2018 Rickenbacker 4003 (4 or 5) - Pros & Cons?

[phillipkregg]

I must preface this by saying that I have absolutely no experience with a Rickenbacker bass, but have always loved the way they look from an aesthetic standpoint, I mean just look at them:

Plus some of the most classic sounds in rock music come from Rickenbackers.

Would love to hear from you guys who have experience with the older Rics and the newer ones.

There are various threads on TalkBass and videos on YouTube where people complain about the things that are "wrong" with Rics, but my question is: are the newer 4003s improved??? Or not so much?

 

[drummer5359]

I currently own two 2015 Rickenbacker basses, a 4003W and a 4003SW. I've had great experiences with mine which are both four strings. I did order a 4003SW/5 (5 string) last January when they first started taking orders, I have not received it yet.

There are not a lot of current five string Rickenbackers in the wild as of yet.

 

[woodyng2]

I must preface this by saying that I have absolutely no experience with a Rickenbacker bass, but have always loved the way they look from an aesthetic standpoint, I mean just look at them:

View attachment 3259576



View attachment 3259577



Plus some of the most classic sounds in rock music come from Rickenbackers.

Would love to hear from you guys who have experience with the older Rics and the newer ones.

There are various threads on TalkBass and videos on YouTube where people complain about the things that are "wrong" with Rics, but my question is: are the newer 4003s improved??? Or not so much?

The 5 string would be the one to get if you wanted improvements.
Not sure if the new triangle pickups are quieter,(one would hope),but there’s no pickup cover or clunky mute to get in your way,plus it has an unbound neck,and an unbound contoured body.

 

[GIBrat51]

Most of the "problems" with 4003s - insofar as people consider them problems - are inherent in the basic design. 4003s were intended to fix the problems with the older 4001s (thin, whippy necks, and a tendency for the neck to fold over on itself, at the neck pickups's route). Which they did. But, the "problems" with the odd neck profile; the bridge; the tailpiece; the nasty binding that hurts people's arms; and (for a lot of people) "bad" ergonomics, haven't changed. Neither have the problems associated with neck-thru basses in general. As for the new 5-string? Well, they "fixed" the bridge/tailpiece problem, I suppose. And, the binding that bothers a lot of people isn't there on the new 5-er, so I guess that's "fixed", too. I imagine the ergonomics haven't changed, though. However... one of the things that killed the old 5-string 4003 was very cramped string spacing. Some people (like Ric5, who builds them) seem OK with it; others? Not so much. Whether or not the new ones have wider string spacing, I couldn't say. I hope they do; otherwise, it'll be lap 2 around that track, and they might not be around very long. Personally, I have no use for a 5-string bass; and, in any case, I seriously doubt we'll see a lefty Rick 5-er in the foreseeable future. But, I'm very happy with my 4003 and my 4001 4-stringers anyway, so...

 

[phillipkregg]

View attachment 3260865 Most of the "problems" with 4003s - insofar as people consider them problems - are inherent in the basic design. 4003s were intended to fix the problems with the older 4001s (thin, whippy necks, and a tendency for the neck to fold over on itself, at the neck pickups's route).

When you say "fold over" is that literally what happened? Like the neck would burst out of the pocket at the joint?

 

[GIBrat51]

s

When you say "fold over" is that literally what happened? Like the neck would burst out of the pocket at the joint?

No, not exactly. Rickenbacker basses are neck - throughs; there is no neck pocket, and no separate neck. In the early 4001s, up to around 1978 (when it was moved to where it is now), the neck pickup was right up at the end of the fingerboard (like this one - my '73 4001). The pickup rout is actually in the part of the neck - through "body", just where it begins to narrow and thin out to become the neck. There's only about a half inch thick piece of wood there, under the rout; so it's not real strong. And, for reasons known only to Rickenbacker, the early 4001's had an enormous rout for that neck pickup - like, 2x as big as it needs to be, enormous. It's what Rick fans call "the Bathtub Rout", and it leaves very little wood in the exact spot where very little wood is a very, very bad thing. So, older 4001's can, over time, develop what Rick owners call "Negative Neck Angle". That's where string tension overcomes that very thin spot in the neck/body transition, and actually begins to lift the entire neck portion up - like raising a drawbridge. The neck itself doesn't bend; that thin spot just acts like a hinge. It can get to the point where it also begins to separate the body "wings" from the middle section. And, if it gets too bad, the bass is unrepairable. But, if you catch it in time? Yes, it can be fixed; but, it's very time consuming, and very expensive. Does my 4001 have this problem? Sad to say, yes, it does. Not bad; it's actually hard to tell, unless you really look for it. But, I'm just going to have to suck it up, and spend what it takes to fix it. It's a lefty 4001; waaay too scarce a bass, and waay too nice, not too...

