• 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.

Which Stingray would you buy?

Which Stingray would you buy?

  • H w/2 band EQ

    Votes: 81 29.1%

  • H w/3 band EQ

    Votes: 97 34.9%

  • HH

    Votes: 100 36.0%
  • Total voters
    278
#62
rappa29 said:
My question is: how do the current production 2 band Stingrays compare to the original\classic 2 band Stingrays, Pre EB or whatever (not sure when EB took over or when they stopped producing 2 band as the norm).

Is the current production 2 band basically a current production 3 band minus the Mid knob? Or is it a completely different preamp? Or is it designed with the same or similar guts as the original 2 band?
Click to expand...


For comparison; I recently had an '07 2eq maple board Ray, and it sounded identicle to my '81 maple board Ray. It has been reported that the preamp is the same circut they have been using since 1979 (the non-epoxy boards).

No it is not the same preamp minus the mid knob, they're voiced differently. The 2eq is voiced strong in low mids, while the 3eq seem to be voiced with lots of high mids, which makes sense why every 3eq Ray I've owned or played seemed so sizzly and trebly compared to my 2eq's.
 
#63
Caca de Kick said:
For comparison; I recently had an '07 2eq maple board Ray, and it sounded identicle to my '81 maple board Ray. It has been reported that the preamp is the same circut they have been using since 1979 (the non-epoxy boards).

No it is not the same preamp minus the mid knob, they're voiced differently. The 2eq is voiced strong in low mids, while the 3eq seem to be voiced with lots of high mids, which makes sense why every 3eq Ray I've owned or played seemed so sizzly and trebly compared to my 2eq's.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
 
#64
Caca de Kick said:
For comparison; I recently had an '07 2eq maple board Ray, and it sounded identicle to my '81 maple board Ray. It has been reported that the preamp is the same circut they have been using since 1979 (the non-epoxy boards).
Click to expand...

I havent found this to be the case with my basses.
mine are an '80 and a '00 both with maple boards and the pre-EB surely sounds different than the '00 model.
I dont know if it's the mass of the neck (the '00 model has a very chunky C profile neck), the string thru bridge on the '80 Ray, the age of each, the difference in capacitors or whatever but they dont sound the same to me.

that being said I cant say one is better than the other, they are still two flavours of the same bass and I'll shift my preference periodically between them with the EBMM often blowing my mind after a jam or practice and vice a' versa with the pre-EB.

btw, build quality is way ahead on my EBMM Stingrays ('00 fretted and '95 fretless), I think they are among the best made production basses availiable.
 
#66
air_leech said:
I havent found this to be the case with my basses.
mine are an '80 and a '00 both with maple boards and the pre-EB surely sounds different than the '00 model.
I dont know if it's the mass of the neck (the '00 model has a very chunky C profile neck), the string thru bridge on the '80 Ray, the age of each, the difference in capacitors or whatever but they dont sound the same to me.
Click to expand...

I don't think string thru basses is quite the same playing field.
Yes, I also have a string thru preEB, and you're right they sound different. But my 81 is a top load bridge and 4 bolt neck, and the few other top load preEB I've had seemed somewhat consistant as well.
 
#67
I've had a MIA Pbass which could be stringed both thru body and thru bridge and it didnt make a difference in tone for me.

on the other hand, Stingrays seem to be very sensitive to string type and old strings so maybe the difference I hear can be attributed to the thru body stringing.

anyway, my pre EB has huge lows, super punchy low mids, a dip in the high mid and treble that is excessive when turned past 30%.

on the other hand my EBMM has less lows, very tight low mids and snarly high mids and the treble seems to be smoother when boosted than the pre EB.

if I had to guess I'd bet the main cause for the tone difference is the Tantalum caps (pre '81 basses) vs. Electrolytic caps ('81 onwards) but again, there are so many factors and the Stingray seem to change it's tone so drastically when changing string types that I could probably find an EBMM that sounds exactly like my pre eb if I was to play enough of them.
 
#68
Well, I couldn't make up my mind, so I bought a 2 band H and an HH :D

The 2 bander arrived yesterday from Bass Central. Worked out a great deal with Beaver Felton. What a cool guy to deal with. I'm surprised how light it is. I haven't weighed it yet, but I doubt it's much more than 8.5 lbs.

Link Removed

Link Removed

Snagged the Desert Gold HH off of eBay. Should be in next week. Crappy eBay pics until I take slightly better ones:

Link Removed

Link Removed
 
#69
Horny Toad said:
Well, I couldn't make up my mind, so I bought a 2 band H and an HH :D

The 2 bander arrived yesterday from Bass Central. Worked out a great deal with Beaver Felton. What a cool guy to deal with. I'm surprised how light it is. I haven't weighed it yet, but I doubt it's much more than 8.5 lbs.

Link Removed

Link Removed

Snagged the Desert Gold HH off of eBay. Should be in next week. Crappy eBay pics until I take slightly better ones:

Link Removed

Link Removed
Click to expand...

Now, THAT'S the way to make a decision!
 
#77
Sinclair said:
+1
Now that you own the 2eq and 3eq version - which one do you like better? What are the differences in tone?

Having my eyes on a 3eq mid 90's with maple board and I'm not sure if it's too bright..
Click to expand...

I think tone can be a bit difficult to describe (unless you're KJung :D), but I would say when comparing the HH running just the rear H (classic Stingray mode) with the single H Stingray, the single H 'ray really does sound thicker, fuller, fatter. I suppose with enough knob twiddling I could get them to sound very close, but as others have mentioned, the single H Stingray just has a lovely "organic" quality to it. It is not lacking for mids at all, and sits in the mix beautifully. I played both at a gig about two weeks ago and I found I didn't care for the HH in single H mode, but I loved it with the switch in position 4 (coils 2 & 3). The tone with that setting is very rich, lots of depth. I left the EQ flat. On the single H Stingray, I set the bass control at about 80% and the treble around 20%, maybe a bit less. It was punchy and thick. The highs were not sizzly at all, they were very clear and smooth. I could play the single H Stingray all night and be totally happy, but if I want a slightly more "complex" tone, I'll pull out the HH and leave it in position 4. I've got another gig this weekend, so I'll get to try 'em out again.

And just for reference, I've got 40-100 Chromes on both basses, and I run them through a Carvin B1500 into a Schroeder 610L with the tweeter turned off. No PA support for bass. 95% fingerstyle, 5% pick.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back