BSR5GN VS. Streamer Stage II

[pickles]

That's almost laughable.

Why is that laughable? I'd say that statement was pretty accurate. I've had both, and the Smith was nicely built, with a middle of the road tone, and an average low B. It'll fit into lots of mixes, but it would never be "the one" for me. The warwick is either perfect or out-of-place depending on what you're going for, and has an amazing low B. For aggressive rock and funk the Warwick is the call. For Jazz the Smith is the call. For everything else ... it'd just depend.

 

[DrGroovenstein]

I'd say that I don't find the assessment of "Ken Smith" basses like that, at least not those that I've been able to pick up and play. I won't include mine, as it is a different animal. Who says it is out of place? Who says it is middle of the road? Isn't that totally subjective? Making such a broad generalization makes me chuckle.

I've never owned a SSII, but I've played a few. I found them to be somewhat versitile in the types of tones I could get out of it. I wouldn't mind owning one someday, and I wouldn't call it a two trick pony either.

 

[Funkzfly]

A Ken Smith BSR5GN is a long ways from a KSD. Groovetoolz, you really need to know what sound you want. The Ken Smith sound, or that old Stuart Zender, Jamiroquai sound.

The Zender sound would be hard to nail with a Warwick after 1998, unfortunately...also considering the % of Stuart's work was actually Streamer Stage I's as well (barring his work on Travelling Without Moving).

However, the SSII's are great, and that's coming from someone who doesn't like neck-through construction very much at all. Post-2002 models you will find to be less aggressive, but none the less, the afzelia body is very biting...in a good way...it's really to die for (it's odd that afzelia isn't more widely used, considering its marvelous sonic properties, at least to my ears). Warwick necks are a love or hate thing at the end of the day, and I think Warwick should really address the issue of their Baseball bat sized necks, but as far as the sound goes, Streamer Stage II's are great.

Downsides to the Stage II's...bear in mind the 5 string Streamer Stage II string spacing is tight, and MEC's wouldn't be my first choice of pickups or preamp by any stretch, but for the most they sound good together. If you decide on not having MEC's, then avoid Barts if possible and sort yourself out with possibly some Nordstrands or Basslines...

 

[_christian_]

If you decide on not having MEC's, then avoid Barts if possible and sort yourself out with possibly some Nordstrands or Basslines...

Why would you avoid Barts?

 

[Funkzfly]

Why would you avoid Barts?

Well, as much as I must stress it's a personal dislike, I think it takes a fair bit away from the Streamer's voice (Warwick have been known to include them in the Stage II's)...that and I really don't like Bartolini pickups. No offence to anyone who does, of course, I just think the Streamer would benefit more from something else.

 

[ssii]

I think the both basses are gr8! Ken Smith is one of the best choice! So as Streamer Stage II! The Streamers Stage II are differs. I play my 4 strings 1989 SS 2. In the earliest one's (before 1991) the neck is slimmer and more comfortable to play. And some of them made of Afzelia pommelle (this wood is pretty expensive) and has the other look and the other sound. I am sure that after the playing on one of theses excellent old Streamers you'll never want to get rid of it! So I think it's better to have both of them to have incredible choice of most amazing sounds that these basses can give you!