Passive/active thoughts

[GreeneKing]

Another thread has got me thinking about the whole passive/active thing and I think it'd be better served bringing it out into its own arena.

I have at times been through a 'passive phase' where I listen to the tone I'm producing and think 'Wow' that's it, and where active tones seem somehow 'over-engineered'. Equally at other times I think that passive basses sound a bit weak and that an active bass has much more 'presence'.

On reflection I wonder if this whole subjective topic isn't just surrounded by an excess of hype (posh word for bullshit).

Basically, as I see it, there's actually no such thing as a passive sound. Why? Because all solid bodied basses need to be amplified to be heard and that the signal processing involves a pre-amp and an amp. Okay the pre-amp can be in the bass (making it an active bass) on the floor (Microbass II etc) or most usually as a stage in the main amplifier but the net result is surely the same i.e. the signal from the pickups is amplified through two ( or more) stages. The fact that a passive bass may have a cut only tone control is surely negated by the amplifiers active EQ, usually constructed around the amplifier's pre-amp.

So, what am I saying? Essentially there's no difference betwen a 'passive' bass and an 'active' one? Given that the onboard pre in an active bass and the 'other' pre used with a passive bass are similar then yes, that is what I'm saying.

Passive basses are only passive untill they hit an amplifier then they're active basses.

Of course I could be swayed in all this subjective tone stuff by the seductive qualities of the ACG EQ02 pre-amp that I have installed onto the two basses I find myself playing most often at the moment. I have to add that my Modulus Flea gets equal 'up' time with it's Aguilar pre but I can't help thinking what an ACG pre would sound like in it

Peter

[Doc B]

I have to agree with you as my Groove has an active/passive switch

[Lfalex v1.1]

Hmmm.

I, like many here, own examples of both active and passive basses.

I think the appeal of a passive bass lies in its inherrent simplicity, coupled to the fact that the fewer components between pick-ups and loudspeakers gives a more "direct" sound - The opposite to the aforementioned "over-engineered" sound.

The advantage of actives is that you can tweak your tone as you go. I think that the reason the on-board EQs produce different results to EQs in pre-amps/FX/heads is that they have fewer bands (2 or 3!) with a much broader f and often a much greater Q +/-20dB isn't unheard of. Not many off-board EQs will go to those extremes.
Theoretically the effects of an on-board EQ should be repeatable with an off-board EQ, but it's frequently not the case.

Still, both active and passive have their place. I just grab whatever I feel like playing!!!

[alexclaber]

My problem with active basses is that cheap implementations tend to have too much noise, distortion and compression caused by the preamp, plus 20dB of bass boost on an onboard knob in the hands of a beginners tends to result in tonal disaster (and amplifier distress).

A well voiced high quality onboard preamp (or true active pickups) in the hands of someone that knows what they're doing can be a great thing.

I really like the signal buffering and impedance matching that a good onboard preamp provides and also the clarity and transparent reproduction of a good active pickup (Alembic, EMG, etc). I'm thrilled that the Q-Tuners seem to provide that without the hassle of batteries (I stopped using EQ on bass - except when mixing in the studio - years ago).

Alex

[Lfalex v1.1]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='174357' date='Apr 11 2008, 09:30 AM']My problem with active basses is that cheap implementations tend to have too much noise, distortion and [u]compression[/u] caused by the preamp, plus 20dB of bass boost on an onboard knob in the hands of a beginners tends to result in tonal disaster (and amplifier distress)...
Alex[/quote]

Warwick, I find you guilty as charged on all 9v-powered implementations of the MEC circuits. Compression city!
Okay, they're electrically quiet, but that's about all! And before all the Warwick owners start a-flaming, I own two!!

[Kiwi]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='174357' date='Apr 11 2008, 09:30 AM']I really like the signal buffering and impedance matching that a good onboard preamp provides and also the clarity and transparent reproduction of a good active pickup (Alembic, EMG, etc).[/quote]
Alex, I've been told that Alembic pickups aren't active (at least according to John East who has had a play with my Activators). Apparently they're designed passive but very low impedance.

[Toasted]

The Celinder Pickups / Greengrove preamp are a match made in heaven. Truly an excellent combination. It's giving my shivers just thinking about it.

[BigBeefChief]

I just can't live with idea of putting batteries into a musical instrument.

Stupid I know.

Plus, every time I pick up an active bass I try and make it sound passive. I'm a big fan of a dull thud. I don't want to be a guitarist.

[GreeneKing]

I think that the key point here is the actual nature of the onboard pre-amp, or indeed any pre amp. Placing a pre in the bass must have it's limiting factors I suspect and maybe this is where some (many?) active basses fail to make the grade when compared with a passive bass amplified via a more sophisticated unit in the amp or wherever?

Joe I assume that the Greengrove is onboard? Not like you to have exclusive gear

It can be done well, I have no doubts about that. I think my initial point that there's no such thing as a passive sound is still valid to me (well there is but its VERY quiet).

