4004CII/5 @ POTR

henny · Post by **henny** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 7:53 am

OK... that one is bloody nice.

madscotsman · Post by **madscotsman** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:51 pm

I've been reading this tread and thought instead of re-relocating the pickups to the original location of original Cheyenne bass, why not just route a small access area and cover it with a plate like Almebic does.

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 5:53 pm

..."why not just route a small access area and cover it with a plate like Almebic does."

...because, that's what Alembic does! LOL

jps · Post by **jps** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:06 pm

A lot of makers do that, not just Alembic. That idea is fine with me.

heinpete · Post by **heinpete** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:12 pm

That is my major disappointment with Rickenbacker manufacturing: They just change the specs of their instruments (neck width and thickness, truss rod access, 4003/1 bridge PU surrounding...) out of the blue!

Of course one could say that slapping on a 5-string is quite a rare situation (for slap I mainly use 4-string) but it happens and the neck PU position makes a difference!!!

Also the location of the bridge PU is quite crucial, as a few cm back or forth make a big difference in sound. Did someone at Rick ever examine a swinging string in a stroboscope? There you can see that the "valleys" and "hills" of the swinging string are at fixed positions, hence the position of the PU generates the output AND the sound differences.

The argument of the more easy removal of the truss rods is ridiculous and might only be an excuse, as they could be pulled out from the headstock. I assume the template of PU cavity manufacturing was set back to the 4004Ci one due to some further production of the "LK-axe"?

The glossy fingerboard was always a reason for me to use the Rick as it is incredible fast. If this is gone I do not by any other (I have to look for a pre-2004 4004Cii/5-string).

Never change a winning horse!

jps · Post by **jps** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:13 am

"The argument of the more easy removal of the truss rods is ridiculous and might only be an excuse, as they could be pulled out from the headstock"

I take it you have never seen one of these in person. The design of the rods requires it to be pushed through the back of the neck as part of the removal process.

Ditto with the old design.

heinpete · Post by **heinpete** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:00 am

Sorry Jeffrey, may be I'm mistaken as the 4004s might have different truss rods than the 4003/4001, but I always remove their rods through the headstock openings. I did this quite freqently as I had to regrind the endings to reuse them. Only a '83 4003 had the truss rods removed at the body side of the neck and there it also was easy with the distant neck PU cavitiy.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:09 am

there were about 5 years 1980-1985 that Ric put the truss rods in backwards ... but from 1986 to present and before 1980 the rods are inserted and removed from the body ...

The finished fret board is a nice look but the unfinished gives a different tone that some desire ...

heinpete · Post by **heinpete** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 3:25 am

So I did it the wrong way a few times. I must admit, the rods bent a bit but that did not worry me. Eversince I have the '98 4003 I did not need to remove the rods. The last time I did it was 2000 on that '80 4001FG, but again via the openings of the headstock.