Thanks for the response. Does the CL set have more manageable tension than the ECB82 Chromes set? I found that set to have excessively high tension for my liking.
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.
9050CL: 45-60-80-105
ECB82: 50-70-85-105
ECB81: 45-65-80-100
I personally find the Chrome 45 to be stiffer than the Fender 45. The Chrome 50 is even tighter.
I personally hate the D'A factory gauges as they're not nearly as balanced; tense G & D and looser A & E. The 9050CL is nice and even across all four strings.
In terms of overall playing feel, I find the 9050CL to be even more comfortable than the ECB81, let alone the ECB82.
If you like how the ECB84 (40-60-80-100) feels, it wouldn't hurt to try the 9050L (45-60-80-100) first.
Fender 9050L tension just little higher than Fender 7250L, lower than ECB81 .
In my case, I found 9050L is better in tone balance and whole set brake in even than 9050CL. The CL set's 105E break in faster.
But in term of tension balance, 9050CL is better in hand, the 100E in 9050L give me feel floopy especially play fast note.
Get both 9050L and 9050CL, they are cheap and sound great, ply them and find the set you like.
In my case, I found 9050L is better in tone balance and whole set brake in even than 9050CL. The CL set's 105E break in faster.
But in term of tension balance, 9050CL is better in hand, the 100E in 9050L give me feel floopy especially play fast note.
Get both 9050L and 9050CL, they are cheap and sound great, ply them and find the set you like.
Now that I've had a chance to play my P with 9050CL for the last few days without my VT Bass, here's my take on it...
I generally HATE the uncolored sound of flats (ie any flats, not just the 9050) with the tone control wide open, so I kept it at 50-75% for this test.
Now that I've had these Fenders for a little over two weeks, the initial "clang" is starting to subside, while retaining some of the "grind", which I like. In term of "105-E vs. 100-E", I do like the extra bit of resistance of the 105 I feel under my plucking fingers as well as the meatier tone that seems to balance better with the 80-A. One of the things I noticed right away when I tried my old 9050L on the P was the 100-E sounded a bit "hollow and weak" compared to the 80-A.
This means the 9050CL is working out very well for me so far and I'm willing to stay with it at least for the next three months. I'll be back with a more definitive assessment at the end of the summer.
Glad to see your test without VT bass . I put a foam inside bridge cover , this also make A D and G string sound close to 105E. The foam is not too dense,so still maintenance quite amount of sustain.
Last edited:
Coming back to my VT Bass...
One thing I've noticed about these Fenders is they seem to work better with overdrive than the La Bella/Sadowsky.
I mostly run my bass fairly clean, but occasionally I like to add some mild overdrive for some grit and the low-mid grind in these Fenders seem to work well with that.
SOund like VT bass is a juice for tone. Will check it out.
About the overdrive tone, my test is opposite result from fender Rumble V3 200/115 overdrive mode. I only play with pick, The 9050L's 100E present unnatural tone especially hold sustain note. The broke in 760FL, i let the Bright mode engage with Horn ON, it sound great and hot enough. The Sadowsky present more MID , the tone is sound like below youtube clips.
I love clean tone, but if the VT bass could create a nice tone for me, i would regret to spend money and time for pickup from the first day i play bass.
When I started playing in church 3 yrs ago, I learned to play through the SansAmp BDDI because that's what was supplied by the church. Not too bad as a basic tube emulator for adding warmth but not a whole lot of tonal options due to relatively limited range of controls. Besides, it is very scooped by default - too much bass and not enough mids.
The VT Bass DI has the same tube emulation circuitry as the SA BDDI, but the default EQ curve is a lot flatter with a dedicated mid control and a wider range of tone-shaping capabilities, including better overdrive.
I kind of figured it would be simpler and less work, not to mention more cost-effective, to be fiddling around with knobs on this thing in an effort to find MY tone than swapping out pickups and pots on the basses themselves. Both of my basses are still 100% stock, except for the pickguard on my J, which is purely cosmetic.
