Quatschmacher Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 I do like the idea of the sculpted heel; that’s a thing I love about my Sterling. I’m not too bothered about any of the other changes though. I’m GAS-free on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machines Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 14 hours ago, stingrayPete1977 said: The pickup shape has actually gone back to the original shape. True my 96 was like that. But it looks weird on a HH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiophonic Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 I saw this in the NAMM coverage at the weekend. I know they consider the 'ray to be a classic design and everything, but how much have the Stingray's changed even since the 90s? I played a 2017 one in a shop recently and it felt absolutely nothing like my '92. The neck profile was different - chunkier, the body felt light (and the neck proportionately heavy) and the bridge seemed a lot flimsier too. It didn't feel like an £1800 bass, that's for sure. I'd be interested in a neo magnet option, but I'd always assumed that the neck dimensions were set in stone in the 70s. Am I wrong about that? I played another one around 2000 that felt nearly identical to mine (weight, neck etc). Did I miss something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drTStingray Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) It depends which type you tried - the EBMM Stingrays always had 11" radius profile - the Classic Stingrays have 7.5" profile and feel different (more rounded, less flat). Also the neck finish on all but the Classics and some limited editions (PDN) is the super slick wax and oil and has been since the early 90s. The necks are hand finished so that is the only area of potential very minor variation. The wheel truss rod adjustment and six bolt neck attachment replaced the bullet head stock adjuster in the early 90s as well. The bridge changed to the shorter version in the mid 90s -The MM bridge is anything but flimsy - in fact is one of the chunkiest of any bass - it's just that the later ones don't have the mute assembly and the area it was fitted to. Are you sure it was a US Stingray you tried? Many of us don't have a problem with the weight of a Stingray (for a 4 averaging around 9.5 lbs these days) and even with a super light one like my US Sub 5, the design enables superb balance on a strap. The shorter headstock compared with 4 in line helps improve the balance amongst other things. The 3 band EQ appeared in the late 80s I think. If the new basses weigh 8 lbs or so they will be super light. Edited January 31, 2018 by drTStingray 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiophonic Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 @drTStingray It was definitely a US one I've never played a non-US one. It's still on the wall in PMT Nottingham (red, 2H, 3EQ). The radius felt the same as mine but the profile felt different (significantly deeper at the nut) and although mine is probably heavier overall, it's perfectly balanced - which this one was certainly not. I don't really care about weight (within reason - I did sell a Wal...) but balance is crucial. When I bought mine, there were no options. You just got a Stingray and that was that (although I think the 5s were around by then, not sure about the 3EQ though, I never saw one with it at the time). I bought mine 'straight off the wall' after playing it twice and have played it at every gig I've done since April 1992. I was very surprised at how different a new one felt, that's all. If that had been my first experience of a Stingray, I'd have passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 My 79,82,02 rays all had different neck shapes to each other. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martthebass Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Neck wise, my 01 and 16 Rays are chalk and cheese. The 01 is a very slim profile - the 16 is much chunkier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drTStingray Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, radiophonic said: @drTStingray It was definitely a US one I've never played a non-US one. It's still on the wall in PMT Nottingham (red, 2H, 3EQ). The radius felt the same as mine but the profile felt different (significantly deeper at the nut) and although mine is probably heavier overall, it's perfectly balanced - which this one was certainly not. I don't really care about weight (within reason - I did sell a Wal...) but balance is crucial. When I bought mine, there were no options. You just got a Stingray and that was that (although I think the 5s were around by then, not sure about the 3EQ though, I never saw one with it at the time). I bought mine 'straight off the wall' after playing it twice and have played it at every gig I've done since April 1992. I was very surprised at how different a new one felt, that's all. If that had been my first experience of a Stingray, I'd have passed. I haven't tried a new standard one recently - my most recent is an Old Smoothie which has the Classic type of neck. My 2014 Sabre has a very comfortable profile - definitely not chunky (to me at least) - the chunkier feeling ones I have are a 93 and an 03 - these are both fine on a gig though. Curiously I have a 93 Fretless which