Thinking about going passive...

[SteveC]

So the preamp in my beloved Yamaha BB605 has officially crapped out. I was just going to get another (maybe try Aguilar instead of the Bartolini) but I have also been curious about just getting a few pots and wiring it Volume/Blend/Tone for a change.

 

Reading some other threads it seems some of you think there are some benefits to going passive. I basically play with the preamp flat, blend to middle and volume up. I tried making some changes on a couple gigs (before it crapped out) and no one even noticed. I didn't think they were subtle - treble roll off, complete blend to neck pickup, stuff like that.

 

The output seems really low when I bypass the preamp. I have Bartolini humbucking jazz pups. They should have good output, right?

 

Anyway, I'm thinking before I spend money on a preamp, maybe I spend a few bucks and try passive first.

 

I have 5 knobs and a mini toggle, so I have a few holes to fill. What can one do/use to fill the holes?

[Eric VB]

The output seems really low when I bypass the preamp. I have Bartolini humbucking jazz pups. They should have good output, right?

A preamp is just that: a mini amplifier. There's a reason amp manufacturers offer separate inputs for active/passive basses.

I have 5 knobs and a mini toggle, so I have a few holes to fill. What can one do/use to fill the holes?

Stickers? Maybe fashion a new pickguard to cover the holes?

[jeremy c]

I have 5 knobs and a mini toggle, so I have a few holes to fill. What can one do/use to fill the holes?

 

Put leds that blink in the holes.

[jeremy c]

On second thought, I wouldn't remove anything.

 

You eventually will put another preamp in there. All you need is a preamp bypass switch.

[jlrush]

I also vote that you don't remove anything. You can leave the knobs, etc. in place and it'll still look the same. Odds are that no one but you will know you changed anything and you might like a passive setup.

[SteveC]

If we can get past the filling of holes and giving me crap, those that play passive basses, can you tell me why you like them? What's the plus over an active bass in your opinion.

[groover]

Pickup selector switch, then a separate volume and tone for each pickup, that would fill all but one hole.

 

I have both passive and active basses, the only plus I see with passive is it is simpler, not better or worse just simpler. I really have no preference, if the bass feels and sounds good then it's okay with me, no matter how many knobs and switches it may have.

 

If I had the same bass and in the same situation I would probably just install another decent preamp.

[jeremy c]

I have active and passive basses and basses on which I have a choice of the two.

 

If there are more controls, I feel compelled to use them. If I use a passive bass, I turn all the dials all the way up and leave them alone.

 

To me, the biggest difference (as I mentioned in another thread), is that I feel that I have more dynamic range when I use a passive bass. I can vary the strength of my right hand attack and have lots of dynamics. That doesn't seem to happen on an active bass and so I am always using the master volume.

 

On the other hand, when playing at extremely low volume levels, the added tone controls on an active bass are very helpful.

 

So there you have it.

[davio]

I've found that my dynamic range is fine on active basses but my use of dynamics on a passive bass allows me to change the tone as well (so it sounds louder regardless of SPL). I don't know if that's what J was saying but from a different angle or the opposite of what he was getting at. That's how I feel about it anyway.

 

In a live setting I've found that that "sounding loud" (tone) when I want it to be loud regardless of whether it's actually louder or not (SPL) makes a bigger difference to the audience, band members and even in my own playing.

 

YMMV

[rumpelstiltskin.]

Reading some other threads it seems some of you think there are some benefits to going passive. I basically play with the preamp flat, blend to middle and volume up.

 

this is what i do, except i use neck only. i used it a lot more in a cover band, where it was really helpful to cop a bunch of different tones.

 

The output seems really low when I bypass the preamp. I have Bartolini humbucking jazz pups. They should have good output, right?

 

years ago i put a bartolini P pickup in a bass, and it was pretty decent. when i bought it the bass guy at the store advised me on some J pickups, too, and said the bartolini J pickups were known to be low output. obviously there's more than one model, but perhaps they're all low output.

