I don't own either one, but I've played both. Well, actually I played a M-2500, but still. I greatly prefer the M-2500. I liked the electronics of it far better than L2000/2500. The neck also seemed much more comfortable than the L series basses I've played, but that could has just been that particular bass. That M2500 was actually the best 5 string I've ever played. The B string was great, not floppy and very clear notes.
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.
G&L L-2000 vs. G&L M-2000
- Thread starter Mystic Michael
- Start date
M question...are the pickups wired series or parallel? Who cares about cut only....in reality it is just a reference point no? Anyway, I would like to try one of those Ms one day but I wonder how close it would be to my Lakland w/bart humbuckers since the preamp and controls are essentailly exactly the same. Good luck!
OK. I'll try to keep an open mind.
I must say, I've always preferred the Sterling body design to that of the Stingray. Looks a little more compact and ergonomic.
How does the Sterling compare tonally?
MM
Only difference I can see thus far is that the L-2000 has a two-band onboard preamp and exposed-pole pickups, while the M-2000 has a three-band onboard preamp and covered-pole pickups. There must be more differences than that.
in the L-series, the 2-band eq is not run off of a preamp, it's a passive design, with full on being "flat", with those mfd pickups being so hot, there's no real need to boost. the preamp in the L-series is a booster circuit (or at least thats waht i remember reading) and going from passive to active mode adds a little high-end sizzle and then there's the 3 setting for active w/treble boost. theres a number of L-series owners who toss the battery and run it passive alll the time. also, the pickups on the M-series aren't covered design, they just have black painted pole-pieces, which are adjustable just like all the other mfd-equipped G&Ls.
How does the Sterling compare tonally?
Never mind, J. I did a search on "Sterling Stingray", and read some comparison threads.
Wow. Ceramic pickups + series wiring, in addition to a fast, slim neck, and a body style that I happen to prefer. And it's reputed to sound even snarlier & more aggressive than the Ray.
That I did not know...
Thanks for the heads up, man. I think I know what I'm going to get from MusicMan...
MM
Thanks. That's some interesting detail about the L-series G&L that I did not know. Explains a lot actually. I definitely understand it better now.
MM
Yeah, I'm not really crazy about "cut only" tone circuits. The very idea just seems so "first-generation, old-school"...which I suppose it actually is, since the L-series is a good 30 years old now...
MM
Well, don't let the "cut only" label fool you. To obtain a similar bass-mid-treble balance than a traditional cut-boost preamp, you actually need to cut a bit of lows and highs. I haven't tried the M series yet, but my L-2500 leaves nothing to desire...
Never mind, J. I did a search on "Sterling Stingray", and read some comparison threads.
Wow. Ceramic pickups + series wiring, in addition to a fast, slim neck, and a body style that I happen to prefer. And it's reputed to sound even snarlier & more aggressive than the Ray.
That I did not know...
Thanks for the heads up, man. I think I know what I'm going to get from MusicMan...
MM
yeah. they're awesome. I had an HH model sterling 5 that was one of my great regrets selling. they are hard to come by on the used market. with both pickups on it had an almost Wal like sound.
I'm starting to come to that conclusion myself...
I've already read a couple other G&L threads here on TalkBass, plus a few L-2x00 reviews @ BGRA (all the reviews there are old, so there's nothing yet on the M-2x00 series).
If I were looking for a more modern, refined, smoother take on the G&L sound, I do believe the M-2000 would be the one. But I'm not. I want a bass that's downright rude. I want one with a nasty attitude. I want one that kicks ass!
MM
Sounds like you really want an L1500.
have a new sb-2 and just got an 83 l2k, i can not conceive of a nicer neck than the 1 5/8 neck on my vintage l2k
Well, it looks as if my due diligence is starting to pay off...
Earlier today I spoke with a guy from G&L. Then I spoke with a guy from Ernie Ball MusicMan. I also searched a bunch of additional threads here on TalkBass, gradually digging in deeper & deeper on detail.
It's looking more & more like an ash/maple L-2500 is in my future. What I'm picking up is that the L series has a somewhat compressed feel to the tone, phat & powerful, with a thick, snarling, midrange-heavy tone that remains impossible to completely tame.
Sounds good. Wild is good.
By contrast, the M series is reputed to have a major-league "B" string, with a more relaxed midrange, and more open and extended high frequencies. Sounds closer to most of the bass guitars I already own. But assuming this characterization is accurate, that's exactly why it wouldn't work - because I've already got that sound covered.
Not making any hard & fast decisions just yet, of course. But my gut tells me that the G&L L-2500 + EBMM Sterling 5 HH combination is gonna provide the devastating one-two punch I need for raucous rawk!
MM
Earlier today I spoke with a guy from G&L. Then I spoke with a guy from Ernie Ball MusicMan. I also searched a bunch of additional threads here on TalkBass, gradually digging in deeper & deeper on detail.
It's looking more & more like an ash/maple L-2500 is in my future. What I'm picking up is that the L series has a somewhat compressed feel to the tone, phat & powerful, with a thick, snarling, midrange-heavy tone that remains impossible to completely tame.
Sounds good. Wild is good.
By contrast, the M series is reputed to have a major-league "B" string, with a more relaxed midrange, and more open and extended high frequencies. Sounds closer to most of the bass guitars I already own. But assuming this characterization is accurate, that's exactly why it wouldn't work - because I've already got that sound covered.
