• 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!!!

#9,121
Plek or no Plek, regarding boards: IME, the flat boards I've played could get a lower action than my Sadowsky board, keeping in mind the flat boards were on 35" scale basses. I think the scale must make the difference here? Otherwise I would see no advantage to the "dip" in the Sad boards. I've seen the video and heard what the advantages are supposed to be, so why can't I achieve the same action? Not that it makes a difference to me, just asking for technical reasons. I love the way my Sadowsky plays. :smug:
 
#9,122
KJung said:
I find that the Sadowsky bass is probably not the best for those who want stupid low action (i.e., you can only get that G string so far down since it is at the edge of a 12" radius board and the bridge saddle only goes down so far. However, for the vast majority of players, the action is just fine IMO and IME.
Click to expand...

+1. I really like the feel of this bass, even without stupid low action. Definetly a player's bass. I'd probably prefer something else were I to start doing Victor Wooten covers, but I haven't found a band that would let me play A Show of Hands between Brick House and Lady Marmelade yet. :rolleyes: :D
 
#9,125
Chef said:
I'll say this, at my own peril:
my Sadowsky can take a lower setup than I can play cleanly;)
Click to expand...
+1

I really can't imagine a lower setup than I can get on my Sadowsky basses as being practical.

Plus, given enough adjustment in the bridge, which I've typically found to be the case on the Sadowsky basses I've owned, the radius issue KJung raised has been moot for me. Maybe if he's played one where the neck pocket was just a tad deeper than usual you could run out of adjustment on the G, but not on any of the ones I've played (or remember ever seeing). Only speaking of Sadowsky basses here... not in general, where it could be the case with some other brands.
 
#9,127
Vic said:
+1

I really can't imagine a lower setup than I can get on my Sadowsky basses as being practical.

Plus, given enough adjustment in the bridge, which I've typically found to be the case on the Sadowsky basses I've owned, the radius issue KJung raised has been moot for me. Maybe if he's played one where the neck pocket was just a tad deeper than usual you could run out of adjustment on the G, but not on any of the ones I've played (or remember ever seeing). Only speaking of Sadowsky basses here... not in general, where it could be the case with some other brands.
Click to expand...

+1 Moot for me also. It would only come into play for those who like their strings sitting right on the board, and primarily will impact the G string IMO and IME. Chef uses a touch higher string height set-up than I do (DB playing tends to do that!). From playing your basses, we seem to use about the same string height, more or less.
 
#9,128
After studying Rogers video, and that print article, I've lowered my setup a tad, and am trying to play lighter/easier.
The RV is such a responsive bass it really lends itself to that, I think.

I'm slowly working thru my others basses, and setting them up similarly.
 
#9,129
Chef said:
After studying Rogers video, and that print article, I've lowered my setup a tad, and am trying to play lighter/easier.
The RV is such a responsive bass it really lends itself to that, I think.
Click to expand...
I think so too... actually, in general on Sadowsky basses, but also other high quality ones.

I went through a phase where it was ALL about getting the action as low as possible until the strings were either practically laying on the frets or until I ran into a level imperfection and a "choke spot" as a result.

Well, that phase is over. I'm taking IMHO a much more practical approach now.

I like what I call "medium low" action, and I don't mind having the E and especially the B even a bit higher so I can really thump those if I want.

It's been commented on many times, but there's a "balance" you can strike between the benefits of lower action and the "dynamics" of strings high enough you can dig in a bit harder (without choking out). That balance is in a different place for all of us, but IMHO, finding that precise spot is CRUCIAL if you want your instrument to play "inspirationally".

I can say I have NO problem getting there with the Sadowsky basses I've owned, and currently own, which makes me particularly thrilled to be an owner.

Roger and his products and crew... magic. They know how to make us happy. :)
 
#9,130
I play with an insanely aggressive touch. I started out trying to be like Geddy. :p I dig in like a man possessed.

I can get lower action on my Sadowsky than on any other bass I've owned or tried and have it still play cleanly.

I can also get it too low for my playing style, but not for other people (who play with a lighter touch).

YMMV.
 
#9,131
That's me as well, in a nutshell. (How did I get into this nutshell?)
I foget if it was the video or the print article, but Roger mentioned specifically adding a little height to each string from G to E/B because the arc of the bigger string's vibration required it.
I totally get that, and use that;)

Vic said:
I think so too... actually, in general on Sadowsky basses, but also other (especially) high quality ones.

