• 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 sound

#21
do any of you guys (4003 players) keep the fake horse shoe pickup cover thingy on your basses? did you know that it's only PLASTIC?!? i tell ya, the novelty soon wore off on that one...

even though the string spacing is pretty close, i find my Ric fine for playing slap (think frenzal rhomb).

i just had it set up too and it seems to be working fine so far... i think mine's a 2002 model, i only got it about 3 months ago, fresh from the 'states.

lexy
 
#22
there are a few 'sorts' of rick basses... hollowbody ( as in 4005) - various bolt-ons (like the short-scale model 3000) - in addition to the regular 4000 series

i had a 3000 for a few years and found it very versatile, and very good for recording. It paired well with an ampeg V4B, using roundwounds. VERY deep bassy sound with lots of Twang at the same time. Cant speak about 'thumb action', but string spacing was comfortably wide, for a short scale.

it had a single humbucking pickup

Invalid Link Removed

Model 3000
 
#24
So what (current) model is the 'benchmark' rick bass? the 4003? Im sorry, I really havent had time to research these basses, I dont know why I have ignored them in the past. The thing that kick started my interest was an article called 'Inside Rickenbacker' in bass player mag (it takes a while for issues to filter through to Oxford..)

keep talking, this is interesting reading.
 
#25
tough call.. 4003 is kinda the 'generic' standard-issue rick nowadays... i think the 'benchmark' is probably either the 4001C64, or the 4004cii...

personally, i like the 4004LK !

mw14.jpg


4004 "Lemmy Kilmeister"
(prototype, the production model has three pickups!)
 
#31
I just tried a current model 4003 at a local music store. I was surprised to see such a thick neck. It reminded me of an old P-bass with a C neck. I thought Rickys had a really thin, flattened-oval neck. Also, the bass just didn't sound like a RIC. It was missing that really ringing, open top end. What happened there? I haven't played RICS enough to be a real conniseur, but it certainly sounded more Fenderish to me.

I am in the market for a RIC too. Seems like I will be looking for an oldie but goodie. What should I look out for? Where's a good place to do some research?

Finally, should I consider the new Cheyennes? I see that they are maple and walnut and have humbucking pickups. This doesn't sound like the classic RIC recipe to me. How do they sound compared to a classic 4001?
 
#32
As far as what to look for in a Ric, I think most of the non-Cheyenne models, et al, are maple necks, maple wings, and Pau Ferro fingerboards. You're just going to have to play 'em until you find the one that has "the sound" that suits you. And even though here is a "classic" Ric sound, there variation within that idea. One'll have a sweet, round, depth of plumb; another might have a nice snap to it. Go with first impressions, and go with yer gut. Don't get too heady or techie about it. Not very pintpoint specific, was I? 'Cause there's no real answer like that, I think.

Stewbone.
 
#33
Lo-Z : looking for an oldie but goodie is a wise solution. Far beyond my bad experience with a 4003, many people, including experienced luthiers, acknowledge that recent 4003's are very unequal from to to another.

If you want a great RIC, I can see two reliable ways :
- Find a used 4001,
- Find a used 4001V63 (it is a reissue of the 1963 4001S)

Here are two addresses you can deal with. They are real RIC specialists :

http://www.pickofthericks.com
http://www.ricpage.com

Hope this helps
 
#34
My main concern about the 4001 is that it won't be able to support round-wound strings. Should I be concerned about that? What about an early, (1980's), 4003? The v63 sounds cool but they seem to be running aroung $1500, which is more than I want to spend.
 
#36
According to my research, all 4001s had a dual truss-rod. The difference between the 4001 and the 4003 was the materials used in the TR. The 4001 used a softer steel because it was designed for the lower tension of flatwounds. The 4003 used a harder steel.
 
#37
The concern of 4001 dedicated to flatwounds is a myth. Both vintage 4001's I owned in the past were always mounted with roundwounds and I never experienced any problem that way.

Just a point of history for explanations :

4000 series, as stated above, always had a double truss-rod. The only difference is that the system inside is a bit different, and the latest generations of 4000 basses require a special wrench located around the 7th fret.

Until 1969, all strings were flatwounds. But in 1969, a bass player called... John Entwistle asked Rotosound to build special strings, so that he could get a "piano-ring" tone. That's how roundwounds were born.

Circa 1979-80, Rickenbacker introduced the 4003, presented as "roundwound-bound", while keeping the 4001 "flatwound-bound" in her catalog.

The official argument was that "new sounds" (meaning "roundwound strings") required new technologies, and that roundwound strings required higher tensions than flatwounds, which is false.

For what I experienced, 4003 necks are not easy to setup. All other basses I had to setup were always easy to setup, even my first 4001 that I setup only once when I got it.

Hope this helps,
 
#38
The difference between the 4001 and the 4003 is that the 4003 "...has an improved [truss rod] system, and this bass eventually replaced the 4001 in our line", according to a letter I got from Geoff Chapluk, customer service at Rickenbacker. I don't know exactly what "improved" means, but I'd always been told the 4001's had a single truss rod, the 4003's had a dual thing. It seems to me my 4001 (a '76) had a single unit. Can't even clearly remember now, but I'm interested in where that information comes from, about the 4001 having always had a dual truss rod?

Stewbone.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back