• 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!!!

#15,261
Vic said:
Good point. One of the things I've always noticed about a Sadowsky is it doesn't have the tendency to kinda' disappear out from under you when you go up to the D and especially G strings. Basically, anywhere you go on the instrument, the sound is right there for you. You don't have to adjust your playing to back off of an overpowering string or dig in extra hard to bring out a weak one. REALLY nice.
Click to expand...

I have not found to be true this with my nyc vintage 5... :atoz:

It's a great playing instrument and it really does sound good, but it doesn't have a great deal of fundamental in the note (compared to my Fender 62 RI Jazz for example). Also the high strings on the low frets tend to sound somewhat thin. It tends to sound refined and hi-fi rather than earthy and thick like the Fender.

I replaced the HC pickups with SC, and then finally with Nordstrand NJ5, which got it a lot closer. I'm currently using DR DDT strings, which give more fundamental and evenness across the fingerboard. In spite of all this, I feel that I am to some extent fighting the basic nature of this instrument.

This is the only Sadowsky I've ever played, so I can't tell if it is this particular instrument, or if the Sadowsky sound just doesn't quite match the tone in my head... Any TB Sadowsky owners in LA I could get together with so I can compare instruments?
 
#15,262
smeet said:
I have not found to be true this with my nyc vintage 5... :atoz:

It's a great playing instrument and it really does sound good, but it doesn't have a great deal of fundamental in the note (compared to my Fender 62 RI Jazz for example). Also the high strings on the low frets tend to sound somewhat thin. It tends to sound refined and hi-fi rather than earthy and thick like the Fender.

I replaced the HC pickups with SC, and then finally with Nordstrand NJ5, which got it a lot closer. I'm currently using DR DDT strings, which give more fundamental and evenness across the fingerboard. In spite of all this, I feel that I am to some extent fighting the basic nature of this instrument.

This is the only Sadowsky I've ever played, so I can't tell if it is this particular instrument, or if the Sadowsky sound just doesn't quite match the tone in my head... Any TB Sadowsky owners in LA I could get together with so I can compare instruments?
Click to expand...

I'd agree with the HC pickups all the way.

The SC's fixed that for me, but I agree, there is still just a touch of Sadowsky/modern/scoop in the higher register compared to a passive Fender or a more 'Fender sounding' J like the Alleva-Coppolo. It doesn't bother me a bit, and again, is so much fatter than my previous 'soapbar boutique' basses up there that I am still a bit giddy.

However, if you really want that super Fender mid thing, Fender is the way to go IMO.
 
#15,263
Arg, but the Sadowsky feels SO much better than the Fender. And EQ doesn't seem to help, boosting the lows sounds great, but what I am looking for is more punch and fundamental in each note WITHOUT adding lows. Does that make sense? I use the KJung-patented slightly-favor-the-bridge setting:bassist:, and either run it passive or active with 10% low boost. If I edge towards the neck pickup, the sound is satisfyingly thick, but a bit too muddy and hard to hear the pitch in some situations.

I don't need it to sound like a Fender. I guess what I want is to retain the great sound and feel that this bass has, but add some of that primitive unrefined sound that paradoxically makes a Fender sound good.

KJung said:
I'd agree with the HC pickups all the way.

The SC's fixed that for me, but I agree, there is still just a touch of Sadowsky/modern/scoop in the higher register compared to a passive Fender or a more 'Fender sounding' J like the Alleva-Coppolo. It doesn't bother me a bit, and again, is so much fatter than my previous 'soapbar boutique' basses up there that I am still a bit giddy.

However, if you really want that super Fender mid thing, Fender is the way to go IMO.
Click to expand...
 
#15,264
smeet said:
Arg, but the Sadowsky feels SO much better than the Fender. And EQ doesn't seem to help, boosting the lows sounds great, but what I am looking for is more punch and fundamental in each note WITHOUT adding lows. Does that make sense? I use the KJung-patented slightly-favor-the-bridge setting:bassist:, and either run it passive or active with 10% low boost. If I edge towards the neck pickup, the sound is satisfyingly thick, but a bit too muddy and hard to hear the pitch in some situations.

I don't need it to sound like a Fender. I guess what I want is to retain the great sound and feel that this bass has, but add some of that primitive unrefined sound that paradoxically makes a Fender sound good.
Click to expand...

I love my Sadowsky! However, I'm the first to say it doesn't sound much like a Fender, in the way you are describing. I again don't think that is a good nor bad thing, but if you really want a legitimate Fender tone in a super high end bass, this is probably not the brand for you. Different birds... some feel the Sadowsky 'improves' the Fender tone, others not so much. Very few say they sound similar.

IMO there. I guess if you run passive, that buffering is removed and it will get you a touch closer, but that's not really what these basses are about.

K
 
#15,265
smeet said:
Arg, but the Sadowsky feels SO much better than the Fender. And EQ doesn't seem to help, boosting the lows sounds great, but what I am looking for is more punch and fundamental in each note WITHOUT adding lows. Does that make sense? I use the KJung-patented slightly-favor-the-bridge setting:bassist:, and either run it passive or active with 10% low boost. If I edge towards the neck pickup, the sound is satisfyingly thick, but a bit too muddy and hard to hear the pitch in some situations.

