Retro-fitting active eq to a 4003?

bob_atherton · Post by **bob_atherton** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 7:50 am

It took a few years for the penny to drop on the active sound thing. What got me into bass were people like John Paul Jones, Jack Bruce, Macca & Roger Glover. There is just something so organic about a thick vibrating string, a simple transducer and a large wall of valve fuelled sound.

All the active basses I had, but to a slightly lesser extent the MM Stingray sounded synthetic. A bit like an Ovation acoustic always sounds to me as if the strings are made of rubber bands.

My first serious bass was back in 74’ it was a 4001 played through a Hiwatt custom 100 head into a Hiwatt 2x15. Boy, did that rock!

Because of my back & the smaller venue sizes that I now play in I use an Ashdown rig. I think for SS it has a warm valvey kind of presentation, but I still use Rickenbackers at the front end. They are big, versatile, organic, wild and quite easy to play. I love ‘em.

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:07 am

I would never think of adding active electronics in a Rick bass. The fact that they don't have them is one of the many reasons that makes them me favorite basses. A really good amp is all you would need. If you want more tone shaping capabilty get a SansAmp or Bass Pod or similar pedal.
I have several basses with active eq. When I use them, the eq controls are set to the detent position. I let my amp and SansAmp BDDI do my tone shaping, I find that the tone is much better that way.

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:58 am

Quote -"They are big, versatile, organic, wild and quite easy to play. I love ‘em."

Just about hit the nail on the head there Bob!

(And Henny, sorry for not doing the proper "quote" thing, but I'm lazy and couldn't be bothered sussing it out; hope you're not offended

..)

john_l · Post by **john_l** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 5:47 am

A Ric is known for its sound]tone] by changing electronics,pickups...that sound is gone...AND THATS THE FACT JACK!

As a bassist, I want to be known for MY sound and the bass is just a tool to accomplish this with. If I can improve my sound my improving the tools used to produce it I'll certianly do it.

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:51 pm

John, I'd struggle to argue with THAT statement....

sabbath_of_bass · Post by **sabbath_of_bass** » Sun Oct 16, 2005 2:48 pm

Its stupid to say either or is better then the other if you ask me. ITs up to the player. Personally I love active basses. Then again as do I passive. But if i had to pick one bass. It would probly be an active.

I agree with John. Its all about YOUR sound. No one elses.

Oh and David I love how those tracks sounded.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:28 am

When you alter an instrument sound wise or anything else its your choice, my opinion is its foolish to think you can improve on something thats been known for its tone and you can simply make it better,
Yes these are tools but if you can improve upon a legendary sound then you should be working for Rickenbacker.
Its OK in twenty years time from now somebody will be restoring the poor old Rickenbacker you messed up saying
"what was that fool thinking".

If it ain't broke don't fix it,to think you can improve upon a Ric's sound is simply arrogant.

Go put cragers on a Volkswagen and leave the Rickenbackers alone.

david_schwab · Post by **david_schwab** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 6:21 am

The two Alembics I had sounded quite good. In their case the bass was designed as a complete concept, whereas most basses with active electronics use off the shelf components and mix-n-match, so to speak.

That's a good way to put it. Alembics are in a class all their own. Technically speaking, Alembic pickups are passive. But on their own the output would be so low as to be unusable. In my opinion all other "active" pickups are just trying to copy Alembic. The only thing I want a pickup to do is accurately reproduce the sound of the bass, and not introduce an unnatural "active" sound. Personally I'm not looking for hyped up treble and bass.. just more detail. And I agree with what Jeff first said, that a lot of active basses sound like ****.

But just as you can lose tone in a poorly designed active setup, you can also lose tone in an over wound pickup. I'd rather do as Alembic does, produce a pickup without a resonant peak (which you get right before the frequency response starts to roll off) and extended frequency range, and then if I want a more "passive sound" just roll off some top end and put that peak back in the upper mids. They use a low pass filter for that.

When I got my first Zon the electronics in it were Bartolini multicoil pickups and TBT preamp. At first I liked the sound of it but after a while I tried bypassing the preamp and it sounded much better passive.

I'm a big fan of Barts, but back when I installed one in my Rick, I also tried one of their preamps... and I didn't care too much for it. The biggest problem was lack of headroom... the pickup would easily cause the preamp to clip. This was back when they were known as Hi-A pickups... so things have probably changed quite a bit. The FET buffer I used at the time didn't actually change the sound of the pickup... it didn't make it sound "active"... but it did sound fuller and larger. Made the low end sound like it extended an octave lower, and brought out a nice sheen in the top. But it was very subtle. It was the actual sound of the pickup, unencumbered by the impedance loading of the pots and not some kind of EQ boost.

