Help me fellow 4002 owners

dswp · Post by **dswp** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:40 pm

Ted, if you could e mail me off line, I think that is a great idea.. Thanks

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 2:08 pm

Dave ,you ought to sell it and get an original one,you ought to find one by year 2030.

dswp · Post by **dswp** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 3:12 pm

LOL Ken

Sad but true.

I feel the bass stands on it's own. I love the way it sounds and plays.

edski · Post by **edski** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:28 pm

If it sounds and feels good, why mess with it? It's tough to make two wrongs make a one right. It's not like HB1's are bad PU's...

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:43 pm

That is true Ed, the 4002 would sound good with any pickup but the 4002 pickups are pretty special. They are totally quiet and they bring out subtle colors of the tone that the HB's can't. They hear the strings VERY well. It is almost like the difference between HD TV and the old fashioned kind. I am not exaggerating. Also, it would be nice to have the low-z output restored. Every 4002 owner here can certaily attest to the wonderful tone of the bass. They are completely without equal.

lowendbob · Post by **lowendbob** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:10 pm

Heck, I thought Dave's 4002 was the best sounding and playing Ric I ever heard, not knowing the pickups where HB1's.
Wow Ted, I can't even imagine what the real pups sound like.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 8:01 pm

The 4002 does not have the same deep body routes that the 4001/3 has. I am guessing that this greatly improves the sound. The materials (except the ebony fingerboard) and assembly are otherwise the same.

basse · Post by **basse** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 8:56 am

Ted I was always told that the 4002 models used a "higher" quality of maple (highly figured birdseye) than what was being used in the standard models during the years that the "2s" were in production - and that because the birdseye was of a higher density and grain that the sustain and "tightness" of the sound was better...

FYI, when I was originally looking at 4002s in the early 80's the sales pitch was that, other than assembly EVERYTHING about the 4002 (wood, pickups, electronics, tuners, outputs, etc.) was different and of a higher quality than the 4001/3 models - which helped rationalize the significant difference in MSRP price. And this came directly from the store/chain that operated as Ric's Canadian distributor.

I've always taken that position as gospel and since I couldn't afford a 4002 in the early 80's (I bought a 4001) it was the one thing that stuck with me and made me want one over the last 20 years - until I finally found my MG 2 years ago. And in playing it now I can't help but think that they were correct.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 11:47 am

I am not totally clear on the relationship between grain and tone but I have heard from more than one luthier that sound waves carry better through straight grained woods. Woods with visual appeal are not necessarily the woods with desireable tone. Highly figured woods are thought to scatter the waves. When used appropriately fancy grains can add color to the tone. Highly figured woods are often blended with other woods for tone or just used ornamentally. 4002s are usually nicely figured (mostly birdseye) but the overall grain is still quite straight. There are many flamey or otherwise figured 4001/3s out there so I don't think the maple itself is the difference. The "2" has more mass in the center of the body. That alone could be the difference.

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:00 pm

I just want a quilted 4004CII...

since I don't play-damn the tone!

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:25 pm

Perhaps JH has a couple of originals still floating around the factory somewhere!
It would enhance the value as well as the tone to have the proper pups.
It's funny, but when I first saw the 4002 (pics only), I didn't really think too much other than "nice, but not quite my thing".
I definitely have much more of an appreciation for them now. That's a beautiful example you've got there, Dave!

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:38 pm

I thought I'd post this since we're talking about wood..here is a link to a pic of my Wal:

http://www4.cs.fau.de/~koesters/Privat/Wal/walpics/W3841.jpg

My Wal has a mahoghany core and Hydua (Schedua) facings on the front and back. Gobs of Twang and tone. Listen to Rush's "Power Windows" and you hear my bass to the last sonic degree. Wal is a maker who relies heavily on wood to achieve proper tone.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:56 pm

Alembic blends woods that way as well. They use tone woods at the core then sandwich in layers of accent and ornamental on one or both sides.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 12:56 pm

Its backwards,nice bass John.

sabbath_of_bass · Post by **sabbath_of_bass** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:36 pm

John I played a bass like that only it was a righty. Those things are awesome.