Sterling: Changes over the years?

[Red Four]

First off, hello all - finally arrived here after 18 happy years with my Sterling 4H (SN 41531), blue pearl/rosewood/black pg, purchased new in '95 from Silver Strings Music in St. Louis. Through thick and thin, countless live gigs and all sorts of recording, this bass has been nothing short of brilliant. EB, from Sterling on down, were very responsive and great to work with during the initial/warranty phase, and I am very grateful for the completely reliable and great-sounding service this bass has always provided me. It is dynamite, and I only enjoy and appreciate it more with time.

Now, on to my question, directed at Sterling aficionados here. After all this time, I'm finally considering getting this marvelous bass a companion model, another Sterling 4H. Having found my early model (with large bridge plate with no mutes, pop-up battery holder above the back control plate) pretty much perfect, I've taken a little notice of the small changes that have been made to the model in the years since, but am wanting some opinions on those changes.

From everything I've read here, it seems that there's no real sense of drop-off or vast improvement over time; no sense of "the only ones worth getting are before year xxxx" or "forget getting one before xxxx because of the improvement they made". So, I'm not too concerned about overall quality, which I'm sure is superb. My question boils down to: what have they changed since my model, and what is your opinion on it?

Some sample questions:

1. Compensated nut - any pros and cons to this?
2. Have the pickups or electronics changed over time?
3. Smaller bridge - pros and cons? Still plenty of room for intonation adjustments?
4. Looks like the neck plate and control plate are not recessed, as they are on mine (I love the recessed plates) - how does this work for folks? Any annoyance from raised plates?
5. Battery compartment & pickup switch moved to different locations - pros & cons?
6. Any other changes that have been made over time, or is everything else the same as it has always been?

Apart from the above, any general opinions about how the model has or hasn't changed over time are welcome. Would love to get another new Sterling, but want to make sure I'm not assuming that something is the same as it used to be when it's not.

As for seeing one for myself, they are not easy to find around here - haven't found any place within 2 hours of me that has one. So I've mainly been squinting at photos online, and even there, there don't seem to be all that many for sale.

Thanks in advance for any opinions or guidance. Cheers!

 

[Rod Trussbroken]

Hi and welcome to the Forum.

Good questions. Should be a good thread.

 

[Movielife]

Definitely interesting

I have a 'modern' Sterling 5 HS and the build/weight/tone/QC are superb.

The compensated nut helps with intonation.

The pickup is still ceramic.

I though they still had recessed plates...I need to check this.

As for 'what would I do?' - If you want a 4 string Sterling, and have a H, I would opt for a HS or HH.

 

[Soulkeeper]

First, a disclaimer: I've never laid my hands on a Sterling, but I won't let that stop me from running my mouth:

1. My Bongo 4 HS has a compensated nut. My SR5s do not. I don't notice or care. Maybe if I had bat ears.
4. Recessed plates can cause the finish to crack, especially the neck plate since it has so little wood around three of the edges. I have no idea if this has ever been an issue for MM, but generally speaking the potential for cracks is considered a good reason to avoid building instruments with recessed plates unless you're really really keen on doing so. I agree that recessed plates give a sleeker feel, but I've never heard about a non-recessed plate getting in the way of anything. It's probably more psychological than anything else.

 

[Gravesend Black]

1. My Bongo 4 HS has a compensated nut. My SR5s do not. I don't notice or care. Maybe if I had bat ears.

My SR5 with compensated nut is more accurate playing high notes after 13-15 fret compared to my old ceramic SR5 with common nut. But the difference is really insignificant.


About new vs old Sterling. I guess there were plenty of preamp revisions through these years. absence or presence of the phantom coil? + you can find an old regular Sterling with birdseye neck while these days the birdseye neck is an option only for Classic and LE models.

And there is no Sterling 5 before 2008+ basses.

 

[Golem]

`

I had a Sterling with a recessed neck plate and IIRC it
had a black plastic pad under the plate to protect the
finish against damage by the plate. Don't recall exactly
how old it was, but I am in no way bothered about the
non-recessed plates on my current Sterlings.

If you reeeeaaallly dig your old one and just feel need
of backing it up and dividing up the wear and tear with
a partner bass to share the load, I'd suggest getting a
new one exactly the same as your old one BUT with a
piezo equipt bridge. That will get you an added voice
that most likely will prove useful but without changing
the original voice you already dig [when the piezos are
dialed to zero].

