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
Have always preferred passives.
had a Warwick FNA, never played it active...sold it.
had a few early 80's BC Rich Mockingbirds, never played them active...sold them.
I just picked up a G&L L2500 tribute, the active/preamp boost is badass - very strong. This was aquired at a great price I just couldn't pass up.
I was sick of tuning drop D for some of the country tunes. Playing them this way seemed pretty half assed to these ears anyway.
1st practice w/it last night. I don't want to touch the volume I have dialed in on my amp for my passive Gibson, Warwick, and Fender P & J basses.
In passive mode on the G&L there just ain't enough wail, so I have to use the preamp and roll off on the volume. Still need to tweak w/the G&L controls
and see if I can find an answer, but I am doubting I will.
May have to employ some kinda volume regulator.
had a Warwick FNA, never played it active...sold it.
had a few early 80's BC Rich Mockingbirds, never played them active...sold them.
I just picked up a G&L L2500 tribute, the active/preamp boost is badass - very strong. This was aquired at a great price I just couldn't pass up.
I was sick of tuning drop D for some of the country tunes. Playing them this way seemed pretty half assed to these ears anyway.
1st practice w/it last night. I don't want to touch the volume I have dialed in on my amp for my passive Gibson, Warwick, and Fender P & J basses.
In passive mode on the G&L there just ain't enough wail, so I have to use the preamp and roll off on the volume. Still need to tweak w/the G&L controls
and see if I can find an answer, but I am doubting I will.
May have to employ some kinda volume regulator.
I've only owned one active bass: an Ibanez SR500. I bought it without knowing it was active (the extra knobs should've given it away). It sounded good and was very comfortable & light. I stopped playing bass for a few years then went back to it and stuck with passive because it's what I like.
Yes, though I've never been a huge fan in the first place.
In the end analysis, nearly blowing off my fretting hand in an accident, which ended any possibility of further gigging, and one records with passives.
I've always considered active basses as more or less of a nonsense, but they have some function in live gigging when some quick-and-dirty EQ adjustments on the fly may be desirable.
In the studio there's no place for actives simply because when plugging into a $3000 preamp strip you don't want to run your signal through 43¢ worth of redundant board circuitry including a noisy OpAmp selected for sourcing at 16¢ instead of 19¢ and being able to draw low enough current to keep a 9V battery alive a little longer.
If you think that's a good plan, be prepared for hostile skepticism from the engineer being paid to make your track sound the way it should.
Bongo, I don't doubt you a bit. But I've never had any engineer concern about my Alembic (nor would I accept any from someone I'm paying).
I notice that most people equate active with onboard EQ. I suspect that a lot of people dislike actives because of the cheap preamps that most active basses ship with.
In the early 80's, I put a buffer preamp in my '64 Precision. No tone controls, still sounded rootsy and organic, but it handled the pedals I was using at the time a lot better.
I have been using EMG's for 20 years (since I switched to 5-strings). I was never that impressed with their EQ, so I just run V/V for controls.
I have a Squier VM Jazz with DiMarzio Ultras as a backup at the moment. Light and simple, which like, but it never grabs the compliments from sound guys that I get with my active fivers.
I also agree that passive basses often make more sense in the studio. Different strokes...
In the early 80's, I put a buffer preamp in my '64 Precision. No tone controls, still sounded rootsy and organic, but it handled the pedals I was using at the time a lot better.
I have been using EMG's for 20 years (since I switched to 5-strings). I was never that impressed with their EQ, so I just run V/V for controls.
I have a Squier VM Jazz with DiMarzio Ultras as a backup at the moment. Light and simple, which like, but it never grabs the compliments from sound guys that I get with my active fivers.
I also agree that passive basses often make more sense in the studio. Different strokes...
The OP asked:
How about those of us who never went to active basses? I've owned two, never saw a reason or advantage to keeping either one. I have a dozen passive basses and don't plan to own any active ones.
How about those of us who never went to active basses? I've owned two, never saw a reason or advantage to keeping either one. I have a dozen passive basses and don't plan to own any active ones.
I like the simplicity of passive, i get confused easily.
Still feels like bass to me.
Look, Mom. No batteries!
Still feels like bass to me.
Look, Mom. No batteries!
Lately I've found myself going from passive to active. Still keeping all my passive basses though!
Bongolation said:Yes, though I've never been a huge fan in the first place.