 

[woodyng2]

I’m sure the new basses don’t have these issues.

 

[JohnV]

I owned an older 4003/s5 and it was my first 5 string. The string spacing is tight, compared to your average bass, but I really didn't notice it until I played some other, more standard, basses.

 

[corndog]

I traded a 2010 Stingray HH for a 2016 4003 in Fireglo. Stingrays are incredibly made, fantastic fit and finish. The 4003 is the same. Fret work is better than my old Stingray. The neck is straight as an arrow with no fret buzz, I couldn’t do that with the Stingray, it always needed some relief. I needed to shim it too.

Ric doesn’t use grain filler, so the thin finish poly shows a bit of the grain through it, but shines like the ‘Ray did. No bridge lift or finish issues.

The quality of the rosewood board is top notch. Overall, I am super pleased with the 4003. I don’t have a comparison to give you on older Rics, but I would say with the more detail work compared to a Stingray, my 2016 4003 is an excellent bass with top notch detail work.

 

[Jeff Scott]

I have owned Rick basses continuously since 1973 (the first one was my 4005WB from February '67), so I am pretty well versed on most eras of Rick basses (and guitars) right up to the present. Currently, I have two Ricks, both 4004 Laredo models, one a Snowglo 4004L, the other a Jetglo 4004L SPC with some custom modifications that I wanted on it. Both are totally fabulous and sound great with their different respective strings on them (stock RIC rounds on the JG, and TI Jazz Flats on the Snowglo. Also, the 4004L SPC has two different types of toaster pickups in them, and they are in the 4005 locations.

 

[Resonance129]

Gonna follow this.
I'm REALLY interested in getting a Ric these days (GAS flared a few weeks ago at a big box store and hasn't let up, since). But I have very little experience with them. I know there are plenty of people who love Ric's and plenty who hate em, and I'd love to hear of more opinions and info from both sides of that coin.

So far, from what I gather (and let me know if I'm way off about something)-

Bad: They're pretty fragile, can be a bit finnicky to work with.
The frets can wear down fairly quickly if you don't use the right strings
The bridge may float on you and isn't a great design
The dual truss rod system can be a pain to adjust/work with
The binding is uncomfortable
They're overpriced
The bridge pickup cover is a pain (both to play with, and to remove)
They don't balance on a strap well (significant neck dive)

...

Good: That SOUND... All the way up the board... Regardless of pickup selection or blend... It's just lovely. And unique.
The neck profile is really nice, especially with the glossy neck/fret board.
Super sexy, well-known body shape. Hard not to appreciate a pretty instrument.
Can achieve and maintain a really nice, low action, making them incredibly playable
The "Vintage Tone Pot" feature basically makes it 2 instruments in one body
The Ric-O-Sound stereo output is super unique and can really allow for some creativity
Seem to handle effects really well (because of the fairly tame output of the pickups?)

Regardless, I'd love to hear more about these basses. There's plenty of stuff online about them, I know, but it's nice to read these types of things (unfiltered) directly from the fingers of those who play them regularly.

 

[Skybone]

The bendy bridge issue was sorted out years ago, the "only" issue with it these days IMO, is setting the intonation, as the saddle screws are obscured by the recess in the bridge plate the saddle sits in. People who don't like this fit Hipshot bridges.

The neck does take a bit of getting used to if you've been used to playing Fender or Fender-inspired designs. It's wide at the nut, and the taper from the nut to the body is quite shallow. Likewise the depth of the neck doesn't really taper from the nut to the heel, unlike a P or J bass.

The "uncomfortable" slab body is again an issue of people being used to playing Fender or Fender-inspired designs, that have a forearm chamfer at the rear of the body. IME, you have to slightly adjust your playing style for a Ric (or a Faker), where you move your playing hand up the body towards the neck. If you watch most video's of people playing Ric's, most tend to play up near the neck pickup. There are some that prefer to play near the bridge, but most play further up than you would with a Fender or Fender-inspired design.

