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.
I can't comment on HC vs SC, but concur on the sweet spots on my PJ being just off center detent in either direction. I do like the idea of less top end and more mid and growl in a J pup - maybe a SC equipped JJ would send me.
Which begs another question - I assume the P in a Sadowsky PJ is a HC design?
Which begs another question - I assume the P in a Sadowsky PJ is a HC design?
Yep. The first P pup out was a single coil (earliest Fender). The split P in your Sadowsky is indeed humcancelling (two coils split).
Anyone run their preamp boosted? There's lots of talk about using just a slight bass boost, or running it flat - and I usually do that, but I also played around a little with some pretty significant bass and treble boost and got some nice tones.
Does anyone do this or do we all just play flat? And if we play flat, why have any boost available at all in the preamp?
Does anyone do this or do we all just play flat? And if we play flat, why have any boost available at all in the preamp?
I actually like the PJ passive best of all. But generally I run with a little bass and treble boost. Running flat is a little...flat for my taste. Just a bit of bass boost fills out things. I can live without any treble boost, but it can help depending on the room and the mix of instruments. I find a lot of treble boost is just too shrill for my taste. But I also am finding that I'm not a huge "modern tone" fan. I hadn't really tried much beyond my Lightwave fretless for the past 9-10 years (and the fretted Zon had Bart HB on the rare occasions I played that) so I'm having to relearn what I like in a fretted bass tone.
I usually have both the bass and the treble boosted a little, maybe a 1/8 turn of the knobs or a hair more. That's where it seems to sound the best to me.
Chef
In Memoriam
All split P pickups are humcancelling; that's why Leo did that and moved away from the early single coil P. I think
I use my eq a lot. I generally bump treble 30-40%, and then trim passive tone an equal amount. This makes for nice top end and clarity, and quells string and fret noise.
With the bass boost, I generally have it somewhere between off and 15-20%, depending on which pickup I'm biased towards. The neck pickup generally wants less, or none, depending on the amp/cab/room/etc. I like to add a touch of bass to the bridge pup.
I have also messed with "just turning both up the same amount" which is sort of equal to scooping mids a tad. Sort of.
I use my eq a lot. I generally bump treble 30-40%, and then trim passive tone an equal amount. This makes for nice top end and clarity, and quells string and fret noise.
With the bass boost, I generally have it somewhere between off and 15-20%, depending on which pickup I'm biased towards. The neck pickup generally wants less, or none, depending on the amp/cab/room/etc. I like to add a touch of bass to the bridge pup.
I have also messed with "just turning both up the same amount" which is sort of equal to scooping mids a tad. Sort of.
That's what I understood. I was trying to say that doesn't matter. Within a PJ4 to PJ4, or PJ5 to PJ5, regardless of the body style or wood combo, it's the same electronics.
The downside to the blend is that it adds a third variable resistor to the circuit, and due to the way the circuit works out, it makes pickup loading a bit more significant. So from a purely scientific POV, vol-vol is superior. That's a fact.
However, I've spent a lot of time comparing vol-vol to vol-blend circuits, and I find the tonal diffs to be subtle, at best. Compared to the convenience a master volume provides me with, I'll always go vol-blend given a choice.
There are those who would insist you have more blending options with vol-vol compared to vol-blend. I don't agree at all, though I do agree that the passive blend control is more sensitive and a bit harder to set some blends than a vol-vol. Again tho, never been a problem for me.
- Feb 17, 2003
- 1,006
- 281
- Disclosures
- ........................................EX-Sadowsky Guitars Builder..........................................................
Roadkill,
Just so you know all NYC basses are now built with a 500K Volume pot.
Rob
I do, though not a lot. Most times I run flat with a pure blend. If I favor the bridge, I boost the bass up to 30% depending on how much bridge favoring I'm doing. Sometimes, for a certain kind of slap tone, I leave the bass blended, boost both about 30% or a bit more, and just adjust volume to suit. That has the net effect of scooping mids a bit.
By far, tho, most times I run flat and adjust the VTC to taste.
I always have the bass boosted between twenty and thirty percent. I'll boost the treble between twenty and fifty percent for slapping. Recently, however, I've been using the VTC a lot more than the bass and treble boost to help me achieve different tones. Strangely, it took me a while to warm to the VTC - but I now love it. I play a lot of different stuff style-wise in my main band and the VTC helps a lot. With the VTC, I can go from a nasty slap-friendly tone to a mellowed reggae-friendly tone with a simple twist of the fingers.
Is anyone here using the Sadowsky DI/Pre-amp?
I've had one for awhile but haven't really ever used it on a gig. I played two nights at the same club this weekend and used a backline. For tonights gig I decided to try the Sadowsky DI so that I could leverage the tuner out and Mute combo.
I have to say I was presently surprised at how good the DI performed and sounded. I know a lot of amps have tuner outs and mutes now but not ever one does - and those that do don't always mute the xlr to the house.
A great gadget -- totally worth having one in your gig bag. I usually use my Demeter DI but the Sadowsky does what you need on most gigs -- and has that cool mute function. Plus the pre-amp for those that need it.
For those that don't have one, they're absolutely worth picking up.
I've had one for awhile but haven't really ever used it on a gig. I played two nights at the same club this weekend and used a backline. For tonights gig I decided to try the Sadowsky DI so that I could leverage the tuner out and Mute combo.
I have to say I was presently surprised at how good the DI performed and sounded. I know a lot of amps have tuner outs and mutes now but not ever one does - and those that do don't always mute the xlr to the house.
A great gadget -- totally worth having one in your gig bag. I usually use my Demeter DI but the Sadowsky does what you need on most gigs -- and has that cool mute function. Plus the pre-amp for those that need it.
For those that don't have one, they're absolutely worth picking up.
What the heck... a new picture of the 'orange bomber'. I continue to be totally, completely satisfied with this bass, and the wonderful Blue Label Sadowsky stainless steels that I use with it.
Here is a new clip of the bass through that amazing 212/6/tweeter LDS cab and the Puma500!
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Sadowsky singles, ash/maple.... THAT'S what I'm talkin' about!
That sounded great.
Sounds like a plan. The PJ sound is pretty different from the JJ sound. I happen to really love both, but they're different enough I can easily see someone having a pref for one and not liking the other (just as you say).
Merry Christmas!
I am a newbie Sadowskyist, having just taken possession of this one:
I have been a very, very good boy this year.
What model is that? It looks like a slab-bodied '51 P-bass/'68 Tele with a Sadowsky headstock, not the Jazz bass body pattern Sadowsky is known for.
