OK, Please tell me about the 4004CII

highway_star · Post by **highway_star** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:12 am

It was a 4-string until I sold it. Had I known it was going to turn out that well, I probably would have kept it and had the mod done.

Oh well.

bassduke49 · Post by **bassduke49** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:14 am

Blue Tiger!

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:16 am

flame on!

my CII's sound 'twangy' compared to the V63's.

go figure

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:41 am

Jeff, you are increasing my urge to 4-2-5 my Jetglo Cii!!! I'm really curious about how that bass sounds as a 5er.
My Cii and one of my Cii5's (trans red) have unfinished fingerboards.

I don't usually like blue basses, but I think RIC's trans blue on flamed maple is one of the nicest finishes. From what I've seen in pictures, the blueburst has a similar look.

blueflamerick · Post by **blueflamerick** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 11:02 am

My Cii has a finished fingerboard.

jps · Post by **jps** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 1:46 pm

"I can't compare directly with a V63 since I never had one"

Yes you did. It was disguised as a 4001CS!

When I got my Cii I found the sound a bit dark and thicker sounding than I had expected. Once I replaced the HB-1s with toasters I got a great tone that rivaled any Rick I have played, and was more versatile tonally with the VVT mod. Chris Pappas can elaborate...

beatlefan · Post by **beatlefan** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 3:19 pm

Yep! I love the sound of the Cii with toasters! It's full, it's rich....and that's with D'addario super soft chrome flats. When I get the BBR , I'll have the best of both worlds!

Jeff , you probably should'nt have sold me that bass! lol

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 6:07 pm

I agree a neck toaster and a vvt mod makes a 4004 sound good ...

heinpete · Post by **heinpete** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:19 pm

I had a '97 4004Laredo with maple fingerboard. I took the chrome hardware and swapped it with the gold hardware of my 2004 4004Cii. The Cheyenne also was VVT modded, which improved the sound drastically. However I would be keen on the toasters to check with it. As the Laredo had the PU position difficult to slap, I preferred the Cheyenne. But now I have found some full maple "Laredo" with the right PU spacing and some kind of "toasters" (The ric police missed that one!). Shipment is expected after Eastern holidays. I'm very exited!!!

teeder · Post by **teeder** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 3:11 am

Oh Man, that blue one is super hot!

I need to get some "GAS"-ex until I can actually get one of these in my hands to try out.

Thanks everyone!
Kevin

henny · Post by **henny** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:21 am

To balance the thread out a bit, (from an objecttive point of view, anyway) - I've found 4004s to be rather listless in sound.

Who am I kidding, 10/10 for looks - it's probably (after the 4001/4003S) the sleakest bass Rickenbacker has ever made.

0/10 for sound, IMO. I could rant all day about it, but these guys have all heard it time and time again - in short, I hate their sound. It's uncharacteristic and weak, hence why I sold mine to Peter, whom, after a few light modifications is thrilled with it. Even bad Ricks become good!

End of transmission.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:23 am

The master tone / volume makes the 4004 less versatile tone-wise (IMHO). It is not possible to blend the pickups with the stock setup. Rath's VVT mod is a good choice of mods to fix the problem. I like the stackknob approach too as it is totally reversible later on.

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:28 am

I won't be as harsh as Henny and maybe I need to try other 4004's than my Cheyenne, other strings, or other amps with it...but I've found the tone to be lacking something as well.

Nice looking bass, comfortable, light. But the 4001, 4003, V63 and C64 make my ears happier!

That blue one above sure looks nice, though!

But what's up with the one Peter H posted? Is that a faker? I don't think I've seen one with the body contoured like that.

incubus2432 · Post by **incubus2432** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:42 am

There's something wrong with that pic for sure. The p/u's look like a cut/paste from another pic (no shadows and look too recessed). The contouring also looks off. Plus the maple looks flamed which it isn't on a Laredo. It could be another factory oddity but I'd want more pics.

I'm not sticking up for the 4004's because it really doesn't matter to me if anyone else likes them or not but I would like to take Jeff's comment about the amp issue one step further. I was not too impressed with my 1st 4004 when I first tried it on my rig but after some tweaking it really came alive. The settings that brought out the best in my 4003's made my 4004 sound dead and muddy. With a little tweaking the well-rounded 4004 tone came out. The problem was that now the 4003's sounded weak. For me the 4004 tone was better than the best 4003 tone that I could get. I'm not saying that one is better than the other for anyone else.....only that I think it may not be easy to get the optimum tone from a 4004 AND a 4003/4001 from the same rig/settings.

teeder · Post by **teeder** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:34 am

Shouldn't we be able to see the neck-through wood on that Laredo?

It's good to hear the "other" side of the 4004 comments too. A different tone would be cool, but I don't want it to be too different.
I'm completely into the sound of my V's. They are the perfect blend of cutting punch and big bottom for my band. So, I better hold off thinking about the 4004 until I can get one in my hands and try it out through my amp. Which is pretty unlikely in Erie PA.

Ok, next topic! What's a pre-1973 4001 going for these days?