Why didn't stereo wiring catch on?

[alembicbones]

I found having the ability to split the signal from the pickups in my Alembic Series I to be quite useful in the studio. Each pickup went to a separate track and the producer had more of a bass tonal palate to work with. I was very happy what he came up with in the final product.

That being said, when I play this bass live, I generally run it mono for simplicity sake..
Bones

 

[4001]

Three of my four Jazz Basses are wired Fend-O-Sound......

I love the tone control I have with each pickup separately. I wouldn't have it any other way now.
I don't understand why Fender didn't have a dual output like Rickenbacker.
The sound in stereo is incredible. Way more tone control than two pickups mashed into one signal.
Soundtechs never minded the two signals I needed...most thought it was pretty cool.

 

[4001]

Why the hell do you need it ???

You don't need it...... until you play through a rig like mine.

 

[4001]

.... but I guess the real reason that stereo wiring isn't so popular is because the people drinking at the bar couldn't care less about your tone.

 

[4001]

There is no sonic advantage to independent pickup amplification.

I disagree.

 

[StatesideRambler]

If you want to use a separate output per pickup, go ahead.
If you don’t want to use a separate output per pickup, go ahead.
Just don’t go around acting as if one is so much better than the other. It isn’t, y’know. I file it in the same folder as “the key of G is so much cooler than Eb.” Then I remember to flush before I leave.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

I tried it with my Ric back in the Day, two amps, two speaker cabs in the Lead Sled era, sounded great, but the weight and bulk got old really fast. It seems a lot more viable now in the Day of micro amps and neodymium speakers. You haven't really heard what a Ric is capable of until you hear it through Ric o Sound.

 

[La Faro]

The previous owner of my Rickenbacker 4001 didn't like the stereo option:

View attachment 3710103

I like having it as an option, not so much for live but for recording.

I've thought about it before for studio bass. Especially when using software amps. Record the part, tone open, then you can run each pickup through it's own filter and amp rig and make tonal decisions later in the mix. You can still use settings to get a vibe when recording, but record just the clean sound for later adjustment.

 

[4001]

You haven't really heard what a Ric is capable of until you hear it through Ric o Sound.

Take that, you naysayers !!

 

[powerplant]

I think it might be interesting again now with modellers with two or more signal paths
Anyone that have tried?

 

[lokikallas]

It's a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Jim Carr]

Leaving aside the separate channel of amplification and EQ for each pickup, I have left/right stereo questions.

Is the desire to create a left/right spacial separation in a live audio image?

Since ordinary acoustic instruments like the trumpet, sax, piano, upright bass, guitar, drums, etc., are essentially "mono," is there a musical advantage "stereo" provides the electric bass that the others already have?

Or perhaps, is it to create something interesting that has no analog in ordinary instruments?

I am having trouble with the idea, because it seems to me that with FOH/subs, monitors, side-fills, and on stage amps, there are already multiple sources that each likely have different EQ profiles, none fo which make for a deeper or richer audio experience, over the sound of an un amplified live acoustic ensemble like a chorus, orchestra, or Jazz band, chamber ensemble, IMHO.

In fact, generally I find live amplified music to be "flat" (boringly the same all the time) in terms of the "sound stage," once the modern FOH people have their way with us.

 

[StereoPlayer]

Leaving aside the separate channel of amplification and EQ for each pickup, I have left/right stereo questions.

Is the desire to create a left/right spacial separation in a live audio image?

Since ordinary acoustic instruments like the trumpet, sax, piano, upright bass, guitar, drums, etc., are essentially "mono," is there a musical advantage "stereo" provides the electric bass that the others already have?

Or perhaps, is it to create something interesting that has no analog in ordinary instruments?

I am having trouble with the idea, because it seems to me that with FOH/subs, monitors, side-fills, and on stage amps, there are already multiple sources that each likely have different EQ profiles, none fo which make for a deeper or richer audio experience, over the sound of an un amplified live acoustic ensemble like a chorus, orchestra, or Jazz band, chamber ensemble, IMHO.

In fact, generally I find live amplified music to be "flat" (boringly the same all the time) in terms of the "sound stage," once the modern FOH people have their way with us.

