Silent Fly

[quote name='mcnach' post='981100' date='Oct 8 2010, 12:09 AM'](...) about the battery... wow, 2.5V? Are you sure?[/quote] This was what my digital multimeter said [quote name='mcnach' post='981100' date='Oct 8 2010, 12:09 AM'](...) I'm surprised t worked at all! (...)[/quote] I was equally surprised. I assumed the battery was new(ish) until I noticed some clipping when I hit the low E.

[i]Added photo of the SR Classic to the first post.[/i]

[quote name='stevebasshead' post='979470' date='Oct 6 2010, 03:20 PM']I don't know if you're registered on Finnbass (I think you need to be registered to view posts there) but Brycee has a thread about a dirt cheap built in overdrive circuit (circuit! It's a fiendishly simple 2 diodes) which would fit anywhere without any woodwork and costs pennies. [url="http://www.finnbass.com/showthread.php?t=1384"]http://www.finnbass.com/showthread.php?t=1384[/url][/quote] There are other two ways to do it without loosing the tone control: 1) Replace the tone pot with a push/pull. The push/pull switch can be used to switch between cap and diodes. 2) Use a 500k pot wired as follows: mid contact: ground contact #1: to diodes contact #2: to cap the sides of the diodes/cap not connected to the pot are bot connected to the signal (i.e. out jack) When the pot is set in the middle, the clipping and tone are not active. One one side, it increases the clipping, on the other side it closes the tone. It should do the trick.

I forgot to mention that I purchased a Hipshot Extender for the Classic. Unfortunately, every time I pickup the bass to install it I end up playing the bass and after 5 minutes I forget about the Extender.

[quote name='ezbass' post='979691' date='Oct 6 2010, 06:09 PM']Apologies, what's to apologise for? If you hadn't posted that last line I would have never known that English isn't your first language, even more kudos for your recent reviews.[/quote] It is very kind of you - thanks. It is difficult for me to judge how I write and I am always a little bit self conscious about it.

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='979654' date='Oct 6 2010, 05:35 PM'](...) Does the lack of chamfeur bother you at all?[/quote] Not really. I didn't noticed it before I checked the photos in the MM web site.

After the multi-review posted [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=105178"]here[/url] I decided to buy the [url="http://www.music-man.com/instruments/basses/classic-stingray-4.html"]SR Classic[/url]. It is a really great instrument and I think that it deserves a more in depth review. The multi-review was based on playing in a shop where the instrument had a generic setup that could obviously be improved based on personal preferences. The setup of the SR was reasonably ok but there were two issues: * The neck had a little amount of backbow that caused a bit of fret noise on some frets. With MM necks of recent production the truss rod adjustment is very easy so achieving the right setup for my playing style was simple. I like low action. I prefer to use my right hand to reduce the fret noise instead of keeping the action high and go wild with the finger style. Thanks to the excellent fretwork of the SR Classic, I managed to lower the action so much that I had to remove a tiny amount of sponge from the mute on the bridge. The bass left the factory with 045 Super Slinky Bass. I use 040 on my basses but with the super-low action of the Classic playing with 045 feels like I using 035. I may even end up keep using 045. * Battery. As soon as I arrived back home with my new Classic, I checked the battery and I discovered that it was at around 2.5V. Needless to say the preamp was strangled by the lack of voltage. I changed the battery with a brand new Energizer Ultimate and the bass sounds, not unexpectedly, better. Clearer, with tighter bass and more musical and controlled treble. After these simple but effective changes, an already excellent good bass is now perfect. So how does it sound? Funky, punchy, solid and warm. I like to keep volume and bass at 100% with the treble set according the song but I noticed that once I find the right spot for the treble control I never touch it. I can switch from slap to finger style without touching anything. Compared to my Fender JB, I find the wider neck a little bit challenging in some fast passages on the first frets but I can live with it. Last but not least because it is going to improve my left hand technique. /// Conclusions It is strange... I have never been a great fan of MM basses. I found them lacking of the fast midrange that I love in the JB. The simple electronic and one pickup too... simple. After more than 2 decades from my first bass I discovered another world. Ironically, a world that was born by the same man (Leo Fender) that created the JB, the bass that I though was created for my hands and my style. I rarely found myself so connected with a bass. The notes just come out effortlessly. It might be just the excitement of a new bass – time will tell. For the time being, I am sure of one thing: my Fender JB has found a half-brother he didn’t know he had. SR Classic, you are here to stay. [i][size=1](English is not my first language. Apologies for typos, grammatical errors and general lack of clarity)[/size][/i]

