Thoughts on Darkstars

After years of waiting, I've finally had the chance to play a bass with Darkstar pickups (it's a Starfire II which is staying with me at the moment). I am really, really impressed so far.

A/Bing my '67 SFI with this DS'd SFII reveals that the DS is a louder, punchier pickup than the Bi-Sonic, and even the bridge pickup is surprisingly more useful than I would have anticipated.

Just wondering -- do any of you actually prefer Darkstars to original Bi-Sonics?

Well, having had several SFII's and a Westerly from '96 (I DS'd the Westerly) I did have the chance quite often to play them side by side. So exactly as you described, the DS was more agressive. The Hags are 'softer' and responsive to delicate touch as all who have them know. I am going to add magnet into my SFI (Rick Turners suggestion). The pup is what...at least 45 years old and could use a little help. So as far as preferences between the stock Hags and DS'd, they are slightly different animals. I wonder how Curtis Novak's take on the Bi Sonic compares along with these?

I think mgod has talked about the 'usefulness' of a DarkStar compared to a Bi-Sonic, but I've learned not to speak for him. Would imagine that he would be along sometime and speak on the issue.

There is no 'one-size fits all' sound from Bi-Sonics. If nothing else, the strength of the magnets has decayed over time differently in every Bi-Sonic. Some have been overheated in attics, some have been slammed around, some of the originals have two magnets instead of one, etc.

What I have noticed with the Bi-Sonics that I have used/played (at least 5, including the Bi-Sonic on the 'sweet-spot' SF I bass I currently own) is that they sound better through vintage bass rigs than the DarkStars I have heard. On the other hand, DarkStars sound better through modern amps/rigs, so there!

Best of luck figuring it all out, HH

I believe that the gilded one has summed up things in a fashion that our Monkey God would agree with.

Too many variables.

That's what sucks about our new online world. Where can you go and try out three Bisonic'ed basses, or even three Ricky 2003s? Those days are gone.

also if u have the Dark Stars or any pick up in a 90s SF bass, the body is 1/4 inch shallower and the saddles are not wood. apples to apples the 90s bass has a little more pop and a little less boom compared to the older ones. its hard to explain but they sound different to me. have never played or heard a Dark Star though.

Will add we have a 67 SF1 and a 68 SF2. the 68 neck pickup is a little louder/hotter/more powerful (one or all of theose) than the 67. Also the 67 pickup it looks like the poles slid down into the pickup a little some time ago or possibly when it was made. We will eventually have someone look at it. It sounds standard though, and we never would have guessed a different one would sound louder or stronger until the 68 showed up. So that might just be the way it is. As others have eluded to on this and other threads, the level of Bisonic consistency from back when they were made is unknown, and they all took many different roads to our door and may have aged differently. We are lucky for the Dark Stars, Novaks, Nusonics and such so there are some options if a Bisonic fails.

I'll agree that Dark Stars are better, but I also find them better through old amps.

I haven't given up on Fred; there may yet be some. But don't hold your breath.

Took my Darkstar'd bass for a spin at two gigs this weekend (two weddings). The middle position (both pickups) is out-of-phase and I didn't have time to fix it, so I stuck to the neck pickup through my Markbass stack.

First night: A clickity-clackity mess. Since I basically have one dynamic in my repertoire - PLAY HARD - the pole pieces need to come down.

Second night: With the polepieces lowered to be flush with the bobbin, the sound was much more agreeable. The problem was that my thumb had nowhere to go. Being used to my '67 SFI and my other go-to basses (Precision and Thunderbird), which have great thumb anchors, I couldn't really get comfortable with the bass all night.

Conclusion: need a Darkstar in my '67 SFI.

I absolutely prefer the bisonics. I have had two basses with darkstars - Dearmond Starfire and a modded Gibson SB450 - and I sold both. Currently I have two basses with bisonics - a Starfire -70 and a Hagström Coronado. Those two are keepers. Darkstars sounds more hifi/flat to my ears. They have more top end and a wider frequency range. Bisonics have perhaps not more bottom but they sound warmer and a tad more ballsy, especially if you dial down the tone knob. Darkstars are more "lively", on the other hand. That said, I think the comparison is kind of irrelevant. They look the same but they are two different pickups, both equally fantastic in their own right. It's a matter of taste and a matter how they fit with your style of playing and how they fit with the overall sound of those you play with. Btw, those NuSonics sound great!

I could add that if you are going for Phil's sound, then darkstars are a better choice than bisonics, IMHO.