Differences over the years?

[mani]

Sorry for the poor thread title, but I'm interested if different year models had their own sonic traits? Differences in construction methods?

I'm just interested as I was looking through the wanted ads and noted a couple of mentions of late 80's or early 90's models wanted. I'm talking SR4's here by the way. I also remember reading a post on another forum where somebody recommended a '92-'93 SR4 which seemed to be very specific. My SR4 is dated 8th May '93 so I guess that's why im curious to know. I feel some sort of attachment to this one but had no worries parting with a 2004 SR5 and a 2005 SR4.

Cheers,
Berin.

 

[mynan]

The differences are fairly subtle, but like your username.

A lot of them are documented here: Home - Musicmanbass.org, Music Man, Musicman, Music Man Bass, Musicman Bass, Music Man Guitar

 

[oli@bass]

Generally saying that e.g. '94 StingRays are to be preferred over '04 StingRays is like saying "people born in 1967 are better than people born in 1977". They're all individuals and there's good ones and bad ones.

Technically, the EBMMs underwent a couple of small but noteworthy improvements over the years, so the recent ones are purely technical the best ones.

But there's more to liking an instrument than it being "the technically best" incarnation. Every piece of wood sounds different. And every instruments has a different history. Climate and playing time may have an impact on how wood ages and that may alter the feel and tone of the instrument.

 

[Big Poppa]

only buy late 2007 or early 2008 the reest of them suck........





he
h
eh
eh

 

[bovinehost]

Sorry for the poor thread title, but I'm interested if different year models had their own sonic traits?

No.

Differences in construction methods?

Not really.

Small things have changed over time. The metal battery cover became a plastic swing-out version. Mutes went the way of the pterodactyl. Colors went missing, others showed up. People say all kinds of goofy things about "periods" during which the basses were somehow better - or worse.

They're wrong.

I also remember reading a post on another forum where somebody recommended a '92-'93 SR4 which seemed to be very specific. My SR4 is dated 8th May '93 so I guess that's why im curious to know.

A few months ago, I read that the pre-2000 models were somehow better than the post-2K models. No one could say why. I could say why not, though. Nothing weird or magical or different was going on with the 92-93 models. They're great basses. So are the ones built last year and in 1997 and last month.

I had a pretty special Stingray that was built in 2000, but that doesn't mean that 2000 was a banner year for Stingrays. It means I had it setup really well.

You have a good bass. Enjoy it and don't worry about whether it was built during a 'special period'. And don't listen to people who want to blow smoke up your panties.

I have a 2007 SR4 that is just as good as my ex-2K model and much better than a 1978 I had.

So maybe these are the good old days.

Jack

 

[Big Poppa]

I Still Say Buy Ones We Havent Made Yet. I Like Food And Shoes And Mineral Water

 

[T-bone]

But I like it when they blow smoke up my panties

All my balls were, and will continue to be, bought new. That's my mojo on those girls - no one else's tongue dare touch em

Besides, Papa needs a new Chevelle.

tbone

 

[theoldmiami]

Did the switch away from the string-through-body bridge affect the sustain or tone at all?

 

[x-ray]

Haven't had coffee in 4 days, just had a couple cups, here's my thoughts before work:

I don't think your question is specific to EBMM. IMHO, this 'preference' towards anything 'vintage' or older has to do with some very subtle human indiosyncracies, nothing really 'technical' or tangible. The conventional wisdom is that if an instrument has been around the block for 15-20 years, it's proven itself to be worthwhile, dependable, what have you. OTOH, a new instrument is just that, unproven, and people think it is more of a crapshoot whether it can withstand the test of time. Do I believe this to be true? Not really. Especially when you're talking about an active instrument. I have no experience regarding this, but my logic tells me that active electronics in an instrument built today will last longer (or not require any work) than an instrument that's 20 years old - if you start measuring today. Even in passive instruments, the pickups/pots/electronics are generally the first thing to go or need rewiring/shielding/rewinding.

That being said, I have two identical models of another brand that I will not mention here (although they don't get played much these days), and I will too have no qualms departing w/ the newer one I bought most recently. But I will never part with the older model that I've had for a while. Maybe it's b/c I could never again find something exactly like the older one, vs. being able to order an identical version of the newer one. Maybe it's b/c with the passage of time, and the continuous playing of an instrument, you 'break it in' via use, set up, etc., to a point where it just works for you. Or maybe its just that humans are sentimental, and get attached to anything they spend a considerable amount of time w/. If the Buddah played bass, he'd probably be constantly trading, so as to not get too attached to any one instrument. Of course, he'd probably play an EBMM.

And finally, if it's an older instrument that you're purchasing that someone else has used for a while, it also can have what people call 'mojo'. Which is just wear & tear, but some people prefer it to a new instrument. I just purchased my first EBMM - a 10 year old Sterling (mostly for financial consideration). But I'll be honest, I like the fact that it's broken in, has a little rust, cigarrete burns, etc. It just fits my 'personality' better than something spanking new off the rack. And it plays fantastic. Would I trade it for a new one. Absolutely. I haven't had it for 10 years, so I'm not that attached to it. Eventually, I'll probably just sell a couple of my other basses that get no use these days, save up a bit, and buy a new one when I am more in tune to my EBMM needs.

Caffeine supply has been fully exhausted by this post.

 

[Caca de Kick]

Nope, no sonic traits or no magical things happened.

But one of the things I like on a bass is, that I greatly prefer gloss finished necks....out of all my new MM's, my 30th is my favorite neck.
So in looking for a used StingRay, that points me to an era when they still did that. I actually still use the mutes quite a bit too.

Did the switch away from the string-through-body bridge affect the sustain or tone at all?

The switch happened during the middle of the preEB era. I have one of each, no difference in sustain or tone.