Guitars, Guitars!

quote:

---

Musicman Stingray Bass 1983(pre Ernie Ball); my working instrument, the remainder are pretty much bedroom toys.

---

I love the Stingray, one of my fav basses along with the Jazz, Rick, and the Shergolds I use myself. I notice people are revering pre-Ernie Ball Stingrays in the same way to pre-CBS Fenders. What actually changed? With Fender the quality control went out of the window for a while, but I don’t recollect this happening with Musicman…

Tony.

Tony
The main change was the move from strings anchored through the body (a-la-tele) to a conventional anchor at the bridge. Many of us believe this lost a bit of sustain.
The newer Ernie Balls also tend to be much lighter in weight. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of taste. Unlike Fender to CBS, there was no major drop in quality control with the move to Ernie Ball. In fact I've seen much nicer grain figuring on the bodies and necks of newer models.
I was really lucky to pick up my pre-Ernie Stingray new in London (1984), as it must have been one of the very last made and had just been hanging on the shop wall for a while. It is a natural ash body with maple neck. Despite being staggeringly heavy, I love it, and because it would be so difficult to replace I NEVER leave it in the car but am pretty careless about the rest of my gear.

malcolm

Um .. ended up buying an Ashdown Peacemaker 20. Got an ex dem one for only £299 complete with footswitch. 2 channel with boost, class A 20 watt combo by one of the UKs top boutique names. Very pleased. My fingers hurt from playing my guitar so much!

alan

My Babies:

1978 Gibson Les Paul Custom-Cherry Sunburst-stock
2001 Gibson Les paul Standard-Black-stock
1997 Guild Bluesbird-Goldtop-stock
1969 Gibson SG-not stock at all, but sounds great

maxwell

I'm one of a strange breed that prefers the Ernie Ball Musicman to the Leo Fender.....well....sort of. Back in '76 I tried a Stingray bass & really didn't like it at all.

At that time my workhorse was a Rickenbacker 4001, a very different beast to the MM. Years go by & I'm now rather enamoured with old Fender Jazz basses, I used to hate them but have now acquired the taste.

Anyway the Music Man is a very reliable instrument & I'm the proud owner of a teal green one with 3 band
EQ.

From what I can recall of the original other differences are a lighter body, a one piece maple neck ( I'm sure the '76 one had a laminated neck).
The outcome of all this is that I find the newer ones have a slightly toppier sound & they are better for a funkier style. As I recall the older ones had a bit more sustain, a slightly more
'woody' sound & were a little more suited to rock.

I am now a convert & would like to try the bass that I 'hated' so much 26 years ago!

Bob

Couple of pictures of the beauties...

The original maple neck (pre-Ernie) Stingray is also one-piece, with a skunk-stripe. I entirely agree that the older models mainly suit rock/blues, while the Ernie-model sounds toppier and is more versatile.

malcolm

In a rather strange coincidence I tried a '76 Stingray yesterday. It was black, maple neck with 2 band EQ. Condition was fairly good.

I've got to say from the start that I didn't like it much. It was a little heavier than my Ernie Ball, but not much. The neck was pure Fender Precision, loads of varnish on the back as well as the fingerboard, a bit too much for me really. The neck was not as rounded in section as the newer models & this one actually had less sustain. Playing it reminded me of a rather spongy CBS Precision. Mine is a 'crisp' instrument & this one was a bit stodgy in comparison.

To me it felt like the blot on neck needed tightening a bit, hence the lack of sustain. Price was 1500 UKP which I thought was a bit OTT.

I am now doubly happy with my Ernie Ball.... They did have a '74 Rick 4001 though, this was a delight & reminded me of the one I bought in about the same year.

Bob

Yes, I'll even accept "stodgy", but through an Ampeg SVT it can underpin a blues/rock band like no other.

malcolm

"....through an Ampeg SVT it can underpin a blues/rock band like no other."

nice amp! I've now got Ashdown & am well pleased with the sound.

Bob

My poor old back doesn't like lifting it into the car much though. Often think of changing to something modern and lighter, but it wouldn't be the same.

malcolm

I posted to this topic on January 12 2002. At that time I said I was looking for a "fast" acoustic. I've been seeking one which is fast yet also plays loud. Well, it has taken a year, but I think I've found one I like, the SP6CW model from Simon and Patrick. Although a bit of a social climbdown from the D18, it plays a lot better and the best news is the price which would not mean selling the 335!

Has anyone else tried these S&P guitars? Anyone tried this model? What experience?

