Sadowsky NYC PJ5 vs Fender Pre-CBS 62' Pbass

[ElMon]

Thanks for the kind words. Again, to me the nuances would completely disappear in a mix. If you were playing with a group of musicians who were really enamored with that 60's Fender tone, they'd be more than happy with the Sadowsky IMO than they would with a humbucker/soapbar equipped Modern bass. Not to mention the visual factor that a Sadowsky has, which in some regions of the country (definitely here in OK at times) REALLY matters if you're hitting with some older blues/rock guys for instance.
"Well, it LOOKS like a Fender, so we're good"

To answer a few questions above....

No, I didn't do any palm muting. The clips represent both basses run passive, and the examples vary from tone knob/vtc all the way off and all the way on.

As for the age of the strings, the Chromes on the Pbass have been on for one week, and the Sadowsky's have been on for two days. Even still, to me the Pbass has a lot more inherent brightness with that tone knob all the way on than did the Sadowsky run passive.

I do think the Fender has an inherent 'FONK' to it, where certain notes jump out more than others, where the note envelope/decay is unique/etc whereas the Sadowsky is much more even. In short the Sadowsky is more: even sounding, slightly thicker, and has a MUCH more versatile set of EQ options. Therefor to ME this equals:

"Fender on Steroids"

I also think the Nordstrand PUPS have a LOT to do with this as well. Can't explain it, but these newer models sound livelier and more punchy than did the Duncan-equipped PJ5's that I played a few years back. IMO.

 

[ElMon]

I should also add that the subtle nuances in the tone of the 62' are for some guys a HUGE deal, and would leave them to believe that they don't even sound close. This is where the divide is IMO, and I'm definitely on the other side. This bass, again to ME, can nail a vintage P tone PLUS all the other modern options depending on which pickup/eq setting and what strings/setup you have.

I imagine that for the tonal purists, those small nuances that are in the 62's sound would make them play and respond to the instrument differently so in that case that WOULD be a big deal. In a perfect gigging situation, I'm bringing BOTH!!!! 62' strung with Jamerson flats and a mute AND the Sadowsky PJ5 with rounds.

 

[Bernie Connors]

In a perfect gigging situation, I'm bringing BOTH!!!! 62' strung with Jamerson flats and a mute AND the Sadowsky PJ5 with rounds.

Now that IS perfect!

 

[Jjango]

Wow! While I agree with those here who think the 62' P has a more raw, superior sound, the differences are so minor that I'm 100% sure I wouldn't hear them if the clips weren't side by side. And in a mix? Fuggedaboutit.

 

[NOLA Bass]

You know, I actually like the smoother tone of the Sadowsky. Obviously, the 62 has a great, sort of grindy aggresive P tone, but I really personally prefer the Sadoswky and the versatility.

 

[dvh]

Great post, thanks. Love that classic P sound (my go to bass is a 50s Classic). The Sadowsky sounds great but I much prefer it passive. Active, it has that slightly sterile edge I hear from all active basses. Of course, that is never heard in the mix so it's all moot.

Great versatility from the Sadowsky too. Damn you GAS infector...!

 

[Vic]

ElMon,
Nicely done!

My Sadowsky PJ5 is ash/maple, so it's got a bit more "edge" to it, which I like. In fact, my favorite P sound is the maple neck, really. I might slightly prefer the alder body over ash for a more classic sound, but when I gig, I just like what ash does better, so it's a nice trade off.

One thing I may have missed in the thread if it was mentioned, but I think is VERY important, is you're comparing a 4 string to a 5. There's a lot more mass in the Sadowsky neck, and you have to account for that. It will change the tone. What would really be an ideal direct comparison would be a PJ/P4 alder/brazilian.

I generally agree tho, that the Fender has just a touch more raw sound to it, but I actually prefer the Sadowsky passive tone a bit better. It still has plenty of that P growl, but maybe a touch fuller in the low end, which I like.

Not that I'd turn that amazing P away... not by a damn sight... but with a passive Sadowsky P in hand, I don't feel the need to rush out and spend thousands in the risky vintage market, which is a good thing for me.

 

[chris lykins]

Funny how everyones ears are but through my headphones I think the Sadowsky with the treble boosted actually comes closer to copping the fender sound especially if the bass boost was dropped a bit

 

[ElMon]

ElMon,
Nicely done!

My Sadowsky PJ5 is ash/maple, so it's got a bit more "edge" to it, which I like. In fact, my favorite P sound is the maple neck, really. I might slightly prefer the alder body over ash for a more classic sound, but when I gig, I just like what ash does better, so it's a nice trade off.

