Double Bass my Realist and Full Circle comparison

[Les Fret]

A lot has already been said on this forum about these pickups but I just wanted to let you know my experiences.

I have a Full Circle pickup but two days ago my luthier gave me a Realist just to try it out for a while.

I have been experimenting with these two pickups for the last two days at home but I didn't have the chance to try it out at a rehearsal or gig yet.
I have tried both pickups with and without the Fishman Pro Platinum Bass preamp.
I have tried both pickups on KRK studio monitors and on a small practice amp.

Without preamp:
On my bass the Realist has a somewhat muffled boomy sound with a lot of low end. A bit muddy and not very bright.
The FC on the other hand has a more woody sound with a broader sound spectrum. It lacks the lows of the Realist. But it has more options to shape the sound with an EQ.
It is always more easy to dial in the lows. Dialing in the highs on a muffled sound doesn't work so well.
The Realist volume was a little bit less than the FC.

With preamp:
I have set the EQ knobs in the middle (flat) and the compressor and depth controls all the way to the left (off). Volume and gain in the middle.
The Realist 'won' a lot of volume with the preamp. It won more volume than the FC. The frequencies stayed more or less the same on the Realist. Still boomy.
The FC's frequencies changed more when using the preamp. With the preamp it has more lows and bottom. Exactly what it needed. The volume didn't change so much as with the Realist.

So for me the winning combination was the FC in combination with the platinum preamp. The preamp gave it the extra bottom that was lacking without the preamp. The overal sound of the FC is a bright woody sound.
The Realist has too much lows and sounded too unclear for me.
I like the more articulated sound of the FC.

Of course these are my findings and it will sound different on each bass. I am curious if you have the same experiences with these two pickups.

 

[Eric Hochberg]

I am curious if you have the same experiences with these two pickups.

This is my exact experience with the Realist. Never tried the FC.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

This has been my experience with both pickups as well.

 

[Marc Piane]

The Realist is pretty bass dependent I think. I have two basses both with Realists. On the German ply which is built like a tank and is pretty 'thumpy' sounding already the Realist can get pretty dark and does need a little help in the boom department. On my Shen, which is pretty bright and has a much more responsive top, I love it. The thing that I've always found intoxicating about the Realist is the 'thump' or 'punch in the gut' on the front end of the sound. IME that's where the groove happens.

In the spirit of full disclosure I've not tried the FC ...yet.

 

[massimo]

I have tried both the Gage and Full circle together on my bass (dark sounding modern Czech + gut G D, weich E, A+ GK 150 combo) .
I can see what you mean when you find the Gage too dark and undetailed.
This said i prefer and use the Gage from many years because it is the one that better let you hear the functional part of the sound (the most important part of our sound: the thump that gives the pulse, a sound with "balls"..).
I play mostly straight ahead jazz at low levels, if i raise the volume knob i agree the tone becomes muddy.
Also here in Paris many bassist use the FC: its a pretty articulated tone but not one that i really like (no "balls"...)

On the other hand if you play at higher volumes and need a more "contemporary" clear detailed sound i think the full circle may be better.

This said, the best amplified bass sound i heard in my life was:
Charles Lloyd Quartet with Bob Hurst on bass in Antibes (gage+weich+ampeg portaflex)
and Kenny Barron trio in Italy with a french bassist (gage+weich+GK) that had also a FC on the bass but preferred the Gage.
Curious that both setups were identical ( naturally you have to consider that both were amplified on a big scene )
Considering all this i prefer the Gage (if one day i add a microphone all could change again)

 

[anonymous02282011]

This said, the best amplified bass sound i heard in my life was:
Charles Lloyd Quartet with Bob Hurst on bass in Antibes (gage+weich+ampeg portaflex)
and Kenny Barron trio in Italy with a french bassist (gage+weich+GK) that had also a FC on the bass but preferred the Gage.
Curious that both setups were identical ( naturally you have to consider that both were amplified on a big scene )
Considering all this i prefer the Gage (if one day i add a microphone all could change again)

I'm willing to bet what you were hearing was not necessarily the pickup; probably a really quality microphone through a good PA system.

Tell me if I'm wrong. I'd like to know.

 

[massimo]

to Adbass,
with the K.Barron trio (Wayne Dockery on bass) i'm sure 100% that it was only the Gage because he was using my bass, concerning Bob Hurst it was a mix of microphone (i don't know which) and Gage. Concerning both cases, i'm pretty sure that the merit was of the soundman as is my experience with big amplifications system; i just found curious that the sound was really great with same strings and pickup. .

 

[anonymous02282011]

Cool. Thank you.

I've also been in situations where the soundman just takes a signal off the pickup and somehow magically makes it sound great through the house. I'd like to think there's usually some bleed from my bass into the other mics on-stage so that the acoustic sound of the instrument is still getting out there.

