Active electronics problem

Bridgehouse · November 2018

Funkfingers said:

Bridgehouse said:
You should have a look at how the P-retro works..

Probably more helpful to have a listen to how it works.

Lol - probably

bassbora · November 2018

Funkfingers said:

bassbora said:

I am not sure if it has been done correctly originally. I always assumed that the stacked controls were mid and treble and bass was separate but by that diagram I am wrong.

Looking at your first photograph again, it is possible to trace the purple wire from the single EQ pot to the shorter Bartolini module. This confirms that the offending pot is the Mid control. The wiring in your instrument conforms to the schematic - except for the DP3T frequency switch.

Thanks, yes I did spot that having the schematic to look over what was what. The bass is currently being looked at by ICBM and we shall see if this can be fixed.

bassbora · November 2018

Funkfingers said:

Bridgehouse said:
Having used a *good* active system live I really do prefer it - but it has to be a good one. Even a lot of high end basses use some dross that just doesn’t do the job and is unreliable. The John East stuff is, however, spot on.

A *good* active EQ system enhances the instrument on which it is installed. If the frequencies at which the EQ bands act are badly chosen, the system might as well not be there. For this reason, I prefer onboard EQ that makes it possible to adjust the centre frequencies.

I could not agree more. All basses I have had over the last 25 years have had active electronics. This is all though personal preference and I guess we all have different ideas how our gear should be and sound. But I happen to like active electronics and Warwicks. Not everyone’s cup of tea I know but for me it always sounds fantastic.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Active electronics problem

Comments