• 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.

Making my SR500 passive?

autodidact

autodidact

Mar 13, 2011
2,054
101
#1
Alright after years of GASing for an Ibanez SR500 I finally got one a few months ago. I loved it at first but as times gone on I'm finding less practical uses for it and my PJs are getting all the love. I like the bright aggressive tone I get out of the PJs but even when I EQ the Ibby preamp it still just doesn't sound right...too snappy and thin. Yes, before anyone rushes in, I know it wont do the PJ sound. I'm just thinking I'm more of a passive guy which has come as a little bit of a shock to me honestly after playing nothing but Ibanez for the last 5 years.

I've been contemplating posssibly bypassing the pre and just running the bass passive with Volume, Tone and I guess dummy knobs? Anyone have any experience doing something like this with a Soundgear? Any ideas on what the Bart MK-1s might sound like without the pre?

Thanks everyone I'd love to have done a search first but the mobile app isn't great with the search function.
 
#2
Hey there,

I play a much cheaper Ibby, a GSR200EX. Well actually it's not an EX anymore, as I bypassed the pre-amp-phat-thing. First I took off the input and output wires, which I connected to each other. I found out that it sounded better and gave me some extra headroom. So I made it a definite solution. The output level is just as high as it was with the phat-eq at the lowest level. If you leave the little circuit board in place, you can always change back. The somewhat clanky sound was cured with a set of d'Addario flatwound Chromes. The Ibby neck combined with the Chromes makes it a very fast and light to play bass.
 
#6
I think it's the 1st time when I see the 500's tone described as "thin"; is it by any chance the maple board version? And are you sure the preamp & pups are working as they should? 'Cause mine sounds just the opposite: massive tone with growly low mids and powerful lows. But it's the regular rosewood fretboard version fwiw.
 
#7
WoodyG3 said:
I suspect the "snappy and thin" tone is primarily from the pickups. I don't think going passive will do much for you.
Click to expand...

The problem with these basses isn't so much the pickups as it is the MK-1 preamp. I own a SR 535 and thought it sounded thin. Like the OP, I also thought something didn't sound quite right with them. I can't put it into words, but for me, it's something to do with the low and midrange frequencies they use. Swapping out the mediocre MK-1 preamp will have a much greater effect on the basses tone than if he were to swap out the pickups.

I used an NTMB system when I did mine, and it made the basses tone much more appealing to me. It corrected the midrange issue that I wasn't liking, and provided more depth/fullness in the low end, and overall, gave the bass a more even/well rounded tone.
 
#8
I don't know what you're talking about guys...SR500/505 is full sounding bass, with deep lows and very present mids - its thump can really felt like a punch in the chest. Unless you have unrealistic expectations related to its tone, then something else in your chain is affecting the tone (for ex my Wicks don't sound good through my Kustom rig).

IIRC the 535 model has a maple neck => it sounds different from a regular SR505. Heck, even a maple fretboard SR505 sounds a lot brighter than the normal 505.

PS: the new models have a mid frequency switch.
 
#10
IngerAlb said:
I think it's the 1st time when I see the 500's tone described as "thin"; is it by any chance the maple board version? And are you sure the preamp & pups are working as they should? 'Cause mine sounds just the opposite: massive tone with growly low mids and powerful lows. But it's the regular rosewood fretboard version fwiw.
Click to expand...

I have the regular rosewood model as well. I don't know if "thin" is the BEST word to describe it. With some boosting on the pre I agree with you its capable of shaking a house down but I guess what idk trying to say is it just sounds too active you know? There's always that little twang or it just feels like its missing some fullness as soon as I cut some of the frequencies on the pre. I might just be so used to the big fat P sound that other stuff sounds thinner by comparison.
 
#11
IngerAlb said:
IIRC the 535 model has a maple neck => it sounds different from a regular SR505. Heck, even a maple fretboard SR505 sounds a lot brighter than the normal 505.

PS: the new models have a mid frequency switch.
Click to expand...

