- Mar 19, 2002
- 800
- 130
- 53
- Disclosures
- President: Upton Bass String Instrument Co.
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.
Double Bass Pick Up Pick up the world
- Thread starter flatback
- Start date
I've been experimenting with my new set up...I split the signal from the pickup into two channels and I tried just running a stereo cord into the solstice and eqing the two pickups separately...That sounds good and is really simple and elegant (but no mic in the mix) Then I got the line blender from PUTW and even tho it complicates matters I ran the stereo line into their blender and mixed the signals then out to the solstice and added the mic. And I have to say that PUTW's line drivers or mixer/blenders make a huge difference in the quality of the bass response even if you are putting the signals into something like the solstice which was made for high imp. pick ups. In other words the PUTW pick up seems to always sound much better when coupled with their line driver. I am still on the fence about the need to blend the two pup signals. I really think that the mono version is simple and works really well.
I really want to hear from someone who uses guts with this pup or velvets. (I had about ten years worth of old strings for just such time wasting trials as this but I got fed up and threw them all out)
I really want to hear from someone who uses guts with this pup or velvets. (I had about ten years worth of old strings for just such time wasting trials as this but I got fed up and threw them all out)
How does their line driver sound different from the solstice?
I'm curious (but not George) as I'm splitting the signal into a PMB.
Thanks.
I'm curious (but not George) as I'm splitting the signal into a PMB.
Thanks.
I think really good sound can be obtained going directly into the preamp. But the sound is more focused and clear with richer bass using the line driver....I don't know, it may just be the added gain but it seems like more signal gets thru or something...it just sounds like a more accurate and full sound...I'm not crazy about having anything in the sig chain run on batteries tho...no matter how careful I am I always get fuzzed at some gig or another
JonB said:
jonb-
I'm looking for a setup such as this for my Kolstein. I have found a used PMB and want to upgrade from the Underwood thats on it. I was thinking about trying the new Fishman but didn't want to change the all-wood bridge. Can you run your pickup, wired as it is, in either stereo and mono? I'd like to be able to run it stereo when not doubling on electric.
Ike Harris said:
Ike-
The pickup comes wired mono - that is, both wires going to the tip terminal of a stereo jack. It works fine like this and you can use a mono cord. You won't have control over each element, however.
It is quite easy to reconnect one of the wires to the ring terminal and run that through a stereo cord to a PMB's stereo input. Then you have volume and tone controls for each element.
You can use a mono cord with it set up like this, but you'll only get the signal from whichever element is connected to the tip.
PUTW also sells a couple of different line blenders that will take a stereo signal and blend it into a mono signal. It seems one is powered and the other is passive. These would allow volume control over each element, but it doesn't look they have tone control too.
Good luck with your decision!
JonB
Yes don,
That is the system I am using right now. (read above posts) I have been finding that the second element does not add a whole lot to the sound (no matter where you put it) and that it often sounds better with just the foot element and a mic thru the Dtar. That said for small gigs, a stereo cord into the dtar with just the pup is a good clean easy sound and then a little of the second pup element blended in and eq'd (I roll off the highs) sounds pretty good even thru a GK.
That is the system I am using right now. (read above posts) I have been finding that the second element does not add a whole lot to the sound (no matter where you put it) and that it often sounds better with just the foot element and a mic thru the Dtar. That said for small gigs, a stereo cord into the dtar with just the pup is a good clean easy sound and then a little of the second pup element blended in and eq'd (I roll off the highs) sounds pretty good even thru a GK.
I just got a PUTW dual element system (no PUTW preamp) for bass a couple days ago.
So far I have tried it with my Eminence EUB. The tone so far is nice enough, but the signal seems a lot less hot than with the Realist (modifed) that comes standard with the bass. I tried it first thru my Clarus, with has a buffered input that works great with other pickups and didn't notice too much of an improvement. I then tried it with my Raven Labs PBM ll, a little better but still a lot less apparent volume than the Realist, even the Realist with no preamp! I get the same apparent volume with the gain set at 10:00 with the Realist as I do with the PUTW set at 12:00. I put the Realist back on my Eminence, and most likely will be leaving well enough alone for that bass. The Realist still seems to be the perfect match for the Eminence. However, I've yet to try PUTW on one of my big basses yet, so I can't render my verdict on PUTW's true merits at this point. I'm hoping to have it up and running on my Kay later this week.
