What am I missing out on with not having a Rickenbacker?

[Skybone]

Another big difference between the 4003 & 4004 is the "sandwich" body on the 4004.

The 4003 has solid maple body wings, where the 4004 has a maple / walnut / maple sandwich (you can just see it in 4000's pic of the 4004). Not sure about the difference in body thickness, but the 4003 is deceptively thin, but weighty due to the slab of maple. Walnut is a fair bit lighter.

More obvious differences are the lack of binding and the inlays on the 4004.

[Cosmo Valdemar]

12 hours ago, martthebass said:

The 4004 comes in a couple of flavours, I had a 4004cii. To be honest I was a bit disappointed, the sound was that dark that it seemed to squeeze much of the Rickenbacker sound out of the thing. It also felt a bit cheap considering the price.

If you fancy one I’d strongly suggest trying one first, also the early 4004s have a very wide neck which isn’t for everyone, mine being a 2013 was the same profile as the current 4003.

My 4004 had a horrific neck. An absolute lump. I'm guessing it was an early one.

[Cosmo Valdemar]

10 hours ago, 4000 said:

I had a 4004 that was epic. The fit and finish were at least as good as any boutique I’ve owned with the possible exception of my Alembics (far better than either of my Wals), the neck profile was nice, if not as slim as my vintage basses (I have however played some older 4004s with very big necks), it looked stunning, was very light and was one of the best-sounding basses I’ve ever played, never mind owned. I have however played others that weren’t as good in any way, shape or form. Why did I sell? Because ironically the contoured body caused me problems (I have nerve issues in my right arm), something the slab/bound basses don’t. I’d have it back in a second though. In fact if I could have any bass back that I’ve sold, that would be the one. 
 

 

That is amazing.

[4000]

Yep. Wish I could get it back! Chances are slim to none. 🙁

[4000]

1 hour ago, Skybone said:

Another big difference between the 4003 & 4004 is the "sandwich" body on the 4004.

The 4003 has solid maple body wings, where the 4004 has a maple / walnut / maple sandwich (you can just see it in 4000's pic of the 4004). Not sure about the difference in body thickness, but the 4003 is deceptively thin, but weighty due to the slab of maple. Walnut is a fair bit lighter.

More obvious differences are the lack of binding and the inlays on the 4004.

Actually the original Cheyenne had all-walnut wings and the Laredos have all-maple wings (although there may be some that have Cheyenne II construction). The Cheyenne II has the sandwich. 

When I bought my 4004 there was another new one in and I a/b’d them. Mine, as well as having nicer figuring, was both noticeably lighter and far more open-sounding, which I prefer. I kick myself every day for getting rid, although it went to a good home. I did ask about buying it back once, but sensibly the current owner said no. 

I did once play one particular older one that had a huge neck, like a P Bass, and most of the other older ones I’ve played have had big necks. Mind you, there was a period when the 4003s also had huge necks; I played a few. My 4004 was similar to a modern 4003, give or take. 

For those who find them too dark, Dane Wilder in the States makes new harnesses for them with different pot values which bring out the highs a bit more. 

Edited June 30, 2021 by 4000

[martthebass]

22 minutes ago, 4000 said:

For those who find them too dark, Dane Wilder in the States makes new harnesses for them with different pot values which bring out the highs a bit more. 

I nearly went down that route with Dane to sort my 4004 but when the offer of a straight trade for a 2010 4003 came up I decided to go that way.  To be fair, the bass did sound more open through the new owners rig (the bass sounded boxed in using my MarkBass set up) but I was more than happy with the swap. 

[Cosmo Valdemar]

24 minutes ago, 4000 said:

 

I did once play one particular older one that had a huge neck, like a P Bass, and most of the other older ones I’ve played have had big necks. Mind you, there was a period when the 4003s also had huge necks; I played a few. My 4004 was similar to a modern 4003, give or take. 

Admittedly, further to my earlier comment about my 4004's neck, the 4003s had unpleasant necks at the time as well.

[4000]

6 hours ago, Cosmo Valdemar said:

Admittedly, further to my earlier comment about my 4004's neck, the 4003s had unpleasant necks at the time as well.

I never did understand what prompted that change. I’m just glad it didn’t last. 

[4000]

6 hours ago, martthebass said:

I nearly went down that route with Dane to sort my 4004 but when the offer of a straight trade for a 2010 4003 came up I decided to go that way.  To be fair, the bass did sound more open through the new owners rig (the bass sounded boxed in using my MarkBass set up) but I was more than happy with the swap. 

When I got mine it sounded absolutely tremendous. Then at the time we had some 100w Ashdown combo - I forget which one, but a cheap thing, not a Mag - at rehearsal. It sounded a bit ‘meh’ through them. But through my rig at the time, and everything else I played it through, it sounded epic. 

