4 Strings

[quote name='4000' timestamp='1348316479' post='1812241'] Old photo - '91 4001CS, '73 4000 (set-neck), '72 4001. And my current ones, both '72s (the Fireglo is the same as in the above pic): [/quote] So the creamy one has reissue pups but is a 4001S as it has no binding and dots. The black one is clearly a 4000 (did they all come with no binding and dots?) and the '72 is a standard issue 4001 of the time.

Very nice 4000, in particular the '72 Fireglo. Would still fancy the 4000 though, I like Esquires for the same reason, but I don't know what it is! Thanks to all for the info all, any more always appreciated.

Well, I'm quite vain but we were being videoed and while on here people might get a good impression from a miniscule bass stack, I didn't want to look like a bedroom band (worked hard enough not to sound like one!)

SE I'm afraid! I'm just about to pack for a gig this evening in a smallish venue and will be putting the Compact in the car rather than the Midget. Sound? No, just the Midget looks too small sometimes!

Hoo, 4000 sounds even better now! Have to keep an open for one of those. I'm gong to be dreaming Ricks when I sleep

I'm afraid its the transfer on the headstock. Its mostly the first place people look to see if they like it or not. Bit like my brother annoying me once by turning my tie round to see the label before muttering 'nice tie' (from the days when I wore them!). I even catch myself doing it.

Glad they delight, I suppose as you're not touching the metal of the strings and its a Fender there'll be a little buzz. I had flats on my old P, it came with them, no idea what they are (green silk, Fender strings?), the tone was fine but the frequency, or note definition wasn't, sounded muddy. Put some Roto Trubass tapewounds and, sho' nuff they work, nicely define sound. They haven't noticeably changed since I've had them, many a sweaty gig. Very nice smooth feel.

[quote name='BassTractor' timestamp='1347902597' post='1806437'] This. By large, all these jobs reveal their fakeness on this type of things, the basses' pristine necks standing out most. Nothing more charming and awe-inspiring than a well working or weird old instrument that really has gone through its paces, and shows it. But relic'ing? "I'm sick! Stop the car [b]right now[/b]!" best, bert [/quote] Amen. The point with this example is that its a relatively recent model and so to get into this state through normal use you'd need to do some really silly things with it or really hate it. If I was the manufacturer I wouldn't want anyone thinking my products deserved this sort of treatment.

I suppose it depends on the efficiency of your cabs. With my Midget I can easily get to 12 O Clock on all three gain/volume type controls. Still plenty left but it does drink the juice and needs an amp which can give it plenty. Plug the Compact in as well and for the same level the Master gets backed off.

[quote name='thisnameistaken' timestamp='1348223573' post='1811012'] My Thumb bass (5-piece (I think? Or seven, whatever!) wenge/bubinga laminate) has a dead spot on that same D#. It's not as bad as the dead spot on my Jazz but it is there, and it's a note I have to avoid when using effects. [/quote] I'm surprised, try another if you get the chance. I have a Jaydee, mahogany laminate neck, no dead spots. Funnily enough for certain styles (dinner jazz, maybe old style funk) the sound of the dead spot is fab and I wish it was everywhere. Maybe need a body made from our pine kitchen table!

[quote name='4000' timestamp='1348260207' post='1811675'] I can't help wondering if I should be looking to swap my Compact for a Midget..... [/quote] Be welcome to try mine if ever you're down this way. Save up a little and have both!

Clear, yes, thanks, learning curve beginning to teeter backwards now, though I knew it wasn't going to be simple. I suppose, for the time being, I still don't really know what I'm looking at as the rules get blurred by reissues! By a 'gigging' bass I just meant one not being pampered and so perhaps more likely to be a later model. Quite fancy a 4000, prob quite rare (don't remember ever seeing one). Thanks for all the info, appreciated, certainly increased my fascination with these basses.

Goodness, Ed, thank you so much, I think that clears up virtually everything with some interesting additions! Thanks for spending the time to get that all down, a succinct history of the 4000 series. Interesting the most famous Ricks are the cheaper Rick-Lite versions sent over for us 3rd World Limeys. So, if I see a horseshoe/toaster I'm looking at a vintage Rick, if I see dots and no binding I'm looking at one the 1999s and, for the most part, if I see a gigging Rick it'll be a 4003, if I see an upward curl its a Macca copy. Did I pass?

[quote name='Phil-osopher10' timestamp='1348238054' post='1811271'] Frank was kind enough to let me try his barefaced cabs against my mesa scout extension They were lovely sounding cabs and I much prefered the midget over the compact, don't know why though. I was mainly disappointed with the finish, they looked cheap (I know they are not) But I would like to see a wee bit more effort going into the finish. If you look at the mesa cab and say the Baer ML cab they are a wee bit nicer in my opinion of course. But I came on here to ask what cab was at the end on the picture that barefaced updated facebook with? [/quote] Looks like a Compact on each end, a Big Baby (the one with the silver grille) and a Super 12, if we're looking at the same picture.

[quote name='gub' timestamp='1348242660' post='1811354'] So what causes a dead spot anyway ? [/quote] When the bass resonates at a certain frequency and so dampens the string vibration. You can feel the bass buzz a little as you play the note and the energy is wasted in the structure and the string vibration dies quicker than other notes.

