There are more ceramic options, Seymour Duncan makes one and GHS makes one as well.
Let me look into Aero and Bartolini.
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.
Music Man sound and pickups
- Thread starter TonyP-
- Start date
There are more ceramic options, Seymour Duncan makes one and GHS makes one as well.
Let me look into Aero and Bartolini.
I didn't list out ceramics because you are looking for alnico.
You list the EMG as alnico, it's not.
You list the EMG as alnico, it's not.
OK EMG are passive but ceramic.
What about the tone of the other Alnico?
Also the Aero are $270 and $280 a piece. It's a bit outrageous for a pickup, even boutique makers such as Nordstrand are less than half the price. No pickup is worth that in my book.
What about the tone of the other Alnico?
Also the Aero are $270 and $280 a piece. It's a bit outrageous for a pickup, even boutique makers such as Nordstrand are less than half the price. No pickup is worth that in my book.
i get the feeling that all that "modeled after a 70's pickup" is just marketing speak. i vaguely remember carey saying he reverse engineered an 86 stingray pickup for his. that shouldnt matter too much considering they have been made the same way since the 70's. oddly enough, i just picked up a 77 ray with a black epoxy pre and body route for the long pole pickup, but has an original short pole pickup in it.
the electronics in that bass are a little prettier/cleaner sounding than the rest of the stuff i have. i have another 79 with an ernie ball era pickup from the 90's that has a tiny bit more hair in the upper midrange. that has a 2 band uncle fluffy board pre matched with it. my sterling has the same pre and ive had the smb4a and now an ernie ball ray pickup. the ernie ball pickup sounds just like the other ernie ball pickup in the 79 ray, but this one has the beveled pole pieces. the duncan i had in there had a tiny more upper midrange than the ernie ball pickup. both have pretty close to the same dcr.
speaking of my 77 ray, ive got to get some expensive repairs done so all my extra stuff is for sale. ive got a duncan smb4a and 2 band pre combo for sale in the classifieds
http://www.talkbass.com/threads/sem...up-and-2-band-pre-ernie-style-preamp.1079074/
http://www.talkbass.com/threads/sem...up-and-2-band-pre-ernie-style-preamp.1079074/
When I ask the gentleman who built the incredibly informative site, musicmanbass.org about the Stingray pickups tonal differences, here is what he had to say:
I am posting his comment for everybody's benefit.
Here's what Sterling Ball had to say on a Forum some time ago:
"The first thing we tried to do when we bought the company in 1984 is to try to figure out where the most glaring variances were. The pickups were hand wound by ladies using a bobbin fixture and an electric motor with rubber bands as the drive. The operator controlled the tension and amount of wire placed on the bobbin. Also depending on the person and the acidic content of their hands there would be a delayed corrosive event with the lacquered wire.
When we took over the inventory we measured the individual bobbins and completed humbucking assemblies an found the pickups to have a variance of + or - 25% which created a potential 50% difference from bass to bass. We picked where we thought it should be and automated the winding of the pickups and it really made for a more consistent product."
The pickups from 1976 to 1978, on average, had each coil wound to around 2,400 Ohms. As the two coils were connected in parallel the resulting resistance was around 1.200 Ohms.
The pickups from 1978 to 1984, on average, had each coil wound to around 3.900 Ohms. As the two coils were connected in parallel the resulting resistance was around 1.850 to 1900 Ohms. The earlier pickups also had longer pole pieces which had a tendency to cut out if the strings were bent while playing.
That's why this pickup was developed with it's shorter pole pieces and more coil windings. So, during the Pre-EB period, there was a big difference between the earlier pickups and the latter ones. On top that, as you can see from the above, the pickups could have large winding variations. That would explain the tone differences people find between individual instruments and probably your experience between the 1983 and your Classic.
There were also large variations in weight which would also have an affect on tone but that's another story. I've never played a 1976 or 1977 Ray. One of my Rays was made at the end of 1978 and has the latter 1850 Ohm type pickup which I have also measured. I think it sounds great. Carey Nordstrand designed his Sting Ray pickup on this design and I have one of his which measures 1,850 Ohms.
