I 'm curious about the Rick-O-Sound circuit that has been featured on deluxe model Ricks for nearly 40 years. First, is it really necessary these days? With so many stereo stomp boxes and multi effects units, there are much better ways to get stereo effects out of a guitar than splitting the two pickups. Maybe I'm missing something. Could the cost of the Rick-O-Sound be applied to a more useful feature?
Second, for those of you who use your Rick-O-Sound outputs, do you have any novel tricks that you would be willing to share?
Is the Rick-O-Sound a necessary feature?
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
ROS is a total anachronism and I've stated that publicly for years now. It made sense before channel switching amps were available but not now. You'll note that no "new" guitar we've offered in the last 15 years or so have had this circuit. "New" is in quotes because obviously vintage or fantasy reissues don't count here.
But every time I threaten to remove this or make the slightest change, I get a thousand messages berating the fact, even some seriously personal insults.
As a result, change has generally been in the form of new models, letting the market decide what they'll buy. A prime example is the Model 650 series which has become a best seller at the expense of the 620.
But every time I threaten to remove this or make the slightest change, I get a thousand messages berating the fact, even some seriously personal insults.
As a result, change has generally been in the form of new models, letting the market decide what they'll buy. A prime example is the Model 650 series which has become a best seller at the expense of the 620.
-
ricnvolved
Jeffrey-- IMO, the Ric-O-Sound feature is pretty much useless in a live performance. The trouble you would have to go through to achieve any noticeable difference just wouldn't be worth it. Using the Ric-O-Sound in a recording studio might make a little more sense, but the effort involved may still outweigh the sonic benefit. Perhaps run one pick-up straight to the board and the other to an amp that you have miked, thereby getting a TRUE stereo effect. I can't think of any other application for the Ric-O-Sound that could reasonably be justified. However, others may disagree and know something else that works well.
I can see how ths happened. You have the top of the range, 660 and 660/12. Then you have the 620 and 620/12. After that you have the lower cost 650 line. One of these 600 Series is bound to lose sales to the others. Notice that the 620s have thinner width necks, hi-gain pickups, and "not-all-the-way-thru deluxe inlays". What do you do? Thats alot of "SKU's" for basically one type of guitar.
JH wrote:
"As a result, change has generally been in the form of new models, letting the market decide what they'll buy. A prime example is the Model 650 series which has become a best seller at the expense of the 620."
JH wrote:
"As a result, change has generally been in the form of new models, letting the market decide what they'll buy. A prime example is the Model 650 series which has become a best seller at the expense of the 620."
I ordered a 650C Fireglo VP UP as a substitute for a 660/6 Fireglo. RIC really did not lose the sale of a 660/6, since I did not want to pay that much for a guitar, and I actually prefer the simpler styling of the 650C. The vintage pickups should give a similar sound as well. RIC just gained the sale of a 650C series guitar, whose sales are bound to increase since all color and pickup options are available for it. As JH mentioned, ROS is totally useless if you have a channel switching amp. The reason the 650 series guitars are so popular is because only things that really matter are included, and that is reflected in a lower price tag. The 4004 series basses are also stripped versions of the older 4001 and 4003 series, with things like sharp-edged bindings, ugly plastic pickguards, bulky pickup cover, and useless ROS thankfully left off. Less makes more in this case as well, but why was the price not reduced as it was in the 650 series guitars? Give the 4004 series a similar price reduction as the 650 series received, while making all color options available for it, and you will see it become a best seller at the expense of the 4003 series. Young players are attracted to the 4004 series basses, esthetically speaking, but NOT in regards to pricing. And where would they find one to play before buying? I had to look all over creation for my used 1993 4004L. I love it for what it DOESN'T have (ROS, ugly pickguard, bindings, dorky pickup cover, the fatigueing weight of my solid maple P-Bass, etc.). Simpler construction makes for higher production numbers, and that means 650 and 4004 models hanging in stores and available for audition at reasonable prices.
Back to the original question: No, ROS is not necessary, but a lot of other vintage design elements are unnecessary as well. Keep all of them off the 650 and 4004 series in order to add more useful features: a lower price tag and simple minimalist styling.
Back to the original question: No, ROS is not necessary, but a lot of other vintage design elements are unnecessary as well. Keep all of them off the 650 and 4004 series in order to add more useful features: a lower price tag and simple minimalist styling.
