4000

[quote name='Lozz196' timestamp='1334647593' post='1618940'] I`ve only ever played one Rick, and loved it, fantastic bass. But a few weeks ago I saw a few bands play, all using the provided Peavey amp/2x15 rig, and strangely it was the Rick that sounded boomy and had trouble with the sound, whereas the Precisions that played through it all sounded fine. Obviously there wasn`t much opportunity for the guy to "tame" the eq, but I was very surprised, a Rick being over-boomy. [/quote] Rics can put out a lot of lows (especially the ones with a 1/2" position neck pickup), but IME not as much low mids as a P. To be honest, every P I've had / used I've also had to roll treble off compared to my Rics. What the Rics seem to do is sit in a different place frequency-wise; I feel they possibly have more of a clear high-mid than anything. They're not actually that trebly; if you compare them with a modern active bass they have nothing like that level of treble. The treble generally comes from the way they're eq-d, IME.

[quote name='Cosmo Valdemar' timestamp='1334614343' post='1618734'] Most Rickenbacker clips on Youtube do sound pretty drab. They are eccentric basses and need to be tamed and understood. If you're looking for that classic Rush/Yes clanky growl we all love (except Beedster ) then amplification has a lot to do with it. The tones are there, but often need to be coaxed out. They're not like a P bass, which still sounds like a P bass no matter what it's plugged into. [/quote] This is pretty true. I've found many newer rigs don't get "that" tone. To give an example, if I want "my" Ric tone using a slightly more modern amp, say I was using a Trace amp, the first thing I'd do is kick in the preshape, but the speakers have a massive effect too (I always found earlier, less efficient speakers worked better). They can be a pain to amplify; there are times when plugging my Sei into something (anything!) is a blessed relief, but sometimes only "that" sound will do. However, having said that, individual instruments vary a great deal, as do players' playing styles. In addition 4001 spec has varied over the years (mine with the 1/2" position toasters at the neck sound far more hollow), as has 4003 spec. 4003s have hotter pickups than 4001s and different pot values (which again has varied over the years). Strings make a huge difference too, something that's often forgotten. Having said all that, not everyone who buys a Ric necessarily wants "that" tone. Also, if you looked at footage of famous Jazz Bass (or whatever bass takes your fancy really ) players - say John Paul Jones, Larry Graham and Jaco - they all have completley different sounds. It's not just the bass, it's the strings, amps, eq, the player, what thye're aiming for etc etc. I do agree that in the case of those "classic" Ric sounds it tends to be an early-ish 4001 into overdriven valve amps with relatively inefficient speakers. But maybe the people in the clips you've seen actually want the tones they have rather than the ones you prefer.

[quote name='Linus27' timestamp='1334491965' post='1616766'] Mmmmmm Tal 4000 will be along soon I am sure [/quote] Yep, I'm nothing if not predictable. I second that response BTW....

Here's a '69 head, just for comparison purposes....

In your previous post you stated that the earlier basses machines came through on the outside of the join and that newer basses either come through on the join or in the joined area, and then questioned whether or not these would last as long, unless I misunderstood and you were querying the shelf-life of the earlier heads (it seemed clear enough). My older basses are also on the join. FWIW the newer, larger heads just more or less mimic those of basses from approx '69 and earlier; the smaller heads were a later thing. As many people claim that a neck break is stronger after a repair I wouldn't foresee too may problems due to a glue line . Also, if I was worried about glue I'd be far more worried about instruments with scarf-jointed heads...

This is the '71 headstock; the machineheads come through the joined area on this. Same with my '72.

I've always found it's down to the individual instrument. I recently played 2 brand new 4003s and the fingerboards looked fairly different (as you'd expect, being wood...). All the boards on the Rics I've had (13 or 14) have been slightly different. FWIW the boards were bubinga. I'm not a fan of the new inlay material, but that's only because I prefer the crushed pearl inlays. I don't like the post-'73 inlays either; in fact I much prefer the newer ones to those as I like them to be full-width. The new inlays are more like the inlays that were pre-crushed pearl. Fireglo varies massively from bass to bass and year to year; the pics below are my '72 4001 and my old '71 4001 21 fretter. Find one you like and stick with that.

Jacko (hope you're ok BTW, long time no speak!) and Jazzy, I'm extremely jealous of you both visiting the workshop. Hoped to do that a few years back when I was in SF but couldn't organise it in time. If the time ever comes when I can afford it again, I'll be ordering myself another Alembic; just a smaller, lighter one (Balance K?). Have to say if that buckeye EVH in the For Sale section was a pound or two lighter I'd be working out how to get it...

[quote name='karlclews' timestamp='1334151481' post='1611647'] A little harsh of Pete Academy to say Alembics have 'no warmth whatsoever'. Maybe it's just a different of what constitutes 'warmth', but I'd say my Alembic is the 'warmest' sounding bass I have, and my collection includes a Jazz, a Stingray, a couple of Statuses, a Ken Smith and a Goodfellow. It's worth noting that quite apart from the filter controls, the trim screws on the filter controls, hidden away in the control cavity, really have a huge effect on the base sound of any given Alembic. When I first got mine (second hand), I found it very harsh and trebly. So I backed off the level on the bridge pickup a little and bumped it up a touch on the neck pickup and it was a completely different bass - hey presto, much 'warmer'. And then of course, adjusting the height of the pickups has a further balancing effect on the base tone of the guitar. For some reason, on every Alembic I've come across in music stores, they seem to be set up with a rather toppy sound, and a quick peek in the control cavity usually confirms that the bridge filter control trim screw is set at the max - perhaps folks like to showcase that toppy, hi-fi 'zingy-ness', but that's by no means all an Alembic can do, and you really can change the character of the default tone to a huge degree by just experimenting with those trim screws. That said, Alembics all seem to have a distinctive 'attack' - difficult to explain, but it's like a slight 'crunch' or 'quack' at the beginning of the note, and a very quick response, which you either like or you don't. You can tame it to some extent through filter adjustment and modifying your technique, but it's difficult to remove completely. So make sure you like that aspect of the sound before you commit! Here's a little vid of my Alembic Stanley Clarke Deluxe, recorded direct into audio interface - no amp, no processing, that's just the sound of the bass you're getting there. I have the treble a little higher than I normally would because I'm playing the melody here as well as the bottom line, but you should get an idea of the character of the bass and perhaps hear what I mean about that distinctive 'attack': [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9NNfDbxjP4[/media] K. [/quote] See to me, from the very first note, that is an absolutely gorgeous tone.

