Is the Rick-O-Sound a necessary feature?

admin · Post by **admin** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 3:41 pm

Rick-O-Sound may indeed have little application in today's music scene, however, it seems to me that it is one of those features that harkens from Rickenbacker's evolutionary past.

I concur that it is a feature that is destined to be dropped eventually. Having said that, there continue to be many folks who want an instrument with all the bells and whistles of the vintage days. To leave these features out may cause more disruption than to leave them in and have owners simply leave them alone.

Who's Irish and is absolutely fixated on Rickenbacker guitar jacks? Yes, Rick O'sound.

ricnvolved · Post by **ricnvolved** » Wed Apr 09, 2003 9:45 pm

I still don't see how it would hurt to make R-O-S an option. My guess is that an upcharge and eventual lack of interest (which would probably happen sooner rather than later) would allow R-O-S to retire quietly indeed.

Now, about those black & silver vintage oven knobs.................................

philco · Post by **philco** » Sat Apr 12, 2003 9:25 am

While we are on the subject of how antiquated ROS is and the need to plow the money saved into upgrades, what about all the other anachronisms on guitars and amps in general? One anachronism is keeping the control preamp on the power amp. A guitar amp should be a big box with a speaker and a power amp. It needs to be nothing more with the technology of today. In the old days of tubes, preamps were too big and power hungry to be on the guitar or guitar player, so they were stuck on the power amp, and they were very simple. Also, having tone and volume controls on the guitar AND power amp is redundant and costs more money while inducing more distortion and noise into the signal. Having a preamp on the guitar also allows the use of headphones without the need to pack a power amp along to a private practice session and allows practice under more conditions, such as when traveling. You could practice where even acoustic guitars are not allowed. The big chrome pickguard of the 650D allows plenty of space for developing a solid state preamp that runs on a couple of 9V or lithium batteries. Channel switching would be on the guitar, even turning the reverb on the amp on and off. A small reverb could also be developed that depended on guitar rather than amplifier vibrations for its operation. It would make the buying of additional amps much cheaper since the expensive preamp and reverb features could be left off. The small reverb in the Marshall AVT20 could be mounted in a body as thick as a Telecaster. Why hasn't anybody done this already?

For a person that owns many guitars and few amps, there would be no savings, but for those who have few guitars but must own multiple amps for multiple playing venues, it would greatly simply their playing setups since that would be done on the guitar regardless of what amp they plugged into. Also, the company that introduces this feature will enjoy sales of matching amps as well as sales of the new style of guitar with preamp/reverb included internally.

Many fine old amps such as the Traynor YBA 1 could benefit from a guitar that has an internal reverb. Having these features in a guitar would not preclude their use on a conventional amplifier. In fact, many would welcome the additional gain and control flexibility.

Letting old designs such as ROS die out is not nearly as important as developing new designs as technology changes.

dave4004 · Post by **dave4004** » Sat Apr 12, 2003 3:51 pm

Philip, I think you may be overestimating any possible savings from eliminating ROS on existing models. I imagine whatever tooling and jigs are involved are long paid for and depreciated. The 4003S and 610 listed for only $100 less than the 4003 and 620, that's $50 wholesale and maybe $25-$30 manufacturing cost...which includes binding and triangular inlays. If it were eliminated from existing models, it might save the company $5 in raw costs. Not worth it when you consider tradition and making people unhappy.

As for your amp and preamp observations, the technology is certainly there, but marketplace demand and acceptance are not, and may never be. "The old days of tubes" are very much still here and going strong. Reason: many players (myself included) prefer the sound.

philco · Post by **philco** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 6:53 am

