• 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.

Club Sadowsky!!!

#28,602
BluesyCat said:
I'm in favor of #5. That sounded like you nailed it to me.......
Click to expand...

The headphones or speakers that are used to monitor are a big influence on not only the assessment of result preference but the estimation of what is required in the EQing step - as well as playback volume sampling. That's one of the criteria that I have been hearing repeatedly from professionals in my research. Even at a gig, the cabs used, determine a lot in what the audience hears.
I have a hunch your preference, (one of the examples where the bass band of EQ has been slightly reduced), may have something to do with the closed back design of your headphones which tend to increase bass response & place the bass more forward in the mix. Maybe the extra bass response in the 1st 3 was a factor. I also think round wound players may prefer the bass band backed off w/flats.
With open back design hd ph OR smaller sized bass driver speaker monitors the bass response is less. Even speaker placement is huge in monitoring. I have always felt bass RESPONSE is a big factor in one's choice of drivers. I have open back headphones.
As a point of interest, I choose pup blend of my Sad' according to how I feel it fits the individual song. IMO, EQing is in order for each album to fit the bass' tone into it's particular sonic signature, but not for pup blending. That defeats the logic of blending pups, from what I can determine (so far). Before EQing I preferred detent for this song but now I'm not so sure. :D
There's sompin' 'bout P pup soloed w/it's growl that does it for me in a lot of cases. What a surprise THAT is-right. ;)
But let me tell ya - I wouldn't trade my PJs for NUTHIN.
B.
 
#28,604
P. Bass said:
Well it's pretty slow so I'll post some STUFF. :D

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Thanks for doing this...just adding fuel to the fire in my growing GAS for a PJ :D. My preference was #3. I've never been one to use a P bass that much (I've tried) and have always preferred a jazz. But, there seems to be something magical about a PJ to me. I went to Bass Emporium today hoping that they might have a Sadowsky PJ hanging around for me to plunk on. Good thing they didn't :D
 
#28,605
TXLawDawg said:
Thanks for doing this...just adding fuel to the fire in my growing GAS for a PJ :D. My preference was #3. I've never been one to use a P bass that much (I've tried) and have always preferred a jazz. But, there seems to be something magical about a PJ to me. I went to Bass Emporium today hoping that they might have a Sadowsky PJ hanging around for me to plunk on. Good thing they didn't :D
Click to expand...
Glad you liked it. #3 is the one that I will probably use for the overdub of that song. I'm going to do the whole album & mix up the pup blends a bit. It's a great album for a PJ. I'll post a link to the album folder in awhile. I'm still not done with test runs yet.
B.
Edit: I forgot to say that when listening you can drag the slider to any specific time if you wish to repeat a particular #.
 
#28,608
Jerry J said:
I like 4,5 and 6 myself. It just seemed to be a bit more clear and a bit more growl. Nice comparison Blair!:bassist:
Click to expand...
Thanks Jerry. I could live w/any of 'em I guess. It's nice to hear some attack at last (on the overdub I mean). The EQ bi-pass example is very typical of what happens to that attack on my recordings sans EQ, even w/ the bass' treble boost. Live - it's a different result.
Your preference for the extra clarity is understandable. (when heard out of the mix, it sounds pretty lean). I have to be careful not to get into soloing tone when the responsibility for a bass in the groove roll is to fill in the frequencies that the melody frequencies depend on for a foundation. I'm really looking forward to finding a really focused FAT P/PJ flat wound tone as well but my heart has always been drawn to what I've come up with on this 1st test.
B.
Edit: I'm curious Jerry about what you were listening through.
I suspect each person's music mix preference is based on their playback equip. The only point of reference for the individual would be their familiarity with that equipment. I just have to trust my hd ph I guess when EQing.

*There's another important point we Sadowsky players should all recognize here.
Inherent tonal content of the instrument has to be present in order for it to be modified by the EQ.
An EQ can't add what's not there in the 1st place. The harmonic content IS already in the instrument & pups or it couldn't be boosted (or cut).
 
#28,611
That head looks a little precarious on the vertical stack. Looks like you need some 4x10s or sumthin' :D

I've gigged the RV4-HPJ more and am really happy with the bass (glad I traded back for it). Dare I say it has become the go-to choice for the rock gigs. So much so that I'm thinking a NYC PJ4 might be needed. I never could bond long-term with the 5'ers. Part of it was the neck width I think, the other part was my hard-headedness on wanting an instrument that ran flat with the eq. It is amazing that I'm not crazy about the tone with eq flat (ie at 0), but about 30% bass and treble gives me a tone I love in all three pup positions. Especially the bridge pup.
 
#28,613
nostatic said:
That head looks a little precarious on the vertical stack. Looks like you need some 4x10s or sumthin' :D
Click to expand...
Nah, the head was just on loan. :)

I've gigged the RV4-HPJ more and am really happy with the bass (glad I traded back for it). Dare I say it has become the go-to choice for the rock gigs. So much so that I'm thinking a NYC PJ4 might be needed.
Click to expand...
Wow, strong statement!
 
#28,616
As many of you know I was sadly forced to sell my beloved NYC MS5. Anyway, I'm a month to two months away from looking for a replacement. I'm leaning toward a used Metro MV5. But I have a question:

Like Vic and a few others around here I've found my favorite Sadowsky voice is the Maple/Ash SC. They just work. But I've always run them with Steel strings. I'm now playing a house Blues band gig (more about that later) where a more classic sound might be better. I know my old Metro RV5 KILLED with Nickel strings, how does an MV5 w/SC pickups sound with Nickels (espc. Sadowsky Nickels)? Is anyone running that combo. Or should I just look for an RV5 with HC's for a more old school tone?
 
#28,619
burk48237 said:
As many of you know I was sadly forced to sell my beloved NYC MS5. Anyway, I'm a month to two months away from looking for a replacement. I'm leaning toward a used Metro MV5. But I have a question:

Like Vic and a few others around here I've found my favorite Sadowsky voice is the Maple/Ash SC. They just work. But I've always run them with Steel strings. I'm now playing a house Blues band gig (more about that later) where a more classic sound might be better. I know my old Metro RV5 KILLED with Nickel strings, how does an MV5 w/SC pickups sound with Nickels (espc. Sadowsky Nickels)? Is anyone running that combo. Or should I just look for an RV5 with HC's for a more old school tone?
Click to expand...
IMHO, if you're primarily a lover of the ash/maple theme, and you can only afford one bass, you already have your answer, and I think nickels on that wood combo would still get you a lot of what you're looking for, though I will stop short of saying it'd get you the vast majority of that other sound. The woods do matter.

It's been my experience that we all have a "home base" of tone in our heads. We may have alternate needs from time to time, but those are always secondary, served best by a secondary instrument. Maybe I'm wrong in your case, but I'd still say at least try the ash/maple/nickel thing before just completely jumping ship to the alder/rw thing.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back