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.
New Sadowsky!
- Thread starter Fuzzbass
- Start date
Compared to what tho? My surprise is because here, it's compared to alder that's also chambered, and I've typically gotten a bit more high end out of ash than alder (in the same weight class of course), and since both are chambered, that knocks that out as a variable. Also, I just picked up #5249 which is chambered ash, and it's got tons of high end. I find myself using the VTC a lot on that one.
+1 As we know, the minor chambering in the Sadowsky basses is more for weight control than for any tonal reason. Matched for weight, the chambered versus non-chambered basses sound pretty much the same to me (i.e., comparing Metro MV's with NYC chambered ash/maple models).
I prefer the non-chambered ash bodies personally, just because that downsized body tends to have a bit more punch and focus (IMO) with that extra 1/2 pound or so 'added back in'. However, even that is pretty subtle, and of course, you can find slightly heavier chambered ash models also.
That all being said, I find the alder bodied Sadowsky's, in general, to have more upper treble sizzle (of course, that is confounded by fretboard also, and IMO it is the fretboard that drives this) versus the ash/maple basses, which have more of that upper mid, lower treble grind. I attribute that more to the alder/RW/Morado models having less upper mids, which allows that sizzly, sweet upper treble sizzle to 'not be covered up', versus the very present upper mid tone of many ash/maple basses that result in a brighter, grindier sound, but not necessarily that sweet, upper treble sizzle. Hard to generalize, but that's how these things 'average out' after hearing and playing a ton of them.
Yeah, but most of this is from your experiences with alder/rw, not alder/maple, and Roger even believes the fingerboard makes a significant diff in tone, which I would think would have more to do with explaining your results. I've played alder/maple basses before, and I just seem to get a bit more up top with ash/maple than alder/maple.
Anyway, qualifiers... IMHO/YMMV
Yeah, but most of this is from your experiences with alder/rw, not alder/maple, and Roger even believes the fingerboard makes a significant diff in tone, which I would think would have more to do with explaining your results. I've played alder/maple basses before, and I just seem to get a bit more up top with ash/maple than alder/maple.
Anyway, qualifiers... IMHO/YMMV
+1, per my post, this is primarily a fretboard issue. Body wood seems to have a minimal impact. It's more about the big spike in lower treble and upper mids that comes through on a maple board bass in general, giving more of a 'grind' to the tone, in general, than an upper treble click. However, I'm only talking about Sadowsky here, since the pickups and preamp are so active and wide range (i.e., they have lot's of upper treble that comes through in general). Of course, if you get a more passively voiced alder/RW bass from a different manufacturer, it is a totally different thing.
However, the alder/RW/Morado Sadowsky basses with the HC pickups have a LOT of sizzle in that upper treble region to my ear. Interesting voicing to me.
It is dangerous to generalize though. I have not played enough alder/maple basses to come to a conclusion on that. I know my alder/maple A-C RA is by far, the most upper treble present bass I've ever owned (well, almost... the heavy ash/maple Cobalt Blue Celinder was really over the top, but I attribute much of that to the very aggressive Greengrove pre)... it is a sizzle machine! However, I'm not ready to attribute that to the alder body at this point.
FWIW I was surprised when I got my '57 RI Fender over a decade ago because I was expecting ash/maple to have bright treble, but my direct experience since then has been that soft swamp ash tends to be bright in the middle to high midrange and subdued in the treble range, while northern hard ash (the heavy stuff commonly used on 70's Fenders) is the tonal opposite: deep and bright. I usually go for alder because the mids are voiced lower than swamp ash and it has solid highs, but I was delighted to take an ash P-bass because I already have one in alder. I love 'em both, and vive la difference.
Note that I'm speaking in general terms. Due to the natural variance of wood, it's impossible to predict. "Identical twin" basses can have distinctly different tones.
Note that I'm speaking in general terms. Due to the natural variance of wood, it's impossible to predict. "Identical twin" basses can have distinctly different tones.
That's a pretty good summary of my general experience, but as you say, each individual instrument can have a totally different voicing that 'breaks the rule'.
I don't know whether my new bass is chambered. I seriously doubt it, because all else being equal swamp ash is lighter than the alder available today, but my ash PJ is heavier than my chambered alder P5. I thought I read here that alder Sadowskys were chambered, while swamp ash ones were not. But like Ken, I doubt that chambering makes much difference.
Also, both of my P-basses have maple boards. One is birdseye and the other flame, but my understanding is that both of these figurings come from harder maple, while quilting comes from the softer variety. Now, I've never believed that fingerboard wood makes much difference on fretted basses... it doesn't seem to on Fenders IME, but I don't have enough experience with RW Sadowsky basses to dispute Roger's opinion that fretboard > body when it comes to tone.
Also, both of my P-basses have maple boards. One is birdseye and the other flame, but my understanding is that both of these figurings come from harder maple, while quilting comes from the softer variety. Now, I've never believed that fingerboard wood makes much difference on fretted basses... it doesn't seem to on Fenders IME, but I don't have enough experience with RW Sadowsky basses to dispute Roger's opinion that fretboard > body when it comes to tone.
