Any new models in 2004 ??

beatlefan · Post by **beatlefan** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 5:04 pm

and I wonder how a white checker-bound headstock would look on that Shadow 4008.....hmmmm...I'm getting some ideas here....

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 5:31 pm

what about an ebony fretboard?

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 5:34 pm

Lets see, 4002/5 Spirit of 76 Anniversary RIC with REAL crushed pearl inlays/binding, ebony fretboard, hand delivered by Chris Squire, Geddy Lee, Sir Paul McCartney and Roger Glover by UPS 2nd with no g'tar damage...

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 7:18 pm

how about quad-ro-sound ... put in 4 pickups that go to four different lines out ... you could then sit in the center of the room and put a different amp in each corner of the room and then go wow this sounds cool ...

brianb · Post by **brianb** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 10:08 pm

I think the kids want a low B. Even Squire was looking for it in the early 90's. How about keeping it a four stringer and still getting it down to a B?

robj · Post by **robj** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 10:50 pm

A few comments on the 4004 models. I have both a Cheyenne and a C-II. They really are great basses and I can get plenty of Entwistle like snap and presence out of the C-II with bootie to spare. My traditional 400X models don't get much playing time now that I have these.

I like the idea of a new bass along the lines of the 650D series too. Also, a limited edition commemorative model 4002 would be fantastic.

philco · Post by **philco** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:50 am

Brian, you get a Low B 4-string bass by refiling the nut B-E-A-D, buying a 5-string set of your favorite strings, and saving the spare G string for when the G string goes dead on your E-A-D-G bass.

I have decided that having a BEAD bass and an EADG bass makes more sense than a 5-string bass (for me at least).

You can also take a 6-string bass and refile the nut E-A-D and E-A-D again for a roundwound set and a flatwound set. It could also be refiled B-E-A (flatwound) and E-A-D (roundwound) in order to eliminate a bulky dual necked instrument, with faster switchover since your hand is already there. RIC or your luthier could install a BEAD option nut for 4-string basses. Bassists who also play guitar probably don't want 5-string or 6-string basses, so that switching back and forth is easier. You can buy a cheap Asian bass and make the changes and see if you like it before having your fancy Rickenbacker bass modified, or requesting that RIC make one. There has to be significant demand for a manufacturer to offer these options.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 4:51 am

That's right the kids want the 5 string basses ... but so do the 40something guys like me ... I go nuts with a 4 string ... it's like I'm missing a whole string or something ...

I want my low B bass!!!!

beatlefan · Post by **beatlefan** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 5:14 am

Right ON, Jeff!! I'm 42 and I want/need a 5 string 4003/S5 Shadow bass!!! GIMME GIMME GIMME!!

philco · Post by **philco** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:06 pm

First off, I will NOT go an odd number of strings, because as even Gene Simmons can tell you, it is the sign of the devil. So are all offset lopsided bodies like J-basses; that's why all Gene's basses are symmetrical in design. I am willing to stick with the even number of strings (4 or 6) so I can counteract it with the lopsided body, but that's just my personal karma. The two sides of Phil. Those bass designs of Gene's are just too "goody two shoes" for me, and I prefer the sinister black body of my evil lopsided Laredo. Turn a Laredo around and just look at the body without the hardware distraction on front. It's a pagan fertility symbol or something. I swear it looks sexier than the front side. Sorry, the Cheyennes don't have this visual effect. The body was made to be pure evil black. Robert is right, the 4004 basses CAN have a bit of a Jekyll & Hyde character. I prefer the bass when it is acting like Mr. Hyde and shaking somebody's world. RIC just needs to build more of them and put less emphasis on the older models. It's a booty bass incarnate. Shake your booty, RIC, and give us lots more of the 4004.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:41 pm

put another volume on the 4004, one for each pickup, (even though I haven't tried one)

philco · Post by **philco** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 3:03 pm

I would agree with that Bob. Volume, Volume, Tone like on a J-bass would be fine. I would give up the switch for that other volume knob.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 3:17 pm

I wired my Laredo vol vol tone ... toggle vol tone doesn't work for bass ... but it is cool on a guitar ...

robj · Post by **robj** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 4:33 pm

Yes I think the 4004 could use a few enhancements to increase tonal versatility too. It's a great bass as is but I would like to see an additional volume pot, one for the neck and one for the bridge pickup, and a coil splitting switch added, with the tone control staying as is.

I played a friend's G&L 5 string once upon a time and was very impressed by the variety of useable sounds I could get out it. I don't remember what all controls it has, it has quite a few, but they all seemed to add to the versatility of the basses sound.

I would think that before a bass design is finalized the designers would go through some sort of analysis of control requirements for the instrument. Something along the lines of adding and subtracting switches and pots to a prototype bass and assessing the resulting changes in tone. Then taking that data, deciding which controls are thought to be the most beneficial to the sound of the instrument vs market driven requirements (there arent many basses made without volume and tone controls for instance so including those is almost a given) vs costs (parts, additional machine cuts, labor, etc.) before arriving at a final design decision.

I assume RIC has a process along these lines (I could be very wrong of course) and decided that having separate pickup volume controls and one tone control, or a coil split switch instead of the pickup selector switch wasn't the way to go on the 4004. Maybe some or all of the ideas posted on this thread were considered and it was felt that not enough sonic benefit was derived for the dollars spent?

Maybe Mr. Hall would comment on how the final design of a bass, in the context of controls vs sound, is arrived at within the hallowed halls of RIC?

philco · Post by **philco** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:31 pm

Yes, some form or balance between the pickups is in order for the maximum tonal variety that is available. It would also be a good idea to include a shared treble AND bass tone control like in the Spector basses if you intend on controlling tone from your bass. The single tone control on the 4004 means that it is only treble that is deemphasized, when on a Spector it can be either or both, which allows midrange boost or cut. The best way to use the tone control when you have only one is to set it flat and then use the multiple tone controls on your amp to get the basic sound you want. In a live situation, you may only want a single tone control, especially if you have very nice tone controls on your amp that can get your basic tone. The G&L bass has a lot of tonal options available, but in the end the owner will probably settle on only a few settings that he uses the most. I will probably eliminate the switch on my 4004 since my other two basses use a vol-vol-tone setup and I want consistency among my basses. A blend pot probably causes more sonic degradation than a switch does, so I doubt I would go that route. The tone control is about the most useless control on your bass if your amp has good tone controls.