So meanwhile, I'm wondering, any of you guys had a problem with the lack of output with your PUTW systems? I'd hate to have to put out any extra bucks on one of their Line Drivers Preamps, since I'm assuming that the Clarus or Raven Labs box I already own should be able to cover the PUTW's impedance requirements.
So far I have tried it with my Eminence EUB. The tone so far is nice enough, but the signal seems a lot less hot than with the Realist (modifed) that comes standard with the bass. I tried it first thru my Clarus, with has a buffered input that works great with other pickups and didn't notice too much of an improvement. I then tried it with my Raven Labs PBM ll, a little better but still a lot less apparent volume than the Realist, even the Realist with no preamp! I get the same apparent volume with the gain set at 10:00 with the Realist as I do with the PUTW set at 12:00. I put the Realist back on my Eminence, and most likely will be leaving well enough alone for that bass. The Realist still seems to be the perfect match for the Eminence. However, I've yet to try PUTW on one of my big basses yet, so I can't render my verdict on PUTW's true merits at this point. I'm hoping to have it up and running on my Kay later this week.
So meanwhile, I'm wondering, any of you guys had a problem with the lack of output with your PUTW systems? I'd hate to have to put out any extra bucks on one of their Line Drivers Preamps, since I'm assuming that the Clarus or Raven Labs box I already own should be able to cover the PUTW's impedance requirements.
The output of the PUTW is slightly less than the Realist. However, with my original model AI Contra I still have plenty of output. With the Realist, I would typically keep the volume set at 12 oclock. With the PUTW I usually have it set at about 12:30. Not a significant difference as far as I'm concerned.
It's output. But regardless, the volume setting of BUTW is just a slight bit more than for the Realist (all other things being equal).Mike Carr said:
OK, I'm thinking about giving this a try. As many of you know, I play with guts and use the AMT only. I'm thinking about getting a pickup to use as a backup and for high-volume situations or to give the sound a bit more of an edge. My problem is mixing all of this stuff.
Currently I use an LR Baggs MixPro - it's a two channel blender and preamp in a tiny package that easily fits into the bass bag pocket along with everything else. Truthfully it is a little annoying because the independent gain controls are inside the unit and the external controls only allow the mix to be set. However it's super-clean and small. I use it so that I have a vocal mic to address the audience.
With this unit I'd need to have a mixer with at least three if not four channels (one for the vocal mic, one for the AMT, and one or two for the PUTW). It also sounds like it would be best to use the PUTW linedrivers regardless of whatever other preamps or mixers one has.
So I need to find a high quality and tiny three of four channel mixer.
I'm thinking I don't want to muck with blending between the two PUTW elements. In fact I get the feeling that just the bridge foot element may be sufficient for me.
Currently I use an LR Baggs MixPro - it's a two channel blender and preamp in a tiny package that easily fits into the bass bag pocket along with everything else. Truthfully it is a little annoying because the independent gain controls are inside the unit and the external controls only allow the mix to be set. However it's super-clean and small. I use it so that I have a vocal mic to address the audience.
With this unit I'd need to have a mixer with at least three if not four channels (one for the vocal mic, one for the AMT, and one or two for the PUTW). It also sounds like it would be best to use the PUTW linedrivers regardless of whatever other preamps or mixers one has.
So I need to find a high quality and tiny three of four channel mixer.
I'm thinking I don't want to muck with blending between the two PUTW elements. In fact I get the feeling that just the bridge foot element may be sufficient for me.
Adrian Cho said:
Can't help you with a tiny four-channel mixer, but I think you'll be happy in live situations mixing a bit of pickup with your AMT. It doesn't take much to really put some "center" in the sound, and it'll carry much better for it. Good luck.
I have also just installed PUTW on my dbass. Thanks to this forum. 
Didn't like the realist sound before. This PU has a good sound- not quite like the dbass, but close.
I am using the PUTW stereo line driver, and found that the mono output is quite decent. Have yet to try that with my PMB....