The 1978 design is the type used in the normal Ray and the Classic Ray which are now more consistent throughout.
I am posting his comment for everybody's benefit.
Here's what Sterling Ball had to say on a Forum some time ago:
"The first thing we tried to do when we bought the company in 1984 is to try to figure out where the most glaring variances were. The pickups were hand wound by ladies using a bobbin fixture and an electric motor with rubber bands as the drive. The operator controlled the tension and amount of wire placed on the bobbin. Also depending on the person and the acidic content of their hands there would be a delayed corrosive event with the lacquered wire.
When we took over the inventory we measured the individual bobbins and completed humbucking assemblies an found the pickups to have a variance of + or - 25% which created a potential 50% difference from bass to bass. We picked where we thought it should be and automated the winding of the pickups and it really made for a more consistent product."
The pickups from 1976 to 1978, on average, had each coil wound to around 2,400 Ohms. As the two coils were connected in parallel the resulting resistance was around 1.200 Ohms.
The pickups from 1978 to 1984, on average, had each coil wound to around 3.900 Ohms. As the two coils were connected in parallel the resulting resistance was around 1.850 to 1900 Ohms. The earlier pickups also had longer pole pieces which had a tendency to cut out if the strings were bent while playing.
That's why this pickup was developed with it's shorter pole pieces and more coil windings. So, during the Pre-EB period, there was a big difference between the earlier pickups and the latter ones. On top that, as you can see from the above, the pickups could have large winding variations. That would explain the tone differences people find between individual instruments and probably your experience between the 1983 and your Classic.
There were also large variations in weight which would also have an affect on tone but that's another story. I've never played a 1976 or 1977 Ray. One of my Rays was made at the end of 1978 and has the latter 1850 Ohm type pickup which I have also measured. I think it sounds great. Carey Nordstrand designed his Sting Ray pickup on this design and I have one of his which measures 1,850 Ohms.
The 1978 design is the type used in the normal Ray and the Classic Ray which are now more consistent throughout.
I guess the familly is complete! (well, i think it's time to stop searching for other members...)
Left:
Left:
- EMG MM5TW, splittable
- Delano MC5HE S/L dual coil
- Bartolini 72MV5E dual coil + silent coil (was for "single coil" hum cancelling bass)
- Original Ernie Ball pickup from a 1989 bass (Alnico pole magnets)
- Nordstrand MM5.2 (Alnico pole magnets)
- Seymour Duncan SMB5-D (ceramic magnet)
- CREL MM5.2 (from France)
You have an amazing collection of pickups. More than a recording, would you mind sharing your impressions on each.
Crel is an interesting outfit, they seem to really work hard on the quality of their manufacturing components.
You were quite right! My SUB5 sounds a lot more like my 93 SR4 than the 89 SR5. It happened to be the perfect choice for what I was looking for.
hi guys, I really read the whole thread...
I have a stingray 5H which I really love.
However, I usually have a fat round tone, but at the last gig something happened. It sounded thin and midrangey. when the other bass player played with a jazzbass over my setup it sounded fat as hell. same when I plug in a jazz or precision bass in the rehearsal room. its almost muddy and undefined then, I have to dial in the setting like this to sound fat with the stingray. I usually play with the EQ flat and I tried some boosting the lows, but it sounded undefined then and not was I was looking for.
I thought about a pickup change, the nordstrand mm5.2 or mm5.4. what is the difference between those two?
I would like to keep the MM sound, I just love it. but the clanky high end isn't my cup of tea.
Is a replacement of the pickup gonna solve any of my problems? I actually am not a big fan of any kind of eq in the bass, that's why I had tape on the knobs. I understand that the stingray sound comes also from the pickup so that's okay with me.
I have a stingray 5H which I really love.
