Once a certain level of quality of build/attention to detail has been reached, the curve flattens IMHO. Sadowsky, Lakland, Elrick, Alembic, Fodera, Lull, and so many others......differences in price are not, IMHE, a reflection of differences in quality. IMO the best deal is a Lull, if you are cool with 18mm string spacing. Tonal differences are purely subjective. Sad has become a standard in N. Am, not only because of quality and tone, but perhaps even more because they totally cop the Fender vibe. Visually, that's what sells here.
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.
Lakland, and Sadowsky
- Thread starter woody357
- Start date
In addition to the Sadowsky basses being hi end, Roger is a great innovator...
Major props to USA Lakland..can't speak to the import Lakland since I have not tried them...
Major props to USA Lakland..can't speak to the import Lakland since I have not tried them...
The issue price wise for me is the premium we pay in Europe, if we want to acquire any of the basses you have listed, when compared with U.S. prices.
For me the Sadowsky j is very different to the Fender Jazz. Smaller lighter body, humcancelling pickups, very different neck profile.
The Sadowsky is renowned for its superb pre amp, whereas the Fender is loved for its passive tones.
Another thing that makes Sadowsky stand out from the crowd is it after sales support. Not a problem chatting with Roger when he is in the house. Any issues dealt with promptly.
Fender....?
I cannot comment on a lull as I have never seen them in the flesh, but they look like a quality bass at a competitive price. Nice
I would say yes, both are high end. Fabulous quality from their US models in particular and excellent customer service from fine people. Passive Laklands have really done it for me tonally, and I like their feel a slight bit better due to the less-flat radius (radii?) of the necks. But that's simply personal preference, I have nothing but respect for Sadowsky products.
The flatter radius on a Sadowsky takes a bit of getting used to for sure. If you have been a Fender player, it can be a bit of a jolt when you wrap your hand around a Sadowsky.
Its imperative that you try before you buy if at all possible
I don't get the appeal of a high priced bolt on Fender knock off. Ken Smith and Fodera make basses that require more craftsmanship to produce. Some people are happy playing a used Yamaha.
I understand completely. BTW, Mike Lull often answers the phone himself and his small team is amazing IME, although I have not stayed with a Lull because of 18mm spacing.
I have a very good used Yamaha BB1100's but prefer my Sadowsky. Only ever got close to one Fodera. A bolt on that looked just OK, but not my cup of tea. The body shape I prefer is always Fender type. Nothing else really works for me.
Different horses for different courses for sure.
Cannot agree that Sadowsky basses can be described as a 'Fender knock off'. They look similar but are very different in terms of playability and tone.
The flatter neck radius is the most striking difference. The back of neck profile on the Sadowsky is somewhat deeper front to back, when compared to my 1964 Fender Jazz bass so I had it modified by Roger with excellent results. Thats the advantage of using a boutique builder
Are you looking to REPLACE your Bongo and SR1206E with a Fodera or Lakland etc. or or just get one too? Personally, unless you've suddenly become a Fender on steroids fanboy, I wouldn't replace anything:
TB Rule: You can never own too many basses!
I've got a Ken Smith and have played Lakland, and listened to Sadowsky clips. I've heard Wooten's Fodera up close and personal. To me a Ken Smith like your current basses has it's own personality. None of them Are Fenderish. Your current basses plus a Smith would be a nice collection of tone to choose from. Any of the Fenderish ones would be a great addition too.
The Lakland I played was an EXTREMELY nice Fenderish bass. I can see where all the love here comes from. And recently I've become taken with passive 6 string Fender clones as a bass sound to use. But I'm not enough of a Fender fanboy to sell the Smith, Alembic and Modulus and only play a Lakland. In fact because it was just a Fender on steroids I didn't have a lot of interest in it at that time and didn't buy it even though it was a terrific price. Today...I might choose differently. But I'd still keep the rest.
For me, if I were going to buy a "high end last bass", it would be a requirement that I be in LOVE first. Like I was when I saw my first Alembic and HAD to have one. But if you are not in love your "last bass" probably won't be the last.
Boombass76
Commercial User
I guess Lakland Skylines are comparable (at least pricewise) to Fender US Standard basses. Sadowsky Metro is a click above that and the Sadowsky NY basses even higher. Unfortunately, I have never had a Lakland US, but from what I hear they should be every bit as good as the Sadowsky NY basses.
I have one of each. I have a Sadowsky NYC Modern 24-5 and a Lakland USA Bob Glaub PJ. I've been to the Sadowsky shop in NYC, and played several Lakland basses both USA and Skylines. I prefer the Sadowsky, but for a passive bass the Laklands are hard to beat. The Sadowsky is easier to set up, and plays fantastic. The basses at their NYC shop were fantastic, and I've never played a better jazz bass. If I had to make the choice between the two, I'd go with the Sadowksy. Laklands are great too, but just not as great. Someone mentioned Lull--they are similar, but not the same. The Sadowsky is hard to beat for a production bass.
What Greg said.......
I have much respect for both....I have played several of each and the laklands just "fit me" better....
Both high quality instruments...
I own a Lakland US 55-94 and a US Sadowsky 5..They are both great basses and even though the Sadowsky cost a bit more I don't think it is a better bass than the US Lakland. I actually prefer the feel of the Lakland neck. Sound wise they are different and I like them both for variety. The Lakland is the most comfortable 35" scale bass I have played.
To me the difference is that the "Boutique" basses have very unique personalities. Basses like Ken Smith, Pedula, Fodera, MTD, Wynn, Ritter, Alembic, and Schold are very well made instruments but very much have unique tones. Many are even great works of art, some like Ritter are instantly collectable and most have great solo voices. But many are so elegant their are a lot of clubs I'd be scarred to take one too
To me the Lakland, Mike Lull,Performance, Xotic, Nordstrand, and Sadowskys are more gigging player basses. They are made for pros who play a variety of music and need an instrument to make money with in whatever situation they find themselves in, including lousy club sound men or producers who couldn't get a good bass tone on their own if their lives depended on it. Roger Sadowsky has said he takes pride that his basses are for "working" bass players.
To me the Lakland, Mike Lull,Performance, Xotic, Nordstrand, and Sadowskys are more gigging player basses. They are made for pros who play a variety of music and need an instrument to make money with in whatever situation they find themselves in, including lousy club sound men or producers who couldn't get a good bass tone on their own if their lives depended on it. Roger Sadowsky has said he takes pride that his basses are for "working" bass players.
