If you really want both, you can get the mid control, then swap out one of the volumes with a stacked volume/tone pot meant for a 60s jazz.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Carvin SB5000 / SB4000 Roll Call...Part 4!
- Thread starter smperry
- Start date
- Status
If you really want both, you can get the mid control, then swap out one of the volumes with a stacked volume/tone pot meant for a 60s jazz.
Man, my new SB5000 is turning heads. Every where I play, people come up and want to play it. They are really digging the finish (translucent pearl blue which is a little sparkly under the can lights btw) and the mostly the neck profile. I had two guys yesterday tell me they were going to sell theirs basses and buy one. The funny thing is its almost identical to my black one, but they didn't go gaga over that one as much.
i ordered the standard pearl blue (i don't usually care for transparent finishes) so it's my hope that i have a similar experience as yours.
Absolutely. This would essentially be a normal Jazz bass passive v/v/tone configuration that then feeds the pre-amp, just like the SB basses without the mid control. The tone control would just be one of the two pots in the stacked concentric pot.
One thing I hadn't thought of, though. The volume controls on the SB preamp with the mid controls aren't mounted to the preamp, are they? Mine just has two band preamp, and they're not. This would be a lot more tricky if the volume pots are mounted to the PCB.
i'm not sure. i haven't gotten mine in yet, and i did not opt for the additional mid control. i actually like a 2 band pre and the idea of a tone control in passive seemed more my cup of tea.
Ya, I opted for the two band preamp as well, but modding a three band to have a passive tone is interesting me. More knobs have to be better, right?
Jarrett, you'll appreciate this...
I took the SB5000 and my older NYC Sadowsky JJ5 to a gig on Saturday and alternated them. I was playing through a buddy's Mesa M6/212 combo (oooooh I love those amps).
The SB of course is ash/ebony, 70's spacing, single coils, and the Sadowsky is ash/maple, 60's spacing, and also single coils. Both are two band with full passive mode, and vol-blend configs. The preamp is not super important here though, because I rarely if ever use EQ... maybe just a bit of bass when favoring the bridge, but there is some voicing/coloring happening even without doing that, so gotta' note it here.
I've gone through a lot of Sadowsky basses at this point, and at least for the ash/maple JJ5 spec, this is the bass by which I judge all other ash J basses (S/N 4098). The tone is rich and full, bright and punchy as all hell, and the B string is just friggin' deadly... I kid you not... it outperforms B strings on many other basses (including longer scales) in both focus and power... and this isn't just me talkin'... I have others, including TB'ers, who can back this up, having seen/heard at gigs, and having played it personally. Definitely a from-my-cold-dead-hands bass.
The SB is definitely WAY more of the 70's thing... the bridge pickup is a little thinner and a lot more aggressive, and the SB's voicing is definitely more sizzly... this is part due to the nature of the instrument (pickups, pickup spacing, and preamp) as well as the ebony board. The slap tone on the SB is sweeter, while the slap tone on the Sadowsky is more aggressive and cutting. The overall voicing the the Sadowsky is a bit more punchy through the mids... partly due to the 60's spacing, and partly due to the maple board and of course different preamps. I have to give the Sadowsky the edge on the B string... it is stronger, but the SB's B string is DAMN respectable... not lacking a thing.
Regarding note/string consistency... both basses have a "feature" I really love, and it's that the D and G strings don't disappear out from under you without digging in more to compensate. Seems like I've played a lot of basses... even high end ones... that do this. Not a ton, but enough I find myself altering my playing style a little to bring them out. Not necessary here.
One other thing I noticed is the SB has a little bit better sustain on the higher strings. I have a feeling the extra pound of weight over the Sadowsky and the much harder board are doing that.
Another practical note... both basses are also well shielded... doing very well in venues known to be "cruel" (when fully blended of course). This is something I'm VERY particular about.
So far the only fit/finish thing on mine is I'm feeling the glue line between the ebony board and the maple neck on the SB. I'll just shave/sand/wool it down as needed and it'll probably be fine, but FYI. Carvin does a great job of dealing with woods, but every luthier I've spoken to in recent years describes how it's getting harder and harder to get highly stable gaboon ebony these days, so I have a feeling that's what happened here... the ebony changed a bit. So far, no problems with neck stability... as far as having to mess with the truss rod more than usual, but I'll keep an eye on it.
Still very different basses in a lot of subjective ways... voicing, neck profile, aesthetics, etc, but the bottom line is, it's more or less what you've been reading about. Carvin's really got something special here, and if you're looking for a truly great interpretation of the 70's tone, you really need to check one out. I'm still really diggin' mine a LOT.
I took the SB5000 and my older NYC Sadowsky JJ5 to a gig on Saturday and alternated them. I was playing through a buddy's Mesa M6/212 combo (oooooh I love those amps).
