• 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!!!

#35,704
Me?
The Sadowsky PJ5 is it's own thing; and not like anything else, really.
I've had several friends that had them and loved them. Guys who usually like the same stuff as me.
So, I felt safe trying one.
I went with the RV5PJ; and totally didn't like it. Very deep, very bright, not focused enough for me. At least, as I recall; this has been some time ago now. Didn't keep it.
Then, tried the MV5PJ, and felt pretty much the same way and didn't keep it either.

Some time later, another MV5PJ showed up in classifieds here at a price I couldn't resist, and so I tried a third one; and this one totally works for me.
Not surprising that individual instruments vary so much I guess, but I was kind of surprised to really, really like the thrid one after not liking the first two at all.

The Sadowsky PJ is very bright on top, and very deep and fat; at least in my experience. It's not very much "like a normal passive PJ." You probably won't find "that old Motown Sound" in one...

ymmv, and probably other guys feel differently about the whole Sadowsky PJ thing than I do.
 
#35,705
Chef said:
Me?
The Sadowsky PJ5 is it's own thing; and not like anything else, really.
I've had several friends that had them and loved them. Guys who usually like the same stuff as me.
So, I felt safe trying one.
I went with the RV5PJ; and totally didn't like it. Very deep, very bright, not focused enough for me. At least, as I recall; this has been some time ago now. Didn't keep it.
Then, tried the MV5PJ, and felt pretty much the same way and didn't keep it either.

Some time later, another MV5PJ showed up in classifieds here at a price I couldn't resist, and so I tried a third one; and this one totally works for me.
Not surprising that individual instruments vary so much I guess, but I was kind of surprised to really, really like the thrid one after not liking the first two at all.

The Sadowsky PJ is very bright on top, and very deep and fat; at least in my experience. It's not very much "like a normal passive PJ." You probably won't find "that old Motown Sound" in one...

ymmv, and probably other guys feel differently about the whole Sadowsky PJ thing than I do.
Click to expand...
yeah i wasnt expecting old motown sound from PJ5,infact i was looking for a modern sounded bass,but i still have precision sound in my heart (=,i always have rosewood precisions but this time i want maple fingerboard,so i am looking for MV5PJ,my friends who around me suggest Modern5
 
#35,707
NOLA Bass said:
I saw in the new Bass Player that Jason Newsted used a Jason Newsted signature model (and a Will Lee). Does anyone know the specs or what is different on the Newsted model?
Click to expand...

I am making the first two prototypes for Jason as we speak.
I will discuss specs once Jason and I agree on the final specs for the bass. Still many months away......

"Patience, Grasshopper"

Roger
 
#35,709
What I've found with my Sadowsky PJ is that in active mode it is quite different from my passive P's, of which I have quite a few. The Sadowsky is brighter, broader frequency spectrum, deeper, than my passive P's. With the preamp bypassed, it can get much closer to my passive P's but not quite the same flavor. I don't have any newer Fender P's to compare, but with my old Fenders, there is a tone that is hard to describe that the Sadowsky doesn't quite match. Its a heavy focus on the mids, with a thunk in the lows that provides the bottom. A bit less clarity in the highs with the Fender. The tonal difference is perhaps due to pickup differences, since I'm primarily contrasting my 66 P with the Sadowsky, and they are both alder with RW FB. My 70's ash P's are different animals than the 66.

One thing I have found in the years that I have heavily gigged my Sadowsky PJ, is that the differences between it and the 66 Fender are not recognizable to anyone except me. there may be slight differences in how my band is perceived by listeners with the different basses, By I'm pretty sure that nobody would be able to identify a reason for the difference, perhaps even bass players wouldnt even notice the difference. Over the last few years I've mostly settled on TI flats for my P's. I've listened enough to my band that I think TIs provide the right tone for me, that slots my bass perfectly in the mix. This is with either the Sadowsky or my Fenders.

So bottom line is, I think you can get plently of Fender P character out of a Sadowsky PJ instrument, as long as you work the controls and strings to your advantage. And you have the benefit of a great engineered instrument. It will not give you the jazz bass sound, however.
 
#35,711
biosfer said:
. . .my friends who around me suggest Modern5
Click to expand...

I have owned two Sadowsky PJs and a Modern. There is a WORLD of difference between the PJ and the modern.