[quote name='Linus27' post='978933' date='Oct 5 2010, 10:31 PM']Nice review. I have had two 3EQ Rays and currently own a 2EQ Ray and for me the 2EQ blows the two 3EQ's out of the water. I could never get a nice fat punchy tone out of either of the 3EQ Rays (10 years between owning both so different amps also) where as the 2EQ is fat, driving with the typical Stingray tone. I love it.[/quote] I agree but at the same time I think the 3EQ is an equally interesting bass. I suspect some people buy the 3EQ because [i]3 has to better than 2[/i] but a part from that, in some context the 3EQ version makes sense. [quote name='Linus27' post='978933' date='Oct 5 2010, 10:31 PM']I am just praying they release a Classic 2EQ fretless as my money would be ready for that.[/quote] Are you sure it is not available? I would give Alex @ Bass Gallery a ring just in case.

[quote name='swanbrook' post='976747' date='Oct 4 2010, 09:43 AM']Great review however you hav given me really bad gas for a classic sr5 ![/quote] I know [i]exacly [/i]what you are talking about

[quote name='Ou7shined' post='976400' date='Oct 3 2010, 08:39 PM']What did you play them through?[/quote] A small Mark Bass combo and an Aguilar head (I think a AG 500SC) + Aguilar DB 810 (or DB 410 I can't remember). [quote name='E sharp' post='976424' date='Oct 3 2010, 09:21 PM'](...) Has anyone modded a 2 band , with a piggy back mid (ie East dual concentric mid pot) - thus getting the best of everything ?[/quote] It should be possible but you need a separate circuit for the mids otherwise it would impact the treble and bass. [quote name='BoomBass' post='976455' date='Oct 3 2010, 09:43 PM'](...) I am curious to know what SR5 you used for the review - alnico or ceramic? (...)[/quote] I am almost certain the SR5 I used to have had a ceramic pickup. The SR5 I tried sounded pretty much the same but I don't know for sure if it was alnico or ceramic. I suspect the type of circuit has an equal (in not greater) impact. Unless someone changes the circuit to a SR5 and to an A/B comparison I don't think will never know.

[quote name='dub_junkie' post='976349' date='Oct 3 2010, 07:53 PM']my two favourite MMs are the two you liked least. it probably boils down to alnico vs ceramic and personal preference for either its good there's the choice thanks for the reviews [/quote] I think that regardless the model, they are all very nice basses. What I see as weaknesses can be easily seen as strengths by others. As you pointed out, it very much a matter of personal preference, playing style and type of music played. Personally, I see myself playing a Chic song with a 2EQ (Classic or not) but I woundn't be so at ease with a Sterling. More in general, I have the greatest respect for EB/MM. I also own a MM Van Halen and it is a trully beautifull instrument.

[quote name='EdwardHimself' post='976202' date='Oct 3 2010, 05:47 PM']Nice review. Shame you don't like the SR5 sound. I always thought it sounded good on the recordings i've heard it on at least. Not really tried one out at a proper volume setting but it does appear to be a very comfy bass. Maybe it's more of a rock/metal bass as you said?[/quote] Don't get me wrong - the SR5 is not a bad bass but unless I spent ages with the onboard EQ, compressor and amp setting I couldn’t find a sound I liked it. Moreover, I had to change settings between slap and fingerstyle. With the SR-2EQ it took me seconds to find a sound I liked and I never moved the controls - I did everything changing the playing style. I think the fact the SR5 sounds good in recordings is not entirely unexpected. The electronic is very clean and I am sure it is the joy of anybody working on the recording desk. Also the fact that is has a less pronounced personality make is more a blank canvas during the recording. Nothing wrong with the bass – it is just the way I play and what I need convey what it is in my head.

[quote name='JJTee' post='976162' date='Oct 3 2010, 05:11 PM']Great stuff - this is really useful. I'm definitely (one day) after a Stingray with that old-school Bernard Edwards sound (rather than a more modern zingy tone - I have a Fleabass for that). Sounds like the classic is the one! Cheers![/quote] I agree - the Classic is the one. Having said that, I think the 2EQ would be equally ok. They are not too different. I like the Classic more but the 2EQ is a very nice bass.

