• 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.

Double Bass Clevinger Concerto info

PhatBasstard

PhatBasstard

Spector Dissector
Feb 3, 2002
8,191
3,010
Tacoma WA
#1
Just picked this up in a pawn shop.
Clevinger's site is horribly out of date.
I can tell it's a Concerto and has the Holosonic pickup added.

The controls are a little befuddling.
It's a three knob configuration.
The top one is obviously volume.
The second one seems to be blending between a more acoustic sound (counter clockwise) and a more "pickup" type sound (clockwise),
but I'm not totally sure.
The bottom one is a mystery. It does seem to roll off highs, but also takes the volume down to about 25% (fully counter clockwise).
Really confusing.

Does anyone know some info on this bass?
Is there a (dying) battery hidden somewhere (nothing in the back panels)?

Clevinger has no page, links or .pdf's with this info.:hmm:

Thanks.
 
#3
DoubleMIDI said:
Just guessing:
The second one is a basic tone control (low pass filter), the third a pickup blender. Try it bowed and dial the third one in and out.
Click to expand...
Thanks,
Actually, the second one is acting more like a High Pass as the fully clockwise position is much bassier and "pickup" sounding. Where counter clockwise it is noticably thinner, but more acoustic sounding.

You may be right about the third one, but why would it be so much quieter on one side (pickup) vs. the other?
I had an NS4M that had both the arco and pizz pickup system, but both were relatively the same volume (played pizz as I don't bow).
That system was active though. Which is why I wonder if there isn't a (dead or dying) battery hidden somewhere.
I took off all the back panels but nothing.
The tailpeice is big/thick enough possibly to hide one.
Just didn't want to take it all apart to check it. :hmm:
 
#5
DoubleMIDI said:
Probably because they use an all passive design avoiding the use of batteries and adjustment trimmer pots. Or they just forgot to integrate a trimmer pot for adjustment or it was intended to use the softer end for arco which might be too loud otherwise.

Really not worth speculating about...
Click to expand...

You're probably right,
but speculation is what I'm trying to eliminate. ;)
 
#6
The passive network on those old Clevenger Basses, I think they used 100k pots. Lousy choice, bad science experiments imo. Not the best load for the piezos. You could consider ditching the existing pu system for something a little more modern. I believe Steve and Jill Azola was using a EMG BTC preamp by the time they got a clue that the passive networks they learned from the Clevengers were of very poor design. Clevenger had a lot of drive, and really brought the EUB back from obscurity in the USA, but he went a little far back in the 90's in claiming he's invented the instrument (in fact Lloyd Loar invented the first model in the 1920's for Gibson)..it got crazy with the pu designs as well. The good news is that Clevenger built some very solid axes,the ebony fingerboards on some of the old ones are often AAAA+ quality.
 
#7
MR PC said:
The passive network on those old Clevenger Basses, I think they used 100k pots. Lousy choice, bad science experiments imo. Not the best load for the piezos. You could consider ditching the existing pu system for something a little more modern. I believe Steve and Jill Azola was using a EMG BTC preamp by the time they got a clue that the passive networks they learned from the Clevengers were of very poor design. Clevenger had a lot of drive, and really brought the EUB back from obscurity in the USA, but he went a little far back in the 90's in claiming he's invented the instrument (in fact Lloyd Loar invented the first model in the 1920's for Gibson)..it got crazy with the pu designs as well. The good news is that Clevenger built some very solid axes,the ebony fingerboards on some of the old ones are often AAAA+ quality.
Click to expand...
Thanks,
Yeah, I read something else on another forum about the pot value issue. They seemed to have resolved the issue by swapping them out. I will probably give that a shot. I just would like to resolve "exactly" what they are each "supposed" to be doing definitively.

You're right about the build quality and the (huge, thick) ebony board. This bass even sounds acoustically more upright like than my old NS Design CR4M, and I had tons of friends that owned other EUB's that loved that one.

I just figured out that an old tripod base from an old drum throne (seat broke and was eliminated) fits the pole stand perfectly! So I guess I won't need the $349 tripod from Clevinger (he still hasn't answered anything anyway :hmm:).
 
#8
As far as what they are exactly supposed to be doing..I think it's safe to say they are doing what they are supposed to do. Volume, pickup blend, and tone control. That passive blending system was a nightmare of phase issues on the Azola and Clevenger basses I owned.
 
#9
MR PC said:
As far as what they are exactly supposed to be doing..I think it's safe to say they are doing what they are supposed to do. Volume, pickup blend, and tone control. That passive blending system was a nightmare of phase issues on the Azola and Clevenger basses I owned.
Click to expand...

What I can't figure is, is the second one blending between the two pickups with the third rolling off highs, but mysteriously taking 75% of the volume with it,

or....

Is the second one acting as a low end roll off (probably, as I'm hearing the ambient reverb effect from what I assume is the acoustic body pickup in any position) with the third one being a pickup blend with one pickup being much quieter (and less bright) than the other.
:hmm:
 
#11
MR PC said:
Have you disassembled it yet? Time to troubleshoot the individual components, don't you think?
Click to expand...

The thing is, I can get usable sound out of it.
It's just annoying not knowing exactly what's going on with those two knobs.
And not having a .pdf for download in this day and age is unforgivable...if you're still in business...
...or even if you're not. :eyebrow:
I am going to check into the pot value issue and possibly replace them, though.

On a related note:
This just in. Apparently the email I sent to them on their site link a few days ago has just come back as "undeliverable". :hmm:
 
#12
Edit:
Traced the wiring.
The only pickup is the 4 piezos in the bridge.
From what I can tell, they all have been wired together to one side of the bottom pot (hots) and to ground.
And, yes, the second and third pots are the dreaded 100k.

