Hopkins
Commercial User
You would have room for thee micro switches, master vol and tone. But three volume pots will look better
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.
Leafenbacker
- Thread starter mapleglo
- Start date
If you wire it Volume Volume Volume using push-pull pots, the pots could act as switches to short each pickup out. This would have the same effect as switches without the extra clutter.
Hopkins
Commercial User
I agree that 3 volumes looks better, but the switches may be an option. I'll have to wire it up and see how the 3 volumes sound.
I'm definitely pressed for control space on this build. The overall thickness of the body is just about 1 1/4", but thinner in the control cavity area. Of course the control cavity cover brings that thickness back to the 1 1/4" as I sanded it flush with the body wing edges. I routed the inside top of the cover a bit, leaving about 3/16" for the mounting of the controls, and went into the body leaving about 1/4" thickness behind the control cavity. I likely have just under an inch of total depth for the control. I'm using the "micro" pots from StewMac, which fit with plenty of room. But yes, I don't think there's room for much more than that, other than micro switches.
So this is the space I have to work with.
I glued in the nuts for pickup mounting this morning, so now it's a matter of waiting for the Kahler springs to arrive. I received email notification this morning that they have shipped. I'll probably get them tomorrow or Monday, as they ship from Nevada via USPS.
Push-pull pots require an inch of cavity depth. Since this bass is the same thickness as a 4003 (1 1/4") it should be possible to route the cavity a bit deeper to allow them to fit.
For those wondering why the RIC headstock doesn't allow for the straight string pulls that this bass has, there are two reasons. First, take a look at the back of the original Model 4000 bass headstock. The giant Fender style tuners wouldnt allow it, and barely fit on the headstock to begin with. The other reason is the size and shape of the original truss rod cover from the 50's wouldn't allow for tuners placed that way either. Since both of these design charactoristics are pretty iconic RIC shapes, it's unlikely they will ever change.
I'm late to this build, but has the different scale length of this neck (probably 34") verses the RIC scale length ( 33 1/4") been addressed in the placement of the Kahler bridge? It just seems like it should be closer to the edge of the body than this. I like this build overall, and truly hope there's a great gnashing of teeth over at the Rick Collector Forum over this !
For those wondering why the RIC headstock doesn't allow for the straight string pulls that this bass has, there are two reasons. First, take a look at the back of the original Model 4000 bass headstock. The giant Fender style tuners wouldnt allow it, and barely fit on the headstock to begin with. The other reason is the size and shape of the original truss rod cover from the 50's wouldn't allow for tuners placed that way either. Since both of these design charactoristics are pretty iconic RIC shapes, it's unlikely they will ever change.
I'm late to this build, but has the different scale length of this neck (probably 34") verses the RIC scale length ( 33 1/4") been addressed in the placement of the Kahler bridge? It just seems like it should be closer to the edge of the body than this. I like this build overall, and truly hope there's a great gnashing of teeth over at the Rick Collector Forum over this !
I don't know if I want to rout the control cavity any deeper. I get a little nervous when the wood is less than 1/4". Good point about the tuner size. Much earlier in the thread, I ran into that same issue with the standard size tuners. Regarding the scale, yes, it's 34", and I measured (twice) carefully to make sure the bridge was positioned correctly. What's throwing you off perhaps, is the 24 fret neck.
And adding the tremolo bridge was, in part, just to piss off the purists
If you really wanted to piss off the purists, you'd have put Gibson mudbuckers in it 
Oh, and the thickness of the top of a 4004 where the controls are mounted is only .1", so routing this relatively small cavity to 1/8" won't be an issue.
Oh, and the thickness of the top of a 4004 where the controls are mounted is only .1", so routing this relatively small cavity to 1/8" won't be an issue.
Last edited:
Can't wait to see the finished product!
You could just have a rear panel instead, and just glue the original in place. That should give you plenty of depth to add Push Pulls.
Have you considered a much simpler layout like switches for each pup, master vol and master tone? Like the EBMM Big Al, I think.