The SB of course is ash/ebony, 70's spacing, single coils, and the Sadowsky is ash/maple, 60's spacing, and also single coils. Both are two band with full passive mode, and vol-blend configs. The preamp is not super important here though, because I rarely if ever use EQ... maybe just a bit of bass when favoring the bridge, but there is some voicing/coloring happening even without doing that, so gotta' note it here.
I've gone through a lot of Sadowsky basses at this point, and at least for the ash/maple JJ5 spec, this is the bass by which I judge all other ash J basses (S/N 4098). The tone is rich and full, bright and punchy as all hell, and the B string is just friggin' deadly... I kid you not... it outperforms B strings on many other basses (including longer scales) in both focus and power... and this isn't just me talkin'... I have others, including TB'ers, who can back this up, having seen/heard at gigs, and having played it personally. Definitely a from-my-cold-dead-hands bass.
The SB is definitely WAY more of the 70's thing... the bridge pickup is a little thinner and a lot more aggressive, and the SB's voicing is definitely more sizzly... this is part due to the nature of the instrument (pickups, pickup spacing, and preamp) as well as the ebony board. The slap tone on the SB is sweeter, while the slap tone on the Sadowsky is more aggressive and cutting. The overall voicing the the Sadowsky is a bit more punchy through the mids... partly due to the 60's spacing, and partly due to the maple board and of course different preamps. I have to give the Sadowsky the edge on the B string... it is stronger, but the SB's B string is DAMN respectable... not lacking a thing.
Regarding note/string consistency... both basses have a "feature" I really love, and it's that the D and G strings don't disappear out from under you without digging in more to compensate. Seems like I've played a lot of basses... even high end ones... that do this. Not a ton, but enough I find myself altering my playing style a little to bring them out. Not necessary here.
One other thing I noticed is the SB has a little bit better sustain on the higher strings. I have a feeling the extra pound of weight over the Sadowsky and the much harder board are doing that.
Another practical note... both basses are also well shielded... doing very well in venues known to be "cruel" (when fully blended of course). This is something I'm VERY particular about.
So far the only fit/finish thing on mine is I'm feeling the glue line between the ebony board and the maple neck on the SB. I'll just shave/sand/wool it down as needed and it'll probably be fine, but FYI. Carvin does a great job of dealing with woods, but every luthier I've spoken to in recent years describes how it's getting harder and harder to get highly stable gaboon ebony these days, so I have a feeling that's what happened here... the ebony changed a bit. So far, no problems with neck stability... as far as having to mess with the truss rod more than usual, but I'll keep an eye on it.
Still very different basses in a lot of subjective ways... voicing, neck profile, aesthetics, etc, but the bottom line is, it's more or less what you've been reading about. Carvin's really got something special here, and if you're looking for a truly great interpretation of the 70's tone, you really need to check one out. I'm still really diggin' mine a LOT.
Well, my Sadowsky is in no way threatened by this bass, but hey, if a bass is good, a bass is good. It really, at least should be, that simple.
- May 4, 2003
- 148
- 15
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Kiesel/Carvin Basses. Trickfish Amplification.
It's good to here from you again, Carl! I'm still diggin' the first video that you posted on You Tube! Do you still plan on doing a video and/or written review of the SB5000?
A Groove is a Terrible Thing to Waste!
A Groove is a Terrible Thing to Waste!
So is it possible to make a passive SB4000 active?
Edit: I called Albert. YOu have to route for the two battery boxes, route for the output jack, add the preamp. Around $250 or so to get that done after the fact.
I had another question for him, would it possible to add a mute switch/pot to an active VV setup. He thought it would. I thought that would be an interesting addition to the config to have.
Edit: I called Albert. YOu have to route for the two battery boxes, route for the output jack, add the preamp. Around $250 or so to get that done after the fact.
I had another question for him, would it possible to add a mute switch/pot to an active VV setup. He thought it would. I thought that would be an interesting addition to the config to have.
That would be simple enough. You'd just need to swap out one of the volume pots with a push/pull pot, and wire up the attached switch as a kill switch.
True, if you use their preamp. However, it should also be possible to use something else...
It would just require something that was designed to fit a passive J and not require routing... a 9V retro-fit product like a J Retro, Audere, Aggie, Sadowsky, etc. Because you'd have to fit the battery in with the elex.
Wonder if that would have an affect on the tonez?
I also learned that even if in passive mode, the batteries are draining. If its plugged in, batteries are wearing down. Was hoping that was not the case, but it be.
Hmm, interesting. Do any of those sound as good as the SB pre?
The answer to that question is as subjective as we are many. Personally, I like all those preamps except the Audere.
- Status