I don't need it to sound like a Fender. I guess what I want is to retain the great sound and feel that this bass has, but add some of that primitive unrefined sound that paradoxically makes a Fender sound good.
Click to expand...

Put some D'Addario chromes on that puppy! Lots of edge & a fundamental that will make you weep. Then you can also put the VTC to some good use if you wanna boost some highs on the pre. Hey - you can always take 'em off again.
 
#15,266
Vic said:
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.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'm clueless regarding 4 strings.... always thought that the 19mm spacing on 5 strings was meant to match the standard spacing on Fender 4 strings. Who knew! Most of the info on the web states .75", which is 19mm for 4 string Fender replacement bridges, etc.

Fender 4 string bridges are described as 2 1/4". So, divide that by three and you get .75 or 19mm spacing. That's why I always thought that Roger's 20mm was 'wider than vintage'. Again, not a 4 string guy, so not sure if there are different ways to measure this stuff.
 
#15,267
KJung said:
Interesting. I'm clueless of 4 strings.... always thought that the 19mm spacing on 5 strings was meant to match the standard spacing on Fender 4 strings. Who knew! Most of the info on the web states .75", which is 19mm for 4 string Fender replacement bridges, etc.

Fender 4 string bridges are described as 2 1/4". So, divide that by three and you get .75 or 19mm spacing. That's why I always thought that Roger's 20mm was 'wider than vintage'. Again, not a 4 string guy, so not sure if there are different ways to measure this stuff.
Click to expand...
I also thought this! Admittedly, again, that "survey" was years ago, but even though we're only talking about 1mm, I rechecked a bunch and it was undeniably wider... including even the filed slots on my Geddy. If things are standardized on .75 now (which also makes a lot more sense to me!), I'd accept that. I haven't rechecked recently, and they've updated bridges over the years.
 
#15,268
P. Bass said:
Put some D'Addario chromes on that puppy! Lots of edge & a fundamental that will make you weep. Then you can also put the VTC to some good use if you wanna boost some highs on the pre. Hey - you can always take 'em off again.
:bassist:
Click to expand...

I actually had chromes on the bass for almost a year. I really liked them (and they sure have fundamental!), but I missed the roundwound character after a while. I'm comparing the fundamental on this bass to that on other basses with the same strings, and the harmonic balance on each note seems tilted toward the higher harmonics, just a touch, but enough that it sometimes doesn't feel quite as solid or punchy as I would like.
 
#15,269
smeet said:
I actually had chromes on the bass for almost a year. I really liked them (and they sure have fundamental!), but I missed the roundwound character after a while. I'm comparing the fundamental on this bass to that on other basses with the same strings, and the harmonic balance on each note seems tilted toward the higher harmonics, just a touch, but enough that it sometimes doesn't feel quite as solid or punchy as I would like.
Click to expand...

I certainly appreciate your point re. roundwound character. I feel the same about flatwound character. It's like we used to say when going to the drive-in movie w/ the girlfriend in highschool - " Bucket seats are SO cool - in somebody else's car".
 
#15,272
Chasarms said:
I think if I had to play flatwounds, I would honestly lose interest in playing bass guitar. I find them THAT unpleasant.
Click to expand...
WOW!

I generally don't like flats much, BUT, every time I play them at a gig, I'm pleasantly surprised, and the super slickery feel is pretty cool. :) It's when I play them solo/at home that I can't stand how "dead" they seem.

I'm gonna' be getting some new Sadowsky strings in soon, and I'm gonna' definitely get at least one set of flats to put on my PJ5. If nothing else, there's just something really cool about a P style bass with flats on it. Old school funky... really cool.
 
#15,277
Jabassman said:
Thanks for the quick answer Roger.
Here is another: Does anyone have any experience with single coil's and the 500k volume pot? I would like to know how that alters the tone as compared to a 250K pot?
Click to expand...
At least to me...

It just fortifies that nice "low treble"/"high mid" response a bit more... just like it does with the HC pickups, but IMHO, it's not to the point of being too much of a good thing. Note, my experience is only on ash/maple. I'm assuming alder/morado (and also rw on NYC models) would still also be a nice improvement.

In short, I like the change for both pickup types... at least in my basses.
 
#15,279
Chasarms said:
I think if I had to play flatwounds, I would honestly lose interest in playing bass guitar. I find them THAT unpleasant.
Click to expand...

I play mostly rock, so I'm a roundwound guy, but I've had flats on my Revs and Dark Star P now and then. It's a kind of cool tone for some things (blues, etc.), IMO, and I don't mind the slippery feel all that much.

I've never tried them on a Sadowsky though. It might be interesting to try some on my PJ some day.

I generally wouldn't do a whole gig with flats though. I prefer the aggressive tone of rounds for rock, and with the band I'm in, rounds are a better choice. But I have played most of a set on flats once in a while. I wouldn't play my Rob Allen for a full set on a gig either.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back