In the past couple of days I had the chance to try a few Music Man basses (all with a single pickup) and I would like to share with you my experience in the hope it will be useful to others. I am not an expert of MM basses. I used to have a StingRay 5 (natural, rosewood freboard) that I kept for a few months but I sold. It wasn't the bass for me – I like to play syncopated fingerstyle (Motown, Jaco, Tower Of Power, Pino Palladino) with my finger close to the bridge and the bass didn't have the attack and low-mid punch I like. Having said that, it was very comfortable to play. What follows are my comments based on my playing style, the music I like and the type of sound I look for in a bass. [b]- Stingray Classic (maple fingerboard)[/b] Killer bass. Simple electronics (only bass and treble) with attack to spare. From a certain viewpoint it sounded similar to a JB played close to bridge but with less nasal and with more bass. I could switch from fingerstyle to slap without touching the on board EQ - a nice surprise for a JB aficionado like me that keeps moving from everything open (slap) to neck and tone closed (fingerstyle). The sustain was excellent. Longer that my Fender JB Jaco Pastorius Artist Fretted and in the range of my Status Graphite 6. The bass frequencies were just to die for: the warmest and natural I heard in a very long time - you could almost hear the speakers breath The action was very low and the general feel of the instrument excellent. Tone: 9/10 General feel: 9/10 Summary: the best Music Man bass I every played. [b]- Stingray standard 2 Band EQ (maple fingerboard)[/b] Sound-wise, and perhaps not unexpectedly, it was similar to the classic. Compared to the Classic the fretboard is flatter but nothing substantial. Unfortunately, the set up of the bass I tried was less than optimal. It is difficult to say if the Classic was more comfortable to play because of the better set up of because of its construction. My experience with the Stingray 5 leads me to believe that the bass would have been far more comfortable to play with a proper neck and action adjustment. The nice low frequencies of the classic were still there perhaps with a slight less warmth. There was a bit less sustain and a perhaps a less attack but suspect that to notice it you would need to a proper A/B test. Unfortunately, I tried it with another amp. Tone: 8/10 General feel: 8/10 Summary: a solid bass with a good value/value ratio. [b]- StingRay 3 band EQ (rosewood fretboard)[/b] Compared to the 2EQ, the 3EQ it is a more modern sounding instrument and because of the mid control it is possible to produce a wider range of tones. It was a nice sounding bass but I found the StingRay tone a little bit diluted in favour of a more active and brighter tone. It is not necessarily a bad thing but from a certain viewpoint I found it closer to my Fender JB with external EQ or other active basses. Personally, I think that although the mid control adds an extra level of flexibility, it takes away something far more important: part of the classic StingRay tone. The deep warm bass frequencies were still there but they were altered by the different circuit. I would like to point out that the variation in tone between 2EQ and 3EQ is not necessarily a bad thing. If for instance, I used a pick instead of my fingers I would almost certainly prefer the 3EQ version. Tone: 7/10 General feel: 8/10 Summary: Nice bass that stands in the middle between the MM tone and other active basses. [b]- Sterling (rosewood fretboard)[/b] Of the bunch I tried, it was the bass with the more flexible electronic (3EQ and pickup wiring switch). The neck had an extra fret and it was slightly narrower at the first fret making it very comfortable to play. Although I enjoyed playing it, compared to the StingRay I found it unconvincing. It lacked of the depth of the 2EQ StingRay and the more aggressive and modern sounds of the 3EQ. It sounded like the attack and punch disappeared in the path from the fingers and the output jack. Somehow strangled by the multi-coil pickup, the 3 band EQ and the coil selection switch. Tone: 6/10 General feel: 8/10 Summary: Good construction and look with a somehow uninspiring and average tone. [b]- StingRay 5 (rosewood fretboard)[/b] Same electronic of the Sterling but with an extra string. Well, almost... The other visible difference is that the pickup is slightly closer to the neck. Sadly, the reasons I didn't like the Sterling 5 a few years ago are still there. The sound is similar to the Sterling with the difference that the pickup position kills what was left of the attack. Don’t get me wrong, it is possible to get killer funky sounds out of a StingRay 5. Paul Turner [Jamiroquai] proved that it is possible but I wonder how much comes from the bass and much comes from sound processing (EQ, compression and amplification). Having said that, if you like the sound, the Sterling 5 is among the most comfortable 5 string around. (I noticed that there is also a StingRay Classic 5 with a 2EQ circuit and the pickup in the 4 string position. I haven't manager to try it but I would be surprised if it doesn't sound great) Tone: 5/10 General feel: 9/10 Summary: Very good construction and with a depressingly lifeless tone. Not the bass for me. [b]- StingRay 4 ‘82 (maple fretboard)[/b] This bass is own by Alex @ Bass Gallery. Apart a few minor differences, it looked like a twin of the MM Classic tested above. The bass had a really good setup thanks to the Alex’s skills and experience. With a nice set of DR 040 it was a killer bass. Punchy and warm with a round and fast attack. It sounded equally good slap and finger style. Alex told me that it purchased from a basschat member. If the previous owner is listening... big mistake - you should have kept it. So how does it compare to the almost indistinguishable MM Classic? Quite frankly, I couldn’t hear too much difference. The Classic has the new truss rod system that makes the setup a walk in the park. The Classic has also a glossy vintage neck finish but I would put it in “personal preferences” category more than anything else. Sound wise, the tone was so similar that only an A/B test with exactly the same strings, amp, and setup could tell them apart. I am sure that MM connoisseurs would disagree but I couldn’t really say that one was better than the other. Tone: 9/10 General feel: 9/10 Summary: Extra-cool vintage MM with great sound. [b]// About the MM circuits[/b] Contrary to what it might appear, the 3EQ circuit is not a 2EQ+mid and the Sterling/StingRay5 circuit is not a 3EQ+coil switch. The 2EQ and 3EQ circuits have different design, use different component and, not unexpectedly, they sound different. Moreover, in the 3EQ, the mid control is linked directly to the bass and treble network making the mid interact with the other two bands. The coil switch system has also an impact. The pickup is designed differently with a phantom coil to reduce the noise in single coil mode. There is also an extra circuit that changes the gain of the preamplifier to compensate the 3 volumes in single/parallel/series. [b]// Conclusions[/b] Frankly I don't know enough about MM history to tell is the SR Classic is a faithful reproduction of the PRE-EB era but it is my favourite of the MM I tried. If you play metal, rock or blues the SR 3EQ is likely to be the right bass for you; especially if it is the only bass you have and you look for flexibility. If you look for a funk machine, you like Bernard Edwards' tone and John Deacon's sound in "Another One Bites the Dust" nothing will take you there like a StingRay Classic or a StingRay 2EQ. [i]I special thanks to Alex at the Bass Gallery for his patience and for letting me try all the basses above (with the exception of the SR 2EQ that wasn't in stock at the Bass Gallery at time of the tests).[/i]

