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 SUB vs Stingray

Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by Shawn Luckman, May 8, 2010.


  1. In the three weeks that I have owned the Musicman SUB,& read a lot about them thanks to TB I am having trouble convincing myself to save for a Stingray. The bass sounds, looks,& plays great, I have cleaned it up put new strings on and a new battery & next week a new scratchplate so it will look even more like a Stingray. I dare say a few bassists who thought the same,and maybe even Sterling Ball thought that he had done too good a job on the SUB as it was made along side the Stingray.

    From what I have read from various places & from EBMM Customer service, the pickup & 2 band eq (active) are the same as you get on the Classic Stingray 4H. So I would like to know if any of you bought a sub thinking of moving up to a Stingray, settled with the sub instead & saved yourself the money. This is only a question and in no way to anger any EBMM owners, as the one's that I have spoke to hear and at the EBMM forum have been very friendly & helpfull.
     
  2. badboy1984

    badboy1984

    Mar 27, 2007
    United Kingdom
    I thought thats the reason they stop makingthe Musicmn Sub? They same too good for the price. Got to admit that the neck, body and fretboard etc feels a little different on a StingRay etc. But if I have a SUB i will stick with it, probably do a simple upgrade on preamp and pickup etc

    If it sound good now why bother spending more money on something else?
     
  3. bovinehost

    bovinehost Supporting Member

    Dec 5, 2002
    Endorsing Artist: Ernie Ball Music Man/Sterling By Music Man
    Not a question of being "too good" for the price. More a question of being too expensive to produce at that price point.

    SUBs are a great value. I have one and don't consider it in any way inferior to any of the Stingrays I've owned. A good bass is a good bass, no matter what's on the headstock.

    Of course, it's nice for me if it does say Music Man on that headstock!

    Jack
     
  4. It satisfies my EBMM cravings enough
    and a new pickguard does wonders for a SUB

    4389132770_bf3be0b5a7_b.

    I love mine
    and for the time being its good enough to fulfull a Stingray role in my stable
     
  5. That's what I'm thinking if I bought a EBMM Stingray would it be for just the headstock as the SUB is so close. And thanks yellowfury for the pic now my mind is made up, I will get either a white or pearloid scratchplate for mine. I have noticed here in the UK on ebay some EBMM Stingrays selling for around £780 secondhand. This is a bargin when you consider that the,Ray 34 is aprox £599 new.
     
  6. bassmachine2112

    bassmachine2112

    Mar 23, 2008
    hiho,I,ve got one a sub that is and I wouldn,t bother getting a stingray,very happy for the last 7 years with it.
    Perfect giggin guitar with a bullet proof finish.I prefer the cosmetic look to the grandad coffee table look.
     
  7. Mine also is a 2003 model,I just find the SUB to be an amazing bass definatly a keeper the closet I'll get to a Classic Stingray. I either read or was told that Sterling ball said that they, EBMM were losing about $100 on every SUB bass they made towards the end is there any truth in this.
     
  8. Lync

    Lync

    Apr 13, 2004
    NY
    I've had my SUB almost since they first came out. Very cool bass-a bit heavy, but sounds good. IMO though, my 30th Anniversary 'Ray sounds a bit more refined and definitely feels better (but it was also twice the price).
     
  9. eaaa410

    eaaa410

    Jun 20, 2008
    New Mexico
    I have owned both and currently have a SUB. They sound close enough that I don't feel like I'm missing anything except the Stingray finish. Taking the SUB to the Saturday evening church gig is much less stressful. I would love to own a Classic Stringray though.
     
  10. The Classic Stingray does look very good,but way out of my price leauge.Since the SUB has the same 2 band eq and the same body shape as the Classic, then I'll stick with the SUB it looks like it can handle anything you could throw at it.
     
  11. bassmachine2112

    bassmachine2112

    Mar 23, 2008
    you could throw a nuclear blast at a sub and it would still be in tune and no scratches.
    The perfect giggin bass-good sound,solid as a rock and super stable.A forearm chamfer would be nice but the classic hasn,t got it so does that make a sub the original classic ?
    I never did find the $100 bill with mine can I still claim it ?
     
  12. Just last week one went for £600-odd.

    And heck, a few weeks ago a fretless EBMM Stingray went for only £530 on ebay!

    I'd say it's more than just a name. The sound of the bass is only one of the reasons you get one, the feel and quality are other reasons to consider.

    And I think the feel aspect is certainly different, particularly with the finished neck which is the one thing that puts me off the SUBS.
     
  13. T. Alan Smith

    T. Alan Smith Guest

    Sep 9, 2001
    To me, the Stingray is much more refined all the way around. If I were a less experienced player or playing in slimy taverns, the SUB would be a perfect instrument; where I wouldn't want to trash my nice 'Ray.
    I wish I got the SUB when I had the chance. They were definately cool with their own vibe.
     
  14. mgauge

    mgauge

    Dec 21, 2009
    Chicago, IL
    I prefer the Stingray cuz of the finish on the neck, but in no way do I consider the SUB to be an 'inferior' bass..... Heck, if I had a few hundred $$ laying around, Id seek out a SUB to buy! Especially cuz they are discontinued.

    In my mind, if it says MUSICMAN on the headstock, you're family...

    :hyper:
     

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.