Is a 3 band EQ worth the extra money?

[Lagado]

If it is a mid option, I would always have it. That's where you control definition IME.

 

[MonetBass]

For a Jazz-type bass it makes sense because they tend to be mid-scooped, so you can bump up the mids to compensate.

 

[Scott Lynch]

With any bass or amp, I have found that it either has an inherent tone that I like, or not. When I don't like the tone, active EQ has rarely if ever been effective at sculpting it to a tone that I do like, and when it does, it typically changes the response of the instrument in a way that I don't like, or that feels artificial. (Note: I'm only talking BG here. EQ is absolutely necessarily for dialing in a good amped sound with DB.)

I do, however, love the passive tone control. It is a must-have on every bass I own and I always use it to find the sweet spot in treble rolloff that sounds good to me.

I have learned over time that the "EQ" that I like comes from the organic filtering effect of 1) strings, 2) pickups, 3) passive tone and/or 4) the speaker cabinets. The one exception is the active circuit on some basses - not the EQ per se, but the effect that the buffer has on the sound. It works for me in some instances.

Long story short, the 2 vs 3 band EQ argument is moot for me because I don't really use it. Occasionally (like maybe on 1 song per gig) I may dial in a mild bass boost as an effect if I'm playing my active bass.

 

[WillyW]

my amp has a whole bunch of knobs, I don't need more on my geetar

 

[glitchslap]

In my experience, I use the mid for tonal purposes. I really think it's all in your ear and you either have one or not.

 

[OldskoolRic]

3 band eq useful when running direct, otherwise scoop or boost your mud via your amp, that's all I have to say about that