ok, talk me into it. or talk me out of it.

[gonzosc1]

OK here it is. my 96 vette std(passive) is a lowend monster..
even my crappy Ibanez 405 5 string rages in the lowend..
In comes my poor 97 Fortress R&B(passive) while it plays like a wet dream the lowend is nowhere to be found compared to the Vette.

don't get me wrong, it sounds good. but with the vette's J-J setup, the Fortress doesn't stand a chance with its P-J setup.. its just not a powerful sounding setup for some reason on this bass. I've had other basses with P-J setup and they carried the lowend, but my Fortress just won't do it.
I've eq'ed the hell out of it and got a lot low mid's on it, but I just can't dail in the lowend....

So what I'm thinking about is removing the bridge J pup and have the body routed for either a MEC hum or a MEC double J pup....

OK so lets hear it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Vinnie]

I do not think routing the BRIDGE position would be ideal for getting low end. I can't think of a reason why the fortress does not have it to begin with... But frankly, if you are unhappy with the sound you might as well sell it and buy a bass that has the sound you want. (this is what I did in a similar situation with my old thumb bo) The idea of carving into a wick is something I could never do. So... Don't do it! :?

 

[+JohnnyBoy-]

I'm in with Vinnie. Sell it before you cut it.

 

[Mr Praline]

Yeah, I agree with above posters... the low end comes mostly from the neck pickup. If you don't want to sell it, perhaps a pickup change will help?

 

[Wo0d643]

I do not think routing the BRIDGE position would be ideal for getting low end.................................................. The idea of carving into a wick is something I could never do. So... Don't do it! :?

+1

 

[golem]

• I will assume that you've already dealt with the PU
  heights, and all fasteners are snug, including those
  nut-like collars around the tuner pegs.
  
  I can't see enhancing a neck PU for bigger bottom.
  Neck PUs are wooly and woofy, soft and unfocused
  compared to bridge PUs. That type of low end gets
  lost or buried too easily. If you dig the Fortress and
  wanna put a humbugger at the bridge, go for it. I'd
  definitely do all the routing on the neck side of the
  current rout. IOW, not go any closer to the bridge.
  
  Admittedly, the "neck" PU on a PJ isn't overly much
  a neck PU. It's a central PU, after the P-bass model.
  So, before you rout, I'd try changing BOTH of your
  current PUs, to something more Olde Skool for the
  'P', and a humbugger in a 'J' form at the bridge. You
  may well get exactly what you seek this way ... but
  if not, the good thing is that it's a PJ set, so you can
  remove it and sell it fairly readily. Plus, the Fortress
  is still uncut, so you could reassemble it to sell it, or
  you can go ahead and rout it for 'Plan B'.
  
  The other path is the electronics. You have postings
  in this thread warning you that a bridge humbugger
  won't deliver a monster bottom, cuz it's a bridge PU.
  Go tell that to Sterling Ball. Even with it's solitary PU
  at the bridge, and even coil-split down to single coil,
  a MM is a bunker buster. It's gotta be dependent on
  its electronics to bring that out of a split humbugger
  at the bridge.
  
  BTW, if you ultimately do rout for a bridge humber,
  I suggest a real 8-slug humber, not a twin-J. If the
  TJ is actually twin J-type PUs, then it's got 16 small
  slugs, in pairs like any J-PU. You want those 8 large
  slugs like on the $$, not the dinky pairs, if you want
  you some big bottom. If you wanna stay in the Wick
  family, check out the PUs on the Taranis. Even the
  neck "J" is not a "J" [4x2, dinky slugs]. It's the MM
  type of SC [4x1, large slugs].

 

[trujo777]

Yeah, I agree with above posters... the low end comes mostly from the neck pickup. If you don't want to sell it, perhaps a pickup change will help?

+1

I once had a Fortress with P/J setup and had a LOT of low end. maybe dusting elecs might work or maybe faulty elecs or pick ups. try your pickup heights too. :wink:

 

[gonzosc1]

alright then,,,LOL thats 5 "against" and one possible "for"


I do like the idea that Golem had about a stacked Hummer in the form of a standard J pup body.
also I have always kind of followed Golems reasonning that you would get more lowend "definition" from the bridge pup. I feel the the neck pup would be more responsible for the sub bass frequencies in any combo setup. just my opinion though!

not exactly sure what frequencies I'm having problems with. it seems to fall right there at the point where the sub bass and low mids would meet.
almost like having a crossover that was setup wrong and theres a hole in between right where I to adjust it...but I can't find it with my eq. I've tryed boosting and cutting between 80hz up to 200hz. the BBE handles the 60hz area

I guess I really should look at the electronics part of it. it might be something faulty under the cover or the pups themselfs could be failling.
I'm not big on active. don't like the battery hassles.

so that right now leaves me the pups. believe me, I don't want to cut into the Fortress. selling it is out of the question. the bass is like butter in my hands. I mean,,, hell I sold my 72 RIC 4001 after the Fortress made its way home. the RIC turned into a big dust magnet,,,LOL I wouldn't even look at it,,,LOL

So ok, lets hear some pup choices.. passive please. one's known for some lowend. I'll replace the J-P set.
Golem you mentioned stacked hummers.. point me in that direction, the only ones I know of are the Carvin bass pups. any more out there..

everyone tell me about your past passive J-P setups...

