Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

[Inflames626]

Hey bass players,
Of the major manufacturers, Bartolini is the only one I've noticed that has a six conductor, four coil pickup to allow all wiring configurations, including series, parallel, both P configurations, and each coil individually.

Two of these on a bass would seem to offer maximum tonal flexibility.

Any views as to why these aren't more common?

Thanks.

 

[Johnny the Kid]

Re: Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

It could be a proprietary design. Like DMZ's dual cream pickups.

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

It could be a proprietary design. Like DMZ's dual cream pickups.

Maybe, but I wasn't sure if that could be patented because it's a basic element, like a humbucker design.

Then again, I suppose the humbucker in its time was patented. It's just that the Gibson and Fender designs are so old that they are now public domain.

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

Any views as to why these aren't more common?

Bartolini has a distinctive approach to design and sound. Not everyone likes this. Bartolini is up against several decades of traditional manufacturers and end users' traditional expectations. Not everyone is prepared to risk the monetary investment in something "unknown".

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

"Unknown" might be Lightwave pickups' approach. I don't know if having a flexible wiring scheme is that far out there.

I admit that Bartolinis often have a distinct, airy sound. Some people like them and others don't. I'd say they're more out there for their tone than they are for their wiring scheme.

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

In my mind, I'm not asking for much more than the ability to get P bass coil types out of an SD NYC soapbar.

I doubt the tone would change that much, but the addition would be nice. Then it would be easy for people with common 2 soapbar basses to get a dual P sound, a design that is not that common aside from a few BC Richs I see.

 

[One Bad Monkey]

Re: Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

I think some of it draws from the fact that bassists really don't NEED it to get a large tonal variety, especially since you said "I doubt the tone would change that much...". I can adjust my right hand technique and get an immediate tonal difference over taking the time to flip switches, and dial things in.

For an example, I had a thread on here, asking for some opinions on how to wire up a new bass I was assembling. There were a lot of very technical and elaborate opinions given, but in the end I went for a very simple one, mainly because it's quicker to dial in a good EQ tone on the bass, and even easier to move my right hand closer/farther from the bridge and adjust the attack to change sounds.

 

[idsnowdog]

Re: Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

Six conductors doesn't necessarily make the pickup any more versatile. If we are talking about a p-bass pickup there's a wire for the beginning and end of the coil and the third wire is probably a grounded shield. Other than shielding the pickup those leads do nothing to improve wiring versatility over 4 conductor wiring. The grounded shield just guarantees that no noise is reintroduced into circuit unlike a 4 conductor pickup with a common ground.

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

idsnowdog, I thought the additional two conductors were necessary to do all six wiring configurations?

The main difference seems to be that most soap bars with different wiring options don't offer the two P configurations. It sounds like most players don't seem to miss this flexibility, though.

One Bad Monkey makes a good point. Coming at it as a guitar player, though, I prefer a set and forget approach using the amp head and switches. I don't like having to guesstimate to see if my EQ settings on the bass are consistent from performance to performance.

He also brings up an interesting point in that simplicity is sought, and yet at the same time we seem to have more elaborate solutions coming from high end, active basses.

For my part, I just use a passive. My interest in the flexibility of six wiring configurations is mainly because I haven't yet figured out which pickup combination I like best tonally (P, PP, J, PJ, soapbar, MM).

Saves me the trouble of tons of basses.

 

[idsnowdog]

Re: Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

idsnowdog, I thought the additional two conductors were necessary to do all six wiring configurations?

OK I see how this works you are basically tying together the grounds and shields so you have 6 conductors. So yes you have more switching options, but that may not equate to versatility. Like the Jimmy Page wiring some of the options may not be that useful. http://www.bartolini.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/6-Conductor-Wiring-Diagram-SW2.pdf

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

I guess we would need to know what all six wires do? What is the model number of the pickups you are referring to and is there a diagram for them?

At the bottom. Evidently, this comes in four conductor with six conductor optional.

My concern isn't the conductors as much as the quad coil, which allows as pickup coil configurations. Most manufacturers seem to ignore the two P shapes.

http://contact.bartolini.net/support/solutions/articles/5000552601-pickups-coil-types

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

Also, others might say why bother about the two P designs when the coil location difference wouldn't affect the tone much if at all.

My understanding is that a true P sounds different from something emulating a P because the coils and poles geometry are different than when a P design is made to fit within a small form factor. EMG notes that their Ps have short poles and squat coils. I figured this would be sacrificed in something like a dual coil hum cancelling J.

