Active or Passive??

[bubinga5]

I was wondering why bass players like either passive or active basses.. Two very different basses i own are a Lakland 55-01 with a Glock pre and Nordies and the other is a 62 RI,... i love the Lakland, its got such an amazing punchy powerfull tone, with a lovely hifi tone to it, but on the other hand the 62 has this raw Jazz growl with nothing but its wood and pick ups i suppose..

Im not i can decide what sounds better?

What does every one prefer...Active or Passive??

Edited April 30, 2009 by bubinga5

[The Bass Doc]

Probably fairly obvious - it depends on the gig. One of my bands specialises in Stax/ Motown stuff so of course it's passive P-bass time. If I got the call for more up-to-date funk I would use a maple-necked active cicuit Jazz. So it's horses for courses (if you say that fast you could follow it up with 'of course they do that's how little horses are created')

[YouMa]

I prefer active,i feel like i have more control over things,i need to be heard in fact my jazz bass needs a john east onboard as soon as i get the money.

[The Funk]

[quote name='bubinga5' post='476481' date='Apr 30 2009, 10:55 PM']Im not i can decide what sounds better?[/quote]

You only need to decide if you need to sell one. I've got a mix of active and passive basses.

My passive Jazz always sounds good (and pretty much the same) regardless of what it's plugged into - even directly into a PA with no DI box. The active Warwicks are a lot more fussy about what they go through.

I prefer the slap sound of my active Warwicks to my passive Jazz by a long way but I don't know how much of that is down to the electronics.

[Delberthot]

I was a purely active player for the best part of 20 years but now prefer passive every time.

not sure exactly why, maybe a change in tastes as I get older or can't be bothered changing batteries but I far prefer the sound of a good passive bass.

I like simple and simple for me is not 5 or 6 knobs on a bass contradicting each other. I found with my Ibanez 6 string that there were far too many controls fighting each other.

My main bass is always played with volume and tone wide open and only very slight adjustment of the EQ on the amp.

I don't see the point in having a bass specially made for you when it has to have more controls than the Hubbel Space telescope to get a good sound. Personally, if it doesn't sound good to begin with then it isn't good for me.

[ped]

I like mine being active - 90% of the time I play it passive and with the EQ centred there is no difference in the sound, and it is nice to have a bit of adjustability that I am familiar with when using other amplifiers with which I am not familiar.

[silverfoxnik]

I have two passive basses and two active basses and use them for different songs during a gig.. I love the purity of tone that comes with a passive bass but every now and again, I love the way I can use my active basses to vary the tone during a song really easily and sometimes, quite dramatically!

I suppose it's a bit like the Brunettes versus Blondes arguement which is ultimately pointless if you're lucky enough to have both

[thisnameistaken]

The last passive bass I had was a Jazz and the hum from the pickups drove me nuts so I stuck an EMG active set in it to make it go away. I heard all Jazz basses hum annoyingly - is that right?

I would use a passive bass if it didn't do that, I don't have a problem with passive electronics in and of themselves, only when they don't work properly. In terms of "tone" I'm not sure I can notice any difference and I'm 100% positive the audience can't.

Edited April 30, 2009 by thisnameistaken

[maxrossell]

I always go by what people play on the record I like most. Passive for me, really. Never tried an active bass that didn't do things to the sound I didn't like.

[The Funk]

[quote name='thisnameistaken' post='476507' date='Apr 30 2009, 11:26 PM']The last passive bass I had was a Jazz and the hum from the pickups drove me nuts [...] I heard all Jazz basses hum annoyingly - is that right?

I would use a passive bass if it didn't do that [...][/quote]

I've never actually heard any hum from my passive Jazz. I read somewhere that you get some hum when you don't have both pick-ups on full volume - but I've never found that to be the case.

[leschirons]

My main active gigger has a passive switch so you can do what the song requires.

[thepurpleblob]

[quote name='bubinga5' post='476481' date='Apr 30 2009, 10:55 PM']I was wondering why bass players like either passive or active basses.. Two very different basses i own are a Lakland 55-01 with a Glock pre and Nordies and the other is a 62 RI,... i love the Lakland, its got such an amazing punchy powerfull tone, with a lovely hifi tone to it, but on the other hand the 62 has this raw Jazz growl with nothing but its wood and pick ups i suppose..

Im not i can decide what sounds better?

What does every one prefer...Active or Passive??[/quote]

It's just a 'thing'... your sound starts at you and ends up at the listeners. Everything in between effects it. I don't think isolating one feature makes a great deal of sense. I think it somewhat depends on your style. I leave my bass eq flat (on actives) and up 'full' on passives and fiddle with the amp eq. I see some players who are mucking around with the bass controls between every song... for them the additional versatility of an active eq may well be relevant.

