Is a Sandberg Superlight too light?

[JimmyM]

The body wood is paulownia.

Oofa! Not a huge believer in the wood making a difference, but when it comes to light hardwood like basswood and paulownia, I just couldn’t do it. I did it once, and it made a good bass, but I had to use very hot pickups for it to sound good, and I couldn’t use standard passive pickups.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

The P style passive of this model is close to 5 1/2 lbs. Other have said they balance well but I wonder about tone and resonance.
I have a Glary bass which is 6 1/2 lbs that sounds good but has a club like P neck. The next closest is a G&L J at 7 1/2lbs. My main bass is a 72' P that weighs 8 1/2 lbs and sounds great. At 67' my back hurts after 2 sets even with an 8 1/2lb bass.

Anybody bought a Superlight and regretted it?

You dont want resonance.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

I got a Strat guitar body in paulownia. It sounds fine (like a Strat) but I don't like playing it as it feels so light it's like a toy. I end up playing my Telecaster more, which weighs only slightly less than a neutron star.

 

[pineweasel]

I've been playing my Superlight TM5 for five years now and I love it. Easy to tote around in a gig bag, very comfortable for long gigs, wonderfully consistent feel across the fretboard and a useful variety of tones. I've had plenty of compliments on the sound from fellow musicians, sound engineers and audience members. I don't think it has as much character as my old Precision or the Stingray 5 I sometimes play, but overall it's a great, practical bass.

 

[chris_b]

I briefly owned an active Superlight Jazz, weighed 6lbs 8 oz. It sounded good, looked good, felt good to play and my bad back hardly knew I was carrying it.

I sold it because, even though it was a great bass, I still preferred the tone of my Mike Lull PJ5.

No question, I would buy another Superlight, if the right one came along.

 

[LowWay]

I have a bunch of basses inthe 6.5 range. All Bordwell customs, no Sanbergs. None are paulownia, but my next one may be. I have a 34" jazz configuration at 6.5 pounds, balances perfectly, and at the time it was built, Cliff said it was the most resonant bass he had built.

All my basses sound huge and have great tone. No complaints here. I have 5 of them.

 

[sethlow3]

I have a Superlight VS passive 5.
It’s 6lbs.
Fantastic tone and B string. The pick tone is especially badass on it.
Balances great. As with all basses, some speak differently than others. I’ve owned four paulownia basses and kept the two I thought sounded best. The other is a G&L empress 4. These two P’s have different vibes tonally (Sandberg being more modern). I put flats on the G&L and rounds on the Sandberg. I thoroughly enjoy both of them and get lots of compliments on the tone of both.

YMMV may vary. Basses are like cars. The same exact year, make, and models can “drive” very differently. I’ve played basses of alder, ash, paulownia, mahogany and more that sounded meh or that sounded fantastic. It’s more down to the individual bass than it is one model or wood IME.

 

[LowWay]

You dont want resonance.

You don't want wood resonance, but you do want tonal resonance.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

You don't want wood resonance, but you do want tonal resonance.

I'm going to be a physics pedant and say no to resonance from electric basses and vibrating strings. It has its place in electronics, though.

 

[p12bassnut]

I had one and found it did not balance well for me. I have to admit though, I am very picky in regards to the attribute of balance.
Sounded good though.

 

[Nedmundo]

I've had a TT-5 Superlight (J5) since December 2022, and overall it's been great. I walk almost a mile to my bands' gig/rehearsal space, and one of my bands sometimes has long rehearsals and sets, so the light weight is a huge advantage. It's extremely comfortable.

For me, the other huge advantage is playability. The neck is fantastic IMO, and I like the relatively flat 14" radius fretboard, which can set up with very low action. Overall, it feels similar to my G&L M-2500's neck, though the Sandberg has wider string spacing.

With the stock pickups, the tone was decent, standard issue J-bass tone, with some good single coil punch and surprisingly little single coil hum. Nothing spectacular, but solid, and I was happy with it apart from weak output on the A string. I've replaced the pickups with Aeros and the balance and tone are better, though the Aeros have more single coil hum.

The B string is excellent, even better than the B on my G&L M-2500. One of my bands tunes down a half step, and even then the Sandberg's B string stays crisp. I think this speaks to the overall quality of materials and construction.

The Sandberg is the third paulownia (empress) instrument I've owned. The others were a G&L JB-5 I bought used, and a built-to-order G&L Comanche guitar. I've never thought the body wood had an adverse effect on tone. I think the JB-5 had a slightly thicker native tone than my Sandberg, but I didn't have them at the same time so I can't be sure.

(Note: If you're considering a TT-5, know that Sandberg's five-string J-bass pickups are sized like four-string pickups, approximately 91mm and 95mm. So, if you want to replace them, you'll have limited options, some of which are very expensive, like the Aeros. You could rout the neck pickup cavity to fit a 95mm pickup, but I wasn't interested in that. I wanted Nordstrand's Big J Blades, but no dice.)

 

[No-Trouble]

I own 3 Sandberg California Superlights and I enjoy playing each of them. No regrets, though I encountered some...quirks.

