Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Basses [BG]' started by FiveStringsNme, Sep 13, 2003.
how are Ric B strings?
Unless you see a Rick in a store with 5 strings, good luck ordering one. The wait time on Rics is...blah.
i didnt know Ric made 5s!
me niether till I looked on their website... I think they have a really good bottom end, so I'm kinda ing thinking about how the B string could possibly sound...(and importantly, feel)
so does anyone know?
the one I played had a great B... only issue was the tight spacing. I think they discontinued the 4003s/5 I played though
RIC does not still make a 5-string so you would have to find a used one. the string spacing is tight but still if you ever find a RIC 5er buy it. sweet basses and a rare find.
I've played the old Rick 4003/5 5-strings, and you're right, the string spacing is very narrow. I wasn't all that impressed with the B string, either.
However, Rick has a new 5-string version of the Cheyenne (http://www.rickenbacker.com/us/4004-5cii.htm) that's come out in the last year or two. The string spacing seems to be wider than the old ones, but I've never seen one in person.
eh, that bass is so plain looking compared to the other Rics I have seen with the pickguard, pup cover and stuff
I really like the sound of my 1987 Rick 5-string, it's the best sounding Rick I have. The B is excellent. Like everybody else here I think the spacing between the strings is a bit narrow and that takes a lot of getting used to. I also agree that the Cheyenne just isn't as attractive as the older models. Just keep watching, they are out there and good things come to those who wait. (Took me 9 months to get my 5 fretless as a special order.)
that's a cooler looking Ric btw
The 5-string 4004 has never yet been put into production, and the start of production is nowhere in sight. Don't hold your breath.
The original 4003 5-string has the exact same neck width as the 4. Very tight spacing.
Ordering anything from Ric takes forever. Even if you ordered a 5 string Cheyenne, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.
Rickenbacker use a 115 gauge string as their B as standard on their 4003S/5, compared to everyone elses 130 gauge. It makes the B string tighter and helps eliminates that "floppy B syndrome" that many 5-strings basses suffer with.
String spacing is VERY tight on this model of RIC bass. They've put 4 strings on a neck that is 1/16" wider than the standard 4 string neck.
It also produces much more bottom end than the 4001 or early 4003 models.
I would think it would be the other way around. Generally, tension relies on pitch, length and gauge of the string. Generally speaking, if only one of these changes at a time:
Longer speaking length=more tension.
Heavier gauge=more tension.
Higher pitch=more tension.
I could see how lighter gauge may make for a clearer sound, but I would think it would make the string itself more floppy.
Sounds Right to me. Ric may have strung the bass with a thin B to reduce tension as it's basically their 4 string neck.
I played one of these at a store several years ago (along with a fretless 4003, one almost seems to never see anything but standard 4003's these days.) Wasn't too bad, though like has been mentioned before, the string spacing was a little nuts.
If I had one, I'd probably string it up with a high C string. Twang twang twang!
This is the best looking Ric5 IMO (although it doesn't have the triangle inlays). Too bad it's discontinued.
This is not true. The neck on the 4003s/5 had 3/16" extra width - which is perfectly in line with one string being added.
I'll quote another post I did, with some info on it:
Note that the old Ric was the same width at the nut as a standard Fender 5, and the new one is wider than a Fender. I couldn't find any info on the bridge spacing, which is where the older Ric seems to be rather tight.
(The original post was here.)
BTW that black-on-red Ric looks awesome!!