I just bought an amazing 1988 Stingray with a birds eye maple neck. I have one problem with it and that's the action. It's too high for my liking and when I lower the action the fret buzzes wat do i have to do and what's the recommended string height (in mm)?
- Thread starter wardy2k
- Start date
Rod Trussbroken
Moderator
Hi and welcome to the forum.
I've just bought an 88 'Ray aswell. IMO, the 1985 to circa 1990 'Rays are very desirable. They also have a completely different neck to the latter and current 'Rays. They're similar, if not identical, to the Pre-EBs and have a deeper profile.
You'll find that the neck gradually slopes down towards the heel as you go past the 14th fret (or there abouts). Consequently, string height measurements are going to be different...depending on which fret you're using as a reference point for adjustment.
On both my 79 and 88 'Rays, I start off by getting the neck fairly straight...loosening strings between adjustments and measurements taken with the strings retuned to pitch.
With the Bass comfy on lap (play position), depress the E string at the first fret with your left hand. Using the thumb of your right hand, depress at the 12th fret with the middle finger pointing in the direction of the headstock. With both frets now depressed, use that middle finger to depress the string at the 6th fret. At that point, aim for paper thickness distance between the bottom of the string and top of the fret. Tap with your middle finger. You'll be able to hear if there's a gap there.
CAUTION. BE CAREFUL!!!!....some necks wont adjust this straight and you could be taking the truss adjustment to its extreme limit. If you feel excessive resistance on the truss nut and /or have any doubts, then you should take it to a tech.
Still in the play position, I aim for 4/32" string height at the last fret, on all 4 strings...either up or down a tad, consistent with no fret buzz from around the 3rd or 4th fret up to the heel.
On my two Basses, this equates to 3/32" at the 12th fret (about 5 mm?).
If the strings buzz at the first 3 or 4 frets then the neck is too straight. Loosen the truss nut gradually untill buzz-free.
Finally, I go a step further and lower the G string saddle 1/4 turn before steping the A and D down proportionately to meet the G.
That's the setup for my playing style. In effect, a fairly straight neck with approx 3/32" action at the 12th.
My 94 'Ray has a slimmer neck and the action definitely feels a lot lower. But after a setup, string height normally turns out to be 3/32" at the 12th also. IMO, it's the neck profiles on the 79 and 88 which make the action "seem" higher. If I've been playing them for a while and go back to the 94, then my initial reaction is that its action is way way way too low!!!
Hope that helps.
.
I've just bought an 88 'Ray aswell. IMO, the 1985 to circa 1990 'Rays are very desirable. They also have a completely different neck to the latter and current 'Rays. They're similar, if not identical, to the Pre-EBs and have a deeper profile.
You'll find that the neck gradually slopes down towards the heel as you go past the 14th fret (or there abouts). Consequently, string height measurements are going to be different...depending on which fret you're using as a reference point for adjustment.
On both my 79 and 88 'Rays, I start off by getting the neck fairly straight...loosening strings between adjustments and measurements taken with the strings retuned to pitch.
With the Bass comfy on lap (play position), depress the E string at the first fret with your left hand. Using the thumb of your right hand, depress at the 12th fret with the middle finger pointing in the direction of the headstock. With both frets now depressed, use that middle finger to depress the string at the 6th fret. At that point, aim for paper thickness distance between the bottom of the string and top of the fret. Tap with your middle finger. You'll be able to hear if there's a gap there.
CAUTION. BE CAREFUL!!!!....some necks wont adjust this straight and you could be taking the truss adjustment to its extreme limit. If you feel excessive resistance on the truss nut and /or have any doubts, then you should take it to a tech.
Still in the play position, I aim for 4/32" string height at the last fret, on all 4 strings...either up or down a tad, consistent with no fret buzz from around the 3rd or 4th fret up to the heel.
On my two Basses, this equates to 3/32" at the 12th fret (about 5 mm?).
If the strings buzz at the first 3 or 4 frets then the neck is too straight. Loosen the truss nut gradually untill buzz-free.
Finally, I go a step further and lower the G string saddle 1/4 turn before steping the A and D down proportionately to meet the G.
That's the setup for my playing style. In effect, a fairly straight neck with approx 3/32" action at the 12th.
