Chef
In Memoriam
it allows you to tune your e-string lower at the snap of a rocker.
i prefer a 5 string, myse'f
i prefer a 5 string, myse'f
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.
more mids are typically a good thing in the mix, and I guess Will kind of knows what he's doing when spec'ing a good bass tone
I have to kinda disagree.....I think what has always enabled Sadowsky basses to cut through so well in the mix is the fact that my basses have less mids than most. My ears tell me that when you boost the mids, you increase getting lost in the mix. With my boost only treble and bass circuit, the more you boost the treble and bass, the more you attenuate the mids around 300Hz. This slight mid attenuation is a lot of the Sadowsky magic.
It is for this reason that I was very specific with limiting the mid boost on the WL model to a couple of specific frequencies. I don't think I could ever do a preamp with a full midrange frequency sweep and a cut and boost control.
Roger
I was wondering if the same neck profile on a Metro, which is slightly thinner is an available option on an NYC? By the way, I'm disappointed to see the sponsored Sadowsky forum is gone 
I might be in the minority on this, but I'm grateful for that. I've found when I play a bass with a mid sweep and cut/boost, that I spend far too much time just trying to get a tone I'm happy with and not nearly enough time just playing the bass. For me, there is such a thing as having too many controls.
I also have to say that I wasn't particularly interested in the mid boost on the WL until I tried it in the shop. The design of having it as a simple switch (yet adjustable) was what sold me on it. I've found myself using it regularly on gigs.
I absolutely love the stock pre in my 99 , I just got a couple new cabs ( berg ae112's ) and had 2 great gigs this week , used my sadowsky and , well im always amazed how good that bass sounds , and people always , and have always said how much they can hear my bass cut thru ( ash / maple ), bass players to boot , really every rig I have played it thru , just saying , always a blast to hear when I am playing
I was wondering if the same neck profile on a Metro, which is slightly thinner is an available option on an NYC? By the way, I'm disappointed to see the sponsored Sadowsky forum is gone
Roger has a forum on his website now.
I'm not disputing this at all, and I've got Sadowskys and love them. People compliment my tone a lot. Just wondering...this statement seems to run contrary to a lot of generally accepted opinions that more mids lets you cut through better. I mean, my P-bass can cut through anything...why is that the case if less mids is the solution to cut-through? Or is that a deeply guarded secret?
I'm not disputing this at all, and I've got Sadowskys and love them. People compliment my tone a lot. Just wondering...this statement seems to run contrary to a lot of generally accepted opinions that more mids lets you cut through better. I mean, my P-bass can cut through anything...why is that the case if less mids is the solution to cut-through? Or is that a deeply guarded secret?
I had the exact same reaction.
I think the mid discussion mainly came out of the use of "enhance" knobs on many amps which scoop the eq in such a way as to kill all the mid tone. That, or the infamous smiley eq will bury you in the mix every time and soak up a ton of wattage.
I do have to support Roger's statement with practical experience. When I got my Q5 several years ago, it lead me to start playing with a minimal eq. When I went back to Fenders, I started tweaking again. Now, playing Roger's bass, I set everything dead flat. I literally could just have an amp with a gain and master a be very happy.
The only adjustments I ever make are on the bass. I tend to fiddle a bit with those controls only to create a little different feel on the context of the music.
The more I've experimented, the more I tend to agree with what Roger is saying. Depending on instrumentation, there is a lot going on around 250 - 300 and you can get lost in there.
I've gotta give up club #246 because I sold #2457. Great bass, but space and the fact that I like to gel with one bass means it had to go. But it couldn't be going to a nicer guy.
Carry on. And of course I'll still be subscribed.
I've gotta give up club #246 because I sold #2457. Great bass, but space and the fact that I like to gel with one bass means it had to go. But it couldn't be going to a nicer guy.
Carry on. And of course I'll still be subscribed.
I'm struggling with this post for a couple reasons (both my utmost respect for your years of experience and working with the pros, and the fact that my personal experiences has convinced me that mids are the key to cutting through a mix). So I thought long and hard about this and I think I might understand what might seem like a disconnect, but maybe not really...
You're commenting more about 300Hz, which is really low mids IMHO, and most of what we hear as "bass" is really around 100Hz... anything below that is just "boom and gloom" IMHO... especially in a live mix (carefully architected studio mixes are a different story). So if you consider shelving, yeah, if you got real crazy with 300Hz, you could get a bit muddy on the low end.
HOWEVER...
IMHO/IME, what helps you cut mixes is still in the midrange, but voiced higher. Depending on playing style, that means 400-800Hz. I've personally found that if I boost 500Hz, I can "step right out front" in a mix, but without suffering the clack and hiss of the uber high end or the boom and gloom of the very low end. Once you get up to 1kHz-3kHz, well, IMHO, now you're talking "low treble"... the place where that cool roundwound ring lives. That can get a bit clacky solo'd, but is a real nice "edge" in a live mix... and IMHO also helps cut mixes. Above that, IMHO, only slappers benefit. I typically never boost anything above about 3-5kHz.
So if we still disagree, it's definitely with all due respect, but this is how things work for me, at least.
I don't think there is any problem or contradiction with what Vic and I are saying.
One other point----is the fact that what sounds best to the player is not necessarily what sounds best "out in the house" or "on tape". Having more mids will often sound better to the player but ends up being really muddy out in the house.
Roger
One other point----is the fact that what sounds best to the player is not necessarily what sounds best "out in the house" or "on tape". Having more mids will often sound better to the player but ends up being really muddy out in the house.
