4003 Temporary Mods

[grayk]

I havent been playing my 4003 for a while due to it not sounding as good as should have been. I have always had an issue with the E and G having slightly lower output than A and D. I know this issue has been discussed many times and different Ric owners report different things....some with no problems and others with huge differences. I will stick my neck out and say IT IS an issue. I had a beautiful 2004 Mapleglo that had such bad string imbalance and such a fat neck that it had to go !

So my Fireglo got a little time spent on it yesterday. I did 3 things to it, the coins (2 x 5p each side) under the bridge. I then proceeded to superglue (small amount) a small washer to the E and G polepieces on the bridge pickup... thanks for the advice Sergio. It took me a while to get the right ones and it was a bit trial and error but got there in the end. Once they had been permanent marker blacked in they were almost un-noticeable. I then junked the ground wound strings (pah dead as a dodo and they were brand new !) and restrung with some Elites nickle roundwounds. Tuned up and WOW... what a difference ! My string imbalance is not an issue anymore and the bass sang out at a gig that night. I am over the moon and that bass will be the first one out for future gigs. I wished I hadnt let the mapleglo go now ! I'm sure I would have been able to live with the over fat neck if I had sorted the imbalance !

[gray]

Glad to hear you've got it sorted out! I think that these issues vary from bass to bass, too.

[rickfan60]

Volume balance problems can be tough to track down but are usually a function of the setp and not something inherntly wrong with the bass. I am sorry you were not able to work out the problems with your MG and had to let it go. I gave up on several Ricks back in the 70's and 80's before I learned how to deal with them. I found I was playing my Jazz more than any of my Ricks because I just could not get them to sound right. My Autumnglo 4001 stayed under the bed for years (decades) because of a dead sounding E string. Very frustrating. One thing that is not talked about enough here is pickup height. If the treble pickup is too high the A and D strings will be disproportionally louder. I found that by lowering the pickup a bit the volume evens out. There are other factors but that one is pretty common.

One thing I have always wondered about is, what happened when RIC changed the fingerboard radius? The bass went from 7.25" in the 70's and early 80's to 10" in the mid 80's. Neither the bridge nor the treble pickup seemed to change along with it. If the poles and the arch of the bridge were set to accomodate the 7.25" radius wouldn't things be a bit off if the radius was changed to 10"? Assuming no change to the treble pickup, the flatter fingerboard would tend to move the outer strings away from the poles and cause the problem you described. The bridge saddles could be notched differently to compensate for the change in curve but the poles are static. That is why lowering the pickup helps. It minimizes the relative differences in height. BTW I really like the new pickups with adjustable poles. That was an excellent change.

[rickcrazy]

Hey, you're welcome, Keith.

[grayk]

Ted, that is a very interesting theory. I would never profess that I know enough about the science of it all myself but there may be something in what you say. I did contemplate taking the saddles a little deeper on the E and G but didnt trust myself to get it spot on. If I had messed it up and had to buy new saddles it would have meant expense and hassle. I have tried the tweaking of the truss rods and many different pickup heights but the problem persisted. I thought I would try the washers on the poles as I saw Sergio had suggested that to another forum member a couple of weeks ago. I was sure it is reversible so I went for it, and happily it worked for me. I do also agree that the adjustable polepiece mod by Ric was a great mod and one that was long overdue. That had to be one of the most sought after changes along with a more rigid adjustable bridge/tailpiece. I know a lot of members want some aesthetic changes but the ones that make the set up of the bass easier are way more important in my opinion, they look great anyway !!

[rickfan60]

The difference between a 7.25" and 10" fingerboards works out to about 1/16" (2MM) in string height at the edges. That means the E and G strings are moved 1/16" (2MM) farther away from the poles while the A and D strings don't change at all. Given the inverse square rule, that is a substantial change and could certainly account for the volume differences you and others have noticed. The easiest way to address it is to lower the pickup a little at a time unitl it sounds right to your ear. The distance will vary by player. While lowering the pickup will not totally counter the difference it will certainly minimize it. Sergio's approach has merit. A 2MM thick washer on the E and G poles should extend the magnetic field enough to get the job done. My only concern on a standard Hi Gain is even with super glue the string could knock the washer off. On a VRI horseshoe pickup the pole is magnetic and should hold a steel washer firmly in place. Most Hi Gains have type U drive screws for poles (non-magnetic) and soft magnets under the bobbin. The field around the poles may not be strong enough to hold the washer in place under all playing conditions.

