mcnach Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 [quote name='bassmachine2112' timestamp='1410370937' post='2548702'] made in USA SUB 2 band ,save some cash and get a gigging bass. [/quote] +1 fantastic basses, a real Stingray in anything but price! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowdown Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 [quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1410379558' post='2548881'] Strung through body, epoxy preamp with tantalum caps rather than electrolytic, slab body, larger pickup magnets and a dollop of 70s magic [/quote] Ah...So quite a difference, although I had to Google 'tantalum caps' and 'electrolytic'...lol... which in turn led me to the EBMM forum....ha ha..quite a place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Ha don't go there! Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Rock Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 From what I hear they are always open to constructive criticism of Rays, and keen to hear about any mods Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBS_freak Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I played Petes 70s 2 band. For me, it had a little extra magic over the 3 band. But tone is subjective of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBS_freak Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Or was it 80s, either way, it was a preEB 2 band. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drTStingray Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) [quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1410352666' post='2548427'] Not quite so simple as that! Ebmm did a range about four years ago I think called the 251 or something, two eq only, no hard case, poplar body and less colour options to choose from they were around £1050 in the UK compared to £1300 for a regular two eq or £1400+ for a three eq. They may have only been available in the UK though, I'm not sure. I use an angled Jack on all my basses. [/quote] They were called 133 which I think was part of the EBMM manufacture code. Basically a red, white or blue Stingray with a gig bag for £999 (when they first marketed them) - Stings and Things celebrating 50 years working with Ernie Ball company in the UK IIRC. I don't recall them having a different body wood - all Stingray and Sterling variants have been ash at least since the USA Subs ceased in about 2005 - except one or two specific limited edition runs with mahogany bodies. As regards 3 band/2 band comparison the underlying sound is pretty much the same. The 3 band can be easily adjusted a With the mid range knob for those moments when the guitarists or keyboard players feel the need to fill all the sonic space...... however the 2 band makes a fabulous sound and just lifting the upper mid EQ on the amp can compensate for the situation above. As you turn down the EQ knobs on the 2 band you get more mids also! The 3 band also has clever filters that dial out boomy frequencies - you can also get 3 band basses with additional piezo pick ups at the bridge - they add a whole extra dimension if you're lucky enough to come across one. Edited September 11, 2014 by drTStingray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ern500evo Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 [quote name='drTStingray' timestamp='1410438524' post='2549421'] They were called 133 which I think was part of the EBMM manufacture code. Basically a red, white or blue Stingray with a gig bag for £999 (when they first marketed them) - Stings and Things celebrating 50 years working with Ernie Ball company in the UK IIRC. I don't recall them having a different body wood - all Stingray and Sterling variants have been ash at least since the USA Subs ceased in about 2005 - except one or two specific limited edition runs with mahogany bodies. [/quote] They had poplar bodies, I've got one,a blue pearl and maple fretboard 2010 model. Before I bought it I sent the serial number to AJ at MM and he confirmed that it was part of a limited run they did for strings and things, poplar body, limited finish choice and gig bag instead of a hard case. The original owner of mine paid £1050 for it new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drTStingray Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 [quote name='ern500evo' timestamp='1410443030' post='2549490'] They had poplar bodies, I've got one,a blue pearl and maple fretboard 2010 model. Before I bought it I sent the serial number to AJ at MM and he confirmed that it was part of a limited run they did for strings and things, poplar body, limited finish choice and gig bag instead of a hard case. The original owner of mine paid £1050 for it new. [/quote] Cheers for that - did AJ say the whole run was poplar or just yours? Anyway the same as a US Sub in that context - my blueburst 93 is poplar or maybe alder (per AJ) also - to my ears they're sightly smoother than an ash version. The original selling price when launched was £999 - I've seen them for various prices since - don't ask me why - it happens with lots of instruments sitting in shops. There are still some around in shops (Knighton music had one last time I looked). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I dont think the body wood makes much difference, it has been said that you can screw a MM pickup and a 3 EQ to a piece of floor board and as long as the pickup is in the right place for the bridge and scale length it will sound like a stingray, I think there is some truth in it. I was going to make a Rickenbacker joke about the sharp splintering edges but I shall resist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 [quote name='EBS_freak' timestamp='1410426435' post='2549250'] Or was it 80s, either way, it was a preEB 2 band. [/quote] The black one was 70's with tantulam caps and the natural was 82 with the same 2 band circuit still used today but in defo sounded better than a modern one to my ears, it was not strung through either so I think the pickups must be better or just aged nicely in the old ones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drTStingray Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) [quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1410454618' post='2549639'] I dont think the body wood makes much difference, it has been said that you can screw a MM pickup and a 3 EQ to a piece of floor board and as long as the pickup is in the right place for the bridge and scale length it will sound like a stingray, I think there is some truth in it. [/quote] I've heard the same - however I beg to differ. The bridge and scale length make a major contribution IMO - you can hear that basic Stingray tone acoustically. There is just more snap to the acoustic sound than say a Precision or Jazz acoustically - this must provide the foundation to the resonant sound projected by the pick up and EQ. Then consider the Stingray 5 (standard version) - the body and neck are bigger and correspondingly the whole resonance is deeper than a 4. I know I'm treading into contentious waters here and there are those who will tell you construction materials make no difference to the sound of an electric bass. However I'm pretty sure if someone blindfolded me and gave me two Stingrays to play, one with maple and one with rosewood fingerboard, I could tell which was which after a minute or two of playing!! Edited September 12, 2014 by drTStingray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Well obviously, the one that sounds best would be the maple one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drTStingray Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 [quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1410534998' post='2550532'] Well obviously, the one that sounds best would be the maple one [/quote] Yeah I know what you mean. They'd both sound fabulous, I reckon Pete, but slightly different. The rosewood being a little darker sounding and in particular less extreme when really playing hard. The maple is, in my view the classic Stingray look so I'd vote for that over the rosewood from purely the angle of looks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BassTractor Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 [quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1410534998' post='2550532'] Well obviously, the one that sounds best would be the roasted maple one [/quote] Fixed, and with you there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcnach Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 [quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1410534998' post='2550532'] Well obviously, the one that sounds best would be the maple one [/quote] no doubt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolo Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 [quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1410534998' post='2550532'] Well obviously, the one that sounds best would be mine [/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted September 12, 2014 Share Posted September 12, 2014 You lot are having some fun with that aren't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.