• 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 Users: Honest thoughts on the 4001/4003?

#141
May Cassidy said:
I'm not at all unique in having a few "dream basses", ones that I've always wanted to have but have usually been *just* out of reach. I'm fortunate to have experience with most of them, but the Rickenbacker has always eluded me. I was able to get very close to one played by a member of a local metal band once, but that's about it.
For some time, I've had a "Ricky Bass Fund". I've dipped into it here and there for general bass-related expenses, but the intention has always been to one day get that Rickenbacker. But now that I've progressed so much as a player and have heard such polarizing reviews of these classic models, I wonder if my cash might be better spent elsewhere (perhaps a Gibson Grabber, which has been my no. 2 dream bass about as long as I've fantasized about the Rickenbacker). I would like to hear what the former and current Rickenbacker owners of TalkBass have to say about your experiences-- the good and the bad.
Click to expand...
I've owned two. A 1982 4003 and a 2017 4003s, which means I've had the more vintage version and the modern version.

What I Like:
  • The tone
  • How it looks
  • The tone
  • They finally redesigned the bridge
What I Don't Like:
  • The tone of modern their pickups. The vintage tone has been slowly designed out of them. You can make a modern Ric sound like a vintage, but never exactly like a vintage (e.g. the bobbin size and shape has changed, the pole pieces have changed, and most importantly - overwinding, overwinding, and overwinding - which bleeds off the high-mids and highs that Rics are known for
  • Ergonomics (see next bullet)
  • The unnecessary dual truss rods. The dual rods that, by design, require having a thick neck profile near the headstock to allow access for adjustment. And that you have to adjust two instead of one - and again, for no valid reason. They could easily change the design to use a single truss rod and two stabilizing rods (e.g. graphite), then change the neck profile to be more comfortable
 
#142
May Cassidy said:
I've seen very few of these pop up for sale but they look like a much more approachable way to get the Rick sound. Too bad they've been discontinued. I'm recalling something I saw Chris Buck on YouTube say about Rickenbacker as a company; they're smaller and so many of the die-hard vintage purists that make up their customer base would have a cow at modern improvements. "They change the toan, man!"
Click to expand...

I've heard that many times as well. On one hand I believe it, and on the other hand I think it's a great excuse for company laziness/not to off make changes.
 
#143
smtp4me said:
I've owned two. A 1982 4003 and a 2017 4003s, which means I've had the more vintage version and the modern version.

What I Like:
  • The tone
  • How it looks
  • The tone
  • They finally redesigned the bridge
What I Don't Like:
  • The tone of modern their pickups. The vintage tone has been slowly designed out of them. You can make a modern Ric sound like a vintage, but never exactly like a vintage (e.g. the bobbin size and shape has changed, the pole pieces have changed, and most importantly - overwinding, overwinding, and overwinding - which bleeds off the high-mids and highs that Rics are known for
  • Ergonomics (see next bullet)
  • The unnecessary dual truss rods. The dual rods that, by design, require having a thick neck profile near the headstock to allow access for adjustment. And that you have to adjust two instead of one - and again, for no valid reason. They could easily change the design to use a single truss rod and two stabilizing rods (e.g. graphite), then change the neck profile to be more comfortable
Click to expand...

Not a fan of the neck profile either, but to be fair, I believe they have started using just one truss rod, at least in certain basses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cashmoneywill
#146
ctmullins said:
The 4004 fixes everything wrong with the 4003.
  • Body contouring
  • Hum-canceling pickups (that still have the Rick growl)
  • A sane bridge
  • No ridiculous bridge pickup cover
  • No tacky plastic on the body
It's basically the grown-up version of the pimply-faced adolescent 4003.

View attachment 5015738

(Random photo from the Internet)
Click to expand...
Rickenbacker took all of the gripes and produced a new bass to address them.
Guess what?
People just kept on buying the old model anyway!
 
  • Like
Reactions: woodyng2, J0ttem, hieronymous and 1 other person
#147
Grinderman said:
They're what some people play until they graduate to a Fender...
Click to expand...

This is empirically true for many people, as history has borne out.

But it isn't universally true.

Personally, I dislike nearly every element of the typical Fender design canon. When others post photos of FSOs next to Ricks, the stylistic differences are blatantly obvious, and my eye is always drawn to the Rossmeisl design.