[quote name='Graham' timestamp='1348244179' post='1811380'] Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this as I've been looking at the Youtube videos of the Streamliner - particularly the Ed Friedland video and a Streamliner 6 is now the front-runner in my to try list. Is there any difference between the Streamliner 600 and 900 apart from the power? [/quote] Shade of grey

Thanks brensabre, sounds like I'm on the right track for some 'Nard influenced soul. I never use a pick, a compressor nor much eq so I'm beginning to look forward to them with more fervour after your comments, thanks. Nickel is likely to be less bright I would have thought. (Awkward allergy! Wonder if its one of the alloys in steel.) They'll go on a 'Ray.

I believe he used a Jazz for some, eg The Gates Of Delirium, sounds like a Jazz, Roundabout sounds like a Rick as does most of the rest of his catalogue.

[quote name='GregBass' timestamp='1348221793' post='1810986'] I seem to remember that one difference is that 4003 has been "adapted" for roundwound strings - harder fret material and beefed up trussrod. Having said that, I have used roundwounds on mine for over 20 years with no issues. I may be on dodgy ground here - and I'm sure some of the experts will put me right if I am mistaken - but I think the toasters were just single coil pickups with a cover. Also, the horseshoe is just a two-part cover for the bridge pickup. I believe it's part of the pickup assembly, but not part of the pickup itself. [/quote] Right, here's something I can answer! The horseshoe is definitely the magnet on those pups and is not removable.

..And what's with the curly bit at the end of the headstock sometimes curling under, sometimes curling over? And the neck sandwich being of different colour woods, sometimes?

If its a horseshoe then you def can't remove the top as this is the magnet. [quote name='GregBass' timestamp='1348220412' post='1810952'] I just happen to have my 4001 here in the office with me today. It's a 1979, and I have owned it from the mid 80s. It has high output single coil pickups - earlier models had lower output jobbies - and they are indeed different pickups. The bridge pickup cover is removeable, but I keep mine in place. It has both stereo (labelled Ric-o-sound or SF) and mono outputs mounted on a single edge plate. Early models had checkerboard body binding, but by 79 they were using plain binding, and the neck is bound too. It also has the shark tooth fret markers. I suspect you may be confusing it with the 4000, which had a single pickup and was hence only mono, and mostly had dot fret markers with no binding to neck or body. As far as I know, the [pickup cover is removeable on all models in the series - but I may be wrong on that. [/quote] Thanks for this. So the 'stereo' output, binding and fret markers etc are no indication of model, great! If I understand correctly, the 4003 is simply an updated 4001 with options in finish, binding etc. Did the single coils replace the horseshoe and toaster pups, and basses with those not available anymore, at least only in more recent reissue form, if at all? Things are not becoming simpler!

[quote name='brensabre79' timestamp='1348218878' post='1810911'] The 'problem' was only for me really, others might love them. They are perfectly good strings, with a very distinctive sound. As I mentioned earlier, there is an incredibly strong fundamental frequency with these, not so much of the higher harmonics (mid or treble). Probably great for a recording where you would normally compress and EQ the bass to sound like these do naturally (I think thats the whole idea) - but for live I need all that stuff in there! [/quote] Thanks, sounds like they do what they say on the tin. What sort of music do you mostly play (hope you don't mind me labouring this, I can change my order at the moment as they haven't made them yet!)?

Rickenbacker basses. Funny ole things, air of mystery about them. Never been brave enough to own one, don't want to die before I do. Can someone help me with a couple of 'what's the difference' questions, please? Am I right - a 4003 is the luxury version, with the 'stereo' output (which is really an output for each pup), the nice neck and body binding, cool shark's teeth fret markers and 'normal' single coil pups with a removable ashtray on the bridge pup? And the 4001 the simpler version with a single output, no binding, plain ole dots and the weird neck pup with two magnetic strips, each with its own coil to buck the hum, making it look like a toaster, and the bizarre bridge pup where the magnetic field is created by a horseshoe magnet which goes under and over the strings, almost joining at the top? If you take off the ashtray from a 4003 do you not see a similar pup to the neck pup, just with a huge chrome surround? Is the huge chrome surround to make it look like the horseshoe? And is the bizarre horseshoe pup a throwback to their lap guitar making days? Aren't you stuck with the top part of the horseshoe and so always have part of the strings covered over? If the 4001 and 4003 have such different pups, surely they would sound totally different, and so which one has the 'Rick' sound, the odd 4001? That lovely glowy sound that Macca got from his would be flats and the humbucking front pup of a 4001, and that church organy 'Rick' sound typical of Chris Squire is rounds with both ups on a 4001? The clank of Bruce Foxton is from Rotos on the back pup? Any help would be greatly appreciated

I believe the dead spot to occur on basses with necks made from a single piece of wood (like a Fender) and can be reduced/expunged by a laminated, or sandwich neck where the different size and often type of wood resonate differently cancelling out any major resonance.

[quote name='Lozz196' timestamp='1348160301' post='1810235'] Yep, the XL range were great sounding cabs. I had the 210 & 115 paired together, worked really well, very nice set-up. [/quote] Yep, only improved when I added a PRO1800 monster. Those days of humping heavy gear around are now gone. I have to say I miss the ridiculous lows from the 1x18 rattling my fillings but I don't miss it as much as I'm happy not to have to move it.