So, it looks like a onboard (probably 2 band) pre is in order.

Any suggestions?
 
#13
Just to share my experience:

On my old Clevinger the two piezos were connected in parallel. When I disconnected one of the piezos, the sound got immediately better. It didn't matter which one, connecting two passive piezo in parallel is not a good idea.
So for my (new and homemade) two piezos, I made a simple impedance buffer for each of them, then mixing the output together by two resistors (and a pot). This sounds much better than any passive multi-piezo design.
Also any pots, resistors and capacitors for volume and tone should be either disconnected for a better sound or placed behind an impedance buffer.

OK, I need a battery now, but since I made an autoswitch on the cable plug and additionally a power switched volume pot (after the impedance buffers of course), my battery lasted for a really long time, still on the first recharge after more than half a year of weekly rehearsals. It might drain the battery faster only if I forgot to remove the plug from the instrument and didn't switch it off with the volume knob.

I didn't want to say you need to change things, just that things may (!) work better with a different electronic design. But that might also be a question of personal taste and preference.
 
#14
DoubleMIDI said:
Just to share my experience:

On my old Clevinger the two piezos were connected in parallel. When I disconnected one of the piezos, the sound got immediately better. It didn't matter which one, connecting two passive piezo in parallel is not a good idea.
So for my (new and homemade) two piezos, I made a simple impedance buffer for each of them, then mixing the output together by two resistors (and a pot). This sounds much better than any passive multi-piezo design.
Also any pots, resistors and capacitors for volume and tone should be either disconnected for a better sound or placed behind an impedance buffer.

OK, I need a battery now, but since I made an autoswitch on the cable plug and additionally a power switched volume pot (after the impedance buffers of course), my battery lasted for a really long time, still on the first recharge after more than half a year of weekly rehearsals. It might drain the battery faster only if I forgot to remove the plug from the instrument and didn't switch it off with the volume knob.

I didn't want to say you need to change things, just that things may (!) work better with a different electronic design. But that might also be a question of personal taste and preference.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's looking like the whole passive thing is a bust.
I'm just now researching what's out there in possible on-board pre's vs. wiring the piezos to the output jack and getting an outboard box like the Baggs or something.
 
#15
PhatBasstard said:
Edit:
Traced the wiring.
The only pickup is the 4 piezos in the bridge.
From what I can tell, they all have been wired together to one side of the bottom pot (hots) and to ground.
And, yes, the second and third pots are the dreaded 100k.

So, it looks like a onboard (probably 2 band) pre is in order.

Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

One pickup under each string? That could be the RMC system, which was a very expensive option. Something like 100 bucks per string. "Robert McClish" made those I believe, though Clevinger would of been responsible for the on board wiring.

That wiring sounds like a mess
 
#16
The one pickup per string directly under the strings (like the Wilson K4 or some RMC pickups intended for use with MIDI conversion systems) might be a different beast. Wilson has a single passive output, so either connceting them in parallel (assumed) or serial. Maybe they would even sound better with a separate impedance buffer for each string and mix them afterwards. Seems they are sound enough the way they were connected. It might also depend on the geometry and crystal orientation of the piezos. It seems that like thicker crystals show less of this effect than thinner ones.

BTW, any MIDI 13-pin pickup has a single opamp for each string. So a mixed signal might be built after the opamps, but usually is just coming from the normal pickup of the instrument.
 
#17
MR PC said:
One pickup under each string? That could be the RMC system, which was a very expensive option. Something like 100 bucks per string. "Robert McClish" made those I believe, though Clevinger would of been responsible for the on board wiring.

That wiring sounds like a mess
Click to expand...

DoubleMIDI said:
The one pickup per string directly under the strings (like the Wilson K4 or some RMC pickups intended for use with MIDI conversion systems) might be a different beast. Wilson has a single passive output, so either connceting them in parallel (assumed) or serial. Maybe they would even sound better with a separate impedance buffer for each string and mix them afterwards. Seems they are sound enough the way they were connected. It might also depend on the geometry and crystal orientation of the piezos. It seems that like thicker crystals show less of this effect than thinner ones.

BTW, any MIDI 13-pin pickup has a single opamp for each string. So a mixed signal might be built after the opamps, but usually is just coming from the normal pickup of the instrument.
Click to expand...
The Holosonic bridge has one piezo under each string.
Each with it's own wire containing a hot (red) and ground (braid).
All the hots are wired together to one lug of the (blend?) pot.
All the braids are together to ground.

Currently....:smug:
 
#19
MR PC said:
Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Mr. PC
From reading this thread and the Clevenger Mega Thread, it's beginning to sound like Martin was more of a conceptualist, who was able outsource his pickups, and woodworking to other manufactures and luthiers, that were responsible for the actual instrument builds. Once he had built the prototype, People like Robert Lee, Michael Bennet, Steve Azola, and Robert McGlish, actually produced either the electronics or the bodies of his his instruments. Since I'm pretty sure that Robert Lee built my bass, I'm going to email him to see if he can help me with the Diamond Sonance repairs.

Ric
 
#20
I haven't found an onboard pre I want to go with, so here's what I'm thinking:

It's currently a 3 knob layout.
Eliminate one knob for an A/B switch.
A: Piezos routed to a typical two knob, vol/tone configuration with some better pots (values).
Won't be the greatest, but this is to be only used in a pinch.
B: Piezos routed directly to the jack.
Used with an outboard pre or amp that has a piezo ready input.

Any thoughts?

Also, of the belt clip style outboard pre's available (Baggs, K&K, etc.), who likes what? Why?

Thanks
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back