mcnach

[quote name='Gust0o' timestamp='1388708389' post='2325278'] I had a 44-02, loved it... But agree on the sound, it doesn't get close to the Ray. If you want a Ray, get a Ray - but this is a good bass in its own right. The neck made it for me. Lovely player. [/quote] if only it were that simple... No Stingrays made with wide string spacing, I'm afraid and the lakland 55-76 (single MM pickup at the Stingray position) is so rare! The neck on the Lakland 55-02 is wonderful. I never tried the 4-string counterpart, 'though.

I love the 55-02!!! Except for the sound. Oh, nothing, it's great... just... not a Stingray. Pity, as it is absolutely lovely to play... If only this were a 55-76. But where are they? I could convert this one... remove neck pickup... route for the MM closer to the neck, get a pickguard made Stingray style... and a John East MMSR preamp... ha, I can hear the shudders of a few people from here

[quote name='Ed_S' timestamp='1388492572' post='2322557'] Well, it certainly [b]was[/b] correct when I bought and blew up the piece of equipment in question (September 2007 for the record - just looked at my order history). Understand I'm only talking about Tech21 gear; I agree that most items are fine, and Tech21 may even have altered their products since, but the screen shot of the voltage/fuse panel was taken from their website about 5 minutes before I posted. [/quote] to be fair, you don't know what caused your Tech21 to blow. My first TC RH450 blew the third time I used it or so... sometimes it happens. Given the harmonisation of voltages across the EU that has been going on for years, I doubt that the 230/240V was an issue. In fact, I am not entirely sure the power supplies will be any different... But I do not have authoritative information one way or the other, I admit.

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1388589196' post='2323712'] I am not dismissive of the three band Stingray by any means , but most folks would agree that in use there is a discernible difference between that bass and the traditional two band version [/quote] But the 3EQ is not "a 2EQ plus a mids control", it's a different design and it is not a surprise they do not sound the same. Not saying one is better than the other, just that they are different. The John East MMSR 3-band *is* a 2EQ plus an extra mids module.

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1388508146' post='2322846'] There are , apparently, all kinds of complications and unwanted interactions that can be caused by introducing a midrange frequency to a two- band bass and treble EQ preamp . That's why Roger Sadowsky refuses to offer a three band E.Q on Sadowsky basses. On the Stingray, EBMM first introduced the three band as an extra -cost option and eventually made it standard . The midrange control was, however, a bit of an afterthought when they should have in fact redesigned the entire circuit if they wanted to make it three band , and a lot of aficionados have commented, just as the previous poster has done, on how it messes up the basic sound of that preamp. I personally don't think the three band EBMM Stingray sounds that terrible in itself , but it definitely does sound significantly different to the classic two-band preamp , even with the mid control set flat. By comparison , the preamp specifically designed for the Bongo with dual- frequency midrange controls sounds fantastic. It's also worth mentioning that one minor but potentially significant difference with the two band Ray is that there is no centre detent on the EQ controls, you just have guess where 0 is, so that can in itself lead to those basses sounding different in use. [/quote] I love the John East preamp. It is a 2EQ (based on John's own '76 Stingray), with an added midsweep module (that does nothing when at neutral position). It means two stacked knobs, but it does not detract much from the classic look, I think.

[quote name='thebassist' timestamp='1388141966' post='2318791'] I figured that a lot of people would put down their reasons anyway Considering I've not played a Stingray before, I was initially leaning more in that direction simply because the pickup is situated closer to where I'm used to positioning my right-hand thumb on top of the Jazz bridge pickup. I'll definitely play as many variants of both basses as I can between now and the end of January before making a final decision. [/quote] yeah, I supposed I could have elaborated, but I wasn't sure whether you were after a simple poll or something more Stingray for me, although I do like the sound of a Precision. I find the Stingray allows me to dial in the "right" tone more easily than any other bass. When I say the right tone, I mean the right tone *for my liking*, of course, within the band. I tried Stingrays in the shop and was never really in love with them, until I found myself in a RHCP tribute band. The guitarist said "ah, it would be cool if you had a Stingray" when I was trying my various basses figuring out which one worked best (Ibanez SR300 P/J, a Jazz, a Warwick Corvette $$, and some others). I bought an OLP Stingray copy... and I felt "aha!!!" once I played it in the band. That led to me upgrading it in various ways, and finally buying a Stingray. I play in different bands, and the Stingray always manages to sit right where I want it in the mix. It has a huge bottom end, but a pronounced midrange too that allows me to hear it well onstage, and for it to not indistinct mush in the mix, easily. Precisions are lovely too, but the Stingray is the one I feel most comfortable with. I generally favour bridge pickups, and the Stingray one is at the right place I feel: closer to the bridge becomes thin, closer to the neck becomes... well, it still works great. I guess the Stingray pickup is the closest to the bridge I feel sounds fat enough still. In addition, I like to generally pluck strings around the position of the Stingray pickup, so the pickup became a natural thumbrest for me. This is something I never liked about Precisions but did not think about it until I played Stingrays. Now I instal a thumbrest on my P basses roughly where a Stingray pickup would be. Both basses can be great. I just prefer the Stingray.

[quote name='thebassist' timestamp='1388060779' post='2318156'] What do you prefer? I don't want to get onto the differences between the two basses, etc. I'm just after your preferences. [/quote] You're only interested about our preference? Nothing else? Stingray then. Without hesitation.

