my guess...older 18v EMG BQS. EMG tech support is pretty helpful and could answer on the dips. thinking about a current version of this for one of my Q6s, but sounds like the sweepable mid while nice and variable maybe a bit more control than needed.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Modulus Mob
- Thread starter rockstarbassist
- Start date
my guess...older 18v EMG BQS. EMG tech support is pretty helpful and could answer on the dips. thinking about a current version of this for one of my Q6s, but sounds like the sweepable mid while nice and variable maybe a bit more control than needed.
Diggin' the new Barts setup!...but always the tweaker and the tweak this time is string to pickup distance setting. first, I'm sure the overall answer to this is "it's personal preference". However, I've always had the bridge pickup closer to the strings than the neck based on what I've seen and my uninformed sense of even response distance (i.e. the string's amplitude over neck is greater than over the bridge). the Modulus site itself says distance is set for "even string balance and output" so there must be some science to it. On top of that, the pickups can be at different placements (eg the "turbo" double stack on some Qs) so not all double pickup Qs would have the same spec. all that said, is there some math that can be used based on the length of string (eg 35 in this case) and the center point of the pickup to determine neutral height for the two pickups. tweak on...
I've long been a lover of Bartolini pickups and I find them to be just the ticket for graphite necked instruments. The way that Barts tend to bring the mids forward and trim the excesses of the higher frequencies makes for a very pleasant, musical sound. In my experience with Modulus, I loved both the EMG and Bartolini variants but would choose Bart's if I were buying (and I hope that I will, someday, be in a position to buy a TBX).
My most recent acquisition is a German made SKC Bogart Blackstone, and the Bartolini pickups+Noll preamp is just a wonderful combination. I figure some of you guys would probably dig this instrument. I also just realised, that of the four basses I own, all have Bartolini pickups.
From an older PDF Modulus Quantum manual I have
“EMG and Bartolini Pickups
Height adjustment is accomplished by means of two Phillips head screws located at the outside edges of each pickup. Raise the pickup by turning the screws counter-clockwise. Clockwise adjustment of the screws lowers the pickup. Standard height at the factory is 1/8” from the top of the pickup cover to the bottom edge of the string (depressed at the 24th fret) for the back pickup (pickup nearest to the bridge) and 5/32” from the top of the pickup cover to the bottom edge of the string (depressed at the 24th fret) for the front pickup (pickup nearest to the fingerboard). Pickup height for SweetSpot models: Use height specs for front pickup.”
Mid articulation is exactly what I'm hearing. when I first played, I was so used to the EMGs higher end that I thought something was wrong, but after playing a while, the sound appears more smooth with definition in the mids. Its nice to have Q6s with both variants.
these shots of the EMG pre motivated me to take a shot at updating/upgrading my almost 30 year old EMG pre in my 90 q6. I want to go the BQC route with 4 pots (stacked b/t, stacked M/sweep, blend, volume) but currently have an odd 3 pot configuration (volume pot in a non standard location). Interested in the Mobs thoughts on whether to modify to allow for the BQC config or just go with a new BTS setup and no new holes. Below are pics of the current top and cavity as well as two more pics of a couple of new configs to allow for the BQC option with white dots marking where the new bores would go. the first pic is 1 bore pushing the keeping all controls back cavity in a non traditional modulus config (maybe a bit too close to the bridge with the new bore). The second pic is 2 bore but I would need to figure out what to do with the hole that would be vacated by the current volume pot. Maybe a toggle switch or some indicating LED for some purpose. so to recap options:
1) just go with BTS (no new holes)
2) 1 new hole in non standard config
3) 2 new holes in standard config and decide what to put in the vacated volume hole
all of the above is under the assumption that there is no such thing as a concentric volume/blend pot as that would solve without any drilling (but would still look odd and not very user friendly).
so interested in suggestions under the measure 10 times cut once motiff. thoughts
Attachments
![IMG_1407[1].JPG](/data/attachments/5487/5487453-e9d5e4661b10310d6b570f07e9b1ad8a.jpg?hash=6dXkZhsQMQ)
![IMG_1408[1].JPG](/data/attachments/5487/5487455-57b6b77bf44a210700c3e74707bddd5b.jpg?hash=V7a3e_RKIQ)
![IMG_1409[1].JPG](/data/attachments/5487/5487456-ad2ddaf3190cb582d21f42bc25dbe8c7.jpg?hash=rS3a8xkMtY)
![IMG_1410[1].JPG](/data/attachments/5487/5487459-f261cd0dcb9b1db8c17cb86be10f4b2f.jpg?hash=8mHNDcubHb)
I put this in the FB group as well, sorry if this is a repeat for some...