The "sound of tubes" is largely in the output section of amps, and has as much to do (even more) with output transformer interaction with the loudspeaker as it has to do with the tubes themselves. Every audiophile knows that preamp tube clipping and preamp transistor clipping sound virtually identical. And when field effect transistors are used in the same circuit topologies as preamp tubes, they sound practically the same. I own Conrad-Johnson audiophile gear that uses both tube and solid state devices in similar circuit topologies, and it all sounds similar. The difference is when you drive an output section into distortion. The transformer rounds off the clipped waveform, especially if you undersize the output transformer as is common in guitar amps relative to audiophile amps. This gives the clipped waveform a much more agreeable sound. I could take a couple of field effect transistors and use them in a push-pull circuit using transformer coupling just like in a push-pull tube amp, and few people would know the difference between the two. This topology is not used for other reasons, mainly because output transformers are expensive and field effect transistors have a low enough output impedance to not need an output transformer. Solid state amps that work can be made much cheaper that tube amps, but the best solid state amps tend to cost nearly as much as tube amps. It would be a hard sell to get people to admit that field effect transistors (or even bipolar transistors) running through a push-pull transformer would sound virtually identical to a tube amp. For now at least. With no real cost advantage in the design (now that good output tubes cost as little as $15 a pair) it is not quite ready for the marketplace. The beauty of field effect transistors is that they should last about 30 years of hard use and sound good throughout their lifespan. Also, special push-pull output transformers would need to be designed for them, as they have vastly different output impedances and operating voltages. So the real roadblock is the expensive output transformer. Tubes are not what keep tubes alive (in audio applications), it is output transformer designs that are on the shelf and paid for long ago. Where tubes are actually indispensable are high powered radio transmitters, x-ray generators, and other specialized industrial applications. As much as I like the sound of tube gear, I have heard properly designed solid state audio gear ("properly designed" must be emphasized, which relatively few people own or have even heard in its solid state form) and tubes are no longer indispensable for the best possible sound. If properly designed solid state gear finally becomes widespread, then tubes for audio really will become an anachronism except for hobbyists that just want to play around with tubes. (Any good electrical engineer with musical sensibilities can build the amp I described.)

And ROS is for a similar person that just wants to play around with the past. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, IN AND OF ITSELF. A problem exists when a company gets caught up in the past and fails to move into the future. It is not about the few piddly dollars saved by leaving it off. Ford built Model T cars for too long, and RIC has probably done the same with ROS. Enough of these ROS guitars exist on the used market to satisfy the interested. The real problem is letting piddly things like ROS prevent any effort whatsoever that moves a company along to meet its competition. And the competition never seemed to put much stock in ROS for their own guitars.

The attitudes regarding ROS seem to be of more importance than any contribution that ROS ever made to music. Even the CEO of the company that builds it says it is all total hogwash for the modern musician. This all seems very strange to me. The gear should serve the music and the musician, not the other way around.

admin · Post by **admin** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 7:22 am

Philco: I agree that it is the attitude surrounding Rick-O-Sound that is important. It is likely to be one of those features that, while not used by many, does no harm if left alone.

While perhaps a poor analogy, it may resemble the cigarette lighter in the automobile. As time goes by a growing percentage of the population will not use it, but I suspect manufacturers will keep it in the car, "just in case." So now we use it as a battery backup for heating or electronic devices or to drive a pump to inflate a tire.

Come to think of it, to what use might the Rick-O-Sound be put to next? Perhaps the cavity for a built-in FM transmitter for a wireless system?

Evolution is a very slow process. I suspect that ROS will change but we may not be around to see it.

gt40graham · Post by **gt40graham** » Wed Apr 23, 2003 8:09 am

In my (humble) opinion, the Rick-O-Sound feature was probably of more use on a bass than a guitar. I used to use it live on my 4001 as I could set the bass pick-up rig to suit a normal bass sound and then the treble pick-up rig was set to something more extreme to get that Rickenbacker attack. Another plus-point was that it was one helluva of a pose having two amp/speaker rigs!!

ricnvolved · Post by **ricnvolved** » Wed Apr 23, 2003 2:12 pm

I guess it's okay posing if you don't mind hauling all of that gear around. Which leads me to believe you're still a youngster. I'm confident your attitude will do a 180 as you get older. At my age (currently 46), the less gear I have to lug in & out, the better. Appearance don't mean squat when your muscles & joints start complaining about what you're packing up for sake of appearance after a long evening gig.

eddier · Post by **eddier** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:09 am

Peter:
I like your analogy & the wireless transmitter is a great idea.

Jeffery:
Light gear, light beer and now light strings. We all get old

Gentleman:
You bring up an interesting point. With the improvments in P.A.(Tannoy)systems, it is not necessary to have a "wall of stacks' to play out, though I agree with Graham the "wall of stacks" looks cool, back breaking as it is.

Smaller amps and even amp modelers make it easier to control one's sound in a live setting. And literally you can carry you amp set up in your pocket. Because of this convenience, the Ric-O-Sound feature is more valuable then ever.

