• 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.

original stingray tone

G

growler571

Sep 19, 2007
562
98
#1
hello fellow bassists growler here: I have a question regarding what people refer to as the original stingray tone that pre ernie ball stingrays had with the 2 band EQ. Is there quite a bit difference in tone between the newer stingrays, and the old pre ernie ball stingray bass with only the 2 band EQ? I am just wondering if i am missing out on anything with having the 3 band EQ instead of the 2 band eq. if i just set the mids flat will it sound the same as the 2 band stingray?? any thoughts info welcome

Sincerely Growler.
 
#13
I smell infraction points and I'm not talking about the OP :hmm:.

As I posted in your other thread (before seeing this one), growler 571, there is a significant difference in tone (IMO/IME) between the early, 2 band EQ 'Rays and the later 3 band EBMM models.

It's not entirley down to the EQs, as the pre-EB 'Rays sound "warmer and woodier" before you even boost a thing.

I would strongly suggest that if you're serious about getting "that StingRay sound" (the full, thick and funky tone that you might have heard coming from Louis Jordan, Bernard Edwards, Paul S. Denman of Sade's band etc.) that you get to a vintage guitar store and try out a pre-79 StingRay. I don't think you'll get the urge to smash one of those babies up ;)!
 
#16
Fender32 said:
As I posted in your other thread (before seeing this one), growler 571, there is a significant difference in tone (IMO/IME) between the early, 2 band EQ 'Rays and the later 3 band EBMM models.

It's not entirley down to the EQs, as the pre-EB 'Rays sound "warmer and woodier" before you even boost a thing.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are entirely correct here.
There's a difference between old and new SR's, but the changes didn't happen when EB took over, so the whole "pre EB" thing is a bit misleading. First, there were several tweaks to the electronics during the "pre EB" era. More importantly, IIRC the new 3-band preamps weren't introduced untill several years after EB took over. So there are lots of early EB SR's that are exactly the same as the "pre EB" ones.

This is all from memory, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
 
#18
LowB-ing said:
I don't think you are entirely correct here.
There's a difference between old and new SR's, but the changes didn't happen when EB took over, so the whole "pre EB" thing is a bit misleading. First, there were several tweaks to the electronics during the "pre EB" era. More importantly, IIRC the new 3-band preamps weren't introduced untill several years after EB took over. So there are lots of early EB SR's that are exactly the same as the "pre EB" ones.
This is all from memory, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

;) I'm "feeling free to correct you", LowB-ing.

In the last paragraph, which you didn't quote, I suggested that the OP go and try a pre-1979 'Ray.

The basses that I'm referring to have:

1. Slab bodies.
2. String through body design.
3. 3 bolt neck fixing.
4. Different pre-amp design.

Furthermore, pre-1978 models (like mine) have:

1. Different pickup with 1" long pole-pieces.
2. Different pre-amp (again).

So, the only "pre-EB" basses which are anything like the early Ernie Ball models are the post-1979, 4 bolt neck, later preamp, standard pre-amp etc. models.

Thing is, I wasn't recommending those, as I can't see them sounding quite the same as the early pre-EB models!

Anyone who's interested in the details can get all the info they need here ... Link Removed

That website is one of the coolest bass-related websites I've seen, BTW. Props to Gav, for setting it up and keeping it going for so long :hyper:.
 
#19
I had 2 '80 Musicman basses; a Stingray and a Sabre. Both had 3 bolt necks, the Stingray had through-body stringing. I also had 2 '96 Stingrays at the same time, a regular 4 string and a fretless 5. The differences between the two 4 string Stingrays were very noticeable; I definitely preferred the '80. I put a Bart5 pickup and Basslines preamp in the '96, which made it better; I even wired the pickup for series/single/parallel....kind of like a Sterling, actually. It definitely helped the bass get the tone I wanted, which the '80 'Ray had. The '80 Sabre sounded the same as the '80 Ray, when the bridge pickup was soloed. I tried several EB Rays (and Sterlings) before choosing the one I got, and I can say this without any doubt whatsoever; they sound different than the early pre-EB Rays. About as different as a Bongo sounds from an EB Ray, on fact.
 
#20
danomite64 said:
I had 2 '80 Musicman basses; a Stingray and a Sabre. Both had 3 bolt necks, the Stingray had through-body stringing. I also had 2 '96 Stingrays at the same time, a regular 4 string and a fretless 5. The differences between the two 4 string Stingrays were very noticeable; I definitely preferred the '80. I put a Bart5 pickup and Basslines preamp in the '96, which made it better; I even wired the pickup for series/single/parallel....kind of like a Sterling, actually. It definitely helped the bass get the tone I wanted, which the '80 'Ray had. The '80 Sabre sounded the same as the '80 Ray, when the bridge pickup was soloed. I tried several EB Rays (and Sterlings) before choosing the one I got, and I can say this without any doubt whatsoever; they sound different than the early pre-EB Rays. About as different as a Bongo sounds from an EB Ray, on fact.
Click to expand...

Thank you danomite64, you're my hero :smug:!

Everywhere that I've posted that same opinion recently I've been royally lambasted by people telling me that I don't know how to use and amp, have bad technique etc. etc.

It's nice to hear from somebody who is in a position to give a valid opinion on the subjest and even nicer to be in a position to agree with you :).
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back