- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,515
- 19,941
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
taquitos43 said:
The consensus appears to be that there is no real answer, only personal preference between two excellent options.
Tom.
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 vs Sadowsky
- Thread starter wujuu
- Start date
The consensus appears to be that there is no real answer, only personal preference between two excellent options.
Tom.
I own and use a Skyline Hollowbody and have been extremely pleased with the fit/finish/playability/tone. I can't see parting with it.
I acquired a new Sadowsky Metro RV4 a few days ago and am blown away by what a work of art it is. It's been a VERY long time since I've held in my hands an instrument built and finished to this high a standard. I thought my old 1969/70 Jazz was the best ever, but the RV4 has made a believer out of me. Plus, the Sad pre with VTC offers more tone control than I've ever had.
Both are excellent instruments. If I was forced to move one, it would be the Lakland, but I'm a Jazz Bass kind of guy and that would be the biggest factor.
I was thinking how my persuit of gear over the years has come down to a modern hollowbody/solidbody (Lakland Hobo/Sadowsky RV4) and a vintage hollowbody/solidbody (1965 Hofner 500/1 Beatle Bass/1988 Rickenbacker 4003 w/toaster and custom wound Jason Lollar horseshoe repro).
I acquired a new Sadowsky Metro RV4 a few days ago and am blown away by what a work of art it is. It's been a VERY long time since I've held in my hands an instrument built and finished to this high a standard. I thought my old 1969/70 Jazz was the best ever, but the RV4 has made a believer out of me. Plus, the Sad pre with VTC offers more tone control than I've ever had.
Both are excellent instruments. If I was forced to move one, it would be the Lakland, but I'm a Jazz Bass kind of guy and that would be the biggest factor.
I was thinking how my persuit of gear over the years has come down to a modern hollowbody/solidbody (Lakland Hobo/Sadowsky RV4) and a vintage hollowbody/solidbody (1965 Hofner 500/1 Beatle Bass/1988 Rickenbacker 4003 w/toaster and custom wound Jason Lollar horseshoe repro).
MikeBass
Supporting Member
- Nov 4, 2003
- 11,943
- 3,133
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist- Suhr basses, PedalTrain, GHS, Ultimate Ears
cheezewiz said:
Not this topic again!!
Lakland USA/Sadowsky Metro/NYC yes.
Lakland Skyline/Sadowsky Metro no.
Just because Metro's are made in Japan, does not put them in the same catagory as Skylines. Other than they are basses.
IMO of course!
So, a LOT of Metros on eBay huh?!?!
Sold two nice NYC's when I got my Metro's.
Didn't have a Skyline, but had a 55-94. Don't think I would get a Skyline. Would just save the extra $800 or so and buy a used USA Lakland.
Side by side, Metro's go toe-to-toe with their NYC counterparts in darn near every aspect.
I played many 5502 Skylines next to my 55-94. Not even close.
Metros next to my 55-94. Outside of the obvious tonal differences because of pick-ups and such, again, toe-to-toe.
That being said, the Skylines are a great bang for the buck bass. Would not have any issues getting one to do what I need it to do. The hollowbody Skyline is on my "list" of "God I love those basses".
MikeBass
Supporting Member
- Nov 4, 2003
- 11,943
- 3,133
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist- Suhr basses, PedalTrain, GHS, Ultimate Ears
pickles said:
Man, you should take the blinders off.
If I did that, then I don't think I would ever even look at a EB/MM.
I have played tons of them the suffered from poor set-up, dead spots galore, bad pots and the like, thanks to GC.
And all of these were new basses.
Now, I can look beyond a poor set-up, but the rest, I can't.
I've owned a nice S'Ray for a while. Sweet bass. And I'm really diggin' the Sterling (I'm just broke right now).
But, I have a friend who is a EB/MM dealer. Trust me when I say that they do go back. They don't even hit the floor.
But that means that most of the ones that we do play/see are nice thanks to independent dealers who give a rats ass about the line.
Skylines are killer basses for the buck. Some are off the chain sweet. Others, not as much.
Sadowsky's OTOH. From bass to bass, the consistancy of second to none.
