Rickenbackers - Overrated?

[spongebob]

I opted for the Chrome one on mine. Previously had black, but the chrome looks pretty cool! 

[4000]

5 hours ago, spongebob said:

Few years back I imported a set of Classic Amplification pickups from the US, and had them fitted to a (IIRC) 2011/12 4003. That helped a little as well, gave it a bit more cut.

With both the pups on full, I just find the newer basses have a bit of a kind of mid-scoop.....needs a bit of amp fiddling to push it through the mix.

The newer basses sound very different to my vintage ones. For a start, the neck toaster dominates on mine, whereas on the newer basses the treble pickup seems to dominate on the ones I’ve played. 

[Skinnyman]

5 hours ago, spongebob said:

I opted for the Chrome one on mine. Previously had black, but the chrome looks pretty cool! 

That's nice.....

[prowla]

9 hours ago, 4000 said:

The newer basses sound very different to my vintage ones. For a start, the neck toaster dominates on mine, whereas on the newer basses the treble pickup seems to dominate on the ones I’ve played. 

Well, the normal position on the new ones is that the series treble cap is bypassed, for the "modern" sound which also means the treble pickup is louder, but you can pull the treble knob to get the "vintage" sound.

[4000]

3 hours ago, prowla said:

Well, the normal position on the new ones is that the series treble cap is bypassed, for the "modern" sound which also means the treble pickup is louder, but you can pull the treble knob to get the "vintage" sound.

I'm aware of that; it's nothing to do with the vintage tone circuit or the cap (which I normally bypass anyway). The balance of the pickups is simply much different. Obviously the newer ones have hotter pickups and different pot values.

[prowla]

5 hours ago, 4000 said:

I'm aware of that; it's nothing to do with the vintage tone circuit or the cap (which I normally bypass anyway). The balance of the pickups is simply much different. Obviously the newer ones have hotter pickups and different pot values.

I think that it can vary one Ric to the next; my mapleglo 2010 sounds as near to vintage as my vintage one.

[Wolverinebass]

I must admit that I like both the vintage and modern sounds. Though I tend to use mine with the bridge pot pulled for the grind. Which quite frankly is phenomenal.

[Quilly]

They do look cool and sound great, I had a 1976 4001 for a short time but the neck was completely shot and the truss rods juts didnt work. It was practically unplayable....But I remember the tone of of it. Gorgeous. Again not the most practical bass in the world, too much chrome, a superfluous pickup cover, too much 60 cycle hum, an nonadjustable bridge and wayyyy too expensive.  I think if i was to but one again it'd have to be a 4004. Now if they ever decided to mass produce the 4005 again I would seriously consider a remortgage.  

Edited February 15, 2019 by Quilly

[Skinnyman]

On 13/02/2019 at 17:52, Wolverinebass said:

I must admit that I like both the vintage and modern sounds. Though I tend to use mine with the bridge pot pulled for the grind. Which quite frankly is phenomenal.

It certainly cuts through a muddy, guitar-saturated mix......

[4000]

On ‎13‎/‎02‎/‎2019 at 17:44, prowla said:

I think that it can vary one Ric to the next; my mapleglo 2010 sounds as near to vintage as my vintage one.

Well every Ric sounds different (I've played hundreds at the very least), but I've never played a 4003 that sounds that close to my 2 x '72s.

[4000]

4 hours ago, Quilly said:

They do look cool and sound great, I had a 1976 4001 for a short time but the neck was completely shot and the truss rods juts didnt work. It was practically unplayable....But I remember the tone of of it. Gorgeous. Again not the most practical bass in the world, too much chrome, a superfluous pickup cover, too much 60 cycle hum, an nonadjustable bridge and wayyyy too expensive.  I think if i was to but one again it'd have to be a 4004. Now if they ever decided to mass produce the 4005 again I would seriously consider a remortgage.  

The truss rods come out pretty easily (in most cases) and are field replaceable.

I played a '70s 4005 once but I wasn't that keen. It looked great, but the sound wasn't there for me. The bridge pickup is way too near the bridge.

I also had a 4004, which was a lovely bass, but unlike everyone else I found it much less comfortable than a 4001/4003; it aggravated the nerve problem in my right arm so had to go.

 

[martthebass]

13 minutes ago, 4000 said:

I also had a 4004, which was a lovely bass, but unlike everyone else I found it much less comfortable than a 4001/4003; it aggravated the nerve problem in my right arm so had to go.

 

Tried a 4004 (a Cii if I'm not mistaken).  Was somewhat disappointed with the bass overall - it certainly felt 'cheap' compared to the price tag.  Also the sound was far too dark, I gathered that the pot values don't do it any favours but I decided not to change anything and pass it on to someone who would appreciate it better.  

