I think I want a Rick...

[guy n. cognito]

My Ric is set up with no visible relief. I did not use a laser to measure it, but it's visibly flat. John Hall has stated that all the demo instruments sitting around at the Ric factory are "ruler flat". That is how they are designing their instruments. Then they state in the owners manual to set with the littlest relief possible. The smallest amount of relief I achieved was none. Same with most of the other experienced Ric owners here.

I'm going by experience, experienced users, and factory recommendations.

You can use semantics and speculation all you want, but it doesn't really change a thing.

The only semantics I see are highlighted in your post above. Which is it? No relief? Minimal relief? No "visible" relief? I get confused with all this double-talk.....

None of my current instruments have "visible" relief......depending on how I look at them. But, it's there. It's all in knowing how to measure it.

But, here's a hint: ALL instruments have an optimal setup that includes minimal relief. Hall's instruments are no different. It's things like this that are confusing to new or perspective RIC owners. Even the revered Joey describes a methods of setting RELIEF on his setup page:

http://www.joeysbassnotes.com/Rick_maint.htm

Please note that he mentions the width of a sheet of paper, or a plinking sound that is audible at the 9th fret with the first and last frets depressed. That is RELIEF, which means that his necks are not "perfectly flat."

 

[willsellout]

None of my current instruments have "visible" relief......depending on how I look at them. But, it's there. It's all in knowing how to measure it.

This was going to be my point. If you were to look at my bass, you wouldn't see relief. I measure mine with tools bought specifically for that.

And I consider myself an experienced Ric user as I've owned 3. My latest (and the gem of the bunch) I have taken completely apart, shielded, completed a fret level and crown, adjusted the nut, and put it back together.

 

[mcblahflooper94]

I believe that, although Rickenbackers are beautiful instruments, I'd do something even more exciting: try to find a bass with a really unique sound. Rics play, beautifully, and in NO way am I bashing Ric players, but if I were to save up for an instrument that beautiful, I would try and find a sound extremely unique and amazing like Rics have. Just a thought.
Really, not bashing Ric players... if anything I'm jealous >.>

 

[iiipopes]

I believe that, although Rickenbackers are beautiful instruments, I'd do something even more exciting: try to find a bass with a really unique sound. Rics play, beautifully, and in NO way am I bashing Ric players, but if I were to save up for an instrument that beautiful, I would try and find a sound extremely unique and amazing like Rics have. Just a thought. Really, not bashing Ric players... if anything I'm jealous >.>

My 4002 is that kind of a unique animal. Instead of the well-known Rick single coil pickups, it has two end-to-end Rickenbacker humbuckers, so it is as quiet as a churchmouse. Moreover, the pickups are in the P-J configuration as far as position, not the neck and treble positions of the 4001 or 4003. So it has its own unique flavor of grind. If a J-bass can be described, as in an old Fender ad, "Daddy's Home!", then the tone of this bass can be described as "Daddy's Home, -- And He's HUNGRY!!"

 

[Engine207]

It's not for everything, but I'll never part with my '80 4001. It ain't 'Old Reliable' for nothing...

 

[Plaz]

Have you played one? For me every time that I play one I realize that I just don't like them very much. I like hearing Chris Squire play them though.

Agreed. I want to like them, but just don't really like holding them and playing them. Just doesn't fit right for me. They can be great basses though.

I've always thought of them as kind of the SAAB of basses... a little quirky, things are just a little different. But very capable.

 

[cassius987]

Well, someone claiming that all QC issues are false and based on rumors should better inform himself to avoid the telling of a lie.

Seeing someone maligned is not something I enjoy, especially when I know them personally and what a great individual they are. If you want to dispute a claim, fine, but don't assume the person is a liar. We all have our various sources--this is the age of missing information after, or as others say, information overload. Not everyone sifts out the same pieces of gold in their limited time, so chill.

I set my Ric up just like my other basses; with a very slight relief in the neck. Ric likes to think it's special in the way you can set them almost flat and play well. They aren't. Any bass with level frets and a properly cut nut can achieve the same results. This is the kind of hyperbole that bugs me when people talk about Ric's. Ric's aren't special. They look great, the sound great, and they can play great. Just like a hundred other basses.

The way I measure relief is a "layperson" way, so feel free to correct me on its worthiness, but basically I depress the string at the first fret and end of the fingerboard and visualize the gap at the 9th semitone on each string. If that is the way it can be measured then I truly have an "infinitesimally small" amount of relief (physicists would get lazy and define this as zero in a math equation), on the G string side, and then using the double truss rod system I put a bit of relief on the E string side--a very small amount similar to a low action Fender in my experience. I'm sure any bass can achieve this but I would think the two truss rod system certainly helps, and helps keep things in place. I haven't done a truss rod adjustment greater than 1/8 of a turn for seasonal adjustment in a couple of years, IIRC.