It is now easier then ever to run the standard & Ric-O-Sound signal through different amps and sound processors and still get a controllable sound. This is a part of my basic 4003 set up.

My only knock on the ROS is that it is noisy & effects that increase the signal level (e.g. distortion, heavy compression) tend to exerbate the noise. From my personal experience the ROS on guitar is very well suited to time effects.

For example, run the treble P.U. with a slap-back delay & the bass P.U. with a slightly longer delay. It takes some tweaking, but, the colours produced are subtle & incredible (try strumming & try muted picking with this set up).

BTW this produces interesting sounds on the 4003 as well.

abaron · Post by **abaron** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:33 am

Edmond, you can indeed get some very cool effects by using the ROS feature, and I'm really glad that you posted an example.

I think that most see it only as a stereo out whereas it actually routes the neck and bridge pickups to two different places. How cool is that? It is something a conventional guitar with a channel switching amp simply doesn't do.

This feature may be useless to some and I respect that, but I have found it worth exploring.

ojobob2 · Post by **ojobob2** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 10:14 am

i have tried ROS with my 4003, its interesting because of the clarity you can acheive. While its basically of no use live (not to me anyway), i tried it at home by sending the bass pickup to my "proper" amp - a trace elliot 715, whilst sending the treble pickup to a Marshall B25 mkII (horrible little 25w home amp).

What i noticed was that the sound was so well defined, and i could get a lot of control over the sound from each pickup

gt40graham · Post by **gt40graham** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 10:32 am

Hey fellas, I've now hit 41 and haven't used the wall of sound in about 15 years. In those days, bass combos weren't what they are today and a good amp set-up was a must. What I was getting at was that the Ric-O-Sound feature gives a fantastic sound through 2 rigs when compared with running it without or through one rig. Nowadays it is much easier to achieve the same result but with less (read smaller) equipment. And as for packing up after a long, late gig - what are roadies for?

ricnvolved · Post by **ricnvolved** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 1:36 pm

Edmond-- Light gear, yes. Light beer and light strings, never!!

Graham-- Roadies??!! What's that??!! I've heard rumors about those things............

eddier · Post by **eddier** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:11 pm

Roadies-they drink all the light beer

The ROS topic has just come up on the Bass topics. One of the issues over there is that the ROS jack is usually broken. There is also some insight into Geddy Lee's set-up regarding the ROS or rather lack of it.

Andrew: Thanks, but I can't take credit for that example it is an old Les Paul (the man not the guitar)trick. We are in agreement the ROS is worth exploring and not just as a stereo effect.

Owen: You bring up a good point. The definition and control the ROS offers is probably the reason why time effects, which can sound ill-defined in mono, can sound so good with the ROS.

Graham: I remember those days, you brought back many memories of gigs & chiropractor visits :-)The only way to get a decent sound back then was to Bi-Amp the signal. The trick was to get a 15" speaker in one amp with two 10" or 12"s in an other. Only about 300Lbs of gear.

My knock has always been the noise that occurs with the ROS. If anyone has a cure, please share.

Jeffery: If memory serves... you do use a fairly hefty gauge of strings and are they flatwounds?

ricnvolved · Post by **ricnvolved** » Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:54 pm

Edmond-- Actually, I've surprisingly returned to roundwounds on my Ric guitars. In deference to my guitar god, Pete Townshend, I had been using flatwounds. However, Kevin at Thomastik-Infeld's U.S. importer in New York, convinced me to try the Power Brights on my 360/12V64. Contrary to my initial skepticism, they really do provide more jangle. Afterwards I decided to string my 1997SPC re-issue with T-I George Benson roundwounds.

Also, I do prefer a heavier gauge than most. .012-.054 on the George Benson set, and a custom gauge .011 on the 12-string set. I've never cared for skinny, metal-head gauge strings on a guitar.

As for my basses, I'm strictly flatwound and I don't foresee that ever changing. I simply use the standard gauge offered on the Pyramid Gold and the T-I Jazz flat sets. In my younger days, I used the heaviest gauge Rotosound roundwounds I could get my hands on. But for my playing now, roundwounds are WAY too tough on my fingers; way too rough on my frets (especially if the strings are stainless); and way too aggressive for the types of music I play.