I went through a phase where it was ALL about getting the action as low as possible until the strings were either practically laying on the frets or until I ran into a level imperfection and a "choke spot" as a result.

Well, that phase is over. I'm taking IMHO a much more practical approach now.

I like what I call "medium low" action, and I don't mind having the E and especially the B even a bit higher so I can really thump those if I want.

It's been commented on many times, but there's a "balance" you can strike between the benefits of lower action and the "dynamics" of strings high enough you can dig in a bit harder (without choking out). That balance is in a different place for all of us, but IMHO, finding that precise spot is CRUCIAL if you want your instrument to play "inspirationally".

I can say I have NO problem getting there with the Sadowsky basses I've owned, and currently own, which makes me particularly thrilled to be an owner.

Roger and his products and crew... magic. They know how to make us happy. :)
Click to expand...
 
#9,133
Scott McArron said:
Sounds right to me. Not flat in terms of the radius, flat lengthwise. I wouldn't want to play a board that had no radius at all! and I don't think anybody actually makes that from what I know.
Click to expand...

There are some really flat ones out there. The Nordy basses use a compound radius, and end up at I believe 26" (edit 20" I just looked it up) above the 12th fret, which is for all purposes, flat. Jerzy Drozd boards are very flat... I think 21" radius... can't quite remember.

Alleva-Coppolo 5's are at the other end of the spectrum, using a really curvy 10 or 10.5" radius (can't remember)... the 5's feel like old Fender 4's.

I very much like the 12" radius Roger uses on his 5 strings.... 'relatively flat' with just a bit of drop off at the ends to not feel 'boutique modern'. Nice!
 
#9,134
Scott McArron said:
...IME, the flat boards I've played could get a lower action than my Sadowsky board...
Otherwise I would see no advantage to the "dip" in the Sad boards.
Click to expand...
????

Scott McArron said:
Sounds right to me. Not flat in terms of the radius, flat lengthwise. I wouldn't want to play a board that had no radius at all! and I don't think anybody actually makes that from what I know.
Click to expand...
...but Sadowsky boards ARE flat lengthwise if the truss rod is set for it! I'm really confused about what you seem to imply as an inherent "dip" in Sadowsky boards. There's a .020" fade way up high on Sadowskys (as I recall) but that's not a "dip" as you seem to be talking about.
 
#9,135
KJung said:
There are some really flat ones out there. The Nordy basses use a compound radius, and end up at I believe 26" above the 12th fret, which is for all purposes, flat. Jerzy Drozd boards are very flat... I think 21" radius... can't quite remember.

Alleva-Coppolo 5's are at the other end of the spectrum, using a really curvy 10 or 10.5" radius (can't remember)... the 5's feel like old Fender 4's.

I very much like the 2" radius on a 5 string.... 'relatively flat' with just a bit of drop off at the ends. Nice!
Click to expand...

26"??!! :eek: I'd like to try that out. Wonder what it feels like. I do know that I like my Sadowsky's radius! :D
 
#9,137
Vic said:
????

...but Sadowsky boards ARE flat lengthwise if the truss rod is set for it! I'm really confused about what you seem to imply as an inherent "dip" in Sadowsky boards. There's a .020" fade way up high on Sadowskys (as I recall) but that's not a "dip" as you seem to be talking about.
Click to expand...

That .020" fade you mention inherently means the board isn't really flat, at least not as flat as other boards I've played.

I know it's not a "dip," per se, but I've heard it referred to as that and for all intents and purposes, it looks like one, however slight, when sighting down the board on the B or E string side. This design has been referred to earlier in this thread so I thought I could just say "dip" with quotation marks rather than say ".020" fade up high," and I couldn't remember the exact measurement anyway. Sorry if my lazy speech is confusing. :hmm::scowl:
 
#9,138
Vic said:
????

...but Sadowsky boards ARE flat lengthwise if the truss rod is set for it! I'm really confused about what you seem to imply as an inherent "dip" in Sadowsky boards. There's a .020" fade way up high on Sadowskys (as I recall) but that's not a "dip" as you seem to be talking about.
Click to expand...

He is talking about the 'dip'. If you sight down the board, it really is interesting... it dips just a touch and then comes back up a bit (or seems to). Disturbing until you realize that it is supposed to do that! It really does look like a little 'valley in the end of the board'.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back