A certain bass guitar whom we shall not name...

[Qlank]

In answer to to BigRedX above. I'm a small chap, I just can't get on with a larger bass. Even played headless basses for a long time. One thing that I find interesting though, I had an Ibanez 4001 copy and that was a joy to play. Light, comfortable, lovely neck. When I got a Ric I found it was just wrong for, just gutted. And I do love that Ric tone. And they look the dogs as well.

[Ou7shined]

That's because not all Rics are created equal. If you are dead set on getting one, try a few .... maybe a lot.... you'll eventually find the one that suits.

[Happy Jack]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1384683838' post='2279352']
It seems to me that what most people really want is a Fender bass with the image of a Rickenbacker holographically laid over the top of it.
[/quote]

Cough cough ... Retrovibe ... cough cough ...

[bassmachine2112]

Just a couple
Machine heads are schallers I believe,well they are identical to my schallers on my P-Kenstein and feel the same.
Bridge ,no problems at all with mine-hipshot replacement
Retro fitted the vintage circuit which is in the newer ones
Neck similar to a thunderbird but a wee bit bigger and less taper
14 years on and it is still spot on
Ray albeit a USA SUB heavy
jack socket pins mounted on PCB and can crack at the solder joints if your lead pulls sideways when tucked through strap if it goes tight.
Getting a good sound can be hit or miss,razor sharp EQ,small adjustments are huge.
Anybody can find faults with any bass it,s what floats yer boat.
Off thread but I,ve got a made in USA Peavey which is a musoman clone-Peavey Forum made in 1995-active 18v and destroys a Ray everywhere including build quality, is lighter and the G string is loud.
I,m recording this week and guess what bass is going-the jetglo one

[drTStingray]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1384683838' post='2279352']


The biggest problem most bassists have with a Rickenbacker is that they are not a Fender bass.

They see lots of well-known players getting great sounds out of them and basses are very iconic looking in themselves. However the whole design and construction philosophy behind Rickenbacker owes virtually nothing to Leo Fender. So of course it's going to be different. That's the whole point. If you've spent your whole playing life playing instruments that are deign one way you can't really expect to be immediately comfortable on one built in a completely different style and that also may require you to think about your band's overall mix in a different way to find it's place sonically.

It seems to me that what most people really want is a Fender bass with the image of a Rickenbacker holographically laid over the top of it.
[/quote]

This is 100% correct - read Stingray, Wal, Warwick etc etc for Ric also. There are many people for whom a Fender P or J are a perfect fit for their playing style and ability who are disappointed when they move to another bass.

Funnily those Fenders have their own problems - total dead spots on the G string anyone?

I've heard great bass sounds from people playing Rics - though I was never a fan of Chris squire's sound with Yes - always struck me that Roger Waters was trying for a similar clankathon on his P bass at times - would have been much better on a Ric.

[Gust0o]

You should try a Bongo

[drTStingray]

Pete, I have to take issue on some of your points - and I'm sorry your Classic Ray was a disappointment sonically - they're generally very good
[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1384633637' post='2279042']
1- Poor neck stability on ebmm versions with unfinished necks.

Possibly on occasional examples but not a general issue - and EBMM are approachable if you have a problem.

2- Some shoddy fret levelling from new (my own 2010 ray 5)

Again not a general issue

3- Low output from preamp (my classicray, swapped for a john east).

Very surprising

4- Finish cracking and crazing on 70s basses (cool to some, gash to others).

As with many makes of basses of this era

5- Weak G phenomenon, never had it myself but others swear by it.

I have - caused by over enthusiastic EQ choice - especially bass boost

6- Batteries being eaten by faulty preamps, quite rare but it can happen.

EBMM improved the design by adding features to stop battery drain when plugged in and to avoid pre amp frying

7- Faulty jacks, happens to most basses but the ray has an extra tab for the circuit.

Probably to do with 6 above

8- Some bridge saddles pull to one side or let the string jump out of the groove.

Corrected in the early 90s - you'd need to be an arm wrestler or seriously out of your head on something to achieve this.

Im sure there are other faults but you get the idea, they are actual faults rather than the weight or body shape, string spacing etc, those are things it is meant to leave the factory with like the Ric pickup cover.
[/quote]

But I get your point!!