Ergonomically, FSOs have some serious drawbacks for me. The string spacing at the bridge is too wide. The string spacing at the nut is too narrow. The fretboard radius is too small. And that neck heel is an inexcusable abomination. The only thing they have going for them is the contoured body, which somehow comes out looking like a garishly-colored marshmallow….

In contrast, my homemade Ric-alikes are astonishingly comfortable. The body shape just works for me. It hangs perfectly from a strap. The thin body feels sleek. And I always do the S-style contours, so no sharp edge on my right wrist.

4004_9456.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wyrdlow, Pet Sounds, Prof.Dr.Metz and 4 others
#149
Tanner5382 said:
Not a fan of the neck profile either, but to be fair, I believe they have started using just one truss rod, at least in certain basses.
Click to expand...


Being thick was nothing to do with the truss rods, I have an '85 4003 and had two early 90's 4003's with very thin necks. I really have no idea why they got thicker, but I mean it's an exaggeration, I've played all sorts of Rics, some are thin some are thicker but I've never player one the size of a "baseball bat" I call BS on that one. Certain periods seem to have gotten thicker, I am thinking of the late 90's into mid 2000's. I'm not really up on anything later, except for my 2021 4003S and I haven't played it enough to judge yet. It's back in Mass and has been since I first got it. But first impressions were it's substantial but noting ridiculous.
 
#150
May Cassidy said:
I would like to hear what the former and current Rickenbacker owners of TalkBass have to say about your experiences-- the good and the bad.
Click to expand...

I worshipped the instrument, I mean...Geddy played one, Chris played one, Lemmy played one...how could you go wrong?

I found out. I've worked for two Ric dealers. In those years I worked for Ric dealers, I found one - exactly one - that sounded good. And it sounded GREAT, was gonna buy it, but then I took it out for a night and I ran into the other part of the Ric experience which I could not live with, and that's what happens to your right forearm. Boy, turns out Fender put that arm contour there for a reason! And you don't need to go that extreme, I have rounded edges on my Corts and that's perfectly fine, but that damn Ric body is a SHARP EDGE digging into your arm all night, and that I could not live with no matter what the thing sounded like.

Somewhere out there, somebody got a Midnight Blue Ric 4001 in San Diego back in the 1980s that is an amazing sounding instrument.
 
#151
G On Bass said:
I had the same Ric-jones for 20+ years. When I finally got one (4003), I loved everything about it except how it played and felt. I could never find a comfortable place to rest my right hand, and this was before I went all-5-string.
Click to expand...
I started using Table pu cover to rest my right hand on. I've played/owned quite a few. Each one different from the other.
 
#152
arbiterusa said:
I worshipped the instrument, I mean...Geddy played one, Chris played one, Lemmy played one...how could you go wrong?

I found out. I've worked for two Ric dealers. In those years I worked for Ric dealers, I found one - exactly one - that sounded good. And it sounded GREAT, was gonna buy it, but then I took it out for a night and I ran into the other part of the Ric experience which I could not live with, and that's what happens to your right forearm. Boy, turns out Fender put that arm contour there for a reason! And you don't need to go that extreme, I have rounded edges on my Corts and that's perfectly fine, but that damn Ric body is a SHARP EDGE digging into your arm all night, and that I could not live with no matter what the thing sounded like.

Somewhere out there, somebody got a Midnight Blue Ric 4001 in San Diego back in the 1980s that is an amazing sounding instrument.
Click to expand...
I'm lucky, the edges don't bother me. Get a 4003 S. I did because I liked the look.
 
#153
I had a 4001 from 80 or 81. Which I sold because I was annoyed by the double truss rod (which in my opinion was technically far inferior in terms of ease of use / efficiency than the standard fender one). But it was VERY inspirational when creating bass lines.
It might not have had such an influence on the sound in the mix in the end, but it made me play slightly differently. So yes there was something unique: the way it made me play.
The same can be said for the SG bass or the Stingray (with regard to the P-bass), but the Rick nudged me in a very specific direction (something more Macca-ish maybe) which I liked and do not get with other instruments.
That being said it all depends on the player, that is my experience.
 