Yes, the bridge cover is a pain to remove, but people mod their instruments to their style anyway. Spending time working on your instrument is time spent getting to know your instrument. If you make the playing style adjustment, there's no real need to take the cover off, unless you want to access all of the "playing area" over the body (or in fact if you simply just don't like the cover).

I have never had any issue with body balance / neck dive on a Ric or a through-neck Faker. It's a very well balanced design.

Unfortunately, you do have to spend a bit of time getting to know a Ric (or a Faker), whereas, you can just "plug and play" a Fender or Fender-inspired design. Spend the time, make a few tweaks, and that work is rewarded. However, some people simply just don't get on with them.

 

[BassVibes]

The Ric is the bass I have flipped the most. Time and again I get the gas and buy yet another 4003. I have always bought blind so its a bit of a lucky dip.

The one I have currently is a 4003s matte black. Where the bridge tailpiece has been fitted there is an impression on the body of what seems to be a tailpiece template or wider bridge fitted. That to me is sloppy finishing. The one I had before this had electonics issues. I also find the tone varies from 4003 to 4003.

I am a Ric fan and love the sound and find the 4003S a comfortable and playable bass. But, the consistency is just not there like it is with Fender 2008-present imho. By and large build quality is great and tone is consistent from bass to bass.

 

[Jeff Scott]

Bad:

They're pretty fragile, can be a bit finnicky to work with.
The frets can wear down fairly quickly if you don't use the right strings
The bridge may float on you and isn't a great design
The dual truss rod system can be a pain to adjust/work with
The binding is uncomfortable
They're overpriced
The bridge pickup cover is a pain (both to play with, and to remove)
They don't balance on a strap well (significant neck dive)

...

All your Bad points are wrong, IME. YMMV

 

[Quadzilla]

My humble opinion(s)....

Shop for a 74 - 84 4001 or 4003 (1st gen). Most of these will have 3-piece necks, which are generally regarded as stronger. Later, Ric switched to a 1-piece neck and then to a 2-piece (which I believe they currently use).

Most of the older, 3-piece necks were thinner in profile. So they are easier to play (IMHO) and "faster". All of the recently made Rics that I've put my hands on (last 10+ years) feel like baseball bats in comparison.

Also, the electronics are quite different (even though they don't appear so at a glance). The older Rics used different value (measurement) pickups and the pots are also different values. In addition, they used to use a cap for the bridge pickup (the modern ones have a push pull pot to take it in or out). Regardless of the cap, the overall tone of the modern vs vintage is quite different because of the different pickups and pots.

Not to mention the QC issues with the modern variants which is well documented.... Finish issues, poorly mounted pickups, bridges, etc. Find a good playing vintage Ric and you'll be much better off (again, IMHO, YMMV)...

 

[Resonance129]

All your Bad points are wrong, IME. YMMV

All of those points are simply what I've heard/read about Ric's. As I said, I have very little experience with them.
Would you be so inclined as to correct the points you consider wrong?

 

[Jeff Scott]

All of those points are simply what I've heard/read about Ric's [sic].

At least, one of us speaks from experience.

 

[Resonance129]

At least, one of us speaks from experience.

Cool.

 

[ctmullins]

I’ve never owned a Rick, but last year I built myself my own interpretation (“Fantasy Custom Shop”) of the 4004, so I’ll take the liberty of commenting on your points:

Bad: They're pretty fragile, can be a bit finnicky to work with.

The 4001 models had a unique truss rod design that does require a different technique to adjust. The 4003 (replacement for the 4001) uses a pair of conventional rods. Also, as has been mentioned, the earlier neck pickup cavity was a weak point.

The frets can wear down fairly quickly if you don't use the right strings

The 4001s used softer fret wire; the 4003 uses normal nickel-silver wire like everybody else.

The bridge may float on you and isn't a great design

Also well-documented elsewhere, the stock bridge is a cast piece that can sometimes suffer from bending under string tension. Consensus is that a bent bridge will not tend to continue to bend (most of the time). The intonation screws are not in a convenient place, and the mute assembly is archaic and can impede palm muting. Hipshot addressed all of these issues with their replacement piece. The 4004 models use either ABM or Schaller conventional bridges.