Can I ask why you need a XLR output?

I don't know if it is of any help but the Tech21 VT Bass and the Catalinbread SFT pedal don't use a Fender tone stack. [quote name='BassBod' post='964401' date='Sep 22 2010, 12:55 PM']Question for those with a technical perspective - why does the "fender" tone stack (wasn't it RCA's to start with?) nearly always seem to go with valves? Is it just tube-based-marketing, or is there something irreplaceable about the combination of valve pre-amp stage and passive tone network?[/quote] I think it just sounded nice with valves and guitar players were happy with it. I don't think there is necessarily an irreplaceable combination Fender-tone-stack + valves. A Fender tone stack could be implemented with any other amplifier even a very linear one. [quote name='BassBod' post='964401' date='Sep 22 2010, 12:55 PM']Could it be done with FETs and less emphasis on the distortion potential?[/quote] I don't see any major problem in implementing a transistor (FET or anything else) preamplifier with a Fender tone stack. Personally, I use another viewpoint when I design a circuit. I start from the sound and I use the best parts to achieve what look for. FET might do the trick but it also possible that other type of components can lead to better results.

For some circuits, a higher operating voltage allows more headroom for the signal. There are some other important factors to consider though. First, powering a pedal at 9V doesn't necessarily mean that internally it operates at 9V. It may operate at 18V, 24V or even +30V. Powering this type of pedal at more than 9V is not only pointless but it is likely that it will damage the pedal. There are other circuits where higher voltage does not have any effect on the headroom. For example, a lot of distortion pedals create the distortion limiting the voltage swing. In cases like this, a higher supply voltage can have very limited effect. More in general terms, power supply voltage and internal operating voltage are design choices that don’t have necessarily a direct effect on the sound. In other words, there is not an “18V sound” and a “9V sound” – especially considering that pedals powered at 9V may operate at a different voltage. Regarding the MXR BlowTorch, I am not absolutely certain about it but I believe the 18V power supply (that in this case is also the internal operating voltage) is there to give the EQ section more headroom.