Has anyone bought and NOT liked a Sadowsky??

[KJung]

I had a Sadowsky in my sights. It was my instructors. Nice instrument, I would have bought it. However, I noticed that he always gave lessons and performed with his LowEnd, and the Sadowsky stayed on the stand. The rest is history.

The Low End J basses are yet another VERY different take on the J thing. Many have HC pickups placed very close to the bridge, and a very over the top preamp.... quite modern sounding... nice, punchy, burpy tone. Actually, closer to the Sadowsky Modern.

I believe they now are doing more 'traditional' J spec basses, but haven't had a chance to play them. I never thought the fit and finish was quite on par with some of the other boutique J's, but there are nice and, like the Sadowksy, sound like what they sound like.

 

[aborgman]

If you put one on each wrist and dove in a pool, I bet you could.

True...

...and the funny thing is, you'd probably be able to tell because the Rolex would fail and the $10 digital cheapy would keep running (as well as continuing to be more accurate than the Rolex).

 

[Dr. Cheese]

i can't speak for the nyc basses but i bought a metro r5-24 a few years back. thought it was not worth anywhere near the $2500.00. neck was ok, fretwork was good, sounded brittle and thin. played one gig, sold it. on top of that, i had a horrible experience with the store i bought it at.

the carvin sb5000 i have now it a much better bass and it was almost 1/3rd the cost. same specs. alder body, rosewood board and active eq. little flatter neck. came with a hardcase. us made.

i would like to check out a nyc bass sometime just to see if the hype is true.

From everything I hear, the SB5000 is a great bass, so you did alright. If the Sadowsky soubnded brittle and thin, there is a good chance you did not know how to use the preamp. The controls are boost only, and if you turn up the treble by more than a hair, it will get pretty gnarly.

 

[RexNFX79]

As a Sadowsky owner, I think that they are really nice playing and sounding. I will say that I don't think that they are that much better than a CS Fender. Maybe a little but not enough to justify the price difference. Sadowsky has a much better B string and seem to be consistently nicer looking. They also play and sound incredible but once again, if you put them up next to a CS Fender, I'm not sure they are worth that much more extra money. Just my opinion, I am not attempting to offend, please do not attack me, I ponied up the dough for one of these (used of course) so I'm in the club so to speak. I will say that there are some mighty sensitive Sadowsky owners, I mean, let's be real....they are jacked up Fenders no matter how high your opinion of them. That said, I'm not parting with mine anytime soon and I have absolutely no regrets about buying it.

 

[Chasarms]

But if you dove into a pool with a $10 Wal-Mart watch strapped to your Sadowsky could you? . . .

There's no such thing as a $10 Walmart watch strapped to a Sadowsky. If it's strapped to a Sadowsky, it's a $100 watch no matter what!

 

[KJung]

There's no such thing as a $10 Walmart watch strapped to a Sadowsky. If it's strapped to a Sadowsky, it's a $100 watch no matter what!

This thread is finally starting to deliver

 

[syciprider]

I think sometimes the price of an object dictates the expectations. But in reality, craftsmanship aside, how much more mind blowing can one well set up $$$$ bass be over another costing hundreds if not thousands less that is set up just as well? I won't expect a Sadowsky to sound two thousand clams better than a Fender. I will expect it to be very well made (and everyone is allowed a dog once in awhile) but I won't expect it to be the be all and end all of tone.
If the NYC or Metro is the answer then we will all just play Sads and this forum will be called TS. That will be no fun.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Brad, 'ssup?

I agree with you, but when the "ney" saying are people that have never played them, or even things like "$200 worth" part basses with no frigging clou of what they are talking about... I can not pass it on...

I had 3 Sadowsky that I loved and enjoyed for years, till I finally got my dream bass (that's another story).

I can totally understand those who don't like Sads, that's why we have so many builders.... but PLEASE, let's open our mouth when we have something constructive (with knowledge) to say and not just to give air to our teeth

M

Not much, Mo.

What did you expect in this thread?


The people who haven't even touched one are pretty obvious and I doubt their opinion carries any more than it's obvious (lack of) weight. The people who have played them and weren't impressed enough to buy or keep them seem to be what the OP was looking for. As far as $200 worth of parts, do you think anyone seriously believes that?


A thread like this draws Sadowky folks like flies. That's understandable but hardly the point of the thread as far as I can tell. And yeah, a similar thread about many other things will do the same thing for afficianados.
.

 

[hands5]

Not really a meaningful question. I'm sure there a zillions of players like that. That's why Fodera, Lull, MTD, Zon and a hundred other brands exist

Sadowsky quality, service and support, and fit and finish are as good as anything out there (I moved from a Fodera/MTD pair to a Sadowsky, and the quality, fit and finish and attention to detail were equal). Whether you like the tone (and there are quite a few 'Sadowsky tones', from the somewhat Ken Smithish Modern to modern P's and modern J's) is something only you can say.