A current dual PU Sterling would also add new voicing
as well, but would sacrifice one of your familiar voices,
cuz the series-parallel switching schemes are different
among the 3 current mag PU configs. That why I'd go
for the piezo PU option: You get the original switching
scheme PLUS an independently controlled additional
PU system. BTW, the piezo-to-humbugger balance is
controlled by a blender knob [full 0-100% / 100%-0]
and is thus the only member of the StingRay-Sterling
genre to offer PU blending .... all of the dual mag PU
models used fixed value switching [no blender/fader].

Finally, despite all that about not losing your original
sound that you love so well, maaaayyybee you wanna
consider whether you want the alternative of a maple
FB on the second ax ? I know I'm a trouble maker but
I just can't help myself sometimes ....

----------------------------------------------

EDIT: There has been one noticeable upgrade, on an
optional basis, but I highly recommend it: COBALT. I
put EB Cobalt 105s on my USA SUB Sterling and use
it with a Latin Percussion ensemble, where everybody
just raves about the sound

EDIT2: And oh yeah, don't fergit the fancy PG ... or
mebbe yawter git new fancy PGs for BOTH Sterlings,
to kinda celebrate the 'wedding' ?

 

[Red Four]

Thanks, folks! Some great info here already. I'd love to keep hearing from any and all who've experienced or learned about Sterling changes over time. Feel free to share your opinions!

• Rod/Gav: have been checking out the terrific info on your site. It's already filling in some gaps in my knowledge.
  
  
• Movielife: you make a good point about HS and HH. I've been giving that some thought. In principle, I like it, but I'm leery about giving up the H's switching options. Sometimes I consider an S just to have somewhere else to rest my thumb. The current status of my bass lineup is that I have some very different-sounding basses (Ovation Magnum, P, old Yamaha BBs) already, so more different sounds may not be what I need right now. But if I decide to downsize and go back to the pleasures of simplicity, one EBMM that wears multiple hats could be good. Oh, and great avatar, btw.
  
  
• Soulkeeper: good point about the recessed plates, I hadn't thought of that. I think they look and feel great, but I can understand the potential problem. Thanks for the real-world take on the nut.
  
  
• Gravesend: Thanks for another take on the nut. I hope the phantom coil has been present all along - it seems like too good an idea to let go. I love the quiet single-coil mode on my Sterling. And I hadn't thought about the birdseye variable - I quite like the very subtle birdseye on my neck. I'd be okay with less figure, though the very white necks I see on some new ones are less interesting than something a little more yellow.
  
  
• Golem: some great ideas and thinking points, thank you! You know, I haven't considered piezo. I've honestly never liked piezo sound, with the exception of one place, on my old Godin Acoustibass fretless, where it's great. So I haven't given it a chance on an EBMM. I will look for some sound samples.
  
  Regarding maple: never much cared for non-glossy maple, and glossy maple makes me worry about maintenance. I love how easy it is to clean rosewood boards, and how easy it is to polish the frets without worrying about scratching a finish. I think the maple boards on the Classic Sterling look amazing, and I know I'd love playing one. Just feeling safer with rosewood as a long-term investment.
  
  Thanks for the tip on the strings - have been hearing great things about them, of course. Will look into them.
  
  And cool pickguards are a must for whatever I eventually get!

 

[Gravesend Black]

Thanks, folks! Some great info here already. I'd love to keep hearing from any and all who've experienced or learned about Sterling changes over time. Feel free to share your opinions!

• Gravesend: Thanks for another take on the nut. I hope the phantom coil has been present all along - it seems like too good an idea to let go. I love the quiet single-coil mode on my Sterling. And I hadn't thought about the birdseye variable - I quite like the very subtle birdseye on my neck. I'd be okay with less figure, though the very white necks I see on some new ones are less interesting than something a little more yellow.
  

I do not know about phantom coil in Sterling production. But there was no phantom on early versions of ceramic SR5. Those SR5's sharing the same electronics with Sterling.

About neck wood. My '95 SR5 has only few "eyes" but has much more warm yellow color with great shimmering wood texture. I like it much more than todays maple that looks very pale for me.

 

[Golem]

.
..............
You know, I haven't considered piezo. I've honestly never liked
piezo sound, with the exception of one place, on my old Godin
Acoustibass fretless, where it's great. So I haven't given it a
chance on an EBMM. I will look for some sound samples.

................................

Admittedly, most of my piezo basses are FL. The only exceptions
are a coupla Yamaha BEX4's and aa Kramer Ferrington. I did have
a fretted piezo SR4 for a while, altho it has since acquired an FL
neck, but while it was fretted it was some of the best fretted tone
I've ever had. I have both versions of the Godin FL, and acoarst
they sound much more woody-stringy than a piezo MM, but I love
the MMs equally as much, as they are more versatile.

