Music Man Basses - multiple review

[Silent Fly]

In the past couple of days I had the chance to try a few Music Man basses (all with a single pickup) and I would like to share with you my experience in the hope it will be useful to others.

I am not an expert of MM basses. I used to have a StingRay 5 (natural, rosewood freboard) that I kept for a few months but I sold. It wasn't the bass for me – I like to play syncopated fingerstyle (Motown, Jaco, Tower Of Power, Pino Palladino) with my finger close to the bridge and the bass didn't have the attack and low-mid punch I like. Having said that, it was very comfortable to play.

What follows are my comments based on my playing style, the music I like and the type of sound I look for in a bass.


[b]- Stingray Classic (maple fingerboard)[/b]
Killer bass. Simple electronics (only bass and treble) with attack to spare. From a certain viewpoint it sounded similar to a JB played close to bridge but with less nasal and with more bass. I could switch from fingerstyle to slap without touching the on board EQ - a nice surprise for a JB aficionado like me that keeps moving from everything open (slap) to neck and tone closed (fingerstyle).

The sustain was excellent. Longer that my Fender JB Jaco Pastorius Artist Fretted and in the range of my Status Graphite 6. The bass frequencies were just to die for: the warmest and natural I heard in a very long time - you could almost hear the speakers breath

The action was very low and the general feel of the instrument excellent.

Tone: 9/10
General feel: 9/10
Summary: the best Music Man bass I every played.


[b]- Stingray standard 2 Band EQ (maple fingerboard)[/b]
Sound-wise, and perhaps not unexpectedly, it was similar to the classic. Compared to the Classic the fretboard is flatter but nothing substantial. Unfortunately, the set up of the bass I tried was less than optimal. It is difficult to say if the Classic was more comfortable to play because of the better set up of because of its construction. My experience with the Stingray 5 leads me to believe that the bass would have been far more comfortable to play with a proper neck and action adjustment.

The nice low frequencies of the classic were still there perhaps with a slight less warmth. There was a bit less sustain and a perhaps a less attack but suspect that to notice it you would need to a proper A/B test. Unfortunately, I tried it with another amp.

Tone: 8/10
General feel: 8/10
Summary: a solid bass with a good value/value ratio.


[b]- StingRay 3 band EQ (rosewood fretboard)[/b]
Compared to the 2EQ, the 3EQ it is a more modern sounding instrument and because of the mid control it is possible to produce a wider range of tones.

It was a nice sounding bass but I found the StingRay tone a little bit diluted in favour of a more active and brighter tone. It is not necessarily a bad thing but from a certain viewpoint I found it closer to my Fender JB with external EQ or other active basses.

Personally, I think that although the mid control adds an extra level of flexibility, it takes away something far more important: part of the classic StingRay tone. The deep warm bass frequencies were still there but they were altered by the different circuit.

I would like to point out that the variation in tone between 2EQ and 3EQ is not necessarily a bad thing. If for instance, I used a pick instead of my fingers I would almost certainly prefer the 3EQ version.

Tone: 7/10
General feel: 8/10
Summary: Nice bass that stands in the middle between the MM tone and other active basses.


[b]- Sterling (rosewood fretboard)[/b]
Of the bunch I tried, it was the bass with the more flexible electronic (3EQ and pickup wiring switch). The neck had an extra fret and it was slightly narrower at the first fret making it very comfortable to play.

Although I enjoyed playing it, compared to the StingRay I found it unconvincing. It lacked of the depth of the 2EQ StingRay and the more aggressive and modern sounds of the 3EQ. It sounded like the attack and punch disappeared in the path from the fingers and the output jack. Somehow strangled by the multi-coil pickup, the 3 band EQ and the coil selection switch.

Tone: 6/10
General feel: 8/10
Summary: Good construction and look with a somehow uninspiring and average tone.


[b]- StingRay 5 (rosewood fretboard)[/b]
Same electronic of the Sterling but with an extra string. Well, almost... The other visible difference is that the pickup is slightly closer to the neck.

Sadly, the reasons I didn't like the Sterling 5 a few years ago are still there. The sound is similar to the Sterling with the difference that the pickup position kills what was left of the attack.