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,515
- 19,941
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
MikeBass said:
Good point. I keep referencing my DJ4, which it seems is one of the more exceptional Skyline offerings.
MikeBass said:
True, dat.
I think it is hardly possible to compare a Sadowsky J style to a Lak 55 style. So I try to focus on the differences between the 2 J style basses
Sadowsky Metro MV5
Lakland Skyline Joe Osborn w. J-Retro
Specs:
Sadowsky: 34" maple neck, Sadowsky 2band preamp w. VTC,
Lakland: 35" maple neck w. Rosewood board, J-Retro 3 band preamp.
Both have ash bodies, are strung (in my case) with DR HiBeams 45-125, tuners are the same (Hipshot Licensed)
Weight seems rather equal on both basses.
- The Lakland's B string is a little tighter, maybe due to the 35" scale. (Although Roger says, this doesn't matter.)
- I think the neck is a bit thicker and broader on the Sadowsky. (I did not measure any of this. I am talking about feel).
- The Lakland is more versatile in sound due to the 3band preamp.
- Whereas the Sadowsky is sounding fatter.
Overall the Sad "feels a bit bigger" (both soundwise and physical size).
I got my Lakland a few months earlier than the Sad. I really liked the bass. I thought it was the best J I ever had ( I had some: 3 Fender, 1 Trace Elliot T, 1 Esh).
Than I got a go at an auction on *bay for the Sad Metro.
I must say, that after the initial euphoric phase on both basses, I prefer the Sadowsky for its "big" sound & feel.
But as others have stated, the differences are marginal and what I like might be what others dislike.
Sadowsky Metro MV5
Lakland Skyline Joe Osborn w. J-Retro
Specs:
Sadowsky: 34" maple neck, Sadowsky 2band preamp w. VTC,
Lakland: 35" maple neck w. Rosewood board, J-Retro 3 band preamp.
Both have ash bodies, are strung (in my case) with DR HiBeams 45-125, tuners are the same (Hipshot Licensed)
Weight seems rather equal on both basses.
- The Lakland's B string is a little tighter, maybe due to the 35" scale. (Although Roger says, this doesn't matter.)
- I think the neck is a bit thicker and broader on the Sadowsky. (I did not measure any of this. I am talking about feel).
- The Lakland is more versatile in sound due to the 3band preamp.
- Whereas the Sadowsky is sounding fatter.
Overall the Sad "feels a bit bigger" (both soundwise and physical size).
I got my Lakland a few months earlier than the Sad. I really liked the bass. I thought it was the best J I ever had ( I had some: 3 Fender, 1 Trace Elliot T, 1 Esh).
Than I got a go at an auction on *bay for the Sad Metro.
I must say, that after the initial euphoric phase on both basses, I prefer the Sadowsky for its "big" sound & feel.
But as others have stated, the differences are marginal and what I like might be what others dislike.
I have a Sadowsky MS5 and I've used it in any and all live situations as well as some studio recordings and in almost every case sound people and engineers alike rave about the tone and ease of sitting it in the mix. My Metro is my go to bass when ever I may not know what I'm walking into in terms of a gig and it has NEVER failed. The Skylines that I have played are good instruments for the money but IMHO not nearly the bass that my Metro is.
I get a real kick out of these discussions. As a professional player (playing is how I make my $$, no matter how little that $$ may be), and as a lover of bass gear that far surpasses my playing ability (I'm an average player with above average gear), I must say: It's not the gear, but how you use it!!
I've played shows as a sideman with my Ken Smith and Epi, only to have a bass player in the band after my set play a beat up P-bass (I think it was a Fender) and a Peavey TNT combo with some knobs missing (literally) just kick my ass, in tone and feel and chops.
Plus, I just love these terms being thrown around:
--"Build Quality": That's a classic. What does it mean? I have yet to have a bass fall apart in my hands, no matter how cheap it is. Any bass, to a certain degree, is capable of being tweaked to a players personal preference.
--"Fit and Finish": Another classic. Basses are tools that are going to get dinged up and scratched. If "finish" is all that important to you, you're not a player, you're a collector. And I have no idea what "fit" means. Every bass I've had, no matter how cheap, fit together.