What I'm finding is that while the under-the-foot PU has a sound with good volume, it's quality is not that great when bowing, and has similar properties to Realist and to some extent, Underwood- some mids and highs rolled off. But with the other PU installed (next to the heart of the bridge, G string side), I get a clear articulation with nice high mids, and I get nice bowing sounds.
I run all these into a first gen Clarus, and a wizzy.
Has anyone tried a Vibramute from Lemur?
The site's description has this to say:
For use with a bridge mounted pick up. Eliminates all extraneous string vibrations and mutes all unwanted sound that can occur between the bridge and tailpiece of your bass. Simply slide the tube over the middle two strings and tuck into the outer strings. Contains no metal parts.
"The majority of today's working bassists who use amplification are using a bridge mounted pick up and a portable bass amp. The Vibramute is a low cost accesory that will effecitvely dampen all extraneous string vibrations that occur between the bridge and tailpiece of your bass. This assures a cleaner more even signal to the pick up or microphone during play."
Didn't like the realist sound before. This PU has a good sound- not quite like the dbass, but close. I am using the PUTW stereo line driver, and found that the mono output is quite decent. Have yet to try that with my PMB....
What I'm finding is that while the under-the-foot PU has a sound with good volume, it's quality is not that great when bowing, and has similar properties to Realist and to some extent, Underwood- some mids and highs rolled off. But with the other PU installed (next to the heart of the bridge, G string side), I get a clear articulation with nice high mids, and I get nice bowing sounds.
I run all these into a first gen Clarus, and a wizzy.
Has anyone tried a Vibramute from Lemur?
The site's description has this to say:
For use with a bridge mounted pick up. Eliminates all extraneous string vibrations and mutes all unwanted sound that can occur between the bridge and tailpiece of your bass. Simply slide the tube over the middle two strings and tuck into the outer strings. Contains no metal parts.
"The majority of today's working bassists who use amplification are using a bridge mounted pick up and a portable bass amp. The Vibramute is a low cost accesory that will effecitvely dampen all extraneous string vibrations that occur between the bridge and tailpiece of your bass. This assures a cleaner more even signal to the pick up or microphone during play."
wahyong said:Has anyone tried a Vibramute from Lemur?
The site's description has this to say:
For use with a bridge mounted pick up. Eliminates all extraneous string vibrations and mutes all unwanted sound that can occur between the bridge and tailpiece of your bass. Simply slide the tube over the middle two strings and tuck into the outer strings. Contains no metal parts.
"The majority of today's working bassists who use amplification are using a bridge mounted pick up and a portable bass amp. The Vibramute is a low cost accesory that will effecitvely dampen all extraneous string vibrations that occur between the bridge and tailpiece of your bass. This assures a cleaner more even signal to the pick up or microphone during play."
Wow, how did I miss that? Is it in the catalog? How much is it? It sounds like it could be a pretty valuable tool to keep in the bass bag for those really loud situations.
- Dec 9, 2003
- 369
- 45
- Disclosures
- Kontrabass-Atelier, Lando Music (Germany), "The Double Bass Book"/"Das Kontrabass-Buch"
This Vibromute thing sounds to me like it might be nothing more than a piece of surgical tubing, cut to a size to fit in between the strings behind the bridge. I have not seen one, but I suspect that it's probably no more than that. Kind of makes me think, "Gee, why didn't I think of that?, then I too could reap the riches that marketing such a clever device would surely bring!"
I personaly use a simple piece of foam rubber to quiet down ringing strings behind the bridge, just 3/4 inch or so wide, then cut long enough to thread thru the strings.
Sorry to be such a cynic, but I'm in a p**s poor mood right now, here's why.
I put the PUTW on my Kay this evening, and it sounds great! I liked what I heard very much. But those long wires, big problem. I can't seem to come up with any elegant way to deal with them, and yes, they are very microphonic. I AM A DUMMY, when it comes to any sort of electronic or electrical projects so I dont dare try to shorten the wires myself. I know that any sort of self respecting musician my age should be comfortable using a soldering iron, but I'm not, and not willing to experiment on this thing, lest I do it damage and void the warrenty.
