Why didn't two pickup basses with stereo wiring catch on? Of course Rickenbacker with their infamous Ric-O-Sound and I think Gibson had a few stereo guitars.
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.
Why didn't stereo wiring catch on?
- Thread starter Axtman
- Start date
Gretsch was quite famous back in the '50s/'60s for their stereo guitars, primarily White Falcons.
Often, it wasn't 'stereo' as we think of recorded media, but wiring where after the tone /volume controls did their thing, you had separate outputs for each pickup.
But . . . . . since there are very, very few two channel bass amps, then you're looking at least at a two combos, or stacks to make this work, and not a lot of people were taken enough with it to spend more and haul more gear around. And honestly, now you get to set tone for two different pickups, and am I shooting to make the two of them sound good together, am I gonna use the bridge pickup and that amp for this song, and the other for that song, it can add a lot of extra choices you maybe don't want to deal with.
The top of that game are the Alembic Series axes. The idea back in the 70's when there were damn few big bass amps was to come out of the phantom power box with an output for each pickup into their two channel F2B preamp, and into a two-channel commercial power amp (Crowns or MacIntosh back in the day) into separate cabs. And of course after the preamp, you just add as many power amps and as many cabinets as the roadies can cram into the 18-wheeler . . . . . but then again, do I run this cab for the bridge pickup, and those cabs for the neck pickup, and on and on . . . . .
Another way is to take a typical guitar or bass and run it into a mono in, left out and right out effects into two amps, say out of a digital delay, a chorus, flanger, or any number of rack effects. Lots of guitar players and steel players do this, but the problem here is it's only really apparent to the guy standing or sitting directly in front of it, and to feed it to the house takes serious FOH and a first-rate guy at the board, which most of us rarely get to enjoy.
To me the only real practical way was Roland's Jazz Chorus, or copies of them. Roland spec'd a pair of extremely clean power amps after the front panel controls and the onboard chorus or tremolo and boing-boing'd them between the two speakers in the cabinet. Gorgeous chorus for days, but because they're so clean, you have to use them just for clean tones or find a suitable stomp box to ape a decent distortion. I'd love to have a JC120 for a bass practice amp at home, the chorus is to die for.
( . . . . 'boing-boing'd 'em?' . . . . . geez I'm such an electronics expert !)
But . . . . . since there are very, very few two channel bass amps, then you're looking at least at a two combos, or stacks to make this work, and not a lot of people were taken enough with it to spend more and haul more gear around. And honestly, now you get to set tone for two different pickups, and am I shooting to make the two of them sound good together, am I gonna use the bridge pickup and that amp for this song, and the other for that song, it can add a lot of extra choices you maybe don't want to deal with.
The top of that game are the Alembic Series axes. The idea back in the 70's when there were damn few big bass amps was to come out of the phantom power box with an output for each pickup into their two channel F2B preamp, and into a two-channel commercial power amp (Crowns or MacIntosh back in the day) into separate cabs. And of course after the preamp, you just add as many power amps and as many cabinets as the roadies can cram into the 18-wheeler . . . . . but then again, do I run this cab for the bridge pickup, and those cabs for the neck pickup, and on and on . . . . .
Another way is to take a typical guitar or bass and run it into a mono in, left out and right out effects into two amps, say out of a digital delay, a chorus, flanger, or any number of rack effects. Lots of guitar players and steel players do this, but the problem here is it's only really apparent to the guy standing or sitting directly in front of it, and to feed it to the house takes serious FOH and a first-rate guy at the board, which most of us rarely get to enjoy.
To me the only real practical way was Roland's Jazz Chorus, or copies of them. Roland spec'd a pair of extremely clean power amps after the front panel controls and the onboard chorus or tremolo and boing-boing'd them between the two speakers in the cabinet. Gorgeous chorus for days, but because they're so clean, you have to use them just for clean tones or find a suitable stomp box to ape a decent distortion. I'd love to have a JC120 for a bass practice amp at home, the chorus is to die for.
( . . . . 'boing-boing'd 'em?' . . . . . geez I'm such an electronics expert !)
Last edited:
Completely useless out of niche applications that's why. There is no sonic advantage to independent pickup amplification.
I however don't understand why balanced outputs didn't become the norm. They're way better than jacks at preserving signal, chasing hum and can even power active electronics.
I however don't understand why balanced outputs didn't become the norm. They're way better than jacks at preserving signal, chasing hum and can even power active electronics.
Perhaps a better solution would be to have a separate amp for each string, rather than a separate amp for each pickup. The only person I can think of that ran a rig like that is Phil Lesh running through the Wall of Sound. Phil also ran four 36' tall line array columns.
Here's the source if you want to check it.
Searching for the Sound
Here's the source if you want to check it.
