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.
Sadowsky vs. Lull
- Thread starter rockr4Christ
- Start date
Easy, if you want a Fender, don't get a Sadowsky. Lull is probably closer. I played one about a year ago, but what I remember is that it was great. Nice playability, nice tone. I like the modern take I get from the Sadowsky, hence I have one. I also dig the 34" scale a bit more.
Look for a used Lull in your price range. I just recently sold a M5 for 1350. Doubt you'll find a Sad in that price range. I have owned both and prefer the Lull, of which I've proudly owned 3. If you don't like the preamp he uses, slap a Sad pre in it later.
I wanted a passive P J bass with excellent balance and build quality, which is why I chose Lull. I simply liked the feel of the Lull better than the Sadowsky. If you are looking for that "passive/vintage" sound those Fralin pups are hard to beat. If you are looking for that "active/modern" sound, Lull offers several preamp options. That being said - damn, those Sads sound killer!
ok...now im curious.
how would the 44-94 match up tonewise?
So the thoughts this far...
Modern: Sadowsky
Old School: Valenti or Lull
is that about right?
how would the 44-94 match up tonewise?
So the thoughts this far...
Modern: Sadowsky
Old School: Valenti or Lull
is that about right?
Thats about right. I think the 44-94 will be more modern but I don't have much experience with it.
I own a Sadowsky 4 & 5, and used to have a Lull M4V. The Lull was very nice, the only reason i didn't keep it was the neck profile was just not what I was used to at the time. 
I actually custom ordered it and had the pleasure of talking to Mike Lull himself to discuss the options. FWIW the bass actually arrived sooner than estimated. The components and construction were top notch and the 3-tone sunburst I requested was as nice as any I have ever seen. As previously mentioned, you have more options as far as pickups and preamps with the Lull. This is definitely worth considering if you want real-time control over your midrange from the bass, as the Sadowsky pre is treble and bass boost only.
That said my #1 player is my Sadowsky standard NYC 4. It just sounds good and feels right for me, though you need to take a different approach to get certain sounds with it than you might with other basses. The EQ is surprisingly useful and musical, and I use the VTC far more than I ever imagined when I first got the bass.
You really need to play both as they are both excellent instruments with their own personalities.
Re: the Lakland question. I also own a very nice 44-02 which is the imported version of the 4-94, and have played the American versions as well. To me, these basses have a totally different vibe, though a good one. As other folks have said, the Sadowskys & Lulls are a modern interpretation of a Jazz Bass (or P), but to me the Lakland has that Stingray influence as well. Thanks to the coil splitter on the back pickup you can get some very useable, jazz-like tones out of it though. A very versitile instrument. Just don't forget that their necks are slightly wider at the nut than a jazz neck, if that is important to you.
I actually custom ordered it and had the pleasure of talking to Mike Lull himself to discuss the options. FWIW the bass actually arrived sooner than estimated. The components and construction were top notch and the 3-tone sunburst I requested was as nice as any I have ever seen. As previously mentioned, you have more options as far as pickups and preamps with the Lull. This is definitely worth considering if you want real-time control over your midrange from the bass, as the Sadowsky pre is treble and bass boost only.
That said my #1 player is my Sadowsky standard NYC 4. It just sounds good and feels right for me, though you need to take a different approach to get certain sounds with it than you might with other basses. The EQ is surprisingly useful and musical, and I use the VTC far more than I ever imagined when I first got the bass.
You really need to play both as they are both excellent instruments with their own personalities.
Re: the Lakland question. I also own a very nice 44-02 which is the imported version of the 4-94, and have played the American versions as well. To me, these basses have a totally different vibe, though a good one. As other folks have said, the Sadowskys & Lulls are a modern interpretation of a Jazz Bass (or P), but to me the Lakland has that Stingray influence as well. Thanks to the coil splitter on the back pickup you can get some very useable, jazz-like tones out of it though. A very versitile instrument. Just don't forget that their necks are slightly wider at the nut than a jazz neck, if that is important to you.
While I believe they are similar to Ultra Vintages, they are wound to Rogers own specs.
Thats cool, While I have nothing against Lull's, I've never played one thats blown me away. Perhaps it's the pick-up / pre combinations the original customer ordered. On the other hand the Sadowsky Pre is unique. While it's two band and the frequency choices are the same as the Aggie pre, it sounds far more musical to me. Perhaps it's the width of the frequency curves. But I find I can't get an ugly sound out of that pre, and it is very subtile in it's coloring abilities. A little goes a long way. I've played a lot of more adjustable pres that seemed to take hours to "dial in".
One more note, while Rogers Pres and pick-ups are unique, I've heard a couple of Warmouth and Fender J's with Sadowsky electronics. While they sounded very good, they weren't Sadowskys. Rogers quality wood choices have a lot to do with the sound.
I've never played a Lull, but have heard good things.
Sadowsky makes a great bass, although the sound is a bit more 'modern' than a vintage Fender tone. The sound is amazing and in no way bad...just a lot more active. Also, IMO Sadowsky's are over priced considering that you can get a comparable Lull, Suhr, etc...for less.
