active vs passive

[stringintheshade]

It seems like most people on here are into active basses with pre-amps rather than a passive.

Forgive my ignorance, but is it simply because they are handier to use rather than twiddling the amp? Or is it that the preamps on a good bass are beautifully matched to the rest of the hardware?

I can kind of understand the thinking better on normal guitars. I have a Taylor which has a brilliant preamp and obviously with an acoustic, playing with an external mic is a nightmare. And I have a Strat and I couldn't imagine putting a preamp in that.

All generalisations, I know, but pls enlighten me why bassists like their actives more than guitarists do

[Highfox]

I'd argue that most prefer passive, I know I do lol.

[markstuk]

The argument bus no 25 will be along in a moment

However it's wrong to assume that guitards are ahead of the curve.. All of my guitards (who I respect) put up with noise, tone suck and signal path issues that would have me tearing my hair out...

[fender73]

this will always be an interesting question - and you'll get people who have their own preferences. Personally, I prefer passive, as with active, I find myself endlessly tweaking on the bass, and in some cases, have got rid of basses due to there being too many controls and not being able to get a decent sound out of them.

Even with the one active bass i have (Warwick RBG Corvette) i leave it on one setting all the time.

Like i said, peiople like what they like, neither is better (IMHO)

Graeme

[daz]

I have owned 6 bases and all were/are passive. I do have an active [i]Hohner b bass [/i]but the electrics are knacked so i have never had a chace to play it (probably a lesson there somewhere )

Edited August 24, 2011 by daz

[Doddy]

I like active electronics because it gives me more tonal control without fiddling with my amp.

[stringintheshade]

[quote name='daz' post='1350341' date='Aug 24 2011, 03:18 PM']I have owned 6 bases and all were/are passive. I do have an active [i]Hohner b bass [/i]but thre electrics are knacked so i have never had a chace to play it (probably a lesson there somewhere )[/quote]



Exactly my thinking at the mo': active = more to go wrong over time

And as Fender73 implies, you could easily end up with double twiddle-fiddle issues on your guitar vs what's going on at the amp (not to mention the desk). I prefer things simple, I think.

But I wouldn't mind hearing some good arguments for active. Could still be convinced...

[chris_b]

I have played active basses for the last 20 years and I love them. They just seem to give you "more".

The last bass I bought was a passive, the first I've played in over 20 years, and while it's tone and volume is fat, punchy and stage shaking, just plain huge, I find I'm missing some of the dynamics of active basses. The bands don't care, they like it, but I'm missing some of the "life" that active adds to the sound.

[stringintheshade]

I suppose part of it depends on the quality of the pups. I mean, with active, you could probably cover some minor deficiencies.

And there's the question of outright output. There's no question that my Tanglewater Classic J is on the quiet side. Plenty loud enough, mind.

[algmusic]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1350347' date='Aug 24 2011, 03:31 PM']I like active electronics because it gives me more tonal control without fiddling with my amp.[/quote]


I guess you've answered his question.

I like actives, but prefer passive myself.. something about passives, but I can see the appeal for actives.. but a good active.. some are really cr8p

[janmaat]

active or passive.

in sex as in bass guitars.

both has advantanges

[bremen]

[quote name='janmaat' post='1350396' date='Aug 24 2011, 04:01 PM']active or passive.

in sex as in bass guitars.

both has advantanges [/quote]

Bit of a letdown when the battery goes flat.

In sex as in bass guitars.

[algmusic]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1350347' date='Aug 24 2011, 03:31 PM']I like active electronics because it gives me more tonal control without fiddling with my amp.[/quote]


I guess you've answered his question.

I like actives, but prefer passive myself.. something about passives, but I can see the appeal for actives.. but a good active.. some are really cr8p

[spongebob]

Passive for me.

Had one active.....couldn't get on with it, just the whole battery-in-the-bass thing!

Passive - plug 'n' go. Active - plug 'n battery runs out at a crucial time!!

[Ou7shined]

All people are different.
Some like to plug and play and not worry too much of the nuances of "tone", while others enjoy an understanding of "tone" and like to play about with it and use it as an expression of the music.
Sometimes a passive bass can fall into the hands of an aural-ist but although being slightly limited by it's passive tone, fits the players criteria perfectly well.

Sometimes an active circuit is added to correct or give headroom to an unenjoyable tone (often with less than spectacular results), sometimes it is added to enhance an already good tone and sometimes it is there by design. Sometimes the active circuit is taken away entirely because the player doesn't grasp the concept of their active circuit.