Roger
Still confused here. The frequency centers of the Sadowsky pre are 4kHz and 40Hz. Vic calls below 100Hz "boom and gloom". So then, wouldn't a boost of the 4kHz and 40Hz cause the midrange (however you want to bound it) to reduce? How can there not be a contradiction? Just sayin'. Clearly I'm a stupid civilian in these matters, but I would like to try to understand the science. ???
Let me qualify what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about boosting stuff below 100Hz significantly. Depending on your pickup blend, you may have a significant deficiency down there... say when soloing the bridge pickup. Plus, with the shelving, you still get very well up into the normal bass ranges. Remember, these controls don't just boost a specific frequency... they also boost adjacent space. By the same token, if you're slapping, where you also typically have a deficiency in the low end, boosting the bass control makes sense. However, for normal fingerstyle playing in blended mode or favoring/soloing the neck pickup, I, at least personally, don't consider boosting the bass control to make much sense.
So the point is, yeah, it's center point is down low, but that's OK if you're making up for a lack of presence down there. It's only boom and gloom if you have it up too far.
Bottom line, just use your ears. They'll tell you what you need. Don't get too wrapped up in all this frequency stuff. This is just general information to help you make your own informed decisions on, as adjusted by your own prefs, gear, music and playing style.
IMHO/IME.
I don't have an opinion on all the frequency talk. What I am certain of, is that my Sadowsky sounds better in the mix than any other bass I've owned or played (and I've owned/played many high end basses, all with 3 band eq's). I set my amp completely flat and then make slight adjustments on the instrument. The Sadowsky 2 band pre smokes 'em all IMO.
I like to scoop mids in the studio and boost some a little bit live. I adjust for certain situations...
The reason I like using less mids in the studio is that it gives my engineer a lot more room to work with the sound. When you're boosting too much and playing too hard, where else can you go?
Live, I boost just a bit to mix nicely without having to just turn up. It's not overkill, and every sound guy I've worked with in a few states has liked my signal. If the signal is questionable, I'll send an unaffected signal to the desk for a live performance.
My technique might not be "correct", but so far it is working out for me nicely.
The reason I like using less mids in the studio is that it gives my engineer a lot more room to work with the sound. When you're boosting too much and playing too hard, where else can you go?
Live, I boost just a bit to mix nicely without having to just turn up. It's not overkill, and every sound guy I've worked with in a few states has liked my signal. If the signal is questionable, I'll send an unaffected signal to the desk for a live performance.
My technique might not be "correct", but so far it is working out for me nicely.
Before I started playing Sadowskys, I always found that the G string (and sometimes the D string also) were thinner sounding compared to the other strings and got buried in the mix. It was always like that on my StingRay and to a lesser degree, on my Laklands, so I always boosted mids to compensate for this, but then the tone wasn't as pleasant to my ears.
With both of my Sadowskys the D & G strings are very well balanced with the A & E and when I played on them their tone is fat and thick. If I need more mids i slightly favor the bridge pickup and it sounds more natural than boosting from a preamp, I usually do this on my single coiled J, but I don't really need it on my PJ that speaks with enough authority with the pickup blend centered.
With both of my Sadowskys the D & G strings are very well balanced with the A & E and when I played on them their tone is fat and thick. If I need more mids i slightly favor the bridge pickup and it sounds more natural than boosting from a preamp, I usually do this on my single coiled J, but I don't really need it on my PJ that speaks with enough authority with the pickup blend centered.
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,515
- 19,944
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
There are, of course, multiple ways to be heard in a mix, and it depends no only upon your own playing style/preferences, but also upon what the rest of your bandmates are playing/doing in the mix. This topic reminds me of some of the discussions I have had with people about getting "under" (and sometimes "over") the mix, versus "punching through." Each technique can work, IME, depending upon the situation (for me, it tends to center upon which chunk of sonic real estate the guitars are trying to occupy).
Tom.
+1000. It seems like EVERY bass I've had with a 3band EQ had me fiddling with the knobs most of the night to find a great tone that cut. I'm fortunate that a sound engineer friend of mine comes to most of my gigs at a venue in town where my rig carries the room, and I'll never forget him telling me how he never could hear me very well in the house when I used MTD's. I usually boosted those basses in the low-mid setting, and was ALWAYS ecstatic about my tone on stage. However, out front it wasn't carrying at ALL.
Conversely, when I first used a Sadowsky live at this same venue, my friend was shocked at how each note sounded thick and bass heavy, yet clear and dynamic out front. Since then I"ve played in some downright TERRIBLE venues, sonically speaking, and my Sadowsky has yet to let me down.
At the same time though.........for MY needs the PJ setup has a natural emphasis in the lowmids that just DOES IT for me, versus the slightly scooped nature of the JJ setup that I could never seem to fall in love with, hence the 4 Sad's I ended up getting rid of with this setup. My Sadowsky recipe MUST include ash/maple and a PJ setup.
+1 So much impacts this (strings, amp, playing context, technique) that it is hard to generalize.
One thing I find with the Sadowsky pre is that a VERY little bit goes a long way. I don't think I've ever boosted the treble control at all, since the Sadowsky basses have so much going on up top already, and would never boost that bass control more than 20%... typically less than that.
One thing is for sure, if you crank that bass and treble control, you will get a scoop, and for most amps and players, it will be a boomy, muddy mess. However, just a very, very slight fattening of the low end really adds some nice meat to the tone with most rigs and players... that, combined with the nice buffering impact, sounds great in most mixes.
I did feel the need to get the more mid present single coils for my Sadowsky to really generate the grind and punch I like with my particular technique and approach.
Wonderful basses!
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,515
- 19,944
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
+1 Although being a "neck pickup player," I do occasionally boost the treble a small amount on my Sadowsky's (usually when the strings are getting a bit old - when they are new, I normally run with a bit of passive tone roll-off), and I pretty much never boost the bass.
