Sterling 5 string

[dub_junkie]

[url="http://www.ernieball.com/forums/music-man-basses/29372-poppa-sterling-5-prototype.html"]http://www.ernieball.com/forums/music-man-...-prototype.html[/url]

yum yum! shame about the headstock shape/size not being finalised yet so I'm forgetting about the 20th SR5 neck on the end of this one. I think the Sterling shape suits being a 5 and I kind of like how its kept the look of the 4.
apprently when the Sterling 5 is released the SR5 is reverting back to alnico magnets so the Sterling 4 + 5 = ceramic,Stingray 4 +5 = alnico. I can see a lot of SR5 players making the jump to this bass.what's the BC initial impressions? would you have liked no scratchplate or figured top? what about a 3+2 headstock?

[David Nimrod]

You're right, a 3 + 2 headstock would look much sweeter.

Apart from that it's gorgeous

[TimmyC]

I'd still get a SR5 over that

[Rumple]

Very interestng, do you know when it's due to hit the shops?

I like your idea of a 3+2 headstock, as it needs something to make it stand out from the 4 string version.


R.

[Russ]

Could well happen. Since that prototype's got a SR5 neck on it, there could be something different in store for the Sterling 5 when it finally surfaces in production form.

As for the rest of the Sterling 5, I like it - I hate that horrible big plastic lump of scratchplate that blights the appearance of the SR5. The smaller one here looks much better.

[Lfalex v1.1]

I think a 3+2 tuner arrangement would look stylistically "wrong" on a MM bass, if only because the SR5 and Bongo 5 are both 4+1. Aesthetically, I reckon they'll keep it in the family, as it were.
Furthermore, they'll probably be wanting to distance themselves from the 3+2 arrangement as one of their most similar competitors (G&L) use it.

Generally, I'd agree with the SR5 scratchplate criticism voiced by Russ, especially in its lighter-coloured variants;
White,
White Pearl
Tortoiseshell

But the darker ones that contrast less with (a darker) body colour look ok to me;
Black
Black Pearl
Carbon

I guess I would say that.

I do own (arguably) the least offensive variant...



Ultimately, unless the Sterling 5 brings something new to the party, such as;
A different EQ
A different Neck Profile
A different selection of Body/Neck/Fretboard Materials
A significantly smoother, more accesible and/or smaller body shape
Then I don't see it as being much more than a design exercise as it otherwise seems to parallel the features offered by the SR5

But, if [i]different[/i] is what you crave, there's always the BONGO!

[dub_junkie]

[quote name='Rumple' post='110580' date='Dec 29 2007, 04:38 PM']Very interestng, do you know when it's due to hit the shops?
R.[/quote]

The bass is due to debut at next months NAMM.no word beyond that I'm afraid.


[quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='110826' date='Dec 30 2007, 06:48 AM']I think a 3+2 tuner arrangement would look stylistically "wrong" on a MM bass, if only because the SR5 and Bongo 5 are both 4+1. Aesthetically, I reckon they'll keep it in the family, as it were.
Furthermore, they'll probably be wanting to distance themselves from the 3+2 arrangement as one of their most similar competitors (G&L) use it.[/quote]

you're right about the 3 + 2 I guess,I was hoping that when Sterling Ball said the headstock would be just big enough for the tuners to fit on they would maybe switch the D onto the other side of the head.still the Sterling 4 h/stock is noticeable smaller than a Ray's so I guess it'll be more of the same.

[theosd]

[quote name='Lfalex v1.1' post='110826' date='Dec 30 2007, 06:48 AM']I do own (arguably) the least offensive variant...

[/quote]

My SR5 is the sexiest I've ever seen, so there! I'd quite like a matte black p/g though, for versatility...

Edited December 30, 2007 by theosd

[Dood]

Ummm have I missed something.. I had a look at the pics.. and it just looks..well.. a bit like every other MM to me. *ducks* Please enlighten a thickie lol