• 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.

Rickenbacker 4001 - - - Love or Hate?

#22
They look nicer than the 4003. Necks are nicer than the 4003. Like the scale length. Like the bridge; the mute pad is cool and it doesn't look like the cheap bent metal Fender bridge everything else has. They sound very good once you change the pickups.

Not crazy for the neck dive, and they could use a few more frets.

The 4000 series was a truly innovative design which Rickenbacker has not, and probably will never, improve upon. But they should.
 
#24
They're great instruments, but finding the right tone is important and also it takes a while getting used to the smaller string spacing. Plus I hate the pickup covers! So useless and annoying, whenever I play slap on a Ric with a pu cover the string hits the cover and is muted, plus I just that the pu covers are made out of plastic, which is quite annoying,
 
#27
ggoat!!! said:
*****You must not look very hard at the neck/body joint paintwork or the attention to detail around where the nut is mounted.
Click to expand...

Lemme look at my 4003... nope, don't see any of the crappiness you're describing here. Finish is fine, area around the nut is typical of that type of design. Very nicely built and finished bass.
*****Actually, if you measure the output of either pickup alone or both pickups together on a modern Rick you will find that they are extremely high output (almost too high) with not a plethora of highs.
Click to expand...

Negative. Even my tobias 6 with its soapbar Barts has more output. The rick PU output is about comparable to the neck stacked humbucker in my Carvin. No comparison in the sound tho, both of those have far more oomph than the rick.
*****Are you sure you've ever played a Rick? Fingerstyle sounds miserable and inaudible through an amp?
Click to expand...
Yep, I gigged with a 4001 and a 4003s for about a decade. Still nursing my arms from trying to get a good live sound. Are you sure _you've_ ever played a rick? ;)

*****Slap? On a Rick? Sure, it can be done...but it's not very user friendly
Click to expand...

Tell that to Les Claypool or Rick James. There're videos around on youtube, do a search.

The rick really isn't that bad for slap and pickstyle. But I don't have the strength to get a good sound out of it fingerstyle and generally neither does anyone else (any idea why Geddy L doesn't play his rick anymore? Give you 3 guesses).

LS
 
#28
As an owner of two currently, (4003 & 4004Cii), and previous owner of 6 others, (4001/4003/620), I can honestly say that all this talk of bad QC seems a bit picky. I have yet to have a single problem with any. Feel is different between them all, but the tone is always pure Ric. Even the 4004 with humbuckers. Necks are a dream to play, whether they're older and super skinny, or more modern and chunky, because of the lack of any real taper. The Cheyenne (4004) has become my #1 for several reasons, not the least being tone, but if there's a defect in the fit and finish, I sure can't see it.
 
#33
I played 4001s exclusively for much of the 70s. Back then I was buying them new, with a hardshell case for ~$600. In the early 80s I lost my love for them (went back to Fender) and that love has never returned. I still think they look cool as hell, but I have no desire to own another one.

Ric.gif
 
#34
unclejane said:
Lemme look at my 4003... nope, don't see any of the crappiness you're describing here. Finish is fine, area around the nut is typical of that type of design. Very nicely built and finished bass.

*****You got good ones. I have 17. Only two are flawless paintwise.



Negative. Even my tobias 6 with its soapbar Barts has more output. The rick PU output is about comparable to the neck stacked humbucker in my Carvin. No comparison in the sound tho, both of those have far more oomph than the rick.

*****"Oomph" is subjective. Also, comparing a single coiled passive bass to active basses isn't quite apples to apples.



Yep, I gigged with a 4001 and a 4003s for about a decade. Still nursing my arms from trying to get a good live sound. Are you sure _you've_ ever played a rick? ;)

*****Why on EARTH would you gig for TEN YEARS with a bass that never gave you a good live sound? That absolutely makes no sense. If I hate a bass I wouldn't pick it up again, let alone use it for a DECADE. :confused::confused::confused:



I don't have the strength to get a good sound out of it fingerstyle and generally neither does anyone else (any idea why Geddy L doesn't play his rick anymore? Give you 3 guesses).

*****Wow...you actually just determined that NO ONE can get a good fingerstyle sound out of a Rick? Are you SURE about that? NOBODY can get a good fingerstyle sound from a Rick? Lemme wrap my head around that again...are you actually instigating that NO ONE sounds good using their fingers with a Rick???!??? Ignorance isn't your friend...
LS
Click to expand...

:rollno::rollno::rollno::rollno::rollno::rollno:
 
#35
:D
Jo6Pak said:
I played 4001s exclusively for much of the 70s. Back then I was buying them new, with a hardshell case for ~$600. In the early 80s I lost my love for them (went back to Fender) and that love has never returned. I still think they look cool as hell, but I have no desire to own another one.

Ric.gif
Click to expand...

Was the flower an option from Rick in the 70's?:D

Seriously though, I just got back from a day of shop hopping with my sons and oddly enough I got to play a 2001 4003 Jetglow and a 1973 4001 Jetglow! Both in the same shop!

I am so in love with Rick it is not even funny. I would have taken either one (or both) off their hands if I had the cash....but sitting there with either in my hands just felt so right. Kinda like a "momma, I'm home" feeling.

The 4003 was remarkably playable with the chunky neck profile and the 4001 was equally playable with the thin neck. Two different beasts, one great tone!

When I get round to buying my first, I will play as many as I can until I find "the one". And as much as I want a Jetglow, whatever color has "the feel" will be mine! Then I can go about finding the used in Jetglow....

I do not find that the binding digs into my wrist, side or whatever.

BTW, Milwaukee guys, the shop was Music Go Round by Southridge, go gettem!
 
#37
Love.
Killer unique tone, killer looks, killer neck (if it's a good one set up right), killer access to high frets, killer finish.
Yeah, the bridge isn't the best and how about that string mute? Oh well, it's got a few quirks but it's a Rick and NOTHING sounds and looks like it.
BTW, who the heck cares if it's 33.5 in scale instead of 34?
 
#38
+1111111111 on the 33.5" scale comment.

I've played Ricks since 1989 and have 17 of them and never even KNEW or CARED what the scale was...

Some people are just WAY too much into technical specs rather than just how something plays or sounds. It could be made out of hardened duckbilled platypus poop and if it sounded and played good (as long as it didn't smell) I wouldn't disregard the bass.
 
#40
KPAX said:
Love.
Killer unique tone, killer looks, killer neck (if it's a good one set up right), killer access to high frets, killer finish.
Yeah, the bridge isn't the best and how about that string mute? Oh well, it's got a few quirks but it's a Rick and NOTHING sounds and looks like it.
BTW, who the heck cares if it's 33.5 in scale instead of 34?
Click to expand...

I do care, actually. I prefer their 33.25" scale over 34" scale. But I love their necks in general, because to me, they're soooo comfy. It's like they were made for my hands.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back