Happy New Year,
CB

bump

I have the exact Simon and Patrick you mention - spruce top, single cutaway, wild cherry back and sides, mahogany fingerboard and bridge. I love it! Bought it for myself 9 years ago, as a graduation present. Other guitars come and go, but the S&P stays. The only problem I had was a brace popped loose inside during a dry winter (I have since gotten an in-hole humidifier). LaSiDo (the Canadian parent company of S&P, as well as Seagull) fixed it for me, and only charged shipping charges.

My other guitars:

1981 Daion "Headhunter" electric (a semi-hollowbody ES335 copy)
1974 Gibson SG

I also have a cheap mandolin and a box of banjo parts I hope to some day assemble into an actual banjo.

jay

Jayd,
Thanks for your reply. Interestingly the one I had tried originally was a cedar top which played quite well. However, through an internet enquiry I was advised of another local retailer who had these in stock. There I tried both the spruce top and another cedar top model. From this I found that all three necks felt different(!!) and neither of these later models played as well as the one I'd played originally. I am amazed that the neck sections felt different, I'd have though these would have been CNC machined.

One issue I have when assessing new guitars is the action. I am used to a very light action and 0.009" strings (with, obviously, a plain 3rd). When trying acoustics in shops I find varying (usually high) actions and 0.011" or 0.012" string sets. I used to use 0.010" on my D18 and I'd do the same again, but this action issue is a major irritant.

I just don't know how one makes a meaningful decision. At the end of the day I guess it just comes down to what you're prepared to pay. But I'd be happy to pay whatever it takes for a fast, loud, good sounding acoustic. I'd even sell my 335!!!

How do others gauge the quality of an acoustic when it's set up with a high action and heavy gauge strings?

Regards, CB

My Geets!

A bit late to this thread.

Currently in use:

Custom built 7 string SG. Solid flame maple body with AA grade birdseye mapleneck, custom built brass hardware from Germany, ebony fingerboard and handbuilt Kent Armstrong humbuckers built by Kent himself.
This was built many moons ago before 7 strings became popular.

Charvel 6 string acoustic with Vox pick up.

"Hi-fi is ok, but its nothing like the real thing..."

Clive-

I actually prefer using .013s, but I have found the S&P won't accommodate them. These guitars, at least the older ones like mine, are built very light - sturdy, but light. As it concerns the feel and sound, I like the lightness; the guitar communicates well to your hands. The heavier strings seemed to overpower the guitar; the bigger strings seem to supply the thin top with vibrations it's not built to transduce efficiently.

Aside from that, the ball-end on the low E of a set of heavy strings won't actually fit through the hole in the bridge of my guitar (I got one stuck - REALLY stuck - trying). I know that could be fixed, but the guitar responds so well and feels so light and fast with .011s that I just string it light and let it sing.

Another by-product of all this is that my guitar isn't one of the louder acoustics you'll run across. But it's a joy to play, and just gets better every year.

Jayd,
Finally made the decision and went for a Taylor 314 which, again, although a "lesser" guitar than my old Martin, plays a whole load easier, even fresh out of the box. Even with 0.012" strings on.

And it looks dead sexy! Far better than the dreadnought shape.

Regards, CB

Clive: Taylors are fantastic all-around instruments. Can't go wrong with them, in my opinion. I'd love to have one myself, but I think when I get ready to sink that kind of dough into a new acoustic, I'll go for a Lowden. I've yet to hear an acoustic guitar with a better tone; I've lusted after them since I first heard one played by Pierre Bensusan. They may not be the all-around performers the Taylors are, but their tone goes straight to my heart.

Has anyone every tried / used a Fender Roland Ready Strat ? How does the note recognition perform ?

DS

OTD - Alter Ego vs David Holmes - The evil needle

Jayd

I went to buy a Lowden, but also tried a Collings at the suggestion of the dealer. I felt the tone and clarity of the Collings was better than anything I'd heard. Returning to Lowdens, they sounded wooly and indistinct in comparison. I bought the Collings, and haven't regreted it.

malcolm

No, here?

Clive

Good choice, the Taylor 314 is a good guitar.

I'm a fan of Taylor Guitars, owning a 310Ce and 415. I wouldn't trade them in for any other make.

Peter,
You're right - the Taylor is very good indeed. I've hardly touched the Gibson since owning the Taylor. Actually, I've had it nearly two months now and usually with any other guitar I'd be thinking about taking it back for a set up now, but it really doesn't need it. When I bought the guitar I got a spare set of strings (0.011"); I shall have to wait until the set of twelves that are on it now die, try the elevens and then see if I still need the action lowering. It IS hard work on the fingers compared to the Gibson though! But does it sound good or what! I really rate those Elixir strings too.
Regards, CB

Anyone got a spare £100,000 lying around?

Sale of the Century?

P