You have never done it, I can only assume. I have, with a B-15 using the Jamerson setting (bass full, treble half, volume cranked). Totally inaccurate depiction. To lose that sound in the house takes a very concentrated effort of sabotage.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Anyone going back to passive basses?
- Thread starter kirkm24
- Start date
All of the above - I tend to use both actives and passives on alot of my gigs, and will usually EQ my rig to slay with my passives - then tweak my actives to work with those settings... For modern rock down to Db, C, and B, actives typically work better for me, whereas my passives kill it for E, drop D, and Eb... Also, I'll EQ my actives for the sound I want for the Db stuff, then roll off a tiny bit of low when I play down to C and B - it just seems easier to do this on the bass than on the amp...
- georgestrings
^^^ This.
A big part of the equation you (marchone) are referring to had more to do with the amps and PA's of the time then they did strings. There are tons of examples of live recordings in the mid to late 60's where flats were not "muddy" or stifled as you claim. By the late 60's, round wounds were still VERY uncommon. Take a listen to Woodstock 69 when you get the chance. Bassists weren't struggling to be heard with flats, they were struggling with amps that were basically modified guitar rigs and speakers that weren't a quarter as efficient as they are now.
I've been on one passive exclusively for 7 years now: fretless MIM jazz with the neck pickup replaced by a big MM humbucker and the bridge with a Quarter Pound J. I also rewired it vol/blend/tone.
Not only do I not need active electronics, I'm not even sure I need a bridge pickup or blend knob anymore. Definitely don't need a volume or tone knob. Whatever amp I'm playing through runs mostly flat or close to it. I do all of my tone shaping based on how far from the bridge I pluck. Anchored on the bridge pickup, it's pretty snappy, though obviously not like the Jaco sound, which never appealed to me anyway. With my hand in the mid position it's this plush, full, P-bass on steroids sound. And anchored on the end of the neck, it's a gigantic, pillowy sound.
The idea for me these days isn't cutting through a band, it's finding a place underneath it. I'm sure I could do this with actives, but why mess with it if I can get that sound and almost any other sound I like from my highly modified passive bass?
Not only do I not need active electronics, I'm not even sure I need a bridge pickup or blend knob anymore. Definitely don't need a volume or tone knob. Whatever amp I'm playing through runs mostly flat or close to it. I do all of my tone shaping based on how far from the bridge I pluck. Anchored on the bridge pickup, it's pretty snappy, though obviously not like the Jaco sound, which never appealed to me anyway. With my hand in the mid position it's this plush, full, P-bass on steroids sound. And anchored on the end of the neck, it's a gigantic, pillowy sound.
The idea for me these days isn't cutting through a band, it's finding a place underneath it. I'm sure I could do this with actives, but why mess with it if I can get that sound and almost any other sound I like from my highly modified passive bass?
Not disagreeing at all with regard to amps and especially PAs back then. I brought up strings as an adjunct to the issue. Rotosounds were pretty popular to my knowledge by '69, even '68, at least in NY. Entwistle, JPJ and Woody all used them so all the garage band players who listened to them did too. Roundwounds helped cut through the mix a lot. We didn't know about mids then. We called it treble.
This is from American Basses. Read down to the part where Roger discusses recording in the '60s.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5l...wBA#v=onepage&q=history active basses&f=false
That was a function of the PA technology of the time not what flats on a Pre through a B15 sounded like. By the mid 70's when active electronics were becoming widely available a Martin front end could make flats on that passive P bass very useable at substantial volume.
- Jun 28, 2012
- 131
- 2
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Luna Guitars, Ashdown Engineering, Cactus Picks
Sheesh there's a lot of active hate in this thread. I bet most of it's the same attitude of "You can get every tone without using a pick." 
Iam playing an active Zon Sonus 5 and loving it .I do also like the passive sound alot .I like to be able to utilize the gain switch on Tube amps with the passive basses .Whatever works for you .I play graphite for the super low action attainable and do not mind my tone with the Sonus at all .I love it !and I love passive jazz basses and precision basses tone as much .I play heavier stuff so I really liked the california style jazz /precision pickup configuration alot with some Ampeg tube saturation .Really liked an older (80's) ESP model with that configuration.Just stomped brutal tone out .
Now that's not entirely inaccurate
That was sort of the popular thinking of the day in many circles. But that pretty much ended when PA systems and bass amps got more powerful. But by that time, rounds had caught on in a big way and most of us didn't want to go back to flats, although some did. You always have to mix to the room, but it's way possible to be both felt and heard with flats on a Precision on a big outdoor or arena gig.
Now that's not entirely inaccurate
Doesn't Pino Paladino use flats? He gets an amazing live tone on his passive precision.
Somebody mentioned Woodstock above. I recall that the Hanley PA system built for Woodstock was groundbreaking.
Thank you. You explained it better than I did.
Now, sure. Pre-Woodstock? Not so much. That was my point and one answer to the OP. No reason today to not use a passive bass.
Now that's not entirely inaccurate
Thank you. You explained it better than I did.
Now, sure. Pre-Woodstock? Not so much. That was my point and one answer to the OP. No reason today to not use a passive bass.
I LOVE the tone I am getting from my American Deluxe on the ACTIVE side. It has a lot more body than the passive side, and I have been a J Bass fan since the late 70s!
I use both, but for recording, ACTIVE all the way! As a retired commercial studio owner and engineer, I have no problem whatsoever working with the higher output. My tube studio gear loves that signal!
I use both, but for recording, ACTIVE all the way! As a retired commercial studio owner and engineer, I have no problem whatsoever working with the higher output. My tube studio gear loves that signal!
I own both active and passive basses and I happen to like them both. I currently own a peavey millennium bxp 5-string bass(passive), a schecter stiletto extreme 4-string bass and an Ibanez sr255 5-string bass(both active) and I do like how they sound. recently I've been interested in buying a schecter raiden special 5-string bass. I've heard how this bass sound and I do like what I hear from this bass and hands down, best bass to be named after a mortal kombat character.
it has a warm edgy sound. plus this bass happens to be passive like the schecter raiden deluxe(I use to own this bass). I am planning to buy a schecter raiden special 5-string bass sometime soon. honestly, it would be nice to have another passive bass in my arsenal besides my peavey millennium bxp 5-string bass.
it has a warm edgy sound. plus this bass happens to be passive like the schecter raiden deluxe(I use to own this bass). I am planning to buy a schecter raiden special 5-string bass sometime soon. honestly, it would be nice to have another passive bass in my arsenal besides my peavey millennium bxp 5-string bass.
