• 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?

#101
Love:
*The tone. I can't get the same tone on anything else. I've certainly tried.
*When properly setup, these basses come alive like nothing else I've played.
*Pickup placement--it's very warm and clean.
*Modular pickups--you can use any extant RIC pickup on a 4003 without mods.
*Wiring harness--the most versatile wiring I've encountered on a passive.

As for price, I know people think they're too high, but when I AB mine against something twice as expensive or more and still prefer it (and I've done this with Fender CS, Conklin, etc.), I'm pretty satisfied with what I paid for it ($1.5K). I was told by a few salesmen at a music store that my Ric has "the third best setup we've ever seen" (I don't know what #1 and #2 were supposed to be), so I may have an exceptional bass--but I also think a lot of people who get used Rics get them in poor condition and setup and totally miss out on why they're so cool. I've definitely played some used Rics before and thought, "Wow, this is crap." But mine--which was bought new--was and still is my best bass, and actually caused me to sell off my Fender for lack of use.

You asked--I told.
 
#102
I own two 4001's. Love or hate?

Love:
- Tone. Very versatile. Try flatwounds & use the neck pickup.
- Plays very well.
- Both of mine have been rock stable neckwise, requiring no setups in 20+ years of use.

Dislikes:
- Really, really lousy bridge. I just put a hipshot on one of my Rics & the immediate thought was "What the heck took me so long?"
- Single coil hum from hell. If someone turns on a fluorescent light within 8 miles of where I am, I know about it.

Overall verdict : I'll always own a 4001. I got my first when I was 15 (a long time ago!) and still love it.

GT
 
#103
george.c. said:
i managed to pick a mint used one .......-pickups are rubbish and yes ive played around with poles and heights.i just couldnt get a good even and loud sound from them. if im on the bridge pickup with tone rolled off the signal is terribly weak
...............
Click to expand...

:edited for brevity:

The pickup 'problem' is the tone cap on the bridge pickup circuit which cuts the bass response and gives a very thin and relatively weak signal.
The solution is to bypass said cap.
I like to use a solid core jumper wire twisted tightly around both of the cap leads. It's easy to install and remove if needed.
Make a huge difference in the sound.

Now as to why a BASS GUITAR wold have a bass cut cap, it's been speculated that it was because the equipment of the day (when it was designed, the 1950s) couldn't handle loads of lows, so the cap was placed in the circuit.
Why it was kept long after decent bass amps came on the scene, is another question.

As to finish thickness and overall quality, Ricks are the best I've seen in person.
Granted I've never seen a custom boutique bass in the flesh, so my experience has been so far limited to production unstruments.
Still, Ricks are definitely my thing, I find the neck very comfortable, the action is great, the sound and the look go well towards my ideal.

They're not for everyone, but the most common mistake is in not understanding that they are different from other Fender style basses and need to be treated differently, both with regards to playing technique and EQ.
 
#104
I'm loving it today. But that darn bridge just seems like it wants to take off to the moon!! I'm talikg my 4001 C64 (2005)

4-3-2-1-0 Lift off ...........................

Tail-lift Rickenstyle!!

Hey Hall, why don't you use a different metal or alloy that won't bend!!!

You're making Mr. Rickenbacker turn over in his grave!!!

Gibson/Fender/Epiphone/Hofner/Guild/and many other, would never put out a product that has a bridge that bends under the tension of stock/factory installed strings!!

Have you no shame?!

Please, sell the company to Gibson!!!
 
#108
Gibenbackerbass said:
Please, sell the company to Gibson!!!
Click to expand...

That is such a horrible idea.

Your tail lift is because you have the "Paul McCartney" model which intentionally does not include the two extra reinforcing screws in the tailpiece, which is a point for historical accuracy but unfortunately causes lift. It really has very little to do with the choice of metal. Normal 4003 bridges are 5-screw. Your bridge is a 3-screw.

Either way if Gibson got their hands on it you can bet it would instantly go to 100% suck.
 
#111
cassius987 said:
That is such a horrible idea.

Your tail lift is because you have the "Paul McCartney" model which intentionally does not include the two extra reinforcing screws in the tailpiece, which is a point for historical accuracy but unfortunately causes lift. It really has very little to do with the choice of metal. Normal 4003 bridges are 5-screw. Your bridge is a 3-screw.

Either way if Gibson got their hands on it you can bet it would instantly go to 100% suck.
Click to expand...

Every instrument would cost about $5000. For no reason whatsoever. Lots of silly artist endorsements and all kinds of stuff like that. I agree, Cassius, it would be total suck if Gibson owned Rickenbacker.
 
#112
cassius987 said:
That is such a horrible idea.

Your tail lift is because you have the "Paul McCartney" model which intentionally does not include the two extra reinforcing screws in the tailpiece, which is a point for historical accuracy but unfortunately causes lift. It really has very little to do with the choice of metal. Normal 4003 bridges are 5-screw. Your bridge is a 3-screw.

Either way if Gibson got their hands on it you can bet it would instantly go to 100% suck.
Click to expand...

With respect to your comment regarding the raw materials used on the tail piece. Let me say you are incorrect. You should consider doing some investigation and study before putting pen to paper. You obviously haven't done your homework.

Enthusiasm is no substitute for fact. Opinons based on emotion do little in the way of defending one's position, or proving if something has merit.

Waving the flag only goes so far. Spend time researching the facts. Your analysis will then have merit.

I love waving the Rick flag as much as any Rickenbrother or sister. I've enjoyed playing my Rick basses since the early 80's. I continue to support the company by purchasing new products. And I will continue be objective regaring some of the things they do that are out right inferior in quality. The poor excuse for a bridge is one of them. It's an embarrasement to have all those screws holding it down. It's something one would expect to see in a high school guitar making project, not something produced by a leading American manufacturer. Rickenbacker should be ashamed.