[quote name='Doddy' timestamp='1333370406' post='1600637'] You'll always get people saying that xxxx is the 'best' or 'sh*t' or whatever,but none of that matters if you personally like or dislike an instrument. [/quote] +1. FWIW there's no such thing as overrated either, for the same reason. I've had 2 and thought both were amazing, although the ergonomics of the first (an SC Deluxe) didn't suit (very head heavy) and eventually the weight of the other proved to much for my ailing back and shoulder (I have slipped discs). I've played some I haven't liked much (played a '70s sS1 in San Franscisco that was terrible IMO) but I've played others, including my 2nd, that were as good as it gets for me. It's not promising that you haven't liked the ones you've played, but I'd just keep trying them. Also FWIW my 2nd was a custom order so I didn't get to try before buying. However in no way was I disappointed; it was unbelievable, light years better than the Foderas, Ken Smiths etc that I've tried. Of course YMMV.

FWIW I've had 3 (and 1 not received, M.I.A.) Rics from the US. My '72 Azure was bought because I'd wanted one with that spec for 17 years and they're rare as hen's teeth; I bought it off ebay thoroughly expecting it to be a dog. It isn't, it's fantastic, and actually cleaned up really well. It is a risk importing a bass though and personally I think that once you've factored in the duty (mine was over £500) the bass in question looks too expensive for what it is, IMO.

I always loved the old GP7 combos. Still, I always loved the old Trace gear. In fact with certain of my basses I've never come across anything I've liked as much. They're just too heavy to cart about these days.

A very interesting thread. On a personal level, speaking as someone who quite literally grew up listening to swing (or certainly hearing it every single day from birth well into my late teens), I have to agree wholeheartedly with Bilbo. I've yet to hear an electric player that captures that feel precisely. As for players like Jeff and Laurence, miles off IMO.

2 x '72 4001s, although I don't gig regularly anymore; my main one used to get gigged a lot though. Occasionally the jacks have needed a clean but that's about it. Others have gigged with my main one too, no problems. On the plus side the necks seem as stable as can be; I guess if they haven't moved much in 40 years then (assuming you don't do something daft) they're not going to.

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1331589225' post='1575570'] Well, one of them looked like she was about to burst into tears all the while and the other one was just blimmin' scary. Maybe because they may be good at what they do but for those outside of the genre it does nothing? I chose ABBA as an example because I had no starting point to find something outside my genre (So yes, I started at 'A' ) I had to go and find out what 'Flea' was all about and didn't like his performance, on any level, one little bit. Is he a sh*t bass player? No, what he's doing matches what's going on. Would I want to listen to it? No, to my ear it sounds like everything I hate all rolled into one. Can anyone persuade me otherwise? No, it's a personal thing. That's where the real differences lie here, personal taste clouding unemotive judgment on both sides. [/quote] I guess I just like music, although obviously not all artists. Punk, pop, jazz, metal etc, don't care really, it's ultimately not relevant. It's all just music to me.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1331589258' post='1575571'] Said the guy who only 10 minutes or so ago said........... Like I said ........... "Come the day"....... [/quote] Don't worry, this was my second attempt to understand you. I won't bother trying again.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1331588911' post='1575561'] Come the day that you ever have one I promise I'll make a point in it; deal? troll? [/quote] No, you won't make a point, because you never do. You're pretty funny really. I think I've got a can of you in the cupboard. Oh no, that's Big Soup. Similar though, promises much but strangely unsatisfying.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1331587677' post='1575525'] There you go - you just condensed a couple of dozen lines into one; you can do it if you try. BUT - as I said, you've already put enough words into my mouth as to make it a waste of time "reasoning" with you, I don't think you're capable.......... you want examples???? [i]*sigh*[/i] [i]"Also, why do you automatically assume that because someone says "so-and-so influenced a lot of people" that the person making the statement is automatically a fanboy?"[/i] Did I? Can't see it anywhere, especially since I'd take fanboy as a bit derogatory. [i]"Ok, seeing as you really seem to have a real bee in your bonnet"[/i] Vacuous at best. [i]can you not separate concept and preference? [/i]I'm not the one who can't decide what an influential musician is. [/quote] 1) You claimed it in a previous thread. You also (IMO obviously) implied it saying "That's the thing with folk who claim their idol "influences" folk". It's quite possible to say that someone influences folk without even liking them. Marcus Miller has (by my definition) influenced lots of bassists and I can't stand him. But we've been here before. As for your other stuff; gibberish. I really, genuinely wanted to understand your viewpoint, but you don't seem to want to share. Why do you bother posting at all if you won't engage in a decent discussion? Seems like you're the troll IMO.