Musicman SUB vs Stingray

Shawn Luckman · #1 05-08-2010, 03:27 PM

In the three weeks that I have owned the Musicman SUB,& read a lot about them thanks to TB I am having trouble convincing myself to save for a Stingray. The bass sounds, looks,& plays great, I have cleaned it up put new strings on and a new battery & next week a new scratchplate so it will look even more like a Stingray. I dare say a few bassists who thought the same,and maybe even Sterling Ball thought that he had done too good a job on the SUB as it was made along side the Stingray.

From what I have read from various places & from EBMM Customer service, the pickup & 2 band eq (active) are the same as you get on the Classic Stingray 4H. So I would like to know if any of you bought a sub thinking of moving up to a Stingray, settled with the sub instead & saved yourself the money. This is only a question and in no way to anger any EBMM owners, as the one's that I have spoke to hear and at the EBMM forum have been very friendly & helpfull.

badboy1984 · #2 05-08-2010, 03:31 PM

I thought thats the reason they stop makingthe Musicmn Sub? They same too good for the price. Got to admit that the neck, body and fretboard etc feels a little different on a StingRay etc. But if I have a SUB i will stick with it, probably do a simple upgrade on preamp and pickup etc

If it sound good now why bother spending more money on something else?

bovinehost · #3 05-08-2010, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badboy1984

I thought thats the reason they stop makingthe Musicmn Sub? They same too good for the price.

Not a question of being "too good" for the price. More a question of being too expensive to produce at that price point.

SUBs are a great value. I have one and don't consider it in any way inferior to any of the Stingrays I've owned. A good bass is a good bass, no matter what's on the headstock.

Of course, it's nice for me if it does say Music Man on that headstock!

Jack

yellofury · #4 05-08-2010, 09:43 PM

It satisfies my EBMM cravings enough
and a new pickguard does wonders for a SUB

I love mine
and for the time being its good enough to fulfull a Stingray role in my stable

Shawn Luckman · #5 05-09-2010, 01:58 AM

That's what I'm thinking if I bought a EBMM Stingray would it be for just the headstock as the SUB is so close. And thanks yellowfury for the pic now my mind is made up, I will get either a white or pearloid scratchplate for mine. I have noticed here in the UK on ebay some EBMM Stingrays selling for around £780 secondhand. This is a bargin when you consider that the,Ray 34 is aprox £599 new.

bassmachine2112 · #6 05-09-2010, 03:10 AM

hiho,I,ve got one a sub that is and I wouldn,t bother getting a stingray,very happy for the last 7 years with it.
Perfect giggin guitar with a bullet proof finish.I prefer the cosmetic look to the grandad coffee table look.

Shawn Luckman · #7 05-09-2010, 06:18 AM

Mine also is a 2003 model,I just find the SUB to be an amazing bass definatly a keeper the closet I'll get to a Classic Stingray. I either read or was told that Sterling ball said that they, EBMM were losing about $100 on every SUB bass they made towards the end is there any truth in this.

Lync · #8 05-09-2010, 07:44 AM

I've had my SUB almost since they first came out. Very cool bass-a bit heavy, but sounds good. IMO though, my 30th Anniversary 'Ray sounds a bit more refined and definitely feels better (but it was also twice the price).

eaaa410 · #9 05-09-2010, 07:45 AM

I have owned both and currently have a SUB. They sound close enough that I don't feel like I'm missing anything except the Stingray finish. Taking the SUB to the Saturday evening church gig is much less stressful. I would love to own a Classic Stringray though.

Shawn Luckman · #10 05-09-2010, 10:07 AM

The Classic Stingray does look very good,but way out of my price leauge.Since the SUB has the same 2 band eq and the same body shape as the Classic, then I'll stick with the SUB it looks like it can handle anything you could throw at it.

bassmachine2112 · #11 05-16-2010, 04:08 AM

you could throw a nuclear blast at a sub and it would still be in tune and no scratches.
The perfect giggin bass-good sound,solid as a rock and super stable.A forearm chamfer would be nice but the classic hasn,t got it so does that make a sub the original classic ?
I never did find the $100 bill with mine can I still claim it ?

i_got_a_mohawk · #12 05-16-2010, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn Luckman

That's what I'm thinking if I bought a EBMM Stingray would it be for just the headstock as the SUB is so close. And thanks yellowfury for the pic now my mind is made up, I will get either a white or pearloid scratchplate for mine. I have noticed here in the UK on ebay some EBMM Stingrays selling for around £780 secondhand. This is a bargin when you consider that the,Ray 34 is aprox £599 new.

Just last week one went for £600-odd.

And heck, a few weeks ago a fretless EBMM Stingray went for only £530 on ebay!

I'd say it's more than just a name. The sound of the bass is only one of the reasons you get one, the feel and quality are other reasons to consider.

And I think the feel aspect is certainly different, particularly with the finished neck which is the one thing that puts me off the SUBS.

T. Alan Smith · #13 05-16-2010, 07:42 AM

To me, the Stingray is much more refined all the way around. If I were a less experienced player or playing in slimy taverns, the SUB would be a perfect instrument; where I wouldn't want to trash my nice 'Ray.
I wish I got the SUB when I had the chance. They were definately cool with their own vibe.

mgauge · #14 05-16-2010, 07:51 AM

I prefer the Stingray cuz of the finish on the neck, but in no way do I consider the SUB to be an 'inferior' bass..... Heck, if I had a few hundred $$ laying around, Id seek out a SUB to buy! Especially cuz they are discontinued.

In my mind, if it says MUSICMAN on the headstock, you're family...