• There is a glitch in the forum software and/or configuration that we are still trying to track down. For now, please make sure that the title of your new thread does NOT start with a number (digits). Otherwise, your post will appear to be saved but future attempts to read it will be met with an error message indicating the thread/post cannot be found. ~ admin

Golem

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,164
Location
My Place
`

Center click simply means that we have approx
equal amounts of boost and cut available from
where we begin [at center click]. We simply use
[actually misuse] the word "flat" as shorthand
for "center click". There's no realistic expectation
that center click is truly flat.

"Flat" can be accomplished under [more or less]
laboratory conditions, so flat response is not just
a hypothetical thing. But OTOH why should we
expect that truly flat response is an aesthetically
useful condition for our onboard EQ ? We are not
interested in amplifying the exact sound we hear
when putting an ear onto the solid body of a MM
or similar bass.

The "sound" we actually amplify is a synthetic
sound that never existed acoustically, the effect
of the ferrous strings vibrating near the PU coils.
There IS NO such animal as *flat response* for
such an audio source. If you have no real sound
to amplify, you have no original sound to compare
to the output of the speakers hooked to the amp,
so you can't have a "flat response", i.e. an amp
output that has the same occiliscope readout as
the unamplified original sound.
 

uOpt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
356
Location
Boston, MA, USA
So?

I still want to know the EQ curve for center positions. I am particularly interested in whether the 2-band and the 3-band EQs are actually different at center.
 

Golem

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,164
Location
My Place
`

IIRC, the 2-band has a wider 'Q' on the treble band,
which is not as much a treble band as compared to
the treble band of the 3-band ... IOW, it's akin to an
'upper mids' band. If true, then the 2-band and the
3-band have decidedly different contours. What the
curves look like graphically I have no clue, but some
law of the universe says some nerd on TB has prolly
published them :)
 
Last edited:

uOpt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
356
Location
Boston, MA, USA
`

IIRC, the 2-band has a wider 'Q' on the treble band,
which is not as much a treble band as compared to
the treble band of the 3-band ... IOW, it's akin to an
'upper mids' band. If true, then the 2-band and the
3-band have decidedly different contours. What the
curves look like graphically I have no clue, but some
law of the universe says some nerd on TB has prolly
published them :)

Well that would still give both of them a flat response with pots in the middle :)

So the treble part is not a shelf EQ?
 

Golem

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,164
Location
My Place
Well that would still give both of them a
flat response with pots in the middle :)

So the treble part is not a shelf EQ?

My sporadic ventures into geek space have
left me with the impression that shelving is
pretty common at the low end but more of
an exception at the high end. Sorry if thaz
not specific to particular basses in question
but thaz what I've noticed in general. IIRC
Rays and Sterlings are shelved at 40hz ?

BP has mentioned somewhere around here
that the EQ bands on MM interact with one
another ... which, I bleeb, indicates a fairly
wide 'Q'. IOW, on a 3-band, frinstintz, you
could set the bass and treble to taste, but
then if you twirl the mid pot, the bass and
treble will be pushed and pulled into rather
different shapes than where you had, only
moments prior, carefully set them.

Soooooo ...... IF for sake of this discussion
we consider the EQ to be flat with all pots
at center, then dialing one pot is not really
an isolated deviation from flat confined to
only the "territory" of that pot. If one pot
is set at other than flat, then the whole EQ
controls range is moved away from flat.
 
Last edited:

joebar

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
12
a friend of mine and I were doing a comparison of his bongo H 5 and my bongo HS 5. he also has many stingrays.
the difference was astounding.
the H bongo has the PU in the same spot as on a stingray I believe and it shows; tons of mid growl in that bongo
my HS bongo was cleaner sounding but more versatile.
I believe a single H bongo would be pretty close to that sweet spot SR tone.
 

Golem

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,164
Location
My Place
Ive got a Bongo ordered but i own a Ray 4, so how do the necks compare ?
You will encounter a definite difference, any day now. Share your impressions. Hope the difference suits you !

Also, the necks feel different not only by dimensions but also by weight in-hand cuz the strap hang balance is different.
 
Last edited:

brash47

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
187
Ive got a Bongo ordered but i own a Ray 4, so how do the necks compare ?
I'm so sorry you have ordered the Bongo 4......once you play it....the Ray may be forgotten for a very long time.

The neck is a different level...you'll see.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
 

danny-79

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
2,394
Location
England U.K
Bongo 4......once you play it....the Ray may be forgotten for a very long time

This is also very true, my Stingray’s are not getting the love they deserve due to the Bongo4H
Completely different beasts. Although HH Stingray has recently been dug up and to be honest I’ve really missed them so it’s Stingray revival now. (Although any future recording, due to recent session that sounds amazing. It will be Bongo Bongo Bongo!)
 
Top Bottom