Searching for the Sound
Also for the record, I ran Ric-O-Sound for about 6 months. It was an improvement over running one amp, but I felt biamping was even better. I was going for a HiFi sound in the early 80s, back before it was a thing.
Passinwind
I know nothing.
- Dec 3, 2003
- 23,054
- 45,948
- Disclosures
- Designer/Toaster Tech @ Passinwind Electronics
We've got a tangent on that going on in my open source preamp thread right now, FWIW. But of course there's a chicken/egg thing with bass amps needing to have balanced inputs if the idea is ever going to get any real traction.
Last edited:
Because most people don’t want to haul two amps, and powerful lightweight amps and cabs are a relatively recent development.
Same reason I suspect that bi-amping came and went as a fad for bass amps. It might have advantages in theory but for most users it's more hassle than it's worth to implement properly.
All the while, advances in pickups preamps & amps have provided all the fidelity & versatility most folks could ever want, without any need to synchronize multiple rigs/channels.
As always, YMMV. If someone really wants to try it, wiring a separate output for each pickup is simple enough to do. (I would say that's the easy part!)
All the while, advances in pickups preamps & amps have provided all the fidelity & versatility most folks could ever want, without any need to synchronize multiple rigs/channels.
As always, YMMV. If someone really wants to try it, wiring a separate output for each pickup is simple enough to do. (I would say that's the easy part!)
Victor Wooten and Michael Manring have both recorded with basses set up like that. Separate piezo elements and outputs for each string.
Now that onboard active circuits are so widespread, there is also a case to be made for doing it all on the instrument. Have a separate pre-blend channel for each pickup, each with its own settings. That could make for a real forest of knobs up top, or you could do it with trimpots in the control cavity.
The Audere Pro Z at least starts down that path, with some provision for tuning each pickup's response prior to blending. (And some models have multiple "Z" modes that you can change on the fly that load each pickup differently.)
The Audere Pro Z at least starts down that path, with some provision for tuning each pickup's response prior to blending. (And some models have multiple "Z" modes that you can change on the fly that load each pickup differently.)
Besides the extra gear schlepping, extra tweaking mentioned, extra expense, the advent of improved performance and lighter weight gear, the larger footprint on stage, etc, the audience will never care if a bassist is running stereo. They just care how well the musician plays.
I'm not, nor will ever be, in the rarified air of the above mentioned celebrity bassists. Between their incomes and multiple endorsements, they can do what they do on a whim. That, I think, is part of the niche area that Jazz Ad mentioned.
Just not worth it for those reasons, in my opinion, that it never caught on.
It's somewhat pointless. Any effect imagined can be accomplished with a small herd of pedals and a good, clean modern rig.
In a live setting you don’t usually get much separation with the bass frequencies. They tend to mush together and sound monophonic anyway.
If you use effects and want to get an “expanded” (for lack of a better word) bass sound, try splitting your signal and use two amps. Run one with a completely dry signal and the other one with whatever effects you use. The result can be quite surprising. And I mean that in a good way.
I can’t find a bass demo of this. But check out this Joe Gore demo of his Purr vibrato pedal on guitar. Jump to around 3:48 and you can hear what I’m talking about. Very similar in some respects to the famous Ric-O-Sound feature.
If you use effects and want to get an “expanded” (for lack of a better word) bass sound, try splitting your signal and use two amps. Run one with a completely dry signal and the other one with whatever effects you use. The result can be quite surprising. And I mean that in a good way.
I can’t find a bass demo of this. But check out this Joe Gore demo of his Purr vibrato pedal on guitar. Jump to around 3:48 and you can hear what I’m talking about. Very similar in some respects to the famous Ric-O-Sound feature.
I run it for my solo stuff. IME, it's great, but it won't help you in a band setting and it isn't efficient in any way. If you want to take up the sonic space of two instruments, you need to both have that sonic space available and also make good use of it. The former means you'll want to play alone. The second means you'll need to spend a lot of money. Neither of these are very fun 
Same reason why stereo jacks haven't caught on in a big way...unnecessary and more costly. Most of us aren't using cords longer than 20 ft, whereas cords going to the board can be 100 ft runs or more, so it makes more sense with them.
I think this is pretty much it. "Close enough for rock n roll" became a saying for a reason. Gimme a P bass with a volume and tone knob, a low mid and high EQ and some tubes, and I can get a ridiculously good tone. For those who require a bit more tweekability from their rigs and basses, there are nearly countless options of onboard preamps, pedals, rigs, etc. You can even split your signal at the pedal level and go both dirt and clean.
It's just one more layer that 99.99999999% don't care about.
I’m guessing big acts using mono wireless systems might had some influence. Although I have see people like the singer from Breaking Benjamin have 3 packs on his strap. Two for the guitar and one for his in ears.
For local shows from my experience bass players often don’t get two channels for FOH.
