4004CII/5 Comments

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:36 pm

hey you could always play a 5 string mim jazz bass...

...I am unimpressed with F*nd*r 5 string basses. The Roscoe Beck model is supposed to be their best 5er, but I haven't tried it, I don't like the looks of it anyway.
Until my Cii5's are ready to gig and record, I have my 4003S/5 and my StingRay5's

gshadoan · Post by **gshadoan** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:17 pm

I agree Joey, I absolutly love this bass. I wish I could get one of each, but prolly not gonna happen. I knew what you ment Jeff, I was pulling your leg.
The thing is, that I get a new bass, and it doesn't work, I KNOW they know about the "issue" and they say things like I posted above.
Horseshit. Yeah, I am a big RIC fan, and have had many many ric basses and guitars in my life. But, cmon. WTF. Is it a spade or is it a club. Joey, the cats not only outta the bag, its ****** in the case.

This is what is called a design flaw.
And Jeff, your absolutly right on the money. If I had this bass, before it was released, I would have jumped up and down to get this fixed. Oh well. Im done talkin about this thing. Enjoy.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:32 am

That's why I never bought one ... I knew I could make a better 5 string bass in my basement ... someday I will get one ... but this may still be my main gigging bass ...

it has a classic look and a classic sound and a low B ... out of my 15 current basses and 20 or 30 basses that I used to own it is my favorite ...

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:04 am

...and someday I might want a 4-2-5 Rick mod on a 4003 or 4004.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:34 am

The low "B" on a 4004Cii/5 is far better than on a 4003S/5. However, the high "G" is close to the same or just slightly worse on the 4004Cii/5, and that's what the proposed pickup change is all about.

There's some proposed changes to the 4003 (and 4004) coming up and it'll be interesting to see whether what they're intended to upgrade will be called "design flaws". It'll be funny when you consider that for two quarters this and last year, the 4003 was listed by "The Music and Sound Retailer" as the best selling bass in the over $700 category, and yet it can be decidely improved.

highway_star · Post by **highway_star** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:43 am

The revised 4004Cii/5 will be interesting to hear when it comes out. I'm hoping it will make me want to part with my Stingray.

Change in the hope of doing something better is always good and I'm glad you're looking into it, John.

henny · Post by **henny** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:57 am

...as the best selling bass in the over $700 category, and yet it can be decidely improved.

The mere fact that it has Rickenbacker adorning the headstock might have something to do with it.

IMO, providing it has that TRC/Logo... you're 80% there.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:20 am

"The low "B" on a 4004Cii/5 is far better than on a 4003S/5."

I would be interested to know how the low B is better ... longer scale? 34"? 35"? or more body mass ... I have never had a problem with the low B on a 4003s5 bass ... except for defective strings ... Fender basses have a lot of floppy and unresponsive low B problems ... some claim 75% of 5 string Fenders have poor low B response ... the best low B I have ever played was a cheap Ibanez 305dx ... but the rest of the bass was mediocre ... I get good low B performance on my 4-2-5 basses with the mighty mite p-bass necks ... they have a good profile and scale and sound ...

And improvements on the 4003 ... does that mean the pickup cover, obsolete mute and ric-o-sound will go away ... I sure hope so ...

henny · Post by **henny** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:28 am

Oohh. Prepare for a purist uprising with your last paragraph, Jwr2!

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:29 am

the 4004 4-2-5 basses that I make have extreemly good D and G string response and pretty good low B string response ... the 4004 4 string body is light and the scale is 33 1/2" so Low B is a little less than optimal unplugged ... but the hb1 pickup makes up for the acoustic short comings and provides a good low B performance ... the 4003 also suffers from having a 33 1/2" scale ... some experts say a low B should have a 35" scale ... I find 34" seems to work nicely ... and 33 1/2" is almost as good as 34" ...

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:33 am

I love rattling the cage of purists by discussing mutes, ric-o-sound, flat wound strings, horseshoe pickups, pickup covers, grover tuners, reverse tuners, bass cut capacitors, and other old fashioned features on the Ric bass ... but I do like clear lucite finger rests

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 10:42 am

My Ibanez BTB 5 string has a 35" scale. It's a nice bass, but I don't find the B string to perform any better than the B strings of my 7 other 5 string basses.
The overall construction of the bass, the rigidness of the neck and the angle that the string has over the bridge and nut are very important to the performance of the B string. Since Rick 5 string basses are neck-thru body designed, it also helps the performance of the B string.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 11:00 am

actually the 2030-5 basses I have with the bolt on neck and massive maple body and the Kahler bridge have sustain that lasts forever ...

gshadoan · Post by **gshadoan** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:02 pm

>>The low "B" on a 4004Cii/5 is far better than on a 4003S/5<<

Well, even though these 3 all had a different sound, they did not have a volume drop in the low B as my 4004. It may very well be that it was my paticular unit(4004), and Joey's units only that have this low B issue, and that John yours may in fact have the low B where, or very near where it should be. For me the real issue here is even coverage across all 5 strings. It really doesn't take allot to make this happen. As to the old/exsisting units, a lace sensor design retrofit would be what I would expect could make this truly better without body modification. A drop in update as it were. As to any new production, a full coverage design is what really needs to happen here. This bass has SO much potentel. This is of corse only my opinion, and I have only been playing bass for about 35 years or so, so there are most assuredly better qualified people out there to make these judgements. What I did to "make it good" (for me) after talking to many others and doing research on my own I decided on this configuration.

Now it is a truly modern bass lacking no where. The coverage pattern is even, on all 5 strings.
The other really good news is that the pickup size is a fairly common standard size and can be swapped out, much like folks do to their Les Pauls, or strats, without further modification. Nothing worse than seeing a 67 4001 with an EBO pickup slapped on it.(YEEEECH) Had I had the opportunity to beta test/consult, this is exactly where we would have landed. I can say that out of all of the RIC basses I have owned,(conserveitivly around 30) this is the best playing, sounding, looking, feeling RIC bass I have ever owned(again-for me). If it where TB, it would be thee PERFECT bass for me. The last bass I will ever want/need/etc.. The string spacing is perfect for my hamhocks

That was my only complant about the 4003S/5.

Bottem line here John,(is) I am not trying to start a pissing match with you. I, as others, who have met you, have nothing but respect for you, and a long standing love affair with Rickenbacker. Your company sets you apart from the crowd, as it does for anyone who plays RIC's. Personally, I am not one to buy one, and look at it, I wanna play it. And in the past I have never been one to "modify" the original design. No Need. I really appreciate your willingness to interact with your customer base as you do. I am just trying to help, and make things better, REALLY. On the other hand, I am not one to sit by politly, and not express my true thoughts. I think I have done that. For better or worse, and at the risk of.... whatever....it is what it is.
Peace.
Sincerly your freind,
Greg

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:34 pm

Greg ... do you want to sell your old 4004CII5 pickups?

And I have owned 4 4003s5 basses and not a single one of them had ANY drop off in the volume or tone coverage in any string whatsoever ... I agree the only flaw in the 4003s5 is the 2 1/16" string spacing ... other than that it is a most excellent bass ... I am more than willing to modify any bass that I own so my 4003s5 basses now sport a 2 1/4" spacing which makes them finger friendly ...

the soap bar pickups look good on the 4004CII5 ...

The thing that gets me is Ric quit making 4003s5 basses in 2000-2002 range and they still haven't delivered a fully functional 5 string bass to the market yet and this is 2005 ... fortunately I am resourceful enough to modify basses so I can play a 5 string Ric bass ...