I would say the biggest source of 'disappointment' for those who ended up not liking their Sadowsky J stemmed from some thinking they were getting a higher quality Fender sounding bass. Higher quality, yes, but 'vintage Fender sounding'... no. They are their own thing... a strong 'Sadowsky flavor' of J (or P for that matter). Also, quite a few who buy and then sell the Sadowsky Modern model don't realize how 'Modern' that sounds... very burpy and 'soapbar' big and pure and sizzly and burpy... no grind, no growl.

IMO and IME!

that's what made me got rid of it

 

[Brad Johnson]

Wasn't commenting on the OP's question.... covered that earlier. Again, simple concept to that question... zero issues in quality, tone is totally subjective. I agree, reasonable question, since many high end brands have gone through 'rough spots' (e.g., Fodera).

And, cranking the bass and treble definitely increases the ratio of bass and treble to mids... which LITERALLY is the same thing as removing mids (you are confusing the LEVEL of the frequency curve, with the PATTERN of the frequency curve... the pattern is what defines the tone profile).

My initial and main question was based on this response "Man, lack of mid control?!?!?!?!?". Judging from the quantity of "?'s and !'s" that really struck a nerve. And as we both probably know, Will Lee finally got Roger to do a bass with a mid control... so what's Will's problem?


So BOOSTING treble and bass is the SAME THING AS CUTTING MIDS? Just want to make sure we're on the same page with this because I've never thought that exaggerating the natural sound of an instrument like that was the same thing as taking that natural sound and removing some of it. We'll agree to disagree on the terminology.


And based on my experience with several MTD's you don't have to touch the EQ to get a zingy sound with the right wood combo and strings. It might sound like other basses with scooped EQ but clearly it didn't take scooped EQ to get there with them.

That is just another ugly path to a smiley face EQ (which some guys really dig I guess... so even that is not 'wrong or right', of course).

Then why is it ugly?

This has nothing to do with digging Sadowsky's or not... pure personal taste. +1 all the way. However, just like the 'user error' with the Markbass heads that we often discuss (where guys put everything, including the filters, to noon, and then complain about the heads being 'dark and boomy), there are a lot of cats who get confused, for example, about boost only tone controls. I can't tell you how many guys came into LDS (that carried Metro's), and immediately cranked the bass and treble to the noon position, which of course sounded like a clicky, boomy mess, and then said 'this ain't happening, I would need a mid control'

No doubt user error can factor into things. By the same token, I seriously doubt Will Lee suffers from that or many of the others over the years who asked to have a midrange control. Don't want one? Fine... you won't miss it... but if you do prefer to have one, the problem is what exactly? That's what I don't get.

I knew how the controls worked when I checked the basses out. My personal preference for onboard EQ is having the ability to cut and boost and not need to do either right off the bat. Have a bass that sounds great passive and retains that sound with added cut and boost tweakability when active. That's obviously not the Sadowsky model and I'm cool with that. Different strokes... and I'd think Vision's stroke wouldn't cause such a reaction.

There are three simple questions here that anyone shopping for basses wants to know, and only the first one can be answered objectively by others:

1) Is the service and support, build quality, fit and finish, etc. of the Sadowsky up to par with other expensive boutique basses? Answer: Absolutely.

2) Will the tone of one of the Sadowsky models fit my needs? Answer: maybe yes, maybe no!

3) Is a Sadowsky worth the high price? Answer: maybe yes, maybe no!

Actually there was one simple question here... the OP's. You might be mistaking this for another thread.

 

[nostatic]

I have to say one feature on my new Roscoe that has me happy is the 3-bad eq. Last night I found that I could dial in the right amount of punch for a particular tune by just altering pup blend and mid boost. Nice bit of control.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Warning, Thread Drift!

About ten years ago I penned an article for Recording Magazine called "Taming The 5-String Bass" that identified this disparity, this lack-of-sonic-continuity between the E string & the B string, as the #1 shortcoming in most extended range basses. It really is the element that Separates The Men From The Boys imho. An instrument where you can play a 4th string/1st fret F and then a 5th string 4th fret Eb and have those two notes sound "of a part", cut from the same timbral fabric, not have a listener go "huh? what just happened?" is a rare but beautiful thing.

IME a big part of that is learning how to play the bass you're holding. Way too many people feel they have to play their B just like their E when in fact they don't play their G the same way.


Develope your touch and it's amazing how much easier things get. At least IME.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Impossible

 

[masoncole]

Sadowsky makes a great bass but the price is getting out of control. The usa made basses should not cost over $3000.00.
But most of them new are now over the 4 k range. This is just way to much for a fender clone type base in my opinion.

Masoncole

 

[Brad Johnson]

I have to say one feature on my new Roscoe that has me happy is the 3-bad eq. Last night I found that I could dial in the right amount of punch for a particular tune by just altering pup blend and mid boost. Nice bit of control.

Three band EQ can be very handy.