Let's not dismiss the fact there are some inherent design flaws in these instruments and give up on fixing them. That's not what moves things forward.

How you can say what you did about Gibson makes no sense. It demonstrates your lack of knowledge about the company, and their design and manufacturing abilities. They are a leading instrument manufacturer. I believe your emotions get in the way of logical and sound reasoning. Please do something about it. It's embarrasing.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go play my Rick, followed by my T-bird.
 
#113
Gibenbackerbass, you disputed cassius' "facts" but never gave your facts to back it up.

I'm pretty sure that any 4001 of any designation has only 5 screws (or less? I'm not sure about less than 5 screws) and newer ones have 7 screws.

But you still didn't put forth the facts to dispute his perceived mistake. Now, here's how you correct a "fact". :)

Phalex states:
The bridge leaves a lot to be desired. It's a pain to adjust, and "the dreaded tail piece lift" seems to be common to about 100% of instruments.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see one 4003 with a seven screw bridge with tail lift. Mine has 5 strings and has no lift at all. Does this negate the 100% rule? I think so. :)

And as far as the feel goes, most people complain about the binding edges. I guess they haven't seen any of the basses that don't have binding. IMO, those are the best feeling basses. I've owned a 4003 (with binding) and a 4003S/5 (without binding) and by far, the one without the binding feels world's better. Now, with that said, the binding didn't bother me too much at all.


...which seques into this quite nicely...
kjpollo states:
Kind of interesting to hear a touring pro making a very similar comment to something you hear around here on a fairly regular basis
Click to expand...
I do hear complaints quite often. Mostly I chalk them up to ill-informed opinions based on preconceptions about how awsome these basses are.

One thing that's different on each bass is the nut at the end doing the strumming. Each of us play differently and when we each play differently we each will have different opinions and preferences.

Sure, the Shinedown guy has issues making his bass fit his style. Obviously, if I were in his shoes, I wouldn't bother learning how to play that Ric since I'd have 2 fully functional basses and I'd be out making music and money on a daily basis and I surely wouldn't have time to sit down and figure out something basic about a design that's totally different than anything else out there. (I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm serious. I wouldn't bother learning a new way to play if I was him--bring on the booze and women. Screw learning to play a different style of bass).
 
#116
Gibenbackerbass said:
With respect to your comment regarding the raw materials used on the tail piece. Let me say you are incorrect. You should consider doing some investigation and study before putting pen to paper. You obviously haven't done your homework.

Enthusiasm is no substitute for fact. Opinons based on emotion do little in the way of defending one's position, or proving if something has merit.
Click to expand...

Owning 3 4003s that don't have any tail lift is a pretty good example of first-hand experience regarding this issue. However I have heard of tons of 3-screw tailpieces, like yours, with lift; I have also heard of the old alumninum bridges with some lift. But I have yet to see an example of a recent 5-screw bridge doing any lift. Not waving a flag, just stating my observations.

As for Gibson... talk about flag-waving. Sorry, but I think they are a very poor company to model another after. I actually tend to have more respect for Epiphone based on my experiences with the two brands. I'll leave it at that.
 
#117
cassius987 said:
Owning 3 4003s that don't have any tail lift is a pretty good example of first-hand experience regarding this issue. However I have heard of tons of 3-screw tailpieces, like yours, with lift; I have also heard of the old alumninum bridges with some lift. But I have yet to see an example of a recent 5-screw bridge doing any lift. Not waving a flag, just stating my observations.

As for Gibson... talk about flag-waving. Sorry, but I think they are a very poor company to model another after. I actually tend to have more respect for Epiphone based on my experiences with the two brands. I'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

I really like Epiphone. My best guitar (six string... yeah, I goof around on guitar a bit, too) is one. I think they're actually priced reasonably for their quality (which is actually pretty good), unlike Gibson.
 
#118
cassius987 said:
Owning 3 4003s that don't have any tail lift is a pretty good example of first-hand experience regarding this issue. However I have heard of tons of 3-screw tailpieces, like yours, with lift; I have also heard of the old alumninum bridges with some lift. But I have yet to see an example of a recent 5-screw bridge doing any lift. Not waving a flag, just stating my observations.
Click to expand...

I have on 07, and no lift what so ever. I think it was actually Gibenbacker that pointed out that mine and the 4003s have the extra screws to prevent that lift, so I don't think he is unaware. Not sure what the debate is about.
 
#119
The 3 screw tails are on the Beatle reissues ('V' and 'C'), the 5 screw tail is standard and has been since the early 1970s, the 7 screw tail was only available (as standard) on the early 4003 basses, but apparently due to customer complaint about the aesthetics it was dropped in favor of the 5 screw tail again.

The 5 screw tails will lift slightly, apparently the 3 screw tails are more prone to lift due to the leverage point vs anchoring points, and the 7 screw tail cannot lift due to being secured to the body. This was the purpose of those 2 'extra' screws. Also, the black finished hard parts were far more prone to stress damage such as tail lift (due to the heat tretment process), which reminds me that I think there were some black trim basses with 7 screw tails in the later 1980s.

I'm currently hoping to score an early 4003 for my 4-2-5 project in the next few months, since I'd need to add these screws anyway, this is one less step to have to take, and a little easier to justify than modding a brand new bass, which would be my next choice.

The new redesigned tail is supposed to be in the works, but this has been the situation for several years now, and is obviously a very low priority, as is the reintroduction of a factory 5 string. Meanwhile the vintage reissue crowd is happy, but that's still the company's bread and butter, so what you gonna do?

Anyway, I love my Ricks, and I won't part with 'em 'till I'm in the ground. Then the wife can do what she likes with 'em. 'Till then, I play the hell out of 'em.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back