mario_buoninfante

Like other people have said, I'd recommend you to experiment with it a little bit. Tuner goes first though. About the other pedals it all depends really, my instinct says: Tuner -> SYB5 -> Overdrive/Dist -> Chorus -> Preamp The reasoning behind that is that I'd considered the SYB5 a "source" more than an effect, something I'd then effect with the other pedals, so it goes first. I'd put the preamp last because in my experience (with totally different pedals though) is better. I treat it as if it's the preamp on a bass amplifier, I put it last unless it has send/returns, at that point something might be connected there. Also preamp outputs can be quite hot, so I'd check if my other pedals would be happy with that. Anything else in the middle is up for discussion.

Yap, after starting this thread I then found something on TalkBass that was interesting, and even something here. The TonePumpJr, the preamp in my bass, doesn't have the trimpot, so I can't really experiment with that. But, I'm quite sure that it wouldn't change my mind. I'm not saying this preamp is not good, it's just that is not my cup of tea since it colours a lot. I think my next step is to bypass it simply using crocodile clips, to at least make sure I like the sound of the pups in passive mode. Then I'll take it from there. At the moment I'm leaning more towards making it passive, rather than replacing the preamp, but we'll see.

Yap, I'm aware of that. But it's an active preamp, the EQ is passive. And I quite like that tbh. For the records I use mine in passive mode all the time.

Nice! Would you happen to have any recording you could share? I'd be really curious to listen to it. In the meanwhile I also discovered that Spector do a passive bass (apart from the entry-level Performer), the MK-5 Pro. I couldn't really find too many sound examples online, but from what I found it sounds really good. Now, I know that has EMG soapbars, while mine has PJ Bartolini, but at least that proved that Spector basses can sound good without an active preamp too.

Hi, Few weeks ago I decided to put my Spector Legend Classic 4 (lefty) up for sale, because I bought another bass and decided I had to get rid of another one. That said, in the last days I was thinking about it and I decided to pick the Spector up after 3 weeks without playing it and I immediately thought I should reconsider that! (Thing that I've just done! ) The quality is really good. Feel and finishing are these of a 1-1.2k bass. But, I realised that what I like less is the TonePumpJr active preamp. This circuitry colours a lot with its 16-18dB cut/boost EQ (don't have the specs at hand, but I know that cuts less then it boosts and that lows and highs settings are different), and the lack of "centre position" started to annoy me a bit as well, despite initially I thought it wouldn't be a problem. So, after fiddling with the EQ and trying to find a more neutral settings, I'm running the assumption that I like the PJ Barts pups, and I thought I should probably try one of the following things: remove the active preamp, add a passive tone control (maybe 1 per pickup) and leave the bass passive change preamp and I was wondering if anybody had done any of the 2 on a similar Spector. I'd be particularly interested in hearing if anybody ever made their Spector passive (I know sounds like an oxymoron right? But I have to admit the bass sounds really good even unplugged, so I don't think it would be such a heresy after all). But also, if anybody replaced the preamp, what did they go for and why? After this experience and after buying a G&L L2000, I started realising I really like transparent preamps, but I'm open to any recommendation.

https://reverb.com/uk/item/65076795-carvin-icon-ic4-active-90s-red

I love the Steinberger! What's the A string though? EDIT: OK, I then noticed it's just that is not fit in the bridge! sorry

Fender Japan have a lot of things not listed anywhere esle, amongst them this one https://www.fender.com/ja-JP/hama-okamoto-signature.html

I'll defo double check them then! Thanks for the tip

Also, I'm just realising I might be confusing tension with flexibility/stiffness!!!!! That was my initial point, but then I clearly got lost and started thinking about tension https://liutaiomottola.com/myth/perception.htm

Apart from all the comments so far, this seems to confirm it https://www.daddario.com/products/guitar/bass-guitar/xl-nickel-bass/exl170-nickel-wound-bass-light-45-100-long-scale/ https://www.daddario.com/products/guitar/bass-guitar/xl-nickel-bass/esxl170-nickel-wound-bass-light-45-100-double-ball-end-long-scale/ same tension reported

