New Models On The Horizon?
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
Consider this a public apology on my part. Didn't mean to insult or be cynical....just want to get my RIC!! Hope all is well with everyone....now let's move on and everyone be HAPPY! I'm just glad there is a forum like this about my favorite make of stringed instruments...
1973 4001 MG cb fwi
1986 4003 Shadow
2012 4004Cii FG w/gold trim
1986 4003 Shadow
2012 4004Cii FG w/gold trim
Peter asked a very simple and direct question. Then it broke down into personal likes and dislikes. A lot of Forum members want RIC to keep going back and rehashing the past, and then when RIC does and they get their collector item, you might get to see it 10 years later on eBay in pristine condition. That means it didn't get played very much. WHAT'S THE USE? I would rather see some new designs that players couldn't keep their hands off of and then would be showing distinct wear 10 years later. SRV's Strats looked to me as if they may have had a tiny bit of 'player wear'.
Maybe RIC should separate into two divisions: a Classics division and Progressive division. Conrad-Johnson does something similar to that with their audiophile amps. They have a tube product line and a solid state product line. It's true that the Japaneses will spend a ton of money on a classic Marantz, McIntosh, or Western Electric amp, but that's just a tiny niche market. It has nothing to do with superior sound and everything to do with the Japanese audiophile psyche.
C-J pushed ahead with solid state R&D in order to make their solid state gear sound at least as good as their highly regarded tube gear, and at lower cost. Audiophiles bought more of their tube gear at a higher cost in spite of the superiority of the solid state gear in numerous areas. But C-J persisted, and kept advancing the solid state designs and obsoleting their own tube gear. Crazy? Not really. A new generation of audiophiles were in the wings that had no ties to tubes, and it was very iffy about future tube production. C-J is one of the biggest stockpilers of NOS tubes on the planet, but they bought excellent tubes on the surplus market in huge lots at cheap prices so they could build profitably and maintain a stock for future replacements. However, future buyers demanded better amps at a lower cost. By their own admission, C-J's solid state power amps have surpassed their tube amps in sound quality, except for the top Premier models which are for CNO (cost no object) buyers. So a $2400 MF-2250A solid state amp now outperforms the former $3600 Premier 11. So C-J cut their throat with a big knife? No, they sell a lot more of the MF-2250A amps now because it is a recognized price class leader. I have an MF-2250 and can't tell in any way it's a solid state power amp, except for the fact the bass is better than any tube amp of similar power will ever achieve at any price. C-J could have kept their engineering mentality where the sun don't shine and in the past, but they looked to the future and are now the second largest USA amp manufacturer in the highest end of high end audio. The company is owned by two graduate economists, not audiophile dreamers, so they had solid business goals in mind.
I'm NOT a CNO buyer. My MF-2250 gets LOTS of player wear, often all day long, as does the matching PV-14L preamp and EV-1 phono amp. They sit in my rack because they beat everything in their price class AND the PV-14L has MODERN remote control design that comes from the Premier series with NO loss of sound quality. Actually, the sound quality went up with the new volume control design.
By looking to where the future market would be going, instead of where it's currently at, C-J went from nothing to the second largest in their field. Several of their products have been proclaimed the best at any cost, but were never the most costly when they took the honors. Only Audio Research, which started ahead of them and took early market lead, manages to stay ahead, and only barely at the present time. My first C-J listen was an ear-opening experience.
Maybe the guitar market is a lot different, but it would seem that at SOME point the classic Rickenbacker market would saturate. I guess coming out with new designs is a scary proposition, as many new designs of RIC failed in the market, while the past marched on. It's true that the 'new' 650D was a sales success, but there was nothing new about it as far as true innovation goes.
Maybe innovation belongs to the startup companies these days. I'm not knocking staying with what sells for the sake of staying in business, but you can attempt to surpass it while building what sells, like C-J has always done. Make something BETTER at LOWER cost. It's a business model that worked for them, but C-J hires top engineers that aren't afraid to analyze and experiment. They exposed many old circuit design dogmas (negative feedback is necessary to reduce distortion, etc.) as harmful for audio. Negative feedback reduces distortion in a BOTCHED design, and is a distortion in itself. Their low feedback designs could have been ridiculed if the listening tests hadn't proved otherwise.
Maybe RIC should separate into two divisions: a Classics division and Progressive division. Conrad-Johnson does something similar to that with their audiophile amps. They have a tube product line and a solid state product line. It's true that the Japaneses will spend a ton of money on a classic Marantz, McIntosh, or Western Electric amp, but that's just a tiny niche market. It has nothing to do with superior sound and everything to do with the Japanese audiophile psyche.