It is never my intention to separate the signals for a spatial sound. I stack my cabs when using the stereo output. It’s all about the tonal control of each PU and the ability to use effects on the desired PU only.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

Listen to almost any Yes album, and you'll hear what Squire did with it, although that was before Ric O Sound, he modded his bass to split outputs. It sounds like two basses double tracked, a fat bass this below, and that treble clank on top, it allowed him to cover both roles. That's THE tone that attracted me to bass in the first place, it wasn't just indistinct mud under the guitars.

 

[Jim Carr]

It is never my intention to separate the signals for a spatial sound. I stack my cabs when using the stereo output. It’s all about the tonal control of each PU and the ability to use effects on the desired PU only.

OK, but please, n.b., "Leaving aside..." in my post.

Any thoughts about my questions concerning left/right separation?

 

[MonetBass]

A true stereo bass: the Kramer Ripley bass. He also made a guitar version. Stereo pan pots for each string. Why didn't they catch on? Because it's a niche product, and there's not much demand for it.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Because few bassists want to carry two amps (especially when they were huge and heavy) for not much of an advantage for most music.

 

[Saint]

I've got a Ric 4003 and an Alembic with stereo outputs. I've never done gig using stereo, but I always record them in stereo. It gives me so much more flexibility. I've done straight into the board with separate software amp/effects/eq chains but also direct out from tube amps and tube pre-Amps. My only issue is that I will spend a lot of time getting the sound I want, but on the other hand, I always get the sound I want in the mix using stereo.

I did have a Peavey B-Quad for a while that had a separate output for the piezos. I wired that to different amps and effects a few times and it really did sound pretty cool. Kinda wish I'd recorded that set up, but I didn't.

 

[JW56789]

It does occur to me that IF you had a two channel amp into one cabinet (or two in mono output) it could work well running effects thru the relatively thinner-sounding bridge pickup and leaving the thicker-sounding neck pickup clean, sort of an inadvertent filter effect keeping more deep end out of the effects.

I have tried it, but ultimately eq-ing the two different tones from the pickups was a blend I never was quite satisfied with.

 

[Passinwind]

It does occur to me that IF you had a two channel amp into one cabinet (or two in mono output) it could work well running effects thru the relatively thinner-sounding bridge pickup and leaving the thicker-sounding neck pickup clean, sort of an inadvertent filter effect keeping more deep end out of the effects.

I have tried it, but ultimately eq-ing the two different tones from the pickups was a blend I never was quite satisfied with.

I'm about to jump back into the Ric O' thing. My concept is a clean rig with a normal blend of both pickups, and a custom built tube amp with a guitar-ish cab for just the bridge pickup, with slide bass as the primary focus.

Leaving aside the separate channel of amplification and EQ for each pickup, I have left/right stereo questions.

Is the desire to create a left/right spacial separation in a live audio image?

Since ordinary acoustic instruments like the trumpet, sax, piano, upright bass, guitar, drums, etc., are essentially "mono," is there a musical advantage "stereo" provides the electric bass that the others already have?

Or perhaps, is it to create something interesting that has no analog in ordinary instruments?

I am having trouble with the idea, because it seems to me that with FOH/subs, monitors, side-fills, and on stage amps, there are already multiple sources that each likely have different EQ profiles, none fo which make for a deeper or richer audio experience, over the sound of an un amplified live acoustic ensemble like a chorus, orchestra, or Jazz band, chamber ensemble, IMHO.

In fact, generally I find live amplified music to be "flat" (boringly the same all the time) in terms of the "sound stage," once the modern FOH people have their way with us.

Great question. Many if not most acoustic instruments are not necessarily strictly mono point sources, and upright bass and acoustic guitar with their sometimes substantial back surface radiation and/or damping effects are two good examples of that IMO and IME. Or sax, where you don't want to mike just the bell if you want most lifelike results. I'd also suggest playing with convolution reverb in a DAW to see what we might be missing as far as spatial cues. And for me, creating something new and not "normal" is pretty much job one. Now that I'm retired from gigging, even more so.