[quote name='DiMarco' timestamp='1387480043' post='2312552'] That is mainly because many bassists don't know any better and really shouldn't be writing reviews. Zoom multifx pedals are toys hence the low prices on them. [/quote] Ah, ok then.

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1387921182' post='2317312'] I was talking about SUB 4s only. [/quote] I know, and I have two SUB 4s, one is parallel (late 2005 or early 2006) and one is series (late 2003). Sorry my response seemed a bit confusing. Both alnico.

[quote name='clashcityrocker' timestamp='1387913219' post='2317212'] I've heard the Bass Doc on here is the guy to talk to [/quote] this

[quote name='skidder652003' timestamp='1387874831' post='2316604'] are they sort of the squier Vintage Modified of the "Ray" world, if that makes sense? [/quote] Not at all. They are *really* Stingrays. Construction, feel, sound... it's all there.

[quote name='drTStingray' timestamp='1387873628' post='2316587'] Not according to the company who made them - they say they were all parallel - after all parallel wired pick up is part of the Stingray magic. One or two members have dismantled their Sub pick ups and found them wired in series - did they come from the factory like that? Who knows! Perhaps someone can confirm. Has anyone looked at a Sub 5 pick up. For starters the standard SR5 has a glued on pick up cover - presumably the Sub 5 does? Basically the USA built sub is a slab bodied Ray with a poplar body and lower spec finishing and 2 band active or plain passive electronics. Basically they sound virtually identical to a 2 band Ray at about 50 to 60% of the secondhand value of a Ray. [/quote] My 2003 SUB is wired in series, it looks stock and the previous owner claims he did nothing to it (owner from new). It's a nice punchy sound that works really well with teh 2EQ preamp, in my opinion. My SUB5 was wired in parallel, it was a 2004, I think. Very weird as EBMM did not make an alnico parallel 5-string pickup at the time... Mysteries!!! When it comes to sound and playability... I am not sure there is any significant difference between a 2EQ Stingray and a SUB, as long as the lack of contours don't bother you. I have a Stingray and two SUBs, one is parallel and one series... the parallel one is as Stingrayish as it could be. The series one is another Stingray that went to the gym, that's all ;p

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1387840119' post='2316447'] Stingrays are wired parallel, SUBs in series. And one uses ceramic magnets while the other alnico (I canna mind which is which just now). [/quote] Not exactly. It looks like some SUBs are wired in series, some in parallel. I got one of each, both stock. I suspect it's late ones (2005-6) that are the parallel ones. Same pickup then. All SUBs I've seen were alnico.

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1387828610' post='2316272'] It is a single humbucker pickup with a simple pre amp. I don't need an Ed Friedland review to tell me about a bass I used exclusively for 10 years, tbh. When I think Stingray, I think classic Louis Johnson and the sound of those days have long gone. I think the reason people get a Stingray is for a specific sound... [/quote] well, think again I don't think I play anything sounding like Louis Johnson at all. You can certainly go for that sound, but many people play Stingrays and choose different tones. Nothing wrong with not liking it, of course, but "one trick pony" seems quite a bad description *to me*.

Nice!!!

[quote name='merello' timestamp='1387634607' post='2314016'] Why pm? Get them named! [/quote] +1

[quote name='Ed_S' timestamp='1387534182' post='2312964'] My 30th birthday present! Orange enough? [/quote] beautiful and really interesting pickup positioning, I suspect I'd like that bass sound very much!

[quote name='Musicman20' timestamp='1387465278' post='2312302'] I had demo'd a few Lakland 35" wide spacing 5 string basses before I realised I may as well stick with EBMM for 5 string basses. I found that after a few weeks, I adapted and started to prefer the 17.5mm spacing on their basses. [/quote] I recently bought a Lakland 55-02, and I never found a 5-string as nice to play as this one. The neck and string spacing is really good (for me), but of course, it does not sound like an SR5... that's something that will always bug me. I had other 5-string basses (including a SUB5, which had "the" sound), and just would not work for me. I wish I were more adaptable, like you!

[quote name='aende' timestamp='1387312079' post='2310644'] Persuade or dissuade me! I quite fancy a pj or pm format bass like a schecter model t or a sandberg pm. I am not sure.....I love my mm stingray, but it is a 1 trick pony! Am I being a twat? [/quote] No, you're not being a twat, but you are being a bit silly One trick pony!?? ha! Never!!! I love the Stingray...

[quote name='grayn' timestamp='1387373510' post='2311198'] Definitely like to try one. But on first sight, I'd rather go for a Stingray HH. [/quote] It looks like the single pickup version of the Dimension has the pickup at the Stingray spot, but the two pickup versions have the bridge pickup closer to the bridge, removing significantly its "Stingrayness" and making it more like a fat Jazz of sorts... hmmm.

[quote name='Musicman20' timestamp='1387299035' post='2310442'] Basically, Ray 4 and Ray 5 prices...or thereabouts. For that price, it HAS to be a Musicman. [/quote] except if, like me, you don't like SR5's narrow string spacing... it's the reason I don't own a SR5. That's why I was looking at the Dimension with interest. The mexican version is less than half that (£600-something), and a very attractive Stingrayish sounding alternative for those who like the string spacing wider.