Club Sadowsky!!!

[KJung]

I'm confused. If you're talking bridge spacing, they're the same... 19mm (unless your 535 has custom spacing). If you're talking nut, you can order a narrower nut as a standard option.

+1 I believe the bridge and nut spacing is the same between the two basses. Interestingly, I'm not up to speed on the 4 strings, but isn't the Sadowsky 4 string spacing even wider than the standard Fender 4 string spacing? I seem to remember 20mm (could be wrong there)

Something strange here. Might just be talking about the neck profile, which flattens a bit more above the 12th fret (as does the radius) on the MTD.... pretty minor though.

 

[KJung]

You know Roger, I have an early Metro RV4 with a neck that actually seems quite slender. Especially when you compare it to my later NYC JJ4's neck. That bass sounds GREAT and quite different than my ash/maple JJ. Of course the wood will make a difference. But this RV4 is really strong in the mids. I've been told repeatedly that I need to turn down since that bass is so punchy.

It just seems so opposite of what one would assume an alder/morado bass would sound like. This bass is strung with DR hibeams and I run the mix centered, bass at around 30% and treble at 10% with no VTC.

So the thoughts that a thicker neck sounds better has exceptions.

I've played a couple of early Metro's (our TB buddy Burk had a very early one... the neck profile did seem a bit flatter from what I remember... it has been a while) that were quite heavy, and that really had some balls to the tone. I also find that the Morado boards are a bit closer to maple than true rosewood in that upper mid snap you get, versus the smoother, more airy top end of a true rosewood neck. So, this doesn't surprise me that much (assuming there is a weight difference between the two basses).

I think what we were talking about with the neck mass was that if you 'carve' the neck on any given instrument to be significantly thinner, there is many times a price to pay in attack and tone. Of course, as you point out, much has to do the the density of the particular piece of wood.

I'm kind of a big fan of letting these luthier's build the basses they want to the spec's they want. If something doesn't 'feel right', I'm more likely to move to another luthier than to try a lot of customization to make things work. IMO there!

 

[iamthebassplayr]

If sometime doesn't 'feel right', I'm more likely to move to another luthier than to try a lot of customization to make things work. IMO there!

And how does that Sadowsky 5 neck neck feel on your NYC?

 

[KJung]

And how does that Sadowsky 5 neck neck feel on your NYC?

Pretty darn good. I'm not that sensitive to neck profile though. As long as I have the full 1 7/8" at the nut, and the 19mm at the bridge, I am pretty comfortable with almost any neck profile I've run across. I guess the only bass I've ever played where the neck just seemed too much to handle on a day to day basis was the old Fender P models with that huge chunky neck at the nut (not sure what years that was). Man, that felt like a baseball bat after a few hours (some of the Warwicks are a bit like that.

I do really feel the difference between the 1 7/8's nut spacing and the smaller 1 3/4 (which Roger offers as an option on his 5's). The FBass VF series has that thinner nut spacing, and it really didn't work for me. Many Fodera's I believe have that huge 2" nut spacing and just feel HUGE.

My A-C neck profiles are quite different. While the nut spacing and bridge spacing are identical to the Sadowsky 5, the A-C necks are much wider (significant extra space beyond the B and G strings), but much thinner/flatter front to back. So, the mass of the neck is still quite high, but the profile is quite different... wider and thinner. Pretty easy going back and forth between the two designs. The A-C's feel a little more 'Fodera-like' in that they are very wide with a very flattened C (although the unusually low radius makes them a bit more 'old school' feeling... really curved fretboard like the old Fenders). All personal taste there.

 

[dragonbass]

the width of the neck from top to bottom/string spacing. While the string spacing on my 4 string NYC suits me fine, I find it a bit wide on the 5.

Bass12,

I don't know the year of your 4 string (or 5 string for that matter)...
But, Standard stock specs are:

Nut width:
4 string = 1.5" (J) or 1.75" (P)

5 string = 1 7/8" or 1 3/4"

Bridges:
4 string = 20MM (optional 19MM available)

5 String = 19MM (optional 18MM available)

but I prefer a slightly tighter string spacing than what is offered on the NYC 5.

I'm confused...Your saying you like the string spacing on your 4 but not the 5....But the 4 is wider.

Robert

 

[KJung]

I'm confused...Your saying you like the string spacing on your 4 but not the 5....But the 4 is wider.

Robert

I guess I was remembering correctly. Yes, a bit strange.

 

[roadkill2309]

Hey there! If I remember correctly, your Lakland is much closer in design neck-wise to the Sadowskys than to the 535 that I'm using as my primary point of comparison here. I wouldn't think you'd have any problem adjusting to the neck on a Standard 5 (if any adjusting was necessary at all). It's funny, I have pretty long fingers (as you know), but I prefer a slightly tighter string spacing than what is offered on the NYC 5. Anyway, did I mention how incredible my NYC 5 sounds? It's the sonic equivalent of that "à l'ancienne" hot chocolate they serve at Juliette et Chocolat. Mmm mmm

Holy crap; Juliette et Chocolat. That à l'ancienne-style hot chockies is pure molten bliss. I may have to skip work and go this afternoon.