The dual truss rod system can be a pain to adjust/work with

It’s double the number of rods on most basses, but it’s not rocket science, and once adjusted, shouldn’t need readjusting for a very long time.

The binding is uncomfortable

Depends on your technique. If it’s problematic, there are plenty of “S” model Ricks that have contoured, unbound bodies.

They're overpriced

Street price is in the ballpark of other US-made basses, although the supply/demand curve is a factor too.

The bridge pickup cover is a pain (both to play with, and to remove)

Again, depends on your technique and preferences. If you want to remove it, it only needs to be done once. Another place where the 4004 models shine.

They don't balance on a strap well (significant neck dive)

No idea where this comes from. Mine is easily the most comfortable bass in my stable, both due to its weight, its contoured body, and its balance.

 

[Koshchei]

Gonna follow this.
I'm REALLY interested in getting a Ric these days (GAS flared a few weeks ago at a big box store and hasn't let up, since). But I have very little experience with them. I know there are plenty of people who love Ric's and plenty who hate em, and I'd love to hear of more opinions and info from both sides of that coin.

So far, from what I gather (and let me know if I'm way off about something)-

Bad: They're pretty fragile, can be a bit finnicky to work with.
The frets can wear down fairly quickly if you don't use the right strings
The bridge may float on you and isn't a great design
The dual truss rod system can be a pain to adjust/work with
The binding is uncomfortable
They're overpriced
The bridge pickup cover is a pain (both to play with, and to remove)
They don't balance on a strap well (significant neck dive)

...

Good: That SOUND... All the way up the board... Regardless of pickup selection or blend... It's just lovely. And unique.
The neck profile is really nice, especially with the glossy neck/fret board.
Super sexy, well-known body shape. Hard not to appreciate a pretty instrument.
Can achieve and maintain a really nice, low action, making them incredibly playable
The "Vintage Tone Pot" feature basically makes it 2 instruments in one body
The Ric-O-Sound stereo output is super unique and can really allow for some creativity
Seem to handle effects really well (because of the fairly tame output of the pickups?)

Regardless, I'd love to hear more about these basses. There's plenty of stuff online about them, I know, but it's nice to read these types of things (unfiltered) directly from the fingers of those who play them regularly.

You're a bit out to lunch on the strengths and weaknesses of the Rickenbacker 400x:

Weaknesses:
- Not fragile. But definitely finicky. An apt comparison is to a Jaguar E-Type.
- The frets have been fine for a very long time. Only early 4001s had soft frets.
- The bridge won't lift anymore, but it's still an awful design. From the look of it, they've completely updated it in the last few months, and will hopefully be using the new one in new 4003s. Failing that, the Hipshot is a drop-in replacement and is vastly superior.
- Adjusting the dual truss rods has a learning curve. Once you get a sense of how the two rods interact with one another and the neck, it becomes a lot easier to "tune" them and get the neck where you want it without back buzz or dead spots. Note: they use a thin-walled 1/4" nut driver.
- The binding is still uncomfortable. The S is quite comfortable, however.
- Overpriced is in the eye of the beholder. They're well-made, basically hand-built American basses. I think they're fairly priced for what you get.
- The bridge cover is a PITA to remove. Fortunately, you only need to do it once.
- They do not neck-dive.
- Finish issues around the bridge, as the magnesium casting bites into the paint and damages it. The oiled finishes do not have this issue.
- The bridge pickup is usually angled relative to the magnet for some reason. This can lead to rage on TB threads. Fortunately, it can be easily straightened when you're taking the cover off.

Strengths:
- The neck profile is contentious to some; it's a bit wider at the nut than a Strat, but doesn't taper out as much as a P/J, so winds up a bit narrower at the bridge. Horses for courses. The profile is really nice, particularly on the oiled finishes.
- Beautiful
- Supremely playable, once set up.
- The vintage/modern tone pot is nice, but more of an effect than two basses in one. THere's more tonal variation in moving your plucking hand from the neck pickup to the bridge pickup.
- Rick-o-sound is awesome, but requires a pretty crazy setup (two amps won't haul themselves to the gig).
- Ricks do sound great with effects.

Common mods:
- Bezel cover for the bridge pickup. The open housing can be a bit stabby.
- Zero-mod thumb-rest. Even if you use floating thumb technique, it's a convenient "bumper" for when you're playing on the E string.
- Hipshot bridge.