BAD DESIGNS ok lets have em,

[spinynorman]

[quote name='cocco' post='1036264' date='Nov 25 2010, 02:01 PM']The entire Gibson bass range. All sound great. I have a grabber that just sounds awesome to me. But. And it's a big but every last one is ridiculously neck heavy.[/quote]

I have 2 Rippers. I find them well balanced and the necks are delightful to play. Then there's the electronics.

The controls are all attached to the pickguard, as are the pickups in the '78. And there is an earth wire from one of the pots to the bridge. So, to work on the wiring you have remove, or at least loosen, the strings, remove the entire pickguard, unsolder the earth, and on the '75 either unscrew or unsolder the pickups.

To test anything you have done, you have to replace the whole lot. And if it's not right, take it all off again.

The pickup wires are thin, like telephone wire. During the above operation, one will come adrift almost certainly.

If the bridge earth wire breaks, which it will, you have to extract the bushing for the bridge post, which was inserted at the factory with a pile driver and has probably rusted into place.

The 4-position selector switch has 15 metal lugs to which wires are attached in apparently random order. If you have a degree in electrical engineering you might be able to figure it out, but don't bet on it.

In the 30 years since these basses were made, the probability that one or more wires have come off and been soldered back in the wrong place is a gnats whisker from 1. Good luck with finding out which one it is, or where it should go.

The electrics include something that looks like the alternator from a 1970s small car, and at least 2 caps of different sizes. Apparently they're used to roll off mids and treble. Neither of my Rippers have much in the way of mids or treble to roll off. I'd rather like to add some, not take it away.

Compared to all this, the 3-point bridge is a miracle of efficient design. Oddly, I still love both my Rippers.

[Count Bassy]

[quote name='spinynorman' post='1318318' date='Jul 27 2011, 02:46 PM']I have 2 Rippers. I find them well balanced and the necks are delightful to play. Then there's the electronics.

The controls are all attached to the pickguard, as are the pickups in the '78. And there is an earth wire from one of the pots to the bridge. So, to work on the wiring you have remove, or at least loosen, the strings, remove the entire pickguard, unsolder the earth, and on the '75 either unscrew or unsolder the pickups.[/quote]

I actually have some sympathy with Gibson and other builders on this. They build the guitar on the basis that the electronics work and will not [b]need[/b] to be dismantled, at least until the pots are worn out (which should be a long time). They do not build them with the thought that someone will want to modify or upgrade their design.

[neepheid]

[quote name='cocco' post='1036264' date='Nov 25 2010, 02:01 PM'][b]The entire Gibson bass range[/b]. All sound great. I have a grabber that just sounds awesome to me. But. And it's a big but [b]every last one is ridiculously neck heavy[/b].[/quote]

I am annoyed by this comment and I will return to it when I've calmed down (and stopped typing stuff then deleting it).

[4000]

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1033539' date='Nov 23 2010, 10:12 AM']+1

If they evolved Rickenbackers I would own one.[/quote]

So why haven't you bought a 4004 then?

[4000]

[quote name='Chris2112' post='1038829' date='Nov 27 2010, 03:35 PM']Ignorance is bliss, eh? I don't suppose he gets a chance to try much else, otherwise the Ric design would have surely improved![/quote]

Strange, mine have been far more reliable than my Statii or Fenders or Warwicks.....or indeed anything else bar the Alembics.

In addition, the majority of the issues some people seem to have with Rics (generally the ones who wish they were something other than what they are, which I've touched on in a previous thread) have been solved on the 4004, yet nobody ever mentions them. No binding, different and more functional bridge, no pickup cover, hum-cancelling pickups, no chrome pickup surround. Why do people seem to conveniently forget they exist?
"Oh, the P-Bass is no good. It should have a thinner neck and twin single-coil pickups and a different body shape".
"That'll be the Jazz you're after then".
"No, the P-Bass is all wrong, too many things I don't like; I need 2 single coils and a thinner neck".
"So have you tried a Jazz?"
"Why don't Fender just make a bass with 2 single coils and a thinner neck?"
"Are you listening to me?"

Edited July 27, 2011 by 4000

[4000]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' post='1033774' date='Nov 23 2010, 01:28 PM']In fairness to Rickenbacker whenever they have tried to modernise (4004 for example) no one really likes them.[/quote]

Fixed.