I think I know what you seek to avoid about fretted piezo, meaning
the acoustic nature that tends to hype up all sorta mechanical noise
like fret klank and finger whizz. Well, EBMM piezos are wonderfully
buffered and provide fluid acoustic voice with no more mechanical
noise than you get from the humbugger. The best part is that you
can blend the piezo and mag PU any ratio you choose ! Acoarst ain't
no free lunch ! But "fortunately" !?!?! the cost of the not-free lunch
in this case is in dollars only ... IOW the cost is NOT in performance
or tone compromises. Ain't cheap ... I guess thaz the way it goes if
you want good stuff.

OK, price is the bad news, about $300 on a new SR4 ... but price is
also the good new, about zero to $100 on a clean used SR4. While
the price effect is the same for Sterlings, it is MUCH harder to find a
used Sterling with piezos while SR4 piezos are reasonably common.
So, in practice, you may be forced to buy new-only for piezos when
seeking a Sterling 4-string. Sterling 5-strings, in the guise of SR5's
from the ceramic SR5 era are actually easier to find used with the
piezo option than the Sterling 4 piezo. Go figger :-/

 

[Red Four]

Golem, thanks for that. I think you have very well identified my general concerns about piezo. I really dislike its common application in acoustic guitars, where I think it sounds awful - lending an ugly, plastic quality. And yet I love it in my Godin. Your comments prompted me to look up some EBMM samples on YouTube, and you're right - it sounds much better than the usual piezos I've heard. It really does seems to add an extra layer of "presence" or "air" to the sound, and the inherent twanginess is actually a nice complement to the normal magnetic tone. I can see how it could be even better on a fretless. If I did ever go for a solid-body fretless, it would be an EBMM for sure.

I'll have to digest it a bit, check out more sound samples, and consider whether this is the sound I want to make. But I really appreciate the time and info you've shared - it's an interesting new door I didn't think I'd be opening!

 

[liverbird]

Red Four, since you also have an early Sterling...

My 1994 sunburst/maple has a slight but noticeable asymmetrical neck profile - chunkier on the bass side and flatter on the treble side. There's nothing to suggest the neck has been sanded/modified.

Just wondering whether that's a common occurrence on those early ones?

 

[Red Four]

Liverbird, I don't know if it's common or not, but it's the same on mine too (mine's from May '95). It's very nice - the bass side has a little more roundness to it, and the treble side meets the fretboard at a little sharper angle. Feels great.

I wonder if this is something that's changed over time - anyone with a more recent Sterling care to comment?

 

[liverbird]

Red Four, I had started a thread on this earlier this year.

http://forums.ernieball.com/music-man-basses/56035-sterling-neck-profile-asymmetrical.html

Varied input. Eventually, a chap form Customer Service kindly clarified that the Sterling neck profile isn't asymmetrical. However, it wasn't clear whether he was referring to current or early production or both. There seem to be a few people with older models who also report asymmetry.

 

[sanderhermans]

My 1998 has no asymatry in the neck.

 

[Red Four]

Liverbird, thanks for the link. Interesting stuff. No question about it, mine has subtle asymmetry, and I bought it new, so it was not modded. What WillyD said makes sense - I can buy the sanding-variations explanation.

What I like most about it is that, to me, it doesn't feel odd in my hand, doesn't feel like there's a ridge or anything funny going on. On the top (E-string) side of the neck, the angle of the neck as it comes back away from the fingerboard edge is rounder, as though it's a rounded D or C-shaped neck. On the treble side, it's a sharper angle, like what you'd expect on a V-shaped neck. But when I'm not consciously looking for it, it just feels natural and comfortable, without any distractions. I honestly had never taken the time to examine it until you mentioned it, but it confirmed certain subconscious reactions to how playing certain things at certain points on the neck felt. Cheers!

 

[Soulkeeper]

I can buy the sanding-variations explanation

I guess it makes sense if ... a right-handed person sands a neck, with the fingerboard facing down and the headstock pointing against their belly button, then the treble side of the neck would likely get some more "work" than the bass side, because that's where the person's strongest (right) hand is. Then my (pretty obvious?) follow-up question is; is this the way necks are sanded at MM? Or is it up to the technician.

Maybe all the assymetric Sterling necks were sanded by the same dude (or dudette), someone with a particullary strong right arm?

Yes it's a long shot, but this is such a fine mystery I can't leave it be ...

 

[Golem]

I guess it makes sense if ... a right-handed person sands a
neck, with the fingerboard facing down and the headstock
pointing against their belly button .... .. ..... ... ....

You have made certain assumptions. Not knocking that, but
mebbe we should assume one more thing ... that necks are
sanded using sanding blocks shaped for the desired profile ?