Advice: Lakland 4-94 vs pre-eb EBMM

sifi76 · #1 12-30-2011, 02:07 PM

Hey all, time to add to the collection again. Looking for more of a vintage vibe for my new band. Got the choice of a lakey 94 or a 82 EBMM ray but both are unplayed by me, though I have played a few sr4's and 5's before, just not pre ernie ones... but not a big fan of the current ones to tell the truth. So, which would you choose? I'm not after versatility so much as a good solid tone and playability, basically I usually stick to one or two basic tones and go from there, my genz does the rest. And if it helps I play classic/alt rock with a little prog and funk thrown in.

Cheers.

CaptainWally · #2 12-30-2011, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sifi76

Hey all, time to add to the collection again. Looking for more of a vintage vibe for my new band. Got the choice of a lakey 94 or a 82 EBMM ray but both are unplayed by me, though I have played a few sr4's and 5's before, just not pre ernie ones... but not a big fan of the current ones to tell the truth. So, which would you choose? I'm not after versatility so much as a good solid tone and playability, basically I usually stick to one or two basic tones and go from there, my genz does the rest. And if it helps I play classic/alt rock with a little prog and funk thrown in.

Cheers.

My feeling is the Lakland is more modern sounding than an 82 EBMM. Very difficult if you can't play these back to back.

willsellout · #3 12-30-2011, 10:17 PM

I'd take a US Lakland over any Stingray ever made. It could cover your needs and then some.

zackthompson · #4 12-30-2011, 10:25 PM

Stingray all the way dude. Especially if you're gonna play classic rock and funk. There's nothing that matches a stingray tone for that. But, if you're looking for versatility, the lakland is good for that. It can nail a Jazz and P bass tone, but it doesn't come even close to a stingray tone.

**pringlw** · #5 12-30-2011, 10:28 PM

I've had both (and ironically sold both). The Lakland is the better bass by far - especially since you are talking an 82 Stingray. The best pre EBMM Rays are from the late 70s and perhaps 1980. Too many things started changing after that at MM which ultimately led to the failure/sale of the company. In particular the necks on the later pre EBMMs can be squirley.

SactoBass · #6 12-30-2011, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willsellout

I'd take a US Lakland over any Stingray ever made. It could cover your needs and then some.

THIS.

basspraiser · #7 12-30-2011, 10:36 PM

+10000...the -94 is an EXTREEMLY versatile bass...

Quote:

Originally Posted by willsellout

I'd take a US Lakland over any Stingray ever made. It could cover your needs and then some.

GregC · #8 12-30-2011, 10:51 PM

I like Stingrays, but I love US Laklands--fantastic necks and overall build quality, and the 4-94 is likely to be lighter than the Ray as well.

Here's what an LH-3 equipped 4-94 (well, a 55-02) sounds like: Welcome to Lakland

And here's one compared to an old 'Ray, among other basses: Lakland LH3 Pickup Demo - YouTube

mmbongo · #9 12-30-2011, 11:24 PM

Wouldn't an 82 Stingray technically be called a 'Jackson Stingray'? Leo and company were long gone by then and Jackson was making them, correct?

Dr. Cheese · #10 12-31-2011, 12:08 AM

Apples and oranges. Both are fine, but are not really comparable.

Megazap63 · #11 12-31-2011, 07:36 AM

I'd go for the Lakland before the Stingray, more versatile, more playable and not really a 'one -trick' pony like SRs. I also find MM pickups to be too aggressive for anything other than rock or funk.

If you're considering a 5 string at some point, the 35" scale of the Lakland makes for a tight, punchy sound. I've found that SR5s - having previously owned both a fretted and fretless - have a loose, flabby-sounding low B (as with many 34" scale 5 strings). Not a problem with Laklands.

Another 4-string alternative may be a MM Sterling. A bit more versatile than SRs but still quite aggressive electronics.

Hmmm....wish I was once again in the financial position to be cogitating over two very fine instruments, good luck!!

Edit: however, I should add that SRs are great instruments and play really well - its just that Laklands are better IMO

sps500 · #12 12-31-2011, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willsellout

I'd take a US Lakland over any Stingray ever made. It could cover your needs and then some.

No disrespect to SR's but have to agree here......

basswave · #13 12-31-2011, 08:19 AM

I like rays, but I would suggest the lakland in your case, because the older rays are not really radiclly different from the new ones (perspectvly speaking).
Sure, gloss necks, 2 band, ect but basically they are not radicaly different.

Infidelity · #14 12-31-2011, 08:43 AM

I'll take the Lakland, I'm a big fan of the MM tone too!

**pringlw** · #15 12-31-2011, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmbongo

Wouldn't an 82 Stingray technically be called a 'Jackson Stingray'? Leo and company were long gone by then and Jackson was making them, correct?

They were made by Jackson then yes.

pbass62 · #16 01-03-2012, 10:42 AM

Having owned both fretted and fretless rays 4s and 5s and now own 2 us laklands 1 fretted and 1fretless
Both are very good basses but I prefer my laklands

**smperry** · #17 01-03-2012, 11:04 AM

I would take the Ray, but since you don't like newer ones, I'd say Lakland.

But, why are these the only choices? Not trying to be a smart ***, just curious.

Caca de Kick · #18 01-03-2012, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmbongo

Wouldn't an 82 Stingray technically be called a 'Jackson Stingray'? Leo and company were long gone by then and Jackson was making them, correct?

Well, Jackson 'completed'. CLF was still cutting out the bodies and necks and sending them over raw.

PS, I'd take the Ray too. Best feeling slim-rounded necks from that era, and prefer the tone by far (for me anyway).