The need for Active Basses when using wireless systems.........

[Pirellithecat]

So .... been experimenting and I guess there might be a good reason for active basses - even with Wireless ..........   I invite all to comment and put me straight if this is complete ^*&llocks!!!

 

Thinking about PJ basses (or basses with more than 1 pickup) I have always been a little frustrated by the effect that changing one volume control (certainly at "max") affects the Volume/tone of the whole caboodle - insertion loss  I believe - which seems perfectly logical to me and my albeit limited understanding of electronics, and which is somewhat inescapable in a passive circuit.   

 

So, I guess one way round this is to amplify each channel before  "mixing" the signal subsequently in the chain. 

 

As I have a "mule" bass I wired the P and J pickups separately to a mixer this morning.   And it works really well!    Better tone and ability to mix each channel with no effect on the other.  Added benefit of tone control on each channel too!    So, I thought,  why not just build a stereo-out and use the same setup "live" - got quite excited ........ before realizing that this would preclude wireless operation (unless there's a stereo wireless system out there?)   

 

And then the mists cleared and it dawned on me that an active bass does exactly this! 

 

Doh!

[Woodinblack]

58 minutes ago, Pirellithecat said:

And then the mists cleared and it dawned on me that an active bass does exactly this! 

 

Actually, very few active basses do this which is a shame as I think it is a valid thing to do. Most tend to go from the pickups to the balance control, then into the volume, then into the preamp, which always seemed a bit backwards, but it makes it easier for people who want to be able to switch to passive.

 

so mixed, volumed and amplified.

 

This is I think why basses with EMGs sound different, because they don't do that, they are amplified, mixed then volumed, which makes a lot more sense, because the amp is in the pickup. Also the reason that Wals and some ACGs sound different, each string is amplified then mixed.

 

The difference is in an active bass, the two pickups intefere with each other, most noticable on a jazz, where you have two identical pickups that at the point where both volumes are full, there is a dip, due to two coils interacting with each other, not two sources. if they were amplified first, the two actual sound sources would interact, but not the coils.

 

Also you should amplify before volume, that way your signal to noise stays the same at all volumes, rather than your signal going down and the noise staying up

[Pirellithecat]

Well that's a surprise/disappointment  ...  so no real advantage to an active bass used wirelessly then...... 

Anyway, I now have my P and J pups wired separately to a mixer and it sounds very good and significantly different (albeit via the mixer head phone socket)  If it sounds this good  through my bass rig, it'll be a problem!!!! 

[Pirellithecat]

OK - it's a rabbit hole ......... but through a small rig it sounds VERY promising.    I guess I'd just need to find a 2 channel pedal board pre-amp to make it practical ........   oh and fill up lots of holes in the Scratchplate   and get hearing protectors for all the flack I'd get from the rest of the band .......  The wireless bit would be between the pedal board and the amp 🤣

[Woodinblack]

1 hour ago, Pirellithecat said:

Well that's a surprise/disappointment  ...  so no real advantage to an active bass used wirelessly then...... 

 

depends - for a Spector etc, yes

 

[itu]

2 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

Actually, very few active basses do this... Most tend to go from the pickups to the balance control, then into the volume, then into the preamp...

 

so mixed, volumed and amplified.

 

This is I think why basses with EMGs sound different, because they don't do that, they are amplified, mixed then volumed, which makes a lot more sense, because the amp is in the pickup. Also the reason that Wals and some ACGs sound different, each string is amplified then mixed.

You are close. There are EMG preamps with active mixing, but not every set has a mixer. Some have very basic passive blend.

 

WALs multi coil pickups (certain bartolinis, too) could be driven coil by coil. It is possible. It is possible with piezos, too. The system requires few buffers, and is easy to build.

 

Noll has the Mixpot that works with two pickups. It is like very spartan John East or EMG, i.e. no tone control. But because the mixer does not reduce the response of neither pickup, the output is different from pot based blend.

 

I put that Mixpot after bartolinis, and before the bartolini TBT preamp. Yes, the sound of the bass became much better (but this is subjective!). I could have built one more buffer between the mixer and the tone stack, namely an active volume. Then the set would have been like J. East. But the change in sound with the Mixpot was already so substantial, that I was happy. True that I could have put the vol after the tone stack... maybe that's the next step.

[Woodinblack]

8 minutes ago, itu said:

You are close. There are EMG preamps with active mixing, but not every set has a mixer. Some have very basic passive blend.

 

Thats the point - once you have already amplified your sources, passive blend is all you need. The problem with a passive blend in a passive system is that it allows for the interaction of the source coils, but that is already taken out by both sides being already buffered. Joining the two signals together gives you a combination of those systems without those systems affecting each other.

 

Its like the first time I heard a roland guitar synth (back in 1980), i was blown away by the normal distortion circuit, and that was because although there wasn't anything clever in it, taking the individual sting signals, amplifying, distorting and then putting them together was so much smoother than just distorting the whole thing.

 

 

[Pirellithecat]

Probably time to start a new thread .......... 

But before I do .... 

 

I like the sound of the separated Pickups - jerry rigged into  a mixer and then into my amp.    Obviously not at all practical at the moment and until I use it "live" I won't know whether to keep it "modified".  