Agreed that splods idea sounds eminently doable. As with the leaves motif, the overall design seems built to "fix" some Ric quirks, piss off the purists, have some fun with the whole thing, and end up with a cool-ass bass.
Nothing wrong with making a few other changes in the name of functionality, as I see it. You could use the bigger pots and gain tone control, and a rear control route w/ plate would be another poke in the purists' eyes.
I vote pure function over pure looks any day.
Nothing wrong with making a few other changes in the name of functionality, as I see it. You could use the bigger pots and gain tone control, and a rear control route w/ plate would be another poke in the purists' eyes.
I vote pure function over pure looks any day.
A rear control route w/plate is no "poke in the purists eyes". Rickenbacker 4004's have been that way for 20 years.
Hopkins
Commercial User
You could use a 6 way rotary switch, 5 positions for Strat style wiring and use the 6th position for Neck and bridge, or all pickups on.
Invalid Link Removed
Or a 5 position wired like a standard Strat switch, and a single mini toggle to turn on or off the bridge pickup. This way you could use the Neck, Neck/Middle, Middle, Middle/Bridge, and Bridge with the rotary switch. Then with the toggle switch on and the rotary switch in the Neck position you would have Bridge/Neck, and in the Neck/Middle positions you would have all three pickups on.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Or a 5 position wired like a standard Strat switch, and a single mini toggle to turn on or off the bridge pickup. This way you could use the Neck, Neck/Middle, Middle, Middle/Bridge, and Bridge with the rotary switch. Then with the toggle switch on and the rotary switch in the Neck position you would have Bridge/Neck, and in the Neck/Middle positions you would have all three pickups on.
Invalid Link Removed
Last edited:
Are you dead set on the Rickenbacker design?
I'm kidding. This is awesome. Just started reading all this last night. Looking forward to watching the rest of the build happen!
I'm kidding. This is awesome. Just started reading all this last night. Looking forward to watching the rest of the build happen!
Thanks for all the great suggestions, comments and interest. I have some conflicting and mutually exclusive preferences, like my dislike for pickguards *and* rear panel access covers. I like my current solution, but am definitely open for possibilities. I'm going forward with the three volumes for now, and see how it sounds. I wouldn't be opposed to a master volume, master tone, and a three-way, or five-way switch. I have the remaining slab cut from the original control panel, so it wouldn't be difficult to make a new panel with a different control layout.
This is an excellent suggestion. I'll have to order one. I prefer the solid shaft also. The current knobs are the split shaft, and I've been reluctant to push the knobs on because the fit is so tight, I'm afraid I won't be able to pull them off. I'm not thrilled with the aesthetic of the knobs I have either, and it seems there is a better selection of knobs for solid shafts. And easier to make my own.
Thanks
This is an excellent suggestion. I'll have to order one. I prefer the solid shaft also. The current knobs are the split shaft, and I've been reluctant to push the knobs on because the fit is so tight, I'm afraid I won't be able to pull them off. I'm not thrilled with the aesthetic of the knobs I have either, and it seems there is a better selection of knobs for solid shafts. And easier to make my own.
Are you dead set on the Rickenbacker design?
I'm kidding. This is awesome. Just started reading all this last night. Looking forward to watching the rest of the build happen!
Thanks
Hopkins
Commercial User
Edited my last post. The 5 way rotary and a single toggle will give you all the switching options you need.
@Aceonbass:
I am familiar with the 4004. However, I was referring to the overall aesthetic: Modded headstock, ebony board, glue on carving, mahogany, rear plate, with a Kahler and home brew PUs on of all things, heavens forfend, a Ric copy.
I can practically hear the Jim Hall fanboys sharpening their pitchforks.
Personally, I love it.
On of my fave TB threads ever.
I am familiar with the 4004. However, I was referring to the overall aesthetic: Modded headstock, ebony board, glue on carving, mahogany, rear plate, with a Kahler and home brew PUs on of all things, heavens forfend, a Ric copy.
I can practically hear the Jim Hall fanboys sharpening their pitchforks.
Personally, I love it.
On of my fave TB threads ever.
