• 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.

Bass vs mic preamps: what will I lose?

#21
One thing to consider in choosing a preamp is the high pass filter. Bass preamps usually have a fixed high pass filter suited for a 4 or 5 string bass and mic preamps are either full range or have an adjustable filter. Some people like using mic pres for this reason, deeper low frequency extension, especially percussive muted sounds, or can raise the frequency of the filter if that is what they want. But if the preamp doesn't have a high pass filter, I would use it with caution at high volumes. I personally prefer to have an adjustable filter than no filter or a fixed filter.
 
#22
30.87hertz said:
Bass preamps usually have a fixed high pass filter suited for a 4 or 5 string bass and mic preamps are either full range or have an adjustable filter.
Click to expand...

If this is actually true then a great many companies have done a crap job of designing/implementing it. But I wonder if it isn't just hearsay from others who've claimed it because even here on talkbass we've seen some frequency sweeps of preamps in heads usually there's no indication of an effective HPF stategy in them. And I think between Tom's mag and stuff I've seen elsewhere I'd venture so say that the best that could be said is that perhaps preamps have something that vaguely resembles a HPF...

Sure would like to see a lot of real data, because I've cranked a signal generator into a fair amount of products that didn't seem to be doing much in this regard.

Also, unless you are designing some adjustability into it to suit at least a couple common cab tunings you probably haven't addressed it well. Because it's not that a bass is a four-string or five-string especially - though the lower tunings will often bring problems of overexcursion to light earlier, it's really more important that it address cab tunings.
 
#23
Ooops. Got so long winded I forgot to wrap it up with this ; } -

But yes, it is desirable to have a real HPF available, or at least a low shelving band that can be offset. Even a selectable 40/60 Hz switch (3rd order or better BW) would be usable for a lot of conventional cabs that're commonly employed for bass rigs.
 
#24
Still a further though about this: I don't see a lot of bass gear ad copy trumpeting products' high pass filters. And we know damn well that even if the consumer doesn't have a clue what something is, any perceived feature trump is likely to be bulleted if not dissected in marketing [del]claims[/del] literature.

So I don't think one is missing out when considering channel strips and pro preamps.
 
#25
silky smoove said:
I'll jump in on this one, even though it wasn't directed at me.

I've recently used a 737 with bass, vocals and acoustic guitar. It takes a good bit of knob turning when jumping from one instrument/vocal to the other, but the results have been great regardless of the instrument. The manual offers good starting points for a lot of different applications. I don't tend to use the exact settings that they show, but do use them as a starting point. Avalon has a tendency to make products that don't do much in the way of coloring your tone, but the coloring they do is almost always fantastic. Low/no noise, high headroom, clean, punchy, fat and simply great all around regardless of the clean application provided you're willing to familiarize yourself with the controls and go through the necessary amount of knob fiddling to get where you want to go.
Click to expand...


I had 2 737's for a long time and they never really did anything for me. HATED them on acoustic guitars, decent on vocals (female more so) and it was ok for bass too. It just did nothing for the sound. Had a 2022 for a while and thought it was much better. I do love the U5 though and the 2044 . . .I always wished they would take a 2044 and pop a u5 on one side for a killer bass/instrument pre . . . all imo ymmv

for me the one that blew my mind was a Chandler Limited TG-2. Just sounds good on everything. It adds such a nice texture and tone. Never once was disappointed . . . I would love a TG channel as a bass pre into a nice power amp. that'd be an amazing amp - and as Greenboy said maybe a nice pedal for a touch of dirt . . .
 
#27
That whole question of high-pass filters is a mess for sure. Some people claim that "virtually all" amps have high-pass filtering, but then -as GB said- where is the evidence? Where is it mentioned in the ads or the manuals, and how do we know otherwise? In the cases where manufacturers like Genz have stated on here that they do use filtering, does their filter perform in a way that shows useful results (by whoever's various standards)? To be clear, I'm not denying or doubting anything, just pointing out that really it cannot be assumed that bass preamps in general have useful low-cut filters.

To the OP, you generally won't lose anything by using a non-bass preamp, with the possible exception of a guitar-specific preamp that may be designed to roll off some low end. But there are very few guitar-specific preamps out there. :)
 
#28
jnewmark said:
Any opinions on the Presonus preamps, especially the Eureka, or others that feature EQ and Compression?
Click to expand...

i thought that my eureka was a decent sounding pre, but not as clear and punchy as some of my others.
the biggest problem for me was its tight knob layout (& the eq layout was kinda wierd) and hard to read front panel on stage.
 
#29
#30
the only reason i'd use a high end mic pre for a bass pre would only be if i was using a high end bass or PA cab that's more on the neutral side. you lose all the goodness of said pre w/ a cheap or overly voiced cab. what's the point when you cant hear all the awesome nuances of said nice mic pre?

also, i tend to like an EQ that's more dramatic and drastic for those on the fly on the gig EQ changes. mic pre's tend to be more surgical and only change your sound in very small increments to properly sit a track in a mix.
 
#31
jokerjkny said:
also, i tend to like an EQ that's more dramatic and drastic for those on the fly on the gig EQ changes. mic pre's tend to be more surgical and only change your sound in very small increments to properly sit a track in a mix.
Click to expand...

I do agree w/ this. I've gotten used to having 2 eq's on my set up. one that is the tone I like, and rarely (if ever) gets touched. the other I use to compensate for the room.
 
#32
Yes! The most sensible thing is to have "tone" EQ (if needed/wanted) and "corrective" EQ, where the "tone" goes to both stage amp and FOH, while the "corrective" only goes to the stage amp. Of course that's only for gigs with PA support. And that's where a mic-type transparent channel strip really makes sense: you use a pedal or other tone-shaping device, then a DI box, and then the channel strip; the tone-shaping goes to the PA, and the functions of the channel strip deliver a clean and effective version of it, with corrective EQ (and sometimes compression), to your onstage power amp.
 
