Build quality probably so. Care in construction, etc. Soundwise---??? Objective, please, if possible. I have always thought about springing the dough at some point for a Lakland, but wonder if the price differential is really worth it. I know fans will be fans in this.
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.
Is there TRULY a difference soundwise Lakland vs Fender?
- Thread starter MEKer
- Start date
There should not be much difference on the four strings. The 35" scale will make the B string have that grand piano sort of resonance.
Yes, provided you are comparing J to J, P to P. That being said, if sound is what you are looking for, play around with pickups and pre's. If the two sound the same to you, go with the better build quality and you'll love it that much more. My opinion, owning both brands, Lakland is a better instrument.
USA Lakland necks are sex. The profile, radius, frets all feel better to me than USA Fenders. The 55-94/55-02 is thicker in the lows than traditional Ps and Js and is more versatile than a P or J. The Lakland is worth the extra dough IMO, IME.
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
Depends on which model you play, which strings you have, etc. etc. A Joe Osborn (Jazz Bass) will sound CLOSE to a Fender Jazz, but not exactly. It's not meant to sound EXACTLY the same, but VERY close. A 4-94 (or 44-02 Skyline) will not sound anything like a Jazz Bass unless you set the pickup pan/coil switching/EQ to 'get close'. They have their own tones. Lakland never has claimed to be an exact 'clone'... but it can get close. Have I said that enough? Just experiment and listen. There are many construction advantages and attention to detail that a Lakland has that many (but not all) Fenders can claim.
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
Lakland's 'signature sound' can be found in its 4-94 and 55-94 basses, and their Skyline counterparts. Other basses directly aim for the Fender sound, albeit with Lakland's own flavor (Joe Osborn, Duck Dunn, etc.). Move on, stop stirring stuff up... this has been covered before.
Fender sounds like a Fender,
Lakland is stll searching for an identity!
I want to own Fenders - but I can't help the feel is so much better for me on the Laklands. I have bought several Laklands now site unseen and have always been happy. I can go to a Fender dealer and have to play many before I find one that feels good. (And I do take setup into consideration). Sound wise - I honestly think that is way too subjective to even say anything about. As said above, the J against J and so forth they are nearly the same taking pups and electronics into consideration. But when you add the diversity of the Jazz+MM setup on the 55-02/94 then the comparison should end as they then become different instruments. They are all great though and a person should buy what they like for whatever reason that is.
IMHO....a Lakland is what Fender SHOULD be/ WANTS TO BE today. Alot of what I would tell you is already covered.
Also Lakland customer service us second to NONE! They take care of their clients like no company I know.
I have owned Fenders (MIA) and liked them UNTIL I got my hands on a Skyline Lakland.....then life changed.....American Laklands are pure nirvana....
now.....excuse me.....I need to get in my bomb shelter for all of the Fender guys to react to my post.
Also Lakland customer service us second to NONE! They take care of their clients like no company I know.
I have owned Fenders (MIA) and liked them UNTIL I got my hands on a Skyline Lakland.....then life changed.....American Laklands are pure nirvana....
now.....excuse me.....I need to get in my bomb shelter for all of the Fender guys to react to my post.
Fender sounds like a Fender,
Lakland is stll searching for an identity!
WWHHAATT?????
Incoming !!!!!! just kidding.
I was never that knocked out by any lakland I picked up, something about there necks just doesnt do it for me. Sound is sound, you can the same tones out of numerous different basses, apples and oranges. Play what you like.
I was never that knocked out by any lakland I picked up, something about there necks just doesnt do it for me. Sound is sound, you can the same tones out of numerous different basses, apples and oranges. Play what you like.
A few months ago, I was looking for my first expensive (for me) bass. I was sure that a Fender American Standard was the way to go. I played a whole bunch of them, and nothing ever stood out. Then, I met a Lakland. Feel-wise, aesthetically, build quality...everything just seemed so much more impressive. To my ears, there is a sound difference. The ash has a different curve to it. It's not better or worse than the alder Fender uses, but it seems that there is a difference. Since mine is a 2005 model, it came with a Fralin pickup, and once again, it sounds different than the Fenders I played.
Its just a bass, all your bass player heroes could make a trash can and a bungi cord sound good.
Well, there are probably a zillion and a half Fender P-basses out there, and I certainly haven't played them all, but my Lakland Duck Dunn feels better and sounds better (to me) than any Fender I have played. The thing is, that only matters to me. There are people out there who feel the same way about their Mike Lull P, or their Sadowsky P, or, of course, their beloved Fender Precision. Fender has produced so many basses through the years that the quality, feel and sound can vary quite a bit. Laklands have come with differing pickups through the years, too, so I think generalizations about tone would be silly.
So, what I'm saying is that overall generalizations about the sound/tone of Lakland vs. Fender would be tough to make since each company has produced the same model with different pickups through the years.
Oh, yeah, there's also the fact that you can only decide what tone sounds best to you, since everyone else has their own taste. I guess that's worth remembering.
So, what I'm saying is that overall generalizations about the sound/tone of Lakland vs. Fender would be tough to make since each company has produced the same model with different pickups through the years.
Oh, yeah, there's also the fact that you can only decide what tone sounds best to you, since everyone else has their own taste. I guess that's worth remembering.
Well, there are probably a zillion and a half Fender P-basses out there, and I certainly haven't played them all, but my Lakland Duck Dunn feels better and sounds better (to me) than any Fender I have played. The thing is, that only matters to me. There are people out there who feel the same way about their Mike Lull P, or their Sadowsky P, or, of course, their beloved Fender Precision. Fender has produced so many basses through the years that the quality, feel and sound can vary quite a bit. Laklands have come with differing pickups through the years, too, so I think generalizations about tone would be silly.
So, what I'm saying is that overall generalizations about the sound/tone of Lakland vs. Fender would be tough to make since each company has produced the same model with different pickups through the years.
Oh, yeah, there's also the fact that you can only decide what tone sounds best to you, since everyone else has their own taste. I guess that's worth remembering.
I had a Skyline Duck Dunn and didn't care for it. It was heavy, felt unbalanced (body heavy). Cheap plastic nut and fingerboard material. I thought the neck was too thin front to back. I much prefer my American Standard P. To each his own I suppose. Maybe I got a bad one.
I hear a sound difference and generally like the Fender sound better. Laklands seem to be more annoyingly mid-rangey to my ears (and Fenders are already pretty much this way).
I own this Lakland, a 1997 Classic 55-94. Purchased, brand new, via a picture on the Bass NW website. It is the best bass I've owned, imho. That being said, I have owned many Fenders over the years and I like them, too. However, one could argue, we are comparing apples to oranges. Both have good and bad qualities.