C-J pushed ahead with solid state R&D in order to make their solid state gear sound at least as good as their highly regarded tube gear, and at lower cost. Audiophiles bought more of their tube gear at a higher cost in spite of the superiority of the solid state gear in numerous areas. But C-J persisted, and kept advancing the solid state designs and obsoleting their own tube gear. Crazy? Not really. A new generation of audiophiles were in the wings that had no ties to tubes, and it was very iffy about future tube production. C-J is one of the biggest stockpilers of NOS tubes on the planet, but they bought excellent tubes on the surplus market in huge lots at cheap prices so they could build profitably and maintain a stock for future replacements. However, future buyers demanded better amps at a lower cost. By their own admission, C-J's solid state power amps have surpassed their tube amps in sound quality, except for the top Premier models which are for CNO (cost no object) buyers. So a $2400 MF-2250A solid state amp now outperforms the former $3600 Premier 11. So C-J cut their throat with a big knife? No, they sell a lot more of the MF-2250A amps now because it is a recognized price class leader. I have an MF-2250 and can't tell in any way it's a solid state power amp, except for the fact the bass is better than any tube amp of similar power will ever achieve at any price. C-J could have kept their engineering mentality where the sun don't shine and in the past, but they looked to the future and are now the second largest USA amp manufacturer in the highest end of high end audio. The company is owned by two graduate economists, not audiophile dreamers, so they had solid business goals in mind.
I'm NOT a CNO buyer. My MF-2250 gets LOTS of player wear, often all day long, as does the matching PV-14L preamp and EV-1 phono amp. They sit in my rack because they beat everything in their price class AND the PV-14L has MODERN remote control design that comes from the Premier series with NO loss of sound quality. Actually, the sound quality went up with the new volume control design.
By looking to where the future market would be going, instead of where it's currently at, C-J went from nothing to the second largest in their field. Several of their products have been proclaimed the best at any cost, but were never the most costly when they took the honors. Only Audio Research, which started ahead of them and took early market lead, manages to stay ahead, and only barely at the present time. My first C-J listen was an ear-opening experience.
Maybe the guitar market is a lot different, but it would seem that at SOME point the classic Rickenbacker market would saturate. I guess coming out with new designs is a scary proposition, as many new designs of RIC failed in the market, while the past marched on. It's true that the 'new' 650D was a sales success, but there was nothing new about it as far as true innovation goes.
Maybe innovation belongs to the startup companies these days. I'm not knocking staying with what sells for the sake of staying in business, but you can attempt to surpass it while building what sells, like C-J has always done. Make something BETTER at LOWER cost. It's a business model that worked for them, but C-J hires top engineers that aren't afraid to analyze and experiment. They exposed many old circuit design dogmas (negative feedback is necessary to reduce distortion, etc.) as harmful for audio. Negative feedback reduces distortion in a BOTCHED design, and is a distortion in itself. Their low feedback designs could have been ridiculed if the listening tests hadn't proved otherwise.
That's a great post, Phil. For what it's worth, I too would like to see more genuinely "new" products from Rickenbacker. It's not because I'm dissatisfied with the classic line-up, but because I'm so impressed with the sound and playability of the newer, more innovative designs. I don't want to gush anymore about the 380L than I already have, but that is one hell of a guitar. I'd love to see that "modern" bridge installed on all new, non-vintage series 330's and 360's, but I don't think Mr. Hall's market would respond very favourably to it. It's a real Catch-22. How do you forge ahead when your customers generally aren't receptive to change? I guess the answer is: "Very carefully and with a lot of deliberation."
I guess that we shouldn't just rag on RIC, John. Gibson and Fender are now notorious offenders in the 'milk the past' sales syndrome. Gibson adds absolute ripoff pricing to the mix, which RIC tends to steer clear of. When Leo owned Fender, he wasn't afraid to try a new design, and he always kept it as cost effective as possible.
Now, if RIC started hearing A LOT MORE of what you and I have just said, then maybe company policy would change. I think that MOST Rickenbacker owners like you and I have tended to stay quiet, while those who want the old designs have been more vocal. What RIC might NOT realize, is that while the 'buy the RIC past' crowd MUST get RIC to build what they want, the 'buy the future' crowd doesn't need RIC at all and we can buy our products from Parker, Status, Spector or whoever decides to make it for us. That means we don't have to be as vocal about it to RIC, but just stay on the lookout for what new things the market comes out with. A lot of those Status Graphite, Parker, or Spector owners could have been RIC owners, but the fact RIC sold every classic guitar they could build would tend to hide that fact.
