they can handle the hum and noise of a single coil in order to get the right feel, but that in the studio, nothing beats a high end noiseless active bass... since you know, in the studio, all basses can eventually sound the same as long as you get a clean signal.

 

[stuntbass77]

I was an active guy for many years, now I prefer passive and direct wires to the jack ( sounds louder and better to my ears ). I just can't bring myself to do it to my 08' MIA fender jazz as it sound so perfect. And I also feel all preamps sound different. Active can be a great thing, it's just preference.

 

[Rob22315]

This is not about live performances and which instruments sound better played through long cables vs short cable runs. This is about achieving the best tone possible. My point earlier, was that assuming you have an amazing sounding acoustic instrument that resonates unplugged and has high quality pickups, having an onboard circuit will only detract from the instruments tone. You mentioning that in the studio with a 3 foot cable you "indeed prefer my old passive jazz to anything else", illustrates my point exactly. In a studio setting, its ALL about TONE. No compromises. I know for a fact my 65 Jazz would lose part of its magic and subtle nuances it now has with the addition of a EQ circuit, not too mention re-sale value!

Where to start -

The OP never specified live vs studio so that's a condition you added. If there's a difference in the two settings, we should discuss both.

Audio signals are a snooze for analog circuits in that it is easy to build active analog circuits that don't color the signal.

The circuit designer can design the circuit to be as loud/soft or as pure/tone altering as they want so there are no rules of thumb for circuits analog or passive.

Passive set-ups are mostly the same for tradition and economic reasons and they do color the sound more than a properly designed active circuit will.

Pretty much, it all comes down to what you like. If I were recommending to someone new, I'd start passive to keep cost down and have simpler controls. A pre or external buffer can easily be added later or just sell the old and get a new active bass later.

I prefer active because they provide the greatest opportunity to feed an uncolored signal to the amp or board and the greatest opportunity for me to tweak the sound at the bass.

 

[Marihino]

This is not about live performances and which instruments sound better played through long cables vs short cable runs. This is about achieving the best tone possible. My point earlier, was that assuming you have an amazing sounding acoustic instrument that resonates unplugged and has high quality pickups, having an onboard circuit will only detract from the instruments tone. You mentioning that in the studio with a 3 foot cable you "indeed prefer my old passive jazz to anything else", illustrates my point exactly. In a studio setting, its ALL about TONE. No compromises. I know for a fact my 65 Jazz would lose part of its magic and subtle nuances it now has with the addition of a EQ circuit, not too mention re-sale value!

Yes, your 65 would lose its magic and resale value if you added a preamp. But again, it doesn't prove that passive is "better". Because, if you remove the preamp from a pre-EB Stingray, or a Wal, or an Alembic, they also lose both magic and market value - and according to you, they should increase in both.
And sure, it's all about the best tone - but why exclude live settings? That's how most music is performed, for every studio session we have hundreds of gigs. I cannot play my 66 through a 1m cable on a big stage with noise-inducing lights. And through a longer one, is starts to sound dull and lifeless, the longer the cable the greater the loss. That's why I have a very similar one, but with a buffer. Fully passive one sounds good with a short cable but crappy with a long one. Active one sounds good through both, and through a short one very much the same in both active and passive modes.

I'm not trying to prove one is always better than the other. I'm saying they're different tools doing slightly different jobs, and depending on circumstances one can be indeed preferable to the other.
I'm also not trying to change your preferences. All I'm saying is, if you try to prove your point by making comparisons, make them at the very least fair. Saying passive is always better because cheap generic onboard circuits are inferior to high quality hand-wired gear is ridiculous. I, too, could say active is always better because the pots in my passive £90 Harley Benton are dull and scratchy compared to the preamp in my £3k Sadowsky. But I didn't say that, because I would've ridiculed myself. Horses for courses.

