To me this illustrates two things:
I have a VVT instrument with audio tapers and I can blend in the pups independently- though yes it is steeper
I will choose blend over VVT every time.
So you think that the bass I tried wasn’t defective but they wired it that way on purpose, correct? I personally feel a linear pot more natural and it allows blending the tones more effectively.
Yeah a blend is much more useable in my opinion, and alwo it’s cool to have a master volume.
Most likely yes
To be clear - I think it had linear pots. I think what you are saying is you prefer an audio taper pot as for volume it provides a more linear effect when ramping it down, ironically. At least for how a P-bass is wired, I would need to look at a VVT schematic to be sure.
And a C-type reverse audio taper is simply wrong.
If you still have it, you could remove the pickguard and post a photo of the back of the volume pot, and we could tell you what pots were actually installed 
Ahh interesting, I took a look and see what @terb means about it being wired differently; the effect of pot taper would not be the same as I was describing for a VVT. Let me think about it. In this case linear might give more range due to the circuit.
This is embarrassing but I have been thinking about this wrong for literally years 
So everything I said about audio taper rolloff sounding more linear is true… for the tone pot.
It’s not true for the volume pot. I had not been thinking about how the circuit really worked in the right way. Mea Culpa, the bass in question probably had audio taper pots, plus due to how the two volume pots are wired it would increase the effect. So, linear pots on the volume would improve the range of the blend.
I’m going to shut up now and go play with blocks in the corner.
I like the ‘62 VT/VT stacked config.
That said it’s all academic. You can set the volume to match the tone you like at higher value then adjust overall loudness at your secondary source like amp or DAI.
I’ve got this on my Paranormal 54, and I like it. I replicated it on my Mustang PJ and I still like it. I like being able to tweak the brightness of the bridge pup without affecting the brightness of the neck pup.
This is more than likely what’s behind it. My guess is that the OP would prefer linear pots so the volume adjusts more gradually across the travel of the pot.
One other annoying issue with a VVT control setup is the hum from the single coil pickups when the volume of both are unequal. A VBT setup eliminates it.
The other option is to play noiseless pickups as I do. This is also an issue in a P/J type bass with VVT controls that’s often defeated by using a noiseless bridge pickup. This way the bridge pickup tends to act like a second tone control adding some edge to the tonality of the split coil pickup.
How could a VBT do a better job than two separate pots for hum control ?
A blend pot is basically two pots in the same case, nothing more. The signals of the two pickups will sum up (differentially because the pickups are at opposite phase), depending on their relative volume (= position of their volume pot track), it’s exactly the same with two volume pots or one blend pot.
This post can be an interesting reading : Blend pot : how and why?
I’m not an electronics guy so take that into consideration. My belief is that the pickups themselves are running at equal volume thereby eliminating the hum caused by an imbalance when separate volume pots are set at different levels.
The blend pot is simply controlling how much of the signal from each is being sent to the amp. That’s the way it was explained to me. If there was no hum canceling at all what would be the benefit of a blend pot vs VVT wiring?
I had a blend pot on my old bass and VVT on my new basses.
I really liked blend, but was the convinced later that having VVT is much better as I can set volume of each PU precisely.
That might be true, but now I have to fumble the individual volume pots a lot to find the right sound and overal volume. For each song!
It s#cks!
In my opinion, it’s much easier (and quicker) to just find the right PU balance with with the blend pot and then set the right volume.
Oh, well, it’s a learning process!
Even if this were true blend knobs are still better IMO
I would literally prefer a 3/5-way switch over VVT
Actually no. From an electric/electronic point of view, a blend pot or two separate volume pots are exactly the same. The only difference is that, with a blend pot, you control both volume pots with only one knob. The only difference is about ergonomy.
The benefit is that the ergonomy is much better : you have one distinct control for the mix of the pickups (blend knob) an one control for the overall volume of the instrument (master volume).
But it doesn’t change anything from an electric perspective.
That’s a good point : depending on the curve of the volume pots, two separate volume can allow to a more precise mix because 100% of each pot track is used, whereas only half of each resistive track is used on a MN pot.
That’s why I much prefer the blend pot option.
Again another legit option, yes. Quick tone change but with fixed “presets” considering the mix between the pickups.
Personnal preference
Yep. For me on my VVT I have found in reality I use it in exactly two ways: P and J full on, and P full on/J full off. Having those two options plus a volume knob would actually be better for me.
Let me contradict myself a little: the funny thing is that I have the feeling, that the volume pot for one PU still influences the volume of the other PU. Which takes the whole VVT concept ad absurdum!
If I could/would redo my last mods I would go for blend, not VVT, that’s for sure!
My Ibanez had a 3-way switch but is currently wired in VBT. The thing is that I always use the neck pickup at 100%, and sometimes blend a bit of the bridge pickup.
What I plan to do is some kind of “asymetrical blend pot” which would only add progressively the bridge pickup to the mix. The neck pickup would always be at 100%.
So :
That sounds actually very cool!
Do you already have a wiring diagram?
in my head, yes 