I guess you nailed it when you said the customers were probably at the root of the present situation. What C-J did was look at potential customers, like those bass manufacturers I mentioned did, and they gained new customers away from established companies. A university study was done as to what happened to the high end audio industry in the USA. It should be a lot bigger than it is. Many US manufacturers were exporting way over half of their product. The conclusion was that they had GONE DOWN A WRONG ROAD TOO FAR, and kept building expensive inefficient speakers that demanded big expensive power amps. That scared off more customers than they gained. The weirdo audiophile nerds kept buying the old designs, so companies kept building them while scaring off 10 times as many potential customers that they never met.
The modern audiophile wants remote control, pleasing esthetics, and long troublefree operation along with outstanding sound quality at a fair price. But the audiophile community is so full of nutcases that I tend to stay out of high end audio salons. I make it a point to buy from companies where the founders stay at the helm, and away from those like Bose or Carver that are always milking a trend and then dumping you when they move on to the next trend. Bob Carver is a design genius, but it seems his companies existed for him to play around in. He came out with the Carver Amazing Loudspeaker, then dumped it to play with something else that caught his fancy. Nelson Pass is another guy that pulls these stunts. VPI, Grado, Vandersteen, Sound Lab, Magneplanar, Audio Research, Conrad-Johnson Design, Spectral, Avalon, Jeff Rowland Design, B&K, Thiel, etc.........all have the original founders or the family at the helm for many years and are the most stable and most innovative.
We could probably draw some analogies between those companies and some of the boutique guitar and amp manufacturers. The high end audio and boutique musical instrument manufacturers started springing up in the 70's, and I'm sure it was in response to the lack of innovation and/or quality from the mass market manufacturers in both cases.
RIC has been graced with the same family at the helm for many years, and that makes them a prime candidate for making innovations and sticking to the course, if they should decide to do so. Companies like Gibson that are run by a bunch of executives will always be cooking up some kind of quick bucks scheme and then taking the money and running.
Now, if RIC started hearing A LOT MORE of what you and I have just said, then maybe company policy would change. I think that MOST Rickenbacker owners like you and I have tended to stay quiet, while those who want the old designs have been more vocal. What RIC might NOT realize, is that while the 'buy the RIC past' crowd MUST get RIC to build what they want, the 'buy the future' crowd doesn't need RIC at all and we can buy our products from Parker, Status, Spector or whoever decides to make it for us. That means we don't have to be as vocal about it to RIC, but just stay on the lookout for what new things the market comes out with. A lot of those Status Graphite, Parker, or Spector owners could have been RIC owners, but the fact RIC sold every classic guitar they could build would tend to hide that fact.
I guess you nailed it when you said the customers were probably at the root of the present situation. What C-J did was look at potential customers, like those bass manufacturers I mentioned did, and they gained new customers away from established companies. A university study was done as to what happened to the high end audio industry in the USA. It should be a lot bigger than it is. Many US manufacturers were exporting way over half of their product. The conclusion was that they had GONE DOWN A WRONG ROAD TOO FAR, and kept building expensive inefficient speakers that demanded big expensive power amps. That scared off more customers than they gained. The weirdo audiophile nerds kept buying the old designs, so companies kept building them while scaring off 10 times as many potential customers that they never met.
The modern audiophile wants remote control, pleasing esthetics, and long troublefree operation along with outstanding sound quality at a fair price. But the audiophile community is so full of nutcases that I tend to stay out of high end audio salons. I make it a point to buy from companies where the founders stay at the helm, and away from those like Bose or Carver that are always milking a trend and then dumping you when they move on to the next trend. Bob Carver is a design genius, but it seems his companies existed for him to play around in. He came out with the Carver Amazing Loudspeaker, then dumped it to play with something else that caught his fancy. Nelson Pass is another guy that pulls these stunts. VPI, Grado, Vandersteen, Sound Lab, Magneplanar, Audio Research, Conrad-Johnson Design, Spectral, Avalon, Jeff Rowland Design, B&K, Thiel, etc.........all have the original founders or the family at the helm for many years and are the most stable and most innovative.
We could probably draw some analogies between those companies and some of the boutique guitar and amp manufacturers. The high end audio and boutique musical instrument manufacturers started springing up in the 70's, and I'm sure it was in response to the lack of innovation and/or quality from the mass market manufacturers in both cases.
RIC has been graced with the same family at the helm for many years, and that makes them a prime candidate for making innovations and sticking to the course, if they should decide to do so. Companies like Gibson that are run by a bunch of executives will always be cooking up some kind of quick bucks scheme and then taking the money and running.
I'm all for new ideas!! But IMHO, most people come to RIC because of the cool, unique design of their basses.....nothing looks like or sounds like a RIC!!
Look, you can't please everybody....so don't try to....
That is why people keep coming to them, plain and simple...if you want some type of "modern", elaborate instrument with active electronics, by all means go to another brand....
