THIS IS GOING TO CAUSE MUCH HYSTERIA..

[discreet]

53 minutes ago, 12stringbassist said:

They have made some right dogs, but fortunately, I haven't ever played one.

You've been very lucky, I've had exactly the opposite experience, despite desperately wanting to like Rics.

There is also the JH issue, of course. I look at him and how he has behaved, then I look at Leo... 

[stingrayPete1977]

8 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

I think the ric headstock looks poor as that A string tuner is out of line with the others, but the 4/1 of a fender just looks like a last minute afterthought as it was going out the door 'Oh stinky poo guys, we haven't got enough room for the 5th tuner' - 'no worry, just throw it on the other side'.

Couldn't put up with that.

 

This isn't true at all, the earlier Jazz fives had all five in a row for many years. The 4+1 keeps the head shorter without the abortion of string lyes that Ric has.

I'd take function over form every time. 

[BigRedX]

12 hours ago, stingrayPete1977 said:

I'm surprised you like them, the guy who said he wouldn't buy a 5 string bass that didn't have 2+3 tuners to keep the B and E on the same side giving more room for the smaller strings on the opposite side and a straight string lye, I'd be upset with that Ric5 layout if I'd made it in my shed, you're the first to poo poo Fenders but they've made a much better job of mine. 

I think you've misunderstood. My point in the post that you quoted was that Rickenbacker (and all the other companies making basses that aren't simply Fender copies) exist to produce something different for those of us who want something different.

Also while a straight string pull over the nut is a Good Thing, IMO a properly cut nut that allows for an angled string pull is preferable to string trees and other retaining gubbins required to get a decent break angle for all the stings on a non-angled headstock.

Having said all that I'm not a fan of the looks of this new Rickenbacker. They've left off the triangle fret markers and body binding - two things that in my mind are essential to the looks of the 4001/4003 design, and the headstock while being a bit of a kludge to try and get 5 machine heads  in place without changing the shape, there are plenty of other basses with equally poor designs for their 5-string models (Warwick aren't much better).

I'll reserve further judgement until I've seen the price these will sell for in the UK and I've had the chance to actually play one.

[BigRedX]

1 hour ago, stingrayPete1977 said:

This isn't true at all, the earlier Jazz fives had all five in a row for many years. The 4+1 keeps the head shorter without the abortion of string lyes that Ric has.

I'd take function over form every time. 

These days there is absolutely no reason why you can't have both elegant form (although that is completely subjective) and ergonomic function at the same time. 

Any manufacturer that isn't striving for both, simply isn't trying hard enough.

[stingrayPete1977]

Elegant form is subjective though, plenty of people like the Fender Head and the Ric one, the perfectly straight strings on the Fender imo trump the angled break of the Ric, looking at the bridge they've got a break angle off to the side there too unlike the straight of the high mass string through one on recent Fender USA fives. It's also corrected on Stingray fives but not all fours. A straight string from end to end must be a better construction method than having two extra kinks.

[BigRedX]

6 minutes ago, stingrayPete1977 said:

Elegant form is subjective though, plenty of people like the Fender Head and the Ric one, the perfectly straight strings on the Fender imo trump the angled break of the Ric, looking at the bridge they've got a break angle off to the side there too unlike the straight of the high mass string through one on recent Fender USA fives. It's also corrected on Stingray fives but not all fours. A straight string from end to end must be a better construction method than having two extra kinks.

But you are forgetting that the string retainers put another kink into the path of the string (one that looks less obvious because of the plane it is in) but is adding a second point in the string path where the pull angle changes which IIRC is worse.

Remember also that every string changes the angle of its path as it passes over the nut. Those designs that don't have a straight string-pull look worse (and may be worse depending on whether the nut has been cut the allow for the fact that the angle is occurring in two different planes), but it's still just a single change of direction in 3D.

[stingrayPete1977]

A gentle pull from either a retainer or an angled head is better than this 30 degree Ric effort, I'm surprised you're in favour of anything with a sideways force acting on the nut slots.

It's not a single change of direction in 3D either, All designs have some downwards force at the nut even if it's just from the tapered post tuner, the Ray goes straight from the nut to the tuner with a slight downwards angle on 3 of its 5 strings,  The Ric has the same slight tilt downwards along with left and right break angles on all five, nowhere on the Ray or Fender has the extremes of the Ric including the strings with string Trees.

Edited January 26, 2018 by stingrayPete1977

[prowla]

On a point of order, it ain't 30 degrees.

Maybe someone will producr a String Butler for it, if folks are bothered about the angles, though.

[stingrayPete1977]

That will just move it along, better than at the nut I suppose.

A longer shaft on the A tuner and a bit of planning would have sorted it easily.

People have been defending all the other bad stuff found on Rics for years, at least we've got something to argue over with the new ones

Edited January 26, 2018 by stingrayPete1977

[Skybone]

For as much as I like Ric's, I won't be buying the new 5 string... no interest in 5's, so a Ric 5 is of no interest to me... If I could afford one that is!