I think more than arguably any other bass, Rics - all Rics - are really dependent upon the right rig. 

[Cosmo Valdemar]

3 hours ago, 4000 said:

I never did understand what prompted that change. I’m just glad it didn’t last. 

That's RIC's M.O! 

3 hours ago, 4000 said:

 

I think more than arguably any other bass, Rics - all Rics - are really dependent upon the right rig. 

Precisely this. Nothing more lifeless than trying out a Rick in a shop and being plugged into a TC Electronic combo. Ricks demand amps, or  at least a preamp, with character and colour.

[mr zed]

3 hours ago, 4000 said:

When I got mine it sounded absolutely tremendous. Then at the time we had some 100w Ashdown combo - I forget which one, but a cheap thing, not a Mag - at rehearsal. It sounded a bit ‘meh’ through them. But through my rig at the time, and everything else I played it through, it sounded epic. 

I think more than arguably any other bass, Rics - all Rics - are really dependent upon the right rig. 

What’s the right rig? Is this based on a good quality rig irrespective of type or is it based on type i.e. valve, class D, solid state, quality cab etc? My Ric sounds awesome through all my rigs but I can really struggle to get a great sound out of it through some of the practice room fodder that I’ve had the displeasure of using. So, what’s the ideal rig for a Ric?

[Killed_by_Death]

 

IF you're pining for a 4003 or 4001,

you'll be missing out on the non-hum-canceling pickups, because RIC will NOT wire one of them RWRP from the other.

Then there's the bridge to deal with & dual truss-rods.

You can surpass all that & get a 4004, Walnut is the lightest-weight model.

 

[Skybone]

9 hours ago, Killed_by_Death said:

 

IF you're pining for a 4003 or 4001,

you'll be missing out on the non-hum-canceling pickups, because RIC will NOT wire one of them RWRP from the other.

Then there's the bridge to deal with & dual truss-rods.

You can surpass all that & get a 4004, Walnut is the lightest-weight model.

 

Taking the hum out of them is kind of taking a small bit of their "mojo" IMO. Of course, some people hate that they hum, and I do have to wonder why Ric still make both of the pickup windings in the same direction, but, it is part of the character of the 4001/4003 that it does this. I do find that rolling off the volume for the neck pickup a touch makes this less of an issue, but I also think that putting humbuckers on them robs them of some of their character.

Of course, it is horses for courses (or YMMV if you prefer).

[Cosmo Valdemar]

3 hours ago, Skybone said:

Taking the hum out of them is kind of taking a small bit of their "mojo" IMO. Of course, some people hate that they hum, and I do have to wonder why Ric still make both of the pickup windings in the same direction, but, it is part of the character of the 4001/4003 that it does this. I do find that rolling off the volume for the neck pickup a touch makes this less of an issue, but I also think that putting humbuckers on them robs them of some of their character.

Of course, it is horses for courses (or YMMV if you prefer).

Agreed. If you want that clank and rattle, it's got to be old school single coils - noise and all.

The Rick humbuckers are a lot darker.

[Skybone]

17 minutes ago, Cosmo Valdemar said:

Agreed. If you want that clank and rattle, it's got to be old school single coils - noise and all.

The Rick humbuckers are a lot darker.

Must admit, although I prefer humbuckers on guitars, I prefer single coils on basses as they seem to cut through better in the mix. Again, horses for courses, YMMV etc..

That said, you can get Rick specific single coils that are RWRP, or work as such when put with a standard Ric pickup, like the Nordenbocker. Gemini Pickups in the UK make their's RWRP, not sure about the Classic Amplification ones though.

[Cosmo Valdemar]

10 minutes ago, Skybone said:

Must admit, although I prefer humbuckers on guitars, I prefer single coils on basses as they seem to cut through better in the mix. Again, horses for courses, YMMV etc..

That said, you can get Rick specific single coils that are RWRP, or work as such when put with a standard Ric pickup, like the Nordenbocker. Gemini Pickups in the UK make their's RWRP, not sure about the Classic Amplification ones though.

RWRP?

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited March 14, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[Munurmunuh]

1 hour ago, Skybone said:

Must admit, although I prefer humbuckers on guitars, I prefer single coils on basses as they seem to cut through better in the mix

It took me a while to get my head around the fact that I too prefer humbuckers on a guitar and single coils on a bass. Presumably the sonic information coming from two coils is creates something very slightly blurred,  which my ears think improves thick crunchy guitars playing multiple notes but takes away the focus of a single line deep down in the bass register? 

