MM Sterling v. G&L L2000 - how do they compare?

[kramerj]

I had an L-2500 and still have a Sterling single H. The G & L had a great muscular presence and flexibility although the neck was too thick (granted I'm comparing a 4-string to a 5-string--but my current Yamaha 5-string BB415 has a thin neck that feels fine). The Sterling does have a more limited range of sounds---however, between the pickup coil adjustments, 3-band EQ, and amp settings you probably could get an adequate palette of usable tones. It just "fits the hand" perfectly for me, and its fast neck and high fret access has encouraged musical experimentation.

 

[dukeplaysbass]

Problem for me is the beefy neck. My hands are definitely on the small side, so with 1-3/4" at the nut and all, width is a problem. It's pretty beefy in general, too. The flat radius makes it a bit easier for me, but not quite enough.

<snip>

The Sterling has a neck that I just love. Just felt great on the hands. Some of it is an EBMM thing, though. Kind of surprised me, but I found the Stingrays at the store surprisingly playable, too. I expected to find them too big. I did not.

I have good-sized hands, but I really prefer skinny necks. They allow me to get around quickly. I had a first-year L-2000 that had killer tone, but over time, I found that the L-2000 got left home in favr of the other axes. Yeah, it may sound good, but if you have a real preference for a skinnier neck, then you really have to take that into account. otherwise, over time, the thing will collect dust.

Anyway, point is that I couldn't A/B the L2k and the Sterling, so it's hard for me to figure out if it'll meet my needs tonally. What I should have mentioned is that the bass will be used primarily for recording. So flexibility and how it sits in a mix are probably the two most important considerations for me. I got to play the L2000 through most of my recording equipment, so I got a good sense of that instrument. (A lot of useful range there. I really liked it.) But I haven't been able to do the same with the MM. That scares me a bit because I've often read people complaining about recording with their MMs, or active basses in general.

Actually, a lot of guys prefer active basses for recording, since they tend to be very quiet. I've recorded with a couple of MMs and had no problems. No problems with recording with several G&Ls either.

The biggest difference between the two is the tonal options. Simply put, the L-2000 will have more options -- it's got the neck pup and all those swx/knobs, etc. Maybe that's too much for you. For me, I'm a set-it-and-forget-it guy. I might tweak my tone a couple of times a set, if at all. You can probably get more low-end "grunt" as somebody said (and a good word for it, too) out of the G&L from the neck pup.

All said and done, either bass should serve you OK. If it were me, I'd tend away from the L-2000 if it's a Trib you're looking at -- you'll get better resale value with the US Sterling and the construction, in general, should be better.