 

Anyway, I'm thinking before I spend money on a preamp, maybe I spend a few bucks and try passive first.

 

not a bad idea, but maybe J has it right. buy one and also install a bypass switch. you may find that you like both ways.

 

robb.

[SteveC]

A question on the bypass thing. My old Bartolini preamp had a "pull to bypass" knob. When I did I just had volume and blend controls, no tone. If I want to make full use of passive mode, I should really have a passive tone control, right?

 

Although it is worth more than the bass, this seems to be the preamp that does "everything" that I want.

 

http://www.bestbassgear.com/u-retro-preamp-deluxe-5knob.htm#

 

I've dealt with Brian at BBG before - he actually did a coupe installs for me before we had a guy in town that could do it.

 

Does this seem like a good choice? I know it's expensive, but as I seem to prefer the feel of my Yamaha BB605 over all others, I guess it seems OK to spend some money on a preamp as I will probably never sell this bass. Tried and just can't do it.

 

What do yo all think?

[Rocky McDougall]

I don't understand the concern over low output. Naturally, if you are comparing a passive to active system, the passive has less output because it does not have the aid of the "pre-amplifier". When you can take a passive bass and blow windows out wih a good amp, what more do you want?

Rocky

[rumpelstiltskin.]

@SteveC -- the only knock i've heard on the east preamps is that they tend to be noisy. the return policy may be a suitable hedge against that.

 

@Rocky -- when you increase gain, you increase noise. this may well be a phantom issue, but it is the concern when dealing with low signal levels of any type.

 

robb.

[SteveC]

I was thinking either a U Retro or Aguilar. I like the U Retro as it has a passive option and a passive tone control, but I'm hearing it may have a built in color I may/not like.

 

The Aguilar is smaller, cheaper, and used often with Bartolini pups - which I have, but it doesn't have a passive option (could one be wired in?) or a passive tone option. (again, could one be wired in?)

 

I suppose the smart thing to do would be get a Bartolini 5.4 A/P like I had, but I never seem to do the smart thing. I am also a little curious how the Aguilar would sound. It's my favorite pre on the Pod.

 

Thoughts?

[5 string Mike]

If we can get past the filling of holes and giving me crap, those that play passive basses, can you tell me why you like them? What's the plus over an active bass in your opinion.

 

I have an active and a passive. They both have their strengths.

 

What I like about the passive Mexi P bass, as others have mentioned, there seems to be a more direct dynamic relationship between tone and attack (plus no stinkin' battery to deal with). I also like the simplicity of my P bass and the Squier Jazz I used to have. Volume (or two), tone, set it and go.

 

As far as noticing a difference, most people won't except you.

 

You'll just have to try it and see if you like it. As far as the output difference, that's part of the passive way of life. That's why they make gain controls.

 

[SteveC]

The dynamic talk is interesting. I've always thought I've liked the "consistency" of tone/attack with active basses. Am I missing something by always playing an active bass?

[jeremy c]

Steve, my Lull bass has a Bartolini preamp.

 

It's a two pickup bass. The controls are vol, vol, passive tone, and a stacked pot for active bass and active treble tone (boost and cut). The first vol control is also a switch (pushing it in turns on the active circuit).

 

Don't overthink think this and don't get too fancy. You might want to talk to Mike Lull about possibilities for you bass. Besides making basses, he's a fantastic repair person and that's where he got his start. Every time I'm in his shop I see an instrument belonging to someone in a famous Seattle band.

[SteveC]

Thanks, Jeremy. The only difference in what I'm thinking and what you have seems to be an active Mid control and a balance instead of two volumes.

 

I emailed Mike with some questions/options so we'll see what he has to say. Of course when I was there I looked at some basses. No 34" 5er's though. Maybe I should just go with 4... :-)

 

Actually, I have a trade deal in the works...my Rob Allen for an STR 6 string...so we'll see what happens. Maybe a nice passive 4 and a higher end active 6 would cover my basses.

[Tom Capasso]

I have both types, and my active is a Demeter (so I'm not much help with comparing preamps). The active does not have a passive switch.

