4004L Laredo, how different than a 4003?

dr_rickenstein · Post by **dr_rickenstein** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:19 am

Man, don't know what happened but here's another try at posting that pic

dr_rickenstein · Post by **dr_rickenstein** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:32 am

There! I think I finally got it!
Well, I this should be the same PU placement we're talking about. And you're right, it is BUBINGA, sorry. Anyway, it must be quite a different sound than the first Laredos with maple fret board I guess.

edski · Post by **edski** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:42 am

Especialy with the PU placement...I can see the original 4004L's being very bassy. Then again, some complain that they are too whiny...

Anyway, I am VERY pleased so far with my 4004.

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:43 am

very nice!

joseph12 · Post by **joseph12** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:19 pm

Peter posted: <<<<I do use a '98 4003 and a '95 4004L(recently) as my main instruments.
My 4004L is a tank: The neck is wide and thick and the weight is about 1kg more than the 4003.>>>>

Thanks for the responses folks, I am a bit concerned about what Peter posted, copied above; that is, a '95 4004L that is actually a kilo *heavier* (+2 lbs) than a relatively new 4003!??

I don't want that. I'm really hoping that a brand new 4004L will be *lighter* than the 2 year old 4003 that I have.

All other comments I've read state the 4004L is lighter than a 4003. And I believe Rickenbacker's published specs state the 4004 Laredo as 8 lbs & the 4003 as 9 lbs.

Since I've been preparing this post, I got on the bathroom scale and then did again with my basses. It seems my Rick weighs about 10 lbs (+/- a bit as the scale is in 1/2 lb increments); and my Fender weighs I found, surprisingly, also about 10 lbs. (again, perhaps the rough accuracy of the scale is a factor, but it is a recently purchased digital scale, so I think these measurements are probably fairly accurate, hope so anyway)

I would like an 8 lb Laredo, but I don't want one that weighs 10 lbs! Anybody know the weight of their Laredo?

Is there a published range of weight that would apply per Rickenbacker?

Thanks Joe Beck

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:38 pm

my 93 Laredo is about the same weight as my 4003 ... maybe a pound less ... my 98 Cheyenne is very light ... feels like 7 pounds ... the oil finish weighs less than conversion varnish ...

heinpete · Post by **heinpete** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:12 pm

Looks like the Bubinga-fingerboard-Laredo is lighter than the early full-maple version I have. The width of its neck is alright with me although it is also quite a bit wider than my 4003. The width of my 4004L neck at the nut is already 44mm at the 12th fret 59mm and at the 20th fret 64mm. But the real discomfort for me is the thickness of it. When I examined more carefully I realized the reason which is that the heal of the headstock of the 4004L is more extended into the neck than on my 4003. I will give some more details after I measured this.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:06 am

mine is all maple ...

and here is my 4004ci

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:06 pm

I took the rewired 4004L-5 to practice tonight ... I had three basses ... the other 2 did not get played ... the 1000k volume pots is what this baby needed ... it has a nice Chris Squire bite ... and still plenty of low end ...

edski · Post by **edski** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:43 am

I used my 4004L tonight too!

But it's just straight stock...

Jeff-what other 2 basses did you ignore at your rehearsal? And how hard is the surgery to put in a 1 megaohm pot if I wanted to change the volume pot on mine? And I know you've described it, but can you describe the difference between the 1Meg and 500K pots in a little technical language (I used to be an engineer, so I can handle some degree of detail regarding electronics...)?

Not that I'm disappointed in the sound of the Laredo-I too had my 4001 at the studio, and even didn't think of using it. But the option of changing the sound is interesting...

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:28 am

it is basic electronics ... the lower the number on the pot the more treble it rolls off to ground and the warmer and bassier it sounds ... the higher the number the more wide open it sounds ...

rewiring it fairly easy ... you need a screw driver and a soldering iron ... you should learn how to read electronic schematic drawings ...

250k pots are usually used on single coils and 500k pots are usually used on humbuckers ...

a 4001 comes with 250k volume pots and a 500k tone pot ... this gives its treble bite ... a 250k tone pot will make the 4001 sound warmer and bassier ... the 4004 comes with a toggle and 1 500k volume pot and 1 500k tone pot ... I like to blend pickup instead of using a toggle switch ...

The right pot and right pickups are a matter of taste ... I prefer 2 1000k volume pots and a 500k tone pot on my 4004L5 with the hb1 pickups ...

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:35 am

the other 2 basses that got ignored ...

edski · Post by **edski** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:41 am

So the effect of the 1000K volume pot would basically to bring out more treble tones? I think I get it. Thanks.

The lower of the two ignored basses, Jeff-what's the story on that one? Doesn't look like a stock finish, and the lack of binding/dot inlays make me wonder. Is that an old 4001 you did a 4-2-5 on?

henny · Post by **henny** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 4:03 am

It's an S5... (4003)

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 4:16 am

that is a 4003s5 refinished in tung oil ... and it is slightly more rounded than a stock 4003s5 ... the oil finish makes the bass lighter and gives it a more woody mid range tone ... it never had binding or triangle inlays ... it is a real player ... good neck and good tone ...