New ideas are fine, but why fool around with a good thing?? RIC has all the business they can handle NOW producing an "older" design and people are clamoring for MORE of the "older" design...
By the way....I got to see a 4004cii Cheyenne up close recently.....I MUST HAVE ONE!! I will be placing an order through POR soon!!
Peace...
Look, you can't please everybody....so don't try to....
That is why people keep coming to them, plain and simple...if you want some type of "modern", elaborate instrument with active electronics, by all means go to another brand....
New ideas are fine, but why fool around with a good thing?? RIC has all the business they can handle NOW producing an "older" design and people are clamoring for MORE of the "older" design...
By the way....I got to see a 4004cii Cheyenne up close recently.....I MUST HAVE ONE!! I will be placing an order through POR soon!!
Peace...
1973 4001 MG cb fwi
1986 4003 Shadow
2012 4004Cii FG w/gold trim
1986 4003 Shadow
2012 4004Cii FG w/gold trim
Chris, the problem comes when somebody offers something better at a lower price. Get your hands on a Spector ReBop and tell me who makes a better bass for $900 out the door. I've never seen a double curved body from anybody else at anywhere near the price.
Once upon a time, Rickenbacker WAS the 'modern elaborate instrument' that people left other brands for. The first 4001 I held in early 1976 looked a lot more elaborate than my P-bass. The Cheyenne is RIC's 'modern' bass, at least more modern than the others, so your enthusiasm seems to reinforce my point.
Why mess with a good thing? To quote George Harrison, "all things must pass".
Once upon a time, Rickenbacker WAS the 'modern elaborate instrument' that people left other brands for. The first 4001 I held in early 1976 looked a lot more elaborate than my P-bass. The Cheyenne is RIC's 'modern' bass, at least more modern than the others, so your enthusiasm seems to reinforce my point.
Why mess with a good thing? To quote George Harrison, "all things must pass".
If you want a modern RIC buy a 4004 and if you really need fancy electronics put them in yourself or use an outboard preamp like the J-Retro stompbox. No offense, but please stop ragging on RIC and John Hall because they do not make exactly what you are looking for, there are a great variety of other instrument makers out there to make you happy, as you obviously know. This is a Rickenbacker forum, not a Spector, Warwick, etc. forum. If you don't like Rickenbackers, why are you here? We all like and have other brand instruments along with our RICs, but we don't go bashing them for not being like Rickenbackers. I love my Zon fretless, should I try and convince RIC to make graphite neck basses? I buy and play Rickenbackers because of their features, look , quality, etc. and I buy and play Zons for theirs'. I have a Fender AV '62 Jazz Bass because it does what Rickenbackers don't; hey, maybe John should make a Jazz Bass clone like countless other manufacturers do? RIC makes a unique instrument that many poeple love and they buy and play them because it is a Rickenbacker. When you think Rickenbacker, a unique image comes to mind. Why change that? Is there something wrong with Rickenbackers? If you think so, don't play them. Buy what does suit you and let those who do like the way RIC does things continue to support them.
My cousin owned Specter in the 80’s ( the Kramer period). Built me a nice 5 string. I sold it a few years ago. Slightly warn, made some bucks, bought a Rick. Will never sell my Ricks unless it will be replaced by another Rick.
As a matter of fact, they’re sitting in the next room waiting to be played. I’m going to go spend my time there. See ya!
Long live Rickenbacker!
cheers
As a matter of fact, they’re sitting in the next room waiting to be played. I’m going to go spend my time there. See ya!
Long live Rickenbacker!
cheers
-
shamustwin
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5287
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 5:00 am
I don't kmow about the sound, but the 4004cii's look as modern as anything else I've seen...and if a band or musician creates a stir and happens to use classic style Rics, well, everything old is new again. BTW, in a new Cadillac commercial someone in what I assume is a touring band in their tour bus is playing a 360FG. That's the second ric in the second commercial in two days.
-
jwr2
-
ricnbacker
- Veteran RRF member
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 5:00 am
you know what, i am glad rickenbackers have stayed the same for so long. the first one i saw / heard was in 78. i got mine in 2001.
personally i am glad they didnt abandon or alter the original idea...
now on the other hand i went to get a new P bass last week and they have changed so much that i went and bought a cheap 110 dollar p bass copy that sounds just like my 68 P...
plus who ever thought a P bass would cost more than a new Ric????????
personally i am glad they didnt abandon or alter the original idea...
now on the other hand i went to get a new P bass last week and they have changed so much that i went and bought a cheap 110 dollar p bass copy that sounds just like my 68 P...
plus who ever thought a P bass would cost more than a new Ric????????