 

While the Demeter runs at 18 volts, it isn't louder than my passive basses (Fender BenLoy and Gibson EB3). The difference in dynamic range is slight, but I have a heavy hand sometimes...

 

I've heard lots of basses with the Ag (including Willie's FoL). Seems like a good choice to me.

 

You could wire it up as passive and see what you think. If the volume is much lower, you'll have to turn up. Without the active ability, you'll never know the difference.

 

"cover my basses" - love it :grin:

 

Tom

[Bobby LowTones]

I own two passives and one active. My preamp has inputs for active and passive. Hooking up the proper instrument to its matching input makes them pretty much equal, volumewise. The differences are related to the characteristics of the particular bass used, nothing more - except the active bass has a little more "je ne sais quoi", difficult to pinpoint. Dynamic range, maybe...

[WCriley]

I have 2 passive basses and 2 with preamps. The one with the strongest output is passive. The one with the lowest output is active. I've never used the pad on my amp.

 

It's not always true that active is louder than passive. At least not if the preamp is well designed and you aren't using a lot of boost with the EQ.

 

 

[SteveC]

Well, I need to do something because along with the buzz is now clicks and pops when making any adjustments. That's probably just bad/dirty pots, but that doesn't help with the buzz. I'm thinking I'll have Brian or Mike prewire an Aguilar with a bypass for me. Inexpensive and would probably sound pretty decent.

[Rocky McDougall]

The more stuff you have(active electronics), the more that can give problems. Anthony Jackson's great "Contrabass" only has an output jack. No volume control, no tone control, certainly no pre-amp.

I live by the motto, "keep it simple stupid" Works great for me.

Rocky

[SteveC]

That's a great argument as well.

[jeremy c]

The best time to go passive is when the police are beating you up.

[Bobby LowTones]

The more stuff you have(active electronics), the more that can give problems. Anthony Jackson's great "Contrabass" only has an output jack. No volume control, no tone control, certainly no pre-amp.

I live by the motto, "keep it simple stupid" Works great for me.

Rocky

 

You know, the KISS thing is certainly effective here but it requires a top-notch interference-free path up to the first preamp stage, which is in the head behind the player. Anything in between just add noise and/or troubles.

 

IMHO, sometimes it is not bad to "distribute" the system's gain. The pup, a low level device, is best served if preamplification is as close as possible. The boosted-up signal leaving the bass is less prone to collect garbage on its way along the line up to the head. Of course, if sh!tty design or components are used, all advantages are lost...

[Wally Malone]

I guess it could be said regarding your bass that is passive and the loudess that it is "passive aggressive"

 

Wally

 

I have 2 passive basses and 2 with preamps. The one with the strongest output is passive. The one with the lowest output is active. I've never used the pad on my amp.

 

It's not always true that active is louder than passive. At least not if the preamp is well designed and you aren't using a lot of boost with the EQ.

 

[SteveC]

The more stuff you have(active electronics), the more that can give problems. Anthony Jackson's great "Contrabass" only has an output jack. No volume control, no tone control, certainly no pre-amp.

I live by the motto, "keep it simple stupid" Works great for me.

Rocky

 

You know, the KISS thing is certainly effective here but it requires a top-notch interference-free path up to the first preamp stage, which is in the head behind the player. Anything in between just add noise and/or troubles.

 

IMHO, sometimes it is not bad to "distribute" the system's gain. The pup, a low level device, is best served if preamplification is as close as possible. The boosted-up signal leaving the bass is less prone to collect garbage on its way along the line up to the head. Of course, if sh!tty design or components are used, all advantages are lost...

 

Another great point. There sure are some well informed people on this forum. I used to think I was one of them but I'm not so sure any more.

[davio]

Jeremy and Wally, you're killin' me!

[SteveC]

I'm going passive - Volume, blend and tone. I used the bypass tonight and really liked it. There was more punch, sounded a little less "artificial" for lack of a better term. I thought the amp sounded much better with a passive bass.