The most fundamental thing to remember though is that with a passive circuit the rule of thumb is that you can only remove frequencies (tone) but with an active circuit you can boost and cut frequencies (as defined by the circuit) giving the player an expanded pallet to play with.

I like basses which can do both.

[Lfalex v1.1]

[quote name='stringintheshade' post='1350350' date='Aug 24 2011, 03:31 PM']

Exactly my thinking at the mo': active = more to go wrong over time

And as Fender73 implies, you could easily end up with double twiddle-fiddle issues on your guitar vs what's going on at the amp (not to mention the desk). I prefer things simple, I think.

But I wouldn't mind hearing some good arguments for active. Could still be convinced...[/quote]

One at a time, then-
My oldest active (a recently sold 1990 Musicman 'Ray 5 fretless) was 21 years old in May. Not so much as a crackly pot... Over a [i]long[/i] time, parts will inevitably fail. Probably starting with potentiometers.
No reason that the rest should die any quicker than the circuitry in your TV/Microwave/Sky Box or whatever.
And if/when it does die, I should imagine most will prove to be readily replaceable with either a direct replacement (such as MEC units in a Warwick) or other units such as Audere, East, ACG and so on.
It's another cost, but bearable, I guess.

I generally leave the amp flat(ish)- I'll use it to compensate for acoustics as much as possible, and do the dialling in of tone from the instrument.
Dare I suggest that they can be used to overcome some engineers' twiddling?! Certainly, in a studio environment, a little nudge upward on the instrument's controls (particularly upper-mid or treble) can help to cut through the mix a little better if necessary. It can always be toned-down during mixing, and engineers seem happier to turn things down than to add more!

Some circuits include low impedance output stages. My Vigier does. Drives super-long cables well, interacts well with effects (you'd be surprised) and you can plug it straight into a desk (1/4", not XLR) for the most direct D.I. around.

My collection is split 60/40 actives to passives btw, so I'm not a "battery zealot"!

[stringintheshade]

Thanks Lfalex, that's a pretty good overview.

@ Ou7shined

[quote]The most fundamental thing to remember though is that with a passive circuit the rule of thumb is that you can only remove frequencies (tone) but with an active circuit you can boost and cut frequencies (as defined by the circuit) giving the player an expanded pallet to play with[/quote]

but surely you can boost & cut frequencies at your amp just as well ? It's just a couple of steps away & no PP3 to die on you or leak horribly?

Edited August 24, 2011 by stringintheshade

[JTUK]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1350347' date='Aug 24 2011, 03:31 PM']I like active electronics because it gives me more tonal control without fiddling with my amp.[/quote]


This..... but I would always have a passive option and I would always want the bass to sound great passive..and use the active as a bit pokier version of the passive sound.

If the bass HAS to be active to give it any sort of sound, it is the wrong way to go about it, IMO.

When playing at home, I'll often run the basses in passive and sometimes I'll stick with passive on gigs.

[flyfisher]

Active bass (loads of controls) ----> pedals (loads of controls) ----> amp (loads of controls)

or

Bass ----> amp (loads of controls)


Now, it could be that I'm just not the adventurous type, but the seconds config works fine for me.

I'm also wondering if the never-ending search for the ultimate tone might be something to do with the myriad controls in the first config.

[funkypenguin]

I have 3 basses, 2 of them active....i love the flexibility, clarity, fast attack and extra punch that my active basses have, but i love the warmth of my passive spector, specially for playing soul and motown

[stingrayPete1977]

I'd have either but I just find most passive basses lacking something.

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='stringintheshade' post='1350686' date='Aug 24 2011, 08:28 PM']Thanks Lfalex, that's a pretty good overview.

@ Ou7shined



but surely you can boost & cut frequencies at your amp just as well ? It's just a couple of steps away & no PP3 to die on you or leak horribly?[/quote]
That's fine if all your sound is coming from an amp.

[Ou7shined]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='1350739' date='Aug 24 2011, 09:06 PM']I'd have either but I just find most passive basses lacking something.[/quote]
I have a couple of G&L passives you should meet sometime Pete.

[stingrayPete1977]

I'm already trying to trade my 02 Ray for a g and l 5'er Rich

[mcnach]

[quote name='bremen' post='1350404' date='Aug 24 2011, 04:12 PM']Bit of a letdown when the battery goes flat.

In sex as in bass guitars.[/quote]


On bass guitars at least it's not something that occurs overnight.
batteries running flat on basses is quite frankly an exaggerated concern.