Don’t get me wrong, it is possible to get killer funky sounds out of a StingRay 5. Paul Turner [Jamiroquai] proved that it is possible but I wonder how much comes from the bass and much comes from sound processing (EQ, compression and amplification).

Having said that, if you like the sound, the Sterling 5 is among the most comfortable 5 string around.

(I noticed that there is also a StingRay Classic 5 with a 2EQ circuit and the pickup in the 4 string position. I haven't manager to try it but I would be surprised if it doesn't sound great)

Tone: 5/10
General feel: 9/10
Summary: Very good construction and with a depressingly lifeless tone. Not the bass for me.


[b]- StingRay 4 ‘82 (maple fretboard)[/b]
This bass is own by Alex @ Bass Gallery. Apart a few minor differences, it looked like a twin of the MM Classic tested above.

The bass had a really good setup thanks to the Alex’s skills and experience. With a nice set of DR 040 it was a killer bass. Punchy and warm with a round and fast attack. It sounded equally good slap and finger style.

Alex told me that it purchased from a basschat member. If the previous owner is listening... big mistake - you should have kept it.

So how does it compare to the almost indistinguishable MM Classic? Quite frankly, I couldn’t hear too much difference. The Classic has the new truss rod system that makes the setup a walk in the park. The Classic has also a glossy vintage neck finish but I would put it in “personal preferences” category more than anything else.

Sound wise, the tone was so similar that only an A/B test with exactly the same strings, amp, and setup could tell them apart. I am sure that MM connoisseurs would disagree but I couldn’t really say that one was better than the other.

Tone: 9/10
General feel: 9/10
Summary: Extra-cool vintage MM with great sound.


[b]// About the MM circuits[/b]
Contrary to what it might appear, the 3EQ circuit is not a 2EQ+mid and the Sterling/StingRay5 circuit is not a 3EQ+coil switch.

The 2EQ and 3EQ circuits have different design, use different component and, not unexpectedly, they sound different. Moreover, in the 3EQ, the mid control is linked directly to the bass and treble network making the mid interact with the other two bands.

The coil switch system has also an impact. The pickup is designed differently with a phantom coil to reduce the noise in single coil mode. There is also an extra circuit that changes the gain of the preamplifier to compensate the 3 volumes in single/parallel/series.


[b]// Conclusions[/b]
Frankly I don't know enough about MM history to tell is the SR Classic is a faithful reproduction of the PRE-EB era but it is my favourite of the MM I tried.

If you play metal, rock or blues the SR 3EQ is likely to be the right bass for you; especially if it is the only bass you have and you look for flexibility.

If you look for a funk machine, you like Bernard Edwards' tone and John Deacon's sound in "Another One Bites the Dust" nothing will take you there like a StingRay Classic or a StingRay 2EQ.

[i]I special thanks to Alex at the Bass Gallery for his patience and for letting me try all the basses above (with the exception of the SR 2EQ that wasn't in stock at the Bass Gallery at time of the tests).[/i]

[JJTee]

Great stuff - this is really useful. I'm definitely (one day) after a Stingray with that old-school Bernard Edwards sound (rather than a more modern zingy tone - I have a Fleabass for that). Sounds like the classic is the one!

Cheers!

[Silent Fly]

[quote name='JJTee' post='976162' date='Oct 3 2010, 05:11 PM']Great stuff - this is really useful. I'm definitely (one day) after a Stingray with that old-school Bernard Edwards sound (rather than a more modern zingy tone - I have a Fleabass for that). Sounds like the classic is the one!

Cheers![/quote]

I agree - the Classic is the one.

Having said that, I think the 2EQ would be equally ok. They are not too different. I like the Classic more but the 2EQ is a very nice bass.

[EdwardHimself]

Nice review. Shame you don't like the SR5 sound. I always thought it sounded good on the recordings i've heard it on at least. Not really tried one out at a proper volume setting but it does appear to be a very comfy bass. Maybe it's more of a rock/metal bass as you said?

[stingrayPete1977]

Great review and from what I have tried/own that all sounds about spot on. Well done, Have a smiley face for the time taken to write it all up but not one for the time taken playing them as it sounds like you got enough of a reward for that already!

It usually takes about 7 pages of arguing for us to get to all of what you said and realise at the end of the day "Get a good one of any version and you cant miss".