--"Tone": Purely and 100% subjective. Or is it objective. I can never remember. The tone of my G&L L1000/L2000e kicked the ass of any other bass I've ever played. And I've played them all. And I got it for under $600. But that's just me. Another person would disagree. So what.
Bottom line: Get a bass that feels good in your hands, and sounds good to your ears. Music is feel and music is sound. All the other stuff is just BS and a way for manufacturers to justify you paying huge sums of money on what are basically pieces of wood with wires in them.
IMHO, IME, just my .02.
I've played shows as a sideman with my Ken Smith and Epi, only to have a bass player in the band after my set play a beat up P-bass (I think it was a Fender) and a Peavey TNT combo with some knobs missing (literally) just kick my ass, in tone and feel and chops.
Plus, I just love these terms being thrown around:
--"Build Quality": That's a classic. What does it mean? I have yet to have a bass fall apart in my hands, no matter how cheap it is. Any bass, to a certain degree, is capable of being tweaked to a players personal preference.
--"Fit and Finish": Another classic. Basses are tools that are going to get dinged up and scratched. If "finish" is all that important to you, you're not a player, you're a collector. And I have no idea what "fit" means. Every bass I've had, no matter how cheap, fit together.
--"Tone": Purely and 100% subjective. Or is it objective. I can never remember. The tone of my G&L L1000/L2000e kicked the ass of any other bass I've ever played. And I've played them all. And I got it for under $600. But that's just me. Another person would disagree. So what.
Bottom line: Get a bass that feels good in your hands, and sounds good to your ears. Music is feel and music is sound. All the other stuff is just BS and a way for manufacturers to justify you paying huge sums of money on what are basically pieces of wood with wires in them.
IMHO, IME, just my .02.
The Diaper Geni said:
There are posts like this every once in a while on various threads. In general, of course, a good player will make anything sound good, and good gear won't make a mediocre player better.
However, there are true 'build quality/fit and finish' and tone differences among basses, and given that this is a gear site, many people find it helpful to discuss these things.
Regarding your confusion about build quality and fit and finish.... there are general differences across brands and lines within brands regarding fretwork, quality of set-up, finish quality, quality of hardware, preamp quality (hiss, etc.), neck gaps, etc., etc., etc. Some players don't care about these things, others do. What becomes difficult is that build quality and fit and finish are only moderately correlated with the cost of the instrument... so sometimes it's helpful to hear about others' experiences.
Finally, tone if obviously subjective, but since most don't have the chance to try a variety of instruments prior to purchase, given the spotty distribution of higher end instruments, some find it helpful to have owners describe the general tone of a line of instruments..... is the instrument Jazz Bass sounding, does it sound closer to a Roscoe or an MTD, etc., etc. These comments, as long as they are presented as objectively as possible, can be helpful in at least narrowing down the alternatives.
Again... remember, this is a gear thread. I spend MUCH more time thinking about the music and improving my technique than I do thinking about gear... but... when on a gear site and a gear thread, I get into the spirit of it.
As always, IMO, and just a different perspective.
K
I think the reason why we are seeing UV 70 Metros on Ebay and such is because they are Roger's newest offering. People bought them and found that they may not have been for them or as was mentioned earlier they had financial issues to take care of first.
I owned a 4-94 Deluxe for about 5 years and it was a great bass in every way. I sold it when I bought my Metro MV4 but not because it was inferior to the Sadowsky but because I wanted something different. I still have 2 Lakland Skylines that IMO are phenominal basses especially for what they cost me. Maybe I just was lucky with my Skylines but I love my HB and my Glaub with a Darkstar is the lightest and nicest playing Pbass I've ever tried (it's playability actually matches the Metro). My point is one is only better than the other strictly on a personal preference level. Laklands and Sadowskys are built different, play different and sound different. You need to find the one that suits your needs.
Jeff
I owned a 4-94 Deluxe for about 5 years and it was a great bass in every way. I sold it when I bought my Metro MV4 but not because it was inferior to the Sadowsky but because I wanted something different. I still have 2 Lakland Skylines that IMO are phenominal basses especially for what they cost me. Maybe I just was lucky with my Skylines but I love my HB and my Glaub with a Darkstar is the lightest and nicest playing Pbass I've ever tried (it's playability actually matches the Metro). My point is one is only better than the other strictly on a personal preference level. Laklands and Sadowskys are built different, play different and sound different. You need to find the one that suits your needs.