Yes, I liked the string spacing on the Sadowskies a lot. Funny you should mention that, as, though I like the feel of that old Godin's neck front to back, the string spacing is now tighter than I like, since I've gotten used to the Lakland. I think the Sad must be either the same spacing as my 55-02, or very close. As I've started trying to explore slapping a little, I've come to really appreciate the extra millimetres.

I was also surprised by how much I liked the 24-fret with the two soapbar pups. Now I'm all confused as to which will ultimately be the way to go.

 

[Chasarms]

. . . GREAT B strings 'in a vacuum', but unbalanced (IMO) with the rest of the bass (funny, when I started to play Sadowsky basses and A-C's, I at first thought THEY were unbalanced, since the G and D where super fat and present, and the E and B were not HUGE... I was wrong!). Kind of like a 'good thing gone too far' with the MTD and Modulus IMO.

I MUCH prefer the B string as a logical and tonal extension of the E string. . . . .

My experience with my Q5 was somewhat different. I always thought that the B was very well balanced with the other strings in tone and feel as well as dynamic response. It was that way on all three Modulus fivers I owned. two Q5s and a Genesis.

My point was I am giving up very little on the B with the Sadowsky and gaining a great deal in overall tone and comfort of play.

As to the neck discussion, I would describe the neck on my PJ5 as "wide, but shallow." I really like it. It is one of the most shallow fives I have owned. It is very similar in feel to a Pedulla Rapture JJ that I owned several years ago. It is very well suited for me.

Lastly as an aside, the thought of a bit chunkier neck being less fatiguing certainly has a lot of merit in the DB world. I gig on DB a lot more these days than on BG. I play a Shen, which has fairly "conventional" neck profile. I do three 50 minute sets on it regularly with no issues. I subbed not too long ago at a gig and played a Kay, which has broom handle neck. It took me two days to recover from it! It makes all the sense in the world that the same idea applies to the bass guitar.

 

[Jerry J]

I've played a couple of early Metro's (our TB buddy Burk had a very early one... the neck profile did seem a bit flatter from what I remember... it has been a while) that were quite heavy, and that really had some balls to the tone. I also find that the Morado boards are a bit closer to maple than true rosewood in that upper mid snap you get, versus the smoother, more airy top end of a true rosewood neck. So, this doesn't surprise me that much (assuming there is a weight difference between the two basses).

Actually the bass is right at 9 pounds. The width of the neck at the nut is the same as my NYC JJ4. It's just a slight bit flatter in the radius in the lower registers but noticeably different than the later built NYC JJ4. I love the bass as it offers a different tonality to my ash/maple SC equiped bass.

 

[KJung]

Surprisingly the bass is right at 9 pounds. The width of the neck at the nut is the same as my NYC JJ4. It's just a slight bit flatter in the radius in the lower registers but noticeably different than the later built NYC JJ4. I love the bass as it offers a different tonality to my ash/maple SC equiped bass.

That's a nice weight spec, and quite a bit heavier than the current NYC's. Even my non-routed NYC 5 string is lighter than that. Cool. I bet it sounds great.

 

[Vic]

+1 I believe the bridge and nut spacing is the same between the two basses. Interestingly, I'm not up to speed on the 4 strings, but isn't the Sadowsky 4 string spacing even wider than the standard Fender 4 string spacing? I seem to remember 20mm (could be wrong there)

All the Fender J 4 strings I've ever measured were 20mm (I did a thing on bridge spacing a loooong time ago, and even went to a Fender shop for some of the data), so if Roger's are the same then that's a commonality, not a difference.

 

[Vic]

I'm kind of a big fan of letting these luthier's build the basses they want to the spec's they want. If something doesn't 'feel right', I'm more likely to move to another luthier than to try a lot of customization to make things work. IMO there!

HUGE +1 on this, but even when doing this, I think there's still room for some adjustment and personalization that's well within the luthier/builder's "comfort zone". But I'm very much with you when it comes to asking a luthier/builder to do something they don't recommend. I strongly advise everyone to never do that.

 

[Vic]

Actually the bass is right at 9 pounds.

I think, with the possible exception of the UV ash/maple models (bigger body), the Metros are coming in at a lower average weight than they used to.

Both of my Metro basses were purchased based on the stipulation I was going to wait until something that was 9 pounds or less to come in, and I was prepared to wait as long as it took. My wait was not long AT ALL in both cases. In the case of my PJ5, it was actually the one already in stock, and in the case of my MV5-24, it was literally the first one through the shop.

 

[Fuzzbass]

My experience with my Q5 was somewhat different. I always thought that the B was very well balanced with the other strings in tone and fell as well as dynamic response. It was that way on all three Modulus fivers I owned. two Q5s and a Genesis.

My point was I am giving up very little on the B with the Sadowsky and gaining a great deal in overall tone and comfort of play.

I've owned two Modulus Q5's and currently own a Sadowsky, and agree with you on both counts: the Q5 had the best string-to-string balance of any bass I've played, but I'm giving up extremely little with the Sadowsky, B string included.