The modern's soapbars - and probably even more the placement of the PU - give the modern a very quick, punchy, aggressive sound. You can hear it in kosma's post, but there he has it tamed down quite a bit. It can VERY MUCH more aggressive than that. KJung describes the tone as having "space between the notes." I think that is a very accurate description.

IME, the Sadowsky PJ can sound like a P bass if you let it. In passive mode with the neck soloed, it cops a very presentable old-school P bass vibe, IMO. Maybe not as good as some other "modern" p basses, but in the context of the mix, it certainly worked for me.

The Metro version I had was the "R", and like Chef, I didn't fully connect with it. It just didn't have the cut I was looking for compared to the JJ Sadowskys. It sounded GREAT in thinner mixes, but with a lush, multi-piece lineup, it didn't do it for me.

It could have been the PUs. It could have been the woods, but I didn't keep it.

The NYC PJ I had was ash/maple. The coolest wrinkle about it was that it was a "reverse" P config. That is, the bass side PU was closer to the bridge and the treble side was forward. To my ear, this "modernized" the bass a great deal. It added a lot of articulation to the B and E and really quickened the attack. At the same time it took the edge off the higher strings and have them a little rounder bloom. IMO, it made for a better balanced bass.

It doesn't sound like it would make lot of difference, but it did to my ear. The bass was routed for either layout. I had another PG made for it and swapped the PU to the conventional layout. The difference was considerable to me.

I am SORT OF interested in finding another PJ, but I have to say that the Sadowsky HC JJ seems to be more my thing. I love the presence they have in the mix. With every Sadowsky I have had, the JJ just has more of it than the PJ has and still has all the low end you could want.
 
#35,714
Holdsg said:
Although I may get flogged here for so-saying, the reverse P is why I like my Spector so much.
Click to expand...

I definitely hear you, and I agree.

The only only beef I can see one having is that the config robs some of the "P-ness" away. I think the P-bass depends on the bass-side coil being forward to give the low end notes that kind of puff or "tub" that I seem to hear in the traditional P-bass sound.

To my ears, reversing the coil layout makes that PU style sound - to some degree - more like a soap or other full-length split coil. It is less distinctive as a P-bass. IMO, of course.
 
#35,715
Chasarms said:
I definitely hear you, and I agree.

The only only beef I can see one having is that the config robs some of the "P-ness" away. I think the P-bass depends on the bass-side coil being forward to give the low end notes that kind of puff or "tub" that I seem to hear in the traditional P-bass sound.

To my ears, reversing the coil layout makes that PU style sound - to some degree - more like a soap or other full-length split coil. It is less distinctive as a P-bass. IMO, of course.
Click to expand...

+1

I certainly understand why some prefer the reverse P, but I prefer the standard P, even for five string.
 
#35,716
Chasarms said:
I definitely hear you, and I agree.

The only only beef I can see one having is that the config robs some of the "P-ness" away. I think the P-bass depends on the bass-side coil being forward to give the low end notes that kind of puff or "tub" that I seem to hear in the traditional P-bass sound.

To my ears, reversing the coil layout makes that PU style sound - to some degree - more like a soap or other full-length split coil. It is less distinctive as a P-bass. IMO, of course.
Click to expand...

I totally agree that its slightly different sounding, and I have plenty of experience with the classic P setup. But as my sig says, I like variety, so having a slightly different sound (but staying in the family, so to speak) is preferred by me.

So great to have CHOICES!
 
#35,717
My Sadowsky nyc PJ5 has the universal route under the PG. I have spare PGs.. About once a year i'll GO REV P to Normal P... Can easily accommodate J pup too..

Holdsg said:
Although I may get flogged here for so-saying, the reverse P is why I like my Spector so much.
Click to expand...
 
#35,718
Sadowsky said:
I am making the first two prototypes for Jason as we speak.
I will discuss specs once Jason and I agree on the final specs for the bass. Still many months away......

"Patience, Grasshopper"

Roger
Click to expand...

Cool Roger, thanks for the info! I'm not familiar with this "patience" that you mention. Is it a new preamp?

Rob
 
#35,719
Just a heads up for anyone who might be interested in a fantastic Standard 4 - I've put mine up for sale here in the TB classifieds. It's really a fantastic bass - the bass I always thought of as being my "perfect" bass. I've come to realize, however, that these days "perfect" isn't doing me much good without a low B string... :p
 
#35,720
Well if we can do Public Service Announcements, my killer 24/4 proto with Big Singles is currently in the classifieds as well :D

9674895559_59bcddea53_z.png
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back