Bass Cut Tone Knob

thegummy

Has anyone tried out having a bass cut tone knob in addition to the normal treble cut one?

How did you find it?

Is it any different to have a HPF on or before the amp? I.e. is there any benefit or downside to doing it passively as part of the guitar circuit?

DarnWeight

I've got the G&L PTB tonestack (2-band, hi-cut and lo-cut) on a partscaster, and I find it very useful.  If you've got pickups which are on the hairier/darker side (P90s/HBs/etc), they're great for thinning things out if you're going into a particularly woolly/thick fuzz or distortion...not a million miles from volume knob clean-up, but just affecting the low end.

ToneControl

I've had the EMG one usually used on basses  (2 knobs, bass cut or boost, treble cut or boost)
It's excellent, had it on 2 steinbergers and fitted it to a customisation too
much different to the amp, since you are before pedals, and much more tweakable than constantly changing amp settings

ICBM

It can be useful if you want a bright jangly tone, or just to take a little muddiness off if that's a problem.

The only downside to doing it passively is that you either need to use a reverse-Log pot - so you can't re-purpose an existing control - or have it so full bass is at 0 not 10, otherwise the taper is fairly useless.

thegummy

ICBM said:

It can be useful if you want a bright jangly tone, or just to take a little muddiness off if that's a problem.

The only downside to doing it passively is that you either need to use a reverse-Log pot - so you can't re-purpose an existing control - or have it so full bass is at 0 not 10, otherwise the taper is fairly useless.

Does that mean with a normal no-load tone pot it would go from full bass to no bass then gradually back up to nearly full again?

Funkfingers

Some versions of the Fender Bass VI had four slider switches, one for each pickup plus a preset Bass Cut “strangle” switch similar to the Jaguar guitar. (Probably best reserved for baritone tuning applications.)

Some Gibson EB-2 basses had a “tenor” switch to filter away some of the mud from the ‘bucker.

My inclination would be to add an active semi-parametric midrange cut/boost device. e.g. The EMG-VMC or its Bartolini equivalent. John East may also offer something suitable.

ICBM

thegummy said:

Does that mean with a normal no-load tone pot it would go from full bass to no bass then gradually back up to nearly full again?

No, a no-load pot gives no bass when it’s at the no-load position at 10, and full bass at 0. It won’t work at all wired the other way round.

thegummy

ICBM said:

thegummy said:

Does that mean with a normal no-load tone pot it would go from full bass to no bass then gradually back up to nearly full again?

No, a no-load pot gives no bass when it’s at the no-load position at 10, and full bass at 0. It won’t work at all wired the other way round.

Ah that's a shame. Sounds like it might be a bit clunkier than I thought.

Do you think there's no advantage to doing it with a tone knob on the guitar rather than with an EQ or a low cut on the amp (apart from being able to control it from the guitar, of course)?

ICBM

They’re different, even without pedals involved.

I find the reverse turn using a standard Log pot is best, it’s quite logical because 10 is the brightest sound on both controls. Then you can use the no-load pot.

Seziertisch

I have it in a Rickenbacker and it works great. I don’t find the reversed pot thing to be an issue using regular pots. It’s quite intuitive to use

ICBM

Seziertisch said:

I have it in a Rickenbacker and it works great. I don’t find the reversed pot thing to be an issue using regular pots. It’s quite intuitive to use

Same here, on my 4001. I wanted the ‘vintage cap’ sound on the bridge pickup, but switchable, and since I never use the normal tone control on the bridge pickup, rather than fit a push-pull I just modded the existing pot to bring in the cap - I then found a whole range of useful sounds in between. It’s by far the control I use most.

Seziertisch

ICBM said:

Seziertisch said:

I have it in a Rickenbacker and it works great. I don’t find the reversed pot thing to be an issue using regular pots. It’s quite intuitive to use

Same here, on my 4001. I wanted the ‘vintage cap’ sound on the bridge pickup, but switchable, and since I never use the normal tone control on the bridge pickup, rather than fit a push-pull I just modded the existing pot to bring in the cap - I then found a whole range of useful sounds in between. It’s by far the control I use most.

I have it in a 12-string. Without it the neck pickup on its own had too much bass content to be really useable most of the time. The bass cut control allows me to get a really great jangle in all positions. It almost sounds like adding highs rather than cutting lows

ICBM

Seziertisch said:

I have it in a 12-string. Without it the neck pickup on its own had too much bass content to be really useable most of the time. The bass cut control allows me to get a really great jangle in all positions. It almost sounds like adding highs rather than cutting lows

I find that with the neck pickups too, if they’re either the High-Gain pickups or the 12K Toasters. On the guitars with the 5th ‘mixer’ knob, I put the cap across the 5th pot so it becomes the bass cut and fixes that problem. Is that how you’ve done it?