 

[Tarrbot]

The only semantics I see are highlighted in your post above. Which is it? No relief? Minimal relief? No "visible" relief? I get confused with all this double-talk.....

None of my current instruments have "visible" relief......depending on how I look at them. But, it's there. It's all in knowing how to measure it.

But, here's a hint: ALL instruments have an optimal setup that includes minimal relief. Hall's instruments are no different. It's things like this that are confusing to new or perspective RIC owners. Even the revered Joey describes a methods of setting RELIEF on his setup page:

Joey's Rickenbacker Bass Guitar Maintenance, Setup and Wiring Diagrams

Please note that he mentions the width of a sheet of paper, or a plinking sound that is audible at the 9th fret with the first and last frets depressed. That is RELIEF, which means that his necks are not "perfectly flat."

I find it truly ironic that you speak about double talk and semantics yet when you bring up the QC issues you use a limited sampling from one vendor (MF sale) and try to extrapolate that across the entirety of Rickenbacker sales.

You can't have it both ways. Either you can be specific on the "perfectly flat" argument and specific on the QC argument or you can be vague on both arguments. You can't be specific on one and not be specific on the other.

Extrapolating the MF numbers to Rickenbacker QC issues shows two glaring holes. One, you have no effin idea how many basses MF sold during that sale so you have no comparison to find a ratio. Also, you have no effin idea how many Rickenbackers were sold in all of last year to make the MF "bad Rickenbacker" ratio compare to all of Rickenbacker ratio.

In other words, you're full of it.

 

[willsellout]

The way I measure relief is a "layperson" way, so feel free to correct me on its worthiness, but basically I depress the string at the first fret and end of the fingerboard and visualize the gap at the 9th semitone on each string. If that is the way it can be measured then I truly have an "infinitesimally small" amount of relief (physicists would get lazy and define this as zero in a math equation), on the G string side, and then using the double truss rod system I put a bit of relief on the E string side--a very small amount similar to a low action Fender in my experience. I'm sure any bass can achieve this but I would think the two truss rod system certainly helps, and helps keep things in place. I haven't done a truss rod adjustment greater than 1/8 of a turn for seasonal adjustment in a couple of years, IIRC.

Yeah thats how I do it most of the time as well, fret at the first and last and do a quick check. You can barely see light between the bottom of the string and the top of the fret on my basses.

And you know, I didn't like the dual truss rods at first, but seeing how you can fine tune the bass using them, I actually quite like it now. I do find that if you aren't careful you can tweak the neck a bit too much on either side and start seeing weird harmonics or choked off sustain. It took me a while to get comfortable adjusting the truss rods.

I had to adjust my Ric when I moved from Southern California to Seattle, Wa, but that's it. It's a very stable bass.

 

[willsellout]

I find it truly ironic that you speak about double talk and semantics yet when you bring up the QC issues you use a limited sampling from one vendor (MF sale) and try to extrapolate that across the entirety of Rickenbacker sales.

You can't have it both ways. Either you can be specific on the "perfectly flat" argument and specific on the QC argument or you can be vague on both arguments. You can't be specific on one and not be specific on the other.

Extrapolating the MF numbers to Rickenbacker QC issues shows two glaring holes. One, you have no effin idea how many basses MF sold during that sale so you have no comparison to find a ratio. Also, you have no effin idea how many Rickenbackers were sold in all of last year to make the MF "bad Rickenbacker" ratio compare to all of Rickenbacker ratio.

In other words, you're full of it.

No one is claiming that all Ric's are problem children, so i'm not sure why you are getting so worked up. I also don't believe anyone was trying to find a scientific ratio of good vs. Bad. It was interesting to see so many complaints with new basses though. That thread also highlighted the problematic areas with Ric's QC.

Do all Ric's have those problems, though? Of course not.

 

[Tarrbot]

No one is claiming that all Ric's are problem children, so i'm not sure why you are getting so worked up. I also don't believe anyone was trying to find a scientific ratio of good vs. Bad. It was interesting to see so many complaints with new basses though. That thread also highlighted the problematic areas with Ric's QC.

Do all Ric's have those problems, though? Of course not.

Oddly, I was actually being friendly in response to the pedantic meanderings I quoted.

