I'm not sure I agree with Gregor, regarding the materials not making a difference in the studio. I did hear a slight difference on my mediocre office computer speakers. I think it would have been useful to know the signal chain and what kind of post-production was applied... i.e. the amp or preamp being used could color the sound to some degree that covers up the true character of the bass more than another amp or preamp might. Also, how much compression was introduced in the recording chain?
Final variable I thought of is the fact that one of the bridges is string-through and the other is a top-loader. I've never really been convinced that this makes a ton of difference (as many marketing materials and forum discussions suggest), but it's worth mentioning.
A friend of mine once sent me two recordings of his Starfire bass, one with rosewood saddles and one with brass saddles. Though the difference in the recordings was minimal, I was able to identify which was which. Kind of surprised myself as I wasn't 100% certain, but there was a detectable difference.
I love my Starfire as is (with rosewood saddles), but if I had a convenient chance to try the brass saddles, I certainly would (mental slip: I actually typed that out "I certainly wood" then had to correct it). Furthermore, I didn't find my early 1966 Starfire to be obviously lacking in the tone/resonance department, even though it had the original black plastic saddles.
Not sure why many of us obsess so much over the tiny details that may or may not be moot points, but I do know I enjoy the discussion! What do you guys think?