Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Interesting Call with EBMM...
- Thread starter Cardsfan_69
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ebmm
O.....m....G....!!!! you oughta know these things!!!
Sorry, couldn't let that slip ;P
and now serious: What i was told is as follows:
EBMM = the real deal. (cost about €2400,- new here)
SBMM = EBMM stuff built under licence in indonesia (cost about €800,- new here)
SUB = SBMM built stuff also in indonesia more or less as a replacement for the OLP stuff
Correct me if i'm wrong (which i'm sure yall will)
OLP above or below SUB? Nearly bought an OLP from that Neil Murray guy from Whitesnake
Technically below in terms of parts and quality - the Sterling SUB is much closer to the sound, quality and feel of a true Stingray. Also the OLPs are mostly passive (there's one OLP version that's active from my understanding) but they're decent and often make good mod platforms.
If you can find that other SUB, the US made EBMM SUB for a good price (around $300 or so) - grab it! It's essentially an EBMM Stingray Classic but with budget finish. Pretty much the same parts, slight difference on the bridge logo, body wood is different but same pickups, same quality work made in the same factory - it is a true blue Musicman. There's both a passive and active version of these.
I bought mine for $160 - which would have been a decent used price for a Sterling SUB bass except for it wasn't a Sterling SUB but an EBMM SUB! In this case, the confusion over the different models worked in my favor.
The headstock of these SUBs look like this:-
Hi japhy4529 
When was the last time you called a customer service?
She was listening long enough to understand the client' s story!
That' s what I call competent (in her job)
greetings
Wise(b)ass
When was the last time you called a customer service?
She was listening long enough to understand the client' s story!
That' s what I call competent (in her job)
greetings
Wise(b)ass
Some licensed designs.
SBMM basses are called Ray not StingRay.
There is nothing on them made by Music Man and SBMM is a completely separate company that is not owned by Music Man.
From Wikipedia's entry on the Music Man company:
"In 2009, as a replacement for the SUB line, Music Man licensed Praxis Musical Instruments to build a new import budget brand, Sterling by Music Man.[4]Basses included the RAY34/RAY35 (StingRay 4- and 5-string copies) and the SB14 (Sterling copy). Guitars included the AX20 (Axis Super Sport), AX40 (Axis), JP50 (John Petrucci) and the SILO30 (Silhouette). In 2012, Praxis expanded this line with the "Sterling By Music Man SUB Series" to compete with other sub-$300 USD "beginner" instruments, produced in Indonesia and other Far East countries using "non-standard" woods (i.e. not typically thought of as "tone woods") to keep production costs low.[5]"
As I thought, this is a licensing agreement. The brand is owned by Music Man.
Music Man (company) - Wikipedia
Yeah, Wikipedia is always 100% accurate, just like TalkBass.
Please prove that Music Man owns Praxis. Anonymous posts on the internet (Wikipedia) don't count as proof.
MusicMan doesn't own Praxis. That isn't what anyone is saying...
MusicMan owns the brand, which they license to Praxis to produce the actual instruments under the SBMM name.
Yeah, I hear this a lot. But Wikipedia does employ editors and their articles are better sourced than 99% of the crap you read about in other areas of the internet. That's what that little section at the bottom of each article with references is all about.
It's an important source, despite what anyone who has a bias against well-cited material might conclude. Any company interested in its reputation will be making sure these entries are accurate.
Thank you. Why is a licensing agreement hard for anyone to understand? They entered into a contract with Praxis to handle the manufacture, marketing and distribution of a budget line of instruments.
So, based on everything said in this thread, this advertisement is totally wrong? Correct?
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
I really don't know. I think the trouble is most people just assume that the EBMM/SBMM relationship is the same as the Fender/Squier relationship (I did myself until this thread prompted me to read into it).
To me, the name "Sterling By Music Man" implies some level of involvement or oversight by EBMM in the SBMM brand, beyond a simple licensing agreement. Add this to the fact that EBMM already produces a bass called the Sterling, and the whole naming scheme does come across as quite a mess IMO.
But I agree, the idea of the licensing agreement itself shouldn't be confusing or difficult to understand, it's the choice of naming that makes me scratch my head
If my understanding is correct (and that is a big if), that bass should be called a SUB by Sterling. The name Ernie Ball Music Man shouldn't be included in the listing title, as the SUB brand is manufactured by Sterling by Music Man, not EBMM.So, based on everything said in this thread, this advertisement is totally wrong? Correct?
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
But I'm happy to be corrected
I really don't know. I think the trouble is most people just assume that the EBMM/SBMM relationship is the same as the Fender/Squier relationship (I did myself until this thread prompted me to read into it).
To me, the name "Sterling By Music Man" implies some level of involvement or oversight by EBMM in the SBMM brand, beyond a simple licensing agreement. Add this to the fact that EBMM already produces a bass called the Sterling, and the whole naming scheme does come across as quite a mess IMO.
But I agree, the idea of the licensing agreement itself shouldn't be confusing or difficult to understand, it's the choice of naming that makes me scratch my head
It's a marketing thing. They license their designs to be rebuilt cheaply by another company, but they are still their designs, so making sure the Music Man name is on them is a smart sales move.
But the Sterling name being used to brand that product line was just stupid. They did one thing smart and then muddied it all up.
Depends on when it was made. If anyone actually looks at the Wikipedia entry, it says that the SUB line was their initial entry into inexpensive manufacturing. I remember when these were hanging new in the music stores so that is not a mystery to me.If my understanding is correct (and that is a big if), that bass should be called a SUB by Sterling. The name Ernie Ball Music Man shouldn't be included in the listing title, as the SUB brand is manufactured by Sterling by Music Man, not EBMM.
But I'm happy to be corrected
If I'm understanding this correctly, the original SUBS were an Ernie Ball branded product. They discontinued that product line and entered into the licensing agreement that brought us SBMM. Then SBMM decided to do a new line of SUBs. But those SUBS have a different naming convention. So this is likely an EBMM SUB that was made before SBMM was in existence.
That changed last year, they now all have the StingRay name on the headstock even though they have kept the “Ray” model names.
but this
Link Removed
isn't the same as this
Link Removed
So to me the Ad that I posted is just plain wrong
Just you wait till they decide to start a line of mid range priced models under the Sterling Ball (as opposed to Sterling by) MusicMan brand name built in Mexico.
I'm pretty sure the old EBMM SUBs have the Ernie Ball logo on the headstock. This one has the Sterling logo.
Edit: B-Mac beat me to it
Latest posts
-
-
-
What Frequency Response is Actually Needed for Low Tuning?
- Latest: bass player 53
-
-