[steviedee]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1384683838' post='2279352']
you can't really expect to be immediately comfortable on one built in a completely different style and that also may require you to think about your band's overall mix in a different way to find it's place sonically.
[/quote]

Agree with the above. I think when people are used to having a certain ability and are disappointed when they can't acheive it. Having played Stingrays for such a long time I found the Rick to be a bit of a challenge. I'm still getting to grips with it to be honest but it doesn't nescessarily hold water that Ricks are sh*te because me playing one sounded sh*te! I just think it takes a bit of time. Most people have been playing a fender or a derivation of a fender and that's not a bad thing but clearly instruments that are different are going to take a bit of getting used to.

[Gust0o]

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1384687281' post='2279389']
That's because not all Rics are created equal. If you are dead set on getting one, try a few .... maybe a lot.... you'll eventually find the one that suits.
[/quote]

Which should be fixed om new models now they've embraced CNC, no?

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='drTStingray' timestamp='1384703490' post='2279659']
Pete, I have to take issue on some of your points - and I'm sorry your Classic Ray was a disappointment sonically - they're generally very good


But I get your point!!
[/quote]
Im just pointing out actual faults rather than things that are subjective, they are faults experienced by some people mostly corrected over time.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='4000' timestamp='1384641688' post='2279154']


So your issue with neck dive (obviously subjective given I've never experienced it), body shape/contouring, binding etc are actual faults? I think not. The fingerboard issue is a fault but neck/fingerboard issues are hardly unique to Rics are they? My first Wal (lauded for their build quality) hadn't had the fingerboard levelled properly. Even the "big, clumsy bridge" is a matter of opinion, and it's not like Rays have never had those is it? ;-)
[/quote]
I still disagree, profiles are subjective, poor quality bindings with the finish bleeding into them are faults as is the neck dive every ric I have tried had, you are obviously lucky to have never encountered that problem but enough people on here have for it to be classed as a possible thing to look for if it bothers you. Again the fingerboard is not subjective, it didnt fit the neck from the factory nor is a bridge often cited as difficult or impossible to setup as required, hows that a subjective thing?

[Musky]

[quote name='Gust0o' timestamp='1384708868' post='2279757']
Which should be fixed om new models now they've embraced CNC, no?
[/quote]
Not necessarily. Plenty of basses have had their neck profiles deliberately changed over the years, and the 4001/4003 is one of them.

[Gust0o]

Sorry, I meant in terms of the consistency of the new models - if they choose to change them, fine; but all of a given model and age should be the same or within tolerances

[gsgbass]

I don't have neck dive on my 4003. I find it very balanced out. You may not have played to many Gibson Basses. Gibsons are the definition of Neck Dive of Death.

[Dingus]

It's a shame Rickenbacker don't allow copies , because if they did someone might build a Rick that actually played well and was built to work efficiently . Imagine a boutique Rick . It's the one design still ripe to be plundered.

I love the Rickenbacker sound, but I can't get on with them at all my self. They are a beautiful design , but flawed in many ways . I would love to try a 4004, though. They look great to me .

[stingrayPete1977]

You cant say they are flawed dingus, all subjective apparently

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='gsgbass' timestamp='1384721568' post='2280022']
I don't have neck dive on my 4003. I find it very balanced out. You may not have played to many Gibson Basses. Gibsons are the definition of Neck Dive of Death.
[/quote]
Yep I love the look of gibson basses but again neckdive and poor bridge designs ruin a great bass.

[Gust0o]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1384722342' post='2280042']
Yep I love the look of gibson basses but again neckdive and poor bridge designs ruin a great bass.
[/quote]

Ah, but what a racket they make!

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1384722089' post='2280038']
It's a shame Rickenbacker don't allow copies , because if they did someone might build a Rick that actually played well and was built to work efficiently . Imagine a boutique Rick . It's the one design still ripe to be plundered.

I love the Rickenbacker sound, but I can't get on with them at all my self. They are a beautiful design , but flawed in many ways . I would love to try a 4004, though. They look great to me .
[/quote]

There have been "boutique" Ricks - IIRC jon Shuker built a pair of 6-string 4003-shaped basses for someone on here a few years ago and John Birch produced more than a few back in the 70s.

However once you start fiddling with the quirky things that make the Rickenbacker design unique it starts to loose all the character that made you want one in the first place. Take the 4004. On paper it has addressed the majority of criticisms aimed at the 4001/4003 models, but it doesn't really look right (and apparently doesn't sound the same either) and consequently isn't very popular.

[Stag]

I have my 4001 with the PU cover off and its easier to play than my 4003 which has the PU cover on it still.

