thodrik

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1316343' date='Jul 25 2011, 09:38 PM']Yeah this is definitely part of it. Though that's fair enough given what it looks like and Sadowsky's pedigree in the world of Fender repairs/mods! If they had a custom shape then even with the exact same pickup configs then people would see them as different. But, sound-wise, I honestly haven't heard anything that would distinguish their own 'signature' sound as distinct from any old jazz with aftermarket pickups/pre.[/quote] Surely you would notice the difference between the Sadowsky, a Sandberg and a Fender Deluxe though? Granted, the differences between a Sadowsky, Nordstrand, Xotic and other US designed 'modern jazz' that is endorsed by some 'legendary' session guy are more minimal though. I just personally noticed a massive difference in sound between the Sadowsky and the Sandberg when hearing them side by side. Not that one was better, but both having totally different sonic qualities. I might be getting overly anal about it though. My guitarist brother just said 'they both sounded like four string bass guitars'. Maybe the generic quality to the modern jazz thing was what I liked. I was looking for a Fender-type Jazz based instrument that was solid, reliable, had a great tone and would be able to cut through the mix no matter what, without the need for any additonal eq pedals etc. Basically Jazz version of my late 1970s Precision which was being retired from gigging. It might sound like a rubbish criteria when shopping for a bass, but I do not regret the choice I made, and I tried a lot of basses before I settled on the Sadowsky, including a few Sandbergs.

Depends on my own love handles. 15 stone (high) 11 stone (low) currently at 13 stone (medium).

[quote name='Pinewoods' post='1316262' date='Jul 25 2011, 09:04 PM']That´s it ! + 1000[/quote] Pretty much + 1001

[quote name='Chris2112' post='1316219' date='Jul 25 2011, 08:41 PM']Thodrik in 'some people don't like certain basses' shocker! As for loudandclear, he's 'clearly' pissed as he seems to be unable to use grammar or even read what people are posting![/quote] Well, that is the case isn't it? You pretty much said as much before when you mentioned Status basses (and don't get me started on them ) Also, LawrenceH I understand your point on the Warwicks, but I think that the Sadowsky is more of its own thing than people give it credit for. In fact I think that is a reason why some people do not like them. They see something that looks like a Fender and when it doesn't handle or sound like one, they go away disappointed and dismiss the bass as average/generic/rubbish.

That is great. Good to see that his attempts to push the boat out is being rewarded, says the person who would prefer the Precision...

It always intrigues me to see how passionate some people are about not liking Sadowsky basses, to the point that every discussion about Sadowsky on this thread ends up as a mud-slinging match between those that own/like them and those that consider them overpriced/overhyped/average sounding/generic sounding. Not that it isn't entertaining its just about the third time in last year it has happened. Perhaps if the price of Metros continue to rise, the debate will become even more heated! Personally, I can't don't like Warwick basses. However every time a thread opens up about Warwicks and I do not feel the urge to tell the story about that one time I tried a Thumb and a Streamer in a shop and didn't like them, which of course means that all Warwicks are overpriced, have uncomfortable necks and deliver a distinctly underwhelming sound compared to what I was actually expecting!