Obviously I will have to +1 for the 9/10 for the '82 pre EB, mcnash will be worried that Im not well if I dont!

[RichF]

thanks for taking the time to post this - really helpful. It's probably going to take me 1-2 years but the next (final?) bass in my odyssey to buy back all the basses I sold is my 80's Black+Maple Stingray 4. I am keeping an eye on the Classics.

[Musicman20]

I seem to love all the EBMM tones, 2 band, 3 band, ceramic, alnico, neo, whatever.

I can see a place in my collection for all of them

[Silent Fly]

[quote name='EdwardHimself' post='976202' date='Oct 3 2010, 05:47 PM']Nice review. Shame you don't like the SR5 sound. I always thought it sounded good on the recordings i've heard it on at least. Not really tried one out at a proper volume setting but it does appear to be a very comfy bass. Maybe it's more of a rock/metal bass as you said?[/quote]

Don't get me wrong - the SR5 is not a bad bass but unless I spent ages with the onboard EQ, compressor and amp setting I couldn’t find a sound I liked it. Moreover, I had to change settings between slap and fingerstyle. With the SR-2EQ it took me seconds to find a sound I liked and I never moved the controls - I did everything changing the playing style.

I think the fact the SR5 sounds good in recordings is not entirely unexpected. The electronic is very clean and I am sure it is the joy of anybody working on the recording desk. Also the fact that is has a less pronounced personality make is more a blank canvas during the recording.

Nothing wrong with the bass – it is just the way I play and what I need convey what it is in my head.

[EdwardHimself]

[quote name='Silent Fly' post='976228' date='Oct 3 2010, 06:15 PM']Don't get me wrong - the SR5 is not a bad bass but unless I spent ages with the onboard EQ, compressor and amp setting I couldn’t find a sound I liked it. Moreover, I had to change settings between slap and fingerstyle. With the SR-2EQ it took me seconds to find a sound I liked and I never moved the controls - I did everything changing the playing style.

I think the fact the SR5 sounds good in recordings is not entirely unexpected. The electronic is very clean and I am sure it is the joy of anybody working on the recording desk. Also the fact that is has a less pronounced personality make is more a blank canvas during the recording.

Nothing wrong with the bass – it is just the way I play and what I need convey what it is in my head.[/quote]

Yeah i know what you mean. It's a similar thing with my peavey really. It comes up great in recordings but possibly lacking a bit of carachter in real life.

[ezbass]

Thanks for taking the time to write all that down, I think the playing of all those was reward in itself. Super useful comparison without any bias or agenda that I could tell. Nice, nice work!

[dub_junkie]

my two favourite MMs are the two you liked least. it probably boils down to alnico vs ceramic and personal preference for either

its good there's the choice


thanks for the reviews

[Silent Fly]

[quote name='dub_junkie' post='976349' date='Oct 3 2010, 07:53 PM']my two favourite MMs are the two you liked least. it probably boils down to alnico vs ceramic and personal preference for either

its good there's the choice


thanks for the reviews [/quote]

I think that regardless the model, they are all very nice basses. What I see as weaknesses can be easily seen as strengths by others. As you pointed out, it very much a matter of personal preference, playing style and type of music played.

Personally, I see myself playing a Chic song with a 2EQ (Classic or not) but I woundn't be so at ease with a Sterling.

More in general, I have the greatest respect for EB/MM. I also own a MM Van Halen and it is a trully beautifull instrument.

[Ou7shined]

Fantastic and balanced review. Thanks.

What did you play them through?

[E sharp]

This is great , thanks for this . Though all that fun , I suspect you motives wern't completely alturistic

God I wish I had a day spare to do something like this (wife and kids) .

I've always wondered about the 2 and 3 band core differences .

Has anyone modded a 2 band , with a piggy back mid (ie East dual concentric mid pot) - thus getting the best of everything ?

