• 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.

Do we really need high-end basses with intricate active electronics?

#82
I haven't read the entire thread, but FWIW Soundgear isn't a lower-tier brand of Ibanez (like Squier is to Fender, Epiphone to Gibson, etc.) Soundgear basses are models that fall under the Ibanez line, just like a Jazz bass would fall under Fender's brand; within in that there's different tiers of SR basses (Premium vs. Standard, for example). The closest to a Squier equivalent that Ibanez has is the Gio (GSR) series.

Okay, now that that's out of the way...

I think a player should be able to decided what bass works for them. It's why there's so many options...no option is inherently right for everyone, it just has to be right for one person. If someone believes they need active electronics to sound best then they will purchase a bass with active electronics.
 
#84
I´m about to start a "do we really need low end basses with poor electronics?" .....just kidding.

Ok, now I still have to see a bass that plays like a high end boutique coffe table. But not for the fancy tops but for their playability, ergonomics and how the woods resonates as an all.

The electronics on a really high end bass is just an add, but are really handy when I have a problematic room. Normally I use all the filter at 0db. But there is another thing about electronics: the on-board preamp acts like a buffer for driving long cables in live app.
 
#85
I have changed viewpoint over the years. Because I was once in a situation where I was playing rented / back line bass rigs, I could not depend on a constant bass sound on stage. I was talked into putting an on board 3 band EQ in my bass, and now I prefer it. The real eye opener is when I blew my bass amp ina show. The sound guy saw that I had a preamp on my bass, so he set up a power amp and a speaker, and adjusted the input gain. And I heard what I had been hearing in my head for years. I later duplicated that, but added a tube compressor to warm up the sound, and it was beautiful. My thinking is that a bass amp should be an amplification device, and whatever tone shaping it does should be in its circuitry. But I like having my tone controls on my bass - if I have a tune that needs more mid bark, all I have to do is to turn a knob on the bass, not go back tot he amp. But a lot of active basses try to be the "one bass does it all" instrument, and in the process, they become too complex. I had a couple of those and I got frustrated a lot because I would find a sound, then lose it. So I went back to basses that each have a characteristic sound, but adding a preamp that doesn't change the basic sound of the bass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVE and Rip Topaz
#86
gregmon79 said:
Dude, that BTB line is pimp. I so want one someday. Probably one of the older 4 strings. They are wonderful basses. A fellow low ender recently acquired one of the 5 stingers. Not my thing, the 5 string, but man, was it sweet! Sounded so awesome and played rather great. IMO, Ibanez is a great instrument builder.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I love mine. For the first 15 or so years that I played, I was really fond of the SR line from Ibanez. This is my first BTB. It won't be my last.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gregmon79
#87
To the OP,
I've got a bass with the vol and tone bypassed completely!!!
I guess that makes ME better than you! ;)

Seriously, your entire concept of 'simple is better' - 'less is more' is fundamentally flawed as the very concept is "more" in and of itself. In other words, if you have to have a concept of "less is more" (or in your case, passive is better than active) then the use of such a concept itself is adding something that is not essential to the equation. It is superfluous, get rid of it.

Get back in the woodshed and practice playing bass and stop wasting valuable time thinking about such nonsense. Learn to play maj7, min7, maj6, min6, augmented, and diminished, in that order; arpeggiated 1/4 notes in the entire circle of 5ths to a metronome at 60bpm; all twelve keys without making any errors; then come back and tell us if you still think people who play passive basses are somehow more connected to their instruments.

I apologize for the snobby ass, "I'm better than you" tone, but that's exactly what I was getting from your original post.
 
#88
Geri O said:
I'm in the large portion of responders that wonder, "what is the point of this question/topic?".

Is it that posters like this (I won't call them trolls, perhaps they really ponder this topic, but WHY?) like to see discourse and arguments between people who know nothing of each other, not to mention the needs and preferences of each other? Is it to just see their question on a forum and to watch what happens?

