• 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.

1992 Sterling?

GrooveWarrior

GrooveWarrior

Oct 21, 2003
4,734
692
51
Oxford, Ohio (Near Cincy)
Visit site
#1
I may have an opportunity to trade my 2001 American Jazz for a 1992 MusicMan Sterling. I play my Warrior 85% of the time, so I’m just doing some bored browsing. You know how it is.

Are there any “red flags” about Sterlings of that era? Bad neck, crappy electronics, etc?

Pitch a reason I should or shouldn’t trade if you have an opinion. Disclaimer, I really don’t slap anymore. Mid-boosted finger style is my tone.
 
#5
GrooveWarrior said:
I may have an opportunity to trade my 2001 American Jazz for a 1992 MusicMan Sterling. I play my Warrior 85% of the time, so I’m just doing some bored browsing. You know how it is.

Are there any “red flags” about Sterlings of that era? Bad neck, crappy electronics, etc?

Pitch a reason I should or shouldn’t trade if you have an opinion. Disclaimer, I really don’t slap anymore. Mid-boosted finger style is my tone.
Click to expand...

There's no issue with the 90s era Sterlings - in fact you'll probably have a figured maple neck. They are great basses and would fit that finger style sound well. The pick up is ceramic and you get a series/parallel/single coil selector as well as the 3 band EQ. Up until around 95/96 they had the bridge with the string mutes also.

However they weren't introduced until 1993. So the suggested date is probably wrong unless it's a prototype - not impossible but unlikely. I suggest you get the serial number and run it by EBMM customer services either by email or on their forum thread to check out the specs and date etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 Strings Good, BrentSimons, LBS-bass and 1 other person
#6
I had an early 90s Sterling, and a late 90 MIA Fender. Quality wise, IMO, the Sterling is light years ahead. The ONLY trade offs I think are this...

The MM will give you that funky, burpy, rubbery, MM sound in spades. It will give you a handful of sounds in between too. For me, it was just a tiny bit lacking in lows. I was however switching from a bubinga Warwick at the time, with THUNDEROUS lows, so that might have had something to do with my experience. The Fender I think will have a tad more bottom to it, a little more versatility, but not the punch, nor the MM funky stuff. Sterling cuts through the mix like a moFo.

Oh yeah... and feel wise, it was absolutely awesome. Great neck. The bass just fit me perfectly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: waynobass and BrentSimons
#7
drTSTingray said:
There's no issue with the 90s era Sterlings - in fact you'll probably have a figured maple neck. They are great basses and would fit that finger style sound well. The pick up is ceramic and you get a series/parallel/single coil selector as well as the 3 band EQ. Up until around 95/96 they had the bridge with the string mutes also.

However they weren't introduced until 1993. So the suggested date is probably wrong unless it's a prototype - not impossible but unlikely. I suggest you get the serial number and run it by EBMM customer services either by email or on their forum thread to check out the specs and date etc.
Click to expand...


The guy said 92 or 93. It does have the string mutes.
 
#8
Joe Nerve said:
I had an early 90s Sterling, and a late 90 MIA Fender. Quality wise, IMO, the Sterling is light years ahead. The ONLY trade offs I think are this...

The MM will give you that funky, burpy, rubbery, MM sound in spades. It will give you a handful of sounds in between too. For me, it was just a tiny bit lacking in lows. I was however switching from a bubinga Warwick at the time, with THUNDEROUS lows, so that might have had something to do with my experience. The Fender I think will have a tad more bottom to it, a little more versatility, but not the punch, nor the MM funky stuff. Sterling cuts through the mix like a moFo.

Oh yeah... and feel wise, it was absolutely awesome. Great neck. The bass just fit me perfectly.
Click to expand...


Sounds great. This is going to sound crazy, but I've been a bass player for 30 years, and didn't play my first Stingray or Sterling until this week. I've owned over 30 basses in that time, and played hundreds. For some reason it just never occurred to me, or I never had the opportunity to play one. The Sterling I played was one of the Indonesian SB14's that Guitar Center had used for $349, and it was crazy nice for the money. I was blown away.

My Warrior gets 85% of my playing time, and is super versatile. It has the MM/J configuration, where the J is at the bridge, and the MM is more in P position. It gets tons of super usable tones. I bought the Jazz new in 2001, so there is a bit of a sentimental component there, but I just don't play it that often.

