Ric-O-Sound, who uses it, and in what way?

gothbin · Post by **gothbin** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:45 am

Today, I made myself a "Ric-O-Sound" cable from Klotz cable and Neutric plugs. The split from stereo to mono has 2 metres left from split to amps, and the stereo side is 8 metres. This makes a total cable length of 10 metres.

I tried some setups using an Eden WT-300 for the bridge pickup, and a Basspod on Classic Rock (Ampeg) for the neck pickup. The Basspod routed to an auxilary in on the Eden.

Although the sounds that can be achieved with the pickup selecter in the mid position, and then tweaking (I love the word tweaking, can you say tweaking?) the volume pods on the Ric.

All in all the POD seems to generate a lot of noise on the auxilary in, and maybe I should throw in a little mixer to get rid of it, or maybe it's the POD's own noise......

Any suggestions, for I don't have a second bassrig. Well everyone knows that running an Eden and Mesa cabs ain't cheap.........

Just curious what you out there are using with the ric-o-sound option.

Robin, The Netherlands.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 12:01 pm

I have said it before ... but you asked ...

I get great pleasure in life removing Ric-o-sound from 4001's and 4003's ...

I find it much more useful to have 2 mono outputs ...

My band fired a guy for playing stereo and having a sucky sound.

There is another thread where we dicussed this recently.

dano · Post by **dano** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 12:18 pm

I use the ROS with 2 Bass Pods for recording. The Ampeg on the neck and the Marshall Super on the bridge sounds the best so far but other combinations have produced some interesting results (yeah, I'm a tweaker too!). Robin, the ROS kit is shielded and is less noisy than Radio Shack splitters and home made cables.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 12:37 pm

I used to run stereo into two channels of an Ampeg SVT with no effects. I used to like to always run both volumes on full and this way I could change the relative volumes with the amp, and also it was easy to get a good sound, but yes it was noisy, I had to totally shield my basses which worked well. I am planning on getting a Ric-o-sound box when I am back in The States.
It's a nice way to use effects on one channel and not lose bottom at the same time, you can mix the clear channel and the one with effects any way you want.
Ampeg and Marshall sounds like a nice combo.

keb · Post by **keb** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 8:52 pm

I dug up an ancient Geddy Lee interview circa 1980 where he explained how he recorded his Rick basses (I think this was also covered in another thread recently.) The neck pickup direct, and the treble pickup to a miked amp.

Which is really what a lot of people do anyway (combining direct and miked amp signals) but I can see how this would be a bit different, especially with a Rick bass that has the bridge cap. I think I may put the cap back in (again!) and experiment around some more. I guess it's a good thing I'm not in a band at the moment, I'm sure they'd get tired of my endless mad scientist tinkering.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Wed Dec 03, 2003 3:50 am

you can do the same thing by splitting a mono signal ... 90% of the time you won't hear the difference in the final recording ...

ethanbennett · Post by **ethanbennett** » Wed Dec 03, 2003 9:41 am

you know, jeff, maybe some of the people here like the rick-o-sound feature. you've made it abundantly clear that you don't, and i don't want to speak for anyone else, but responding to questions about rick-o-sound or mutes the way you do just promotes negativity on this board.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

I don't mean to be negative ... I just hate to see Rickenbackers have lame obsolete features ... usually the mute gets in the way of hand muting and the ric-o-sound goes bad and buzzes ... it costs extra money to manufacture these things into every 4003 and almost nobody uses them ... this ain't the 60's any more ...

ya I know ... not every body agrees with me ... if anybody wants to use those features great ... for me they get in the way and detract from the value and function of my basses.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Wed Dec 03, 2003 11:11 am

Ever notice that the 4004 series doesn't have these things? There's a choice now so that people can express their preference by selection.

Unfortunately, it's unthinkable to alter existing model designs as I would prefer, due to the "you changed it, you ruined it" mentality I've seen so many times through the years.

Said another way, as long as we're sold out, what would be the motivation to change things?

keb · Post by **keb** » Wed Dec 03, 2003 12:42 pm

Oh I definitely agree that ROS is an outdated holdover, but I can't help it; it's there so I have to tinker with it.

Really though, I wouldn't be shedding a tear if history had gone a little differently if the un-bound and ROS-less 4003S was kept and the 4003 was phased out, rather than the other way around.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Wed Dec 03, 2003 1:29 pm

I have found ROS very usefull on occasion, I wouldn't change anything on the 4003 bass, maybe add other models for people so they have a choice but when you have a winner, why change it? I for one love it just the way it is. And I never have problems with the stereo jack because I use it so seldom, I have problems with the contacts on the mono jacks. But they last a good twenty years or so, maybe more depending on how much it is used.
IMHO there are two extremes in this world and we all lean one way or the other, one, the person who is forever buying the "next latest great new thing" and two, the people who are satisfied with a product and stick with it for years unless it becomes hopelessly obsolete. I don't think either 4003's, or Ric-o-sound fall into that catagory, I think the new 4003's are the best sounding basses Ric ever made. (I have never tried a 4004 though)