Having a brand new set of the 9050CL is giving me an excuse to experiment a bit with my VT Bass settings to see what kind of tone I can cook up.
When I started playing in church 3 yrs ago, I learned to play through the SansAmp BDDI because that's what was supplied by the church. Not too bad as a basic tube emulator for adding warmth but not a whole lot of tonal options due to relatively limited range of controls. Besides, it is very scooped by default - too much bass and not enough mids.
The VT Bass DI has the same tube emulation circuitry as the SA BDDI, but the default EQ curve is a lot flatter with a dedicated mid control and a wider range of tone-shaping capabilities, including better overdrive.
I kind of figured it would be simpler and less work, not to mention more cost-effective, to be fiddling around with knobs on this thing in an effort to find MY tone than swapping out pickups and pots on the basses themselves. Both of my basses are still 100% stock, except for the pickguard on my J, which is purely cosmetic.
Having a brand new set of the 9050CL is giving me an excuse to experiment a bit with my VT Bass settings to see what kind of tone I can cook up.
Thanks again ,Micheal_T.
The one you own is VT bass Di , but what the different compare with this VT bass ?
One big feature on the DI version is the addition of the BLEND knob (like the one on the SA BDDI), which allows you to choose how much of the tube emulation is mixed with the dry signal, while the original VT Bass pedal is either on or off with nothing in between.
I re-fall-in-love with 9050CL now, those A ,D and G string sound close to 105E ~~~ thanks to Foam Mute
Sorry, not just simply put the foam under the string OR above the string cover by bridge cover.
I own my idea and happy with the result.
View attachment 877389 View attachment 877390 View attachment 877391
Well, well... look at that... Great minds think alike!
I've never been into the "foam-mute" idea as most of what I do doesn't call for that type of sound. But one of the songs we did for this last Christmas was one with an upright bass in its original version, so I came up with this idea for mimicking that particular tone:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
I am not alone
I do admit it was my very first attempt to mimic the big upright bass, but all things considered, it worked out better than I expected.
Am Std P with Sadowsky flats, tone control wide open, plucked near the end of the fretboard with 100% dry signal (my VT bass bypassed) to the house.
My 9050CL has been on my P bass for 30 days as of today.
The initial metallic clang that annoyed me at the outset is all but gone, but they do retain a fair amount of low-mid grind that makes it sound "throaty" in a good way; in fact, I can actually get a usable tone out of these with the tone control wide open, whereas I've never liked the sound of my 760FL with the tone knob all the way up as they sounded kind of "hollow and airy".
One thing I can't decide on is whether these 9050s sound better on my P or on my J. A year ago my J was wearing the 9050L and I really liked the way it sounded - smooth and mellow with a subdued yet very pleasing growl...or more like a gentle purrr. I really think I should give the J/9050 combination another try this summer before reaching the final verdict on these 9050CL.
The initial metallic clang that annoyed me at the outset is all but gone, but they do retain a fair amount of low-mid grind that makes it sound "throaty" in a good way; in fact, I can actually get a usable tone out of these with the tone control wide open, whereas I've never liked the sound of my 760FL with the tone knob all the way up as they sounded kind of "hollow and airy".
One thing I can't decide on is whether these 9050s sound better on my P or on my J. A year ago my J was wearing the 9050L and I really liked the way it sounded - smooth and mellow with a subdued yet very pleasing growl...or more like a gentle purrr. I really think I should give the J/9050 combination another try this summer before reaching the final verdict on these 9050CL.
Thicker and wild tone of 9050 compare to Sadow when I play little aggressive.
Have to mention that 9050 sound not as meaty-clear as Sadow and 760FL when tone knob all the way down.
Another TBer in another thread referred to the Fender 7250 nickel rounds as having "delightfully unrefined mids". So I responded by saying that's how I would describe my 9050 flats.
I guess you're talking about the same thing when you talk about the "thicker and wild tone of 9050"?
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
How can Fender release a "Vintage" series with an unplayable bridge?- Latest: ElectricBass72
-