It's a bit disturbing to see folks following mindless calculations that out of 10 basses they played at Store X, nine of them had problems and then extrapolating out that there must be a huge problem with Brand X's basses. It's mindfully ignorant and simplistically stupid, to be blunt.

To further the insanity, it was being claimed that the "width of a sheet of paper" wasn't flat when anyone without instrumentation and eyeballing the neck would say it was flat... especially in relation to any other bass on the market--which was the point to begin with.

Anyone going on a pedant rant much?

I thought so too.

He (and obviously others) may have had crappy experiences with a lot of basses in that thread/sale but that doesn't mean they have any numbers to state with certainty that QC is bad. That's the biggest problem I see. So I called him out on it.

 

[iiipopes]

Ric's problems stem (mostly) from their bridges and from their finishes, by and large. If they could take care of the tail lift, the bubbling on their cheap a$$ chrome jobs on their parts and if they could take a look at their finishing issues (soft finishes, inconsistent color, finish bleeds, thin finishes), they'd have far fewer problems. This isn't an abuse issue this is a lack of attention to detail issue.

Besides that, it would be nice to see them come up with a new bridge design. It would be nice to see them change their gigantic fricking routes, and it would be nice to see them shield their instruments.

As a side note, Ric's are some of the sloppiest routed basses I've ever seen. MY Ric is simply the worst. It's horrible and amateurish. Does it work, though? Yes. This seems to be JH's MO. Good enough, shouldn't be your goal.

To leave on a positive note, I generally find the playability of Ric's out of the box to be one of the better qualities.

Thank you for your last positive comments. The comments before that, however, are based on obsolete information. The new CNC machines rout the bodies very neatly so they are easier to finish by hand to a high quality finish. The conversion varnish has been eliminated in favor of a superior UV cured finish that has more consistency and buffs to a better appearance. The alloy of the bridge has been changed and is mirror chromed and matched to the Schaller heads.

Yes, the bridge remains. But having adjusted new ones, they are better than the old ones. Not a perfect design, I concede, but better. My 1981 4002 bridge still has perfect chrome, and even though it was a chore to get adjusted in the first place (both sides of the bridge frame are threaded, so the saddle has to be placed so the adjustment screw locks it down; it won't turn to adjust once fully engaged into the frame) it has never needed readjusting. The new bridges I have set up have actually been adjustible with the supplied allen wrench to fine tune intonation on the fly without having to dismantle everything as previously.

Now, to highlight all of the upgrades and refinements in the Rick manufacturing process since you got your bass, please review this new video in its entirety where Mr. JH himself takes Premier Guitar through the updated factory:

Rickenbacker Factory Tour: Model 330 Guitar & Model Bass Construction - YouTube

 

[s4001]

Quite a conversation. If a Ric appeals to you I wouldn't really fret about the storied QC issues. Anyone who knows me knows I see a LOT of them on a regular basis. It's by far the exception rather than the rule. I can honestly say I've never seen one unplayable. If the sound and style appeals to you, nothing else will fit the bill.

 

[willsellout]

Oddly, I was actually being friendly in response to the pedantic meanderings I quoted.

It's a bit disturbing to see folks following mindless calculations that out of 10 basses they played at Store X, nine of them had problems and then extrapolating out that there must be a huge problem with Brand X's basses. It's mindfully ignorant and simplistically stupid, to be blunt.

To further the insanity, it was being claimed that the "width of a sheet of paper" wasn't flat when anyone without instrumentation and eyeballing the neck would say it was flat... especially in relation to any other bass on the market--which was the point to begin with.

Anyone going on a pedant rant much?

I thought so too.

He (and obviously others) may have had crappy experiences with a lot of basses in that thread/sale but that doesn't mean they have any numbers to state with certainty that QC is bad. That's the biggest problem I see. So I called him out on it.

You and I have very different views of friendly, apparently.

IF you want to deny that Ric has QC issues, that's fine. Personally, I believe there is more than enough information out there to support that claim. Compound that with the numerous instances and dozens of threads about Ric QC problems with the similarity of those complaints, or problem areas, and it becomes more apparent that Ric needs to work a bit harder on a couple of their processes, to ensure that people that put down their cash get the bass that Ric advertises.

 

[willsellout]

Thank you for your last positive comments. The comments before that, however, are based on obsolete information. The new CNC machines rout the bodies very neatly. The conversion varnish has been eliminated in favor of a superior UV cured finish. The alloy of the bridge has been changed and is mirror chromed and matched to the Schaller heads.