ToneControl

Whilst passive bass pots are a good idea, I have no idea why there's not more guitarists using the active EQ systems that have been perfected over decades for our bass playing friends, whose EQ requirements are more demanding. The flexibiity I get from my active EQ guitars is (by design) beyond what is possible with passive EQ 

ICBM

ToneControl said:

Whilst passive bass pots are a good idea, I have no idea why there's not more guitarists using the active EQ systems that have been perfected over decades for our bass playing friends, whose EQ requirements are more demanding. The flexibiity I get from my active EQ guitars is (by design) beyond what is possible with passive EQ 

That's true, but a lot of guitarists - and even some bassists - just don't like the sound of active systems. I'm usually the first to say that if you can't dial in a good sound then the problem isn't in the gear, but I just don't get on with any of the ones I've tried.

In fact I may be about to sell my active bass, because I like almost everything about it... except the sound. I just prefer my old passive Rickenbacker, and the new (to me, it's still old) Aria I've just bought.

What's wrong with it is hard to say - it can certainly produce more sounds, and more bottom end if I want it, but I think it somehow lacks punch - it's too refined and polite. I like the rougher, more basic tone of the old passive ones.

I think the only active bass I've not felt that about is the MusicMan Stingray, and even then the original two-knob one is better.

ToneControl

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

Whilst passive bass pots are a good idea, I have no idea why there's not more guitarists using the active EQ systems that have been perfected over decades for our bass playing friends, whose EQ requirements are more demanding. The flexibiity I get from my active EQ guitars is (by design) beyond what is possible with passive EQ 

That's true, but a lot of guitarists - and even some bassists - just don't like the sound of active systems. I'm usually the first to say that if you can't dial in a good sound then the problem isn't in the gear, but I just don't get on with any of the ones I've tried.

In fact I may be about to sell my active bass, because I like almost everything about it... except the sound. I just prefer my old passive Rickenbacker, and the new (to me, it's still old) Aria I've just bought.

What's wrong with it is hard to say - it can certainly produce more sounds, and more bottom end if I want it, but I think it somehow lacks punch - it's too refined and polite. I like the rougher, more basic tone of the old passive ones.

I think the only active bass I've not felt that about is the MusicMan Stingray, and even then the original two-knob one is better.

So, for Gilmour: Black strat or red?
;-)

ICBM

ToneControl said:

So, for Gilmour: Black strat or red?

;-)

Either. But although he, Blackmore, Knopfler and many others who use Strats are some of my favourite players, I don't really get on with them, I always find them a bit thin-sounding. (Without hotter pickups, anyway.)

I like the sounds other players get with active basses too - just not so much when I play them myself.

Seziertisch

ICBM said:

Seziertisch said:

I have it in a 12-string. Without it the neck pickup on its own had too much bass content to be really useable most of the time. The bass cut control allows me to get a really great jangle in all positions. It almost sounds like adding highs rather than cutting lows

I find that with the neck pickups too, if they’re either the High-Gain pickups or the 12K Toasters. On the guitars with the 5th ‘mixer’ knob, I put the cap across the 5th pot so it becomes the bass cut and fixes that problem. Is that how you’ve done it?

I got a new pickguard cut for a 5-way Strat switch. The bottom pickguard is raised off the body using those rubber grommets that they use to separate the top and bottom scratch plates. Otherwise, I went for treble/bass and volume controls. I also have a Creation Audio Redeemer in there on a push/pull pot. It does a great job of “activising” passive pickups without changing the sound.

thegummy

ToneControl said:

Whilst passive bass pots are a good idea, I have no idea why there's not more guitarists using the active EQ systems that have been perfected over decades for our bass playing friends, whose EQ requirements are more demanding. The flexibiity I get from my active EQ guitars is (by design) beyond what is possible with passive EQ 

I've never been attracted to active EQ on bass or guitar for this reason - and I think this is true - it's really the same as plugging the guitar in to an EQ pedal or an EQ unit/strip etc. except the electronics are in the guitar body rather than in a pedal. Whereas with normal tone controls it's actually part of the circuit and interacts with it in a way a pedal or unit couldn't.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong about that, I'd rather know the truth.

Also, that's the theoretical reason. The practical reason (for bass) is that when I play live I generally never want to EQ the sound and just stick to the flat sound of the bass itself. Maybe the occasional "tone all the way down" sound. And when recording I record flat cause I want to leave the EQing til the mixing stage when all the other elements of the track are there.

Would still like to know if I'm right about the active EQ being the same as EQing after the fact but passive EQ interacts with the pickups.

thegummy

ICBM said:

They’re different, even without pedals involved.

I find the reverse turn using a standard Log pot is best, it’s quite logical because 10 is the brightest sound on both controls. Then you can use the no-load pot.

The thing about not being able to use the no-load to achieve full bass is the whole thing of it then still cutting some frequencies even when all the way down (like normal tone pots cut some highs when they're on 10 if they're not no-loads).

I suppose it's possible that the frequencies it would cut at are ones where the guitar either wouldn't be producing anyway or are definitely not wanted.

ICBM

thegummy said:

The thing about not being able to use the no-load to achieve full bass is the whole thing of it then still cutting some frequencies even when all the way down (like normal tone pots cut some highs when they're on 10 if they're not no-loads).

No, when it’s all the way down it’s completely bypassed even with a normal pot - because for a bass-cut, bypass is a short circuit not an open circuit.