 

[Dr. Cheese]

This is why I compared Sadowsky fans to religious converts. Roger Sadowsky did such a good job of achieving the sound that was in the heads of so many players and engineers, that it is hard for those who "get it" to so how others don't.

That said, all anyone has to do is see how many great players sound wonderful and get plenty of work using other gear, much of it "inferior" gear by the standards of some who have posted.

I for one really love the Sadowsky sound, but as Mikebass' soundman said, "keep the P-bass." I completely believe the same thing is true for Stingrays, I think they always sound good in the mix.

 

[MikeBass]

This is why I compared Sadowsky fans to religious converts. Roger Sadowsky did such a good job of achieving the sound that was in the heads of so many players and engineers, that it is hard for those who "get it" to so how others don't.

That said, all anyone has to do is see how many great players sound wonderful and get plenty of work using other gear, much of it "inferior" gear by the standards of some who have posted.

I for one really love the Sadowsky sound, but as Mikebass' soundman said, "keep the P-bass." I completely believe the same thing is true for Stingrays, I think they always sound good in the mix.

I should have kept that one Cheese!
In the end, it was a wonderful sounding bass, just wasn't MY type of sound.
But, if I was out on tour again, and the FOH engineer told me a particular bass I had was "the one" for him to mix....you can pretty much bet I'd be using it all the time.

For ME, at this point it's still about working for a cohesive mix for my band, but I get to indulge myself with whatever bass is in my hands.
I'm lucky though that I worked hard on sound as generic as I can. I don't want to sound like "me". I just want to sound like a bass player.

When your getting paid by an artist, you play and use what works for them and then you.
You don't go all big/wide/scooped MTD/Smith on a country gig for example. You can. But a "Fender" is a little more appropriate.

Once you develop a "sound" if you will, it shines through on just about any bass you play.
Identifying the particular one that lets you express yourself tone wise is the hard part.
As many have posted here, Sadowsky isn't it for them.

I know that a "Jazz" type bass will work for me. Some it may be a MM. Or whatever.
But give me a quality bass with two single-coils in 60's Fender locations and no pre-amp, and I will make it work. And pretty much be happy too.

Currently, my Roscoe 6 is filling my needs. But if I had to pick something and be stuck with it for a long road gig. I'd take a Sadowsky.

I've said this before, and this thread kinda proves it, no other bass matches the mystique that a Sadowsky has.

YMMV.........

 

[Fliptrique]

IME a big part of that is learning how to play the bass you're holding. Way too many people feel they have to play their B just like their E when in fact they don't play their G the same way.


Develope your touch and it's amazing how much easier things get. At least IME.

Yeah, working on proper technique works wonders.

My friends sometimes joke that no matter what bass I play (i`ve had a few), I sound preety much the same - I guess that includes the B string which gets quite a bit of playing time.

Now back to the old "overpriced part`s bass" debate...

 

[Chasarms]

I think sometimes the price of an object dictates the expectations. But in reality, craftsmanship aside, how much more mind blowing can one well set up $$$$ bass be over another costing hundreds if not thousands less that is set up just as well? I won't expect a Sadowsky to sound two thousand clams better than a Fender. I will expect it to be very well made (and everyone is allowed a dog once in awhile) but I won't expect it to be the be all and end all of tone.
If the NYC or Metro is the answer then we will all just play Sads and this forum will be called TS. That will be no fun.

I think this is is really the gist of the most of the Sadowsky argument one way or the other. The truth is, the tone of a Sadowsky bass, or any bass, is what it is. Take it or leave it.

I personally don't think that's exclusively what you are paying for in a Sadowsky, or again, any other one-off custom shop bass.

With these kinds of basses, every step in the process costs money.

It costs money to spend the time it takes to take and process your custom order. It costs money to sort through and order every part for every bass exactly the way it selected. Money for the quality of material. Money for the quality of finish. Money for the assembly by someone with knowledge and experience. Money for the fretwork and set up. Simply, they are not a factory instrument, and this fact alone multiplies the production costs.

In the end you get something that has received a LOT more attention than a similar factory instrument. Maybe it's worth it to you, maybe not. But, it is unique.

 

[Montanamike]

Three band EQ can be very handy.

I agree, I've always been a 3 band guy until I discovered Roger's theory behind his preamp. The FET pre that Roger uses in brillient and his engineering is very sound. The Will Lee has a mid boost for everyone, including Will, who wants more mids. Since a FET preamp is not able to be a 3 band Roger piggybacked a solid state mid boost. This is ingenious.

All of these ramblings are well and good but it all still comes down to a matter of opinion. Roger's basses are well built, no he doesn't build most of his own parts, if he did the basses would be 30K not 4K. His mastery in in the way he has speced the parts to be built and his innovative solutions he has meet his cutomers needs with for sound and playability. Roger listens and his basses reflect that. We pay for his know-how and his innovation. These basses may not be for everyone but for me they are the right sound.