I've owned Precisions and Alembics and nearly everything in between. I NEVER had an instrument that didn't bring something awesome to my bag of tricks. Most of those instruments were traded because I needed another trick. Now, with 2 Fenders and a Stingray, my bag of tricks is once again well-equipped for anything I run into.

I can watch Henrick Linder and his $$$$$$ Mattison basses and be positively blown away at the sound of the bass, as well as his chops.

I can be just as excited about watching a college jazz lab band where the kid playing bass is playing a Squire Jazz and absolutely wearing it out.

I'm sorry, but in my end of the week, frustrated frame of mind this morning, this entire thread is a 100% waste of time. I can't believe I wasted time responding.
Click to expand...
I did wonder the same thing - I didn't care for the OPs language or disparaging of others, but I assumed he actually was wondering what the advantage was. Given that he hasn't come back insulting everyone, I will continue to assum he genuinely wanted to know and simply overstated his case on the "passive is sufficient" front.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ReidK
#89
"Different strokes for different folks"

That seems to be the catch-all answer.
For my input - I prefer active electronics. Easier to tweak while playing in a live setting. A touch of mids or a slight roll back on bass with my actives makes a HUGE change in the band setting.
 
#91
danosix said:
I did wonder the same thing - I didn't care for the OPs language or disparaging of others, but I assumed he actually was wondering what the advantage was. Given that he hasn't come back insulting everyone, I will continue to assum he genuinely wanted to know and simply overstated his case on the "passive is sufficient" front.
Click to expand...

IME, trolls start the questions and sit back to watch the fireworks. They rarely come back and comment. Participation is not the goal. Real posters come back to at least thank the responders.
 
#92
two fingers said:
Poor guy also dragged HIMSELF through the sand. And if you'll do a little more digging, you will find out that he used several basses. Often, he used a different bass because his was in the pawn shop. So his "one bass" probably stemmed more from not being able to AFFORD another one.

Also, he pretty much had one sound. Now, he changed the bass world with that one sound. But it was what it was. His sound would not have worked in almost any other setting. Using his talent, he FORCED that tone to work where he used it.

Can you imagine Victor Wooten, Stanley Clark, Steve Bailey, Jamerson, Glaub, Duck, or any of the other greats being forced to work with Jaco's tone? Ridiculous notion.
Click to expand...
Actually, as you say, Jaco had (at one time or another) a TON of basses - he was famous for his beat up Jazz - but he had several of those - along with expensive custom made basses and other oddities.
Also, he may have been incredibly talented (or he may just have been on enough coke to make us all think he was) but who wants to be him? As you say, he was a wreck in every aspect of his life INCLUDING his playing to which he was notoriously unreliable (much like Jamerson in his final years).
 
#95
To sum up the OP:

FixOldNotNew_zpsae20941b.jpg

:D
 
#97
I too wrote a long winded response, but everything I wanted to say has already been said, and should be obvious.

I'll just leave it at this : OP, you don't have 2 basses with active pickups, you have 2 with active preamps: there's a difference.
 
#98
Embrace the technology! Would you drive an old Ford Pinto from the '70's or prefer a new vehicle with all the safety and technological advances? I love my active basses but appreciate my Fender P with flats.
 
#99
Neveragain55 said:
Many of you pointed out that some of those “older cats” ran their “simple” basses through exotic studio equipment, and it’s a fair point.

Honestly I hadn’t given that a lot of thought because I wasn’t looking at it from the context of studio work as much as I was looking at this through stage work where you wouldn’t have all of that state of the art equipment in a small venue.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point that most active preamps aren't particularly "exotic"--they essentially have similar tone-shaping options as many stage amps have had for decades. If you consider a standard bass amp with standard eq to be "state of the art equipment" that's a whole different discussion I guess.

So, question: do you run your bass amp flat so you can hone your chops without relying on the crutch of EQ, or do you surrender to the dark side and actually use the available controls?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fat Steve

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back