The quest for better bass tone

[Barry]

After about 37 years of being primarily a bassist, mostly at various churches (about half of that an "in-demand" bassist), owning 4 or 5 different basses and playing twice that many, I sold the basses I owned, bought my Deluxe Strat and more or less settled on just having one standard Fender Jazz last year. One of those limited-edition 60th anniversary editions that you can't find anymore, natural finish. Stephen was with me at GC when I looked at it (thanks for the company, bro).

Purpose: Recording at home and whatever else God might decide to throw at me from here on out.

My mistake: Getting too wrapped up in reading stuff on Talkbass. I developed a bad case of GAS. :sos: Realizing that it would be difficult to convince my wife that I "need" a really nice, new, shiny bass again :love: , I set out on a quest to improve on what I have whilst keeping the cost factor within my own meager "slush-fund" means.

Okay, so it's not really a mistake. I've got some parts on the way that will greatly enhance how this thing sounds. :smart:

1) Nordstrand Jazz Bass NJ4SV Pickup Set (NICE!!!) (Google it (http://www.google.com/search?q=Nordstrand+Jazz+Bass+NJ4SV+Pickup+Set)!)
2) Gotoh bridge (I seriously considered the Leo Quan bridge, but decided against it. This Gotoh should be meaty enough.)
3) New electronics, one of which is a 250k pot with a push-pull DPDT switch. The switch will be wired for series/parallel pup switching and will give the bass a wider tonal range to choose from.

New purpose: Same as the old purpose.

Parts are on the way! :cool:

[Tech Player]

WOW! I read it all and love this stuff. My family has also had various Jazz Basses over the years, including rather interesting MIJ examples, and an active, mixed & boosted one with 5 strings.

You're doing all the right things there bro, technical guru!:) Sorry, I know you know, what you're doing and weren't soliciting suggestions. But can we compliment, swap some.... ah wisdom?:embarassed: and discuss. HAVE FUN WITH YOUR WORSHIP AND PRAISE MACHINE AND DO SOME TECH TALK.

You're doing great stuff again, and will succeed. I like the 250K pot idea. Did you know about the special treble bleed for basses, not for electric guitars, but specifically the .01 mf. or uf. capacitor too. It keeps the mud out, as you turn down VOLUME.

Then there's just one thing for people that are edumacated and that's not me, so somebody in my house mentions for your benefit we hope. According to this unusual edumacation thing, volume pots are supposed to be audio-taper (I know, sounds like a joke) and you have 2, while tone pots are scientifically supposed to be tapered logarithmically or linear. That's a switch from what I knew, or thought I did.

I also learned from the mouth of babes (nothing weird, just kids:smart:) that bass boost should not be active or pre-amped either, but ideally, or purely should be passive. Again, we'd be looking at unwanted frequency interference or distortion.

[Tech Player]

P.S. What was your purpose? To blow your speaker through or threw the roof, with your two pickups in series making one giant hummer? Audience: look out for flying speaker parts. :wasntme:rofl

[Barry]

I like the 250K pot idea. Did you know about the special treble bleed for basses, not for electric guitars, but specifically the .01 mf. or uf. capacitor too. It keeps the mud out, as you turn down VOLUME.

250k audio taper is the standard pot value for passive Fender basses, for both volume and tone. Although it "could" be used, it's not generally recommended, and 500k is more useful on humbucking pickups such as LPs, as it opens the pup up more, allowing more high frequencies to pass.

I put a 220k resistor and a 680pf cap across pins 1 and 2 of a 500k volume pot on my MIM Strat mod a few years back. The pot works as mentioned above and the resistor/cap in parallel across the pot makes the rate of gain more even as you turn it up or down, which also works well. I didn't make this up. I got it off a tech FAQ on the Fender Infobase forum back then.

On that same MIM, there's a .01uf cap on the 250k tone pot. A .05uf cap value is better on bass, though.

Nordstrand recommends just the usual 250k pots (V/V/T) and a .05 cap on the tone control. There should be nothing else I need to buy.

tone pots are scientifically supposed to be tapered logarithmically or linear.

Really? Where did this come from? I've never read that anywhere. In fact, everything I've seen points to audio taper. Can you post a link to a reliable online source that states this?

bass boost should not be active or pre-amped either, but ideally, or purely should be passive. Again, we'd be looking at unwanted frequency interference or distortion.

Tone is subjective. I'm old-school. I learned most of what I know by playing songs from the '50s, '60s and '70s. The best bass tone I've heard, in my book, came from the "oldies" era and the "Classic Rock" greats. While I might pop is string now and then, I truly have no inclination for "slapping". I prefer passive pups, no preamp and flatwounds. I've played on flatwounds for most of my life. These NJ4's are supposed to sound really nice with a good set of flats (although I *might* opt to try a set of roundwound GHS Bass Boomers I have here just to check it out with the new pups).

I also don't want to risk battery acid eating away at my guitar electronics, but that's just me.

Again, tone is subjective. YMMV.

P.S. What was your purpose? To blow your speaker through or threw the roof, with your two pickups in series making one giant hummer? Audience: look out for flying speaker parts. :wasntme:rofl

Maybe in another life. :roll: I have 60% hearing loss, a bad back, no amp that will put out anywhere near that much wattage and hundreds of other things to do these days (some of which I should be doing right now).

[Tech Player]

First, you're doing a great job Barry!

Second, I'm sorry I was a litttle ambiguous, but my point was audio taper for volume, regardles of ohmage, and linear for tone.

Now my son said, "Dad, you told me audio was logarithmic and linear is different, or straight." Right, the two "l"s are different, I blew it there, I mean here.

Audio IS logarithmic, or variable in a way that is determined by an equation. I'll explain why later, but will be brief, so that I may have to post again after Easter, and our guests leave.