However one of my plucking fingers has occasionally ended up stuck in the hole (ooer missus) which isnt great. Or you can keep the PU cover on and not be able to do any palm muting with a pick. Pros and cons for every approach!

In the words of Kryten : "Its those cute little flaws that keep a guy interested"

[steviedee]

I like the look of the 4004s though they they miss the more traditional bridge even if it's horrendously difficuilt to adjust.

Edited November 18, 2013 by steviedee

[matski]

As you can see from my sig I own a number of basses from various manufacturers, so am in a position to compare my Rickenbacker to the likes of my MMs, Fenders, Status etc.

Personally, I have no issues with playability of my 4003S. Okay, it is not a 'typical' Ric, in that the upper edge of the body is rounded off as opposed to sharp-edged as found on regular 4001 and 4003 basses. For some, a slab body may be uncomfortable, but you don't hear many players complaining that their slab bodied pre-EB Stingrays are hard to get on with.

When playing finger-style, I tend to rest my thumb either on the upper edge of the scratch plate above the neck pickup or on the neck pickup surround itself. No problem.

When playing with a pick, I rest my hand on the treble pickup cover. I don't have the option to remove the cover as my Ric has a magnetic Horseshoe pickup, and don't want to tamper with it. No problem.

Fair enough, the bridge isn't the most brilliant piece of design work, but personally once it's set up I don't fiddle about with it. No problem. On the plus side, there is an inbuilt rubber mute in the bridge which is very easy to use in my experience - better than the MusicMan mutes which have biodegraded on one of my basses and fallen off of the other.

Neck-wise, my Ric has a thinner neck than my MMs and Fenders - I don't own a Jazz bass so can't compare the profile, nut width to a Jazz - and have found that I get much better access to the heel end of the neck due to the fact that it's a through neck. Much easier to play up 'the dusty end' than the basses I have with big chunky ended bolt-on necks.

I also have no issues with neck diving, unbalance or weight of the Ric either.

See, there are [i]some[/i] BCers who think Rics aren't as bad as they are made out to be....

PS: this is the only Ric I've owned in 30 years of playing, so I'm not some blinkered, drooling Rickenbacker fanboy either.

[uncle psychosis]

I'd like to have a proper go on a rick bass again. The only time I've ever played one was when I was a total beginner for about five minutes in a shop.

In terms of aesthetics and style I think they're brilliant. I also think it's great that they're so different to fender designs.

I would really, really love one of their 12 strings but I just can't get on with how narrow the fretboard is :-(

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='matski' timestamp='1384860011' post='2281461']
As you can see from my sig I own a number of basses from various manufacturers, so am in a position to compare my Rickenbacker to the likes of my MMs, Fenders, Status etc.

Personally, I have no issues with playability of my 4003S. Okay, it is not a 'typical' Ric, in that the upper edge of the body is rounded off as opposed to sharp-edged as found on regular 4001 and 4003 basses. For some, a slab body may be uncomfortable, but you don't hear many players complaining that their [b]slab bodied pre-EB Stingrays are hard to get on with[/b].

When playing finger-style, I tend to rest my thumb either on the upper edge of the scratch plate above the neck pickup or on the neck pickup surround itself. No problem.

When playing with a pick, I rest my hand on the treble pickup cover. I don't have the option to remove the cover as my Ric has a magnetic Horseshoe pickup, and don't want to tamper with it. No problem.

Fair enough, the bridge isn't the most brilliant piece of design work, but personally once it's set up I don't fiddle about with it. No problem. On the plus side, there is an inbuilt rubber mute in the bridge which is very easy to use in my experience - better than the MusicMan mutes which have biodegraded on one of my basses and fallen off of the other.

Neck-wise, my Ric has a thinner neck than my MMs and Fenders - I don't own a Jazz bass so can't compare the profile, nut width to a Jazz - and have found that I get much better access to the heel end of the neck due to the fact that it's a through neck. Much easier to play up 'the dusty end' than the basses I have with big chunky ended bolt-on necks.

I also have no issues with neck diving, unbalance or weight of the Ric either.

See, there are [i]some[/i] BCers who think Rics aren't as bad as they are made out to be....

PS: this is the only Ric I've owned in 30 years of playing, so I'm not some blinkered, drooling Rickenbacker fanboy either.
[/quote]

But the slab on the stingray has a very rounded profile rather than a razor edge to it.

[matski]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1384865342' post='2281538']
But the slab on the stingray has a very rounded profile rather than a razor edge to it.
[/quote]

And so does my 4003S.