I HATE Blend Pots!

[Geri O]

Another option that may have worked: https://www.talkbass.com/threads/ultimate-no-load-ungrounded-blend-pot-pics.1096449/

Riis

I’ve seen this post many times and wondered about it.

Does the ungrounded mod have as much effect with active-electronics basses?

I’m having no issues with my current set-up of blend pot and active preamp that I’m aware. My bass sounds fine with it. It stays in the center 99% of the time. Like others have mentioned, I don’t like having to turn two volumes when I turn the bass down (muting essentially - I stay at 100% on both pups of my Lull Jazz).

 

[FirewalZ]

I had a reverend Thundergun for a bit...i didnt like the blend pot either, i would much prefer two volumes. It was to dark sounding, not articulate or clear in the mix imo.

 

[Turnaround]

This is why I prefer Active instruments. They address, and in my opinion solve the issue you mention with passive blending.

Just so you know - most active basses use a passive blend control.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

To each their own, I can’t hear any tone difference, and it’s just easier with a blend.

 

[Jefenator]

I like the idea of the blend pot. I like the way they work sometimes.
The implementation in my old Yamaha BB5000AF is my favorite; it has active pickups.
This thread gets me wondering: is the blend pot holding back my other 5-string? The overall sound is actually really good, but it leans pretty heavily on the preamp to liven things up. Passive mode has always been quite underwhelming next to my passive V/T & V/V/T axes.

 

[HolmeBass]

I prefer blend knobs but have only used them on active basses.

It’s good to hear there is a good way to implement them on passive electronics, I wonder why all implementations don’t use the sonically superior “ungrounded” wiring scheme?

 

[jglunt]

On a passive bass, I've tried blend pots from 100k to 500k and tapers of audio, linear, and MN. I've also tried them grounded and ungrounded (as in the aforementioned post). They've never worked right or sounded right, and by 'right', I mean the way they should work and sound considering they are called "blend pots." However, I prefer a bass with a master volume so that, if I need to increase of decrease volume, I can do so without altering the balance between the two pickups. But blend pots on a passive bass just seem to castrate them. I do not know why. My solution was to add a master volume pot and run the individual pickup's volume pots to it, then from there on to the tone control. That works much better but usually demands a concentric pair of pots for the pickup volumes. The best blend pot I ever had was from the factory on a Steinberger Synapse bass, which is a fully active bass.

 

[jglunt]

I prefer blend knobs but have only used them on active basses.

It’s good to hear there is a good way to implement them on passive electronics, I wonder why all implementations don’t use the sonically superior “ungrounded” wiring scheme?

I've tried this method as prescribed in that post. I find that it's a colossal pain in the butt to implement if attempting to cut the trace as shown in the post. I totally ruined a pair of pots trying that and finally gave up, wiring it ungrounded without cutting the trace. I found it to be extremely mediocre. It cut all the balls out of my bass. The best thing I've tried is just wiring the pickups to individual concentric pots, then going from there to a master volume pot, then on to the tone control. You can adjust pickup balance much more precisely, and it sounds much better. I have found that a B500k pot works great as a master volume in most cases.

 

[SteveC]

I like having a master volume. I don't want to deal with finding the right "mix" with 2 knobs, or having to turn down 2 knobs when not playing or whatever. I had new pickups made for my G&L JB2 bass. I had them hum cancelling, and did the wiring as vol/blend/tone. My other 2 pickup basses are a fretted and fretless active 5 so it's not a problem, although sometimes it does sound a little more "open" if I cheat just a touch one way or the other, so I do get the OP's line of thinking. My other bass is a P so no issues there. The simple one pickup, one volume, one tone simplicity "wins" again.

 

[Dust2Dust]

The more I read threads like this, the more I like my P bass

One volume, one tone . . . life is good

 

[packhowitzer]

I may be in the minority here, but I'm a Master Volume, Master Tone, Pickup selector switch kind of guy. The Fender Tony Franklin is a good example of my preference:

 

[Fynn]

It's easy to confirm the things you already expect to be true. It's harder to realize that your perception might be flawed.
I don't like blend knobs either, but that's because I FEEL like I have more control with seperate volume knobs. I know for a fact that it wouldn't make a considerable, or perhaps even noticable, tone difference.

 

[Vitrius Humor]

Blend pot is actually called Hybrid up here...

