Double Bass Experience with MK Jazz EUB?

[Luigir]

SLB vs MK, it's a buy one cry once scenario. I think that yes the MK has a lot to offer for the price. Back when it was SLB200 vs the MK, it was a tossup and you could argue that you were getting a much better looking instrument in the MK. Either is not beautiful to me (nor is the SLB300). They all look like big crossbows.

With the SRT technology, the SLB300 is far more compelling. EQing helps with making the tone sound like a real UB than the former, but none of that can add resonance. In some rooms and venues, the lack of resonance is less perceptible. However I personally wanted to benefit from technology that solves the problem I've always had with EUB's. If you're going to buy a new EUB today, it makes no sense in not having this feature that makes a huge difference in sound (pun intended). I've heard people trying to use an MK or SLB200 + ToneDexter +EQ , but in the end it seems like a lot of effort to try to get a bass to do exactly what the SLB300 does right out of the box.

I prefere the MK basses for the very same argument you like Yamaha. I don't understand onboard electronic. IR and simulations are evolving so rapidly that the onboard Yamaha electronic might age faster than the bass.

I do have an MK and I'm using it via a 60$ Nux Mighty Plug with IR and cab-sim and it sounds very good. I could buy extra IR too but I didn't bother at the moment.

Yamaha are almost twice the price of am MK Studio and IMHO the difference cannot be justified by the electronic package.

 

[Martin Spure]

When I researched the MK vs SLB, the audio clips I found was somehow always in favor of the MK, to me. There’s something about the SLB(300)’s sound that I don’t like when I compare it to the MK’s. Don’t know what it is; perhaps the active preamp is doing something my ears don’t like?. That said, the SLB300 is still an awesome EUB, but with a much heftier price tag. I ended up with the MK Studio and don’t regret it for a second.

 

[uprightbass.com]

I suppose it depends what you intend to do and what your goal is. The justification for the price is subjective. It may not be worth it depending on the use case and the person. If a little $60 practice device for headphone floats your boat. More power to you.

Yes technology is always improving and this is a piece of technology. If something dramatically better comes out in the next 3 years I'll move on and be excited about it. Or maybe nothing comes out for 5+ years and I'd have sat waiting for something that doesn't exist yet. But I could then either in the future (a) go external if that is the better thing in the future or (b) sell this or pass it onto the local school and buy the latest and greatest and be happy with that.

When I researched the MK vs SLB, the audio clips I found was somehow always in favor of the MK, to me. There’s something about the SLB(300)’s sound that I don’t like when I compare it to the MK’s. Don’t know what it is; perhaps the active preamp is doing something my ears don’t like?. That said, the SLB300 is still an awesome EUB, but with a much heftier price tag. I ended up with the MK Studio and don’t regret it for a second.

The strings. Those Helicore Hybrid Lights brand new are extremely harsh through this bass. Even after they dull some, they sound thin. Change the strings to something with a synthetic core.

 

[336v]

SLB vs MK, it's a buy one cry once scenario. I think that yes the MK has a lot to offer for the price. Back when it was SLB200 vs the MK, it was a tossup and you could argue that you were getting a much better looking instrument in the MK. Either is not beautiful to me (nor is the SLB300). They all look like big crossbows.

With the SRT technology, the SLB300 is far more compelling. EQing helps with making the tone sound like a real UB than the former, but none of that can add resonance. In some rooms and venues, the lack of resonance is less perceptible. However I personally wanted to benefit from technology that solves the problem I've always had with EUB's. If you're going to buy a new EUB today, it makes no sense in not having this feature that makes a huge difference in sound (pun intended). I've heard people trying to use an MK or SLB200 + ToneDexter +EQ , but in the end it seems like a lot of effort to try to get a bass to do exactly what the SLB300 does right out of the box.