Ash bodies are also routed, with the exception of natural finish or customer's request.
If it's routed you might be able to see the seam as if the bass had an exotic top.
The listing on the In Stock page usually specifies if the body is solid, your bass seems to be routed.
Thank you for the correction, Fran! I thought I saw something like a seam around the radiused top edge of my blond bass. Subtle, but noticeable up close.
Interesting then that my chambered swamp ash P5 is heavier than its chambered alder counterpart. I can't imagine that the ano guard and extra pickup/knob account for the difference! I suppose it's (once again) variation in wood.
On the whole ash/alder thing, for the swamp ash to be "softer", I'd think it'd have to be the really punky stuff that'd be very light even withOUT chambering. I don't think Roger uses stuff that soft.
I think he picks somewhat lighter ash, but still fairly hard, and then chambers it to land in the usual 7.5-9 pounds, tho most typically around 8-8.5 I think. I think both density as well as hardness matter. He takes some of the density away with the chambers, but I think he uses at least reasonably hard ash.
I say this because at this time, I have both a solid ash/maple J5 as well as a chambered ash/maple J5, and even noting the pickup differences, I get plenty of high end out of both of them. I'll comment more on the A/B comparisons in the Sadowsky Club thread once I get a few more miles on them and especially after getting them on common strings, but definitely no compression in the high end that I'm currently hearing (tho the high end profile is somewhat different, tho I attribute that to the different pickups more than anything else).
And just to be clear, swamp ash is NOT a genus, it just means cut from a certain part of the tree from a certain growing environment. You can get both the heavy dense stuff as well as "swamp ash" from the SAME tree. Roger comments on this as well.
I think he picks somewhat lighter ash, but still fairly hard, and then chambers it to land in the usual 7.5-9 pounds, tho most typically around 8-8.5 I think. I think both density as well as hardness matter. He takes some of the density away with the chambers, but I think he uses at least reasonably hard ash.
I say this because at this time, I have both a solid ash/maple J5 as well as a chambered ash/maple J5, and even noting the pickup differences, I get plenty of high end out of both of them. I'll comment more on the A/B comparisons in the Sadowsky Club thread once I get a few more miles on them and especially after getting them on common strings, but definitely no compression in the high end that I'm currently hearing (tho the high end profile is somewhat different, tho I attribute that to the different pickups more than anything else).
And just to be clear, swamp ash is NOT a genus, it just means cut from a certain part of the tree from a certain growing environment. You can get both the heavy dense stuff as well as "swamp ash" from the SAME tree. Roger comments on this as well.
This has also been my experience for the most part. More consistency than differences (tho I do feel some noticeable diffs are there with the different woods, even in the same weight class... just not like night/day).
+1 By 'models', I mean alder/RW, UV70 Metros, ash/maple, etc. Very consistent... pick out one that looks good, and it will almost by definition sound good, and sound very similar to an identically spec'd one you might have played. I assume this is at least partially due to the tight shop Roger runs, and the CNC type production that maximizes consistency.
Thanks for the clarification, but even so there's a distinct difference in tone between light and heavy ash IME.
Just to clarify, I can get tons of high end out of my ash P-bass simply by goosing treble. But with EQ flat, the highs from the ash P are significantly softer than the alder one. I'll test again once both are freshly strung with identical strings, but as someone noted the fresh SS strings on the ash bass should be brighter, especially when A/B'd with broken-in Elixirs, which, even when fresh, have slightly attenuated highs compared to uncoated strings.
The ash body is wonderful. I get amazing tones out of the up-front midrange voicing: again, I like to call it "sweet" and "singing", compared to the lower-throated growl of the alder P-bass. In the grand scheme of things they both have the Sadowsky P-bass sound, but the differences are remarkable when played solo. I look forward to checking out my blonde baby at this weekend's gig! Like any Sadowsky I know it'll sit well in the mix, but I'll be interested to hear how much different it is than the alder one.
True. Never meant to challenge that. I usually make the clarification comment when it appears someone is using the term as a genus term.
Yeah, I got that clear. I'm still surprised tho. That said, I'm NOT saying you're wrong, only that I'm a bit surprised simply because it counters my experiences. Honest, that's all there is to my comments.
Will you bring both or just the new one? Either way, I WANT A FULL REPORT!
I'm gonna bring both to the gig. I never change basses in the middle of a set, so I'll alternate sets (ash, alder, ash), leaving amp settings as is. Except volume... damn guitarist can't leave loud enough alone 
I wish I had a set of blue label steels for the black bass! I'll prolly put some black label steels on her, cuz they'll be a better tonal match than Elixirs.
Finally, sorry for sounding defensive, that was unintended. Tone comparisons with basses are always subjective, our experiences are different, and it's great to find out what everyone else is hearing.
I wish I had a set of blue label steels for the black bass! I'll prolly put some black label steels on her, cuz they'll be a better tonal match than Elixirs.
Finally, sorry for sounding defensive, that was unintended. Tone comparisons with basses are always subjective, our experiences are different, and it's great to find out what everyone else is hearing.