But it *is* a personal thing. In my case I loved my Rick, but I was exploring different sounds. To me it was fun seeing what you could do sound wise by changing the electronics.

And I'll be the first to say that often, I think I want this-or-that, only to decide I don't. I went through a phase recently where I wanted a bright piano sound from my bass... A sound I don't usually use... except my bass doesn't really sound like that. I had designed it for a much warmer sound with a lot of bottom end. And in the end I changed my mind and realized instead of trying to make the bass sound this-way-or-that-way, just listen to the bass and find *its* sound, and expand on that.

So while I enjoy some active basses, I like passive too. But even with passive pickups... there is an after-market of replacement pickups for a reason. Some people just want something a little different. Heck, even Roger Glover had replaced his pickups back in the day.. and for the same reason many of us did. More bottom and hum cancelation. Even RIC came out with high gains and humbuckers.

Hey Jeff.. that six string you whipped up is wild! That big toaster would sound great I bet!

incubus2432 · Post by **incubus2432** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:53 am

I never understand what the big deal is with someone swapping pickups.......drop-ins take less than an hour to install OR swap back to stock. What's the difference between using stomp boxes to get a nice tone or swapping pickups? Does every one of the "purists" here use only Ric strings? If the "Ric way" is the only way then make sure you use a Ric amp as well and certainly leave the neck, nut and bridge setup the same as it was when it left the factory. The 4001 "cap mod" is also a no-no. Don't mess with perfection......

Ric certainly makes an awesome bass (it is the only brand that I currently own) but that doesn't mean that everything about it is perfect for my playing style, my rig and my idea of "dream tone". The same bass will sound different depending on who is playing it and what equipment they use so saying that a stock Ric is the only way to go and that any alterations "ruin" it are arrogant as well. Any reversible mods are fair game (IMO) and don't take value away at all as long as the stock parts are retained.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:51 am

Yes, but rarely when doing such mods as adding battery is it reversible,I have a 67 4001s someone at one time put p-bass pickups in it routing out the body,Why not get a damn p-bass????Ive become a purist over the years because who am I to think I can outsmart the engineers who put these things together,If I want to change my sound I do this by Effects or Amp settings.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:49 pm

Brian ... please don't put active electronics and a p-bass pickup in your Lemmy bass ... and I will promise not to 4-2-5 a Lemmy either ...

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:01 pm

I at one time put Bart's in my 77 4001 in the 80s just because everyone else did it,they came out pretty quickly too when my band members were asking what happened to my sound,did the same thing to my precision I put Seymour's in it,it did not sound as good[as stock] so I learned my lesson.

incubus2432 · Post by **incubus2432** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:34 pm

Jeff....the only mod that I would consider for the LK is individual volume/tone for each p/u. Since doing that would require a stacked pot to be placed where the toggle is and that would require drilling........I certainly will not be doing that.......

Ken....it will be interesting to see how my Bart 4003s8 sounds at MARC compared to the stock s8's that will be in attendance. It is hard to compare what mine sounded like before the swap to what it sounds like now......a side by side comparison will be interesting. Fortunately my stock p/u's are tucked away safely.....

rikk · Post by **rikk** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:02 pm

I've got EMG Jazz pickups in my 1975 4001 (I'm ducking now...) I bought it that way from the guy who did the mod. He wanted more of a Jazz bass sound. Well it still sounded like a Ric so he went out and got a Jazz bass and put this up for sale. I was reluctant to buy it, but thought OK what the heck it's going to be my backup bass. Well one show I broke a string or something and I played the EMG 4001 and it's been my #1 ever since. The sound is a bit rounder, but still the Ric growl.
The bass is pretty ugly but it plays well and sounds great. My other Rics have stock PU and I think they sound great too. One is at my tech's shop having the cap mod done. I can't wait to hear it when it comes back.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:41 pm

actually a really good after market pickup for a 4001/4003 bridge position is ...

don't laugh ...

a Seymour Duncan 50s shape p-bass single coil 1/4 pound pickup ... not the 2 piece humbucker ... it could be screwed down to the plastic plate that holds the bridge pickup and the 1/4 pound design and single coil wiring would give it a good growl and putting in the "right" location along with a ric neck pickup it should sound good ...

but I have never tried it ...