My 94 'Ray has a slimmer neck and the action definitely feels a lot lower. But after a setup, string height normally turns out to be 3/32" at the 12th also. IMO, it's the neck profiles on the 79 and 88 which make the action "seem" higher. If I've been playing them for a while and go back to the 94, then my initial reaction is that its action is way way way too low!!!
Hope that helps.
.
Last edited:
Rod Trussbroken
Moderator
P.S. It would be remiss of me not to advise that any truss adjustments should only be done AFTER fully backing off the truss rod. A previous owner may have already adjusted the truss to its maximum limit!!!
.
.
Rod Trussbroken
Moderator
Hi there K.
>>>How does the '88 compare with the '94 (sound, build quality)
Both 'Rays are very well made...excellent in fact. Actually, I've discovered that the 88 is really a Feb 89 albeit the pre-amp is dated 12 Dec 1988 (just had the neck off). Not that I'm complaing, of course. Last of the bullet truss neck and beginning of the new headstock logo, which adds flavour to it
The 94 was originally bought buy a tech at Seymour Duncan and stored there for 9 years. I bought it in May 2003 and had it sent out here to Australia. It's in pristine condition. It has a one-piece Ash body with a Trans White ("Mary Kaye") finish, Black pg and 3 Band EQ. The neck has a very thin narrow profile. The frets are super level. Action can be lowered to 2/32” at the 12th with no fret buzz (playing with a pick!). But with a low action like that, along with the thin neck profile, it becomes hard to get a feel when playing it. Consequently, I keep the action at a respectable 3/32". I assume the current model 'Rays have a similar type neck.
The 89 is Natural with Maple, Black pg and 3 Band EQ. It has the "D" shape neck with more wood at the back. The neck is similar to the Fender necks and appears to be the same as used on the Pre-EB Basses. The figuring on the neck is a combination of flame and birds eye.
Comparing the 89 to the 94 is really like comparing an apple with an orange. Two very good Basses but completely different. The 89 is closer to my 79 Pre-EB Bass (Natural with Maple), in sound and feel, rather than to the 94. The 94 sounds similar to the 89 (maybe due to them both having the 3 EQ) but bares no resemblance in feel due to the different neck profiles.
I can’t really decide which neck profile I prefer but at the moment I favour the “D” neck. I think the 89 will be my main player at the moment. I was going to retro-fit the 94 with Pre-EB electronics but I’ve decided to do it to the 89.
>>>With 3 rays, you can afford to put a graphite neck on one !!
I'm thinking about a graphite for the 94 but as usual, I can't make up my mind
.
>>>How does the '88 compare with the '94 (sound, build quality)
Both 'Rays are very well made...excellent in fact. Actually, I've discovered that the 88 is really a Feb 89 albeit the pre-amp is dated 12 Dec 1988 (just had the neck off). Not that I'm complaing, of course. Last of the bullet truss neck and beginning of the new headstock logo, which adds flavour to it
The 94 was originally bought buy a tech at Seymour Duncan and stored there for 9 years. I bought it in May 2003 and had it sent out here to Australia. It's in pristine condition. It has a one-piece Ash body with a Trans White ("Mary Kaye") finish, Black pg and 3 Band EQ. The neck has a very thin narrow profile. The frets are super level. Action can be lowered to 2/32” at the 12th with no fret buzz (playing with a pick!). But with a low action like that, along with the thin neck profile, it becomes hard to get a feel when playing it. Consequently, I keep the action at a respectable 3/32". I assume the current model 'Rays have a similar type neck.
The 89 is Natural with Maple, Black pg and 3 Band EQ. It has the "D" shape neck with more wood at the back. The neck is similar to the Fender necks and appears to be the same as used on the Pre-EB Basses. The figuring on the neck is a combination of flame and birds eye.
Comparing the 89 to the 94 is really like comparing an apple with an orange. Two very good Basses but completely different. The 89 is closer to my 79 Pre-EB Bass (Natural with Maple), in sound and feel, rather than to the 94. The 94 sounds similar to the 89 (maybe due to them both having the 3 EQ) but bares no resemblance in feel due to the different neck profiles.
