Horseshoe / Hi Gain

chefothefuture · Post by **chefothefuture** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:29 pm

I wonder what one would sound like with
a ceramic magnet....
Back to the lab!

ben_brown · Post by **ben_brown** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:49 pm

Yes...The old B25. I absolutely love mine!
Loud little devil!

vincent_gallo · Post by **vincent_gallo** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 6:52 am

When I speak on behalf of Rickenbacker horseshoes I am only referring to, up to factory spec original 60’s shoes and their wonderful original 60’s toaster brothers mounted in 60’s basses. If you “ I love the high gain” guys get your hands on a good older one, you may be surprised. You may be very very surprised and whistle a different tune. Still, I never met a Rickenbacker bass I didn’t like

Peter A. Heinzel, you may not like Paul McCartney’s sound, you may not like it at all. But it’s GREAT !!!!!!!! you know, sometimes if you turn the Deep Purple up too loud for too long you can lose some ear. Be careful

“Scott Herkimer (Herk) "honey bunny" dark, mysterious, and otherworldly. Possibly a perfect song. why didn't you respond ? “

Hey Scott, what did you mean by not respond?

sloop_john_b · Post by **sloop_john_b** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:10 am

What's your preference, Vince, cap or no cap?

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:53 am

I dunno. I've played at least 5 original 60's horseshoe equipped Ricks and I didn't find their sound any better than some of my hi-gain equipped Ricks. What I did notice was the frustration of not having full access to my strings. Squire's obviously sounds amazing, but I play finger-style. The way I play, I heard no tone benefit whatsoever from the horseshoe.

And regarding McCartney and Squire...to my ears McCartney's Wings tone (with the hi-gain) is just as good if not better than his MMT or SGT Pepper tone. I've also heard it argued here that Squire's tone from his hi-gain equipped early 70's Rick was superior to the tone from his '64 RM. I think this supports a valid point that I've read here on this forum: Tone is in the hands/playing style of the musician, more so than in his/her equipment. (Squire sounds like Squire whether he's playing a hi-gain or a horseshoe; McCartney sounds like McCartney whether he's playing a hi-gain or a horseshoe).

jps · Post by **jps** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:55 pm

What I did notice was the frustration of not having full access to my strings......but I play finger-style.

So do I!

No problem with the horseshoes getting in the way. I do see your point however, as I won't be putting the original cover (which I do have) back on this:

vincent_gallo · Post by **vincent_gallo** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:35 pm

Dear Jeff Thomas, not sure who’s 5 original 60’s basses you played so I cannot say if they were up to original spec. Interesting though that you were able to have playing time with so many original 60’s basses. I have been a hard-core collector of such instruments for 30 years yet have never heard your name. To each his own taste wise but I feel Rickenbacker may fall a bit in line with Fender and Gibson on this one. All three companies needed to cut cost by the 70’s and do that with fewer high quality craftsmen and a short supply of good wood. It makes no sense that the basses got better. The same is true for most other musical instrument companies. You mention McCartney’s Wings sound as a reference and that alone may be a hint that this is really just a radical taste difference. I love Wings music but feel Paul’s sound is brutal dry and far from his previous wonderful sound. Your mention of his 60’s sound being **** is certainly not the popular thinking. I have been working on a Ringo documentary for a while and have been listening a lot to Paul’s Rickenbacker recordings when his bass was original and WOW, very nice they are. As for Squire, don’t try to confuse folks here. I know Chris’s taste very well. He would laugh at your words as he loves his Rose Morris 64 and would be sad stuck with anything later in circa. His did own and play a 69/70 or 71 bass for a short bit but can hardly remember it. All that said, I still feel any Rickenbacker is worth owning and I like some of the new ones as well. In fact, I would take a new bass over any 73- 80’s model

elysrand · Post by **elysrand** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 4:43 pm

Chris has said, time and time again in print and in-person, that he hates the bridge pickup on his Rose, Morris. He loves the feel and neck on his RM, don't get me wrong. But he says he dislikes the fact that they are weak and clanky on the 1964 model. I am sure you have heard him say this too, Vince, many times, and he says that to this day. Later bridge pickups, after Rick abandoned the magnetic horseshoe, sound much better to him, he says. But he does not like the feel and neck on later models. He has been using a borrowed 1990s CS model, ironically enough, a lot recently

He kinda likes it too.