[Golchen]

I like both.

I like active for upbeat songs, especially when I'm slapping a bit (or a lot!), and I prefer passive for the slower more mellow stuff.

I'm really lucky as my bass has a push button to switch over! (Reggie Hamilton Jazz V)

[neepheid]

It depends. I've just invested in EMG pickups and EQ for my Les Paul so I had better bloody like it active! But seriously, the original passive circuitry had very little tonal range and was mostly thick humbucker sounds. This bass has become my workhorse and I simply wanted the sound to be brighter. I went 3 band EQ so that I can have a degree of mid scoop regardless of what I'm plugged into. So far in 3 venues out of 3 I've been DIed into the PA, so the more control I have before that happens, the better I like it.

Having said that, I resisted advice to put some sort of preamp into my Bronco. It just seemed wrong - it already has a sweet tone, it's just a bit quiet. Well, that's what amps are for.

So, like I said - it depends.

[alexclaber]

My active Warwick consistently sounds more impressive than my passive RIM Custom 5 when one just gives it a quick whirl. But the RIM Custom 5 always sounds better in context, both soloed and in the mix.

More and more I'm coming to believe that active basses proliferate because they have more impact in the shop but we'd generally sound better with passive ones.

But basses with good pickups sound better than basses with bad pickups, whether or not there are onboard electronics.

Alex

[BigRedX]

On the whole I don't get the obsession with active basses. Unless you're spending a lot of money on the on-board circuit, most of the time it won't do anything that your amp doesn't already do much better.

The average active circuit on a bass has to deal with so many compromises. It has to fit into the bass without removing too much wood, it has to be powered from a 9v battery, and you're generally limited to 3 frequencies otherwise there's too many controls requiring too much wood removal. Also on a mass-produced active bass you can bet that little has been done to mach the characteristics of the pre-amp to the natural sound of the bass or the pickups. None of these compromises apply to any decent amp design. You have room for decent circuitry and components, it's powered off the mains supply, and you can fit as many controls as it needs to get the maximum versatility out of it.

There are a few exceptions where an active bass may be an advantage...

1. You need a high output to drive something else in your signal chain - although the bass with the highest output in my collection is passive, therefore proving that a well designed pick-up can do the same thing.

2. The pre-amp does something that most amps can't do such as the the filter designs from Alembic, Wal and ACG

3. The pre-amp has separate tone controls for each pickup, which may give you extra flexibility if required.

Generally any sound engineer will tell you that the best tones are produced by cutting the unwanted frequencies and then boosting the overall level, so it would be better to do this with the best quality electronics possible and in most cases that will be those on the amp and not on the bass.

[cytania]

What actives are promising is more versatility. This isn't always the case, my Ibanez has a single tone control that just cranks up big balls bass from a natural 60s type sound (PhatEQ in Ibanez speak, look for a 'Boom' tag in store). However on a passive bass the tone control just diminishes making the sound muddy, rarely useful.

Active is simply like having a really basic EQ pedal. It boosts the signal if long leads are sapping it and allows you to boost low/mid/high. So scooped and big mids become possible.

My Spear S2 doesn't really whack out active so I use it in the passive socket of amps, volume rolled back a bit. Allows me to raise it if the band loudens up.

Not really a technology war it's just that those who stick to passive basses never get caught out by a dying battery.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='cytania' post='476854' date='May 1 2009, 11:41 AM']What actives are promising is more versatility. This isn't always the case, my Ibanez has a single tone control that just cranks up big balls bass from a natural 60s type sound (PhatEQ in Ibanez speak, look for a 'Boom' tag in store). However on a passive bass the tone control just diminishes making the sound muddy, rarely useful.[/quote]

But the controls on an active bass are nearly always less versatile than the ones on your amp...

[alexclaber]

My old Warwick is a good example. Not a cheap bass, it dates from 1987 and had original EMG pickups and Warwick's old (I guess branded MEC) preamp. It sounded pretty good when I got it but I was never too happy with the EQ centres on the 2 band EQ - the treble was too low and the bass too high - so I replaced it with an Aguilar OBP-3. At the same time I added an extra battery so the electronics were running on 18V. Getting rid of that MEC transformed the sound - more depth, more clarity, more natural sounding. I have a bypass switch on the OBP-3 but cannot hear a difference between it being bypassed and it being inline with the EQ flat - and because it sounds so good with the EQ flat I tend to leave the OBP-3 out of the chain for simplicity's sake.