Got this bass back yesterday with the Aggie electronics installed (DCB pickups and an OBP-3 pre, with p/p for active/passive and switchable mid frequency. So after playing it in my bass-ment a bit through my Genzler rig, with the eq flat on the bass and the amp, I think it sounds similar to EMG’s, but with a little more low end. It is clear throughout though, which is nice. I think it sounds more lively and open than an all Bartolini set up.
Took it to a blues jam last night, played thru a very good sounding DNA rig (courtesy of @UpperBout ), I got a lot of low end, and could hear the mids and highs, but it was 2 12’s, so it wasn’t quite at ear level, so I couldn’t say 100%. These are also strings I’m not familiar with (D’Addario NYXL’s), so I can’t give a final verdict yet, but things look/sound promising.
Got this bass back yesterday with the Aggie electronics installed (DCB pickups and an OBP-3 pre, with p/p for active/passive and switchable mid frequency. So after playing it in my bass-ment a bit through my Genzler rig, with the eq flat on the bass and the amp, I think it sounds similar to EMG’s, but with a little more low end. It is clear throughout though, which is nice. I think it sounds more lively and open than an all Bartolini set up.
Took it to a blues jam last night, played thru a very good sounding DNA rig (courtesy of @UpperBout ), I got a lot of low end, and could hear the mids and highs, but it was 2 12’s, so it wasn’t quite at ear level, so I couldn’t say 100%. These are also strings I’m not familiar with (D’Addario NYXL’s), so I can’t give a final verdict yet, but things look/sound promising.
Last edited:
Nice. I personally like the Aggie preamps alot. For pickups I tend to prefer duncans
I was tempted to try those Duncan NYC's, but couldn't quite figure out of they're the right string spacing. Of course, now that I am looking at the SD site, I see the measurements link- d'oh!
Last edited:
I have some dual coil duncans in mine and love them
So fat sounding
Mobsters... I have 2 Quantum 5 strings; Bartolini pickups in both, one has the Aggie OBP-3 preamp and the other has the Bartolini NTMB. I am looking for a wireless system for these two basses as well as my others that are mostly active with one passive P-bass G&L and my Mike Lull MV5 which is active pre (Aggie) and passive Duncans. I understand some systems are not compatible with active basses, your thoughts, suggestions, etc.? Thanks and keep rockin'!
Played a Warwick thumb yesterday that had a concentric volume (top) and blend (bottom). this would be a perfect solution for my wiring issue with the 3 hole design in my pics. does anyone have or know what the MEC part# is and/or if it could be used with an emg setup?
There are several posts about the wiring posts for the MEC volume/blend push pull pot M81SP010
EMG's stuff is all solderless/modular these days; the potentiometers are mounted on the circuit boards, so it'd be pretty complicated to modify the knob configuration. Not impossible, but you need to have some knowledge and experience working with circuit board mounted electronics.
GeoffGould
Commercial User
I think this is the issue. EMG doesn't make a dual concentric (at least that's what they told me on the phone). I think the issue is their active balance design is too complicated for the dual stack. The MEC dual vol/blend I believe while form correct would not function with the EMGs dual to impedance issues. While the current EMGs are designed to be solderless plug/play, soldering in old pickups is a snap (just did this on an old Yamaha BB1000). I could go with a full new MEC pickup/pre setup but that's juice/squeeze issue.
I have decided that drilling a new hole in a Gould era q6 is foolish, so unless I find a solution (and doubtful one exists for a stacked vol/blend with the EMGs), I'm simply going BTS and be done. appreciate all who weighed in.
GeoffGould
Commercial User
I think I misunderstood. EMG does have a concentric volume/volume knob. But I think what you wanted was a master on one knob, and a balance on the ring. Right?