The SR535 is the exact same electronically as the 505, it also has a rosewood neck. The only differences are the 535 is white and has gold hardware, purely cosmetic. Functionally its the same bass.
 
#12
This may or may not relate to your situation. I have an active P/J Charvel/Jackson that has a big but somewhat two-dimensional sound to it, and no growl/fatness at all. Or I should say "had." I disconnected the output of the pickup switch from the preamp and moved it to the output jack (first disconnecting the preamp's output from the output jack of course). So now it's J to switch and P to switch, and output of switch to jack. The difference is astounding. Like a ton of beef was hauled in. Totally different instrument. Sure, no tone or volume controls, but sound men love that part because they know their bass player can't spin a knob.

If going passive still doesn't get rid of the brittleness, you can take it further by loading down the instrument impedance-wise, even do it right inside the instrument cavity. It's not the same as a tone control because we're talking about a reduction in the impedance (primarily resistance) the instrument is working into. Try wiring a 1/2 watt or 1/4 watt 10 (or 20 or 25 or thereabouts) Kohm resistor right across the instrument jack's terminals, and you'll see what I mean. If you don't like clank, that'll kill it. Try higher values if too much treble went away. You could even wire in a 100K or 250K or 500K pot to act as a variable load resistor. Or, try running into a preamp where you can control the input impedance. One trick I use is to run into the LINE input of a cheap Peavey mixer, rated at 10 Kohms. Gives me a deep, fat sound. Not much treble, but it's for C&W and we leave that business to the Telecasters. I know this practice is almost unheard of and might get scoffed at, but believe me, heavy resistive loading is a valid method of obtaining the sound you want -- just as valid as any more-commonplace means of tone control.
 
#13
autodidact said:
The SR535 is the exact same electronically as the 505, it also has a rosewood neck. The only differences are the 535 is white and has gold hardware, purely cosmetic. Functionally its the same bass.
Click to expand...


No, the 535 does have a maple neck - and isn't nearly as stable as the 505, IME - I had a 535 that I wanted to like, but the neck was too flexable, so I returned it... The 505's neck is definitely more stable - and it isn't "rosewood" - it's jatoba/bubinga, IIRC...


- georgestrings
 
#14
georgestrings said:
No, the 535 does have a maple neck - and isn't nearly as stable as the 505, IME - I had a 535 that I wanted to like, but the neck was too flexable, so I returned it... The 505's neck is definitely more stable - and it isn't "rosewood" - it's jatoba/bubinga, IIRC...

- georgestrings
Click to expand...

You're right on the neck. My mistake
 
#15
autodidact said:
You're right on the neck. My mistake
Click to expand...




Happens to the best of us, bud... Believe it or not, there's a significant difference between the two - my 505s had extremely stable necks, while my 535 was very "whippy", for lack of a better descriptor... I wanted to like the 535, as it was pretty, and sounded good - but didn't think it would reliably hold a setup in upstate NY gigging conditions...


- georgestrings
 
#16
autodidact said:
I have the regular rosewood model as well. I don't know if "thin" is the BEST word to describe it. With some boosting on the pre I agree with you its capable of shaking a house down but I guess what idk trying to say is it just sounds too active you know?
Click to expand...

It's a well-known fact SRs have a particular sounding EQ - which is a kind of love - hate thing :)

I know someone who did this to a BTB and indeed it sounded fuller and more on the traditional side, but IMO BTBs are completely different animals, so I can't tell whether you will get a satisfactory result or not.
 
#18
IngerAlb said:
IIRC the 535 model has a maple neck => it sounds different from a regular SR505. Heck, even a maple fretboard SR505 sounds a lot brighter than the normal 505
Click to expand...

IMO/IME, it didn't sound any brighter or darker than the 505. I A/B them side by side for at least an hour, when I bought the 535. The deciding factor for me, was nothing more than aesthetics.

Also, the fretboard wood is not going to have a noticeable effect on tone. Most people see the maple, know it's an inherently bright sounding tone wood, then listen with their eyes, rather than with their ears.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back