Can anyone explain this? BOOMING 4003

[ajish4]

Can anyone explain this?

Just got a good deal on a 1993 4003MG.

The neck is slimmer than my new 2005 4003MB but not as thin as my CS.

!##(@*#@, THE SOUND! This thing sounds like it has an active circuit! CLEAN, CRISP AND POWERFUL! This things growls better & LOUDER than my brand new 4003!

I was so convinced it had an active board in it, I HAD to check it out. Nothing appears to be cut, all looks original (though I'm not a pro with this stuff, but it looks untouched and nice an neat) and, obviously, I was wrong. There wasn't a 9V battery looking at me.

Is this normal with some of the 1990's Rics?

What could possibly make this thing kick butt like that? Stock pickups, all appears original.
Any help would be appreciated!

[BobKat]

Measure the resistance of the pickups using an ohmmmeter and compare it to the others. Post your results- we're interested.

Early '90s Rickenbackers are known for having HOT pickups.

[ajish4]

HI Bob,

Thanks for the help!

I get a reading of 12k on the neck pickup and 12.5k on the bridge pickup on the 93 4003.

My 2005 gives me a reading of 10k on each pickup.

Is 2k enough to make such a big difference?

Thanks again!

Tony

[jwr2]

The way the pickups are wound can yield a slight difference of .5 to 1k ohms ... most modern high gains are 11k ohms ...

but in this case the difference is probably the setup ... the louder bass probably has lower action and the pickups are probably closer to the strings ... and some Ric basses are better than others ...

[rickfan60]

I can relate. My Blackstar is like that. It has gobs of power and is totally clear and clean from the top to the bottom. Jeff is right, it is probably also in the setup. I also agree that not all Ricks are created equal.

[BobKat]

The pickup height also has much to do with it. Escellent point that I *duh* did not think about.

[ajish4]

Thanks for all the input!

I'm going to try to match the 1993 pickup position with my 2005 and see what happens.

Jeff, you make a great point about the action, it is VERY LOW and is a joy to play. I'm going to have a lot of fun with this bass. Just really a nice player. Possibly, if you open to it in the future, I think it might make a GREAT 5 string! Apparently, judging from you web site, your the man to talk to! You do awesome work!


Ted,
If that is what the Blackstar sounds like, no wonder they are in such demand! Was the Blackstar made around the same time period?

[BobKat]

I beleive the Blackstar was made in 1989.

[dean712]

For what it's worth, I have a 4003's that were made in 1994 and 2003, and I haven't noticed a significant difference in their outputs. Both are great basses.... I think Jeff's post about the pickup height might explain a lot of the difference.

[höfner]

I agree Jeff and Dean about p-u´s height.

My ,-91 4001v63 got more ring and sustain and of course louder sound, when I did set p-u´s for the strings what I use.

[rictified]

The neck pickup might be closer to the strings than most other Rics. That makes a huge difference with them and is common because the fret boards are different thicknesses in different basses and the thinner it is the closer the strings are to the neck pickup which is usually all the way up already on most people's basses. This explains why a two basses with similar setups can vary a lot in output. My 96 is like that, very powerful and ballsy and it's because of the above reason. I had a 92 which just thundered because of the proximity of the pickups to the strings. I think also the early to mid 90's basses were made a little differently than the later ones.

[rickaddict]

I'll have to look at this when I get home. My '94 4003S is really hot and boomy. Maybe an extra grommet or two under the neck pickup is in order.