#154
bobyoung53 said:
Being thick was nothing to do with the truss rods, I have an '85 4003 and had two early 90's 4003's with very thin necks. I really have no idea why they got thicker, but I mean it's an exaggeration, I've played all sorts of Rics, some are thin some are thicker but I've never player one the size of a "baseball bat" I call BS on that one. Certain periods seem to have gotten thicker, I am thinking of the late 90's into mid 2000's. I'm not really up on anything later, except for my 2021 4003S and I haven't played it enough to judge yet. It's back in Mass and has been since I first got it. But first impressions were it's substantial but noting ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I wasn't the one who said it did, I responded to a guy who did. I've played all sorts of Rics too. You can call BS all you want, but a lot of people will disagree with you, myself included. I have played (and owned) several baseball bat neck Rics as well as thin neck Rics. 2012-2016 in general has been my baseball bat experience as well as a 4004 that I'm not sure what year it was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlueTalon, bylar13 and bobyoung53
#155
1) I own a lot of basses (and have sold many as well). I've gigged with a lot of basses. So why is it that whenever I show up for a rehearsal or a gig with one of my other basses, I hear, "What, you didn't bring the Rick?"
2) The #1 joy of my Rick is the neck profile and string spacing; it just works for me. #2 is the tone, and the variety of tones available. The ergonomics don't bother me. That said, I have a '73 4001 which is rather special; there's a lot of variability among Rick basses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: woodyng2 and bobyoung53
#156
Tanner5382 said:
I wasn't the one who said it did, I responded to a guy who did. I've played all sorts of Rics too. You can call BS all you want, but a lot of people will disagree with you, myself included. I have played (and owned) several baseball bat neck Rics as well as thin neck Rics. 2012-2016 in general has been my baseball bat experience as well as a 4004 that I'm not sure what year it was.
Click to expand...
Huge neck= a 2005 4004L
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tanner5382
#157
ctmullins said:
The 4004 fixes everything wrong with the 4003.
  • Body contouring
  • Hum-canceling pickups (that still have the Rick growl)
  • A sane bridge
  • No ridiculous bridge pickup cover
  • No tacky plastic on the body
It's basically the grown-up version of the pimply-faced adolescent 4003.

View attachment 5015738

(Random photo from the Internet)
Click to expand...
What he said ^^^^^^ an incredible bass... that very few people bought, so they are hard to find used. I have literally NEVER seen one for sale in a store or in the hands a of a bass player on stage. I believe they do actually exist based on photographic evidence, but it's an article of faith I acquired on TB. :D If you can find one BUY IT FOR GOD's SAKE!
 
  • Like
Reactions: woodyng2
#160
bobyoung53 said:
Being thick was nothing to do with the truss rods, I have an '85 4003 and had two early 90's 4003's with very thin necks. I really have no idea why they got thicker, but I mean it's an exaggeration, I've played all sorts of Rics, some are thin some are thicker but I've never player one the size of a "baseball bat" I call BS on that one. Certain periods seem to have gotten thicker, I am thinking of the late 90's into mid 2000's. I'm not really up on anything later, except for my 2021 4003S and I haven't played it enough to judge yet. It's back in Mass and has been since I first got it. But first impressions were it's substantial but noting ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Truth ^^^^ Most DA rods are 1/4" wide x 3/8" channel. Even allowing for 1/8" of solid wood under the trussrod, they are plenty shallow enough to allow for a "scary-thin" 4001 style neck. The double rods supposedly allowed for varying relief over the width of the neck (also known as "neck twist"), but it never really worked. Two mild steel truss rods about 3/4" apart cannot easily twist a 1-5/8" wide rock maple neck beam, overlaid witha 3/8" thick fingerboard, as many a snapped rod or chewed up truss rod nut will attest. That skinny neck didn't always work out so well on the 4001 though, my 78' 4001 had a truly scary-skinny neck, but wasn't too stable, consequently. It needed constant trussrod adjustment, and didn't stay in tune too well. The modern two-piece construction is lot more inherently rigid, and could be made dramatically more so by adding 2 CF rod stiffeners, which is what I do on all my Ric clone builds. If you are looking for logic behind the wild Ric variation in neck profile over the years..... keep looking, the Truth is Out There Somewhere.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BlueTalon and bobyoung53

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back