• 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.

The basic flaw in the p-bass

#321
thiocyclist said:
https://soundcloud.com/thiocyclist/tone-knob-sweep-song-2

What you hear first is me sweeping the knob, then I do a couple versions of Song 2 on either side of the sweep. Recorded in one take, no effects, no nothing. If you can't hear it you're deaf!
Click to expand...

Funny that. The second part of your Song 2 actually sounds quieter than the first part when I listen to it this end, whereas the soundwave on the track looks obviously like it peaks higher on the second part.

It could be that the true deciding factor here (ie whether one believes your theory or not) is that it depends how each individual listener's hearing works/how they hear different frequencies.
 
#325
Hopkins said:
I still cant call it a "boost." maybe at that one position of that knob that certain mid frequency is un choaked, giving a slight bump in percived volume.
Click to expand...

It's not unchoked. The resonance frequency actually changes, so there's more than with the tone knob wide open.

It's all semantics at this point; you now see that it is a real phenomenon.
 
#326
miles'tone said:
Funny that. The second part of your Song 2 actually sounds quieter than the first part when I listen to it this end, whereas the soundwave on the track looks obviously like it peaks higher on the second part.

It could be that the true deciding factor here (ie whether one believes your theory or not) is that it depends how each individual listener's hearing works/how they hear different frequencies.
Click to expand...

I think that could be because of the drop in high-frequency noise (even as subtle as it is at that last bit of sweep) which always cause more sharp peaks and valleys than lows do. But you're right, while it sounds louder the waveform wouldn't give it away.
 
#327
jason the fox said:
No, I heard what you're talking about. It's just so subtle, to the point where I don't know if I'd even consider significant enough to use while jamming alone, let alone to add any kind of lower/mid boost while playing with a band.
Click to expand...

You want me to add the original Blur song in there to prove what I said before? You can pretend like it doesn't matter, but it's okay, you just didn't know about it before now. Now that you do you don't have to diminish it to feel okay with yourself.
 
#328
A strange quote from J. Entwistle. John never sounded better with The Who then he did during the period when he used a P Bass (Live at Leeds).

Flaw in the P Bass? I don't considerate it a flaw but I find the stock pickup to be a little bit muddy in sound. I think an underwound pickup in the 8K to 9K ohm range might sound better in clarity and definition.

The only thing I notice when I use the passive tone control is that the treble can be rolled off and that's it. Sounds OK to me when the tone is wide open.

Fender sells, No Load 250K Pots. This allows the pickup to run straight through to the amp. No 250K ohm bleed off.

This pot should address any complaints with loosing bass when the tone pot is wide open.
 
#332
C.Linton said:
I can't help but wonder how the OP would have reacted if someone had started a similar thread titled "The Basic Flaw of a Ric bass"
Click to expand...

To a die hard P bass player, a Ric would seem flawed almost immeasurably. To a die hard Ric player, I guess the same would be true for a Precision. I like the earlier post that said its much more constructive to discuss the pros then the cons of any given bass, but this is teh interwebz. It's funny, because the Ric can be clankiest clankwagon this side of the western hemisphere, but that is looked upon by many as one of its merits whereas the clankity clanky-clank that the P is capable of producing is often frowned upon.

I stayed away from Precisions for a long time specifically because of the throaty bark when the tone was rolled off (up?). It always sounded especially harsh in a solo setting to me. After I tried one in a band setting, my mind changed very quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bass V
#333
Small amount of 'bump' is a boost nonetheless. Nothing is "unchoaked". It's a resonance frequency "bump". Play with a low pass filter for a minute and it becomes obvious.

Well, many people still refuse to believe science, and think earth is only 6 thousand years old.

Hopkins said:
I still cant call it a "boost." maybe at that one position of that knob that certain mid frequency is un choaked, giving a slight bump in percived volume.