[rickfan60]

Yep, so much for that theory. I just took a few measurements and found that the standard RIC bass bridge has a natural arc slightly larger than 12" which is consistent with 60's fingerboards. No surprise there. The string arc tends to flatten as they approach the bridge so the fingerboard radius has little effect at that point. The poles on my 70's vintage Hi Gain have a radius of about 15" as do the poles on my Shadow ('86). So depending on how the saddles are filed they would more or less match the pickup radius. The bottom line is there should be little to no difference in volume because of a fingerboard change. Nevermind....

[grayk]

Well Ted it definitely is a weird one seeing as you have now checked it out and found that all is well. I think the washers that I used were lifting the pole height by about 1mm. It doesnt sound a lot but I suppose in magnetics or physics terms it maybe is a fair lift. I know that it has worked though and I am happy for it. I hope the washers do stay stuck.... until I choose to take them off that is ! They were a nice snug fit and quite small so the diameter wasnt actually much more than the pole itself. The washers are a great quick fix though for someone who is experiencing the same symptoms. The coins under the bridge is a good one too.... completely reversible but very effective.

Thanks for investigating it thoroughly though Ted.

[fireglo]

The coins under the bridge is a good one too.... completely reversible but very effective.

What is the coins under the bridge mod? I used washers under the bridge on the three screws.

[grayk]

I took the 2 small height adjustment screws out of the bridge and installed 2 x 5p coins either side of the base of the bridge. They can't be seen and it makes for a solid interface between the bridge and the tailpiece. This makes for a better transfer of the string vibration. These small mods have transformed my 4003.

[rickfan60]

All these years and I never actually measured the arcs on any of the hardware before. I just assumed the fingerboard radius was more or less maintained the whole way down to the saddles. It is not. One measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions.

Shimming the bridge - there are a few ways to handle that. I have made maple shims to fit under the bridge section of the tailpiece when there is a gap between the bottom of the tailpiece and the wood. This condition is not present on all 4000 series basses. I have also used washers in the same place. On some basses I have drilled the little holes where the allen adjusters sit, to go all the way through the tailpiece. The allen screws then sit right on the wood . It makes a huge difference on basses that have dead sounding E strings and it minimizes bridge wiggle. Wiggle is not present on all basses either. It happens on basses where the bridge has to be adjusted toward the high end of the range.

[johnallg]

One thing I have always wondered about is, what happened when RIC changed the fingerboard radius? The bass went from 7.25" in the 70's and early 80's to 10" in the mid 80's.

This explains an observation on my '75 4001. Thanks.

[jwr2]

On pre-1990 bassews instead of glueing a washer on the pole pieces I grind the middle ones down slightly with a dremmel tool ...

on post 1990 basses I push/pull and twist with a pair of vice grips ...

[dean712]

I've noticed the same differential between strings at times over the years, but I haven't rigorously investigated. (I have lowered the treble pickup to help out at various times, though, and it does help).

I'm not as scientific or knowledgeable as so many of the others on the Forum, but I have another idea that might make a difference.

Are we comparing apples to apples with regard to string guages? Could the difference between 45-55-75-105 (std) and 45-65-85-105 (common replacement guage) be part of this?

[grayk]

Jeff - When you physically twist the polepieces with vice grips (I am assuming this is what we call Mole grips in the UK) do the teeth of the grips chew up and mark the pole pieces? If not how do you achieve this ? Are they easy to shift? and do they stay quite tight after they have been moved, Sounds like pulling a tooth !

Dean, I can see where you are coming from when talking string gauges. Its another interesting one as I think most Ric players probably use strings other than the Ric brand. We are talking minute difference in tolerances between the different gauges I think. Ted might have a thought on it, lets see if he chimes in with his opinion.