 

[Zanderwestcoast]

Yes, your 65 would lose its magic and resale value if you added a preamp. But again, it doesn't prove that passive is "better". Because, if you remove the preamp from a pre-EB Stingray, or a Wal, or an Alembic, they also lose both magic and market value - and according to you, they should increase in both.
And sure, it's all about the best tone - but why exclude live settings? That's how most music is performed, for every studio session we have hundreds of gigs. I cannot play my 66 through a 1m cable on a big stage with noise-inducing lights. And through a longer one, is starts to sound dull and lifeless, the longer the cable the greater the loss. That's why I have a very similar one, but with a buffer. Fully passive one sounds good with a short cable but crappy with a long one. Active one sounds good through both, and through a short one very much the same in both active and passive modes.

I'm not trying to prove one is always better than the other. I'm saying they're different tools doing slightly different jobs, and depending on circumstances one can be indeed preferable to the other.
I'm also not trying to change your preferences. All I'm saying is, if you try to prove your point by making comparisons, make them at the very least fair. Saying passive is always better because cheap generic onboard circuits are inferior to high quality hand-wired gear is ridiculous. I, too, could say active is always better because the pots in my passive £90 Harley Benton are dull and scratchy compared to the preamp in my £3k Sadowsky. But I didn't say that, because I would've ridiculed myself. Horses for courses.

Difference of opinion on this subject. I own both active basses and passive basses including a 77 Ray with an epoxy preamp. Its boost only preamp I hardly use past 5-10 percent and likely would sound better without the pre in the studio. My issue with circuits is that they often impart too much of their own sound and feel rather than allowing for the subtle acoustic properties of a well built, resonant wooden instrument to come through.

 

[khutch]

My point earlier, was that assuming you have an amazing sounding acoustic instrument that resonates unplugged and has high quality pickups, having an onboard circuit will only detract from the instruments tone.

You keep asserting it but that does not make it true. People here say that some preamps are "baked" or "voiced" to modify an instrument's tone in some specific way. They may be right. All I know is that the Fender preamps I have measured do not affect the tone at all when set flat. They are neutral. The way Fender configures the two active basses that I own does load the pickups more heavily than they would be in a passive bass and THAT does color the tone. However, that is not the preamp's fault, it is Fender's fault, and it can be fixed. In fact it can be fixed by twisting the EQ knobs on the bass. There is no reason why an onboard preamp would affect the tone and all the other electronics between your pickups and your recording device would not. If you have this bass that produces what you consider to be just the perfect tone then of course you don't want to put ANY preamp between it and the recorder. There is no need to, the tone is already perfect so you are going to leave the preamp controls flat anyway, why even have it in the signal chain? I can see that.

Furthermore ANY electronic device you put between the bass and the recorder is going to lower the signal to noise ratio and if the SNR of your recorder is high then you don't want to degrade the final SNR of the recording by inserting anything into the signal path that is not absolutely required. The ONE fault that onboard preamps in particular have FOR RECORDING PURPOSES is higher noise. This is not always an issue even for recording purposes, one of the active basses I own was designed by a recording artist and is used for his recording work. So it works in many situations for his recording work and when it does not, it has an active/passive switch. Noise is not tone however.

Finally, while preamps can certainly be 100% tone neutral when set flat if they are designed to be, and they often are, the main reason you have a preamp is so that you can use it to MODIFY THE TONE! If no one ever wanted to modify the tone of their bass then there would be no preamps anywhere in the signal chain, there would be no pedals, and tube amps would have died out decades ago. For you personally it is all about getting the perfect tone out of your minimalist setup. I get that, I applaud that in fact. But that is you and some people like you. The rest of us are all about having the tone that we want right now, in this very instant, and it may be very different from the tone we need four bars later. An onboard preamp is one of the tools that we use to be able to do that. Even though it may be true in some small sense for you, telling us that onboard circuits can only detract from our tone is complete nonsense for us!

