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.
The Great Bass Preamp/DI Comparison
- Thread starter chadhargis
- Start date
I checked that after @tedsalt posted the pic....and then saw the price....
As one who would prefer control over HPF I wonder how the switch for that, and the Mid switch, work.
As one who would prefer control over HPF I wonder how the switch for that, and the Mid switch, work.
There is a fair amount of discussion on the Arkham Zephyr here Arkham Zephyr Tube Bass Preamp
The Oracle is the same as the Zephyr, but without an audio transformer/DI, in pedal format.
The Oracle price is between the price of the Shift Line Olympic and the Noble or Shaw.
I've had the Noble and it gives you basically one tone with a fixed amount of gain/drive. IME the Noble does not go clean enough when I want clean tone. YMMV.
I might prefer the Shaw except for its wonky tube selection. I haven't actually tried the Shaw.
I haven't tried the SLO either. I don't really "need" all the extra stuff that are on the SLO, like speaker SIM, aux input and headphone out.
As far as HPF, I typically use standard 5 string, so it will be minimized or off. I expect the HPF works similar to the HPF on the more expensive Noble.
Now I'm trying the Oracle. And I like it. I'll have more after I use it live later in February.
Last edited:
It looks like a great piece of gear but for the price it not having a DI built in would be a deal breaker. I don’t understand that line of thinking.
Micah gives insight into his choices for the Oracle at the end of the Zephyr thread. IME it is a great piece of gear. I also happened to already have a RNDI, so no issue here.
From Micah:
"Couple reasons.
1. I've offered a few basic/budget preamps in the past without DI (Octling, Bullet), this is meant to replace those.
2. Without going full-on PCB there's not enough room to shoehorn an audio transformer and XLR jack in there.
3. Audio transformer this close to a power transformer = relentless 60Hz hum. Trying to mitigate that would make this thing pretty expensive..."
"Couple reasons.
1. I've offered a few basic/budget preamps in the past without DI (Octling, Bullet), this is meant to replace those.
2. Without going full-on PCB there's not enough room to shoehorn an audio transformer and XLR jack in there.
3. Audio transformer this close to a power transformer = relentless 60Hz hum. Trying to mitigate that would make this thing pretty expensive..."
The new Orange Bass Butler Preamp/DI offers interesting possibilities.
For the most part I like my MXR Bass DI and Dyna Comp combination for practicing. I use the Dyna Comp to take the Rattling out of the Rafters.
I also have several other Preamp/DIs, each have their own unique character and it depends on what kind of Sound I am trying to get, and also on my mood.
Nonetheless I tend to use my MXRs for most of my practicing.
I also have several other Preamp/DIs, each have their own unique character and it depends on what kind of Sound I am trying to get, and also on my mood.
Nonetheless I tend to use my MXRs for most of my practicing.
Also if you are into Bi-Amping, as I am, then also the new Geddy Lee Preamp/DI offers some more new possibilities.
Ok. After much testing and careful observation, yes I prefer the Trickfish Trilobite to the Shift-Line SLO... For me.
It is NOT that the SLO is inferior. For what I am going for, I want articulation and that studio type feel that is more crisp but not sterile. The Trilobite is that in spades.
The SLO is a bit more "vague" in sound and feel. It's the tube tone coming through. For lack of a better way to say it, while the SLO can be crisp and quite articulate and not wooly it comes across as more "blurry" than the Trilobite. The Trilobite offers low and high mid controls which I have come to really appreciate.
Now that said, the SLO has a tiny form factor. The Trilobite doesn't. The SLO has cab sims. The Trilobite doesn't. The SLO offers breakup with the 12ax7 and gain control. The Trilobite doesn't.
But I want the dual channels the Trilobite offers. The blend control on the effects loop is killer. I like the mute switch. I like the FX loop switch. I like the amount of clean gain control.
Yes, I'm going to replace the SLO with the Trilobite. At least for now.
It is NOT that the SLO is inferior. For what I am going for, I want articulation and that studio type feel that is more crisp but not sterile. The Trilobite is that in spades.
The SLO is a bit more "vague" in sound and feel. It's the tube tone coming through. For lack of a better way to say it, while the SLO can be crisp and quite articulate and not wooly it comes across as more "blurry" than the Trilobite. The Trilobite offers low and high mid controls which I have come to really appreciate.
Now that said, the SLO has a tiny form factor. The Trilobite doesn't. The SLO has cab sims. The Trilobite doesn't. The SLO offers breakup with the 12ax7 and gain control. The Trilobite doesn't.
But I want the dual channels the Trilobite offers. The blend control on the effects loop is killer. I like the mute switch. I like the FX loop switch. I like the amount of clean gain control.
Yes, I'm going to replace the SLO with the Trilobite. At least for now.
I’m convinced more than ever that the SLO is for me. All those things you said it had are what I love about it. I love the wooly character filled tone.
Ok. After much testing and careful observation, yes I prefer the Trickfish Trilobite to the Shift-Line SLO... For me.
It is NOT that the SLO is inferior. For what I am going for, I want articulation and that studio type feel that is more crisp but not sterile. The Trilobite is that in spades.
The SLO is a bit more "vague" in sound and feel. It's the tube tone coming through. For lack of a better way to say it, while the SLO can be crisp and quite articulate and not wooly it comes across as more "blurry" than the Trilobite. The Trilobite offers low and high mid controls which I have come to really appreciate.
Now that said, the SLO has a tiny form factor. The Trilobite doesn't. The SLO has cab sims. The Trilobite doesn't. The SLO offers breakup with the 12ax7 and gain control. The Trilobite doesn't.
But I want the dual channels the Trilobite offers. The blend control on the effects loop is killer. I like the mute switch. I like the FX loop switch. I like the amount of clean gain control.
Yes, I'm going to replace the SLO with the Trilobite. At least for now.
Whaaaaaat?!?!?!?
Dual Channel Bass Preamp/DIs are becoming more popular.
Here are two more.
The EBS Microbass III and the Grace Felix.
.
Here are two more.
The EBS Microbass III and the Grace Felix.
.
Still haven’t found anything better than this preamp and setup live. Loving my new board built by Jamboard USA.
- Aug 21, 2003
- 11,619
- 18,697
- Disclosures
- A-Designs Mike Lull GK Tsunami Cables GHS Strings RMI Basswitch Nordstrand Pickups Darkglass
I can speak on the Basswitch side since I was one of their endorsers.
The 2 channels did not have the separation like the Trilobite does.
It super clean, almost clinical clean l great unit. I only stepped away from it because of it size of my existing board at the time.
The basswitch is one I would have already owned and tried if not for the size. Same with the Trilobite.