[4000]

[quote name='simon1964' post='1035385' date='Nov 24 2010, 07:05 PM']A
But as I said several posts ago, I'm not defending Rics as a design. I love them, but I readily accept the bridge, pickups, and lack of countours are as old fashioned and flawed as a Morgan Roadster.[/quote]

I love the lack of contours. I cannot play basses with forearm contours, they cause me tremendous pain at any height. So I'm rather grateful that they've kept them that way. Anybody who wants contours, why consider one in the first place? It's like criticising Raquel Welch for not being Sophia Loren.

[4000]

[quote name='BigRedX' post='1318022' date='Jul 27 2011, 10:32 AM']On the move it by hand bridges I've lost count of the number of times I've tried to make a small final adjustment to the saddle position only for it to slip away in my grasp and then have to start all over again. Plus on a lot of these designs the very act of locking the saddle in place by a grub screw causes it to move slightly as you turn the screw.

So is there a clear tonal advantage or is it just lazy engineering?[/quote]

This irritates the crap out of me too. Some people seem to swear by them but I can't stand them.

Worst piece of non-aesthetic design for me is having to take the neck off to adjust the truss rod as Wolverinebass mentioned. And this from a man with an engineering background eh? Who'd have thought.

[paul_5]

4 slice toasters that are split into 2 2-slice toasters. I want 4 slices damnit, and I don't want to muck about pushing down 2 levers and setting 2 dials to [i]exactly[/i] identical settings.

Mumblemumblemumble.... come the revolution etc...

[darkandrew]

Warwick flight cases anyone? Why do they have to so big???? It's almost as though they measured the width of the average car boot and made the case just that little bit too big on purpose!

[hairyhaw]

Man, the lack of Rickenbacker knowledge amongst some posters takes the McVities. It drives me up the wall when people assume they made one model of bass.

Ok, from the top:

4000 (2 versions)
4001 (including 4001S)
RM 1999
4002
4003 (and 4003S, 4003S/8)

All these fellas have the same body shape and features most like to moan about.

However as 4000 (and others) have pointed out:

4004C, 4004L - The modernised basses.

4005 which looks nothing like any of the above.

At let's not forget the 3000 series.

Rant Selector set to Safe.

[Jerry_B]

Westone Spectrum DX. I have one of these. Sounds amazing, brilliant neck, amazing chunky pickup, looks good - but a silly little design flaw means it has neck dive. After playing one for 20+ years it royally screwed with my left shoulder Such a shame, as all in all it's just a brilliant bass.

[thodrik]

I think just about every aspect of the Gibson EB3 circa 1974 (my old one).

1. Distance between bridge and saddle is so short that the felts/untidy string ends fall onto the saddle, causing all manner of tuning and intonation problems.
2. 3 point bridge that kind of prevents adjusting the action on a string to string basis
3. Tone pots and pickup pots act as on/off switches despite having numbers listed 1-10
4. 4 pickup selections, front pickup, back pickup, mud and extra mud!
5. neck heavy design
6. I don't like the set neck design
7. It is heavy as hell!

I still love those basses though.

[james_guitar]

[quote name='zero9' post='1033863' date='Nov 23 2010, 02:41 PM']The double bass. It's too bulky, doesn't stay in tune and needs to be amplified.[/quote]

This made me laugh - although I think both the electric bass and acoustic bass also need to be amplified

[quote name='Chris2112' post='1035734' date='Nov 24 2010, 11:57 PM']Yeah, they may have been good back in the day but they're just pointless now, and they sound crap.[/quote]

This is ignorance in the extreme.

[Kiwi]

Steinberger XL basses (Ned even admitted he should have gone with a wider body in the first place.)

Rickenbacker 4001 and 4003 basses

Parker Fly bass

Moses jazz necks where access to the truss rod is hidden by the 2 fret fingerboard extension. DOH!

Musicman bridge on preEB basses; the saddles move because of the lateral pull of the string tension...not such a good example of Leo's engineering IMO.

Almost any unmodified Wishbass

[Fat Rich]

[quote name='Crazykiwi' post='1318943' date='Jul 28 2011, 07:20 AM'].....
Almost any unmodified Wishbass[/quote]

We have a winner!