 

I could wire up a stereo jack output on the guitar, use a stereo lead, to a Y cable and onto separate channels on a mixer and then, combined, to the amp. 

 

If it sounds OK I'll see about a wireless set up - I see there's a Legato Stereo Wireless "dongle" available - might this do the trick? 

 

I could reinstate the volume controls on the bass (no tone control) wired separately to the stereo output.   It would give me the chance to modify the tone by adjusting the volumes of each pup. Any reason not to do this? 

 

Thoughts invited - probably all a waste of time but I do like the bass in terms of playability etc.  and if all this works it'll be a lots less expensive than buying a replacement. 

I'll start a new thread with the "build" plus photo's if it all looks promising after the rats nest stage. 

 

Thanks for the advice so far.

 

[mcnach]

edit: best ignored

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by mcnach

[Woodinblack]

39 minutes ago, Pirellithecat said:

If it sounds OK I'll see about a wireless set up - I see there's a Legato Stereo Wireless "dongle" available - might this do the trick? 

 

Might do - I have one, I have never tried it!

 

39 minutes ago, Pirellithecat said:

I could reinstate the volume controls on the bass (no tone control) wired separately to the stereo output.   It would give me the chance to modify the tone by adjusting the volumes of each pup. Any reason not to do this? 

 

No reason not to do that - that is how rickenbacker stereos are wired (except they have volume and tone)

[Pirellithecat]

Supplemental question if I may ............

Will a passive mini mixer (Behringer MX 400) work as the means to combine the stereo output from the bass,  or is this just replicating the original wiring issue within the bass?     I guess I'm asking ... do I need either an active 2 channel mixer or dual channel pre-amp .... and if so ..... any ideas? 

 

[Woodinblack]

2 hours ago, Pirellithecat said:

Will a passive mini mixer (Behringer MX 400) work as the means to combine the stereo output from the bass,  or is this just replicating the original wiring issue within the bass?     I guess I'm asking ... do I need either an active 2 channel mixer or dual channel pre-amp .... and if so ..... any ideas?

 

If you have already made the input active, either by the preamp or by a dual wireless sender, then yes, a passive mixer is fine, although if you are just mixing it on the board you have gained nothing from sending a stereo from the bass, If you have it still passive in the bass then you have just doubled the injected noise.

And the behringer MX400 I think is a line level mixer, rather than an instrument level mixer.

[Pirellithecat]

1 hour ago, Woodinblack said:

 

If you have already made the input active, either by the preamp or by a dual wireless sender, then yes, a passive mixer is fine, although if you are just mixing it on the board you have gained nothing from sending a stereo from the bass, If you have it still passive in the bass then you have just doubled the injected noise.

And the behringer MX400 I think is a line level mixer, rather than an instrument level mixer.

So, ok as long as using wireless system, but not if using stereo cable from bass to passive mixer .

Many Thanks

[TRBboy]

I'm not quite sure I understand what this thread is all about after reading it, but I'll chip in anyway. 😅😬

 

I've always detected a loss or 'change' of some sort with any wireless system I've tried, with either active or passive basses. That's just to my ears. However, several years ago I took a punt on a Smooth Hound system, and it's amazing! I can't detect any tradeoff in the signal, and I'm really happy with it. 

 

The main thing I don't understand about this thread is why you seem desperate to use this as a justification to buy an active bass. If you want one, get one? I've had lots of both over the years, and have ended up deciding I generally prefer passive basses, however I wouldn't turn my nose up at an active bass, there's a lot more to it than just a preamp.With an active preamp you have more control of the sound at the bass, that's all there is too it. As I tended to set and forget, and I'm always stood right in front of my amp anyway it's not an issue for me.

 

I've ended up where I am because I came to the conclusion (again just my perception/opinion/ears) that passive, single coil basses seem to offer a purity of tone that often gets lost somewhere with active basses. Again, this statement has no basis in fact, purely personal preference! 

 

I'd personally buy a bass firstly for the feel/playability, second for the tone, thirdly for the looks. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[Woodinblack]

4 hours ago, TRBboy said:

With an active preamp you have more control of the sound at the bass, that's all there is too it.

 

No it isnt. With an active preamp you have a buffer to your signal and don't lose your high frequencies in the cable, or allow noise to be injected. You can also have more tone control if you want, but that is a secondary reason.

 

Some people prefer the sound of their bass with the top rolled off, which is why a lot of wireless sending units have a 'cable tone' option, which gives you back that sound.

 

But yes, as you say it is a preference.

 

 

[TRBboy]

12 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

 

No it isnt. With an active preamp you have a buffer to your signal and don't lose your high frequencies in the cable, or allow noise to be injected. You can also have more tone control if you want, but that is a secondary reason.

 

Some people prefer the sound of their bass with the top rolled off, which is why a lot of wireless sending units have a 'cable tone' option, which gives you back that sound.

 

But yes, as you say it is a preference.

 

 

Yes you're absolutely right, but most people will choose an active bass because it gives them more control over their sound. I was making the point in relation to choosing an active/passive instrument, not in relation to signal loss with wireless systems. My bad for not being clear enough.