4004L8 initially planning/debating

[incubus2432]

OK....I've been thinking about my 8 string 4004 project. Without refinishing I have two options that appear to work. Both utilize these Steinberger tuners http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Tuners/Guitar,_solid_peghead_tuners/Steinberger_Gearless_Tuners.html Using them eliminates the need to provide clearance for the actual key. This is the bridge candidate http://www.warmoth.com/hardware/bridges/bridges.cfm?fuseaction=schaller_471

Option A....
I route a small pocket on the rear of the body so the tuner is recessed in the rear and won't be knocked out of adjustment during normal playing. The strings would feed through ferrules in the headstock from the rear. The ferrules would be partially hidden under the lower octave strings for aesthetic reasons. Working out the exact route design that offers enough room for comfortable tuning without interfering with bridge or strap mounting hardware is the next step. I'd probably just finish the routed area in semi-gloss black which should look fine since it's recessed......and on the back of the body.



Option B....
Would be a more traditional 8 tuners on the headstock configuration. It would be great if the spacing could be even but it isn't possible without a refinish and possibly headstock lengthening surgery. About the only option that works due to the way the strings feed on the high octave tuner is to offset them.....no string interference this way. The actual tuners would look better than the tuner nuts that I used for layout purposes but I'm not sold on the aesthetics as it is. I may be able to tweak them for a little more balanced look but this is pretty close. I'd still have to actually make a headstock with an 8 string nut to make sure of the clearances before moving forward.....but with the way it looks I don't think I'll bother.


Option C....
Leave it alone and do nothing......nothing is what I do best BTW!

Considering the options I'll probably leave it alone but if I decide to do anything I'm convinced that the octave tuners mounted at the tail is the way to go. Better balance as a bonus......compared to 8 tuners on the headstock. The next step is to pick up some scrap wood and work out the routing. The ultimate goal would be to use ferrules at the tail as well and keep the octave tuners completely concealed but I'm not sure if the body thickness and hardware would allow this along with maintaining structural integrity. I should have this done or a decision at least by 2013 considerinhg my current pace.

[atomic_punk]

So you are thinking to go the BC Rich "rich Bich" route? Interesting...never seen a RIC with that tuning...
Option B might be difficult based on the footprint of the tuners on the underside of the headstock.
Won't it weaken the headstock considerably to drill 4 holes for feeding strings thru?

[jeff_ulmer]

I tink option A would be your safest bet, but I wonder if those tuners will accomodate bass strings? I think that would be your challenge.

Option B would be a gamble that the headstock could handle the extra stress with more holes drilled in it.

Personally I'd just keep my eye out for a real Ric 8 rather than risk damaging a perfectly good instrument with fairly radical alterations. Who knows, by 2013 Ric might actually have another 8 string model...

[aceonbass]

I think of the two approaches that the "BC Rich" approach is the best. I don't believe the headstock will be significantly weakened by tuner or string ferrule holes, but I can already see string to string post interference issues. Putting the additional tuners on the headstock limits you to stringing it with the fundamental string first though. It looks to me as if using those particular tuners will result in having to modify your case so the tuners won't keep the bass from sitting flat in it as it seems that they will stick out of the back in such a way as you couldn't sit the bass flat on a table. Using Schaller mini tuners, as seen on RIC guitars, would look better but still require modifying the case.

[edski]

Personally I'd just keep my eye out for a real Ric 8 rather than risk damaging a perfectly good instrument with fairly radical alterations.

Buwahahaha...you have enough posts here to know who you are talking to, right?

BTW, I agree with the sentiment...nothing is easiest and best. At least with Ricks. Carve up that Fender as much as you want!

[aceonbass]

A real RIC 4008 or 4003S/8 is close to twice the price of a 4004. Other than for collector purposes, why would anyone pay that much for something when the custom route will yield the same results for much less money. I have yet to have anyone describe what I did to my 4003 as damaging it. Then again, I did have a professional do the work. RIC's are no more sacred in that respect than anything else. What's important is that it becomes the musical tool that YOU need to have.

[edski]

Really I just like busting on Brian.

The other thing is that I have never found a need for more than 4 strings (although I have tuned my low E to a D or C# a few times), and really have never seen a need to mod a Rick...

If someone want to mod theirs that's their issue. I've gotten over that looking at others work, and I've seen some really fine work done on this board.

[cheyenne]

I hope Im not doing anything wrong by borrowing these photo's off of Bjorns site, but this is a bass that was converted and is owned by Simon Mole. It may shed some light on the subject.

[aceonbass]

I think what Simon's effort lacks asthetically, it makes up for in function. It's pretty hard to get past those plugs though, but this can still be improved upon by lining up the fundamental A tuner with the others on top. On the bottom, re-contouring the headstock wing a bit then lining up all but the fundamental G tuner would have looked better. Truss rod cover access looks good though. The longer, vintage style headstock on the 4004 series made this possible where I don't think it would be on a 4003 with the shorter "bulbous" headstock.

[henry5]

I've always liked the look of Simon's bass a great deal. Sure, it would look better with a refin as he initially planned but I actually vastly prefer the look of that headstock to the S8, which to me looks somewhat clumsy. For me, assuming it functions ok, it's more about keeping the shape of the headstock itself. And even though some of the stringing may be tight, Simon informed me he's had no problem with strings binding against each other.

[gearhed289]

>>>A real RIC 4008 or 4003S/8 is close to twice the price of a 4004. Other than for collector purposes, why would anyone pay that much for something when the custom route will yield the same results for much less money.<<<

$2225 - money well spent! It's a collectors piece, AND it yields the results I wanted


I like where they were going with Simon's bass, but I would have moved the whole array of tuners UP some. There's plenty of room. As it is, it looks like the E octave and G fundamental strings may overhang the headstock. And it needs a re-fin.

I have no problem with the S/8 headstock. I actually kind of like the canoe paddle look! Makes a good paddle for my singer too if she gets out of line....

BTW - the S/8 head is only about 5/8'' longer than the one on my CS, though there is less wood removed for the "cresting wave" effect.

[jwr2]

I have toyed with the idea of doing a Rickenbacker 4-2-8 ... but I never could come up with an elegant solution except for filling and redrilling the headstock ...

[johnallg]

Jeff, do it with a JetGlo and black nail polish would give a decent cover of the filled holes.

[jwr2]

since I have this bass here ... http://www.3dentourage.com/425/10string.htm ... I am in no hurry to do a 4-2-8 bass ...

[ram]

5 ,,, 10,,, Jeff Rath - it makes sense!