[prowla]

5 hours ago, 4000 said:

Well every Ric sounds different (I've played hundreds at the very least), but I've never played a 4003 that sounds that close to my 2 x '72s.

I haven’t played hundreds, but I do have one or two. 

[4000]

I think I've owned about 20 now. '68, '71 21 fretter, 4003s8, 4004, 3 x '72s ( 2 x 4001 and a through-neck 4000) , '73 4000, '73 4001, '76 4001, '80 4001, '91 and '96 4001CS, '91 and '98 V63...and a few others I forget. My current '72s have been by far my favourites, although I do prefer one to the other. 

[Cuzzie]

https://www.instagram.com/strangernajjar/p/Bt7CYgEnoAe/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=1qsssmv514myr

this thread and this bass is making me want a Ricky bad!

[Cuzzie]

Sound is very personal - so taking that aside structurally, balance, weight, neck feel (obviously some variance instrument to instrument) what is there between 4001, 4003, 4004 please

[White Cloud]

On 10/02/2019 at 08:50, prowla said:

One of the reasons for Ricenbacker's dislike of Rotos was the abrasiveness, not the tension, as they could wear the frets down. That said, my '64 has had Rotos on it since the 70s, all bar a short period where I had it set up and they put Dean Markleys on it (but I reverted to Rotos).

I recall that my Rickenbacker basses had soft frets (low grade?) Roto's ate the frets on my 4001's up ... yet my jazz bass (strung the same) was largely unaffected.

Not sure if the modern Ricks are likewise.

Edited February 16, 2019 by White Cloud

[4000]

On 15/02/2019 at 12:55, martthebass said:

Tried a 4004 (a Cii if I'm not mistaken).  Was somewhat disappointed with the bass overall - it certainly felt 'cheap' compared to the price tag.  Also the sound was far too dark, I gathered that the pot values don't do it any favours but I decided not to change anything and pass it on to someone who would appreciate it better.  

It felt cheap? Mine was far better made than either of my Wals, and on a par with my Sei basses, which at £1600 was pretty good IMO.

[4000]

1 hour ago, Cuzzie said:

Sound is very personal - so taking that aside structurally, balance, weight, neck feel (obviously some variance instrument to instrument) what is there between 4001, 4003, 4004 please

In the simplest possible terms, the 4001 and 4003 have a different truss rod system and the 4003 typically has hotter pickups. The 4001 came with a capacitor on the treble pickup that cut the bass. The 4003 originally didn’t have this, but recently has a push/pull which means you can opt for in or out. 4004 is a different beast altogether, with a more modern bridge, contoured body and humbuckers. It really isn’t as simple as that though as the 4001 has varied a great deal over the years, as has the 4003 and even the 4004 to a lesser degree. If you want to find out more go to the Rickenbacker Resource Forum. 

[4000]

1 hour ago, White Cloud said:

I recall that my Rickenbacker basses had soft frets (low grade?) Roto's ate the frets on my 4001's up ... yet my jazz bass (strung the same) was largely unaffected.

Not sure if the modern Ricks are likewise.

Frets changed with the 4003 I believe. People forget that the 4001 came with flats.

Edited February 16, 2019 by 4000

[Cuzzie]

@4000 it’s a good start for me - cheers

[prowla]

1 hour ago, 4000 said:

In the simplest possible terms, the 4001 and 4003 have a different truss rod system and the 4003 typically has hotter pickups. The 4001 came with a capacitor on the treble pickup that cut the bass. The 4003 originally didn’t have this, but recently has a push/pull which means you can opt for in or out. 4004 is a different beast altogether, with a more modern bridge, contoured body and humbuckers. It really isn’t as simple as that though as the 4001 has varied a great deal over the years, as has the 4003 and even the 4004 to a lesser degree. If you want to find out more go to the Rickenbacker Resource Forum. 

The 4004 has a stock Schaller bridge.

[4000]

15 hours ago, prowla said:

The 4004 has a stock Schaller bridge.

Some of them have an ABM, which is why I didn’t specify.

[martthebass]

18 hours ago, 4000 said:

It felt cheap? Mine was far better made than either of my Wals, and on a par with my Sei basses, which at £1600 was pretty good IMO.

Maybe my expectations were too high for a £1800 bass? Fit and finish was inferior to any EBMM I’ve had and I’m far from a fanboy.

I still have a 4003 which feels better than the 4004 did.

[4000]

I did play one in Forsyths once that was so-so; the neck was massive for a start. But mine was lovely. If it hadn't been for the fact that it aggravated my nerve issue I'd still have it. I sold it to another Forum member.

I've never seen one that isn't as least as well built as my Wals though. I also preferred my 4004 to any 4003 I've played.

 

Edited February 18, 2019 by 4000