TM4: 5lb-8oz, Active/Passive, Humbucker/Single toggle at bridge, round-wound strings
TM5: 6lb-8oz, Active/Passive, Humbucker/Single toggle at bridge, flat-wound strings
VS4: 5lb-9oz, Passive, P-bass config, flat-wound strings

As mentioned previously, the body wood is paulownia. It is extremely light weight and very low density. Of course, the weight savings is pretty significant - like unbelievably light. Everyone who has held my SLs are simply amazed at how light they feel in the hands. However, the low density bodies/finishes are more vulnerable to scratches, dings and abrasions than more traditional bodies/finishes. You can scratch it with your fingernail (if I had any - I play bass, duh). That said, this really seems to be more of a cosmetic issue rather than a structural issue as otherwise the bodies have been extremely stable. Balance is great - no issues with neck-dive on mine.

The high-stress mounting points on the body are reinforced using wood inserts. For example, the bridge area has round inserts that are made of much harder wood (one for each bridge screw, IIRC).

Speaking of the bridge, I'm really not a fan of the Sandberg bridge. Don't get me wrong: they are fully functional and secure once adjusted. But I find them very "fiddly" to adjust. Adjustments have been stable once locked in, but if I want to swap strings, it's a bit of a PITA. At some point I might look into replacement bridges, but it comes up so infrequently, that I'll probably leave it.

I found the neck pocket on the TM4 and TM5 were just a bit too deep. Meaning that the G string action was a tad too high for me even when the G string saddle had bottomed out on the bridge plate (I'm a mostly light-touch player). The solution was simple: I installed 3mm full-pocket neck shims on both the TM4 and TM5 in order to achieve lower action on the G string. VS4 neck pocket was fine. YMMV.

I have found the PUPs to be good. Meaning that they are a good match with my equipment and the styles of music that I play such that I am not looking to change them. I'm ambivalent about the pre-amp on the TM4/TM5...usually get most of my tone shaping from the SansAmp and occasionally use the bass tone controls to tweak for a song-specific need.

The necks have been just stellar. Stable tuners, smooth fret ends, plek'd/polished/level frets, well finished woods, good alignment with the bodies and simple to adjust truss rod for different string tensions. Thanks to my Sandbergs, I'm now a big fan of the zero fret/string guide design approach.

 

[jimc]

I got my TM5 SL about 3 weeks ago. Still not sure if it's for me. My other Sandberg is 9.5lbs and I wanted to go lighter but this might be too far. It's a little neck heavy. Generally I run my basses and amps flat but I needed some EQ for the SL. It's got great snap for slap playing but lacking a little something otherwise. I'll play a couple more gigs and see if I bond. If I don't I shouldn't have too much trouble selling it, Bass Central tell me they can't get enough of them!

 

[Nedmundo]

I own 3 Sandberg California Superlights and I enjoy playing each of them. No regrets, though I encountered some...quirks.

TM4: 5lb-8oz, Active/Passive, Humbucker/Single toggle at bridge, round-wound strings
TM5: 6lb-8oz, Active/Passive, Humbucker/Single toggle at bridge, flat-wound strings
VS4: 5lb-9oz, Passive, P-bass config, flat-wound strings

As mentioned previously, the body wood is paulownia. It is extremely light weight and very low density. Of course, the weight savings is pretty significant - like unbelievably light. Everyone who has held my SLs are simply amazed at how light they feel in the hands. However, the low density bodies/finishes are more vulnerable to scratches, dings and abrasions than more traditional bodies/finishes. You can scratch it with your fingernail (if I had any - I play bass, duh). That said, this really seems to be more of a cosmetic issue rather than a structural issue as otherwise the bodies have been extremely stable. Balance is great - no issues with neck-dive on mine.

The high-stress mounting points on the body are reinforced using wood inserts. For example, the bridge area has round inserts that are made of much harder wood (one for each bridge screw, IIRC).

Speaking of the bridge, I'm really not a fan of the Sandberg bridge. Don't get me wrong: they are fully functional and secure once adjusted. But I find them very "fiddly" to adjust. Adjustments have been stable once locked in, but if I want to swap strings, it's a bit of a PITA. At some point I might look into replacement bridges, but it comes up so infrequently, that I'll probably leave it.

I found the neck pocket on the TM4 and TM5 were just a bit too deep. Meaning that the G string action was a tad too high for me even when the G string saddle had bottomed out on the bridge plate (I'm a mostly light-touch player). The solution was simple: I installed 3mm full-pocket neck shims on both the TM4 and TM5 in order to achieve lower action on the G string. VS4 neck pocket was fine. YMMV.

I have found the PUPs to be good. Meaning that they are a good match with my equipment and the styles of music that I play such that I am not looking to change them. I'm ambivalent about the pre-amp on the TM4/TM5...usually get most of my tone shaping from the SansAmp and occasionally use the bass tone controls to tweak for a song-specific need.

The necks have been just stellar. Stable tuners, smooth fret ends, plek'd/polished/level frets, well finished woods, good alignment with the bodies and simple to adjust truss rod for different string tensions. Thanks to my Sandbergs, I'm now a big fan of the zero fret/string guide design approach.

Yes, the bridge is a PITA with classic German over-engineering, but I read that Sandberg has revised the bridge to make it easier. Maybe they'll sell them separately. I doubt I'd invest in one, but I sure would buy pickups with slightly radiused poles for better string-to-string balance. My Aeros are better than the stock pickups in this respect, but could be better.

Interesting about your G string's action. My G string's saddle is completely bottomed out, but the action is fine, so hopefully it's stable. "High Saddle Disease" used to be a common affliction for G&L basses, which I experienced on my old JB-5, and I'm surprised Sandbergs have apparently been bitten by this particular bug.

 

[micguy]

You don't want wood resonance, but you do want tonal resonance.

OK....Humor an Acoustical Physicist, and enlighten me....what do you mean by those terms?