• 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.

Musicman Classic Stingray 5 string

#21
Here is a pic of it.
 

Attachments

  • 425132_10151243805160511_1801919510_n.jpg
    425132_10151243805160511_1801919510_n.jpg
    66.9 KB · Views: 236
#22
2string1 said:
Here is a pic of it.
Click to expand...

Right, so that's a standard SR5 H, not the Classic series. Notice the large pickguard and vey contoured body. Very nice and comfortable to play.

$1000 isn't a bad price, but do know that the street value for a new one can probably be brought down to about $1525 or so if you wheel and deal with Bass Central or MF. Depends on color and pickup configuration you want. I prefer the HS (or HH), because l like resting my thumb on the neck pickup as just having the bridge PU is uncomfortable for me. Good luck.
 
#23
I have a StingRay Classic 5, and while I am usually a Jazz Bass guy, I find myself usually playing that one. I end up taking it to every rehearsal and show and forgetting to switch. It's an awesome instrument.
 
#24
I'm in the market for a SR5 too. I've owned several over the last 5 years or so and have always had a love/hate relationship with then. A buddy and I spent s solid 90 minutes at out local dealer comparing Classics to HH models. I went in with the idea that I would come home with a Classic but u actually liked the HH model better. That's completely opposite from prior experiences. Haven't found a single H yet but man, you honestly can't go wrong either way.
 
#26
I've got a HH (2 humbuckers) are I much prefer to play over the bridge pickup, and anchor my thum there. I'll occasionally play over the neck pickup, but if I'm waiting to go up that way, I'm just as likely to play over the start of the neck and anchor my thumb on it. IMO they don't need a ramp/thumb rest - players have been doing fine without them for nearly 40 years now.
 
#28
I've just picked up a Ray 5 H Classic as noted above.

Gorgeous one piece natural body, (i'm shocked if its two) amazing birdseye maple neck/board, stunning build, fairly low weight for a big bass, nice chrome wheel and battery cover, cool old school logo, slab body, the 2EQ is great and the treble goes from fat and warm to slice your head off Ray sizzle, and the mutes are stunning...I'm really shocked how good the mutes are. The neck finish is lovely.

I got a good deal brand new...this will be with me for life if I have anything to do with it.
 
#29
2string1 said:
The one I'm looking at is a 2002 or 2003. Which PU does it have? It has the different PG not the egg shaped one.
Click to expand...

That is a Stingray 5H (not a Classic). From 87 to around 1990 (I think) the Stingray 5 had alnico magnets in the pickup. Then they changed to ceramic magnets.

In 2008, the Stingray 5 changed back to alnico magnets and EBMM started making the Sterling 5, which has the ceramic magnets. There was no Sterling 5 prior to 2008.

So, the 2002 or 2003 Stingray 5H you are looking at has the exact same electronics as a Sterling 5. Same pickup (ceramic). Same preamp. Same switching.

The switch is Series mode (towards neck), Single Coil (using the bridge side coil) (middle), and Parallel (towards the bridge). The "classic" Stingray sound is Parallel mode on the coils, which is what any Stingray has if it's a model with no switch (e.g. a Classic model).

The current Stingray 5H, which has alnico magnets, also has a 3-way switch, but the 3 positions are not identical to the 2002 Stingray 5 or the Sterling 5. I think positions 1 and 3 are the same, just the middle position is slightly different.

Also, just for the record, the Stingray 4-string basses have always just had alnico magnet pickups, and the Sterling 4-string basses have always had ceramic magnet pickups. And the Sterling 5 (which, again, has only been existence since 2008) has always had ceramic magnets. It's only the Stingray 5 that has been magnet-confused.

Finally, FWIW, I'm not surprised you fell in love with an '02 (or '03) model. I personally definitely prefer the ceramic magnet pickup to the alnico. I went into a GC a few months ago and pulled down a new Stingray 5H and played it for a bit and really liked it. But then I pulled down a Sterling 5H and played it through the same rig and the tone made my jaw drop. Thus, I now own a Sterling 5H. :D
 
#30
StuartV said:
That is a Stingray 5H (not a Classic). From 87 to around 1990 (I think) the Stingray 5 had alnico magnets in the pickup. Then they changed to ceramic magnets.

In 2008, the Stingray 5 changed back to alnico magnets and EBMM started making the Sterling 5, which has the ceramic magnets. There was no Sterling 5 prior to 2008.

So, the 2002 or 2003 Stingray 5H you are looking at has the exact same electronics as a Sterling 5. Same pickup (ceramic). Same preamp. Same switching.