I can’t really decide which neck profile I prefer but at the moment I favour the “D” neck. I think the 89 will be my main player at the moment. I was going to retro-fit the 94 with Pre-EB electronics but I’ve decided to do it to the 89.
>>>With 3 rays, you can afford to put a graphite neck on one !!
I'm thinking about a graphite for the 94 but as usual, I can't make up my mind
.
Last edited:
Rod Trussbroken
Moderator
K.
The truss adjustment's at the nut end....that correct?
I know you told me, but why did you get the graphite? (can't remember).
.
Gav,
Yes, truss rod adjustment is at headstock end.
I only changed the neck 'cos I was curious to the sound and always wanted a Cutlass (but contoured body).
I am more than happy with the graphite neck. The whole bass is totally different from the '77. Soundwise, as I've said earlier, the '87 is brighter and has better consistency of tone across all the neck. When I say brighter, it doesn't mean the bass sounds weak or trebly. Its still very bassy but some how crisper. Part of the difference is perhaps having a 3 band to the 2 band on the '77, making comparision difficult.
Also, note the graphite neck has a flat fingerboard profile. The nut is stepped rather than curved.
On output, the '87 is considerably louder than the '77 (even with the '77 on max boost and the '87 at detente). Pickup heights are the same. Do you have a similar difference between your rays ?
Cheers, K
Yes, truss rod adjustment is at headstock end.
I only changed the neck 'cos I was curious to the sound and always wanted a Cutlass (but contoured body).
I am more than happy with the graphite neck. The whole bass is totally different from the '77. Soundwise, as I've said earlier, the '87 is brighter and has better consistency of tone across all the neck. When I say brighter, it doesn't mean the bass sounds weak or trebly. Its still very bassy but some how crisper. Part of the difference is perhaps having a 3 band to the 2 band on the '77, making comparision difficult.
Also, note the graphite neck has a flat fingerboard profile. The nut is stepped rather than curved.
On output, the '87 is considerably louder than the '77 (even with the '77 on max boost and the '87 at detente). Pickup heights are the same. Do you have a similar difference between your rays ?
Cheers, K
Rod Trussbroken
Moderator
>>>On output, the '87 is considerably louder than the '77 (even with the '77 on max boost and the '87 at detente). Pickup heights are the same. Do you have a similar difference between your rays ?
I've found the opposite!
In my case the 2 Band is louder than the two 3 Banders! I also think the 3 band is more "tame" while the 2 band has a "throaty earthy growl" to it. I know those descriptions really mean nothing...but perhaps more "guts". I also believe that the 3 band also has a high pass filter which reduces bass response.
EDIT:
>>>I also believe that the 3 band also has a high pass filter which reduces bass response.
At least that's the case with the 3 band on the crescent moon circuit board (circa 1990 and beyond). Our 3 banders are on rectangular boards so they may not have said filter.
.
I've found the opposite!
In my case the 2 Band is louder than the two 3 Banders! I also think the 3 band is more "tame" while the 2 band has a "throaty earthy growl" to it. I know those descriptions really mean nothing...but perhaps more "guts". I also believe that the 3 band also has a high pass filter which reduces bass response.
EDIT:
>>>I also believe that the 3 band also has a high pass filter which reduces bass response.
At least that's the case with the 3 band on the crescent moon circuit board (circa 1990 and beyond). Our 3 banders are on rectangular boards so they may not have said filter.
.
Last edited:
I agree with you - the 2 band is more throaty, the 3 band is cleaner and has a less destinctive stingray tone.
The '87 has always been loud. I used to swap between the '87 and a fretless jazz (with EMGs) when playing live in Scotland. I got very frustated switching. It was like the amp was off when I used the jazz.
Took both basses to Jimmy Moon in Glasgow. Said the jazz was fine but the 'ray was abnormally loud. He put packing in the jazz to raise pickups. Better but still way under the 'ray.
The '87 has always been loud. I used to swap between the '87 and a fretless jazz (with EMGs) when playing live in Scotland. I got very frustated switching. It was like the amp was off when I used the jazz.
Took both basses to Jimmy Moon in Glasgow. Said the jazz was fine but the 'ray was abnormally loud. He put packing in the jazz to raise pickups. Better but still way under the 'ray.
Rod Trussbroken
Moderator