[Skybone]

Sorry, just assumed that was a common acronym. As Jus Lukin said, Reverse Wound Reverse Polarity.

In split coil P pickup, one coil is wound in one direction, the other wound in the other direction so that they cancel hum. Likewise, as said, J bass pickups work together to cancel hum, but will hum if used on individually.

The Nordenbocker is wound in the same way, that it'll cancel hum when used in conjunction with the neck pickup.

 

Edited July 1, 2021 by Skybone

[4000]

14 minutes ago, Ricky Rioli said:

It took me a while to get my head around the fact that I too prefer humbuckers on a guitar and single coils on a bass. Presumably the sonic information coming from two coils is creates something very slightly blurred,  which my ears think improves thick crunchy guitars playing multiple notes but takes away the focus of a single line deep down in the bass register? 

I’m exactly the same. Les Pauls are my guitars of choice.

With bass, most of my boutiques/custom basses had humbuckers of some description and they never really sounded completely right to me. I know there are also other factors but I’ve definitely come to the conclusion that I prefer single coils in a bass. It was only a few years back when playing an old ‘80s Warwick Thumb next to an old Sei I had that the penny dropped. 

I will say my particular 4004 sounded pretty clear, open and bright, albeit not quite as bright as my 4001s. 
 

Edited July 1, 2021 by 4000

[4000]

15 hours ago, Killed_by_Death said:

 

IF you're pining for a 4003 or 4001,

you'll be missing out on the non-hum-canceling pickups, because RIC will NOT wire one of them RWRP from the other.

Then there's the bridge to deal with & dual truss-rods.

You can surpass all that & get a 4004, Walnut is the lightest-weight model.

 

The rods - particularly in the 4003 -  are only a problem if you’re not used to them. Most of the problems with the 4001 rods come from people not knowing how to adjust them. And I find the fact that they’re field replaceable a big plus. Having said that, it appears they’ve now gone/are going to a fixed single rod. 

Bridges - the new V2 seems to work fine from what I’ve seen. Mine are the old aluminium ones. The only issue with those is potentially running out of intonation adjustment. Obviously you get some duff zinc versions which can fold under high tension. If you palm mute they can be problematic, but you can always buy a Hipshot. 😉 I tend to rest my hand on the bridge a lot and a lot of basses have screws which tear my hand up, so it’s horses for courses really. 

Can’t say I’ve ever missed not having hum-cancelling though, in 40 years of playing. 
 

Edited July 1, 2021 by 4000

[Waddo Soqable]

I'd still say to the Professor, go and try a few old 4001s, the proper Rickenbacker in my opinion...  With all this talk I'd really like another myself, unfortunately with the prices now absolutely no chance..

[4000]

15 hours ago, mr zed said:

What’s the right rig? Is this based on a good quality rig irrespective of type or is it based on type i.e. valve, class D, solid state, quality cab etc? My Ric sounds awesome through all my rigs but I can really struggle to get a great sound out of it through some of the practice room fodder that I’ve had the displeasure of using. So, what’s the ideal rig for a Ric?

As CV said, something with colour. Stuff like Markbass just doesn’t work IMO, unless you’ve got a pedal in front of it. Of course YMMV. Strangely my old Trace heads sounded great though, but then they did have a very particular tone. When I had an Epifani head it sounded rubbish with my Ricks, my Ashdown ABM sounded miles better. 

These days I use Tech21 VT 500 heads and a VT bass DI. 

[martthebass]

25 minutes ago, 4000 said:

As CV said, something with colour. Stuff like Markbass just doesn’t work IMO, unless you’ve got a pedal in front of it. Of course YMMV. Strangely my old Trace heads sounded great though, but then they did have a very particular tone. When I had an Epifani head it sounded rubbish with my Ricks, my Ashdown ABM sounded miles better. 

These days I use Tech21 VT 500 heads and a VT bass DI. 

I found my 4003 worked fine with MarkBass once I'd moved over to 12" cabs from 15".  There's no way I'd be persuaded to move over to huge 8x10" and flakey valve rigs to accommodate one bass.

[4000]

6 minutes ago, martthebass said:

I found my 4003 worked fine with MarkBass once I'd moved over to 12" cabs from 15".  There's no way I'd be persuaded to move over to huge 8x10" and flakey valve rigs to accommodate one bass.

Who said you have to move to an 8x10 and “flakey” (really?) valve rigs?  As I mentioned, I use a Tech21 VT500 (6.5lbs) and 2 x Barefaced One10s at 15lb each. Total weight for my 500w rig, 36.5 lbs. Or you can stick a pedal in front of your rig of choice. 

It’s always a given that YMMV.

Either way, if that one bass is your main bass, surely you accommodate it?