Set neck vs. neck-thru

[bpguitar]

Are there any tonal differences in the 4001S models that were made with a set neck versus those made with the more common neck-thru construction? Have the set necks held up in both value and construction, and why were so few made?
Any info would be appreciated, I'm new to Rickenbacker. Thanks in advance -

[weemac]

Welcome Bill!

They sound a little different.
The set neck ones sound a little drier with a bit more attack (or less sustain depending on your point of view)
Some have said that the set neck ones sound more agressive and a bit less smooth..
However any 4000 or 4001s is probably worth a little more than their upmarket brothers due to their relative rarity.
Eden.

[rickaddict]

Although I don't own a set-neck Rick, this question has come up before. The owners of the set-neck 70's 4001S and 4000 models are very happy with them and very defensive of them. I don't think there is much of a tone difference, or a quality difference between them and the deluxe 4001 due to the neck joint or lack thereof!

The funny thing is...RIC prides itself on being an early pioneer of (if not the first to feature--I forget) neck-through construction and RIC literature extols the virtues of neck-through construction, yet RIC made these set-neck basses in the 70's that seem to work quite well, last long, and have a loyal fan club.

[rickenbrother]

My beat up set neck 4001S that looks like someone refinished it with a paint roller, is one of my favorites!!

[woodyng]

when i bought mine on ebay 7 years ago,i had never played one,and owned my 4002 at the time. i immediately put pyramid flats on it,so comparisons to the rw equipped 4002 were moot. once i put rw strings on it,i thought it sounded very much like any 4001,albeit more aggressive since there was no neck pickup to put the mellowing "boom" into the sound. i really love my 4000,the chief virtues are the light weight,skinny somewhat flat-radius 3 peice neck,and it is just extremely resonant and lively sounding,a great counterpoint to the cii.

[iamthebassman]

All strings being equal, I don't really notice a difference in tone between my set-neck 4001S and my other two Ric basses.
The 4001S goes to every gig.

[cassius987]

Contrary to popular belief I have never noticed that set necks sustain less well or neck through sustain better, etc. etc.

If anything neck throughs just tend to be a bit "richer" sounding, but this has more to impact on timbre and harmonic character than sustain.

[jingle_jangle]

Contrary to popular belief I have never noticed that set necks sustain less well or neck through sustain better, etc. etc.

If anything neck throughs just tend to be a bit "richer" sounding, but this has more to impact on timbre and harmonic character than sustain.

Also contrary to popular belief, instrumented tests have shown set necks to sustain better than set-necks. Wish I had the citation here, but...

[woodyng]

paul what is going on with that poor set neck in your avatar.....also yeah i can play an e chord on my 4000 and it rings quite a long time....so it that "some" set-necks sustain better than "other" set-necks.....?

[bassduke49]

Paul, I think you meant to say set-necks better than neck-through.

As far as rarity goes, true, the 4001S is less common than the full-trim 4001, but there were probably a lot of the set-neck 4000/4001S made during that 1972-1980-ish time frame. Before 1972, there were relatively few 4001S/RM1999 through-necks made compared with the set-neck types made after. They were replaced in production by the 4003S around 1982.

[just_bassics]

Welcome Bill!

I chime in on this subject each time it comes up, because I had the same concern three years ago when considering purchase of a 1982 set neck 4001S. I already owned a V63 and 4003, but the set neck "S" became my instant favorite and remains that to this day. I don't notice a difference in the sustain, but the set neck is "punchier", really has that Squire tone that I covet. Of course, so many factors come into play, but overall, my advice to anyone looking at a set neck RIC bass is to pick it up. I don't think you'll regret it and they are easy to move if you decide it's not for you.

As for value and construction, well, they are still Rickenbackers!

[jingle_jangle]

Paul, I think you meant to say set-necks better than neck-through.

As far as rarity goes, true, the 4001S is less common than the full-trim 4001, but there were probably a lot of the set-neck 4000/4001S made during that 1972-1980-ish time frame. Before 1972, there were relatively few 4001S/RM1999 through-necks made compared with the set-neck types made after. They were replaced in production by the 4003S around 1982.

Yes, thanks, Paul. Pre-coffee post, I'm afraid.

Or, maybe it's a case of the hyphen inhibiting sustain!

Woody, you're looking at the Rotosound-Jingle-Jangle Jungle Ultimate Extreme Sustain Mod, preview avatar.

And, it's adjustable. On the front, it has a sustain dial, which reads from "Midnight" at the low end, through "A Year From Next Tuesday" at the high end.

[cassius987]

Yes but may I leave it and eat a sandwich?

[kennyhowes]

My beat up set neck 4001S that looks like someone refinished it with a paint roller, is one of my favorites!!

Which, of course, I should have kept. ARGH

[RobRick]

I have a 4000 Rick bass made in 1974, and I love it. Sound is amazing, sits perfect in the mix when recording, and that neck is stable as anything. I bought it in 1978 and it is in about the same shape. When I got it I knew nothing about neck-through or set neck, all I knew was McCartney played a Rick, and if it was good enough for him, it would be for me.

About 4 years ago I had some minor work done with the intention of replacing the PU, thinking maybe it was past its prime, and thought I should put something "modern" in it. Thankfully, my guitar tech told me NO WAY, to keep THAT pick up, so I did, and am SOOOOO happy I listened to him.

I have a 4003 from 2002 which is killer, nice bass, but I would never let go of that 4000. It has a treble-y bite to it that can't be beat.