Not true, according to numerous people's responses to their new Rickenbackers they received during the Mid sale. Paint issues and chrome issues were still among them. I should also add that I owned an 08' 4003 that had both paint bubbling and chrome plating issues on the bridge. Despite what Mr. Hall says, I don't think they have it all figured out quite yet.

Now, to highlight all of the upgrades and refinements in the Rick manufacturing process since you got your bass, please review this new video where Mr. JH himself takes Premier Guitar through the updated factory:

Rickenbacker Factory Tour: Model 330 Guitar & Model Bass Construction - YouTube

I don't need to review the video. My bass is pretty darn perfect (sloppy routing aside). I certainly hope the new CNC stuff has taken care of the sloppy routing.

 

[Tarrbot]

You and I have very different views of friendly, apparently.

IF you want to deny that Ric has QC issues, that's fine. Personally, I believe there is more than enough information out there to support that claim. Compound that with the numerous instances and dozens of threads about Ric QC problems with the similarity of those complaints, or problem areas, and it becomes more apparent that Ric needs to work a bit harder on a couple of their processes, to ensure that people that put down their cash get the bass that Ric advertises.

Every company has products where there are QC issues.

It's what is an accepted normal that comes into question.

Color me being pedantic now but you can't say with a certainty that there are QC issues if you don't know how many items are produced.

You can say "during X sale there were y number of basses that were junk" but only if you know how many were sold and how many were junk.

In the broader "QC is crap" claim, no one has any numbers at all... it's all just conjecture and speculation.

That's my point here.

Nothing more.

 

[Korladis]

Ric's problems stem (mostly) from their bridges and from their finishes, by and large. If they could take care of the tail lift, the bubbling on their cheap a$$ chrome jobs on their parts and if they could take a look at their finishing issues (soft finishes, inconsistent color, finish bleeds, thin finishes), they'd have far fewer problems. This isn't an abuse issue this is a lack of attention to detail issue.

Besides that, it would be nice to see them come up with a new bridge design. It would be nice to see them change their gigantic fricking routes, and it would be nice to see them shield their instruments.

As a side note, Ric's are some of the sloppiest routed basses I've ever seen. MY Ric is simply the worst. It's horrible and amateurish. Does it work, though? Yes. This seems to be JH's MO. Good enough, shouldn't be your goal.

To leave on a positive note, I generally find the playability of Ric's out of the box to be one of the better qualities.

Routing? Seriously? I have never cared about the routing on any bass I've ever played. I only see it if I've got whatever's covering it (pickguard or rear cover) off.

I just think that's a very strange thing to have a big issue with. The routing just needs to be functional. Nobody sees the routing on a bass (well, on my Peavey they do, but that's only because I've modded it and don't care particularly how THAT bass looks) while it's being played.

I agree some shielding would be good, as would a modified bridge design (I'd like the 80's 7 screw bridge, personally).

I've never seen a chrome or finish problem on a Ric. I'm sure they happen occasionally, but not as often as people allege.

 

[iiipopes]

I certainly hope the new CNC stuff has taken care of the sloppy routing.

If you will watch the video, you will see how it has.

 

[Korladis]

Every company has products where there are QC issues.

It's what is an accepted normal that comes into question.

Color me being pedantic now but you can't say with a certainty that there are QC issues if you don't know how many items are produced.

You can say "during X sale there were y number of basses that were junk" but only if you know how many were sold and how many were junk.

In the broader "QC is crap" claim, no one has any numbers at all... it's all just conjecture and speculation.

That's my point here.

Nothing more.

Indeed. If we knew the total number of basses sold during MID sale, and the total number of basses that ended up having QC issues when delivered to customers, we'd have something to work with.

We don't. All we know is that some basses from this period had issues. Not the specific number. Nor do we have any idea how many basses had no issues whatsoever.

I think there's also the issue that we think talkbass represents a bigger percentage of bassists than it actually does. We have no way of knowing how many basses weren't bought by talkbass members. We don't even know how many were bought by people on this forum. After all, not everybody on talkbass who has a Rickenbacker is part of the Rickenbacker club. I have one, and I'm not. Probably not everyone who has one even hangs out in the "Basses" subforum.

 

[Ric5]

Ricks are great. They have their drawbacks and there has been come inconsistency as of late,

Far be it from me to be a Rickenbacker defender ... I have a history of not getting along with certain Rickenbacker forums, and I have a a history of saying things John Hall would rather not have said.

But I must say that The newer Rics are for the most part really really nice basses. I won't buy any ricks older than 1986 and I really prefer the 1997 and newer ones. And the ones made in the last 3 years are excellent.

Also for some people they just don't like the design ... they prefer Fender or something else.