 

[mr80htz]

My Thunderbird always sounded dull, even after new custom wound pickups. It had a CTS passive blend knob. Then fate intervened.

I bashed my blend knob so hard it broke. Damn! Ok, I’m rewiring the pot anyway, why not try a stacked knob? So I did. Jesus Christ the tone is better!

it’s like adding new strings. The definition is more pronounced and there’s more growl. I’m so happy that I have made this mod, and confirmed I HATE blend knobs for how they destroy tone and ‘feel’!

View attachment 5436131

That might be due to the pot itself being made differently. They are resistors and the material used to make them can change the tone of an instrument. I have done this with a few instruments and have been blown away by the differences. With that said, really dissapointed by the tone difference from Alpha pots to Bournes. Don't hate blends. They need friends too

 

[jerry]

I may be in the minority here, but I'm a Master Volume, Master Tone, Pickup selector switch kind of guy. The Fender Tony Franklin is a good example of my preference:

My Roscoe Beck has the pickup selector, my guitar playing buddies really like that feature, me, I'm a blend guy.

 

[wraub]

My two five string basses have active pickups and V/T/B for the controls. Works great.

 

[kyral210]

VVT, but the tone pot is a push/pull that acts as a kill switch.

SMART!

I may sound dumb trying to explain something I don’t fully understand, but this is the internet so I’ll be confidently incorrect. I do know that MN pots blend better when moving slightly off center.

It has to do with how they taper the volumes. An A series pot tapers in a linear way like this-

View attachment 5436384

Whereas an M series pot tapers like this-

View attachment 5436385

I’m sure it has something to do with the M series having the same volume values in the center detent instead of the A series being reversed. On the Fat Bass Tone site they say that the M series blend pots are used in Aguilar preamps and the A series are used in Nordstrand preamps. Like I said, I don’t fully understand the technical part of it, but I like the M series more.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. However, I trust measurements over illustrations.

I'm contemplating no pots whatsoever on my future passive basses. I have an old Ibanez with EMG PJs in it. (Yes, the pickups are active but they ran through a passive VVT circuit.) The bass sounded pretty darn good to begin with, but I removed the pots, ran the pickups parallel directly to the jack, and the bass sounds noticeably better. At least i can hear it. And since i almost always play my basses with both pickups full volume or 50/50 blend, and wide open tone, why kill that tone with any of those pots at all?

Congrats on the happy accident and the stacked knob tone success!

I love my Darkglass Tone capsule, so I’m thinking of ditching the volume and going strait to the preamp. Your idea is sound either way.

I like the idea of the blend pot. I like the way they work sometimes.
The implementation in my old Yamaha BB5000AF is my favorite; it has active pickups.
This thread gets me wondering: is the blend pot holding back my other 5-string? The overall sound is actually really good, but it leans pretty heavily on the preamp to liven things up. Passive mode has always been quite underwhelming next to my passive V/T & V/V/T axes.

Try it. A stacked volume pot is cheap and won’t take long to solder in. Yet it and see if you like it. For me, my bass is worth £1000 more than it was before!

I like having a master volume. I don't want to deal with finding the right "mix" with 2 knobs, or having to turn down 2 knobs when not playing or whatever. I had new pickups made for my G&L JB2 bass. I had them hum cancelling, and did the wiring as vol/blend/tone. My other 2 pickup basses are a fretted and fretless active 5 so it's not a problem, although sometimes it does sound a little more "open" if I cheat just a touch one way or the other, so I do get the OP's line of thinking. My other bass is a P so no issues there. The simple one pickup, one volume, one tone simplicity "wins" again.

Fair enough. I use a volume pedal on the floor for master volume.

 

[Zooberwerx]

Just so you know - most active basses use a passive blend control.

Audere is one exception…I’m sure there are others.

Riis

 

[eddododo]

I dropped a 3 way switch in my J bass a while ago and never looked back. I only ever used it with my pickups dimed anyway.

I had a setup I was fond of that used pickup switching with trim pots internally, such that I could switch between pre-set sweet spots of blend…

i’ve moved on to other approaches to smooth blending, But it’s a great option for anybody who finds that they are mainly using 100% one way or the other, with a small sweet spot in between that is irritating to find

 

[conttador]

I like ‘em both…