In the end analysis, nearly blowing off my fretting hand in an accident, which ended any possibility of further gigging, and one records with passives.
I've always considered active basses as more or less of a nonsense, but they have some function in live gigging when some quick-and-dirty EQ adjustments on the fly may be desirable.
In the studio there's no place for actives simply because when plugging into a $3000 preamp strip you don't want to run your signal through 43¢ worth of redundant board circuitry including a noisy OpAmp selected for sourcing at 16¢ instead of 19¢ and being able to draw low enough current to keep a 9V battery alive a little longer.
If you think that's a good plan, be prepared for hostile skepticism from the engineer being paid to make your track sound the way it should.
Sounds like a strong bias to me.
I've never had an engineer from San Fran to the East Coast have a problem. I fact I've had them complement the tone. They didn't have to add or subtract anything.
Guess where I've done sessions the engineers have had experience with different instruments coming in.
They certainly wouldn't tell an act that they suddenly needed to use some sound that wasn't theirs.
How many cents of wire and capacitors are in this passive bass you're plugging into these expensive studio pres?
You sure are arguing for people to use expensive basses. If so may I point you to some of those threads?
I know live that I get smiles and raised eyebrows from sound engineers.
No reason to have a position. Not at all. You can like what you like without not liking something else.
Any engineer worth his salt knows how to record an active bass. I recorded an entire album with one despite having numerous passive basses with me. It sounded great and the engineer had no problem making it sound perfect in the mix. This is just outdated thinking.
Anyone going back to passive basses?
Yes!
and No!
Love them all!!
Those Laklands are beauties!
Wow, I didn't realize so many of you have made the switch. My inspiration came from listening to the Jamiroquai album, Rock, Dust, Light Star. I read that Paul Turner used a passive jazz for most of the tracks (he also has an Aleva Coppoloa 5 string which I assume is active). The tracks I saw him play on a video were with a passive Fender Jazz and man did it sound good! This was part of my revelation and when I picked up a passive jazz again after many years of absence, I was excited to play again.. almost like becoming a born again bass player... LOL!
The job of a good studio engineer is covering up various stupid choices and flubs of artists and (worse) producers, and do so with the maximum good grace and minimum downtime.
This doesn't mean their choices weren't stupid, it just means he can fix them because he's more competent than the people he's working with and for.
He'll have his laughs discussing these people behind their backs with other engineers who'll appreciate the humor. No, I'm not kidding.
As I've said many times before, a good engineer can make you sound good if you're playing a restrung tennis racket, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
I have never used an active-EQ bass that I didn't feel contributed undesirable qualities to the signal, including obscenely overpriced aftermarket controls with 43¢ worth of board components badly performing functions better done upstream in the signal path by better, higher-V circuitry -- and that's the bottom line.
Sure, the engineer can whip a noise gate on the mess and undo the EQing (which is his job, not yours), etc. -- but why should I put him in that position if I have a more suitable instrument?
A truly suitable passive professional studio bass is a very rare beast, cherrypicked from the start and meticulously set up. Adding a bunch of junk-grade, battery-operated and unnecessary onboard geekery is simply a step backward.
Use whatever works for you or whatever you can get away with, but that's the bottom line -- providing the best, cleanest raw signal to the board you can.
And that will never be "outdated."
Thanks. That's a Lakland USA Bob Glaub with a Joe Osborn neck 1.5" at the nut .77" 1st fret neck depth, .94" 12th fret neck depth and a Lakland USA Joe Osborn. East Indian Rosewood fretboards with Birdseye Maple dots. Both extremely lightweight.
The other is a Music Man Stingray Slo Special in Honeyburst. I've got some Sterlings (USA) also.
I find use for both my passive and active basses -- including recording (and I don't really care what an engineer supposedly thinks about it as the above poster seems to be very concerned about).
Bongolation said:
Arguing on the Internet
You're so late. Your passive is neo tech to an upright mic'ed. That was already argued.
If I provide a beautiful signal then the engineer doesn't have to do anything. I'm a player that they don't add compression to substitute for technique. I know where I've performed and for whom in what studios. You can have your opinion. Passive is not better than Active or vice versa. Just a preference for what ever you need.
Michael Rhodes top studio bassist seems to have both. I care to accept the inclusive over the exclusive argument. Actually leaves more choice.
I get called to play bass. No one ever cared which one. Why? Making music. Later tater.
