• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

What do you prefer? Active or Passive Bass?

I have both and don't really have a preference as long as it gets me to the end of the gig, sounds as I want it to, and is not too heavy. If I am using a provided backline I will usually take an active so I have a bit more control.

We supported a band one night* that insisted we use their backline "but don't touch any knobs". No problem I just took my MM Stingray 5 and had all the control I needed.

*Their first proper gig, all professional people in their 40s with nice gear but took them forever fiddling with it at sound check, hence not wanting us to touch it. They organised the gig and hired a PA and we just took guitars, sticks, stool and snare. A real cushy number that paid well with no gear to schlep so we were home before midnight - luxury!

With my 60s band I have been using a passive for about 2 years because I know my rig and there are never any surprises.
 
Since I've played a passive Jazz Bass since 1966, I'd have to say passive. My 5-string will play either passive or active and I sometimes play it active. It has a good sound. Doesn't sound as good as my Jazz but it does have the low B string that I need for a few songs and playability is good.
 
I think that too many players consider the only useful passive tone to be that which is achieved with the tone up full. I know when I was younger I subscribed to that view. But my own recent experience mirrors what I hear from many TB members. There is a range of useful tones (depending on the musical situation) available with subtle adjustment of the tone knob. I now rarely have the tone up all the way. Rolling it off just a bit can smooth out some rough edges.
Agrreed!
 
Interesting results...Most folks prefer passive

I have one passive bass with a strong output BUT I greatly prefer an active pre.

Prefer the tone, I run a fair amount of cable and like the stronger output and all my gigging basses have been adjusted to have the same output (because of an adjustable active pre).
 
I prefer passive most of the time. The cheap active stuff... sub 1000 dollars.. feels too unpredictable to me. The tone is just harsh and way too cutty... if that even makes sense to anyone


I think low end active basses are trying to hide the cost cutting that they have to do for their price point. Nothing wrong with them and at least there is the ability to have a decent quality bass no matter your income.
 
Totally depends on the type of music I'm playing, but I'm coming to find that I really like the sound of my passive bass as long as I have a separate EQ pedal to further refine the sound. Generally, more modern and heavy genres require an active bass in my opinion, but even in more modern types of music, a passive bass with some good EQ can sound great.
 
I'd say I prefer a cheap passive over a cheap active, but a more expensive active over a more expensive passive. I think it's because most cheap actives stumble in that extended frequency range that an active should have. Instead of the extended low end being clear; in cheap actives I find it pretty muddy. The problem I also find with a lot of cheap actives are an inherent mid scoop. It makes them sound nice by themselves, but just disappear in a mix. When it comes to higher end stuff it's a matter of what works better for what I'm playing and what I'm usually playing works better with an active.
 
Don't really know what I can add here... of the 10 basses I currently have, only one is passive. It's easy to get caught up in the heady talk of active/passive, but it really comes down to getting the sound you want.

I can do it with either one, it just so happens that the basses I play most are active-equipped.

I'd just try a couple.