Peter

[lowhand_mike]

and isnt the inherent lack of an onboard power system countered by the fact that a passive bass requires more from the amp, by that i mean the fact that amps have an active and passive input (or auto switch) and the rating from the passive side is higher.
i prefer active by the fact i can boost as well as cut, i can leave the amp well alone once it is set and noodle on the onboard EQ (not much just a little) there is a certain feel to a passive but i can see the similarity in the fact that yes they are effectively both active just one with more stages.

[Toasted]

The greengrove pre is onboard, and it's the stock one in the most recent Celinders. They moved to Greengrove at the same time that they started using propriety pickups. I love my Celinder. It's almost sick-making. If it was a woman there would definitely be over-enthusiastic public displays of affection.

[Alun]

My two main basses are active but I do like the simplicity of passive. I'm tempted to go down the Q-Tuner route and maybe some Villex stuff so that I have some control on the bass without worrying about exactly how long the battery has been in my bass

Cheers
Alun

[bassbloke]

Too often, electronics are used as a marketing gimmick. Bass A must be better than B because it features 3 band EQ with variable mid or preamp B must be better than A because it features a 3 way mid contour switch. Often though, especially in cheaper basses, the active electronics are there to mask the inadequacies of the pickups.

A god quality circuit should be able to do wonders for the sound of your instrument with making huge changes to the output.

[lowhand_mike]

i'd like a god quality circuit. that would be awsome

[neepheid]

Well, I own both and I have to admit that I'm unlikely to ever make a passive bass. My 3 passive basses (Epi EB-3, AXL Player Deluxe and Fecker Imprecision (heh)) are all very well and good, and fit particular purposes (like classic rock) but for sheer variety of tone available I can't see past active.

I can set my first custom build to make mud (all bass no treble on the MM neck pickup) to twang (all treble no bass on J bridge pickup) and lots inbetween. I added a 2EQ circuit to my OLP MM3 and opened up the tonal possibilities - as a passive bass it was pretty limited by the odd electronics (linear pots, eh? you might as well use switches, OLP). My fretless Squier Bullet build will be EMGed (EMG-P), as will the Zebrano Wideboy 5 (EMG-40J (bridge) + EMG-40P5/DC/CS (neck, undecided yet) + EMG BTC system 2EQ).

I'm not being down on passive basses, but it's all about flexibility. I don't know enough to say if active electronics lose some mystical passive tone, but seeing as I don't believe in mojo (your car doesn't have mojo - it's just a wreck, your suit doesn't have mojo - it's just scruffy, your bass doesn't have mojo - it just needs repaired), I'd want some experience of this tone based upon repeatable experiment (same bass passive and active) to evaluate the difference. Until then it'll be a case of "played some nice active basses, played some nice passive basses" and purely a preference based upon a limited set of parameters.

Having said that, there's something inexplicable stopping me putting an active circuit into the EB-3. I suspect there's not much tone to be unlocked from the mudbucker/mini bass humbucker combo. Not that it's immune to other tinkering - got a Hipshot Supertone bridge coming for it soon

[tauzero]

Most of mine are active. I don't actually tend to use the tone controls on the basses much - in fact, one annoyance about the fretless Warwick is that the centre detente on the stacked tone pots is dead, so I have to find midpoint by wiggling and guessing (well, don't we all?). However, the twin-neck BatBass is passive and if it seems a reasonable instrument I shall activate it, as there's only one thing worse than the volume/dullness controls on the Precision, and that's two volume/dullness controls, one for each pickup, on a twin pickup bass. Sorry, quad pickup bass.

I did actually activate my Precision a couple of decades ago (delicately butchering the scratchplate and making a Jazz-like control plate out of brass - looked great when it was polished, which it seemed to need every two hours). I repassived it later though. Can't remember why. Mind you, all my experiments with the Precision taught me that actually basses all sound the same. DiMarzio pickups, active circuit - I couldn't tell any difference. And with brand new strings and the treble on the amp turned up full, a Precision sounds just the same as a Warwick with five year old strings.

[Shaggy]

[quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='174350' date='Apr 11 2008, 09:24 AM']Hmmm.

I, like many here, own examples of both active and passive basses.

I think the appeal of a passive bass lies in its inherrent simplicity, coupled to the fact that the fewer components between pick-ups and loudspeakers gives a more "direct" sound - The opposite to the aforementioned "over-engineered" sound.

The advantage of actives is that you can tweak your tone as you go. I think that the reason the on-board EQs produce different results to EQs in pre-amps/FX/heads is that they have fewer bands (2 or 3!) with a much broader f and often a much greater Q +/-20dB isn't unheard of. Not many off-board EQs will go to those extremes.
Theoretically the effects of an on-board EQ should be repeatable with an off-board EQ, but it's frequently not the case.

Still, both active and passive have their place. I just grab whatever I feel like playing!!![/quote]
+1
Again having a mix of both, I’m generally inclined to the simplicity and more natural “woody” sound of a passive bass, especially having had a couple of batteries die on me gigging with the MM, and no passive switch option. Having said that, playing the MM in a covers band gives me huge tonal options direct from the bass when going from, for instance a ‘60’s soul ballad straight into some ‘80’s funk and then some ‘70’s metal!
I find the main difference between active and passive is at the bass / amp interface; for some reason my passive basses sound so much nicer through my all-valve Trace head, and the active basses just sound better through my digital solid-state Yamaha head - the difference is night and day. One issue is compression, which I find I need far more with the actives, but it’s a tone thing too.

