Rickenbacker Vs Stingray Vs Warwick

[xilddx]

Also, you can bridge the Thames Estuary with the nut on a Stingray.

[OutToPlayJazz]

[quote name='silddx' post='752936' date='Feb 21 2010, 04:29 PM']There is no such thing as a slow neck, only slow people.[/quote]

That's one way of putting it, silddx - You could also say that there's no such thing as a slow neck, just good/bad technique. But a lot depends on the distance from thumb to fingers & how you place your thumb behind the neck, etc.

One thing I do know is that I can play my 4-string Status S2 a lot faster than the 5-string version, so perhaps width comes into it as well.

[budget bassist]

[quote name='Musicman20' post='752792' date='Feb 21 2010, 01:57 PM']My opinion, if you struggle to play a neck, it means more than likely a technique adjustment is in order, and it might help build more muscles in your hands...(thats just a guess).[/quote]
Why spend time trying to get used to a neck you [i]don't[/i] like when you can buy a bass with a neck you [i]do[/i] like? I could get used to a stingray neck again, but i don't want to because I prefer my warwick for the neck and a lot of other reasons. I've owned a couple of musicmans (musicmen?), and a couple of warwicks (no ricks though, don't get on with them) and i can safely say i'll be sticking with warwick for the forseeable future.

Edited February 21, 2010 by budget bassist

[spongebob]

[quote name='jonnyfastfingers' post='752861' date='Feb 21 2010, 03:08 PM']I'm not sure the analogy of a Gerbil (if you're comparing to a Rick) is right, but fair point. I am obviously after advice because I don't have enough knowledge myself.[/quote]

Sorry Jonny, no offense meant, I was only joking.

Just wanted to really say how different things are, and IMHO, it's really hard to compare stuff, as they all have good and bad points.

I'm biased towards the Ric....but they are a very acquired taste, and are certainly not for everyone.

As for the others....I'd try out everything, and the 'right' bass will make itself very obvious to you.

Hope this helps!

[Urban Bassman]

[quote name='budget bassist' post='753065' date='Feb 21 2010, 06:16 PM']Why spend time trying to get used to a neck you [i]don't[/i] like when you can buy a bass with a neck you [i]do[/i] like? I could get used to a stingray neck again, but i don't want to because I prefer my warwick for the neck and a lot of other reasons. I've owned a couple of musicmans (musicmen?), and a couple of warwicks (no ricks though, don't get on with them) and i can safely say i'll be sticking with warwick for the forseeable future.[/quote]

+1 from me.

Recently switched from Rays to Warwicks. Had a Rick 4003 as well, so I can make a comparison to all three makes. I found the Ricky neck quite good but the body was uncomfortable for me. The Rays were/are great basses, still like them. But for me the Warwicks edge it on playability and tone IMO.

[danny-79]

As far a Ricks go this belongs to my Mrs, its a 1976- 4001. and personally i have nothing nice to say about it... (its just about everything i don't like in a bass, beautiful classic but it just don't do the do for me)



Sorry if offended any Ric lovers an if my Mrs sees this post im a dead man

Stingray gets my vote 100%.

Edited February 22, 2010 by danny-79

[retroman]

Your Mrs has fine taste sir. Nice Ric

Between a Ric, and a Stingray, the 'Ray is definately the more versatile in terms of sounds, but I reach for my Ric everytime. Absolutely gorgeous to play. So I guess it's a case of "one mans trash is another mans treasure"

I can't offer an opinion on Warwicks, as I have never played one!

Edited February 22, 2010 by retroman

[charic]

[quote name='retroman' post='754227' date='Feb 22 2010, 06:57 PM']Your Mrs has fine taste sir. Nice Ric

Between a Ric, and a Stingray, the 'Ray is definately the more versatile in terms of sounds, but I reach for my Ric everytime. Absolutely gorgeous to play. So I guess it's a case of "one mans trash is another mans treasure"

I can't offer an opinion on Warwicks, as I have never played one! [/quote]

You sir should be ashamed

[lojo]

[quote name='silddx' post='752936' date='Feb 21 2010, 04:29 PM']There is no such thing as a slow neck, only slow people.[/quote]

I have never got this neck thing either, or blamed a slightly miss timed slide up to the 20th ish' fret on a slow neck

My neck seems fast and slow, but is more likely the good and bad playing days, that you cant seem to pick

[SS73]

I love the neck on my Ric, very untapered and quite uniform. Played a Stingray for a while, didn't have a problem with the neck though but hated the sound. I only had a problem with myself speed wise, as I can fret faster than I can pluck and pick faster than I can fret.

If you like the Ric twang, you can wind this up with increased treble, if you go through two rigs, one with the twang and grind the other with the very smooth neck pup. This never went down well with fellow bandmates come the time to load up.

[budget bassist]

[quote name='urban Bassman' post='753846' date='Feb 22 2010, 02:15 PM']+1 from me.

Recently switched from Rays to Warwicks. Had a Rick 4003 as well, so I can make a comparison to all three makes. I found the Ricky neck quite good but the body was uncomfortable for me. The Rays were/are great basses, still like them. But for me the Warwicks edge it on playability and tone IMO.[/quote]
Yep, exactly the same here, i liked my stingray and SUB, but my warwicks just had nicer necks (IMO), smaller bodies, which i prefer and had the edge on tone IMO, so for me it was a no brainer. I like the sound of ricks, and the neck on the one i tried was alright, but i just don't get on with flat tops with no curve, particularly if it has binding

[4000]

Ignore everyone (including me) and try them yourself. Only you can decide. As most will know I love my Rics, don't mind Rays but didn't like the Warwick $$ I tried at all, even though I had really wanted/expected to. Everyone will tell you something different, and there may be ergonomic issues that only apply to you.