-
ricnvolved
Philip-- Your assessment of the differences between the 4003 model and the 4004 models are pretty much on the mark. However, I disagree on a few things. First, I actually like the pickguard and bridge pick-up cover on the 4003. Yes, these features are dated, but it's okay with me. They're part of that classic look that most of us fell hopelessly in love with and I wouldn't change either one. And the ROS and bridge are BADLY out of date. For my part, the ROS could've been dropped a long time ago. I really like the *look* of the 4003 bridge although the actual design itself is antiquated and a pain in the butt. I wish there was some way to improve the function but keep the current styling.
Also, the body binding is far from comfortable. However, it's part of that immortal styling, along with the bridge pick-up cover and pickguard, and I wouldn't change it for anything. The 4004 models and the 650 series provide great alternatives for those who don't like the 4003 and 300 series for the reasons you mentioned above. Again, this is my opinion, but I would like to see the wider neck of the 660/650 guitars available as an option on the 330/360 guitars, ESPECIALLY on the 12-string models.
Also, the body binding is far from comfortable. However, it's part of that immortal styling, along with the bridge pick-up cover and pickguard, and I wouldn't change it for anything. The 4004 models and the 650 series provide great alternatives for those who don't like the 4003 and 300 series for the reasons you mentioned above. Again, this is my opinion, but I would like to see the wider neck of the 660/650 guitars available as an option on the 330/360 guitars, ESPECIALLY on the 12-string models.
-
abaron
I can't speak of this feature on basses, as I have a 360/6. I must admit that I don't use the Ric-O-Sound feature much, but it does have its uses, especially when recording. Is there any other way of simultaneously pairing a clean bridge pickup sound w/ a heavily overdriven neck pickup sound or vice versa? Not that I know of. A channel switching amp won't do that. Even splitting a conventional guitar signal and sending it to two different amps won't do that.
Maybe it's not worth the extra money to some, but it is a useable (if seldom used) feature. I see it as just another option for sculpting my sound if I want it. YMMV...
Maybe it's not worth the extra money to some, but it is a useable (if seldom used) feature. I see it as just another option for sculpting my sound if I want it. YMMV...
In answering the question if the ROS cost could be more usefully applied to another feature, the answer is a definite yes. An active preamp could be offered as an option on the 650 and 4004 series. I do not need them, but people who want to overdrive an amp that does not have high enough gain could use the feature, for instance. I would rather spend the money on a transmitter/receiver unit in order to go cordless.
'57 Cadillacs have fender skirts and tailfins, while 4001/4003 basses have plastic pickguards and pickup covers. It worked and looked good back then, and that is where all that stuff can stay for my part. I drive my new F-150 every day without wishing for the "good old days" when my dad's '54 Ford pickup had a starter button on the floor and a 6-volt battery. I never fell in love with things that aggravated me.
'57 Cadillacs have fender skirts and tailfins, while 4001/4003 basses have plastic pickguards and pickup covers. It worked and looked good back then, and that is where all that stuff can stay for my part. I drive my new F-150 every day without wishing for the "good old days" when my dad's '54 Ford pickup had a starter button on the floor and a 6-volt battery. I never fell in love with things that aggravated me.
-
ricnvolved
-
anonymous
An option is just that........AN OPTION. It is nice to have options, and it increases sales by offering to those who need them a nice personalized guitar without having to go the expensive route of full customization. Leave ROS as AN OPTION to those that want it. Most don't. Just a fact. The kids who buy guitars now and are the future of any thinking guitar manufacturer will be wanting an active preamp option. If it is designed by an engineer that REALLY knows his stuff, and they are available to ANY manufacturer now on a contract basis (RCA and Western Electric do not have iron fisted control of amplifier patents as they did when Leo Fender was starting out), then it WILL sound fabulous and have little of the problems of active preamps that people gripe about. Hell, Marshall engineers of decades past couldn't seem to design an amp that went more than a month without consuming a set of output tubes. A single screen grid resistor for 4 output tubes? GET REAL!!! They were probably Raytheon Reject engineers. That is a problem with your engineer, NOT output tubes, as other companies have proven. Active preamps that suck are engineering disasters, not a problem with preamps per se. RIC will get a good active preamp design if they want to run with the future "big dogs" of the guitar world. Just a fact.
And leave ROS only as an option or a feature of a vintage reissue product.
And leave ROS only as an option or a feature of a vintage reissue product.
-
wileyibex
Both my Ric's have been Rick-O-Sound-equipped. And I even sprang for the R-O-S splitter box. I plugged the guitars in to make sure the Rick-O-Sound worked. It did. Big whoop. I've never used it again.
