I've got a MM Stingray 4HH and loved it at first but over time noticed a lack of that tone I'm looking for. It's bad enough that my MIM Jazz bass seems better. I love that Warwick tone and have been really looking at the Streamer series but I'm hesitant to jump into it opinions?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Warwick vs. Stingray
- Thread starter laststand666
- Start date
I've never owned one personally, a friend of mine does and swears by it for recording and live shows, I does have that distinct punch/thump. I would make the switch if it adds more variety to your arsenal.
I just got a 98 Streamer Std that is a little beat up but sounds and plays amazing. I also have a Rockbass Streamer Standard and used to have a Streamer $$. Overall the two Standards sound really similar but the German has more character than the Rockbass. A smoother woody tone is the best I can think to describe it. The $$ was one of the best basses I've ever played. All of the Warwicks I've played have been nice. I have almost zero experience with Music Man. I need to work on that.
In my experience, with both Warwick and EB, quality is moot. You're basically (no pun intended 
) picking a tone that you like more. Warwicks growl, and have a very pronounced midrange. Stingrays, on the other hand, are *slightly* more versatile. They still have great mids, but can cop more tones -- especially with the HH configuration.
With my Warwick, to get the mids out, I had to completely scoop the mids on the amp, solo the neck pickup, and play at the neck. Now, for rock, and all similar genres, the Warwick would probably be better.
) picking a tone that you like more. Warwicks growl, and have a very pronounced midrange. Stingrays, on the other hand, are *slightly* more versatile. They still have great mids, but can cop more tones -- especially with the HH configuration. With my Warwick, to get the mids out, I had to completely scoop the mids on the amp, solo the neck pickup, and play at the neck. Now, for rock, and all similar genres, the Warwick would probably be better.
The warwicks with a MM pickup near the bridge (not necessarily the $$ models) can do stingray pretty well.
But that passive MEC Pickup whould be swapped out
But that passive MEC Pickup whould be swapped out
In my experience, with both Warwick and EB, quality is moot. You're basically (no pun intended
With my Warwick, to get the mids out, I had to completely scoop the mids on the amp, solo the neck pickup, and play at the neck. Now, for rock, and all similar genres, the Warwick would probably be better.
+1
I run a mid heavy sound with my thumb 5, and I actually have to scoop the amp to get it there without having TOO many mids!
RedLeg
Supporting Member
in 1999 I went on leave with the full intention of buying a EBMM ray 4 banger. The guy at GC said that he had a thumb BO coming off police hold the next day and it would be $100 cheaper. While I still pine for an EBMM, I can easily get the sound I want from my Thumb BO.
I dig the playability of Warwicks, and they are much more flexible than folks think.
Stingrays are cool basses, but IMO they only do a couple "tricks" really well... also, Sterling Ball hates talkbass, so...
Stingrays are cool basses, but IMO they only do a couple "tricks" really well... also, Sterling Ball hates talkbass, so...
Tone is not the only factor; Warwicks have very distinct necks.
No matter what you hear, PLAY a Warwick before you click the "pay now" button.
No matter what you hear, PLAY a Warwick before you click the "pay now" button.
I have a proline and a SR5, this is my 1st wick and I've had numerous SR's. Can't go wrong with either one. The MM hangs better and makes it a bit easier to play for me, the wick isn't too bad but I have to lower it more then I normally would.
I did some mods to wick to make it more to my suiting- got rid of the JANII (worthless junk) ditched the preamp wired it V/V/T. I did keep the active MEC pickups and the passive tone really helped get rid of harshness associated with them. The MM was ready to go without changing a thing.
I did some mods to wick to make it more to my suiting- got rid of the JANII (worthless junk) ditched the preamp wired it V/V/T. I did keep the active MEC pickups and the passive tone really helped get rid of harshness associated with them. The MM was ready to go without changing a thing.
I think this just comes down to trying the Warwick and see how it sounds and feels compared to your 'Ray. I moved from Warwicks to EBMMs a few years back because the Warwick 5-string necks were so massive that I was having repetitive stress problems in my left hand/arm.
Moved to a fretless Stingray Hp and a Sterling HH, and have had no pain at all since. Anyone who tells you a 'Ray is "only good for one thing" has never owned one... although I will say that the two-pup models are vastly more versatile.
But actually, it's the Sterling that is my main gigging bass. Love that thing... a can get tones from dub reggae to in-your-face buzzsaw without having to resort to effects, just twiddling the preamp and being very controlled with my technique. Plus, it's small, and light, and looks good on me!
But Warwicks sound great too... played 'em for years until I couldn't any more.
Moved to a fretless Stingray Hp and a Sterling HH, and have had no pain at all since. Anyone who tells you a 'Ray is "only good for one thing" has never owned one... although I will say that the two-pup models are vastly more versatile.
But actually, it's the Sterling that is my main gigging bass. Love that thing... a can get tones from dub reggae to in-your-face buzzsaw without having to resort to effects, just twiddling the preamp and being very controlled with my technique. Plus, it's small, and light, and looks good on me!
But Warwicks sound great too... played 'em for years until I couldn't any more.
I'm a buyer and seller of many Warwicks. They have a signature sound some people call growl. But they can be dialed in to many tones. They make the rest of the signal chain sound better than they deserve. A Warwick is a must have for any regular gigger that plays different styles. Music Man's can be versatile but not as much as Warwick.
^ That's funny, I've owned a bunch of Warwicks and a ton of Musicmans.....and I always got far more versatility and tone from the Musicmans, especially just a single pickup versions.
When it came down to it, the only Warwick I ever loved was the original FNA. Yup, the short-lived model with the Seymour MM pickup and electronics. Just sayin'.
When it came down to it, the only Warwick I ever loved was the original FNA. Yup, the short-lived model with the Seymour MM pickup and electronics. Just sayin'.
Love, love, love my Warwicks... and never met an EBMM that was worth a crud in my hands. Quality basses that sound phenomenal when other people play them, but just not for me.
