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 Mike Lull
- Thread starter dbamta
- Start date
I've owned and gigged both. Kinda like arguing about which ice cream is better, strawberry or chocolate. Ok, I know, chocolate is better - bad analogy.
Both are great shops and put out great basses. Sadowsky has more brand recognition (and hence commands a higher price). Sadowsky also has a particular "sound" that is associated with the preamp. If those things are important to you, then you should get a Sadowsky. If they aren't, then there a Lull might be a good choice. There are other builders that can make similar instruments - really just depends on what you're looking for and what is important to you.
Both are great shops and put out great basses. Sadowsky has more brand recognition (and hence commands a higher price). Sadowsky also has a particular "sound" that is associated with the preamp. If those things are important to you, then you should get a Sadowsky. If they aren't, then there a Lull might be a good choice. There are other builders that can make similar instruments - really just depends on what you're looking for and what is important to you.
Yeah, and so much more economical
I hope somebody does this. I remember playing a passive Lull Jazz at Bass Central, and I was really impressed with how well it played. At the time I had a 2008 Fender Jazz V that I really loved, and the Lull really was nice enough, IMO, that it would have been worth buying.
CaptainWally said:
There have been a lot of posts over the years of people trying to put Sadowsky electronics in fenders and Lulls etc, and not achieving the Sadowsky sound. Certainly a step closer, but it doesn't really get there. Probably has something to do with the wood choice and design. Sadowsky basses have more mass in the neck and headstocks than both fender and Lulls. Maybe this has something to do with it? Makes sense to me, but I have no idea.
I prefer the sound of Sadowsky, I prefer the feel of Lull, and now I play Lakland because it meets somewhere in the middle.
In my admittedly limited experience nothing seems to change how a bass sounds like adding or taking away mass from the neck.
roadkill2309 said:
I'm actually surprised u guys are surprised. Electronics are just one piece of the pie. Wood used and design and craftsmanship and the bridge, etc. all come into play. Just pick up a Lull and a Sadowsky side by side and tell me you won't think there would be significant tonal differences with the electronics being identical.
My experience has always been that wood choices and body shape make much less difference than pickups, and to a lesser extent preamps.
Doug Parent
Supporting Member
My two cents; neck mass and body resonance and wood density is significant.
I would recommend checking out a Nordstrand. Just as playable and fast as Lulls...sound great. Killer fit and finish. Also....Alleva Copollo, Suhr, what about a 70's Fender?
Zanderwestcoast said:
I'm terribly vain, I admit. I want my basses to look as good a they sound. Another reason I don't play Lulla any more is that I just can't stand the headstock. Same goes for Nordstrand. Allevas are not so bad, but well out of my price range, an I'd never want to take a bass to a gig that I'd have to baby.
Right now, I dig Laklands, mainly the 55-02s. Best deal around for tone, tonal versatility, great looks, and a very reasonable price. Other than that, I dig CS Fenders and also the German made Sandberg Fender-copy basses. Hasn't been anything else out there in the last few years that has piqued my interest. But thanks for the suggestions!
Scott McArron said:
I'm with you, to a certain extent; if spending 5 large on an instrument, I have to be over the moon about the looks, playability and sound. Period. I won't accept two out of three at that price point. My favourite headstock is still Fender's, but I find that Sadowsky's is an elegant take on the style. I also like Lakeland's 5ver headstock, but not the one on the 4.
I like Lull's Stock design; it's what Jackson's could have been it those guys had taken a turn for the tasteful.
I have 3 Fender P's from the 70's (one I bought new in 1973) and 2 Jazz basses from the 70's.
All are in excellant condition and only one has a perfectly straight neck without any ski jump. The fret work on most is OK but not great. Out of these 5, the one I bought new is heavy, the others were selected over the years from about 25others as many were stupid heavy.
They are great basses but not at the level of fit and finish as Sadowsky or Lull IMO.
My 1960 P is light, great neck and frets, and plays perfectly.
Unfortuneately the neck is extremely wide and flat backed which doesn't fit my hands so well.
I was really hoping this thread was about who would win a fight: Mike Lull or Roger Sadowsky. *sigh*
