• 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 or Warwick

f'nar f'nar

f'nar f'nar

Sep 27, 2004
1,543
20
Melbourne, Australia
#1
Hey everyone! I was hoping someone could help me make a decision.

I am currently looking to make my next bass purchase and I've boiled it down to two choices: Lakland 55-01 (spalted maple body) or a Warwick pro series corvette 6. I have played and owned a few 5's and 6ers in my time and the string count doesn't really bother me.

I have played both basses and both are pretty damn dreamy under my fingers (the Lakland is slightly more familiar to me as I mostly play jazz basses). Both sound awesome to my ears too which has lead me here to try and get more info.

I'm sure there are plenty here who have played either (or both) so I thought I'd see if I could get some opinions on each bass. Maybe something in the way of pro's and con's regarding either choice to help me along!

I play a bit of everything, from pop to metal to funk which makes me lean toward the Lakland because of its versatility. But I love the warwick growl too! Agh!

I'm totally open to someone suggesting another bass in that price range as well!!
 
#2
I have played plenty of both. I find them to be very different animals, and so find the comparison of the two difficult. But the one I own is the 5501. I rarely use the neck pickup at all. Almost always the bridge pickup with a bit of bass boost, then pluck right over the bridge pup. Lots of punch and with the right strings you can get a nice bit of growl too. And if you want a huge bottom end, kill the bridge pup, dial up the neck one and pluck over it.

The only criticism I have of the 5501 is the preamp is a bit noisy. But it hasn't been enough of an issue for me to go to the bother of changing it.
 
#10
Well, I would gravitate toward Warwick (and I do own one) simply for the number of frets. However, if I could afford another bass in that range, I'd probably go for Lakland...especially if it sported a maple fingerboard.
Oh, my Warwick is a 4-string, but with 5-string Lakland goes with 35" scale, which is a big plus in my book.
 
#13
lomo said:
2 totally different animals. For > 4 strings and low B.....35" Lakland for me every time.
Click to expand...
My Warwick 34" has as good as or in one case a better B string than the 35" basses I've owned, without having to play 35". You don't feel or hear any degradation in quality on the B string low or high compared with other strings, and that's just with XLs.

I think the Warwick woods and super picky finishing, fretwork and brass balls... I mean nuts... Make the 35" benefits moot.
 
#14
I've played some Warwicks that I didn't like but the ones I liked were awesome. Some are very heavy with thick necks. They were all gorgeous and well built. I've yet to play a Lakland that didn't feel great to me. It all comes down to how they feel to you, different sounds you want to add to your stable of basses and how well they fit into your setup. Have you been able to play either bass through your rig at rehearsal volume? That could very well be your determining factor.

I don't think you could go wrong either way. Both have great reputations and raving fans for all the right reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dkelley
#15
i've owned a 55-01 and a warwick.

-the warwick has better stock electronics. clearer tones, less noise, eq frequencies sound better. corvettes only have the 2 band, i believe, but i personally thought the lakland's mid control was muddy if boosted, thin if cut, so i kept it centered.
-the warwick bridge is better. adjustable to perfection where the lakland only gets close to what i want. also, the lakland doesn't have adjustable string spacing. i like my spacing fairly tight, and the warwick gets that and then some.
-the warwick has an adjustable nut. never thought i'd need one until i tried it. i like my action extremely low, and the adjustable nut helps make that happen.
-the b string on the lakland feels tighter, more in line with the other strings. the warwick feels a bit looser, but still sounds clearer due to the better pickups.
-both have fantastic fretwork, very stable necks, stay in tune better than any other bass i've played (looking at you, fender)
-both are built like tanks.

had them both for a while, then i sold the lakland because it wasn't being played anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dkelley and remy26
#18
Turnaround said:
I have played plenty of both. I find them to be very different animals, and so find the comparison of the two difficult. But the one I own is the 5501. I rarely use the neck pickup at all. Almost always the bridge pickup with a bit of bass boost, then pluck right over the bridge pup. Lots of punch and with the right strings you can get a nice bit of growl too. And if you want a huge bottom end, kill the bridge pup, dial up the neck one and pluck over it.
The only criticism I have of the 5501 is the preamp is a bit noisy. But it hasn't been enough of an issue for me to go to the bother of changing it.
Click to expand...

I got a 55-01 that had upgraded Bart Mk5 pups and a LH3 pre in it.. I changed out the pre to an Audere MZ4 band and the difference is fantastic. The few Warwicks I did play were heavier than I would have liked.. For me the Laklands are hard to beat.
 
#20
For me, Lakland. After owning three Warwicks (Streamer Stage I, Thumb BO, Thumb NT) I got tired of the narrow frequency range of those basses. Nice but slightly anemic. I also had a problem with my Thumb NT and experienced some pretty awful customer service at the hands of Warwick.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back