But hey, if you heard your bass being played with a DI from the pickup to the PA system and it sounded good . . . well, "If it's not broken, don't fix it" as they say.

For what it's worth my experience with the full circle and realist was similar to yours. I'm using just the Full Circle now.

 

[MrSidecar]

Hi all,

I can't remember if this has been written about before elsewhere.

I had a Realist once. Coming from Underwood, I was somewhat content at that time because it sounded more like the bass. Somebody, however, turned me to a Hamburg/Germany based bassist/electronics freak named Frank Lehre. Amongst other things, he builds amplifiers. I called him, and he claimed that there were some kinds of electronics in the Realist Jack that were supposed to have a negative effect on the pickup- making it vulnerable to muffled highs, sound changes with cable lengths, etc. pp. He offered to modify the Realist, and afterwards it indeed sounded more transparent. However, I remember being a little skeptical since the effect maybe partly caused by sheer psychoacoustics- send your pickup to some mod magician, receive it back and expect it to be different, and it is. I don't know, and to this day I have no real personal first-hand experience with the stuff that is or isn't in a Realist's jack.

So, it might have something to do with this- although I wouldn't recommend opening the jack by yourself.

Anybody else heard of this, btw?

That was at least 6 years ago, though. My Realist is long sold and resold and who knows where it is now. I went from b-band d1 to dyn-b in the meantime. But I digress.

Best

Sidecar

 

[drurb]

I remember being a little skeptical since the effect maybe partly caused by sheer psychoacoustics- send your pickup to some mod magician, receive it back and expect it to be different, and it is.

*** Begin soapbox statement....

Arghhh! As I've pointed out again and again...

Physical principles and psychoacoustics are not orthoginal in the sense that one is physics and one is "perception." Psychoacoustics is a branch of psychophysics that seeks to understand the relation between perception and the physical stimuli.

Biases in what reported are not "psycho" acoustics in the sense that you perceive a change that does not stem from a change in the physical stimuli. In fact, the field of psychoacoustics, now over 150 years old, most often seeks to eschew such biases via the use of state-of-the-art objective experimental design. The goal is to understand the ability of the ear and brain to discriminate and to process and how it does so vis a vis objective changes in the signals reaching the ears.

As a group of my favorite authors once put it:
Psychoacoustics is the area of auditory research in which behavioral methods are used to discern and to describe how, and how well, listeners perceive sounds. Combining information obtained from such experiments with corresponding information obtained from physiological and anatomical experiments has resulted in several important descriptions, explanations, and quantitative models of auditory function.

*** End soapbox statement...

With regard to the Realist, IIRC, there was a resistor in the plug and that was likely removed. Real psychoacoustic studies tell us that auditory memory is fleeting so it would be very difficult to discern subtle changes in the sound of the Realist produced by the alteration you had done, given that the comparison was made over a long period of time.

 

[MrSidecar]

Okee,

I shall never use the term again if not appropriate. Sorry.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally posted by e=drub2​

*** Begin soapbox statement....

Arghhh! As I've pointed out again and again...



Biases in what reported are not "psycho" acoustics in the sense that you perceive a change that does not stem from a change in the physical stimuli. In fact, the field of psychoacoustics, now over 150 years old, most often seeks to eschew such biases via the use of state-of-the-art objective experimental design. The goal is to understand the ability of the ear and brain to discriminate and to process and how it does so vis a vis objective changes in the signals reaching the ears.

As a group of my favorite authors once put it:
Psychoacoustics is the area of auditory research in which behavioral methods are used to discern and to describe how, and how well, listeners perceive sounds. Combining information obtained from such experiments with corresponding information obtained from physiological and anatomical experiments has resulted in several important descriptions, explanations, and quantitative models of auditory function.

*** End soapbox statement...

On the other hand, "psychoacoustics" is a figure of speech, and everyone knows what is meant by it.

 

[M Ramsey]

On the other hand, "psychoacoustics" is a figure of speech, and everyone knows what is meant by it.

Oh yeah, son. A demonstrative effort on exhibiting one's on grasp of flowery terminology, through the use of a veritable plethora of wordage, always provides a much clearer understanding by all readers.

 

[M Ramsey]

I truly have no experience with the Full Circle and I own 2 Realists, one of which is installed on my gut strung American Standard bass.

I want a percussive thump, since that's what the music I primarily play, calls for. But, I also own 2 K & K Bass Max pickups and have them installed on both of my American Standards (the second bass strung with Velvet Garbos). My style, my strings, my bass sounds better on the Bass Max, but that's just me.

Jason Moore is the bassist for the band Mountain Heart, of which my son, Aaron, is the mandolin player (who happens to be a monstrous bass player himself). Jason has used the Full Circle on his Kay bass for the past 3 years or so, and runs it to a DI and they use in ear monitors. I've listened to their shows out front over the past 2 years in a myriad of venues, both indoors and outdoors.