Here are a couple of clips of the Warrior:




Here is the Jazz. It has Bartolini Quad Coil pickups in it. It's still passive, but they are hum-canceling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: packhowitzer and Swampish
#9
Mutes, bigger bridge with individually sized string slots, recessed neck plate, plate cover for battery (the boxes tend to fail ime). And perfectly selected pieces of wood on those necks.

I agree that the lows are a little light, but the playability, design and build is awesome.
 
#10
GrooveWarrior said:
Sounds great. This is going to sound crazy, but I've been a bass player for 30 years, and didn't play my first Stingray or Sterling until this week. I've owned over 30 basses in that time, and played hundreds. For some reason it just never occurred to me, or I never had the opportunity to play one. The Sterling I played was one of the Indonesian SB14's that Guitar Center had used for $349, and it was crazy nice for the money. I was blown away.

My Warrior gets 85% of my playing time, and is super versatile. It has the MM/J configuration, where the J is at the bridge, and the MM is more in P position. It gets tons of super usable tones. I bought the Jazz new in 2001, so there is a bit of a sentimental component there, but I just don't play it that often.

Here are a couple of clips of the Warrior:




Here is the Jazz. It has Bartolini Quad Coil pickups in it. It's still passive, but they are hum-canceling.
Click to expand...


Honestly, I'd figure out a way to get the money for the Sterling, and have all 3. If you're looking for more versatility in your bass collection, as much as I love MM, with a sentimental attachment to the Jazz I think you'll miss it. It sounds like your Warrior can cover the MM territory, and the jazz will go into territory the MM won't.

Great playing by the way :). Great tones, too.
 
#11
spufman said:
Mutes, bigger bridge with individually sized string slots, recessed neck plate, plate cover for battery (the boxes tend to fail ime). And perfectly selected pieces of wood on those necks.

I agree that the lows are a little light, but the playability, design and build is awesome.
Click to expand...


Thanks. Lows shouldn't be a problem. My amps are an EBS HD350, and a Euphonic Audio iAmp500. Both of which have great EQ.
 
#12
Joe Nerve said:
Honestly, I'd figure out a way to get the money for the Sterling, and have all 3. If you're looking for more versatility in your bass collection, as much as I love MM, with a sentimental attachment to the Jazz I think you'll miss it. It sounds like your Warrior can cover the MM territory, and the jazz will go into territory the MM won't.

Great playing by the way :). Great tones, too.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the compliment. The Warrior is a tone monster, and one of the easiest playing basses I have ever played. I actually went back to buy the Sterling and they had sold it. The money isn't a huge issue. I would probably end up buying a US made one anyway. Good advice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe Nerve
#15
GrooveWarrior said:
Thanks. Lows shouldn't be a problem. My amps are an EBS HD350, and a Euphonic Audio iAmp500. Both of which have great EQ.
Click to expand...
I absolutely loved my Sterlings. The second one I bought was a 2005 and almost as nice (it's in my avatar). I had bonded with that neck like no other, but I finally sold it because I could not get the tone I needed from it, even with great gear. I had a GK head and an SWR cabinet but I was fiddling endlessly with the EQ on both the bass itself and the cabinet. I finally gave up and bought a Jazz. So don't take it for granted that your EQ will fix this. However, if you want punchy mids to really be up front, this is your baby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gbrooding
#16
LBS-bass said:
I absolutely loved my Sterlings. The second one I bought was a 2005 and almost as nice (it's in my avatar). I had bonded with that neck like no other, but I finally sold it because I could not get the tone I needed from it, even with great gear. I had a GK head and an SWR cabinet but I was fiddling endlessly with the EQ on both the bass itself and the cabinet. I finally gave up and bought a Jazz. So don't take it for granted that your EQ will fix this. However, if you want punchy mids to really be up front, this is your baby.
Click to expand...


The Warrior more than covers my low end needs. The Sterling would be a fun toy. Don't get me wrong, I love my jazz, but you know, sometimes you get bored and do something foolish . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: LBS-bass
#20
GrooveWarrior said:
So are the main differences between the Sterling and the Stingray the body shape and the switching on the pickup?
Click to expand...

Compared to the StingRay, the Sterling pickup is ceramic and has a phantom coil, the Sterling neck is slimmer and has an extra fret, the Sterling heel joint is sculpted for better access, the Sterling pickguard is asymmetrical and the Sterling headstock is a little smaller. The overall package should be lighter than most SR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gbrooding and LBS-bass

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back