I'm a huge fan of Suhr basses, and you could find a used one in your price range. My Suhr kills just about any jazz bass I've played, records amazingly, and the price is right. Also, it sounds like an old Fender when it's passive. For some reason, a lot of bassists aren't hip to Suhr, but just about any seasoned guitarist around knows he makes some of the best stuff around. As soon as he drops a 5 string, I bet he'll become the talk around here.
Sadowsky makes a great bass, although the sound is a bit more 'modern' than a vintage Fender tone. The sound is amazing and in no way bad...just a lot more active. Also, IMO Sadowsky's are over priced considering that you can get a comparable Lull, Suhr, etc...for less.
I'm a huge fan of Suhr basses, and you could find a used one in your price range. My Suhr kills just about any jazz bass I've played, records amazingly, and the price is right. Also, it sounds like an old Fender when it's passive. For some reason, a lot of bassists aren't hip to Suhr, but just about any seasoned guitarist around knows he makes some of the best stuff around. As soon as he drops a 5 string, I bet he'll become the talk around here.
last year I spent 1/2 a day at Gelb Music in the Bay Area. I played several Lull's (Vintage4, an MV4 with the aggie pre and an MV4 with the Bart pre) and 2 Sad's (a NYC 4 and a Metro Std 4). Also played some Fenders, including a used, original, well maintained '72 Jazz.
I played all of these basses thru a Mesa Walkalbout 12 in the shop, which really helped because that's my main gig rig. I was looking for the more vintage '62-'63 "Fender-done-right" kind of sound, rather than the modern Jazz tone.
I loved all the basses. They were all a pleasure to play, had great feel to them, and all had excellent fit-and-finish. The Sadowskys were heavier if that means anything to you.
In the end I ordered a Lull Modern Vintage 4 in 3 tone Sunburst with the Fralin Vintage single coils and the Bart 2 band pre with an active/passive pull-pot. This combination just did it for me better that the others. As has been said already, the Sadowskys definitely do the modern Jazz thing exceptionally well, but I'd have to say that, while I feel that the Lull did what I wanted (vintage Fender, in passive mode) better than the Sad, the Lull is no slouch in the active/modern tone zone either. I'd also say that personally, the Sadowsky's felt "tight" .. like harder to play. I felt like I had to work harder on the neck ?? .. sounds funny, but it was a definite impression on both of them, whereas the Lull just fit my hands in a "just-right" kind of way. These last statements are very subjective responses I know, but there you go.
And, you can get the Lull for a bit less than the Metro (I think thats still true), and way less than the NYC.
Have fun looking at and trying out great basses !
I played all of these basses thru a Mesa Walkalbout 12 in the shop, which really helped because that's my main gig rig. I was looking for the more vintage '62-'63 "Fender-done-right" kind of sound, rather than the modern Jazz tone.
I loved all the basses. They were all a pleasure to play, had great feel to them, and all had excellent fit-and-finish. The Sadowskys were heavier if that means anything to you.
In the end I ordered a Lull Modern Vintage 4 in 3 tone Sunburst with the Fralin Vintage single coils and the Bart 2 band pre with an active/passive pull-pot. This combination just did it for me better that the others. As has been said already, the Sadowskys definitely do the modern Jazz thing exceptionally well, but I'd have to say that, while I feel that the Lull did what I wanted (vintage Fender, in passive mode) better than the Sad, the Lull is no slouch in the active/modern tone zone either. I'd also say that personally, the Sadowsky's felt "tight" .. like harder to play. I felt like I had to work harder on the neck ?? .. sounds funny, but it was a definite impression on both of them, whereas the Lull just fit my hands in a "just-right" kind of way. These last statements are very subjective responses I know, but there you go.
And, you can get the Lull for a bit less than the Metro (I think thats still true), and way less than the NYC.
Have fun looking at and trying out great basses !
Having owned both, without question Sadowsky are more modern, very Fenderish but not that extremely woody sound. The Lull I had was very woody, and I'm certain its not just the wood but rather the high mass bridge on the Sadowsky changes the voice of the instrument quite a bit. Sure love the way they both sound, but stuck with Sadowsky for its versatility.....just a great balance. Still, I'd buy another similarly spec'd passive/fralin Lull if I needed a 50's 60's fender tone.
Yeah, I think that is a common thought on Sad's and Lull's. Def. not true as Roger just stated and Lull's p'ups are wound specifically for him.
After owning a Lull and playing a Sadowsky this weekend I vote Sadowsky. That thing was incredibly well built, not that Lull is a slouch, but the Lull felt like a bass made out of parts where the Sadowsky felt like something completely different. Not only that but it was the lightest 5 string I've ever felt. I could definitely see the sound not being for everyone but it was a bit hi-fi and ballsy and had a nice "something extra" as well. I'm convinced i would be very happy spending my money on a Sadowsky.
Dan
Dan
You won't be sorry thats for sure. I love my UV70 5 string. the guys in my Gospel band can't get over it! I was just talking to my minister of music and was telling how expressive and alive it sounds. I'm Thinking of getting a RV5 with VTC that Roger has on his shop site.
