Club Sadowsky!!!

[deepestend]

Hopefully that color will grow on you. One of my favorites.

 

[AMJBASS]

Same here. LOVE Sherwood green! Nicely done man.

 

[Pet Sounds]

My NYC Sadowsky is also a Sherwood Green JJ, with a white pg. I love the color, and hope you will grow to love it, too! Enjoy!

 

[JonKim]

That was an awesome price for a pj/j NYC!

 

[Mr_O'B]

So...

Q: why are Sadowsky basses and grandchildren similar?

As time has passed and I keep playing my trusty RV4 on the gig, I've finally decided that I really want to be playing an NYC. Nothing at all against the Metros. Sadowsky Japan is an awesome shop. And no, the NYC will NOT make me any kind of better player. And, yes, it might be an unnecessarily large expenditure for little gain; BUT, I just want to be playing an axe that comes from the hands of Roger's shop. Here is my RV4 for ref:
View attachment 923045

Great bass. Lots of stories with it. All I would really ever need. Anyhow, I guess this isn't about need.

So here's where I am going; the bass will be configured VERY similarly to this:
View attachment 923046

but with an ebony board and walnut top:
View attachment 923950

Oh, and black hardware. The shop seems ok with my trusty Delano pups; so, those are also part of the deal. I still have to work out the details of the body wood; but, that should be done tomorrow. Neck will be 1.45" nut, 9" radius, and of course with the detuner. Roasted Birdseye as in the model above. Tick tock, tick tock.

I went back and forth between specing a 4 or 5 string. But, I already have a really special 5 string; and the truth is that most of my gigs are perfectly served by the 4 with the detuner.

So, my black bass is headed to the shop for consignment (and pickup removal for the new instrument). In the meantime, I will have to get by with my J Deluxe with Sadowsky Onboard and Delano pups (same config - my "cheater").

This will be my main axe for the duration. God willing and the creek don't rise.

Ans: they both take 9 months!

Please post once you receive your new babies!

 

[burk48237]

Only at Detroit Bass Day! I was there doing photography for Bass Gear, and let Lawrence Bassman Washington check out my Metro. The guys a world class player who has held down the bass chair for India Arie, Justin Timberlake, Pherell Williams, and is currently playing for Charlie Wilson. Needless to say he loved it.

 

[edham]

Curious if anyone has tried a Sadowsky soapbar in the bridge with a reverse P in the middle????
wondering if their outputs would be close enough to work?

Those are my two fav Sadowsky sounds.

 

[burk48237]

Curious if anyone has tried a Sadowsky soapbar in the bridge with a reverse P in the middle????
wondering if their outputs would be close enough to work?

Those are my two fav Sadowsky sounds.

I do think you have to be careful in bass design putting pickups too close together. I do wonder if the possibility of phase cancellation can become an issue. I'd love to hear a lutheir chime in on that one Roger?

 

[Fuzzbass]

I do think you have to be careful in bass design putting pickups too close together. I do wonder if the possibility of phase cancellation can become an issue. I'd love to hear a lutheir chime in on that one Roger?

I can tell you first-hand that adjacent pickups can have significant phase issues depending on how they are wired. One of my basses has a P pickup directly adjacent to an MM pickup, and when combined the resulting tone is... unusual. I only ever use each pickup soloed.

That said, I'm pretty sure edham was inquiring about a PJ bass with a Sadowsky soap in place of the J. Shouldn't be any weirder than JJ or PJ. (ed said "middle", but the P-bass pickup is typically considered a middle pickup, as opposed to a true neck pickup, AKA "mudbucker")!

 

[edham]

Yup - I meant P in the normal P position (or reverse P) - and a soap bar in the J bridge position.
Curious how the output of each would matchup ????

Considering ordering a new Sadowsky and honing in on a few possible options.
I have a killer nyc J5 with humcancelling pups that I love and miss the nyc rev PJ I sold off in a fit of stupidity.

Somedays I think I'd like the bridge pup to have a bit more fatness to it - thus the soapbar.

thanks for the input.

serial 5467 is my spalted J

 

[Joeykun]

PJ with Soap.....It's been done in 4 and 5 string versions.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[deepestend]

I do think you have to be careful in bass design putting pickups too close together. I do wonder if the possibility of phase cancellation can become an issue. I'd love to hear a lutheir chime in on that one Roger?

I'm not Roger, but you might be interested to read this post that Roger just put up about the relationship of wood choice to instrument tone. His opinion is that wood choice is critical to the overall sound--which is the foundation for how your pickups sound. Read it for yourself, though (it's a good read): Wood and Sound in Amplified Guitars and Basses – Sadowsky Guitars

 

[Ewo]

Hey, thanks for posting that article!

I was especially intrigued by Roger's comments on fingerboard wood. I've long felt it made a difference in the way a bass spoke, so I take a master builder's opinion as confirmation I wasn't just imagining that.

 

[sok monkee]

Good read thanks for sharing!

 

[deepestend]

Hey, thanks for posting that article!

I was especially intrigued by Roger's comments on fingerboard wood. I've long felt it made a difference in the way a bass spoke, so I take a master builder's opinion as confirmation I wasn't just imagining that.

