LAKLAND 55-02 or G&L L2500? Which one?

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by LowFreakuency, Apr 19, 2005.

  1. LowFreakuency


    Feb 1, 2005
    I'm trying to decide which five stringer to go with. It's down to these two. Unfortunately I don't have access to either one.

    I bought and sold a Peavey Cirrus 5 Bubinga/Walnut after playing it for a couple of weeks. It was an incredible playing bass but the tone was too modern sounding for me. I like some modern tones but I also love FAT vintage tones which the Peavey couldn't produce.

    I have read good things about the Lakland 55-02 & the L2500. Both seem to be fairly versatile basses.

    Sonicly what are the differences between the two? The G&L would be the Tilia/Ash version w/Rosewood FB the 55-02 would have Maple FB.

    By the way I play fingerstyle and with a pick. No slap.
  2. jongor

    jongor Supporting Member

    Jan 11, 2003
    I've owned both, a G&L tilia/ash with a maple neck, and a ash/maple deluxe 55-02 with a maple/rosewood neck.

    Both sounded great, but in my experience the Lakland had the more modern tone. Probably due to the Bartolini pu's and preamp. The G&L humbuckers have a nice organic flavor to them, great rock tone with round wounds.

    Also the Lakland is 35" scale, something I couldn't get used to.
    Loved the tone of that bass though, of the two I preferred the Lakland for the glassy top-end and the killer b string. I would have kept it if not for the scale length.
  3. embellisher

    embellisher Holy Ghost filled Bass Player Staff Member Supporting Member

    The Lakland has a better B string IME, and wider string spacing at the bridge. The G&L is more versatile tonewise.
  4. Quadzilla

    Quadzilla Supporting Member

    Love my 97 L-2500 USA Blue Burst / Flamed Mapple Top! Honestly, never played a Lakland, but my 2500 plays like butta!

  5. nastyn8c


    Feb 7, 2005
    Tampa, FL
    I have a Lakland 55-94, which is essentially the same as a 55-02, just made in the US. I can get my 55-94 to sound fat, but I don't know about vintage. I'm putting flats on it next, which ought to make it boom a little more.

    BTW I play fingerstyle and with a pick. No slap. And the Lakie kicks butt.
  6. Lorenzini


    Dec 31, 2004
    Los Angeles
    G&L for that fat tone you're needing :)
  7. LowFreakuency


    Feb 1, 2005
    I have heard that the L2500 sounded pretty aggressive. Can they be toned down to produce a "smooth sound" if needed? I also heard that the 55-02's sounded very smooth but lacked in the "aggressive growl" dept.
  8. Lorenzini


    Dec 31, 2004
    Los Angeles
    Absolutely, you can tone it down.. Literally. You can go from clanky to smooth with the flip of a switch. If you want to approximate a bass sound, most likely the L2500 can do it.

    You just have to figure out if you like the L2500's overall sound, by playing one.
  9. +1

    For what you're describing...G&L all the way.

    Just my opinion,

  10. +1
  11. how is the B on the 2500, is it flabby, or usable or...

  12. artistanbul

    artistanbul Nihavend Longa Vita Brevis

    Apr 15, 2003
    G&L really has a wide tonal pallette. Wide and easily accessible. I wish it had a thinner neck...

    B string is not floppy. It's ok.
  13. DavePlaysBass


    Mar 31, 2004
    On my G&L 2500 I have experimented with different B strings. I like a 130 D Addario thru body. Pretty tight. The 125 SIT that comes on the new ones is floppy IMO.

    I really liked TI flats on the 2500 but I eventually put rounds back on to get a little more pop. It seems like a lot of G&L owners go flats or nickel wound. SS and MFDs is real zingy.

    I have a 35" scale Modulus. I am not a huge fan of the 35" feel wise, but the B string on the Modulus and the Lakeland will be better IMO.

  14. armybass

    armybass Gold Supporting Member

    Jul 19, 2001
    As a long time G&L freak I must say the 55-02 blows the G&L L2500 out of the water when it comes to versatility and tone.

  15. I like the G&L, but I bought a Lakland. Do yourself a favor and play both; they are great basses.
  16. SteveC


    Nov 12, 2004
    North Dakota
    I've owned both these basses. The Lakland is more versitile in my opinion. I prefer Bartolini preamps and pups. Both my current basses have them. That said, the G&L sounds like it will give you the tone YOU are looking for.

    My fisrt "custom" bass was a G&L - I had 3 at one time. Mine was an L2500 with a Honeyburst finish over a quilt maple top. The neck and fingerboard was birdseye maple. It was beautiful. Wouldn't mind having that one back.
  17. Quadzilla

    Quadzilla Supporting Member

    I doubt that!

    Anyway, I use a D'Addario 130 for my B (chrome flats). Pretty high tension. Much better than the ones that came on it or the DR's I tried....
  18. De Teng

    De Teng

    Oct 27, 2003
    Utrecht, Holland
    You want vintage? Go G&L
    You want power? Go G&L
    You want organic? Go G&L..

    I owned myself a 55.02 but was almost depressed and frustrated which has its reason in the electronics mainly. With the Seymour Duncans you'll be better off. Only the extremes in the tonal character (MM pickup full, serial or single coil with a large midboost), the rest is hardly usefull. After about four months I sold it. Cut-through is not a characteristic thing about the Lakland imo.

    A G&L 2500 is fantastic and fantastically constructed. The B is one hell of a string! :cool:
  19. Both sound great. Both very versatile.

    For me it would boil down to string spacing. Do you like wider or narrow? To me the Lakland has the best feeling neck of any 5 string that I have owned thus far. (G&L, Lakland, Fender, SR5, Spector, etc...)

    Something about how the G&L can cut through any mix cannot be denied.
  20. Quadzilla

    Quadzilla Supporting Member

    Amen brotha!