Jeff
MikeBass
Supporting Member
- Nov 4, 2003
- 11,943
- 3,133
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist- Suhr basses, PedalTrain, GHS, Ultimate Ears
The Diaper Geni said:
Glad you had your ass handed to you. But the three points you mentioned (tone, feel & chops) are subjective as hell.
So, what was your point??
And BTW, how much do you want for your BS riddled Smith and Epi??
I'm sure you could sell it, buy something like a Cirrus and have it tweaked to feel like your Smith right??
Build quality,fit and finish and tone. With the exception of tone, I'm not so sure why you have a hard time understanding the other points.
Build quality: Does the neck move in various kinds of environments? Hot to cold etc... A cheaply built neck thru or bolt on tends to have the neck get all squirly at times. Seen it enough to base a pretty good opinion on it.
How do the tuners feel? Here's a tip: next time your changing strings or have the chance to change the strings on a cheaper bass, check all the little screws and nuts on the tuners. Again, seen enough to know that on my Sadowsky's, Foderas and Smiths that this isn't an issue.
Need any more examples to explain this?? Or do you still think it's nothing but BS??
Fit & Finish: Does the bolt-on neck have much room to move around in the neck pocket?? I would guess that you would have an extreamly tough time getting ANYTHING around the neck where it resides in the pocket on a Sadowsky, Lakland etc..
Does the finish settle into the grain at all?? Is it evenly applied??
You must still think it's BS right??
My old Jazz is about as beat up as it gets.
BTW, I'm not a collector. I'm a player. How beat is your Smith??
Tone: Well, one mans Peavey is another mans Epifani.
read: Subjective.
I've never had a bass "fall apart" either. But I have had some that wouldn't make it a whole tour. Electronics fail, hardware loosening up.
My Sadowsky's and Smith's never had an issue (never took the Foderas out for an extended time).
Now, other basses like MIJ/MIM and MIA Fenders yes. Had issues.
Even had an issue with a Warwick that really pissed me off.
The first two lines of your "Bottom Line" make complete sense and I agree with you 100%.
After that IMO, it goes down hill. It's not all BS.
You can have your 2 cents back.
The Diaper Geni said:
I think that you are misunderstanding what 'fit and finish' actually means in regards to craftmanship. Fit and finish is what it says: finish work i.e finish carpentry. It's how well the neck sits in the neck pocket. It's how the frets are polished and there are no filemarks anywhere etc. Finish is the final detail work not the color choice. Who is thinking about collectability when they order a new Sad or Lakie anyways?
Jeff
I would agree with many of your points. It is skill IMO that determines what comes out of whatever you chose to play.
However, there is a wide variance for all the subjective points you raise concerning fit/finish/tone etc. It really comes down to personal preference. I've had some MIM's that play great - better than many Custom Shop models as far as I'm concerned.
I can play any instrument I want and that's exactly what I do. I don't recommend anybody play what I do just because that's what I or anybody else uses.
There is a huge difference in manufacturing out there. You might not care if the neck/body join is tight enough that you can't get a sheet of paper between them. It's not a stumbling block for me either, but I like the feel of an instrument made with better attention to detail. It just feels "righter" to me.
Like my sig states ... "Your mileage may vary ... and probably will."
Play what you want for whatever reasons you want.
Just go out and play some music!
However, there is a wide variance for all the subjective points you raise concerning fit/finish/tone etc. It really comes down to personal preference. I've had some MIM's that play great - better than many Custom Shop models as far as I'm concerned.
I can play any instrument I want and that's exactly what I do. I don't recommend anybody play what I do just because that's what I or anybody else uses.
There is a huge difference in manufacturing out there. You might not care if the neck/body join is tight enough that you can't get a sheet of paper between them. It's not a stumbling block for me either, but I like the feel of an instrument made with better attention to detail. It just feels "righter" to me.
Like my sig states ... "Your mileage may vary ... and probably will."
Play what you want for whatever reasons you want.
Just go out and play some music!