 

[Zanderwestcoast]

You keep asserting it but that does not make it true. People here say that some preamps are "baked" or "voiced" to modify an instrument's tone in some specific way. They may be right. All I know is that the Fender preamps I have measured do not affect the tone at all when set flat. They are neutral. The way Fender configures the two active basses that I own does load the pickups more heavily than they would be in a passive bass and THAT does color the tone. However, that is not the preamp's fault, it is Fender's fault, and it can be fixed. In fact it can be fixed by twisting the EQ knobs on the bass. There is no reason why an onboard preamp would affect the tone and all the other electronics between your pickups and your recording device would not. If you have this bass that produces what you consider to be just the perfect tone then of course you don't want to put ANY preamp between it and the recorder. There is no need to, the tone is already perfect so you are going to leave the preamp controls flat anyway, why even have it in the signal chain? I can see that.

Furthermore ANY electronic device you put between the bass and the recorder is going to lower the signal to noise ratio and if the SNR of your recorder is high then you don't want to degrade the final SNR of the recording by inserting anything into the signal path that is not absolutely required. The ONE fault that onboard preamps in particular have FOR RECORDING PURPOSES is higher noise. This is not always an issue even for recording purposes, one of the active basses I own was designed by a recording artist and is used for his recording work. So it works in many situations for his recording work and when it does not, it has an active/passive switch. Noise is not tone however.

Finally, while preamps can certainly be 100% tone neutral when set flat if they are designed to be, and they often are, the main reason you have a preamp is so that you can use it to MODIFY THE TONE! If no one ever wanted to modify the tone of their bass then there would be no preamps anywhere in the signal chain, there would be no pedals, and tube amps would have died out decades ago. For you personally it is all about getting the perfect tone out of your minimalist setup. I get that, I applaud that in fact. But that is you and some people like you. The rest of us are all about having the tone that we want right now, in this very instant, and it may be very different from the tone we need four bars later. An onboard preamp is one of the tools that we use to be able to do that. Even though it may be true in some small sense for you, telling us that onboard circuits can only detract from our tone is complete nonsense for us!

My late 90's Lakland 5 string has a Bart circuit that can be bypassed and gain matched. Most people will claim that if preamp is engaged and set flat, it won't change sound and dynamics. Not the case. I can hear a difference. Perhaps the Fenders are different.

 

[Zanderwestcoast]

Yes, your 65 would lose its magic and resale value if you added a preamp. But again, it doesn't prove that passive is "better". Because, if you remove the preamp from a pre-EB Stingray, or a Wal, or an Alembic, they also lose both magic and market value - and according to you, they should increase in both.
And sure, it's all about the best tone - but why exclude live settings? That's how most music is performed, for every studio session we have hundreds of gigs. I cannot play my 66 through a 1m cable on a big stage with noise-inducing lights. And through a longer one, is starts to sound dull and lifeless, the longer the cable the greater the loss. That's why I have a very similar one, but with a buffer. Fully passive one sounds good with a short cable but crappy with a long one. Active one sounds good through both, and through a short one very much the same in both active and passive modes.

I'm not trying to prove one is always better than the other. I'm saying they're different tools doing slightly different jobs, and depending on circumstances one can be indeed preferable to the other.
I'm also not trying to change your preferences. All I'm saying is, if you try to prove your point by making comparisons, make them at the very least fair. Saying passive is always better because cheap generic onboard circuits are inferior to high quality hand-wired gear is ridiculous. I, too, could say active is always better because the pots in my passive £90 Harley Benton are dull and scratchy compared to the preamp in my £3k Sadowsky. But I didn't say that, because I would've ridiculed myself. Horses for courses.

When I talk about circuits imparting too much of their own sound.....Sadowsky is a good example. Again this might rock the boat but is just my opinion, but I have played many Sadowsky J type basses and while I respect the build quality and snappy response they have(and sound for that matter), to me, I find the electronics too overbearing and impart too much of their own sound on the instrument. In fact, what has actually come to define what the "Sadowsky Sound" is, is actually the preamp itself more than anything.

 

[Rob22315]

My late 90's Lakland 5 string has a Bart circuit that can be bypassed and gain matched. Most people will claim that if preamp is engaged and set flat, it won't change sound and dynamics. Not the case. I can hear a difference. Perhaps the Fenders are different.