I trust the chart JohnK posted and I dont doubt it is possible. But its something I never notice because I never roll my highs off that much, and its very subtle.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: petrus61
#334
Fryer Tuck said:
Short and medium scale bolt neck basses don't sound so good. Plus, it wouldn't really feel like a Fender anymore(for those used to the P and J), which would be a bad marketing move for the company.
Click to expand...

Oh, crap! Well, then, I'll have to get rid of mine post haste! This whole time, I never knew that the bass I thought sounded/felt great really didn't! My sincerest of apologies! ;)

Seriously, though, that's a ridiculous assertion on multiple fronts.
 
#336
FunkRenegade said:
Small amount of 'bump' is a boost nonetheless. Nothing is "unchoaked". It's a resonance frequency "bump". Play with a low pass filter for a minute and it becomes obvious.

Well, many people still refuse to believe science, and think earth is only 6 thousand years old.
Click to expand...

Don't give me that science nonsense. Science says a passive tone control can only cut a certian frequency range of the signal. To me this boost flys directly in the face of science.

I am the last person you can acuse of believing all the voodoo and snake oil that comes with guitar tone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rockinrayduke
#337
thiocyclist said:
You want me to add the original Blur song in there to prove what I said before? You can pretend like it doesn't matter, but it's okay, you just didn't know about it before now. Now that you do you don't have to diminish it to feel okay with yourself.
Click to expand...


Umm. Oooook. :rolleyes:

I feel 'okay' with myself either way, but thanks. And it's hard to diminish something if I hardly feel it's worth noting to begin with.

Anyway - I'm not getting into this kind of banter. The tone debate itself is fine though.
 
#338
the whole thing with passive pickup resonance tuning has been maximized over the years even back in the 70s and 80s. the science has always been well understood by the people actually making pickups (aside possibly from some ancient cheap copies who just built what they saw without knowing how/why).

There was a guitar I played in the 80s in a vintage guitar shop that had a multi position turn switch that changed the tone of the SINGLE pickup dramatically. I remember the knowledgable owner telling me it had a bunch of capacitors of different values that ran in various combinations and a choke on a couple of the settings too.

That was a guitar made in the 1970s. You have always been able to buy passive multi-position tone switches like this from aftermarket builders. They're not treble bleed controls, there is no bleed at all... they're just retuning the circuit's resonance frequency, and in a couple of positions that guitar was actually adding a passive notch filter.

A precision (or any standard passive) tone control is a treble bleed system but also does the resonance changing effect when fully (or even nearly fully) closed. However some pickups present little or no audible resonance peak (the Q is less than around 1) and so you don't hear the cool effect we're talking about.

There are other basses with even more pronounced resonance peaks will get much more dramatic effects by changing capacitor values and turning the tone control all the way down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petrus61
#339
Hopkins said:
Don't give me that science nonsense. Science says a passive tone control can only cut a certian frequency range of the signal. To me this boost flys directly in the face of science.

I am the last person you can acuse of believing all the voodoo and snake oil that comes with guitar tone.
Click to expand...

Science clearly says a passive tone control CAN alter the resonance frequency of the circuit. We're not ADDING boost, we're altering the boost that already exists in the circuit. Although we actually CAN magnify it at certain frequencies with certain changes to the circuit in certain situations.

Kindly, you clearly haven't read up on why different pickups sound different from each other.

This is almost entirely to do with the resonance frequency of the resulting circuit and Q (increase in output level) at that frequency. And that frequency can be altered by adding capacitance and so on, as clearly discussed here and known by circuit designers for as long as there have been electronic circuits.
 
#340
dkelley said:
Science clearly says a passive tone control CAN alter the resonance frequency of the circuit.

Kindly, you clearly haven't read up on why different pickups sound different from each other.

This is almost entirely to do with the resonance frequency of the resulting circuit and Q (increase in output level) at that frequency. And that frequency can be altered by adding capacitance and so on, as clearly discussed here and known by circuit designers for as long as there have been electronic circuits.
Click to expand...

You are just wasting your time with any explanation beyond the most redundant!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back