The switch is Series mode (towards neck), Single Coil (using the bridge side coil) (middle), and Parallel (towards the bridge). The "classic" Stingray sound is Parallel mode on the coils, which is what any Stingray has if it's a model with no switch (e.g. a Classic model).

The current Stingray 5H, which has alnico magnets, also has a 3-way switch, but the 3 positions are not identical to the 2002 Stingray 5 or the Sterling 5. I think positions 1 and 3 are the same, just the middle position is slightly different.

Also, just for the record, the Stingray 4-string basses have always just had alnico magnet pickups, and the Sterling 4-string basses have always had ceramic magnet pickups. And the Sterling 5 (which, again, has only been existence since 2008) has always had ceramic magnets. It's only the Stingray 5 that has been magnet-confused.

Finally, FWIW, I'm not surprised you fell in love with an '02 (or '03) model. I personally definitely prefer the ceramic magnet pickup to the alnico. I went into a GC a few months ago and pulled down a new Stingray 5H and played it for a bit and really liked it. But then I pulled down a Sterling 5H and played it through the same rig and the tone made my jaw drop. Thus, I now own a Sterling 5H. :D
Click to expand...

Good explanation about a topic that's a bit confusing. I personally prefer the punch, power, and sustain of the ceramics in the Sterlings myself. I think it would be cool if my Stingray Slo Special had ceramics like my Sterlings. I preferred the SR5 with the ceramic PU also. Of course, some swear by alnico.
 
#31
I have a natural finish Classic 5: very happy with it, very nicely built and (despite what you might hear) I find it very versatile.

I actually considered modifing it with a John East preamp: the reason was I wanted it to sound more like my '77 Stingray, but I ended up leaving it alone. It sounds great as it is and I'm having Grove Guitars build me a Cutlass- inspired 5 string with a Norstrand pu and the East 2-band preamp.
 
#32
pd2eYoG.png


I have this Classic Stingray 5 and I can assure you is one of the best I played low in recent years, before buying I had underestimated the pre 2 bands, but then I realized that it is amazing. The bass is very confotável to touch, even after hours, and has the true sound "Stingray", I would never do any modification that low.

And the arm, this birdseye maple, my God, the arm is fantastic ...!!
iNtWuA2.jpg

SKSyF4t.jpg

cvOEEL2.jpg
 
#33
Shedua511 said:
I have a natural finish Classic 5: very happy with it, very nicely built and (despite what you might hear) I find it very versatile.

I actually considered modifing it with a John East preamp: the reason was I wanted it to sound more like my '77 Stingray, but I ended up leaving it alone. It sounds great as it is and I'm having Grove Guitars build me a Cutlass- inspired 5 string with a Norstrand pu and the East 2-band preamp.
Click to expand...

If it sounds different from a stock 77 2 band then it's not the classic preamp that is at fault. They're sonically identical. Pickup or wood (or strings obviously... Just due diligence) pretty much must be the cause.
 
#35
Sonically absolutely in the same ballpark, but (to my ears) not identical at all.
And I'm not talking a subtle, unnoticeable difference: it is very clear.
The strings are the same, DR Lo Riders.
I recorded the same bassline and me and engineer were amazed at how different they sounded with roughly the same settings...
 
#37
Shedua511 said:
Sonically absolutely in the same ballpark, but (to my ears) not identical at all.
And I'm not talking a subtle, unnoticeable difference: it is very clear.
The strings are the same, DR Lo Riders.
I recorded the same bassline and me and engineer were amazed at how different they sounded with roughly the same settings...
Click to expand...

As noted... Is the bass not the preamp design. The vintage preamps aren't a mystery... They're well understood now. Possibly one or two capacitors have dried out a bit with age changing the center frequencies.

I totally believe you, just wondering how it could be the preamp when John east made every effort to recreate a vintage 2 band preamp, just as ebmm did with the classic, and the circuit values are well known and easily recreated these days.

I suspect it's aged component values changing combined with wood variations.
 
#38
boristhespider9 said:
Good explanation about a topic that's a bit confusing. I personally prefer the punch, power, and sustain of the ceramics in the Sterlings myself. I think it would be cool if my Stingray Slo Special had ceramics like my Sterlings. I preferred the SR5 with the ceramic PU also. Of course, some swear by alnico.
Click to expand...

I also prefer the ceramics of the Sterlings over the alnicos - the additional midrange presence of the ceramics stand out better in a band mix for me...


- georgestrings
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back