Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by nspbass, May 25, 2005.
It all depends on what you want...
sonically, i think the G&L is superior
but playability of the Lakland is supurb.
I ended up getting a Lakland.
I've owned both and I think the L-2500 played circles around the Lakland. Slimmer and narrower neck and 34" scale as opposed to the lakland's 35". Most people say they don't notice a 1" difference in scale length...I did. Went with the L-2500.
To me the G-L had a higher more aggressive tone where as the Lakie had a bit warmer more subdued tone though not timid by any means. As far as playability went the G-L had a much thicker neck more rounded. The Lakie and the less rounded neck but much more width to the neck because of the wide spacing... for me that fit like a glove. With a little eq I was able to get Just the right sound of my lakland... Sadly an eq wouldnt fix the the playability issues I had with the G-L. So the differences in the 2 are quite alot though they tend to be grouped together. Thats just my take
The G&L has a lot of tonal flexibility.
The 55-01 is pretty versatile too, but not as much as the 2500.
But the neck profile, and the 3/4 bridge string spacing make the Lakland the winner for me. I don't like the narrow bridge spacing on the G&L.
And the Lakland is easier to get a good tone out of.
The drawback to the G&L's versatility is that until you get a feel for the electronics, there are too many options.
Sonically the G&L is superb but playability was mediocre. I still vote for tone.
Search the forums for threads by Subsonic (Me!). I've been debating between those two basses as well, so the responses to my posts may help you make up your mind. Hope this helps!
Subsonic a.k.a. Steve