Not making any hard & fast decisions just yet, of course. But my gut tells me that the G&L L-2500 + EBMM Sterling 5 HH combination is gonna provide the devastating one-two punch I need for raucous rawk!
MM
Michael: that is exactly what I heard also, I really loved the low notes and how punchy they were. You have to work to get super treble, but that's why I have other basses that do that better. The M series was just a little too mid thick, but in some rock settings that would be great, just depends on the venue and style of music.
I wish I hadn't gotten rid of all my recording equipment; I'd do a sample of my L2000 - it's impossible to tell if it's a suitable tone just from all these descriptions.
But "compressed" is a pretty good approximation of the sound I get out of my L2K with the pickups in series mode. The MFD's are extremely high output, which I've found tends to yield a compressed sound. In my case, it's so compressed that it doesn't mix very well especially if the music is complicated. Even without frets, my L2K gets lost in all but the simplest styles when I run the PU's in series, wooly mode.
My preferred tone, tho, is an -ish Jaco/Bunny Brunel sound so I rarely have a use for a super high-octane pickup sound.
So my combo, not weirdly, is a Carvin BB70 FL and my L2K with no battery in it and the bridge PU exclusively run in series mode. The L2K in series mode gives a pretty good approximation of a jazz bass with just the bridge PU.
Another config is series mode with the bass knob turned all the way down - this takes some of the nasal out of the tone, but isn't quite as "poppy" as series mode with everything dimed.
If I were still gigging or recording, the BB70 and L2K are the only basses I'd ever drag around. The L2K would cover the cases where I'd need a Fender sound pretty well. If you need a P bass, switch to the bridge PU in series mode and you've got it, for example. And so on...
LS
If you really want nasty and rude, you should consider the single-pickup versions of the MM and the G&L. Be aware that the SR5 or Sterling H and the L-1505 do not have their pickups in exactly the same position as the bridge pickup on the HH or L-2500 models. So, the sound of an HH or a 2500 with the bridge pickup soloed is not the same as the sound from an H or a 1505. I have a SR5 H and a 2500, but I have never tried a SR HH, nor a 1505. But, what I've read on here is that the single H versions of these basses are even more "rude and nasty" than the HH versions.
I doubt that. The difference in the placement of the PU on the single vs the bridge PU on the dual is pretty minimal. There will be a slight tonal difference, but it won't be that substantial.
There won't be much, if anything, you can do with the single that you can't do with a dual.
As for an "agressive" tone, I can get a pretty decent Stanley Clark sound out of my L2K, even with it having no frets, by plucking over the neck PU with a good bit of force. If I run just the bridge PU that makes it even more trebly.
The Bunny, however, sounds like Bunny Brunel no matter what I do with it lol. But it mixes better than anything I've ever played.
LS
Oh, and getting back to the OP's original question and follow-up comments...
MysticMichael, if you are interested in G&L and want downright rude, and you are considering a 4-string, you should also check out a G&L SB-2.
As I said, I have an L-2500 (with the single coil option) and I also have an SB-2 and I feel like the SB-2 gets about as rude and nasty as any bass I've played. And it does it with a P-bass sound. I think you posted earlier that you were looking for something to use for Rock. I'd say the SB-2 might really be perfect for what you've described that you want.
MysticMichael, if you are interested in G&L and want downright rude, and you are considering a 4-string, you should also check out a G&L SB-2.
As I said, I have an L-2500 (with the single coil option) and I also have an SB-2 and I feel like the SB-2 gets about as rude and nasty as any bass I've played. And it does it with a P-bass sound. I think you posted earlier that you were looking for something to use for Rock. I'd say the SB-2 might really be perfect for what you've described that you want.
Mystic Michael,Well, it looks as if my due diligence is starting to pay off...
Earlier today I spoke with a guy from G&L. Then I spoke with a guy from Ernie Ball MusicMan. I also searched a bunch of additional threads here on TalkBass, gradually digging in deeper & deeper on detail.
It's looking more & more like an ash/maple L-2500 is in my future. What I'm picking up is that the L series has a somewhat compressed feel to the tone, phat & powerful, with a thick, snarling, midrange-heavy tone that remains impossible to completely tame.
Sounds good. Wild is good.
By contrast, the M series is reputed to have a major-league "B" string, with a more relaxed midrange, and more open and extended high frequencies. Sounds closer to most of the bass guitars I already own. But assuming this characterization is accurate, that's exactly why it wouldn't work - because I've already got that sound covered.
Not making any hard & fast decisions just yet, of course. But my gut tells me that the G&L L-2500 + EBMM Sterling 5 HH combination is gonna provide the devastating one-two punch I need for raucous rawk!
MM
The L-2500 will very likely do very well for Rock. I gig with a L-1505 and it is perfect. The pickup position gives the L-1505 sort of a signature tone. One nice attribute of the MFD pickups in the "L" series basses is that they belt out a very wide band of frequencies and so it's simply a matter of eq' ing to taste. Granted the G&L's have their personality tone - yet they're easy to shape.
If you want even more nastiness out of a M2000/2500 string it with a set of Pedulla stainless strings. Serious growl! Trust me on this one.
