Lakland 44-94 versus Stingray - tonal comparisons

Is your current Stingray the Single Humbucker or Dual?

You might check out this clip of the 4-94. You already own a Stingray and I'm sure you're familiar with it's tonal capabilities. This will give you a pretty good idea of what the 4-94 is capable of, although the earlier Laklands had the Bartolini Pre and Pups whereas this video is of the LH3 system:

 

To me they are totally different beasts. Both are great! Ernie Ball are well made instruments. I prefer Laklands now, although my main bass for seven years was a Stingray 5. Of course I had the Single humbucker version and it was not as flexible as what the 4-94 or 55-94 is. You can get a lot of different tones out of the Lakland.

 

I've owned both, as well as a sterling and a G&L, so I have done the big-humbucker thing at length. My 44-94 was with the Bartolini p'up, for what that's worth...

The tone of the Lakland was less crisp than either of my MMs but MUCH richer. Big, growling fun sound - plus I had that neck p'up to blend in. The sound of the Lakland pleased my ears more than my other basses, no doubt - but the MMs did have a certain character to them - they seemed... Punchier, for lack of a better word... But not as good, if you follow. I thought for slap, fingerstyle and just rock playing, the Lakland pretty much was great... but it did NOT sound entirely like a MM.

So no, you won't be getting another Stingray

 

The 4-94 is definitely not a total Stingray killer or clone. First, the humbucker is not in the true Stingray position. It was placed to allow the coil splitting to approximate Jazz Bass tones more than as a Stingray emulator. With that said, the humbucker is pretty convincing once you fiddle with the EQ just a hair. If you were a casual listener and didn't see the bass in hand you would probably think it was a Stingray.

 

You might check out these clips as well, although these were done on a 55-02:
http://www.lakland.com/ac_5502.htm

 

Yes, the 4-94 can get pretty close to emulating a Stingray sound but not quite. The difference is the Humbucker placement on the Lakland as was said by JazznFunk. Anyhow, if you end up buying the 4-94, you are going to have two completely different instruments. You will have a lot more tonal options with the Lakland. Both are great like I said before, but for my personal tone goals the Lakland does it for me. I own both the LH3 system and Bartolini and both are fantastic!

 

The Lakland pre is subtler, perhaps a bit more polite than the Stingray's. Less clank, more thump.
The 4-94 can't sound like a Stingray, but it has a lot of great tones.
The controls on the early 4-94s are clustered a bit close together because of the jack on the front.
Stingray control knobs are more accessible on the fly.

 

+1 I had a mid 90's SR, beautiful bass, but I only really liked it for slap. The next bass I bought was my Bart-loaded 55-94, sold the SR to help pay for it and have never regretted it. The two basses were very different tonally IMO/IME, w/ the 55 capable of almost capturing the SR sound w/ some knob/switch tweaking. But, I prefer the 55's sound w/ both pups on and set flat, it really sings!

 

I have a 2004 single-M StingRay and a 1998 4-94 with Barts. The 'Ray can be pretty bright and harsh pretty easily - aggressive, I guess. It'll do warm and mellow if you coax it. My 4-94 works in the other direction. It does warm and mellow pretty easily - a VERY nice, clean and well-rounded tone. It only gets aggressive like the 'Ray if you really work for it. My 4-94 reminds me more of a good passive Fender than a StingRay - I can cop a pretty good P or J tone with the 4-94.

An equally important difference, IMHO, is the neck. My StingRay has a very thick, fat hunk of wood for a neck - I love it. The 4-94 neck is much more slender & petite - I love this more. I think the string spacing is similar, but my 4-94s neck is much smaller than my StingRay.

Both are great basses. I'd give the edge to my Lakland, though.

 

I played a '91 Stingray as my main bass from '93-'04, and loved it. Then I tried a Lakland 55-94, sold the Stingray and never looked back. The Stingray was always to harsh sounding to record with, I was always borrowing basses for recording, but the Lakland is the best recording bass I've ever heard; it sits so perfectly in the mix with very little adjustment from the preamp or pickups. Like Jedi Bass said-- set it flat with both pups full on, it just doesn't get better than that for me. I've since bought another 55-94, and those are the only two basses I own anymore.

So for me, huge difference tonally between the SR and the 55-94, giving a big edge to the Lakland.

 

Def. doesn't nail it, nor was it intended to. The thing I love about the Lakland is that you can dial in the characteristics of that tone, but it really has a voice all it's own.

edit: I see you said you're considering an early 4-94. So it has the bartolini system in it?

 

How do you find the Sabre with bridge pup soloed compares to the Ray? I always thought they were pretty much the same.

 

I've read here somewhere that the preamp was "tweaked" over time, so there may be minor differences. Not sure what "tweaked" means in this case.

Sounds like a pretty accurate description to me.

This bass sounds familiar. Like I've seen a pic of it here on TB somewhere...

 

How close does the Lakland get to a Jazz bass when the bridge pickup is set to single coil?

 

To my ears it sounds a bit woolier - fuller, and a bit deeper.
The early ones do have the pull - volume preamp bypass, which sounds very P-Bass to me.