[quote name='JTUK' post='1313869' date='Jul 23 2011, 03:06 PM']Don't get wrong, I think they are well made..but the lack of finish on the neck..?? that untreated lock always looks terrible to me. The paintwork is good, the woodwork (joints etc) is fine and I don't think the shop set them up too well... the action was average, which for me, makes it harder work, but they played ok and sounded good. I am sure the action is a 5 min job, tho' I just think the price of the best 5 they had, IMO, at £2100 or so, is into other makers territory that make better looking/made basses. And that is a strenght of Sadwosky, traditionally, as they can make some really pretty basses, and get all the right things right..it is just that I thought the price was about £600 and counting, over the top. Last time I looked the $-£ was ok-ish... as per recents times, so..?? Haven't seen a NYC of late, but for their money, I would hope they are on another level completely.[/quote] I hear you on the neck finish for the maple fingerboards. The action on the one I got was great, though a couple of the others I have tried were nothing special. The fretwork is usually of standard though that it can go pretty low though. The frets themselves are also pretty chunky which could be a turnoff for those that prefer smaller vintage type frets. I guess the one I got just felt right so I went with it and I do not regret it one bit. When I got mine at £1500, I thought that the Metro blew away the Fenders I tried (a 1969 and a 1971, and the previous US Deluxe model), as well as a Warwick Thumb and a Wal (Mark II 1986) and was more to my tastes than the Sandberg (I don't like the relic finishes, I can get the same effect for real in a few years). For that I was prepared to let the lack of neck detail slide. I am told that the general quality of the Metro line (fretwork, woodwork, electroncis, general fit and finish etc) is as high as the NYC models. From the couple of NYCs I have tried, I found this to be the case. The NYC models though just look a lot nicer in general and probably feature more premium woods, which will result in them 'feeling' more special (felt like that to me). With the same pickups, preamp and bridge though, I didn't expect the sound to be radically different, and it wasn't. For £2000 or so though you can certainly get a bass that looks a bit more special, or sounds 'better' depending on your taste. The wood figuring and general attention to every minute cosmetic detail on my two Vigiers is miles ahead of the Metro I have. The sound of the Metro though can hang with anything though, depending on whether you like the tone you get out of a Sadowsky. I think that complaints over the sound of the Metro sound are down more to complaints of 'Sadowsky sound' in general, rather than due to a lack of quality in the Metro line. If you don't like the Metro's, I don't think spending the extra on an NYC would actually make you like Sadowskys or get you a bass that sounds completely different to the Metros. You would just have a prettier, much more expensive version of a bass you don't really like.

These threads really prove to me just how clueless I am to technical stuff, yet I still love reading them! I have two cabs bought when I was 22 based on the 'small speakers for highs, big speakers for lows' logic (2x10, 1x15). It sounds alright and until I get some money it is the best I am going to get! At least now I will have a bit of knowledge for the next time I buy a cab.

[quote name='JTUK' post='1313756' date='Jul 23 2011, 01:02 PM']Had a quick mess around on a couple at Gtr/Gtr Epsom... They looked a lot of money for the prices they were charging. For £2k for a Metro5...????? ...hmmm... I'd be pretty confident that a few local makers would make you a better bass from what I have seen or played.[/quote] I think that each Metro model has undergone a £500 price rise in the last 18 months or so. Mind you I'm pretty sure the price of Fenders, Musicman, Lakland etc have all gone up pretty substantially. The gap in the quality of bass you can get for £1200 comparing new to second stuff is pretty bloody scary just now. I'm not saying that the Sadowsky is the be all and end all, but it does deliver a pretty distinctive tone (which is not for everybody). I think that a lot of people that buy a Sadowsky Metro are not doing so because they want a bass that is good value for money, but because they want a Sadowsky. Saying all that, I could justify paying an extra £250-300 for choosing a Sadowsky over a Sandberg a couple of years ago. I'm not sure I could justify spending an extra £700 or so now, and I really love my Sadowsky.

I have never really liked Stingrays, there is just something about the neck profile that I just don't like (and the looks, and a bit of the sound) . Saying that though there are certainly basses that I feel 'at home' at, which make me feel like I'm playing better than I probably am. Beer and exaggerated self-confidence can also achieve this.

I would agree that the Sandberg California series are in the same class as the Metro line and they are generally a bit cheaper since the recent Metro price rises. From my experience the basses sound fairly different though. The Sadowsky's to my ear have a lot more of a modern 'snappy' sound to them, especially the maple fingerboard ones. Some people have described the sound as generic, but I thought it was just a really good clean sound that had a lot of natural bite. The Sandbergs jazz bass types I have tried I thought could deliver a sweeter more old school Fender sound. I loved both the Sandberg and the Sadowsky but I ended up with the Sadowsky, though this was before the models I tried were separated by around £800 in price as they are now! A strange sale tactic perhaps, but I always find suggestions like that to be helpful though as it gives you more information to consider before making a purchase. It also makes me more trusting when they actually do suggest something that they have in stock. If you are around the Glasgow area, CC Music should have a few Sandbergs in stock if you want to try them. Not sure if they have any five strings in though.

I have the Jazz version. Plays well, sounds like a passive jazz bass. I can't complain really for the money it cost.

I'm a lefty playing righty, but then again I probably do most things right handed apart from writing. I am pretty much ambidexdrous, equally useless no matter how I approach any given task.