So these nice active pickups running on 18V sound tons better than when they were running on 9V through the stock preamp. Bear in mind that this was an expensive bass yet the original preamp was still seriously compromising the tone - I hate to think how much the preamp in a cheap bass is screwing up the sound all in the name of selling more basses because in a shop you can crank up the bass knob and go "woah, fat!"

The passive Q-Tuner pickups in my RIM Custom 5 seem to have all the upsides of the active EMGs and none of the downsides - wide frequency response, low colouration and just an incredibly big fat punchy honest low distortion sound. Yes, they're expensive but if you bear in mind that you don't need a preamp I think they're extremely good value.

Alex

[alexclaber]

[quote name='cytania' post='476854' date='May 1 2009, 11:41 AM']What actives are promising is more versatility. This isn't always the case, my Ibanez has a single tone control that just cranks up big balls bass from a natural 60s type sound (PhatEQ in Ibanez speak, look for a 'Boom' tag in store). However on a passive bass the tone control just diminishes making the sound muddy, rarely useful.

Active is simply like having a really basic EQ pedal. It boosts the signal if long leads are sapping it and allows you to boost low/mid/high. So scooped and big mids become possible.

My Spear S2 doesn't really whack out active so I use it in the passive socket of amps, volume rolled back a bit. Allows me to raise it if the band loudens up.

Not really a technology war it's just that those who stick to passive basses never get caught out by a dying battery.[/quote]

Honestly you have to try a really good passive bass like my RIM Custom 5. It has so much clarity that the whole range of the passive tone control is useful and the 4-way pickup switch gives you a myriad of tones, especially when combined with its incredible responsiveness to changes in your playing. Run through a class A outboard preamp the tone always sits in the mix just right, the purity of the sound allowing you to be so loud yet sound so right. Anthony Jackson might talk crap about the music scene but he's right about bass electronics.

Alex

[alexclaber]

A good example - at the SE Bass Bash I plugged my Warwick in to show how impressive my cabs are - the RIM 5 doesn't have that wow factor. But it records so much better and sounds so much better on the gig.

Alex

[Prosebass]

[quote name='alexclaber' post='476866' date='May 1 2009, 11:48 AM']The passive Q-Tuner pickups in my RIM Custom 5 seem to have all the upsides of the active EMGs and none of the downsides - wide frequency response, low colouration and just an incredibly big fat punchy honest low distortion sound. Yes, they're expensive but if you bear in mind that you don't need a preamp I think they're extremely good value.

Alex[/quote]

+1 on that

I have used Q-Tuners in a few builds and the output from them negates the need for an on-board pre-amp and I would love to use them as standard on my new short scale designs but cost comes into play especially with the current exchange rates.

There are also a lot of other variables in the chain and its not just a case of passive or active. As has been mentioned taking huge chunks of wood out of the body won't help tone ( unless its a correctly designed chamber for a hollow body) and the quality of pots / cable and jack socket can make a difference as will correct star earthing.
I am personally going down the passive route with my new builds , the "Gazzumper" that has now been sold was a good example of how good a passive bass can sound with a few simple touches.
Both pickups were 4 wire humbuckers with coil tap switches and just a volume on each pup and an overall tone. The volumes were quality 500k pots the tone a 250k and a .47uf Cap , change the values on any of these items and you will affect the overall tone.
Muddyness is usually a combination of poor pots and wiring combined with poor pickups and for a lot of manufacturers it is easier/cheaper to put in an active circuit rather than design the initial passive circuit correctly. Obviously this does not apply to East / ACG filter circuits as they are properly designed and matched to the pups, but like the old adage "you pays you money" etc...

[thepurpleblob]

Also remember that the inherent low impedance of a passive bass has its issues. For example, the length of cable you plug is will make a difference to the sound (due to the capacitance of the cable) as will the input circuit of your amp. None of this will be a feature of active instruments. In some circumstances this might matter to you.

[Prosebass]

[quote name='thepurpleblob' post='476964' date='May 1 2009, 01:04 PM']Also remember that the inherent low impedance of a passive bass has its issues. For example, the length of cable you plug is will make a difference to the sound (due to the capacitance of the cable) as will the input circuit of your amp. None of this will be a feature of active instruments. In some circumstances this might matter to you.[/quote]

Indeed even more variables , which just goes to enforce the fact that these comparisons are actually quite pointless. If it sounds good then stick with it, if not change it.....but remember there is no holy grail out there.

[OutToPlayJazz]

Active every time for me - I love the fact that an active will (almost) always sound sweeter due to the fact that you only use half the gain (or input volume.) Active basses always sound smoother to me as well.