4003 problem?

lshaia · Post by **lshaia** » Mon Feb 24, 2003 12:43 pm

At the risk of repeating an earlier thread I think it is the range of adjustability which is under discussion, not the ease of making the adjustment. If a player likes fret buzz the bridge design ought to accommodate that choice.

ricnvolved · Post by **ricnvolved** » Mon Feb 24, 2003 3:41 pm

Couldn't the 4003 tailpiece be modernized/improved and still keep the visual aesthetics?

banta · Post by **banta** » Mon Feb 24, 2003 3:51 pm

I too would like to see the bridge component updated on the tailpiece, that would be great. But I wonder.... why not put the triangle inlays on the new 4004s? That's one thing I really wish had been available on my 4003S/5 & 4003S/8.

ricnbacker · Post by **ricnbacker** » Mon Feb 24, 2003 4:05 pm

"think that the design of the rickenbacker tailpiece is great, and should be kept as is, the fact that it is not very adjustable is good, we all have less to fiddle with. but i agree, the mute is worthless. the screws rust, and the rubber pad lifts of the metal plate. "

Owen,

i am glad to hear you say that....mine came from the factory with rusty screws!

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Mon Feb 24, 2003 6:23 pm

I recently bought a ric bass off of ebay ... I am fixing it up for a friend ... the jacks are buzzing a little ... So this will be the 3rd bass that I rewired with 2 mono outputs ... I did it to a '73 and a '74 ...

John ... you just can't please everybody ... just keep making those beautiful high quality instruments. And we will keep buying and playing them ... for instance I allways thought that a midnight blue Ric with black trim didn't have enough contrast ... then I bought one used from ebay and now I love it ... it is sleek and exotic looking ... of course I still like the classic look of a 4001/4003 fireglo with the chrome and white trim ... so sometimes when we complain we change our minds ... and then we accept and like what we before disliked ...

Remember "There is no substitute for Rickenbacker" "There is nothing else that sounds like a Rickenbacker"

jeff_ulmer · Post by **jeff_ulmer** » Mon Feb 24, 2003 6:27 pm

I don't know that I'd call Ric-O-Sound useless, but I have yet to use it, and don't have an issue with the other instruments I own that have one out.

I agree about the mute, never use that either. It would be nice to have better access to the intonation screws, and height adjustability would be good too - two reasons why so many basses converted to Badasses I assume. From an asthetic point of view, my only real beef with the bridge is that the string holes don't line up with the saddles, creating an awkward bend from the ball end, especially on the five and eight strings.

As for killing the models, I have come to the conclusion that I prefer the old style S body to the bound version, though I still want a 4002 and a Shadow at some point. I like the triangle inlays, but don't think they would work on the simpler, but elegant 4004s.

iamthebassman · Post by **iamthebassman** » Mon Feb 24, 2003 7:02 pm

Wow, I never knew that all these years I've been using the mute on my Rics I was was wrong in doing so. There were several posts to this thread saying that no one uses it. Imagine my shock and horror. Who knew things were so black and white when it comes to music, musical instruments, and playing styles. Enjoy.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Mon Feb 24, 2003 8:05 pm

Hey ... I'm glad that someone uses it ... at least it is not a total waste ...

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Mon Feb 24, 2003 8:09 pm

It took me years to figure out what that little piece of clear lucite on my '68 ric was for ... It has never been used but it looks cool and adds to the vibe of the bass ...

but they don't put them on new basses ... that's ok with me ...

iamthebassman · Post by **iamthebassman** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 7:10 am

I've never used the Ric-O-Sound though, and only one of my 3 Ric basses has it. So if that went away I personally wouldn't mind.