• 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 OWNERS GROUP #44

Status
Not open for further replies.
#602
roadkill2309 said:
Works better than the mismatched, that's for true. I can't quite shake my decade or so as a designer, so the cream would work because they'd sorta match the face dots. The black works because that's sort of the default for this sort of thing. I think that either hue would be fine, so long as they match.
Click to expand...
This.

Also, that is a great tort guard--it goes very well with the bass.
 
#603
MarkusBass said:
He he he!...it would match my gold grill though...:D
Click to expand...

Gold bridge with Diamond saddles... Yeah!

grill-e1268952320465.jpg
 
#608
GregC said:
I'd say that's a pretty safe assumption, since the second pair of digits is year-based in the rest of the naming scheme.

A couple examples for those who may not know: The 4-76 is Lakland's--very rare--version of a single-humbucker Stingray, and the 44-07 uses Chi-sonics, which were developed in 2007. I think "Midas" is called a 55-CS because it's passive, whereas a version of the 55-02 or 55-94 with Chis that includes the Lakland preamp and all the controls would be a 55-07.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty safely assumpting ;) the active version of Midas and Nessie would be the 55-63 CS

Seen it in an older catalog:
55-JJ (or, double J) - passive
55-63 - active
The 55-07 implies humbucking pickups and coil tapping, right?
 
#613
basspraiser said:
I know that 1998/99 Lakies (Barts) sound VERY different than the newer Barts I have played...not sure who changed the sound (or IF the change was "meant to happen") but there IS a big difference....

I like the early Barts much better...they sound closer to the LH3 to me...
Click to expand...

I had the older version MME Bart pup on my 1997 body/2001 neck 55-94 and the later version on my 2006 (I guess so by the s/n) Shoreline 55-94. Visually, they differed in the feel/looks of the finish and in position and style of the logo. Soundwise (please be informed the US is ash/maple and the Japanese was alder/rosewood so it MAY be an ill of comparing) I would say they had the same character. The only thing was, I felt like the sound of the bass fitted with 'older' style barts seemed more wooly and lifeless to me. I was wondering at that, considering the bass sported an ash/maple combo. I didn't realize until now such could be the matter of the older design. I should have tried interchanging the sets while I was still having them in my posession.
 
#616
I'll post what I have when I get home.
I'll probably not use them as I'd rather have "thru the body," even tho I'll admit I hear no difference;)
And, I'd like to try the dunlops marcus was talkin' 'bout.
 
#618
I think I'm going with
55CS>Mesa M9>Henry 8x8 for tonight!

I do have some new DA XL170SL nickels I could put on, but I think I'll just leave the lakland nickels on for now.
 
#619
JEDI BASS said:
Yeah, the metal band's songs will require a 4 string tuned C#,G#,C#,F# . I was able to play 2 w/ my 5er tuned BEAD, but those riffs based around open drop-tuned strings can be impossible no matter how skilled you are :hmm:. I gave 'em a good try though before tuning down ;).
Click to expand...

arrrrgh....never liked fiddling with the tuning. I once played in two bands and one tuned in one step lower, and I only had one bass at that time. You could tell it was quite painful for the neck when I was warping it to and fro every day... the bass was a copy of a warlock with a through neck, boy was it long long long

Now I say let them guitards do whatever they want, we have lower notes anyway
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back