Nobody has claimed that your specific circuit is flat, only that preamps can be design flat or not but it's all up to the designer, not a fundamental characteristic of preamps. BTW, if it's an NTMB or similar, that adjustable output pot is just for volume, not for impedance matching. Impedance matching isn't an issue for active circuits in this application.

From what I've seen of the hacked NTMB schematics, it's designed to be flat in the middle settings but I'm not saying your observations are wrong.

 

[Zanderwestcoast]

Nobody has claimed that your specific circuit is flat, only that preamps can be design flat or not but it's all up to the designer, not a fundamental characteristic of preamps. BTW, if it's an NTMB or similar, that adjustable output pot is just for volume, not for impedance matching. Impedance matching isn't an issue for active circuits in this application.

From what I've seen of the hacked NTMB schematics, it's designed to be flat in the middle settings but I'm not saying your observations are wrong.

Yeah

Nobody has claimed that your specific circuit is flat, only that preamps can be design flat or not but it's all up to the designer, not a fundamental characteristic of preamps. BTW, if it's an NTMB or similar, that adjustable output pot is just for volume, not for impedance matching. Impedance matching isn't an issue for active circuits in this application.

From what I've seen of the hacked NTMB schematics, it's designed to be flat in the middle settings but I'm not saying your observations are wrong.

Yeah....its an NTMB circuit.

 

[Emanuel Apascaritei]

My late 90's Lakland 5 string has a Bart circuit that can be bypassed and gain matched. Most people will claim that if preamp is engaged and set flat, it won't change sound and dynamics. Not the case. I can hear a difference. Perhaps the Fenders are different.

And you do hear a difference, in passive mode it looses some of the originals tone high frequencies, and it´s normal. Hence my post. Pre-amp = buffer for long cables and mismatched impendance.

 

[bramhc]

When I talk about circuits imparting too much of their own sound.....Sadowsky is a good example. Again this might rock the boat but is just my opinion, but I have played many Sadowsky J type basses and while I respect the build quality and snappy response they have(and sound for that matter), to me, I find the electronics too overbearing and impart too much of their own sound on the instrument. In fact, what has actually come to define what the "Sadowsky Sound" is, is actually the preamp itself more than anything.[/QUOTE]

This is the truth. There is no Sadowsky sound. It's only mid-scooped one.

 

[Samus C]

I can't stand the clinical sterile sound of say an Ibanez Soundgear with soapbars.

I would think this has more to do with those mediocre Bartolini Mark I pickups they use in just about every soundgear that's not a Premium/Prestige model. You have to have some serious EQ on them to really get them to sound solid. The SR1206 I used to own with those Nordstrand Big Singles was one of the best sounding Ibanez basses i've ever played.

 

[dincz]

All basses are active in the end. Preamp in the bass or in the amp - the difference is geographical only.

Many active/passive basses sound identical comparing active setting with flat EQ and passive setting.

Audio preamp design is not rocket science. If an onboard preamp gives its own tone, then either it was designed that way on purpose or it's badly designed or faulty.

 

[Zanderwestcoast]

And you do hear a difference, in passive mode it looses some of the originals tone high frequencies, and it´s normal. Hence my post. Pre-amp = buffer for long cables and mismatched impendance.

What I notice is that in passive mode, the notes have more weight and stronger fundamental. More dynamic range and less compression than when circuit is engaged. is To my ears it's just plain better tone in passive mode.

 

[Emanuel Apascaritei]

What I notice is that in passive mode, the notes have more weight and stronger fundamental. More dynamic range and less compression than when circuit is engaged. is To my ears it's just plain better tone in passive mode.

I think it depends on the on board preamp too. I don´t notice this on my Adamovic (glockenklang pre-amp). I can´t say what tone is better, in fact, for me, there´s no better tone between active and passive on my bass. I use what the song calls for on a recording but live I always go active for buffering long cables.

 

[jmlee]

I can't stand the clinical sterile sound of say an Ibanez Soundgear with soapbars.

Yup, your impression is likely based on those MK1 pickups which, to be frank, don't have much going for them. Sub them out for U.S. Bartolini MK4's, though, and you'll get warm, wonderful character: the very antithesis of sterile.