is far less chunky feeling than the 93 mentioned - curious!! I see your point though - it will be interesting to see how these 2018 ones compare. We need to get Rodney72a to give us his view as he has quite a few EBMM Rays. Edited January 31, 2018 by drTStingray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodney72a Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 15 hours ago, radiophonic said: @drTStingray It was definitely a US one I've never played a non-US one. It's still on the wall in PMT Nottingham (red, 2H, 3EQ). The radius felt the same as mine but the profile felt different (significantly deeper at the nut) and although mine is probably heavier overall, it's perfectly balanced - which this one was certainly not. I don't really care about weight (within reason - I did sell a Wal...) but balance is crucial. When I bought mine, there were no options. You just got a Stingray and that was that (although I think the 5s were around by then, not sure about the 3EQ though, I never saw one with it at the time). I bought mine 'straight off the wall' after playing it twice and have played it at every gig I've done since April 1992. I was very surprised at how different a new one felt, that's all. If that had been my first experience of a Stingray, I'd have passed. That brings back some memories - my first StingRay was a 1992 Sunburst, 2-band, rosewood. Quite weighty, but what a bass! Great sound, very comfortable neck, quite slim back to front. Lacquered, which I prefer. Lots of wear, marks, dents etc. Still have it, I don't think I could ever part with it. The 3-band on the SR4 started in 1987, by the way. As for neck profiles... I have measured the depth of some of my necks and there are definitely some differences. I can't really comment on the very recent SR4s though - my youngest 'standard' SR4 is from 2007, all the newer ones are Classics or Old Smoothies and they have a different profile anyway. The new line looks fantastic - I have spent a lot of time over the years trying to find light(-ish) SR4s and SR5s, so this weight reduction programme is most welcome! Will be interesting to see how the new preamp, magnets, bridge etc will affect things. Can't wait! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misdee Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 I cannot help but wonder why other manufacturers manage to make traditional Stingray -style basses of a reasonable weight and yet it seems to elude EBMM. US- made 44-94 series Lakland basses consistently weigh in at between 8 and 9 lbs, for example. They are essentially the same shape as a Stingray and are made out of the same woods. These new Stingrays look and sound ok, I suppose, but ultimately they appear to be a compromise designed to protect EBMM's profit margins whilst addressing the increasingly pressing need to make a lighter bass for a more fussy modern consumer. The design of these basses is as much to do with the politics and economics of manufacturing as it is to do with the efficacies of guitar design.Rather than use lighter hardware it would be preferable to select lighter wood. But that would cost more. Similarly, they will have chosen neodynium for the pickup because they can adapt the spec they are already using for the Bongo.I am reserving judgement until I have tried one, of course, but to my sensibilities these basses look uncomfortably close to being a "diet" Stingray. From a personal point of view, Stingrays just don't look right without the traditional mute bridge. Black hardware also looks wrong on a four string Stingray to me. I am in the market for a Stingray at the moment, but these new hybrids might be a bit too much of a compromise,to my taste anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 I don't think lighter wood is more expensive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misdee Posted February 3, 2018 Share Posted February 3, 2018 Lighter wood is not necessarily more expensive. Employing somebody to sort lighter wood from that which is too heavy is significantly more expensive. Rejecting the wood which would be too heavy is also a very expensive process. Wood is bought in bulk and EBMM would be stuck with a lot of useless planks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted February 3, 2018 Share Posted February 3, 2018 38 minutes ago, Misdee said: EBMM would be stuck with a lot of useless planks. Rickenbackers? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misdee Posted February 3, 2018 Share Posted February 3, 2018 Funnily enough, I'm after a Rickenbacker too! More than likely, I'm going to opt for a single H Bongo (absolutely love my HH Bongo, amazing bass). The only problem is, coming up to retirement age, I feel a bit like mutton dressed up as lamb with the Bongo design. I like it tremendously but I'm worried I look a bit silly playing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drTStingray Posted February 3, 2018 Share Posted February 3, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Misdee said: Funnily enough, I'm after a Rickenbacker too! More than likely, I'm going to opt for a single H Bongo (absolutely love my HH Bongo, amazing bass). The only problem is, coming up to retirement age, I feel a bit like mutton dressed up as lamb with the Bongo design. I like it tremendously but I'm worried I look a bit silly playing it. I wouldn't worry - I'm sure you'll find wearing one is absolutely fine - they balance really well and ergonomically are a revelation - I'm near retirement age and I've got a 5HHp Bongo and apart from being a great and versatile bass, it attracts a lot of very positive comments from audience members and other musos - often based on the look which people seem to really like - avoid drunk middle aged women as I once had a group of them asking to 'touch my instrument' when I was using the Bongo once...... 