I must be sitting in the middle here, but I find no evidence on which to find that she isn't at least very good technically. There is no way she would be able to keep getting the gigs she has if she wasn't capable of fulfilling her role when playing with top musicians. If she wasn't good, then I'm sure her detractors would find ample youtube videos of her making mistakes, which obviously would have been brought up by now if they existed. Of course connections and networking help, but she has been able to back it up pretty well over the last few years. I don't know how her position is any different from any other bassist that has networked or used contacts to get a gig. That said I'm not that fussed with her solo stuff. It is nice and technically fairly good, I just find the tone a bit 'safe' and the playing seems to lack the dynamism or excitement that I would expect from a top solo player. In this sense my opinion of her isn't that different from my opinion of John Mayer, another very good musician whose solo work and compositional skills do nothing for me personally. I just find the argument of 'if you don't think she is amazing then you are a sexist pig with severe jealousy' to be a bit of stretch. However, I do think that her looks have prompted people to claim both that she is a lot worse, as well as a lot better, than she actually is. I think that my opinion on John Mayer would apply here too!

Sometimes I think that Jeff just says stuff to annoy people on bass forums and to keep his name out there. Good for him. I'm glad he is comfortable enough in his own skin to bluntly give his opinions to the world. It doesn't mean I have to agree, care or resist the urge to laugh out loud. I understand at the time he was coming through, to play a fretless bass would probably scream 'Jaco clone'. So in his strange way, and in his chosen genre of music, he has a point. Really though, I just don't think that a fretless has any more of an built in tone than a 'fretted Fender Jazz-type bass being played fingerstyle, with the back pickup soloed, with the eq run flat, apart from a bump in the mids'.

I hear so much 'back pick up of a Jazz bass' bass players, I often find it difficult to ascertain what is good and what is not. I think that what makes her stand out from the crowd is that she is young woman and she does not wear a hat. She obviously has a good deal of talent but I think that a lot of the attention she gets (both good and bad) is based on how she looks rather than what she does. Shocking that such a thing could happen in the music industry!

Not really, but I remember at that time really wanting an EBS amp and the Warwick didn't quit persuade me to go for it. I couldn't fault the Warwick amp on anything though, well maybe I wasn't entirely impressed with the looks, but other than that not much.

I would say bad luck. I have been playing through them for years at rehearsal studios never suffering from any problems.

I tried a 5.1 a while ago. Very nice head, lots of power and fairly easy to dial in a tone. I though about getting it but nothing about it screamed 'I need to buy this amp!' so I decided against it.

I have to give Cliff Burton some props for getting in the top ten despite being buried in the mix in most of his recordings. I really find these lists to be pointless and every time there is one everybody gets in a flap about who is in and out. So I'll join in regardless. No Peter Hook? Come on!

Depends on the bass. There are gems and dogs throughout the decades when it comes. Wouldn't change my old 78 Precision for anything, including a pre CBS one. I played a few older Jazzes (69, 71 and 75) last year that I really didn't like and I newer one that I nearly liked, and a Sandberg and Sadowsky that were amazing. A different person would rank those same basses in an entirely different order. It is not something that bothers me.

I don't mind the look of some of them but I would never buy one. From playing the double bass, I have always enjoyed cutaways when it comes to electric basses! Plus I have always liked SGs more than Les Pauls. So I'm probably not a single cut guy in general.

I have a Kamen-era GP7 SM300 1x15 combo and an SMX300 that I am pretty sure is also from the Kamen era (it has the fluffy carpet thing going on). I have played some Mark IV and a series 6 stuff. I would not necessarilly say that I have found that one is 'better' than the other. I prefer my SMX head to my GP7, but never really found that the Mark IV series 6 stuff was so much 'better' than what the SMX can do. All the TE stuff tends to have a certain 'sound' to it, so with the preshape engaged there is quite a lot of similarity across the board. I have not played the new amps but use the cabs. I. I would love to try the V series stuff or the older valve stuff though.

Good to hear everything turned out great after the previous problems. I love that pick up combination (Jazz and big humbucker), be it on Sandberg,Musicman or anything else! I hope the Rh750 issues are resolved soon too.

Unless you have your own soundman/woman at all gigs that will DI you happily at all gigs I would advise to invest in some kind of bass amp, even if it is purely for on stage monitoring purposes. From experience I have found that some soundpersons are totally opposed to DIing and sending bass back through a monitor. Also some PA systems in venues are really only much good for vocals, or there are there are no monitors available for bass. You probably have more of an idea than me when it comes to using slaves and a couple of speakers. I would think for convenience a half-decent combo would be easier to lug around, and it is easy to find lightweight stuff nowadays.