However, I usually have a fat round tone, but at the last gig something happened. It sounded thin and midrangey. when the other bass player played with a jazzbass over my setup it sounded fat as hell. same when I plug in a jazz or precision bass in the rehearsal room. its almost muddy and undefined then, I have to dial in the setting like this to sound fat with the stingray. I usually play with the EQ flat and I tried some boosting the lows, but it sounded undefined then and not was I was looking for.
I thought about a pickup change, the nordstrand mm5.2 or mm5.4. what is the difference between those two?
I would like to keep the MM sound, I just love it. but the clanky high end isn't my cup of tea.
Is a replacement of the pickup gonna solve any of my problems? I actually am not a big fan of any kind of eq in the bass, that's why I had tape on the knobs. I understand that the stingray sound comes also from the pickup so that's okay with me.
It very well could have just been the room. Certain tones work much better in different rooms.
The place I played last night was an acoustic mess. I played the same setup as the two nights before (which sounded awesome). Nothing I do really fixed it. I had the bass cut back on my amp and the onboard EQ, the volume was way down on the amp to almost nothing, and I still had booming notes and undefined tone. I wasn't happy.
The place I played last night was an acoustic mess. I played the same setup as the two nights before (which sounded awesome). Nothing I do really fixed it. I had the bass cut back on my amp and the onboard EQ, the volume was way down on the amp to almost nothing, and I still had booming notes and undefined tone. I wasn't happy.
Yeah, I also thought about the room, but since the Jazzbass of the band before sounded fat as hell, I kind of ruled that out.
It has been pointed out to me, that the Stingray might sound thin just before it starts to distort due to the dying battery. I'll check that.
However, I am still interested in comparisons between stock pickup and Nordstrand replacements. What is the use of the four coils in the MM5.4?
It has been pointed out to me, that the Stingray might sound thin just before it starts to distort due to the dying battery. I'll check that.
However, I am still interested in comparisons between stock pickup and Nordstrand replacements. What is the use of the four coils in the MM5.4?
The 5.2 is essentially two single coil pickups mounted next to each other. If you split the coil, there is a possibility of single coil hum.
The 5.4 is essentially two split coil pickups mounted next to each other, so you can have a split single coil tone that is humcanceling.
The 5.4 is essentially two split coil pickups mounted next to each other, so you can have a split single coil tone that is humcanceling.
Aaaah, now it makes sense. But what is the advantage of the .2 then? Different sound?
I don't assume that the only difference is that it might get hum
I don't assume that the only difference is that it might get hum
The 5.2 is made more like the original music man pick up. If you're running it in either series or parallel, it's just simpler to wire it up. If you're planning on doing coil switching options, the 5.4 helps you reduce hum.
The 5.2 might have the more traditional single coil tone, but will have hum in it.
The 5.2 might have the more traditional single coil tone, but will have hum in it.
Ouff, a whole new world. I am running the pickups in parallel (3way switch close to the bridge).
I actually like the simplicity of the H pickup. Not much fiddling with controls, just plain sound. The option to be able to chose from five different settings scares the poopie out of me. I'd be tweaking all night and still be unsatisfied...
Chosing the easiest solution would then be the 5.4, because no hum will appear no matter what I do?
Thank you so far rojo! Love your avatar picture... I almost heard you scream: "Shut the shag up Donny!"
I actually like the simplicity of the H pickup. Not much fiddling with controls, just plain sound. The option to be able to chose from five different settings scares the poopie out of me. I'd be tweaking all night and still be unsatisfied...
Chosing the easiest solution would then be the 5.4, because no hum will appear no matter what I do?
Thank you so far rojo! Love your avatar picture... I almost heard you scream: "Shut the shag up Donny!"
From what I've read, people don't really get much difference in tone between the 5.2 in the 5.4. Humcanceling is really the reason to get it. Yes, you have a bunch of wiring options, but you can also keep it super simple and make it easy on yourself.
And you know, I have heard… The pick up really tied the bass together, man...
And you know, I have heard… The pick up really tied the bass together, man...
