The sound of wood

[berth]

Since I have got my '86 4003 MID/BT I'm wondering why my '06 4001c64 has a quite different tone than my 4003 MID/BT when played without amplification. As far as I can tell they both have the same wood. Any ideas? The 4001c64 has this (imho) typically Rickenbacker sound a lot more than the 4003 MID/BT. But the E string is a lot weaker also on the 4001c64 unamplified.

[qwezirider]

Sure, they're the same type of wood. But come from different trees so many years apart. There have to be a ton of variables between the two pieces of wood to make them each unique.

[johnallg]

Sure, they're the same type of wood. But come from different trees so many years apart. There have to be a ton of variables between the two pieces of wood to make them each unique.

Northeast hard maple vs northern Michigan hard maple. Virgin growth vs tree farm. Aged vs fresh. Plain vs peanut. Tastes great vs less filing.

[dean712]

What year did Rickenbacker switch to tree farmed maple for its instruments?

[sloop_john_b]

The tailpieces, maybe?

[jwr2]

it's not just the wood ... it is also the finish, truss rods, bridge, tailpiece, strings, nut, tuners, glue, etc ... and Rics from different eras are made differently ... and of course no 2 pieces of wood are identical ...

Another thing that has a real effect on tone is setup ... take the same bass with a good and bad setup will sound quite different.

And I love a fresh set of strings ...

[henry5]

Every piece of wood will sound different. You may not notice, depending on how good your ears are (I like to think mine are pretty good, although they're not quite what they were), but they will. My 3 Rics all sound completely different acoustically. Of course as Jeff says there are other factors, hardware, finish etc (and one of mine is a 4000 set neck which makes a big difference), but even with the same hardware they'd still sound different. My 72 and my CS don't sound remotely like each other acoustically. I look at it as a good thing; variety is, after all, the spice of life; each of my Rics is better at a specific job than the others. Of course it may not be a good thing if you're trying to find an identical backup for an instrument; ask Billy Gibbons. And that's without taking into account electronic variations etc.

Jeff also makes a good point about the setup. When I was younger I didn't realise how much the setup affected the tone of the instrument, never mind the feel. A tiny adjustment can make a huge difference tonally.

[ilan]

I totally agree with Jeff.

[jwr2]

Since I have got my '86 4003 MID/BT I'm wondering why my '06 4001c64 has a quite different tone than my 4003 MID/BT when played without amplification. As far as I can tell they both have the same wood. Any ideas? The 4001c64 has this (imho) typically Rickenbacker sound a lot more than the 4003 MID/BT. But the E string is a lot weaker also on the 4001c64 unamplified.

Also they build the newer Rics better than the old ones ... from around 1998 to now is some of the best stuff they have ever made ...

That's why I sold my old ones ... my oldest is a 1986 2030 4-2-5 ... then the next is a 1990 4003s5 that has benn mcCartney-ized ... then I have a 93 4004L 4-2-5 ... and a 92 2020 4-2-5 ... then a 98 4004ci 4-2-5 ... and the one that I am playing tonight is my 2001 4003 4-2-5 ...