One thing I may have missed in the thread if it was mentioned, but I think is VERY important, is you're comparing a 4 string to a 5. There's a lot more mass in the Sadowsky neck, and you have to account for that. It will change the tone. What would really be an ideal direct comparison would be a PJ/P4 alder/brazilian.

I generally agree tho, that the Fender has just a touch more raw sound to it, but I actually prefer the Sadowsky passive tone a bit better. It still has plenty of that P growl, but maybe a touch fuller in the low end, which I like.

Not that I'd turn that amazing P away... not by a damn sight... but with a passive Sadowsky P in hand, I don't feel the need to rush out and spend thousands in the risky vintage market, which is a good thing for me.

Right on. My ash/maple PJ5 is an amazing workhorse, and again is very close in sound to my alder/rw PJ5. We're again talking about nuances here. YES they matter, or otherwise I never would've considered going from one to the other. That extra bit of warmth in the alder/rw just does it for me.

And huge +1 to the neck mass being a factor. That might account for the slightly bigger lowend in the Sadowsky's passive tone.

Funny how everyones ears are but through my headphones I think the Sadowsky with the treble boosted actually comes closer to copping the fender sound especially if the bass boost was dropped a bit

Keep in mind the direct comparison clips were with the Sadowsky set passive, and that I didn't use any EQ boost whatsoever in Garageband. To me the Sadowsky has a little bit more deep low end extension whereas the Fender's lows are a little more present in the low-mid region.

 

[Bernie Connors]

Not to get too OT but what was your recording setup?

 

[ElMon]

Not to get too OT but what was your recording setup?

Here was the exact signal chain as well as the list of 'controls' in the experiment:

Sadowsky NYC PJ5 alder/rw and alder/rw 62' Pbass, both strung with new D'Addario Chromes with the following setup:

String Height (holding string at first fret measuring off of 12th)
8/64" on B/E string
7/64 on A/D string
6/64" on G string

Neck Relief:

Slight relief, but mostly flat on both instruments

Pickup Height (hold last fret, measure from top of coil to bottom of string):

7/64 on all points of contact for P pickups

SIGNAL CHAIN:

Both basses run with monster cable into Apogee Duet, input levels matched as closely as possible, and into Apple's Garage Band.

ZERO Eq or compression. No modeling. Just straight into the computer.

 

[Bernie Connors]

Very cool! Thanks for the breakdown.

 

[Vic]

Not to get too OT but what was your recording setup?

IMHO, that's not OT. Very fair and important question.

 

[ElMon]

NP, had a blast doing this. Finally getting my way around a recording setup. Now if I could just find a good sequencer, I might be able to showcase just how well these basses sit in a mix.

 

[Bernie Connors]

IMHO, that's not OT. Very fair and important question.

Considering the scope of the thread, you're right.

 

[Vic]

NP, had a blast doing this. Finally getting my way around a recording setup. Now if I could just find a good sequencer, I might be able to showcase just how well these basses sit in a mix.

No need for a sequencer, just an mp3 backing track/loop. I was thinking that garage band was particularly good for this?

 

[ElMon]

Considering the scope of the thread, you're right.

Absolutely and +1. I tried to have all the variables as constant as possible. As of now, the two basses are sounding DRASTICALLY different with different strings. Still like Pbasses, but VERY different versions. I'll post some clips of that here in a bit.

 

[ElMon]

No need for a sequencer, just an mp3 backing track/loop. I was thinking that garage band was particularly good for this?

Yeah, still working on that. This is all very new for me. I"ve got the gear, thanks to the day gig, but the know-how is lacking. Need to go through the tutorials on Garage Band about setting up loops/etc. Until then, naked Pbass it is sir!!!

 

[RickC]

Late to the party here...

after reading all the replies, I was kinda of expecting the clips to be closer than they were.

The Sadowsky sounds like a much wider freq spectrum to me, and more evenly balanced over that spectrum. In a way it sounds "better", clearer, etc. The '62 has that very characteristic tone, more focused around the mids, more colored. In a good way. Not as "good" in an objective sense perhaps, but still a more appealing sound (to me anyway).

/rick

 

[Vic]

Late to the party here...

after reading all the replies, I was kinda of expecting the clips to be closer than they were.

The Sadowsky sounds like a much wider freq spectrum to me, and more evenly balanced over that spectrum. In a way it sounds "better", clearer, etc. The '62 has that very characteristic tone, more focused around the mids, more colored. In a good way. Not as "good" in an objective sense perhaps, but still a more appealing sound (to me anyway).

/rick

Interestingly, yet not so surprisingly, those who describe the diffs seem to be pretty much in total agreement about what they are, but vary greatly in how significant those diffs are. Sounds like a typical case of subjective personal perspective to me.