Squire Heresy Innocent Question

gothbin · Post by **gothbin** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:48 am

A P bass neck is wider and thicker, at least my P bass is. Fenders are chunky workhorses. I have the Steve Harris Iron Maiden P bass, but wonder daily how steve harris can play that fast on such a neck.......... J bass necks are a differewnt breed, never liked them to much. I also have a Catalyst Tigris bass - made from sound compound (ceramic and carbon) wich holds between a P and a J bass wich plays wonderfull. But my number one in comfort is still a 4003!!! I also have a 30.5 inch scale Epiphone flying V, but thats plays very strange - just has good looks.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:06 am

Fender necks taper more in the width of the fretboard from the nut to the body ... also with Fenders you have made in USA, made in Mexico, made in Japan, Squire, pre cbs, 70s models, allparts, mighty mite, warmoth, and more ... so a "Fender" neck will vary ...

kbhag · Post by **kbhag** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:51 pm

Thin neck Ric bass Guitars could be made again. So could real Horseshoe's.

jps · Post by **jps** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:45 pm

I think the reissue horseshoe pickup may be better than the original design in the long run as the magnets won't degauss as quickly, therefore sounding better for much longer.

david_schwab · Post by **david_schwab** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:50 am

Ric could use some graphite in the neck, between the rods, and that would stiffen it enough to allow it to be made it thin again, while holding up to higher tension strings.

Ken Smith told me that 4001's had that "hollow" resonant sound because of the truss rods were in a square slot, so in essence the neck was hollow. I'm not sure that I buy that, but Ken does know about basses.

rick12dr · Post by **rick12dr** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:20 am

Graphite Could be usein a Rick neck, but I suggested this to John Hall some years back, and his[edited] response was" not going there". You ask him why.I've put new fingerboards on a couple 80s 4001s, and put graphite under the boards as well. At least my[and my customers] conclusion;
a Very good idea. not only from a tonal standpoint; in these cases, the neck got stiffened to the point the truss rods never even had tension on them, and this was with med/heavy flats on them!! Go figure.

learning_curve · Post by **learning_curve** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:47 pm

When I joined this group I thought I would ask some questions about converting my newly purchased 4003 to a 5 string. Little did I know this idea was not original at all. Jeff Rath had already been doing these for some time, and he and a few others in here were very helpful with my many questions and requests for needed parts.
So I went ahead with my project and although I chose a slightly different approach to the conversion it came out quite nice and I must say I agree with Jeff the 4003's have a very distinctly better sound with the added string (high string or low). Now this is all very interesting but why am I telling you this boring stuff?........? well the reason I wanted to convert my 4003 to begin with was the physical difficulty I had when I had to play a lengthy song while extensively using the E string. A construction injury many years ago makes my wrist "pop" and go almost numb when stretching for the E string repeatedly. I noticed I had no problem with speed or discomfort on the A D or G strings. So to keep the triangle inlays, neck and body binding and the 4003 style I liked so much, this was the perfect solution! My comfort level is no longer a problem for me! 5 strings on a Ric neck are the Cats *** Man! I have Big hands and although I have played a few 4001's and they are very nice, as thin as they feel, (I wish I could deal with the 4 strings If I could I would like the older style myself I think) but for me a 4003 with that extra string has saved me and increased my speed and makes my playing the bass an absolute blast!
I have converted another 4003 to a 5 string with the C again the sound did change significantly, and as long as I use this bass on songs where I only need the Low string infrequently I have all the bass strings covered as far as I am concerned.

For what it's worth. There may be some of you with a trick wrist like I have. Look into a 4003s5 or do a conversion.
Enjoy Randy

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:56 pm

interesting story ... yes I can also play faster and cleaner on the 4-2-5 Ric basses ... when I play wide necked 5 string basses I get hand cramps and my fingers get tired ... it is like work ... for me a perfect 5 string bass has a bridge spacing of 2 1/4 to 2 1/2" and a nut width of 1.7" ... the additional stress of the 5th string makes the 4003 or 4004 more resonant ... take my Dean 10 string bass for instance ... with 10 strings is has unbelievable resonance and sustain ...

Also the 4-2-5 was not an idea that originated with me ... the 4003s5 is for the most part a 4-2-5 factory conversion ... I think my conversions play a little better ... I think 2 11k ohm high gain pickups work nicely and I think the 2 1/4" bridge spacing vastly improves finger playing ...

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 6:25 pm

Graphite is not a bad idea but as I told Don previously, to the best of my knowledge, it's still covered by patent- that's why "we're not going there".

Actually, I think I have a better idea anyway. I just need to fond the time.

jmh · Post by **jmh** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 6:30 pm

Good to hear from you Randy, glad it worked out so well for you. Actually, it sounds like something that would benefit me also. Maybe one day.....

rick12dr · Post by **rick12dr** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 8:07 pm

John,
Are you referring to something other than the graphite bars you can get from Luthiers Mercantile? That's where I got my stuff. Maybe it makes a difference if you are a major mfr? Can you explain?Fender is putting it in some of their
basses.I've never seen them giving any "legal nod" or whatever to Modulus, or whoever actually is a major maker /supplier.