Again, to confirm, audio should be used for volume, and linear for tone. Unfortunately, this is opposite of what is advised on the majority of forums, and would put one in an unpopular category of person, to say the least.:yikes: I don't use these forums, I merely googled them, including the bigger bass forum. I regret that I disagree with their advisors.

Yet, if you google "linear tone pots" the first thing you will come up is a link or two to forums where I believe, the participants got it right!:wasntme:

To keep this post short, I will post a link also googled by the same means, to a source that I can believe. Please disregard that it deals with Les Pauls and 500K pots, although correct. It really is quick, just scan down to the paragraph above the last paragraph.

http://www.excellentleads.com/Splitting_the_humbucker_inst.html

Again the key factor is that volume pots and tone pots are tapered differently per some of the informed or expert sources, and that does not including forums (not knocking them) or the actual manufacturers. I would go against manufacturers without hesitiation, but in a humble, disciplined way. Think of the car companies and their recalls?:roll:

Finally, if anyone thinks this is wrong, long or boring......... I can help. That's my only intention in the first place, to disseminate new or interesting information. It is not for my benefit, I try to practice altruism without ego, and am not in half the shape I was, and can't spend time for now, with many forums, or my guitars & music, which was my life so to speak, though a hobby. I do guitar tech also, from experience, but am reluctant to take money (much rofl). So, that's why I admit I'm not educated in music, not since I was child, except for the 37 plus year's experience too.:up:

I won't try to end any further discussion, but have to go soon. My son who has some scientific background, can be convinced to draw us a graph, a messy one in minutes as he did for me last night, explaining why this premise is correct.

I can explain without the pic, what the educated persons around me, although not professionals, are saying so that I/we are satisfied or understand. Our physiological hearing which is audio-related is reverse-logarithmic. We hear increases in VOLUME virtually all at once instead of gradually or tapered on a straight line. Our hearing jumps into the volume increase rather suddenly, for instance at around 3 or more on a guitar/intsrument's volume sweep. The volume in a laboratory setting may be increased correctly or evenly, but our ears pick it up when it reaches a certain point finally, and then are not as sensitive as they were at the beginning, to subsequent or later volume changes, example from 7 to 10 - though different instruments and sound sources are different, and their audio properties are definitely tapered differently, or variably, among brands and types and values of pots. But the purpose of an audio or logarithmic pot is to present the sound increases OPPOSITE to our ear's physiological properties. A logarithm which is a form of equation on variability, attempts to counter the ear's tendency, and should ideally ramp-up the volume sooner, then taper it off in rate of climb as it goes up. That's odd too, since our ear needs to hear variances at higher levels regardless (except it can't discern them well), but the pot can't give us more volume constantly, and risk distortion and an unwanted fluctuation in tone, via over-powering and hard clipping.

This would be so clear on the rough graph my son can draw on the "paint file"? It would show opposing curves between what we are capable of hearing, versus what the audio or logarithmic volume pot aims to present. With the curves being opposite, due to our hearing being reverse-logarithmic, the volume pot should try to even it out, by making an electronic correction for us. Yet I know, they seldom do. And it is often at the expense of certain frequencies and tone, that's why we have treble bleed caps and resistors, but that would be another topic...... except to say you are right on there again, and you've nailed it with your previous work on your guitar.:smart:

To end: tone requires steady climb, on an angle, so that's linear, as if you made a 45 degree angle with your protractor.

[Barry]

Alright, granted. Good info! Not only are a you great historian, you are also pretty knowledgeable on the technical side! :clap:

My point is that this tone pot stuff won't affect my bass mod in the slightest. I'm not doing this to experiment. Nor am I doing this to get into long posts about the technical nitty gritty. You can feel free to do so if you wish. I won't consider it "hijacking my thread". I'm a slow typer, though, and tend to rewrite multiple times before I post most things, so please don't expect much more from me. Maybe someone else will jump in, too.

Just to clear up any possible confusion, the "teknikel gooroo" title thingy is Stephen's doing. It has nothing to do with guitars and such. I'm the techie guy for the web server and the software. Although I made my living as an electronics bench tech for many years, it wasn't in guitar electronics. I only know enough about that to be dangerous. And I normally don't like to talk shop. :not_talking:

So anyway, back to the original topic...

Parts are on the way! :yeah:

[Barry]

If anyone is interested, I soldered it all together and upgraded the bridge a couple of weeks ago. I decided against the series/parallel switch, opting for just standard Fender-style wiring.

The bridge is a lot heavier and sustain does seem to be a bit longer, but the overall difference in that respect is marginal. Still it's slightly better than the stock bridge, so I feel it's worth the investment.

There is a significant difference with the Nordstrand pups in there. They offer a lot more punch and clarity, even at low volume, and have a good deal more output than the stock pups. There is also a bit of very subtle subharmonics going on all the way up the fretboard on every string. Interesting, and unique. I thought the old strings got damaged somehow at first, or that it had something to do with the new bridge, but this still exists with new strings and with either bridge. The wiring is as it should be, so I'm guessing this is how these NJ4SVs are supposed to sound. I'll need to check on that before too long, but it is kind of appealing. They do sound vintage, though, as described. I haven't tried these at high volume, only low and through either the cheap practice amp I have or through my Behringer mixer (via a direct box) and expensive pro-grade headphones.

I slapped in a new set of pots, too, on a new control plate, although I may pull that out and swap the older controls back in to see whether it makes any difference whenever I feel like diving into the guts again. I don't do much of that anymore.

I also did a full setup... Of course, you'd have to with a new bridge and new pups... And was able to bring the strings down closer to the fretboard just a tad with no buzz.

All in all a good set of upgrades.