 

[golem]

• I don't have a lotta passive basses, and the only
  one with J-shaped direct replacement humbuggers
  is my MIM Jazz FL4. It's got Dimarzio Ultras, which
  contain side-by-side PUs rather than stacking. It's
  still a humber, four wires and all .... but it's the four
  wires that make it hard to describe the tone, cuz
  I wired it in an "X" pattern.
  
  ---------------------------------------------------------
  
  
  Each "J-PU" is really two PUs, next to each other. I
  wired things so that one vol knob controls the E-A
  bridge PU [1/2 the "J"] as well as the D-G neck PU
  [1/2 the other "J"]. The other vol knob controls the
  other diagonal pair of the "X" pattern.
  
  If you read me right [if I wrote it right ...] then you
  realize that with both knobs set equally, my wiring
  is effectively no different than normal, but I play
  it with emphasis on the "bridge E-A plus neck D-G"
  tone. Think of it as a reversed [aka anti-Fender] P
  bass PU with a huge aperture, IOW the staggering
  of my "split coil" isn't just 3/4" like a P-PU, but is a
  few inches [whatever the spacing is on a J-bass].
  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  
  Even with all 4 coils cookin equally [which cancels
  out the "X-factor"] this is not a very humbuggerish
  ax. It achieves 2 goals: [1] bucking hum, and [2]
  improved control of voicing across the 4 strings. It
  bucks hum but without sounding humbuggery. Not
  what I think you want. But it is less honkerish than
  the original true SC J-PUs. So, for your quest, if a
  stacked humbugger J-PU is no more humbuggery
  than the side-by-side type, then to avoid routing,
  you need a well focused [non-Fenderish] P-PU to
  replace your neck PU. That way you can use the
  neck PU to add bottom without adding too much
  neck-PU boominess.
  
  IOW, if you wanna avoid routing for a big 8-slug
  humbugger bridge PU, then I spoze you will hafta
  depend on the neck PU for bottom ... so get one
  with some definition. The "J-bugger" is less honky
  than a J-single coil, so it's like cutting treble but
  not like boosting bass. Only an 8-slug is gonna
  actually boost bass.
  
  ################################
  
  
  The only passive PJs I play have, for one, an EMG
  Select P-J set, and the other has a Bartolini P-PU
  and no-name J-PU. Unlike active EMGs, the Select
  are kinda mellow. Not gonna solve your problem.
  
  The Bart really brought its ax to life. It's not hot or
  bright, but it's clear and rich, not muddy or dull, in
  an old Ibnez P-J, whose neck is too skinny to add
  much to the tone, and whose body is some kinda
  softish mystery wood. If it can bring life to a soft
  bodied pencil necked old Ibnez, it should do even
  better with the big neck and cool woods of a Wick.
  
  
  ****************************************
  
  
  I've got a Yamaha P-type with Bart PU, and a P-J
  Guild thaz all-Bart .... but these are active basses.
  The same Bart-P as my passive Ibnez, but both of
  the active basses have a throaty roar or growly
  tone, reduced a bit by their flatwounds of course.
  With RWs, they'd be pretty aggressive in tone. I'm
  not sure the Bart-P, in a passive set up, would be
  aggressive enuf to cure the mildness of tone that
  you complain about, especially since I don't know
  what causes it. I'm really hooked on active basses.
  I'm a photographer. I'm used to battery powered
  stuff, and bleeb me, basses have very tiny drain
  compared to most photo stuff.
  
  My philosophy is that passive tone does not exist.
  It's just a cultish myth. Gain has gotta come from
  somewhere. And it doesn't bother me if it comes
  from everywhere. Plus, I hate hiss and buzz, so I
  like a strong signal, produced as early as possible
  along the signal chain.
  
  &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
  
  
  This is long post already ... but oopz, one more
  thing. I do have one more passive P-J but it's not
  a PU set you could buy [stock 80's Fender Japan].
  However ... it does have a wiring trick: It can run
  the whole P-J config as one big series wired loop.
  
  This causes either PU to act as an additional tone
  control for the other whenever they are not set to
  equal balance. Whichever PU is set to less volume
  still adds its voice to the mix, but it's also bleeding
  some treble to ground. Again, it's not a bass boost
  but just a treble cut, but it works. Don't ask for a
  wiring sketch. AFAIK it's stock wiring, and it gives
  me nightmares just looking at that mess of wires
  under the hood ... serious spagetti supper for the
  whole family. All I know is, it's got 3 knobs, plus a
  3-way toggle, and all the controls seem to interact.

 

[Mr Praline]

Oh, and I just have to mention that you will get a bassier sound if you lower the pickups, If you didn't already know this?

 

[gonzosc1]

Oh, and I just have to mention that you will get a bassier sound if you lower the pickups, If you didn't already know this?

yeah I lowered the bridge a little, it at about 5 maybe 6 mm..
and left the neck pup up high enough as to not get smacked by the string. it did give me a little more sub frequency as I have to lower the BBE low process a hair.