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

As usual, Bartolini links the shielding ground and one end of one coil for each half of the pickup. It ought to be possible to rejig this to get eight con + shield. The increase in interconnection permutations does not necessarily result in more usable sounds.

Having recently had to decide between EMG35DC and EMG35P4 pickups in a Fleabass, I can attest that there would be a tonal and output difference between some of the modes of a quad coil pickup. (Admittedly, this is a somewhat unfair comparison.) How often a bassist would want to switch between some of the modes is debatable.

I am a fan of the old SD Active EQ series "switch" pickups. In general, once I have found a favourite setting for a given pickup in a given instrument, I tend to leave it that way most of the time. On a Jazz Bass format instrument, most of the tonal variety still comes from finger techniques and the output level balance between the two pickups.

Part of the problem is unrealistic expectations. e.g. Full width coils, parallel interconnection, near the bridge "should' sound like a Musician Stingray. Well, maybe, that is the theory. It ain't necessarily gonna be that way in practice - specially with Bartolini's fondness for extended bass frequency range reproduction.

P Bass pickup geometry is an essential feature. The Bartolini 9J model is two coils, side-by-side, each reading two strings. Cancels hum, sounds fat but has a different attack than a P.

I have tended not to be a fan of PJ combinations. Recently, having tried instruments where the P coils are arranged "E/A coil low, D/G coil high", I am liking the results better. (The coils of the EMG35P4 are arranged this way.)

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

Funkfingers, in short, then, it's better to have a dedicated bass for each one of those pickup configurations than to try to have a catch all bass?

As a guitarist, I find a J bass most usable as far as cutting through but sometimes it does not sit as well in a mix as a P. Conversely, a P sometimes thumps too much without cutting through. Mixing and EQ'ing helps but I'd rather have a more elegant solution straight from the bass that splits the difference tonally between a P and J.

As a result, I have been very interested in the NYC soapbars and would like to try them. I will probably wire them in parallel, as series seems to introduce too much mud.

My concern with active pickups is that they have a certain false, brittle sound around the 2khz range. Some people like it but, since many of my guitars are EMG equipped, I feel like the EMG colored bass would clash with the EMG colored guitars and result in too much of the same thing. I find that passives have more warmth and that I favor regular passive tone controls--if I need any kind of boost I prefer using active EQ boosts on an amp. Again this is purely so I can recall exact settings instead of guessing with the position of a tone knob.

My guitars usually sound very active--that is, bright attack and fairly middy, so I feel like a warm passive bass tone offsets that active coloring somewhat.

I usually EQ my guitars with a roll off around 100hz and 5khz, and then a slight rise around 100-200 hz and then again around 2khz. My guess is the bass should be around 800hz and again at 1.6khz. All pickup types can do this dialed in right but I am seeking the best tool for the job, which has me leaning toward a P bass after abandoning it for some years.

As an aside, I am surprised that the Blackout bass models have not been more popular. Blackouts were released partly to address the criticism that EMGs do not have enough body, thereby requiring the 18 volt mod or X series. My guess is that the Blackout bass models would be similar--like the EMGs but with more body and an "organic" sound.

 

[Inflames626]

Re: Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

Also, have you found a dual P to sound like a two soapbar bass? Part of me says they would sound similar and not be worth the trouble of finding a relatively rare dual P bass. The other part of me says that because of the P's coil geometry it will sound different. That and a dual soapbar might offer more wiring options (series parallel and split) than a dual P would.

I have heard of some people wiring a P in parallel but they said it was not that pleasing.

 

[One Bad Monkey]

Re: Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

One Bad Monkey makes a good point. Coming at it as a guitar player, though, I prefer a set and forget approach using the amp head and switches. I don't like having to guesstimate to see if my EQ settings on the bass are consistent from performance to performance.

He also brings up an interesting point in that simplicity is sought, and yet at the same time we seem to have more elaborate solutions coming from high end, active basses.

Right, which is why I said that most bass players - and I'm coming at this as a bass player - prefer the simple approach. Many players I know will run a P Bass or J Bass with the volume knob(s) and tone knob all the way up. The only change they'll make is their right hand. We're very much set it and forget it. There's also a number of players I know who prefer wiring the pickups straight to the jack, with no knobs. Can't get more simple than that.

And just because a high end, active bass has a ton of knobs and switches on it doesn't mean that you necessarily have to use them. On my active basses, I pull the mid back a little from the center detent and favor the bridge pickup. That's it. All the other knobs and switches are left alone.

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Six conductor bass pups--why not more common?

Funkfingers, in short, then, it's better to have a dedicated bass for each one of those pickup configurations than to try to have a catch all bass?

Not necessarily.