4001 vs. 4003

cavernplayer · Post by **cavernplayer** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:40 pm

What are the differences between these basses? Thanks.

cp

relayer4u · Post by **relayer4u** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:44 pm

Try this thread:

../5/126891.html"#EECD9C">

sabbath_of_bass · Post by **sabbath_of_bass** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:04 pm

Okay. We've talked about this topic alot. 4001 and 4003's are common. But 4000 and 4002 just aren't. So why? I figured the 4000 was just quickly replaced by the 4001. But I didn't understand why 4002 aren't around more. Oh and whats the difference between 4001 and 4002. Or 4003 or 4002.

Sorry for hijacking the thread.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:12 pm

the 4002 did not sell well when it was available ... neither did the 4005 ...

the basic 4001 vs 4003 thing ...

They made improvements in the 4001 while it was available ... then they made enough changes so that they gave it a new designation ... 4003 ...

the 4003 is a better bass ... stronger neck, louder pickups, straploks etc ... some prefer the old 4001 bass because it has a more trebly tone ...

How do you make a 4003 sound like a 4001? 500k ohm tone pots, a .0047 capacitor, and 8k ohm single coil pickups.

How to you make a 4001 sound like a 4003? 250k ohm tone pots, 11k ohm single coil pickups, and remove the .0047 capacitor.

or use your eq on your amp to compensate for the differences ...

sabbath_of_bass · Post by **sabbath_of_bass** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:24 pm

What about the switch on the new ones? I dont know exactly what it does but... Isn't it suppose to give you that 4001 sound on the 4003.

bassduke49 · Post by **bassduke49** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:42 pm

The "Vintage Tone" selector (push/pull pot) engages or disengages a resistor on the treble pickup to make it sound more like the old 4001s that had this resistor in as stock. Lot's of guys who had the resistor in, either removed them or jumped them to get more balls from the treble pickup. This new vintage tone selector allows both.

sabbath_of_bass · Post by **sabbath_of_bass** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:10 pm

Oh thats kool. I kind of wanted one but if al it does is suck the balls out of your bass then Im not worried about it.

johnallg · Post by **johnallg** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:50 pm

Paul - correct, except it is a capacitor (the .0047uF Jeff mentioned). Just for accuracy.....

bassduke49 · Post by **bassduke49** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:01 am

Right. Capacitor. It was late last night, and I was . . . I was . . . zzzz.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:39 am

You'll also note that 4003's have had 330K ohm pots for some time now, essentially splitting the difference.

cavernplayer · Post by **cavernplayer** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:53 am

So if the 4003 bass is "better" than the 4001, why the interest in the 4001 and why the higher price? Thanks.

cp

captain_jetglo · Post by **captain_jetglo** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:57 pm

Lineage may be?

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:09 pm

I'll attest to the sonic difference in pot values.
My 1977 4001 had sounded rather dark for a Rick, the tech who rewired it used 250k pots when they should have been 500k pots for a bass of this vintage.

I have now installed a pre-wired control harness from Pick of the Ricks (since RIC was temp. out of stock) which are the current 330k pots & it makes quite a difference in the bite & clarity of the high frequencies.
Everyone in the band noticed the difference.
Harmonics just sing now!

Besides, "better" is a very subjective term. Some folks like 4001's better than 4003's, & vice versa.
Also, the 4001 is sold for more often due to discontinued features/finishes, & the relative rarity of certain years.

I might add that the "vintage" fascination also pushes up the value of older instruments, otherwise why would someone buy a vintage P or J bass for 3 or 4 times the cost of a new one?

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:36 pm

the main reason I play 4003 basses and I got rid of my 4001 basses is the neck ... the 4001 neck is stressed beyond its design specs simply by stringing it with rotosound round wound strings ... and an improper truss rod adjustment will pop off the fret board ... to adjust a 4001 you destring it loosen the rods and then move the neck then tighten the rods and restring it ...

The 4003 neck has modern truss rods that move the neck while it is strung up ... and the 4003 neck can take any kind of strings ... it is so strong that even when I convert a 4003 4 string bass to a 5 string bass it still has more than enough strength ...

for the most part I prefer newer Rickenbackers over older instruments ...

wints · Post by **wints** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:51 pm

Steve, for many people the old 4001 basses have an acquired feel, tone and playability that many of the newer 4003 basses do not. They have attained, rightly so, the status of a cool old bass that is every bit as collectible as a vintage Fender Jazz/Precision.

As Kevin says, "vintage" dictates many sections of the instrument market these days, including current production instruments.

That perceived cool, aged and "mojo" look is all the rage. The new bass from RIC this year features the walnut wings, vintage tone switch and special ambered Fireglo that makes it look and sound like it was from the late 60's or early 70's.

This is, of course, all totally subjective...