Note: while a good B string is a must, I really don't care about string-to-string tonal balance. Matter of fact I like being able to get a slightly different timbre from a note/riff by playing it in a different position.

Anyway, I *much* prefer the Sadowsky overall, because of its more traditional tone and look, and also its 19mm string spacing (the Q5 was too narrow for my comfort).

 

[KJung]

I think, with the possible exception of the UV ash/maple models (bigger body), the Metros are coming in at a lower average weight than they used to.

Both of my Metro basses were purchased based on the stipulation I was going to wait until something that was 9 pounds or less to come in, and I was prepared to wait as long as it took. My wait was not long AT ALL in both cases. In the case of my PJ5, it was actually the one already in stock, and in the case of my MV5-24, it was literally the first one through the shop.

Hey Vic, he's talking about a 9 pound 4 string, which is pretty hefty compared to the Metro's today and especially the NYC 4 strings, which are coming in below 8 pounds now, from what I've seen on the 'available instrument' specs. Steve's early Metro RV5 was in the 10 pound range, and had a bit of a different neck profile and entire feel/response versus the current line IMO.

 

[KJung]

I've owned two Modulus Q5's and currently own a Sadowsky, and agree with you on both counts: the Q5 had the best string-to-string balance of any bass I've played, but I'm giving up extremely little with the Sadowsky, B string included.

Note: while a good B string is a must, I really don't care about string-to-string tonal balance. Matter of fact I like being able to get a slightly different timbre from a note/riff by playing it in a different position.

Anyway, I *much* prefer the Sadowsky overall, because of its more traditional tone and look, and also its 19mm string spacing (the Q5 was too narrow for my comfort).

To clarify my comments, I'm not talking so much about 'even volume' across all the strings (the Modulus excel at that IMO and IME), but rather timbre. As someone else posted earlier, I find the more 'fatness' I hear in the G and D string on my more traditional basses, combined with the slightly less 'huge' B string 'sounds' more balanced to me tonally than what I experienced as less 'low end' and fatness in the MTD/Modulus G and D strings, and much bigger 'fundamental' of the lower strings.

All sounded good, just depends what you want I guess.

 

[KJung]

Tal is on tour with Herbie Hancock, supporting the amazing 'Imagine Project' CD... singing and playing. I just nabbed tickets for Detroit (outside downtown.. nice) for August 18th. It will be great to see her live (love her playing) and hear that great Sadowsky tone in that context

 

[bass12]

I'm confused. If you're talking bridge spacing, they're the same... 19mm (unless your 535 has custom spacing). If you're talking nut, you can order a narrower nut as a standard option.

+1 I believe the bridge and nut spacing is the same between the two basses. Interestingly, I'm not up to speed on the 4 strings, but isn't the Sadowsky 4 string spacing even wider than the standard Fender 4 string spacing? I seem to remember 20mm (could be wrong there)

Something strange here. Might just be talking about the neck profile, which flattens a bit more above the 12th fret (as does the radius) on the MTD.... pretty minor though.

Bass12,

I don't know the year of your 4 string (or 5 string for that matter)...
But, Standard stock specs are:

Nut width:
4 string = 1.5" (J) or 1.75" (P)

5 string = 1 7/8" or 1 3/4"

Bridges:
4 string = 20MM (optional 19MM available)

5 String = 19MM (optional 18MM available)




I'm confused...Your saying you like the string spacing on your 4 but not the 5....But the 4 is wider.

Robert

Well, apparently I'm the one who's a bit confused! You are all absolutely right about the measurements. I never double checked on the width at the nut of the Sadowsky 5 versus the 535 but, based on feel, I would have sworn that the 535 was narrower. Wow. I guess the more C shaped neck on the Sadowsky is what is throwing me off. I wouldn't have thought that it would make that much of a difference, but it would seem that, for me at least, it does. As for my being comfortable with the spacing on the 4 and not so much on the 5, I don't have a problem with wider spacing on a four string because the neck on a four is narrower (the spacing at the bridge is generally less of an issue than the spacing at the nut - although, apparently, most of that is in my head anyway ).

 

[tombowlus]

Well, apparently I'm the one who's a bit confused! You are all absolutely right about the measurements. I never double checked on the width at the nut of the Sadowsky 5 versus the 535 but, based on feel, I would have sworn that the 535 was narrower. Wow. I guess the more C shaped neck on the Sadowsky is what is throwing me off. I wouldn't have thought that it would make that much of a difference, but it would seem that, for me at least, it does. As for my being comfortable with the spacing on the 4 versus the 5, I don't have a problem with wider spacing on a four string because the neck on a four is narrower (the spacing at the bridge is generally less of an issue than the spacing at the nut - although, apparently, most of that is in my head anyway ).

Mike Tobias does (or at least did) offer a narrower neck option. Did you take measurements on your 535?

 

[bass12]

Mike Tobias does (or at least did) offer a narrower neck option. Did you take measurements on your 535?

Yes, the spacing is the standard 1 7/8 on the MTD. I should probably have mentioned that I'm extremely sensitive regarding any differences (ergonomically speaking) between basses. I can't, for example, very easily switch from one bass to another without a lengthy "adjustment period".