Poor 4000,look at the headstock.
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
- bassduke49
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6580
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 5:00 am
-
ken_swearingen
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2298
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:00 pm
Quote - "The 4000's DO have significant neck dive factor, but you get used to it after a bit".
My 4000 balances great! But as with 4001s, I'm sure they all vary. My first CS was very neck heavy, despite weighing a ton, whereas my 2nd (which is lighter) balances fine. All my previous 4001s have balanced far worse than my 72, and they were all much heavier as well.
Quote- "Mine is still my best playing bass." - No argument there, mine plays the best of my Ricks. And it sounds phenomenal....
My 4000 balances great! But as with 4001s, I'm sure they all vary. My first CS was very neck heavy, despite weighing a ton, whereas my 2nd (which is lighter) balances fine. All my previous 4001s have balanced far worse than my 72, and they were all much heavier as well.
Quote- "Mine is still my best playing bass." - No argument there, mine plays the best of my Ricks. And it sounds phenomenal....
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
-
green_us90
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 12:23 pm
-
green_us90
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 12:23 pm
Agreed about the relative density Kevin. Using my CSs as an example you'd think it more likely that the heavier bass would be LESS headstock heavy, not more, but that wasn't the case. I've pretty much always found the heavier basses seem to balance worse in my experience. I'd say my 4000 balances as well as any Rick I've ever owned...in fact it's my most comfortable gigging bass.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."

