Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I'm under the impression that blending pickup sounds in an amp is better than just wiring them together before amplifying (using the mono output).

Does anyone know if running a stereo cord into two separate inputs of a bass amp will yield significantly better tone? I believe it'll need inputs like a PA-instead of the generic two inputs that an ordinary amp would have. Any amp recommendations that would also yield a decent upright sound from my amplified double bass?

I have a late 70's 4001FL (?burgundy?) that I'm using again in our jazz trio. Had an ebony board put on it in ~84 after eating it up with roundwounds in a fusion band. Gave "groovy" a new meaning!

TIA! John in NJ

Hevos from the Netherlands make amps for both basses and uprights in one enclosure. Google around for them, and maybe they ship to the usa....... BTW I'm dutch too lol

My double neck and 8-string Ricky basses are both wired stereo. I run each channel into separate processors and then back into separate channels on my mono Ampeg PB800 amp. Athough there seems to be a small amount of cross talk between the channels, it works very well.

I googled for you: http://www.hevos.nl cheers!

The Hevos sounds interesting-but the evil budget monster will probably keep me from going there!

I guess I'll have do the cap switch mod and then start bringing both basses-and the stereo cord to the music shops!

Thanks loads!

John in NJ

I used to run stereo into one SVT, bridge into main channel and neck into 2nd. I found I was using the bridge pickup for almost 99% of the sound so it was essentially a 4000 the way I ran in most times, sounded great though.
I also ruined an early 80's 4001FL neck with RW's, use flats now on my fretlesses and they growl just nice.

The bass I used for most of my active gigging and recording years was fretless and had both pickups wired individually to their own jacks, then through two cords and into separate channels of my old Acoustic head. With completely separate volume and tone controls all the way out you can get some blends that just aren't possible by running both pickups through a common set of tone controls anywhere down the line. My favorite blend was nicknamed "thunder and lightning" with the neck pickup channel set to produce a very full, house-rattling rumble that by itself would have been very mushy, and the bridge pickup channel set just as bright as I could get it and blended in to add the percussion needed to have a clean, very precise sound that still had a lot of thump. None of my other basses can generate that kind of deep-but-clean sound and should I ever buy another Ric bass, the first thing I'm going to do is make use of both jacks and rewire it similarly. With the sustain and that clear piano-like tone that Rics can produce for the bright channel, it should be awesome. I did try Ric-O-Sound, by the way, and the result wasn't even close in terms of being able to really adjust the tone. I'm not sure why, but I ended up sending the box back for a refund because it just didn't seem to be able to do what I wanted it to do. Granted, you need a 2-channel amp head to run separate all the way to the power stage, but these days you can pick up amps like the vintage Acoustic 140's or 150's off the bay for $150-$175 in good shape and they're built like tanks and last forever.

Alright! More great info from these responses! I used the Ric last night with our jazz trio. Had to run mono, not enough time to fiddle with the stereo output. Do most PAs "run separate" all the way?

I'll have to try some flats-haven't restrung it in two or three years. I'll try to post my progress.

Thanks again!

John

I recall several years ago I had a friend’s amp over the summer (first real venture into Ric-O-Sound). I can’t recall the make but it had two channels a bass type set (volume, bass, treble maybe a mid) and a guitar set up with reverb and what not. Anyhow I do recall a difference in the sound – not as dramatic as the separate amp for ROS but definitely distinctive. One of my present amps has two sets of inputs –bass and bright. Each has independent volume controls but the tone controls are shared. Running ROS here there is a slight difference from running mono. Mostly I think from the separate volume settings. Also seems to be a slight phased type sound. Mayhaps from delay deltas between the two circuits?? HTH.

Here's a short clip of my old bass with the double-cord, double-channel split system. It starts with a few seconds of the combined system. Then it drops to just the bright, bridge pickup channel for a few seconds, followed by a switch to just the neck pickup's channel and finally puts the two back together. Overall volume level is kind of low as I was trying not to blow out my little monitor speakers.

Playing live, I used 18" folded horn cabs which could both project relatively unchanged sound all the way to the back wall of the hall and create one hell of a rumble, if desired. Being able to individually adjust the balance between the two signals to get a nice blend that fit the characteristics of the room was quite handy. With all the effects pedals and gizmos that are available these days the different sound and tone possibilities would be mindboggling.

http://webpages.charter.net/tbradshaw/2-track%20bass%201.wma

Todd;

EXCELLENT sample of the sounds of your system. Are you using just fingers, or is there a pick involved? Very crisp attack, might I be able to get it with a little fingernail?

Thanks again!

John in NJ

John, that was played with a pick, which was the standard mode I used for most stuff to get a fairly "neutral" tone. With fingers, you can get a fair amount of attack if you get it with a little bit of fingernail (or even callouse) but not as much. Basically, you get a very different instrument where you start to really hear that it's fretless and it sounds much more like a string bass. Sample (takes a few seconds to start - same tone/volume/EQ settings on bass and recorder):

http://webpages.charter.net/tbradshaw/fingers%201.wma

Even though the sound is quite different, the dual-channel system acts pretty much the same with the bite being furnished by the bridge channel and the low end by the neck channel with the ability to really fine-tune the blend much more than you can on a typical 2-pickup, one cord/one channel system.

This is my old Frankenstein Gibson bass. It started life as a used EB0 that I bought in 1971. First I had the fingerboard yanked and a fretless ebony one added. Next, I had the body replaced with a thick, heavy, walnut Les Paul body. When I got to Elektra in the summer of '72 with it and my old B-15 the single humbucker drove the engineers nuts because it lacked sufficient bite to do much with the signal. So the following year I added a precision pickup at the bridge and the second jack and controls for it.

It's pretty funny, but I'd heard somewhere that Rickenbacker was stereo-wiring guitars and that they had two jacks, but I'd never seen one, so I just figured that they must be using two cords - so that's how I had my luthier set this one up. So the whole concept that I came up with was actually based on bad information, but it worked great. The final mods were done later that year with the addition of a five-way pickup selector switch (I was ahead of my time) a switchable cap on the humbucker (way ahead) and a master volume knob that controlled both channels at once. Needless to say, the inside of the control cavity looks like a bowl of spaghetti. Strings are short-scale Guild tape-wound flats from about 1975. I have two sets that I switch back and forth as I can't find them any more. They don't seem to age or corrode, so why change them? It's about time to refinish the old gal and the old Gibson bridge is a pain to deal with and should be replaced, but we have a comfortable relationship. My Ric bass and my Pedulla with do things that this one can't do, but it goes both ways.

"evil budget monster"

Interesting way to describe her!