Considering a Stingray - Should I?

[wvbass]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

I have had many Rays, and the g string is not as loud or punchy as a Fender. Sterling Ball has acknowledged this in a post on the EB forum, so its not just some mass conspiracy by TB'ers!

I don't think you and I are saying anything differently. We are just using different words to get there. And yes, I am aware of big poppa's post on the subject. I stand by the words I used, though. I also agree with the way you said it; I sometimes feel like a Fender goes too far the other way. Sometimes the treble strings seem too present.

[Doug Parent]

Originally Posted by wvbass

A StingRay thread that devolves into a weak G string debate? Next thing you know, somebody is going to complain about neck dive in a Thunderbird thread.

I respectfully disagree.

[king_biscuit]

Originally Posted by wvbass

IME, my 'ray sits in the mix differently. I am finding this to be more about humbuckers than StingRays, though. Humbuckers sit in the mix more like a Les Paul than a Jazz bass. Because of this, once I move up into the G string range, my 'ray blends with the guitar and starts to get "lost.". You can call this "weak," but by itself no string seems louder or softer than any other.

The Fender Precision pickup is a series humbucker, and the both full on Jazz pickup setting creates a parallel humbucker.

[wvbass]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

The Fender Precision pickup is a series humbucker, and the both full on Jazz pickup setting creates a parallel humbucker.

You know what I meant; I have no desire to argue and will bow out at this point.

[drTSTingray]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

The new ones are fine instruments, but not like to 70s models.


Edit, I should have read the whole thread... Nice SR HS!

Lol I know the feeling!

I have to respectfully disagree with your view on the pre EB v current Rays. I've had both - indeed I bought a pre EB new and that introduced me to the Stingray sound and persuaded me away from my previous love (Fender basses). I have a (relatively) new Classic SR4 - it's every bit as good as my pre EB but it also feels more bullet proof (six bolt neck attachment v four) plus I can tweak the truss rod easily. It's far better built (eg the finish has not started wearing through after two years of use; the mute pads haven't started falling off after two weeks etc), and the wood looks prettier! Has the same EQ and electronics package so can sound quite similar (well with the exception it has one or two tweaks they introduced to get over issues like battery drain through leaving leads in etc).

Pre EBs are great - but so are the modern ones.

You know my view on G string sound on basses!! If it's there it's a mid range issue not a weak signal - just try popping the G on a Ray - it'll blow any Jazz or Precision clean out of the room - now that is not a weak G!!

Play 16th note rock back to back and the P might win (presuming you can make the notes sound articulate enough in the first place, of course).

[meatwad]

Ever since I have learned how to more properly EQ my rig, the higher register getting buried in the mix hass no longer been a problem. Especially with my StingRay!

Excellent buy, OP! A Jazz, P, and an SR can do it all, IMO.

[LaBassGuy]

Indeed, the g-string tends to be weak on 'Rays. There is a post here referring to thread on the Earnie Ball forum were Mr. Ball himself admits this problem.

My 4HH doesn't experince this, even when only the bridge pup is selected. And I've read several posts here of people experiencing the same thing.

So with my SLO Special 4HH, I guess I have the weak g-string, fat neck, one trick poney problems all solved.

[Misterwogan]

Originally Posted by LaBassGuy

Indeed, the g-string tends to be weak on 'Rays. There is a post here referring to thread on the Earnie Ball forum were Mr. Ball himself admits this problem.

Ok, so now that I'm aware of the G-String issue, I've been plucking all three of my g-strings (bad visual I know) and have even recorded the output from my three g-strings - and as far as I can tell, my SR HS does not have a weak one.

[king_biscuit]

The multi pickup Rays have different pickups, with level pole pieces, that is why the balance is better. You can achieve the same thing with a single H Ray by lowering the middle (d and a string) pole pieces by pressing them lower in the bobbins -- this will not work with older Rays. With level pole pieces, you can raise the pickup higher on the g string side, without making the d too loud or the e too weak -- think about it and it will make sense.

[Misterwogan]

Just one thing that I've discovered that the SR doesn't do to my liking - it is being played with a pick. Compared to the Jazz, which is tight and defined, the SR is flabby and loose. Not a problem, I'll just keep the pick away from the SR.

[king_biscuit]

Originally Posted by drTSTingray

Pre EBs are great - but so are the modern ones.

You know my view on G string sound on basses!! If it's there it's a mid range issue not a weak signal - just try popping the G on a Ray - it'll blow any Jazz or Precision clean out of the room - now that is not a weak G!!

The modern EBs are nice -- especially the classics -- but they are different than the 70s models; I like the old ones better, but some obviously don't. Of course the weak g string is a frequency/phase issues, and I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise. You can compensate for this by using non staggered pole pieces as EB has done with the multi pickup Rays.

[Doug Parent]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

The modern EBs are nice -- especially the classics -- but they are different than the 70s models; I like the old ones better, but some obviously don't. Of course the weak g string is a frequency/phase issues, and I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise. You can compensate for this by using non staggered pole pieces as EB has done with the multi pickup Rays.

I'd be curious what EB has to say about this issue. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the G string output was due to two things; 1) thinner string having less moving mass, and 2) the pickup being closer to the bridge, HENCE, less string motion back and forth.

Think about it, a bass with a neck pickup senses a portion of the string that has more motion, compared to the bridge position. More motion=more current. In addition, the further away from the bridge, the thicker the sound.

