1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  

MusicMan Stingray HH vs. Warwick $$ Corvette

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by neald, Sep 24, 2008.


  1. neald

    neald

    May 18, 2008
    could use a little insight from you folks.

    i have been offered a Warwick $$ Corvette for $1200 (slight blemish) and I am wondering how it would stack up against a $1300 Stingray HH

    i love the action and tone from the Stingray but i have to admit that Warwick didn't sound too bad.

    For the record i am running a Mark Bass II head thru an Ampeg 15" lower cab and a GK 4x10" top cab.

    any insight would be appreciated. :ninja::confused:
     
  2. detracti

    detracti

    May 5, 2006
    Seattle
    IME, they play and sound very different from one another.
     
  3. neald

    neald

    May 18, 2008
    that's my predicament. i liked the Warwick just fine, but i'm not sure if i would grow out of liking it in the long run. The Stingray HH seems like the better playing of the two (i.e faster neck) but weighs a lot while the Warwick has nice weight and a beautiful Wenge fingerboard.

    i guess its semantics. i was just hoping someone had made a decision like this or has any experience with the 2.

    thanks again in advance.
     
  4. detracti

    detracti

    May 5, 2006
    Seattle
    I've only played around with the Warwick at GC, and own a 'ray 4HH. Yeah the Warwick neck is thicker front-to-back. IMO, the body is not quite as resonant as the 'ray, and it seemed to be almost non-existent in top end clarity.. more like all mids and lows. But that could've been the strings.
     
  5. neald

    neald

    May 18, 2008
    i was wondering about that. also, i haven't exactly heard the greatest things about the MEC p/u either.

    thanks for the input, please keep it coming.
     
  6. Johnius

    Johnius

    Dec 5, 2007
    I play a Warwick 5 and have a Stinray on order now (backordered due to leftiness). The Warwick is a great Rock bass with beefy tone and is very playbable. However, it has broad, sweeping mids but no mid control. The mids sometimes overstep their bounds. This kind of limits its useability. Another snag with Warwick is the pup cover is up kind of high and tends to interfere with slapping and popping. On the plus side, though, those MEC pup are super hot so you'll always get all the sound there is to be had. I ordered a Stingray for the humbucker, the space available for slap & pop and for general resonance. I guess it comes down to whether you want the juiced tone of a Warwick or the more "gravitational" (IMO) tone of a Stingray.
     
  7. CapnSev

    CapnSev

    Aug 19, 2006
    Coeur d'Alene
    My vote goes to the $$. Having owned both, the HH EBMM doesn't do it for me. The only pickup positions I liked on it were the classic bridge humbucker only, and both humbuckers for slap, that was it. The other positions sounded like the were trying to "Musicman up" the tones, which didn't do it for me.

    The $$ was an excellent bass. I owned it for a long time and would have kept it if the narrow nut width didn't give me wrist problems. It was extremely versatile, and all the options were really usable. I really liked the sort of dry sound that the MECs gave it, especially in recordings. I think that's why the bass sounded so nice in all the pickup configurations, while the MM didn't.

    For $1200 though, I hope that $$ is new, because you can get one used a lot less than that. $1200 will get you a nice used Streamer $$ which (IMO) is far better than the Corvette $$.
     
  8. Earwigger

    Earwigger I'm a Roland man now.

    Aug 23, 2005
    Cleveland, Ohio
    I have a $$ NT, which is a bit different then the stock $$, but I've played both of those said basses and the Wick does lack some high-end sparkle, but has a great tone with more growl and aggressiveness then the MM. The MM is a decent bass, but I found the low end to be muddy compared to the Wick. The MM has a 3-band EQ, but the Wick has more coil switching options then the MM and has an EQ bypass - the midrange control is sorely missing, so there's some points for the MM. If you want a passive, natural-y tone, I'd go for the Warwick. If you want a more active tone, the MM would be my suggestion.

    Ergonomically, the MM had a wider flatter fingerboard and a faster neck, and was lighter then the Wick that I played. The Warwick has a massive neck on it, and if you have smaller hands the MM will be a clear winner.

    I couldn't get a sound I liked from the MM, but with the Wick it was no problem. That's personal preference though. I ended up getting the Wick NT, which turned out to be the best bass I could have asked for.

    You might also consider a G&L 2000, which is the same kinda thing (Dual humbuckers with lots of knobs and switches), and which I used to own and miss quite a lot. Those are great sounding basses.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.