Nice guitar, bad pickups. Rick did steadily improve them at the end of the 60s and into the 70s.

jps · Post by **jps** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:00 pm

Jeff and Vince,

We all have our own vision of ideal tone, so perhaps it is all valid. For me, I haven't yet decided on my vision of the ideal Rick tone as there are many that I love, such as Chris' earlier tone, like on the first two Yes albums; I also love Mike Rutherford's tone, especially on Selling England By The Pound; not to mention Jon Camp's tone on most Renaissance recordings. Then of course, there is McCartney's tone which is far different than the previous ones I have mentioned, but I love it just the same!

The same goes for different eras of Rick basses; let's all just be glad we love the fine instruments Rickenbacker has made all these decades.

ram · Post by **ram** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:05 pm

Well **** Vincent, I only own a '74 4001 and love it. I guess it's time to go slit the 'ole wrists (just kidding).

I do feel that alot of a person's 'sound' is from the actual person, but the tools of the trade can vastly augment that sound (and just be plain 'ole kick *** to play). Otherwise why would a specific period violin be so sought after? But still it does come down to preference. Personally, I like both the Horseshoe and Hi Gain sounds in their own rights. I don't know if I could say one was better than the other - just different.

zoomduck · Post by **zoomduck** » Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:35 pm

I have toasters in my 4004Cii and a toaster / high gain in my V63 . I have the worlds greatest bass tone ! I am the best sounding bass player ....ever . My wife told me so

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 2:00 am

Some of the best-sounding Rickenbacker basses I've played have been from the 60's--Mark Walker's '68 sounds fabulous. It feels really great too, even upside-down.

The 70's basses sound great as well, I would just about put my 'ol trusty '79 4001 up against anything in the sound catagory, I love it.

As many have said here already, 'tone' is a subjective concept, with as many different answers as there are people giving it.

'Tone' may partially be the instrument, but just as much 'tone' comes from the fingers.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:08 am

I also like McCartney's 70s Wings tone best as well ... he had the horseshoe replaced with a custom high gain wound to somewhere around 11k ohms or perhaps more ...

I used to get some negative comments about my bass tone when I played the 68 4001 ... but I have never had one single comment about bad tone playing a modern 4003 ...

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:16 am

I had a friend over to see my 20 or so basses and he thought my oil finished 4003s5 was the best sounding bass in the bunch ... the 15k ohm bridge high gain pickup really growls ...

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 5:49 am

Wow! Looks like I might have struck a nerve, Vince. (I didn't mean to offend anyone!) The point I was trying to make is that I've played 60's Ricks with horseshoe pickups and I didn't hear any tonal benefit to the horseshoe vs. the hi-gain.

Its not surprising that you've never heard my name. I'm just a regular guy with a relatively low profile job/life in Chicago. I'm not famous, and I'm not a prominent Rick collector. Just a guy that bought his first Rick bass over 25 years ago and has been playing them and loving them ever since. Over the years, I've added more Ricks to my collection; I'm now up to 18 Rick basses. None are very high-dollar instruments(my oldest currently is from July '73, my newest is a 2006) but as I know you agree, all Rick basses are great basses.

The 60's horseshoe basses I've played were mostly owned by members of this forum. One was Ted Staberow's '63 deluxe, two belonged to Andy Winter(including that gorgeous white Gibb bass). I've also played others at Forum gatherings and at the Chicago Music Exchange. To my knowledge, they were all all-original. And I don't mean to insult the above guys or their instruments. Andy and Ted are both great guys. I'm really thankful that they let me play their treasured vintage Ricks. The basses themselves are really cool, beautiful and historically important instruments. All I'm saying is that I didn't hear any holy grail of superior tone coming out of them compared to some of mine. Maybe if I spent more time with them and/or played them through a better amp I'd feel differently.

I wasn't trying to say that the quality of Rick basses has improved since the 60's, just that the switch to an under-string pickup was a good thing, and I don't think tone suffered as a result of that change.

"I love Wings music but feel Paul’s sound is brutal dry and far from his previous wonderful sound. Your mention of his 60’s sound being **** is certainly not the popular thinking." -- When did I say McCartney's 60's sound was ****? I LOVE McCartney's sound from both the horseshoe era of his Rick as well as the hi-gain era. What I said was that "to my ears McCartney's Wings tone (with the hi-gain) is just as good if not better than his MMT or SGT Pepper tone." Maybe I what I'm trying to communicate here isn't coming out the way I want it to.

Anywho, Vince...I like you. We've got a lot in common. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. I was just trying to stick up for my beloved (but admittedly less hip, and less attractive) hi-gain pick ups.