I like that my Ric doesn't have any dead spots & sustains for days!
Can that be attributed to the scale length, or neck through, or...?
Can that be attributed to the scale length, or neck through, or...?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
If you're talking about certain harmonics being left out because of pickup placement, that only applies on open strings, not sure if that's what you mean though.
I really don't t know. I just thought it's another possible ingredient to their unique sound.
Good point!And, on top of that, if pickups are located with regard to harmonic nodes, scale length doesn't matter, those nodes exist on all scale lengths.
Gotcha, I hear you. I was just a bit confused initially. Thanks for the clarification.
I used to own a Ric and I got rid of it for a few reasons, the short scale, along with the the incredibly close proximity of the strings to the body of the bass just below the neck being chief among them. I love the way they sound but I hate the way they play.
@CanadaNeal
When I was obsessively studying the various incarnations of Ric basses for my Hossenfeffer, I realized that the standard bridge pup and 1" neck pup spacing are within 1/8" or so of theoretical 24 and 36 fret positions, which had to be intentional. I made mine exactly 24 and 36, don't know if it makes any real difference tone wise, we'll see. Maybe somebody with more physics knowledge can tell me if it actually translates into something useful.
I think the neck looks long because it had no taper, kind of a reverse vanishing point thing going on, we are used to seeing a neck taper. The deep cutaways right up to 20th fret makes it look long too.
When I was obsessively studying the various incarnations of Ric basses for my Hossenfeffer, I realized that the standard bridge pup and 1" neck pup spacing are within 1/8" or so of theoretical 24 and 36 fret positions, which had to be intentional. I made mine exactly 24 and 36, don't know if it makes any real difference tone wise, we'll see. Maybe somebody with more physics knowledge can tell me if it actually translates into something useful.
I think the neck looks long because it had no taper, kind of a reverse vanishing point thing going on, we are used to seeing a neck taper. The deep cutaways right up to 20th fret makes it look long too.
Last edited:
I'm sensitive when switching between 32 & 34" scales, so I stick to 34 nowadays. I never even notice a difference when I pick up the Ric... But it's the 'old glove' that just feels right.
I never measure the scale length or worried about it on any bass. If I like the sound and like how it feels - I buy it.
I think this scale length is a TB thing....never heard any discussion on this topic outside of these forums.
I think this scale length is a TB thing....never heard any discussion on this topic outside of these forums.
Never noticed it until recently. Switching basses feels a little weird now and I've actually come to prefer the 33.25 scale. It makes the big stretches a little easier.
Question for Ric players and non-Ric players alike, regarding the 33.25" scale that is unique to those basses...
For those who play them, is the 33.25" scale part of the appeal, or more the looks/sound? Would you care if they were standard 34" scale, or maybe even prefer it?
For those who don't play a Ric, is the 33.25" scale part of the reason, or more looks/sound/comfort turns you off? If they were 34" scale would that make any difference to you?
This is just a general feedback question about the unique scale. We make 34" and 32" basses, and have had questions about this 33.25" (or just an even 33" scale) but are wondering if this is actually part of the appeal of Rics, or if it's more about the look and sound.
Thanks for your consideration
With the smaller scale, I think it's all a government conspiracy to make us play... dare I say it... fewer notes... (gasp!).
Thanks for the feedback everyone. Not that I really need to be doing market research for Rickenbacker or anything, I was just curious whether their "thing" had anything to do with the slightly different scale. It seems that 34" wouldn't really win over any new fans, though a large enough number of people can be made happy by having the shortened scale (12 to 1 at present count).
Support seems to be very looks/sound minded with these - same with the opposition to them.
.
Support seems to be very looks/sound minded with these - same with the opposition to them.
.
Mathematically there is a slightly smaller difference between 33.25" and 34" than between 34" and 35".
33.25" is 97.8% of 34" and 34" is 97.1% of 35".
Not sure what this actually proves...just a curiousity.
Last edited:
Haven't played a Ric in many years. But the neck scale was just fine for me. I didn't even notice the difference.
I also play a Ripper, which has a 34.5" scale length. Same deal. Which is a good thing, I guess, since I have basses sporting: 30, 32, 34, 34.5, and 35" scales.
I suspect that 1/2" either way (plus the 2x2 rather than 4-in-line peghead design) has a lot to do with the virtual absence of dead spots on Rics and Rippers which seem to plague so many otherwise perfectly fine Fender bass necks.
I also play a Ripper, which has a 34.5" scale length. Same deal. Which is a good thing, I guess, since I have basses sporting: 30, 32, 34, 34.5, and 35" scales.
I suspect that 1/2" either way (plus the 2x2 rather than 4-in-line peghead design) has a lot to do with the virtual absence of dead spots on Rics and Rippers which seem to plague so many otherwise perfectly fine Fender bass necks.