Looking at the pictures, I think they've tried to address a few issues, and "modernise" the classic design to go along with the subtle re-designed 5 string. The 4004 Schaller bridge is a given. It works. It may not give the same "vibe" as the original Ric bridge, but it'll stop folk whining about the original bridge. The pickups are reminiscent of the Les Paul Recording to me. The shape of them would be better offset with the triangle fretboard markers, they look kind of "at odds" with the curves of the bass and the dot inlays.

Wonder if they're going to roll out a 4 string version with those pickups?

In other news, Nordstrand are starting to make replacement Ric pickups.

[Woodinblack]

The pickups would make a lot more sense if they still had the triangular fret markers (which they should anyway IMO), it would be a common theme. 

[gareth]

These don't look good to me, don't like the new pickup and bridges

 

[gareth]

Hope they don't make them standard and carry them across to the4's

[Happy Jack]

I was lucky enough to interview John Hall about these basses on Friday.

Despite the normal Basschat stance on this issue, I can only say that he was absolutely charming and really very good company. As to the bass itself,

I absolutely loved it. The first Ric in many years that I would seriously splash some cash on.

In truth, despite the list of terminal, life-changing problems identified here, you really need to play and hear this bass rather than focusing on the string trees. This discussion reminds me of Barefaced handles. You're missing the point.

 

[leftyyorky]

As far as I'm aware,5 strings and 8 strings made by Ric, and not conversions, were all based on the 4003s model, and so would have neither binding or triangle fret markers. On Rickresource forum, Ben Hall chimes in and explains that the pickup design is to do with magnet spacing at the B end. He also states that everyone who tried the bass thinks its fantastic in both playability and tone, and that theyve had hundreds of orders already (from dealers I assume) at a price tag of $2499!

Personally, as a person who owns and likes a 4003 (pickup cover already gone, tubeampology bezel fitted, and the shitty bridge is next to go and be replaced with a hipshot) I think these basses look terrible, the pickup shape is atrocious , the schaller 3d bridge doesnt look as if it belongs, and the headstock doesnt look right.

I still love mine though!😊😊

[BigRedX]

Why do Rickenbacker even make any models that don't have the triangle inlays or binding. Surely these are essential iconic features of the brand?

[Happy Jack]

No one except a bass player has ever noticed either of those features, especially the binding!

The essential iconic features are (1) the shape of body & headstock, and (2) the sound.

[Hellzero]

21 minutes ago, Happy Jack said:

I was lucky enough to interview John Hall about these basses on Friday.

Despite the normal Basschat stance on this issue, I can only say that he was absolutely charming and really very good company. As to the bass itself,

I absolutely loved it. The first Ric in many years that I would seriously splash some cash on.

In truth, despite the list of terminal, life-changing problems identified here, you really need to play and hear this bass rather than focusing on the string trees. This discussion reminds me of Barefaced handles. You're missing the point.

 

Are you sure you won't be assigned to trial with this publishing and did you get an authorisation signed in 3478 exemplars by JH himself ?

[Silvia Bluejay]

We asked John if it was OK to publish this, and he said yes. He simply doesn't want full reviews being published in magazines etc. for a week or two, so we'll leave it at this for now.

Jack was genuinely impressed with the bass - he wasn't trying to be nice to John...

[BigRedX]

15 minutes ago, Happy Jack said:

No one except a bass player has ever noticed either of those features, especially the binding!

The essential iconic features are (1) the shape of body & headstock, and (2) the sound.

Before I started hanging out here and becoming a lot more knowledgable about the more mainstream guitar and bass brands I'd have assumed that any Rickenbacker shaped instrument missing these features was a knock-off.

[jonsmith]

26 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

Why do Rickenbacker even make any models that don't have the triangle inlays or binding. Surely these are essential iconic features of the brand?

Well two of the earliest famous players - Chris Squire & Paul McCartney - both played S versions (no binding or triangular inlays).

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by jonsmith
Clumsy wording

[Happy Jack]

And Peter Hook doesn't count, cos his wasn't real!

[Beer of the Bass]

Ooh, there's a mapleglo one!  I still won't be able to afford one, but I could definitely make good use of one of those. 

[stingrayPete1977]

42 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

Why do Rickenbacker even make any models that don't have the triangle inlays or binding. Surely these are essential iconic features of the brand?

A few less things for them to make a hash of?

[leftyyorky]

8 minutes ago, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

Fair points made there mate, but for me as a non pick player, I do like the tops of the pick-up's to be parallel with the strings. It's one of the things that annoys me about Dingwall's, although with a couple of Super-Fatty's wedged together it kinda solves the problem. The thought of HAVING to buy a Zero-Mod for a new bass is a bit of a turn off. I would like to try one though. Great to see you two are having a good time.

I'd not thought about the top of the ugly as sin pickup not being parallel to the strings to facilitate use as a thumbrest. 

On my 4003 i got rid of the stupid pickup cover/handrest thing and fitted a "cove" bezel from Tubeampology which fills the massive hole around the pickup and I can rest my thumb in the cove or on the pickup itself. That is not an option on this bass , but wouldnt be a problem to me as I wouldnt spend $2500 dollars on a bass that looks worse than some 300 quid copies, no matter how well it sounded or played!

Re Dingwalls, angled frets dont look right either!😊