Yes. Part of his stance—and he says it in the article—is that even if the listener can't hear the difference in things like fingerboard wood, it makes subtle differences to the player and their relationship to the instrument and the music that they play on it.

 

[bass12]

Yes. Part of his stance—and he says it in the article—is that even if the listener can't hear the difference in things like fingerboard wood, it makes subtle differences to the player and their relationship to the instrument and the music that they play on it.

That (responsiveness of the bass when I'm playing it) to me is key and it seems to never get mentioned in "tonewood" discussions. As a player, it's not just about the end result (how the bass comes across in the context of the music), it's about the process of playing/interacting with one's instrument. I'll often hear people say something along the lines of, "Well, the audience can't tell the difference so why play x bass instead of y bass". The audience experiences the "end result" and, again, that's only part of the equation.

 

[bucephylus]

Roger has a lot of experience and gets a lot of things right; which is why we are so fond of his work, no? In the interview, he gets into this topic that gets debated a lot on TB, where at some point tone and feel become convoluted in a way that you can't separate them. I strongly agree with that POV.

But, I was a bit puzzled, in his discussion of fingerboard materials, by his characterization of the 60's Jazz basses. For those, his comments would seem applicable to the early slab board versions; but, I'm less on board for the rest of the decade of work. My '62 has the Round Lam fingerboard construction; and while the Brazilian Rosewood is pleasing to the eye, there isn't a whole lot of it there. Which was the point. IMO, that construction is all about the maple neck, in terms of tone. And that was really the predominant construction for Jazz Basses for the majority of the decade. I believe. Maybe, I'm missing something, or maybe Roger just WISHES they had all been slab boards! LOL.

 

[Norwegian Bass]

My AV '63 P has a round lam Rosewood board, yet still the tone of that bass is very much the rosewood tone, and very different than like say the alder bodied '58 P with a maple board I tried a while ago. So it doesn't take a lot rosewood to have impact IMO. And it's THE thing to with THE most difference on electrics; fingerboard wood. Seems almost counter intuitive, that little wood, but it's what I'm hearing and always has. I'm a real fan of woods, and on a Strat I strongly prefer rosewood over maple for the fretboard, and on a acoustic with steel strings; rosewood back and sides are what's IT for me. All my acoustics has that and I sold my D-18, it was just "not right".
I will also say my opinion on woods generally; and this will be me ranting a little (I've not had my coffee yet); that the difference in tone between a maple vs rosewood board on a bass is as dramatic as rosewood vs mahogany backs and sides on a acoustic; very distinct and characteristic difference, and easy to hear with all other variables being the same. Yet, on this forum (for some reason), some people just don't get that and the "Whoa, the electric bass is not an acoustic instrument" nonsense; and link to the "scientific" experiments, which are as scientific as the worst 911 conspiracy theories, you know?; the ones that's written by people who think they know physics, but in reality don't understand pretty basic stuff about the subject.; comes up all the time. That happens VERY rarely on say The Les Paul Forum and NEVER on the Martin forum (UMGF). And to think; people (those same people often) here has the nerve to call guitar players for "guit@rds". So bass players: oh, those guys! Well, they score high in confidence but low in education, or they have cabbages for ears. Ok, rant over. Sorry!

 

[svtb15]

conspiracy theories,

 

[bucephylus]

I will also say my opinion on woods generally; and this will be me ranting a little (I've not had my coffee yet); that the difference in tone between a maple vs rosewood board on a bass is as dramatic as rosewood vs mahogany backs and sides on a acoustic; very distinct and characteristic difference, and easy to hear with all other variables being the same. Yet, on this forum (for some reason), some people just don't get that and the "Whoa, the electric bass is not an acoustic instrument" nonsense; and link to the "scientific" experiments, which are as scientific as the worst 911 conspiracy theories, you know?; the ones that's written by people who think they know physics, but in reality don't understand pretty basic stuff about the subject.; comes up all the time. That happens VERY rarely on say The Les Paul Forum and NEVER on the Martin forum (UMGF). And to think; people (those same people often) here has the nerve to call guitar players for "guit@rds". So bass players: oh, those guys! Well, they score high in confidence but low in education, or they have cabbages for ears. Ok, rant over. Sorry!

Hmmm. I'm not too much in agreement with your generalization of bass players being uneducated and foolish; but, we are all welcome to our own opinions.

The problem I have come to appreciate on TB is that when we refer to "tone," we are not all talking about the same thing.

Whether people understand or practice scientific methodology is quite a different topic. Many practicing scientists have a hard time practicing the Scientific Method; and I'll just leave that there.

Going back to "tone," the problem is that some cats are referring to the sound that makes it on to the recording, while others are referring to what they experience in terms of both audible and tactile response when they are playing. Both are valid, but, do not necessarily arrive at the same view regarding importance of various instrument related factors.

I prefer to remain respectful of different views of what is clearly a non-trivial subject. The one thing that could help keep threads on "tone" from getting cross-wise would be for those posting to clarify what their goals are. IMO.