[BoomBass]

First of all, thanks for a great review. Well done. However, I am curious to know what SR5 you used for the review - alnico or ceramic? Based on your description (phantom coil), it's a 1992-2008 model with a ceramic pickup. I have owend 5 of those basses and liked them all, but ended up selling them again. Eventually, I found a '92 SR5 with Alnico pickup and the 'old' preamp, and that made all the difference - IMHO it's a 100% better bass than any of the 5 ceramic SR5's I have owned. Oh, but my abslute favourite SR is my 78 pre-EB. I have never tried one of the new classics, though. Would love to try one out soon ;-)

[Silent Fly]

[quote name='Ou7shined' post='976400' date='Oct 3 2010, 08:39 PM']What did you play them through?[/quote]
A small Mark Bass combo and an Aguilar head (I think a AG 500SC) + Aguilar DB 810 (or DB 410 I can't remember).

[quote name='E sharp' post='976424' date='Oct 3 2010, 09:21 PM'](...)
Has anyone modded a 2 band , with a piggy back mid (ie East dual concentric mid pot) - thus getting the best of everything ?[/quote]
It should be possible but you need a separate circuit for the mids otherwise it would impact the treble and bass.

[quote name='BoomBass' post='976455' date='Oct 3 2010, 09:43 PM'](...) I am curious to know what SR5 you used for the review - alnico or ceramic? (...)[/quote]
I am almost certain the SR5 I used to have had a ceramic pickup. The SR5 I tried sounded pretty much the same but I don't know for sure if it was alnico or ceramic.

I suspect the type of circuit has an equal (in not greater) impact. Unless someone changes the circuit to a SR5 and to an A/B comparison I don't think will never know.

[BoomBass]

[quote name='Silent Fly' post='976600' date='Oct 3 2010, 11:08 PM']I suspect the type of circuit has an equal (in not greater) impact. Unless someone changes the circuit to a SR5 and to an A/B comparison I don't think will never know. [/quote]

I think you are right about that. At times, I have been tempted to do exactly that as the 'old' preamp is a tiny bit louder in the serial position (closest to the neck) than in the single coil or parallel positions. The 'new' one compensates for that deifference.

However, I play in serial 99% of the time, and I just didn't dare tamper with the electronics as it sounds so damn good the way it is now - I just don't want to mess anything up :-)

[obi 2 kenobi]

Cheers for this.

Been curious about differences between pre-EB and EB 2EQ as considering selling my '78 to buy a 2EQ EB ray to get lighter body and trussrod wheel

[Prime_BASS]

You describe the difference of 3EQ and 2EQ perfectly.

Plus this review shows that less is actually more.

[Musicman20]

Im curious as to how different the ceramics vs alnico really is.

Mine Ray 5 HS is an alnico, and it sounds fantastic. However, I would like a ceramic version as well....(eg a Sterling 5).

[swanbrook]

Great review however you hav given me really bad gas for a classic sr5 !

[Silent Fly]

[quote name='swanbrook' post='976747' date='Oct 4 2010, 09:43 AM']Great review however you hav given me really bad gas for a classic sr5 ![/quote]

I know [i]exacly [/i]what you are talking about

[mcnach]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='976213' date='Oct 3 2010, 06:01 PM']Obviously I will have to +1 for the 9/10 for the '82 pre EB, mcnash will be worried that Im not well if I dont! [/quote]

I'd have been very worried indeed!!!

I must get around to trying some preEB... especially white ones. But not until I can justify the expense, just in case

[mcnach]

[quote name='E sharp' post='976424' date='Oct 3 2010, 09:21 PM']This is great , thanks for this . Though all that fun , I suspect you motives wern't completely alturistic

God I wish I had a day spare to do something like this (wife and kids) .

I've always wondered about the 2 and 3 band core differences .

Has anyone modded a 2 band , with a piggy back mid (ie East dual concentric mid pot) - thus getting the best of everything ?[/quote]


the 3-band JE preamp is pretty much that: 2 modules, a 2EQ based on the original 2EQ, plus a mid control module (that you can buy separately)
Ok, the 2EQ section is not an exact copy (the man's own words) but it sounded close enough (I recently replaced my 2EQ with the JE 3EQ). I prefer the JE's version of the 2EQ, it seems a bit tighter on the lows but not that much more changes.

[sshorepunk]

great review!
I've got my buttercream ray coming back soon, may try the East MMSR 4 knob circuit, I've heard good things about this!
Based on 2 band eq from the late seventies, but not a copy! Intresting

Tony