Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by pertyman, Jul 12, 2014.
A little comparison I did:
Thats Cool..Sounds real good
I had a '77 and a '97.. They sounded different from each other for me. but they also both sounded great in their own way..
Question....How did you record the bass.. Do you use eh camera Audio? Or a separate DI.. an what prog do you use to edit video. etc. I would like to do some videos myself.. But i would like to use my REDDI Di instead of the cameras audio.. I have no idea how to do that.. Sorry for any derail
They both sound awesome but I think I prefer the pre-Ernie. Started watching the video and the bass that looks older to me was not my preference. Had to go back to the beginning. Ah there it is, the pre-Ernie looks better and sounds better. Well at least for most of the finger and slap. I liked the Ernie better for some of the pick work but there seemed to be some unevenness across the strings (sounds like the string height or relief on the neck my be a little different). To my ears the pre-Ernie has a clearer fundamental, a little more low-mid punch and the signature MM EQ contour on top end (slightly scooped upper mids but plenty of spit on top). I like it
I had two pre EB 'Rays, a '78 and a '79. THEY sounded very different from each other, both amplified and unamped. The pre EB preamps varied quite a bit. Also yhe '78 was a dead unresonanant chunk of wood and sounded that way through the amp too.
That's a good example of every bass being a law unto itself. Two instruments could be made from wood out of the exact same tree, cured at the same time, and using components made at the same time in the same place by the same person, and sound radically different from each other. That's just the way of organic materials.
This is absolutely true...In regards to pre- and post-Ernie basses, I believe there are differences in materials, manufacturing processes, and the typical sonic signatures of each companies instruments . Many of the pre-Ernie basses I have played had a certain mojo and jumped to life in my hands. As I am sure you know mojo, is highly subjective and somewhat intangible. There was a long time that I searched for an Ernie 5 string with the same mojo, but I never found one that rocked my boat. I wouldn't say either companies instruments are better than the other, but I grew up with the sound and feel of the original and that is what I tend to prefer. I doubt I will ever own either as there is already too much wood in the pile.
Pertyman - great playing and nice comparison. However is your 95 a three band and if so, if the mid is on centre detent it will have more upper mid than the 2 band (pre Ernie Ball or not).
The strings sound a little more zingy on the 95 one - are they same make but a little newer?
Thanks for this. Killer chops!
I have several post-EB Stingrays, all with maple fingerboards and the "same" woods otherwise, that sound as varied or more than these do.
My preference is for the brown one, because it's brown and has the mutes.
Different basses, especially with different strings and many would argue the fingerboard wood matters, there'll be at least a slightly different sound ... no matter the era.
I prefer the pre. It's a little warmer and not as aggressive. Though I think even 2 band vs. 3 band EB Stingrays sound different to each other, plus the strings weren't the same so it's not QUITE a fair comparison. I personally think if you had a 2 band EB and put it up against the pre-EB it would sound closer.