 

[gonzosc1]

• I don't have a lotta passive basses, and the only
  one with J-shaped direct replacement humbuggers
  is my MIM Jazz FL4. It's got Dimarzio Ultras, which
  contain side-by-side PUs rather than stacking. It's
  still a humber, four wires and all .... but it's the four
  wires that make it hard to describe the tone, cuz
  I wired it in an "X" pattern.
  
  ---------------------------------------------------------
  
  
  Each "J-PU" is really two PUs, next to each other. I
  wired things so that one vol knob controls the E-A
  bridge PU [1/2 the "J"] as well as the D-G neck PU
  [1/2 the other "J"]. The other vol knob controls the
  other diagonal pair of the "X" pattern.
  
  If you read me right [if I wrote it right ...] then you
  realize that with both knobs set equally, my wiring
  is effectively no different than normal, but I play
  it with emphasis on the "bridge E-A plus neck D-G"
  tone. Think of it as a reversed [aka anti-Fender] P
  bass PU with a huge aperture, IOW the staggering
  of my "split coil" isn't just 3/4" like a P-PU, but is a
  few inches [whatever the spacing is on a J-bass].
  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  
  Even with all 4 coils cookin equally [which cancels
  out the "X-factor"] this is not a very humbuggerish
  ax. It achieves 2 goals: [1] bucking hum, and [2]
  improved control of voicing across the 4 strings. It
  bucks hum but without sounding humbuggery. Not
  what I think you want. But it is less honkerish than
  the original true SC J-PUs. So, for your quest, if a
  stacked humbugger J-PU is no more humbuggery
  than the side-by-side type, then to avoid routing,
  you need a well focused [non-Fenderish] P-PU to
  replace your neck PU. That way you can use the
  neck PU to add bottom without adding too much
  neck-PU boominess.
  
  IOW, if you wanna avoid routing for a big 8-slug
  humbugger bridge PU, then I spoze you will hafta
  depend on the neck PU for bottom ... so get one
  with some definition. The "J-bugger" is less honky
  than a J-single coil, so it's like cutting treble but
  not like boosting bass. Only an 8-slug is gonna
  actually boost bass.
  
  ################################
  
  
  The only passive PJs I play have, for one, an EMG
  Select P-J set, and the other has a Bartolini P-PU
  and no-name J-PU. Unlike active EMGs, the Select
  are kinda mellow. Not gonna solve your problem.
  
  The Bart really brought its ax to life. It's not hot or
  bright, but it's clear and rich, not muddy or dull, in
  an old Ibnez P-J, whose neck is too skinny to add
  much to the tone, and whose body is some kinda
  softish mystery wood. If it can bring life to a soft
  bodied pencil necked old Ibnez, it should do even
  better with the big neck and cool woods of a Wick.
  
  
  ****************************************
  
  
  I've got a Yamaha P-type with Bart PU, and a P-J
  Guild thaz all-Bart .... but these are active basses.
  The same Bart-P as my passive Ibnez, but both of
  the active basses have a throaty roar or growly
  tone, reduced a bit by their flatwounds of course.
  With RWs, they'd be pretty aggressive in tone. I'm
  not sure the Bart-P, in a passive set up, would be
  aggressive enuf to cure the mildness of tone that
  you complain about, especially since I don't know
  what causes it. I'm really hooked on active basses.
  I'm a photographer. I'm used to battery powered
  stuff, and bleeb me, basses have very tiny drain
  compared to most photo stuff.
  
  My philosophy is that passive tone does not exist.
  It's just a cultish myth. Gain has gotta come from
  somewhere. And it doesn't bother me if it comes
  from everywhere. Plus, I hate hiss and buzz, so I
  like a strong signal, produced as early as possible
  along the signal chain.
  
  &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
  
  
  This is long post already ... but oopz, one more
  thing. I do have one more passive P-J but it's not
  a PU set you could buy [stock 80's Fender Japan].
  However ... it does have a wiring trick: It can run
  the whole P-J config as one big series wired loop.
  
  This causes either PU to act as an additional tone
  control for the other whenever they are not set to
  equal balance. Whichever PU is set to less volume
  still adds its voice to the mix, but it's also bleeding
  some treble to ground. Again, it's not a bass boost
  but just a treble cut, but it works. Don't ask for a
  wiring sketch. AFAIK it's stock wiring, and it gives
  me nightmares just looking at that mess of wires
  under the hood ... serious spagetti supper for the
  whole family. All I know is, it's got 3 knobs, plus a
  3-way toggle, and all the controls seem to interact.

you need to write tech book man,,,LOL

I went hunting around the other night. I was looking at the Dimarzo
"split P" DP127 neck pup they have. I need to find a little info on it but it might be a good replacement for the neck. it says that each side of the P pup is a humbugger. 2 mini hummers I guess. seems to have a fair amount of output for a passive. can't compare it to MEC cause I don't know the output of those. I think they have a stacked j hummer also.
also found on the EMG site. the HZ series pups(passive) they have a stacked J hummer.
the info search continues..