This logic makes sense when comparing an HS vs an H.

[Epitaph04]

Try searching about it on the EB forums. Sterling Ball has discussed it.

[Doug Parent]

Actually I meant "curious" rhetorically. (I happily own 3 Jazz basses and have no dog in this fight)

[drTSTingray]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

The multi pickup Rays have different pickups, with level pole pieces, that is why the balance is better. You can achieve the same thing with a single H Ray by lowering the middle (d and a string) pole pieces by pressing them lower in the bobbins -- this will not work with older Rays. With level pole pieces, you can raise the pickup higher on the g string side, without making the d too loud or the e too weak -- think about it and it will make sense.

I would not recommend people do this as I certainly would not buy a Ray with such a mod, used.

The Stingray pick up on the single H version is designed with the height of the pole pieces to follow the curvature of the neck - simple as that.

The two PU Rays have level poles - but I can still deliberately lose the sound of my G in comparison to the other strings (on stage) by setting up a ludicrously scooped EQ setting.

[king_biscuit]

Originally Posted by drTSTingray

I would not recommend people do this as I certainly would not buy a Ray with such a mod, used.

I never seen one for sale, so I think you are ok btw, on the modern Rays, the pole pieces are just pressed into the plastic bobbins and the pole pieces do not come directly in to contact with the windings. It's a perfectly harmless adjustment if you are careful, and it nearly solves the problem. This is essentially what EB has done with the 2 pickup models.

[king_biscuit]

Originally Posted by Doug Parent

I'd be curious what EB has to say about this issue.

Sterling Ball acknowledged the problem, said it was because of the preamp, and said it was something you would get used to or not. Still there are people here on TB who know more about it than Sterling Ball



Edit to add this:

"This trait has been around since the first day of the stingray. Its is NOT a byproduct of wood. It is due to the active preamp used on the bass. The output isnt actually lower the response is thinner sounding or not as fat. IT is one of the things you get used to with a Sting Ray or not. Believe it or not it was a complaint of mine in the beginning when I worked with Leo. The emerging slap and the old school country click players loved it. That thin snappin G sound helped the Sr taked off. You can try flats and it will help, but chances are that you will bet [sic] used to it by playing ..." Sterling Ball, 11/15/05, formally available at http://www.ernieball.com/forums/show...=country+click

[Doug Parent]

[quote=king_biscuit;13485104]Sterling Ball acknowledged the problem, said it was because of the preamp, and said it was something you would get used to or not. Still there are people here on TB who know more about it than Sterling Ball

Interesting. BTW, Are you eye rolling at me? if you are, thats condescending and bad manners. If you aren't, never mind.

Respectfully, I'm not buying this explanation. The reason I'm not buying it is because the owners of the H/S H/H models state that they don't have a thin G string issue. But how can that be? These HH HS equipped basses have the Ernie Ball Pre-Amp? Don't they?

If the pre-amp is to blame, then these other model Ernie Ball basses should all have thin G strings. And they don't.

I'm just throwing some logic at this conversation, not trying to be disagreeable with anyone.

[king_biscuit]

[quote=Doug Parent;13485172]

Originally Posted by king_biscuit

Sterling Ball acknowledged the problem, said it was because of the preamp, and said it was something you would get used to or not. Still there are people here on TB who know more about it than Sterling Ball

Interesting. BTW, Are you eye rolling at me? if you are, thats condescending and bad manners. If you aren't, never mind.

Respectfully, I'm not buying this explanation. The reason I'm not buying it is because the owners of the H/S H/H models state that they don't have a thin G string issue. But how can that be? These HH HS equipped basses have the Ernie Ball Pre-Amp? Don't they?

If the pre-amp is to blame, then these other model Ernie Ball basses should all have thin G strings. And they don't.

I'm just throwing some logic at this conversation, not trying to be disagreeable with anyone.

I wasn't rolling my eyes at anyone in particular, I have astigmatism The multi pickup basses have flush/level pole pieces which essentially makes the g string louder because the g magnets are relatively closer than the d string magnets -- vis'a'vis the staggered pole piece single pickup models.

[Doug Parent]

Yeah but Per Ernie Balls quote, we aren't discussing output as much as we're talking about frequency content.

Ernie Ball:
"The output isnt actually lower, the response is thinner sounding or not as fat"

This speaks to the issue of the G string sounding THINNER, not WEAKER in volume. If the Pre-amp scoops out the low mids where the "G" speaks, then why wouldn't Ernie Ball change the pre-amp? Has anyone tried this? Going passive? Does this rectify the situation?

I'm just curious because I've been tearing basses apart and changing components since 1974, and this kind of thing would not pose an insurmountable problem, once the physics and factors are known and taken into consideration.

HH and HS basses made by Ernie Ball don't *appear* to have the same THIN G string issue. Pole piece height is just one factor. (output) and apparently that issue is solved. Good.

I suspect the pre-amp is a key factor in the tone. And, the pickup design. But having no neck position pickup in the SR5 automatically means that certain fundamental lower frequencies are going to be absent, (unless the assertion that EQ'ing alone can resolve that, which ......it can't.)

I think it's interesting that Ernie Ball brought the 3 band EQ on board with this design. Why bother? Apparently he was chasing something. Anyway, I'm rambling but this is the reason I have stuck to Jazz Basses. I'm out.