It bugs me, that I spend $150 bucks on a pickup that sounds great, but is still not "good to go" right out of the box. The Realist is, the Underwood is, the Bass Max most certainly is, and they all do a good job of amplifying a double bass. I can't think of one good reason why PUTW sends these out like this, when just about everyone else who makes bass pickups has the good sense to keep their wires at a reasonable length.
I'm really p**sed off about this, because this thing sounds as good, maybe even better than other pickups I've tried. But in terms of it being a real world, user friendly product, it's half baked! IMHO, of course!
I personaly use a simple piece of foam rubber to quiet down ringing strings behind the bridge, just 3/4 inch or so wide, then cut long enough to thread thru the strings.
Sorry to be such a cynic, but I'm in a p**s poor mood right now, here's why.
I put the PUTW on my Kay this evening, and it sounds great! I liked what I heard very much. But those long wires, big problem. I can't seem to come up with any elegant way to deal with them, and yes, they are very microphonic. I AM A DUMMY, when it comes to any sort of electronic or electrical projects so I dont dare try to shorten the wires myself. I know that any sort of self respecting musician my age should be comfortable using a soldering iron, but I'm not, and not willing to experiment on this thing, lest I do it damage and void the warrenty.
It bugs me, that I spend $150 bucks on a pickup that sounds great, but is still not "good to go" right out of the box. The Realist is, the Underwood is, the Bass Max most certainly is, and they all do a good job of amplifying a double bass. I can't think of one good reason why PUTW sends these out like this, when just about everyone else who makes bass pickups has the good sense to keep their wires at a reasonable length.
I'm really p**sed off about this, because this thing sounds as good, maybe even better than other pickups I've tried. But in terms of it being a real world, user friendly product, it's half baked! IMHO, of course!
I've just realised that with my pretty hard pizz technique that I probably can't use this pickup. Bummer.
Mike,
Before I ever even bought my PUTW I was concerned about its flimsy look and long wires...I tried to get David at PUTW to build me one with short cables, shrink wrapped and with a neutric female plug. The first one he sent me tho was like yours. Then I had a problem with it and sent it back and he shortened the cables and shrink wrapped them. But even so it is still finicky. I think that their main business is putting these things inside guitars where beefyness is not required and that the bass end of the business aint so big that it warrants changing.
The vibrathing sounds like it will work very well with this pup cause it picks up everything. I'm going to experiment with some foam today.
Just an aside...When I got the stereo blender from PUTW I did a lot of experimenting with the second element, listening to it put everywhere on the bridge and body and then mixing it everywhere. I ended up feeling that the high end was better represented by a mic and using the foot pup for most gigs w/t mic blended.
The one place I have not tried it is under the treble foot...
BTW the Dtar has 4 inputs so that you can use a stereo in and split the channels or combine the pup with one of their line blenders and then have a mic in the other channel (Adrian: you could then put a vocal mic in one of the other inputs and only turn it up for announcements to the audience)
I'd be interested in any reports about a head to head with a full circle.
Before I ever even bought my PUTW I was concerned about its flimsy look and long wires...I tried to get David at PUTW to build me one with short cables, shrink wrapped and with a neutric female plug. The first one he sent me tho was like yours. Then I had a problem with it and sent it back and he shortened the cables and shrink wrapped them. But even so it is still finicky. I think that their main business is putting these things inside guitars where beefyness is not required and that the bass end of the business aint so big that it warrants changing.
The vibrathing sounds like it will work very well with this pup cause it picks up everything. I'm going to experiment with some foam today.
Just an aside...When I got the stereo blender from PUTW I did a lot of experimenting with the second element, listening to it put everywhere on the bridge and body and then mixing it everywhere. I ended up feeling that the high end was better represented by a mic and using the foot pup for most gigs w/t mic blended.
The one place I have not tried it is under the treble foot...
BTW the Dtar has 4 inputs so that you can use a stereo in and split the channels or combine the pup with one of their line blenders and then have a mic in the other channel (Adrian: you could then put a vocal mic in one of the other inputs and only turn it up for announcements to the audience)
I'd be interested in any reports about a head to head with a full circle.
