• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Musicman Classic or Musicman HH

#4
i_got_a_mohawk said:
Yes, same pickup, same place, same preamp. In position 1 its just the same as the classic ray. Then you get 4 other combinations of sounds ontop of that :D
Click to expand...

I'm sure that this question's "done the rounds" a few times, but;

How come the MusicMan Sabre was (reputedly) never able to nail that StingRay tone, whereas the new HH 'Rays do :hmm: ?

The reason that I saw given for the Sabre not cutting it, was that the extra body wood removed for the pickup contributed to the tone difference in some way - same for the modern 'Ray, you'd think?

I've never played either, btw, I'm just curious!
 
#5
As far as i was aware the sabre was quite different? Different preamp, maybe different pickups?

Ive never actually played one, but by the looks of them, they look thinner than the rays, that loss of wood could account for some effect on the tone?

The amount of wood removed for the pickup wouldnt make a noticable difference, at least i dont think it would ? Ive never noticed any sonic difference between just the bridge on the HH and the standard stingray personally at least :)
 
#9
In regard to the difference btwn the Ray and and the Sabre - you might want to check the Ernie Ball forum. I remember reading a post once where it wasn't simply a matter of slapping two humbuckers into a piece of wood. That the new Stingrays and Sterling (Bongo too I believe) took a great deal of thought and work in order to create a monster sounding instrument. There was I believe some kind of issue with phasing or other crap I didn't understand that was inherent in the Sabre, but comepnsated for in the newer basses. Don't take my word for it though because I'm prone to hallucinations. Check for yourself at the forum. www.ernieball.com/forums
 
#12
I`ve owned both and yes, you can nail the "classic" SR tone with a HH. Besides, you can also achieve many different sound from it. Tonally wise, it`s superior to the standard SR4.
 
#13
Papersen said:
I`ve owned both and yes, you can nail the "classic" SR tone with a HH. Besides, you can also achieve many different sound from it. Tonally wise, it`s superior to the standard SR4.
Click to expand...

Superior? Thats a matter of personal opinion. I play my SR5 H in parallel mode and would not want to be without that setting no matter what. The series setting is very different.

So for an SR4 you should be fine, but the SR5 has to be a single H to get the parallel tone which is the classic Stingray tone.
 
#15
GreyBeard said:
If this helps, I own a SR5 H and a SR5 HH. The SR5 H has 3 disctinct sounds and the HH has 5. None of the 3 sounds from the H sound like any of the 5 sounds from the HH. Some are close but not are really the same.
Click to expand...

technically you only have 1 pickup position in common on those 2 basses.

pos 1 on the HH is the bridge bucker in series and pos 3 on the single H is the bridge bucker in series. ALL the other positions are different and those are the only 2 that overlap
 
#16
I have HH's and several H Rays (and a Sabre too).

For the HH, I settled on liking position #4 which is a single coil/single coil setting. And I find I don't vary it from there.
To be honest I'm not the biggest fan of the 3eq single H sound unless it's a 30th anniv Ray (because of the mahogany body), so I never use the rear H by itself on that bass.

But to me, my 'superior' sound is a 2eq single H Ray, so my single H 2eq Rays are what I use the most.
So yes, 'superior' is totally subjective...all I can add is try them all out and see which one blows your skirt up.
 
#17
Fender32 said:
How come the MusicMan Sabre was (reputedly) never able to nail that StingRay tone, whereas the new HH 'Rays do?
Click to expand...

Well, I sould take out both my Sabre and Ray and take measurements of everything.
The most obvious thing I could tell you about them, is the Sabre pickups are smaller in size than the Ray's single pickup.
So maybe there isn't the same pickups area on the strings? Like I said, I should take measurements for all that.
 
#18
Joe Nerve said:
In regard to the difference btwn the Ray and and the Sabre - you might want to check the Ernie Ball forum. I remember reading a post once where it wasn't simply a matter of slapping two humbuckers into a piece of wood. That the new Stingrays and Sterling (Bongo too I believe) took a great deal of thought and work in order to create a monster sounding instrument. There was I believe some kind of issue with phasing or other crap I didn't understand that was inherent in the Sabre, but comepnsated for in the newer basses.
Click to expand...

The Sabre is the red headed step child of the MM lineage. I rarely hear anything but bad mouthing about them. :scowl:

Sabre001.jpg


Damn all that. My Sabre gives for me a better MM sound than any EBMM I have put it up against. The EBMM offerings are fine basses but this Sabre has something special to it. Call it mojo, the finish chemicals, resonant wood, voodoo or whatever. It is a great bass. I love Stomp by the Brothers Johnson and this mofo using the neck pickup is all about that sound.

The pickups are slightly thinner and perhaps the same width as the G&L buckers. If you look a the pickups and especially the bridge close you can easily see the Sabre was Leo's intermediate step between the Ray and the L-2000.

Jim
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back