[alexclaber]

[quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='174365' date='Apr 11 2008, 09:39 AM']Warwick, I find you guilty as charged on all 9v-powered implementations of the MEC circuits. Compression city! Okay, they're electrically quiet, but that's about all! And before all the Warwick owners start a-flaming, I own two!![/quote]

Absolutely. The original MEC preamp in my '87 Streamer was not good at all. I replaced it with an Aguilar OBP-3 which was a revelation. However when I installed the OBP-3 I put a preamp bypass switch in and it wasn't that long before I found I didn't need the OBP-3 at all, the original EMG pickups sounded fantastic running on 18V without any additional preamp or EQ, and just a simple 3-way switch to give me three basic tones.

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='174368' date='Apr 11 2008, 09:42 AM']Alex, I've been told that Alembic pickups aren't active (at least according to John East who has had a play with my Activators). Apparently they're designed passive but very low impedance.[/quote]

Calling them active pickups seemed easier than referring to them as low impedance (and thus inductance) pickups with a very high resonant frequency but low output that required buffering and gain so they can drive good signal to an amp. EMG and some Seymour Duncans are the same but with the preamp inside the pickup, and quite a few Bartolini models are passive pickups but with such low impedance and output that they need an onboard preamp with gain to work well.

To those that don't know about the tricksy tendancies of the human brain, louder always equals better, so a beginner is much more likely to buy a loud active bass over a quieter passive one that sounds much better if you match the loudness. Same with amps, hence silly gain and volume controls that encourage you to think your amp is really loud because it's deafening with the knobs hardly past 9 o'clock - sadly most of these amps won't go any louder if you turn them up further!

Alex

[BigBeefChief]

My issue is that I have no desire for versatility. All I want is ONE good tone. Thats it. I've got no desire to do bass impressions. I have an idea in my head of what a nice tone is, if I can achieve that (which I can with a S1 Jazz) then I'm happy.

The truth is, all this emphasis placed on tone is slightly self indulgent. Very few non-bass players actually care or notice.

[Kiwi]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='174451' date='Apr 11 2008, 12:00 PM']Very few non-bass players actually care or notice.[/quote]
I'm inclined to agree with you in the context of covers gig work and I'm also inclined to agree with you on it being a bit self indulgent, again in the context of a cynical and overcritical perspective. I say so what if someone brings 5 basses to a gig? There's nothing wrong with them caring about their craft and getting satisfaction out of the job they do or how they approach the creative endeavours they undertake.

I think you're making a few sweeping generalisations there. You're taking your set of values and judging unspecified others on how they match up to them.

[BigBeefChief]

Not at all.

A generalisation would be to say no one notices. Bass players/audio nuts will always pick up on the tone of everything, but very few others notice.

I actually think a lot of bass players kid themselves that they notice more than they really do. Be interesting to blindfold Ampeg/Markbass/Epifani fans and play a selection of gear to them. I think there'd be a few bruised egos.

[BigBeefChief]

Some crafty enditing there CrazyKiwi!!


I wish I was a Mod.

[cheddatom]

For me, I use a sh*t load of pedals to constantly change my "tone" throughout the gig. I think that people deffinitely notice some of the more weird effects I do, but they probably don't realise how much I am changing my sound all the time. However, I think that if I stopped doing it, then regular fans would notice that there are less dynamics in the songs, or the choruses don't sound as massive, or the guitars didn't sound as heavy or whatever - and they wouldn't realise it was a lack of bass pedals.


So, yeh, it can be a self indulgent thing, but it's like spending hours mixing an album. Your standard lamen won't know what you've spent hours doing, but he'll notice it sounds good.

[BigBeefChief]

I agree. If you're going to make an album, labour intensively over every bit of it. You may never get another chance. But you must also appreciate that most listeners won't appreciate the fact they you forked out for a £900 cab over a £300 cab. Of course, you can (probably) here it, and that's what is self indulgent. I'm not knocking it, everyone likes to self indulge.

As for stopping using pedals, I agree again. If they're pretty extreme, then they become an integral part of the sound. People will notice this.

They won't notice who manufacture your strings.

[bass_ferret]

I have been using active basses since I started playing apart from the first 3 months - so thats 28 years. My first 2 basses were an Ibanez Roadster and Musician - both 79/80 vintage. Both had a passive switch for when the battery went flat and I could not hear any difference between the active and passive sound. The Roadster had really hot output even in passive.

My subsequent basses (Bass Collection, GB and KSD) dont have a passive switch so I cant tell but they have all had good quality circuits.

The shortest signal path is pup->jack->amp with no tone controls (or just passive bass and treble like in the good old days) and the purist would say that adding processing on the bass/outboard eq/active tone controls/graphic/parametric etc has an opportunity to colour the sound (or ruin it depending on your pov).