The Diaper Geni said:
MikeBass said:
Guitar Centers can wreck just about anything given enough time, so I don't think you can blame any of that on the manufacturer.
I have played Lakland USA and Sadowsky basses with dead spots. With the general design all of these basses share, it is nearly impossible to iron out all of the dead spots on all of the basses, and I can understand why the manufacturers let them out. A lot of players don't even care about dead spots. If you do then you have to try a few and pick one that is even.
I don't have "blinders on" at all. I've picked up a lot of EBMM basses in a lot of shops, and other than bad setups (usually just too much relief ... easy to adjust out) it was hard to fault any of them for anything objective (other than dead spots). Very very consistent IME. You might not like 'Rays, but if you do, any one you pick up is pretty likely to be as good as any other (other than dead spots). IME.
In any industry, you are only as good as the worst product you let out the door, so I do think it is fair to judge a brand based on a single bass, even though it may not always tell the whole story. In my case, the fit, finish, and acoustic tone of the Lakland Skyline I had was not up to the same standard that I have observed in EBMM's products.
The Diaper Geni said:
Then why do you come on this BB to discuss basses?
Thats all this forum is for.
Guys, whatta thread!!! Holy Moly.....lighten up, these are not your kids we're talking about. I'm the EXTREMELY LUCKY owner of one of each, an MV5, 55-02, and a Stingray. COMPLETELY different animals every one. Would'nt give up any of 'em. All I can say for comparison purposes is the I get compliments on the tone I get from each bass no matter which one I play. My primary is my MV5 but they all get used and often. Maybe I lucked out but the build quality on the 55-02 is great. Of course, the Sadowsky is impeccable and I've never seen an instrument put together like it. Every musician that has seen it has complimented on how amazing it looked and felt even if the never heard of Roger's basses before. However, the Sadowsky cost me what the Lakeland and MM cost combined. What does that tell you. On the other hand, I have no issues with the playability of the other two. It's all in the way it feels in your hands. Mine like them!
Play 'em all and decide (I know, easier said than done!) Good luck.
Play 'em all and decide (I know, easier said than done!) Good luck.
It really does boil down to what feels good to you - what sounds good to your ear and what fits well within the musical setting you are playing in.
I recently sold my Skyline JO 4 & 5s in favor of Sadowsky Metros (MV4, UV4 and RV5). While I liked the JOs - the tone of the Sads fits better in my band.
I did keep my JO 4 fretless and I have an EBMM Sterling HS on order - for tonal/sound variety.
As for fit and finish - yes there are differences, but considering the basses you all are comparing - they are all made very well.
Nothing is perfect and we are all going to find some fault with a new or used bass. If the sound and feel are right - get the minor things tweaked - keep the bass and play it until it dies!!
I recently sold my Skyline JO 4 & 5s in favor of Sadowsky Metros (MV4, UV4 and RV5). While I liked the JOs - the tone of the Sads fits better in my band.
I did keep my JO 4 fretless and I have an EBMM Sterling HS on order - for tonal/sound variety.
As for fit and finish - yes there are differences, but considering the basses you all are comparing - they are all made very well.
Nothing is perfect and we are all going to find some fault with a new or used bass. If the sound and feel are right - get the minor things tweaked - keep the bass and play it until it dies!!
Fretless5verfan said:You HAVE to elaborate!
OK - these are all personal impressions.
The neck of the Sadowsky is a bit thinner and flatter than the Lakland and that fits my hand better. Since it fits better I like it better.
I prefer the sound of the pickups on the Sadowsky - less veiled and seem to speak quicker. Also, I almost never use the tone controls, so the additional flexability of the Lakland is not used. I find I can get whatever sound I want with my fingers/technique.
On the build side, my Lakland had a couple of frets that were not level - the Sadowsky came perfect. The neck pocket on the Sadowsky is tighter.
The finish is better on the Sadowsky. My Sadowsky is a flamed/spalted maple, the Lakland is quilted with a burst. On the Sadowsky the finish is like glass, on the Lakland it needed to be leveled better between coats. Nothing that you can see without looking VERY closely, but I was trained as a cabinetmaker and did custom autobody for a while.
Anyway, these are just my opinions and both basses are great basses - I won't get rid of either.
Dan K.