I'll agree with John Hall, Rick-O-Sound is an anachonism. It IS of historical interest and merit, and thus needs to be included (only) on the "V" and "C series guitars, where historical accuracy is a prime consideration. For current models, though, Rick-O-Sound is as archaic as a buggy whip or a Gatling gun. And I'm not interested in thinking of my Ric as a prisoner of its own history.
Rick-O-Sound is utterly useless from a performance or recording standpoint in this day, with channel-switching amps, with wildly affordable and easy to use multi-track recording mixers, and with "Y" connectors available at Radio Shacks in every shopping center in the free world. Who NEEDS Rick-O-Sound?
R-O-S represents an unnecessary production cost -- money that could be better applied to upgrades that enhance playability and utility. I would love to have a 360/12 without R-O-S, but with that $$$ applied toward an "Arnquist-style" nut spacing modification and a 12-saddle bridge.
Phil would like a pre-amp to further shape the sound.
So spend the money on developing better and more playable guitars and relegate Rick-O-Sound to the sands of time. For all those who write would nasty letters and e-mails concerning the discontinuation of Rick-O-Sound, let them be encouraged to turn their fond attentions to the thousands upon thousands of used, NM, R-O-S-equipped Rickenbackers that are consistently available through e-bay, Pick-of-the-Ricks, etc.
I'll agree with John Hall, Rick-O-Sound is an anachonism. It IS of historical interest and merit, and thus needs to be included (only) on the "V" and "C series guitars, where historical accuracy is a prime consideration. For current models, though, Rick-O-Sound is as archaic as a buggy whip or a Gatling gun. And I'm not interested in thinking of my Ric as a prisoner of its own history.
Rick-O-Sound is utterly useless from a performance or recording standpoint in this day, with channel-switching amps, with wildly affordable and easy to use multi-track recording mixers, and with "Y" connectors available at Radio Shacks in every shopping center in the free world. Who NEEDS Rick-O-Sound?
R-O-S represents an unnecessary production cost -- money that could be better applied to upgrades that enhance playability and utility. I would love to have a 360/12 without R-O-S, but with that $$$ applied toward an "Arnquist-style" nut spacing modification and a 12-saddle bridge.
Phil would like a pre-amp to further shape the sound.
So spend the money on developing better and more playable guitars and relegate Rick-O-Sound to the sands of time. For all those who write would nasty letters and e-mails concerning the discontinuation of Rick-O-Sound, let them be encouraged to turn their fond attentions to the thousands upon thousands of used, NM, R-O-S-equipped Rickenbackers that are consistently available through e-bay, Pick-of-the-Ricks, etc.
Gentlemen, it's not gonna happen. As Mr. Hall has said, the marketplace decides, and you can only voice your own preference.
Just about any instrument that's been around for years is a prisoner of its own history. Manufacturers may like to offer new models but they are almost always reluctant to tamper with successful existing models. No one wants to be the next New Coke.
As a 4003 and 4004 owner I have the best of both worlds.
Just about any instrument that's been around for years is a prisoner of its own history. Manufacturers may like to offer new models but they are almost always reluctant to tamper with successful existing models. No one wants to be the next New Coke.
As a 4003 and 4004 owner I have the best of both worlds.
-
ricnvolved
At some in the future, the marketplace WILL decide the R-O-S isn't worth having anymore. The only question is WHEN it will happen. Those folks who deluge Mr. Hall with nasty e-mails seem to have an emotional attachment to R-O-S beyond all reason.
But.............................. I have an emotional attachment to the *look* of the outdated 4003 bridge and the pickguard. And just the thought of active electronics on ANY Ric instrument is nauseating. So who am I to criticize someone who likes R-O-S?
But.............................. I have an emotional attachment to the *look* of the outdated 4003 bridge and the pickguard. And just the thought of active electronics on ANY Ric instrument is nauseating. So who am I to criticize someone who likes R-O-S?
Perhaps if R-O-S was, like a TV show, quietly "not renewed," the problem would be over and done before anyone knew. My 660-12 never had R-O-S but big deal! I plug it into my ME-33 for comp. and stereo chorus, then run the stereo outputs into my stereo amp and I'm none the wiser for not having ROS from the get-go.
Agree that there are other more important things to spend Rick's money on, maybe MARKETING so that RIC isn't lost in the shuffle of the other manufacturers!
Agree that there are other more important things to spend Rick's money on, maybe MARKETING so that RIC isn't lost in the shuffle of the other manufacturers!