😧 The only potential problem for you will be MM appears to have dropped the single H option on both the 5 or 6 string version - you'd have to ask a dealer if there are any of those in the system - I guess you can't order one now. The single H Bongo has a 3 band EQ so I'm wondering whether they are using that EQ on the new Stingray - or possibly a modified Old Smoothie one. I'm going to find out in a few months as I'm about to order an SR5 HH in cruise teal as per the attached flyer pic Edited February 3, 2018 by drTStingray Added pic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misdee Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 That 5 string in Cruise Teal is absolutely stunning. From what I can make out, the 4 string will only be available in that colour with black hardware, and I want chrome on the 4 string! A Bongo in that colour would be sublime. Maybe EBMM will offer that option. To be fair, I am sure that these new basses will sound pretty much like MM Stingrays always did give or take some very slight subtle differences. It will be very interesting to see what the UK pricing is on these in the current economic climate. I doubt we will be pleasantly surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretmeister Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 22 hours ago, drTStingray said: I wouldn't worry - I'm sure you'll find wearing one is absolutely fine - they balance really well and ergonomically are a revelation - I'm near retirement age and I've got a 5HHp Bongo and apart from being a great and versatile bass, it attracts a lot of very positive comments from audience members and other musos - often based on the look which people seem to really like - avoid drunk middle aged women as I once had a group of them asking to 'touch my instrument' when I was using the Bongo once...... 😧 The only potential problem for you will be MM appears to have dropped the single H option on both the 5 or 6 string version - you'd have to ask a dealer if there are any of those in the system - I guess you can't order one now. The single H Bongo has a 3 band EQ so I'm wondering whether they are using that EQ on the new Stingray - or possibly a modified Old Smoothie one. I'm going to find out in a few months as I'm about to order an SR5 HH in cruise teal as per the attached flyer pic Lovely colour. might be a candidate for serious modifications! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 I was gas free but that does look ace! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 On 03/02/2018 at 11:06, Misdee said: Lighter wood is not necessarily more expensive. Employing somebody to sort lighter wood from that which is too heavy is significantly more expensive. Rejecting the wood which would be too heavy is also a very expensive process. Wood is bought in bulk and EBMM would be stuck with a lot of useless planks. Just looking at the bumf on the 2018, it says light weight hardware AND light weight ash body so you might be getting what you want along with the extra features after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misdee Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 This thread has fuelled my Stingray longing no end. I spent much of this morning pining over Stingray Classics, all of which were way too heavy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 My classic 5 isn't too bad, between my normal 2004 Ray5 and 2010 Ray5 weight wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misdee Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 I cannot play any bass over 9 1/2 lbs. It would just be a useless ornament to me. Pity, but I've learned from experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 I bet there is a 9 lb one out there, my 5 is only about 9 1/2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drTStingray Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 (edited) The average is advertised as 9.5 lbs - so likely there are some lighter ones around - mine is 9.75 lbs. However the 2018 standard non Classic basses are meant to be at least 1 lb lighter - suggesting an average of at least 8.5 lbs if not lighter. I find getting a perfectly adjusted, well padded strap along with a well balanced bass (EBMM basses are almost always very well balanced), followed by issues like a comfortable posture - sometimes an issue in cramped areas if, for instance keyboardists take up half of the available width or drummers turn up with a van load of equipment - I find these are as important if not more so than the overall weight of the bass - as long as it's under about 10.5 lbs. Edited February 6, 2018 by drTStingray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 If I take my 2004 I have to get the stage tested for strength before the gig! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.