#33
I'm in the mic preamp camp. I rarely use EQ in my bass signal path before FOH. I also like the punch of no filter in use on the preamp, but I do filter on my power amp before the cab so I don't punch the driver out of the cab.

Currently I own and use a SansAmp BDDI, which has a very large mid scoop. As best I can, I defeat that. I like the drive on it, though it took me a long time to figure out how to set it relatively flat and still blend in some drive.

Also I use a PreSonus TubePre. I love the sound I get through it, but it has not been without problems. This is the 2nd one I've had, and I expected it would die by now, but it hasn't. See my review here if you want to know more: [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

The TubePre has a switchable filter, mostly meant for condenser mics. It's too high for electric bass, so that normally stays off. What I've noticed is I can push on my bass strings with no filtering and watch the speaker cone move in response. I rather like that kind responsiveness, especially when recording. I can always take it out, and would rather do so than try to compensate for lack of lows. FWIW, the SansAmp does not have this ability.

Hope my experience proves to be helpful to someone. If you go the mic preamp route, use some sort of filtering, even if it's on the power amp. Your speakers will thank you. The FOH engineer can worry about the rest IMHO.
 
#34
The evidence that bass amps have high pass filters is that some print it in their specs (phil jones bass for example), some are switchable (acoustic image sweepable filter, GK deep switch for example), all the bass amps that have been scoped in Bass Gear Magazine show high pass filtering, and most importantly of all, I can hear the filtering vs. a mic pre without filtering. I think Greenboy and I are discussing different things when we say high pass filter. I guess what we are really debating is what frequency and slope is considered "useful" high pass filtering for bass guitar versus not useful filtering. The reason some don't mention it in their literature I speculate from a marketing point of view that it doesn't "sound good" that a bass amp should cut the low end.

Again to the OP, it may not have sounded like this in my last post, so let me clarify, I like mic pres better than bass pres, but find one with an adjustable hpf so you don't get the 20 hz thump and rumble. Most mic pres are designed to be full range, ie., 20-20k.
 
#35
After trying all these things I'd say I (YMMV) found that dedicated bass pres were the best. Eq points on channel strips while cool in the studio monitors and on tape/hd are not appropriate for live work.
PA power amps get ugly when they run out if headroom. Bass amps stay musical when they distort from running out of headroom.
 
#36
I use a Yamaha PB-1 bass-specific pre-amp paired with a QSC PLX1804 900W x 2 CH Professional Class-D PA power amp. This combo gives a very clean Hi-Fi tone that really lets the tone of the bass come through with little or no coloring. The PB-1 has a real parametric EQ and also a built-in crossover for bi-amping. Really nice piece of HW! Sounds a lot better to me through my Hartke Hydrive HX410 Vs the SVT-810E cab, less color and more cut-through.

If you want a very clean Hi-Fi tone and your amp is running out of headroom you need a bigger amp! An overkill amp like the QSC PLX1804 fits the bill perfectly and has reasonable weight as well. The controls on the PB-1 are excellent, complete and very well laid-out for easy view and use.
 
#37
Tenma4 said:
FWIW, the SansAmp does not have this ability.
Click to expand...

I agree, I had one and quickly got rid of it because it filtered out everything below 40hz in active mode. I didn't like that at all. I also agree with liking the punch of the sound unfiltered, I wish I could get that sound in a live setting, but I guess that's why we play with the bass drum.
 
#38
To weigh in quickly on the power amp part of the discussion: I got a Crest CA6 power amp some years ago and that thing sounds amazing and has lots of headroom. IME, a bass power amplifier means an amplifier with tons of clean power. That beast is heavy as hell and it sucks to have to lug it around town but it's a workhorse and sounds better than anything I've tried, including the newer light-weight power amps. Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that the heavier equipment just sounds better for my playing/gigging. That also includes the lighter weight cabs. :crying:
 
#39
chadds said:
After trying all these things I'd say I (YMMV) found that dedicated bass pres were the best. Eq points on channel strips while cool in the studio monitors and on tape/hd are not appropriate for live work.
Click to expand...

I guess if I was buying I wouldn't be buying set EQ points and curves - I'd be buying parametric.



PA power amps get ugly when they run out if headroom. Bass amps stay musical when they distort from running out of headroom.
Click to expand...

Amusing generality that, old chap!
 
#40
30.87hertz said:
The evidence that bass amps have high pass filters is that some print it in their specs (phil jones bass for example), some are switchable (acoustic image sweepable filter, GK deep switch for example), all the bass amps that have been scoped in Bass Gear Magazine show high pass filtering, and most importantly of all, I can hear the filtering vs. a mic pre without filtering. I think Greenboy and I are discussing different things when we say high pass filter. I guess what we are really debating is what frequency and slope is considered "useful" high pass filtering for bass guitar versus not useful filtering. The reason some don't mention it in their literature I speculate from a marketing point of view that it doesn't "sound good" that a bass amp should cut the low end.

Again to the OP, it may not have sounded like this in my last post, so let me clarify, I like mic pres better than bass pres, but find one with an adjustable hpf so you don't get the 20 hz thump and rumble. Most mic pres are designed to be full range, ie., 20-20k.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, it is exactly due to the extended frequency range of my U5 compared to my other bass pre's that it causes clipping in my poweramp at an earlier/lower volume... and the irony is that most of the frequencies causing it can't even be heard through the bass amp, although I think the PA system using the DI send probably can project a wider spectrum
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back