Yap, I'm with you about this, it does make sense. I'm pretty sure the differences I'm perceiving are due to other factors, and there are so many things: 2 totally different basses because of the above, inevitably 2 different setups 2 different sets of strings - same gauge but different brands - I wouldn't know about the core - also 1 set is Steel (headless) the other is Nickel different necks (1.5" D profile VS 1.75" medium C profile) and this I'm pretty sure makes me play differently

Fair enough, it's probably just me. Atm I have Elites DBE on the Spirit, and D'Addario EXL 165 and factory (unknown to me) strings on 2 other basses. I seem to be feeling the difference, but it's not like comparing apples to apples since it's different brands.

to add to the above, in a tuning machine scenario strings can slide through, while that is just not possible with a double-ball end system. I know that sliding through would mean lowering the pitch, but it might be (speculating again) that there's enough tolerance (in the human brain) to make the relieved tension be perceived even before the ear catches up with the pitch changing.

It's just an idea, didn't even fully thought it through, but I feel like the "strings wrapped around the tuning machine" scenario might be considered less of a "fixed point" compared to the ball-end that's on a headless bass. I believe the tuning machine system might allow for more "micro-movements" than the headless system (eg strings holding/releasing). Again, all just a gut feeling, I'm literally thinking about this as I'm writing

this seems useful (haven't checked it properly yet though) https://www.daddario.com/globalassets/pdfs/accessories/tension_chart_13934.pdf

Absolutely, my point was exactly this, that strings play a factor. The strings I have on my Spirit feel stiffer than any other strings I have played, and smaller movements/bends provide bigger changes in pitch than what I get on my other basses strung with different strings. I'm not saying it's because they are double-end strings, I'm just saying that 2 different sets of strings might feel totally different. Surely due to all the factors you mentioned. I also believe that having 2 ball-ends is different than 1 ball-end and a "sort of a knot" at the headstock though.

But here's the interesting thing about all this. The fact that there hasn't been any scientific comparison between 2 "identical" (as much as possible, since wood is never gonna be exactly the same) basses, still makes me think there are too many variables to account for before one can jump to any definitive conclusion. This at least when talking headless vs standard design. Also, as I think somebody has pointed out above too, another big factor is the strings. Headless basses have double-ball strings that in my (limited) experience have a different tension. On my Spirit XT-2 I played Steinberger and Elites double-ball strings and they both seem to have more tension than the standard single-ball strings (played on different basses of course). The bit about chambered/semi-acoustic basses, where they describe the sound characteristics, seems to be more intuitive, for lack of better words.

I'd say keep them if you like their current sound and are sure it fits with the band's sound. Maybe, if you have the possibility try a quick recording at home just because amp sound and recorded sound might be quite different. And I'd bring the new strings with me, just in case

there wasn't really that big of a crowd of luthiers at the time he made that decision though...

I was thinking maybe you could come up with something like the solution on the Kubicki basses, where on the E string there are 2 extra lower frets. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=kubicky+factor&t=newext&atb=v356-1&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fmedias.audiofanzine.com%2Fimages%2Fthumbs3%2Fkubicki-factor-408412.jpg

I really like the Spectracore, the fretless one in particular (I think there's a fretted version too, right?). But, I never actually played one.

And in fact the early/original Steinberger were made out of carbon fiber. I have a Spirit XT-2, that is passive and made of wood of course, and the things that I immediately notice when I pick it up compared to a Spector Legend and a G&L L2000 Tribute, is the incredible sustain and the roundness of the sound. The low E is really fat, but all the strings are well balanced. And in fact this (and similar basses) are often used in reggae/dub. I always empirically attributed the really long sustain to the fact that is neck true, but for whatever reason (I'm mainly thinking out loud here) I also feel that the small body helps in this case as if there is less mass to dampen the sound. But again, this lat comment in particular is more of a sensation that I have, I never even stopped and properly thought about it. One thing I can say for sure is that I feel a lot the vibration of this bass when I play it, and I like that

More than few headless have a standard body though