This is not your run down typical fender vs. lakland thread. It's actually not even a fender vs. lakland thread. It's my fender vs. my lakland thread, but I bet I got your attention. So here's the deal. I have a 4402 with ash body and maple fb. The bass plays awesome and sounds good. I just bought a used mim p bass. Fully stock. The fender doesn't have the high quality hardware, setup and fit and finish as the lakland dus, but... the fender sounds very FAT! It has an azaming fat bottom p-bass sound. Even when played unamplified I feel the bass resonating at lower frequencies. I was wondering now. Is this because the lakland is an ash/maple bass and the fender is an alder/rosewood bass? Or is it just that the woods sound more deep and resonant on that particular fender than on the lakie. It's my first ash/maple bass, so I don't have a lot of experience with these woods, but I know they are known to be less warm sounding, but I think the difference is quiet big, even with the active Eq. I'm nog trying to bash lakland and idolize fender. Both make amazing basses, but I'm talking about my two basses. So what do you guys think? Is this the Alder/rosewood and Ash/Maple difference, or just these particular pieces that sounds deeper (fender) or shallower (lakland)?