With the Full Circle and a DI, Jason usually gets a very good, even sound, with some articulate highs on the G & D strings to puncuate the sound of notes played on those two strings. They also have a regular soundman who does their out front sound each night and knows how they want all the instruments to sound. That fact, in itself, is a luxury that most folks may not have access to.

For anyone interested, Mountain Heart will be playing Invalid Link Removed in Ann Arbor, MI this Friday night, January, 8th.

 

[drurb]

On the other hand, "psychoacoustics" is a figure of speech, and everyone knows what is meant by it.

Oh yeah, son. A demonstrative effort on exhibiting one's on grasp of flowery terminology, through the use of a veritable plethora of wordage, always provides a much clearer understanding by all readers.

Chris, the word has a meaning with reference to a field of scientific inquiry. It is a "figure of speech" in the manner you cite only to those who have co-opted the term to mean something different. Doing that leads to misunderstanding. For example, folks who misunderstand it's meaning in the "figure of speech" sense are likely to think that psychoacoustic research applies to something completely different than it does.

So, what to do? Well, I chose to try to educate, complete with "smileys" and full recognition that I was on a soapbox. For that,
you chose mock me (e=drurb2​).

Mike, I regret if you found the precise "verbiage" unclear. What it was not was "flowery" as what I wrote was hardly prose. I would be happy to explain here or via PM any part that you found inaccessible and I'll try to be clearer in the future.

Okee,
I shall never use the term again if not appropriate. Sorry.

Well, thanks for reading the post but, please, no "sorry." I was only trying to clear up the misunderstanding. Apparently, despite my intentions, my post was taken the wrong way.

 

[MrSidecar]

Can't we just all take it a little easy? I'm perfectly fine with what drurb said to my using the word incorrectly.

 

[M Ramsey]

Can't we just all take it a little easy? I'm perfectly fine with what drurb said to my using the word incorrectly.

Just injecting a little humor on my part, with my first response. That's why there was a at the end of my response. OK son?

I also went on to comment on Jason Moore's use of the Full circle pickup, since he makes his living with that equipment on a week to week basis.

<--Happiness!

 

[M Ramsey]

Chris, the word has a meaning with reference to a field of scientific inquiry. It is a "figure of speech" in the manner you cite only to those who have co-opted the term to mean something different. Doing that leads to misunderstanding. For example, folks who misunderstand it's meaning in the "figure of speech" sense are likely to think that psychoacoustic research applies to something completely different than it does.

So, what to do? Well, I chose to try to educate, complete with "smileys" and full recognition that I was on a soapbox. For that,
you chose mock me (e=drurb2​).

Mike, I regret if you found the precise "verbiage" unclear. What it was not was "flowery" as what I wrote was hardly prose. I would be happy to explain here or via PM any part that you found inaccessible and I'll try to be clearer in the future.



Well, thanks for reading the post but, please, no "sorry." I was only trying to clear up the misunderstanding. Apparently, despite my intentions, my post was taken the wrong way.

Drub,

No real harm intended, but most of the folks in the audience, along with most of the players here, don't think about psychoacoustic terms when listening to a bass player at a live gig.

Just a bit of jabbing. Sorry if I was offensive. I love humor.

 

[drurb]

Drub,

No real harm intended, but most of the folks in the audience, along with most of the players here, don't think about psychoacoustic terms when listening to a bass player at a live gig.

Just a bit of jabbing. Sorry if I was offensive. I love humor.

I try not to think of such things when listening or playing either-- especially because music is my escape from all of that!

Sorry if I got too serious.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Chris, the word has a meaning with reference to a field of scientific inquiry. It is a "figure of speech" in the manner you cite only to those who have co-opted the term to mean something different. Doing that leads to misunderstanding. For example, folks who misunderstand it's meaning in the "figure of speech" sense are likely to think that psychoacoustic research applies to something completely different than it does.

So, what to do? Well, I chose to try to educate, complete with "smileys" and full recognition that I was on a soapbox. For that,
you chose mock me (e=drurb2​).

Mike, I regret if you found the precise "verbiage" unclear. What it was not was "flowery" as what I wrote was hardly prose. I would be happy to explain here or via PM any part that you found inaccessible and I'll try to be clearer in the future.



Well, thanks for reading the post but, please, no "sorry." I was only trying to clear up the misunderstanding. Apparently, despite my intentions, my post was taken the wrong way.

No offense intended, Les. I was just pointing out that in common usage, some terms are understood by their target audience to mean something different than their actual textbook meaning, and that this isn't really a bad thing AFAIC. As for the reference to mocking, I had no intention of mocking you at all. Relating a scientific/technical post that don't really understand to Einstein has for years been my way of admitting that the explanation is beyond my understanding. I'm sure I've used the same Fuquism in the past with others (i.e. - e=fdeck2​, e=mje2​, etc. ) posting technical stuff that was over my head. Now that I know you find it disrespectful, I will refrain from using it with you in the future.