It's not about making MK do what SLB does (as if MK's goal is catching up with SLB). It's about making either one of them do what an acoustic DB does, and they both excel in it, despite sounding somewhat differently. ADBs also do sound differently depending on the strings, wood, etc, so one can argue that an MK (NOT SLB) sounds exactly like THIS acoustic DB, but another may say his SLB sounds like HIS DB, and MK can't do that, and both will be right. But I get what you're saying - all the external pre-amps gear gets packed inside SLB so less extra stuff on the outside. OTOH, you're stuck with SLB's technology, no freedom to use raw output and experiment with your own gear if you want to. Many will see it as a limitation, sort of one-button consumer photo camera - it does everything automatically for you, but no pro uses it - all creativity of non-standard photography is taken away by the technology manufacturer thinks is best for you.

MK vs SLB is not quite apples to apples comparison because MK is passive bass and SLB is passive bass + bunch of electronics. You can always add that bunch to MK if you're creative, but never take away from SLB - as I said, you're stuck with what Yamaha had decided to implement *it* thinks is best for *you*.

With an MK I make sound. With SLB - manufacturer has final say and mostly makes sound for me. No matter how similar to ADB, this fact alone is a turnoff for me. But that's just me.

At the end of the day it's a matter of taste opinion and likes. Many like out-of-the-box solution, others - raw ingredients that allow to experiment.

I don't regret getting an MK, despite ending up paying about the same as brand new SLB300 is. if someone would offer me to swap them for free, I would not do it. I like cameras with many buttons (e.g. options and choices...).

 

[uprightbass.com]

I can respect that. But you do realize that you can completely bypass all of the electronics if you choose to do so on the SLB300 right? You can (a) go all piezo so it's the right impedance for whatever low impedance equipment you need to feed or you can go completely piezo and completely direct from piezo. In your other hobby (photography), you might not be able to just go all analog if you want. BTW, lots of photographers do use iPhones these days and the SLR is becoming pointless.

I get that a lot of you like to add devices and tweak things and do all of this gadgetry which is a hobby in itself. A lot of BGers have mentalities no different than car enthusiasts (or camera equipment enthusiasts). For the rest of us, that takes time away from just going out and performing music.

 

[336v]

Thanks for info, I did not know that SLB300 has raw piezo sensors output that bypasses all the electronics
(that's not the same as set everything to "flat" response as if there's no electronics the signal goes through).
The SLB300 then is more "universal" bass. All that can be added to MK at the price difference. I mention one-button camera just to illustrate my point by analogy, I'm not into photography.
And I do agree, plug-and-play is desirable for probably majority of musicians who don't care much or don't understand (and don't want to understand) bandwidths, impedances and other non-musical stuff, which is seen as distraction from playing. For those the SLB200 or 300 seems better option then. I'm not trying to convince otherwise, I'm just in the minority, that's all.
The topic was "Experience with MK Jazz EUB", so I've described my experience with MK Jazz. This experience happen to also involve required external electronic hardware, so I've mentioned it. This hardware sure could be integrated in other basses, but we're supposed to try to focus on MK's in this thread.

 

[336v]

Last week I took my MK Jazz to a gig in supplied soft case, and it immediately became apparent that the case leaves a lot to be desired. It does protect the instrument from dust or rain, but the bass wobbles inside, almost bouncing when carried vertically as a backpack with supplied shoulder straps. It sticks up ridiculously high, and when carried with hand straps it goes nose down because its center of gravity is not in the middle where the straps are. So I've changes the hand straps position, cut off stock shoulder straps and made one on the back of the case, not on the side, so the back of the instrument is touching your back (through the foam insert), not its side. Also, I've decided to make a foam insert shaped after the bass, so it fits in snug and does not bounce around if carried over the shoulder. I bought 3" think sheet of gray foam, stack and glued together 2 individual cutouts for the main cavity and one layer glued to the inside of flip-out cover. The whole project took 3 evenings, including making a hot wire jig to cut the foam. Despite somewhat crude looking if looked at closely, the foam insert does the padding job very well. Here are few photos of what it looks like. I wish supplied soft cases would have similar construction. May be someone will get inspired by this and comes up with even better idea how to protect their bass better and carry it far more comfortably.

 

[DoubleMIDI]

Great job! Really looks like it should have been delivered that way.