• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Warwick Double Buck or Rickenbacker 4003?

Wick Vs. Rick

  • Warwick Double Buck

    Votes: 40 51.3%
  • Rickenbacker 4003

    Votes: 38 48.7%

  • Total voters
    78
I'm in the market for a new bass and these are the two choices I've narrowed it down to. I need something that can provide a NICE Rock sound with a good combination of growl and mids, I tried both basses and both are simply superb. The Double Buck is very versatile with a heavy, ballsy tone and a decent amount of punch. The Rickenbacker is like sex to my ears and is one of if not the perfect sound for Rock, the thing just sings, but I've found in some ways its a one trick pony.

So help me decide, the Double Buck or the Rick?
 
$$. A Ric will sound like a Ric basically no matter what you do. It's pretty one dimensional (YMMV). The $$ will cover a ton of tonal possibilities.

What v said.

I don't know if I'd call a Ric one dimensional, but the Warwick does more. Double bucks sound better, too, IMO. I used to want a Ric SO badly, until I played one.

I agree. I still want a ric tho!